NIST Special Publication 1160

Report of the 97th National Conference on

Weights and Measures

Portland, Maine – July 15 through 19, 2012 

as adopted by the 97th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2012

Editors:

Tina Butcher

Linda Crown

Richard Harshman

David Sefcik

Lisa Warfield

Carol Hockert, Chief

Office of Weights and Measures 

Physical Measurement Laboratory

http://dx.doi.or/10.6028/NIST.SP.1160

May 2013

U.S. Department of Commerce

Cameron F. Kerry, Acting Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director

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

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

industry, and consumer organizations.
WASHINGTON: 2013 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, 

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Abstract

The 97th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

July 15 -19, 2012, at the Holiday Inn by the Bay, Portland, Maine. The theme of the meeting was 

“Taking Measure of Our Worth.”

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

constitute the major portion of this publication, along with the addresses delivered by Conference officials 

and other authorities from government and industry. 

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

Association, Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee, Task Group on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges, 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee, and Associate Membership Committee. 

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

type evaluation; uniform laws; weights and measures.

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

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

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

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

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

responsible for the content and quality of their material.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 1160 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pub. 1160, 658 pages (May 2013) 

http://dx.doi.or/10.6028/NIST.SP.1160 

CODEN: NSPUE2
2012 Final Report

iii

National Conference on Weights and 

Measures

Annual Report of the 97th NCWM

Table of Contents 

 Page

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

Past Chairman................................................................................................................................................................ v 

Organizational Chart...................................................................................................................................................viii 

General Session

President’s Address – Dr. Willie May, NIST, Associate Director of Laboratory Programs/Principal Deputy ... GEN-1 

Chairman’s Address – Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, California ............................................................... GEN-22

Chairman Elect’s Address – Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina ...................................................................... GEN-25

Awards and Recognition

Lifetime Achievement Award – Tom Geiler .......................................................................................... GEN-27

Distinguished Service Award Recipients

 Charles Carroll................................................................................................................................. GEN-28

 Tina Butcher .................................................................................................................................... GEN-29

 Ronald Hayes................................................................................................................................... GEN-30

 Chris Guay....................................................................................................................................... GEN-31

2012 Contributions Award Recipient – Tim Tyson ................................................................................ GEN-32

Attendance Recognitions........................................................................................................................ GEN-32

Standing Committee Reports

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

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

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

Appendix B. Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes......... BOD-B1

Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R) .......................................................................................................L&R-1 

Appendix A. Item 231-2: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Section: 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers................. L&R-A1 

Appendix B. Item 232-4: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of 

Commodities, 2.33. Vehicle Motor Oil; and

Item 237-4: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive

Lubricants Regulation, 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.............L&R-B1

Appendix C. Item 232-6: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of 

Commodities, 2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling ...........L&R-C1

Appendix D. Item 237-1: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation, 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends................................... L&R-D1
2012 Final Report

iv

Appendix E. Item 237-2: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation, 2.1.5. Minimum Motor Octane Number..............................L&R-E1

Appendix F. Item 237-3: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, 3.1. General Considerations , 3.1.X. Nozzle Color Requirements 

for Fuels; and 3.3. Diesel Fuel................................................................ L&R-F1

Appendix G. Item 237-5: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends................................. L&R-G1

Appendix H. Item 237-8: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, 4.3. Dispenser Filters.......................................................... L&R-H1

Appendix I. Item 237-9: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, 2.XX. Requirements for Hydrogen Fuel; and

Item 237-10: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, Section 1. Definitions, Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion 

Engines Vehicles and Fuel Cell...............................................................L&R-I1

Appendix J. Item 237-11: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuesl and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation, X.X. Flex Fuel Vehicles.......................................................L&R-J1

Appendix K. Item 260-2: Other Items – Developing Items, NIST Handbook 133, 2.3.8. Moisture 

Allowance – Pasta Products................................................................... L&R-K1

Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T) ........................................................................................... S&T-1 

Appendix A. Item 320-2: NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.20. Scales, S.6.4. Railway Track Scales

Item 320-3: NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.20.Scales, N.3.1.2. Interim Approval

Item 320-6: NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D – Definitions 

(Reference Weigth Car)..........................................................................S&T-A1

Appendix B. Item 336-1: NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.36. Water Meters, S.3. Markings........... S&T-B1

Professional Development Committee (PDC) ................................................................................................. PDC-1 

Appendix A. Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan...........................................PDC-A1

Appendix B. Draft Module – Weights and Measures Core Mathematics........................................... PDC-B1

Appendix C. Safety Incident/Accident Report.................................................................................... PDC-C1

National Type Evaluation Program Committee (NTEP).............................................................................NTEP-1 

Appendix A. NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary.............................................NTEP-A1

Appendix B. NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary .....................................................NTEP-B1

Appendix C. NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary.............................................................NTEP-C1

Appendix D. NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary ...............................................................NTEP-D1

Appendix E. NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary .............................................................. NTEP-E1

Appendix F. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports .......................................... NTEP-F1

Nominating Committee ....................................................................................................................................NOM-1 

Attendees....................................................................................................................................................ATTEND-1 
2012 Final Report

Past Chairmen

v 

Past Chairmen of the Conference

Conference Year Location Chairman

1st 1905 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

2nd 1906 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

3rd 1907 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

4th 1908 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

1909 Conference Not Held

5th 1910 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

6th 1911 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

7th 1912 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

8th 1913 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

9th 1914 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

10th 1915 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

11th 1916 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

1917 Conference Not Held

1918 Conference Not Held

12th 1920 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

13th 1921 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

14th 1922 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

15th 1923 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

16th 1924 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

17th 1925 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

18th 1926 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

19th 1927 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

20th 1928 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

21st 1928 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

22nd 1929 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

23rd 1930 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

24th 1931 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

1932 Conference Not Held

1933 Conference Not Held

1934 Conference Not Held

25th 1935 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards

26th 1936 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards

27th 1937 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards

28th 1938 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards
2012 Final Report

Past Chairmen

vi

Conference Year Location Chairman

29th 1939 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards

30th 1940 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards

31st 1941 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards

1942 Conference Not Held

1943 Conference Not Held

1944 Conference Not Held

1945 Conference Not Held

32nd 1946 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

33rd 1947 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

1948 Conference Not Held

34th 1949 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

35th 1950 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

36th 1951 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

37th 1952 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

38th 1953 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

39th 1954 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

40th 1955 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards

41st 1956 Washington, D.C. Dr. A. V. Astin, National Bureau of Standards

42nd 1957 Washington, D.C. Dr. A. V. Astin, National Bureau of Standards

43rd 1958 Washington, D.C. J. P. McBride, MA

44th 1959 Washington, D.C. C. M. Fuller, CA

45th 1960 Washington, D.C. H. E. Crawford, FL

46th 1961 Washington, D.C. R. E. Meek, IN

47th 1962 Washington, D.C. R. Williams, NY

48th 1963 Washington, D.C. C. H. Stender, SC

49th 1964 Washington, D.C. D. M. Turnbull, WA

50th 1965 Washington, D.C. V. D. Campbell, OH

51st 1966 Denver, CO J. F. True, KS

52nd 1967 Washington, D.C. J. E. Bowen, MA

53rd 1968 Washington, D.C. C. C. Morgan, IN

54th 1969 Washington, D.C. S. H. Christie, NJ

55th 1970 Salt Lake City, UT R. W. Searles, OH

56th 1971 Washington, D.C. M. Jennings, TN

57th 1972 Washington, D.C. E. H. Black, CA

58th 1973 Minneapolis, MN G. Johnson, KY

59th 1974 Washington, D.C. J. Lewis, WA

60th 1975 San Diego, CA S. Andrews, FL
2012 Final Report

Past Chairmen

vii

Conference Year Location Chairman

61st 1976 Washington, D.C. R. Thompson, MD

62nd 1977 Dallas, TX E. Prideaux, CO

63rd 1978 Washington, D.C. J. Lyles, WA

64th 1979 Portland, OR K. Simila, OR

65th 1980 Washington, D.C. C. Vincent, TX

66th 1981 St. Louis, MO E. Stadolnik, MA

67th 1982 Atlanta, GA E. Heffron, MI

68th 1983 Sacramento, CA C. Greene, NM

69th 1984 Boston, MA S. Hindsman, AR

70th 1985 Washington, D.C. E. Delfino, CA

71st 1986 Albuquerque, NM G. Mattimoe, HI

72nd 1987 Little Rock, AR F. Nagele, MI

73rd 1988 Grand Rapids, MI D. Guensler, CA

74th 1989 Seattle, WA J. Bartfai, NY

75th 1990 Washington, D.C. F. Gerk, NM

76th 1991 Philadelphia, PA N. D. Smith, NC

77th 1992 Nashville, TN S. Colbrook, IL

78th 1993 Kansas City, MO A. Nelson, CT

79th 1994 San Diego, CA T. Geiler, MA

80th 1995 Portland, ME J. Truex, OH

81st 1996 New Orleans, LA C. Gardner, NY

82nd 1997 Chicago, IL B. Bloch, CA

83rd 1998 Portland, OR S. Malone, NE

84th 1999 Burlington, VT A. Thompson, AK

85th 2000 Richmond, VA W. Diggs, VA

86th 2001 Washington, D.C. L. Straub, MD

87th 2002 Cincinnati, OH R. Murdock, NC

88th 2003 Sparks, NV R. Andersen, NY

89th 2004 Pittsburgh, PA D. Ehrhart, AZ

90th 2005 Orlando, FL W. Diggs, VA

91st 2006 Chicago, IL D. Onwiler, NE

92nd 2007 Salt Lake City, UT M. Cleary, CA

93rd 2008 Burlington, VT J. Cardin, WI

94th 2009 San Antonio, TX J. Kane, MT

95th 2010 St. Paul, MN R. Jennings, TN

96th 2011 Missoula, MT T. Tyson, KS

97th 2012 Portland, ME K. Floren, CA
2012 Final Report

Past Chairmen

viii

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2012 Final Report

Organizational Chart

ix

2011 – 2012 Organizational Chart

NCWM Board of Directors (BOD)

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Chairman Kurt Floren Los Angeles County, California 2012

Chairman – Elect Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 2012

NTEP Committee Chair Tim Tyson Kansas 2012

Treasurer Mark Coyne City of Brockton, Massachusetts 2012

Active Membership – Western Brett Saum San Luis Obispo County, California 2012

Active Membership – Central Ronald Hayes Missouri 2015

Active Membership – Southern Terence McBride Memphis, Tennessee 2013

Active Membership – Northeastern James Cassidy City of Cambridge, Massachusetts 2014

At-Large John Gaccione Westchester County, New York 2016

At-Large Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co. 2013

Associate Membership Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. 2013

Honorary NCWM President Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher NIST Director NA

Executive Secretary Carol Hockert NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA

Executive Director Don Onwiler NCWM Headquarters NA

Advisory Gilles Vinet Measurement Canada NA

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters NA

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP)

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Committee Chair Tim Tyson Kansas 2012

Member Kurt Floren Los Angeles County, California 2012

Member Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 2012

Member Brett Saum San Luis Obispo County, California 2012

Member James Cassidy City of Cambridge, Massachusetts 2014

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters NA

Finance Committee

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Committee Chair Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 2013

Member Mark Coyne City of Brockton, Massachusetts 2013

Member John Gaccione Westchester County, New York 2014

Member Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. 2013

Executive Director Don Onwiler NCWM Headquarters NA
Final 2012 Report

Organizational Chart

x 

Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R)

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Committee Chair Judy Cardin Wisconsin 2013

Member Louis Sakin Town of Hopkinton, Massachusetts 2012

Member Raymond Johnson New Mexico 2014

Member Tim Lloyd Montana 2015

Member Richard Lewis Georgia 2016

Associate Membership Representative Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America

2013

Canadian Technical Advisor Lance Robertson Measurement Canada NA

NIST Technical Advisor David Sefcik NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA

NIST Technical Advisor Lisa Warfield NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA

Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T)

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Committee Chair Steve Giguere Maine 2012

Member Kenneth Ramsburg Maryland 2013

Member Paul Moyer Nebraska 2014

Member Brett Gurney Utah 2015

Member Mahesh Albuquerque Colorado 2016

Canadian Technical Advisor Ted Kingsbury Measurement Canada NA

NIST Technical Advisor Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA

NIST Technical Advisor Rick Harshman NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA

Professional Development Committee (PDC)

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Committee Chair Stacy Carlsen Marin County, California 2012

Member Julie Quinn Minnesota 2013

Member Dale Saunders Virginia 2014

Member Cheryl Ayer New Hampshire 2015

Member Kristin Macey California 2016

Associate Membership Representative Steven Grabski WalmartWal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2013

Safety Liaison TBD NA

NIST Technical Advisor TBD NA

Certification Coordinator Ross Andersen NA

Nominating Committee

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Committee Chair Tim Tyson Kansas 2012

Member Judy Cardin Wisconsin 2012

Member Charles Carroll Massachusetts 2012

Member Thomas Geiler Barnstable, Massachusetts 2012

Member Joe Gomez New Mexico 2012

Member Maxwell Gray Florida 2012

Member Randy Jennings Tennessee 2012
2012 Final Report

Organizational Chart

xi

Credentials Committee

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Committee Chair Kevin Friel Barnstable, Massachusetts 2012

Member Lisa Leondis San Diego County, California 2013

Member Craig VanBuren Michigan 2014

Coordinator Thomas Geiler Barnstable, Massachusetts 2013

Appointive Officials

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Chaplain Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co. 2012

Parliamentarian Louis Straub Fairbanks Scale, Inc. 2012

Presiding Officer Jerry Butler North Carolina 2012

Presiding Officer James Byers San Diego County, California 2012

Presiding Officer Ivan Hankins Iowa 2012

Presiding Officer Jack Walsh Town of Wellesley 2012

Sergeants-at-Arms Bradford Bachelder Maine 2012

Sergeants–at-Arms Conrad Brown Maine 2012

Associate Membership Committee (AMC)

Office Name Affiliation Term 

Ends

Committee Chair Robert Murnane, Jr. Seraphin Test Measure, Co. 2012

Committee Vice Chair Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co. 2012

Secretary/Treasurer Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo, LLC 2012

Member Paul Hoar AgriFuels, LLC/NBB 2012

Member Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo, LLC 2013

Member Michael Gaspers Farmland Foods, Inc. 2013

Member Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 2014

Member Robert Murnane, Jr. Seraphin Test Measure, Co. 2014

Member Steven Grabski WalmartWal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2015

Member Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co. 2015

Member Thomas McGee PMP Corporation 2015

Member Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America

2015

Member Pete O’Bryan Foster Farms 2016
Final 2012 Report

Organizational Chart

xii

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS)

Office Name Affiliation

Chair Ronald Hayes Missouri

NIST Technical Advisor Kenneth Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

NIST Technical Advisor David Sefcik NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Mahesh Albuquerque Colorado

Public Sector Member Stephen Benjamin North Carolina

Public Sector Member Matthew Curran Florida

Public Sector Member Steven Harrington Minnesota

Public Sector Member Randy Jennings Tennessee

Public Sector Member Kristin Macey California

Public Sector Member Hal Prince Maine

Public Sector Member William Spitzley Michigan

Private Sector Member Chuck Corr Archer Daniels Midland Company

Private Sector Member Kevin Ferrick API

Private Sector Member K.W. Gardner ExxonMobil Corporation

Private Sector Member Bill Geubelle Conoco Phillips

Private Sector Member Daniel Gilligan Petroleum Marketers Association of America

Private Sector Member Philip Guillemette Flint Hills Resources, LP

Private Sector Member John Harkins Sunoco, Inc.

Private Sector Member Marilyn Herman Herman and Associates

Private Sector Member Jerome Horn Chevron Global Downstream, LLC

Private Sector Member Patrick Kelly API

Private Sector Member R. Scotti Lee

Private Sector Member Roger Leisenring, Jr. KiOR

Private Sector Member Russ Lewis Marathon Petroleum, LLC

Private Sector Member Andrea Martincic Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association

Private Sector Member James McGetrick BP Products

Private Sector Member Kristin Moore Renewable Fuels Association

Private Sector Member Robert Nelson Shell Oil Products

Private Sector Member Manuch Nikanjam Chevron Global Downstream, LLC

Private Sector Member Keith Penn Colonial Pipeline Company

Private Sector Member Derek Regal Tesoro Companies, Inc.

Private Sector Member Robert Reynolds Downstream Alternatives, Inc.

Private Sector Member Rebecca Richardson MARC IV Consulting

Private Sector Member Prentiss Searles API

Private Sector Member Shane Skelton API

Private Sector Member William Studzinski General Motors – Powertrain Division

Private Sector Member Curtis Williams CP Williams Energy Consulting, LLC

Private Sector Member William Woebkenberg Mercedes–Benz Research and Development 

NA
2012 Final Report

Organizational Chart

xiii

Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee

Office Name Affiliation

Committee Chair Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co.

NIST Technical Advisor David Sefcik NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member (CWMA) Vicky Dempsey Montgomery County Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member (NEWMA) Frank Greene Connecticut

Public Sector Member (SWMA) Bill Tedder North Carolina

Public Sector Member (WWMA) Angela Godwin County of Ventura

Private Sector Member Krister Hard af 

Segerstad

IKEA North America Services, LLC

Private Sector Member Zina Juroch Pier 1 Imports

Private Sector Member Pete O’Bryan Foster Farms

Private Sector Member Stratt Pinagel Walmart Stores, Inc.

Multiple Dimensions Measuring Device Work Group

Office Name Affiliation

Chair Robert Kennington Quantronix, Inc.

NIST Technical Advisor Steven Cook NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Fran Elson–Houston Ohio

Public Sector Member Ted Kingsbury Measurement Canada

Public Sector Member Justin Rae Measurement Canada

Private Sector Member Scott Wigginton United Parcel Service

Task Group on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges

Office Name Affiliation

Chair Judy Cardin Wisconsin

NIST Technical Advisor Lisa Warfield NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Mike Boitano Amador County

Public Sector Member Max Gray Florida

Public Sector Member Jack Walsh Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Private Sector Member Matthew Barkley Hewlett Packard Co.

Private Sector Member Melody Culton Brother International

Private Sector Member Paul Jeran Hewlett Packard Co.

Private Sector Member Alfred Menard Lexmark International

Private Sector Member Stratt Pinagel Walmart Stores, Inc.

Private Sector Member Josh Rosenberg Information Technology Industry Council
Final 2012 Report

Organizational Chart

xiv

Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computing Capability

Office Name Affiliation

Chair Fran Elson–Houston Ohio

NIST Technical Advisor Juana Williams NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Shelly Miller Wisconsin

Public Sector Member Ken Ramsburg Maryland

Public Sector Member Dan Reiswig California

Public Sector Member Jerry Buendel Washington State Department of Agriculture

Public Sector Member Michael Sikula New York

Private Sector Member Rex Brown Petroleum Equipment Institute

Private Sector Member Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc.

Private Sector Member Phil Katselnik Dresser Wayne

Private Sector Member Patrick Lewis KickBack Reward Systems

Private Sector Member Mike Roach VeriFone

Private Sector Member Richard Suiter Richard Suiter Consulting

Private Sector Member Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of America

NTETC Belt–Conveyor Sector

Office Name Affiliation

Chair Bill Ripka Thermo Fisher Scientific

Technical Advisor John Barton NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Ken Jones California

Private Sector Member Rafael Jimenez Association of American Railroads

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

Private Sector Member Lars Marmsater Merrick Industries, Inc.

Private Sector Member Peter Sirrico Thayer Scale/Hyer Industries

Private Sector Member Thomas Vormittag
2012 Final Report

Organizational Chart

xv

NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Office Name Affiliation

Chair Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-john Corporation

Co-Technical Advisor Jack Barber J B Associates

Co-Technical Advisor G. Diane Lee NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member Randall Burns Arkansas

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Karl Cunningham Illinois

Public Sector Member Ivan Hankins Iowa

Public Sector Member Thomas Hughes Missouri

Public Sector Member Richard Pierce USDA, GIPSA Technical Services Division

Private Sector Member Cheryl Tew North Carolina

Private Sector Member Jeffrey Adkisson Grain and Feed Association of Illinois

Private Sector Member James Bair North American Miller's Association

Private Sector Member Rachel Beiswenger TSI Incorporated

Private Sector Member Martin Clements The Steinlite Corporation

Private Sector Member Andrew Gell Foss North America

Private Sector Member Charles Hurburgh, Jr. Iowa State University

Private Sector Member Jess McCluer National Grain and Feed Association

Private Sector Member Thomas Runyon Seedburo Equipment Co.

NTETC Measuring Sector

Office Name Affiliation

Chair Michael Keilty Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG, USA

Technical Advisor Marc Buttler NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member Dennis Beattie Measurement Canada

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Jerry Butler North Carolina

Public Sector Member Michael Frailer Maryland

Public Sector Member James (Steve) Hadder Florida

Public Sector Member John Roach California

Private Sector Member Steve Bar Bennett Pump Company

Private Sector Member William Cooper Tuthill Transfer Systems

Private Sector Member Constantine Cotsoradis Flint Hills Resources

Private Sector Member Paul Glowacki Murray Equipment, Inc.

Private Sector Member Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc.

Private Sector Member Dmitri Karimov Liquid Controls

Private Sector Member Yefim Katselnik Dresser Wayne

Private Sector Member Douglas Long RDM Industrial Electronics

Private Sector Member Andrew MacAllister Daniel Measurement and Control

Private Sector Member Daniel Maslowski LTS Sales

Private Sector Member Wade Mattar Invensys/Foxboro

Private Sector Member Richard Miller FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

Private Sector Member Andre Noel Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

Private Sector Member Henry Oppermann Weights & Measures Consulting, LLC

Private Sector Member Johnny Parrish Brodie International

Private Sector Member Richard Tucker RL Tucker Consulting, LLC

Private Sector Member Kelly White Itron, Inc.
Final 2012 Report

Organizational Chart

xvi

NTETC Software Sector

Office Name Affiliation

Chair James Pettinato FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

Technical Advisor Doug Bliss Mettler–Toledo, LLC

Secretary Teri Gulke Liquid Controls, LLC

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member Dennis Beattie Measurement Canada

Public Sector Member Michael Frailer Maryland

Public Sector Member Edward Payne Maryland

Public Sector Member Ken Jones California

Public Sector Member John Raoch California

Public Sector Member Ambler Thompson NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Private Sector Member Mary Abens Emerson Process Management

Private Sector Member John Atwood Tyson Foods

Private Sector Member Gary Benjamin NCR Corporation

Private Sector Member Kevin Detert Avery Weigh–Tronix

Private Sector Member Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY–john Corporation

Private Sector Member Andre Elle Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG

Private Sector Member Thomas Fink ITW Food Equipment / Hobart

Private Sector Member Andrew Gell Foss North America

Private Sector Member Keith Harper Gencor Industries, Inc.

Private Sector Member Tony Herrin Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

Private Sector Member Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

Private Sector Member Rick Lydon Sick, Inc.

Private Sector Member Michael McGhee Itron, Inc.

Private Sector Member Richard Miller FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

Private Sector Member Adam Oldham Gilbarco, Inc.

Private Sector Member Michael Parks Vulcan Materials Company

Private Sector Member Mike Roach VeriFone

Private Sector Member Robin Sax CompuWeigh Corporation

Private Sector Member David Vande Berg Vande Berg Scales

Private Sector Member John Wind Bizerba USA, Inc.
2012 Final Report

Organizational Chart

xvii

NTETC Weighing Sector

Office Name Affiliation

Chair Darrell Flocken Mettler–Toledo, LLC

Technical Advisor Rick Harshman NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters

Public Sector Member L. Cary Ainsworth USDA, GIPSA

Public Sector Member Luciano Burtini Measurement Canada

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Terry Davis Kansas

Public Sector Member Fran Elson–Houston Ohio

Public Sector Member Ken Jones California

Public Sector Member Jack Kane Montana

Public Sector Member Edward Payne Maryland

Public Sector Member Byron School USDA, GIPSA

Public Sector Member Juana Williams NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Private Sector Member Steven Beitzel Systems Associates, Inc.

Private Sector Member Greg Bredahl Thermo Fisher Scientific

Private Sector Member Neil Copley Thurman Scale Co.

Private Sector Member Mitchell Eyles Flintec, Inc.

Private Sector Member Robert Feezor Scales Consulting and Testing

Private Sector Member Scott Henry NCR Corporation

Private Sector Member Sam Jalahej Totalcomp, Inc.

Private Sector Member Rafael Jimenez Association of American Railroads

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

Private Sector Member Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co.

Private Sector Member Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

Private Sector Member L. Edward Luthy Stock Equipment Company

Schenck Process Transport N.A.

Private Sector Member Nigel Mills Hobart Corporation

Private Sector Member Wayne Pugh OCS Checkweighers, Inc.

Private Sector Member Louis Straub Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

Private Sector Member Jerry Wang A&D Engineering, Inc.

Private Sector Member Walter Young Emery Winslow Scale Company
Final 2012 Report

Organizational Chart

xviii

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 1 

President’s Address

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Portland, Maine 

July 17, 2012 

Dr. Willie E. May

Associate Director for Laboratory Programs/Principal Deputy

Thank you, Carol and good morning all.

I’d like to thank Commissioner Whitcomb, the State of Maine, and the people of Portland for hosting this wonderful 

Conference. 

I’d also like to thank Chairman Floren and Don Onwiler of the National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) for inviting me to speak this morning on behalf of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Director, Pat Gallagher. I’m truly honored to be here.

I am the Associate Director of Laboratory Programs and also serve as Principal Deputy to the NIST Director. Prior 

to my current position, I served as Founding Director of the NIST Material Measurement Laboratory, Chemical 

Science and Technology Laboratory, and led the Analytical Chemistry Division. In addition to my duties at NIST, I 

am also Vice President of the International Committee on Weights and Measures (CIPM), and President-Elect of the 

CIPM’s Consultative Committee on Metrology in Chemistry and Biology. Through both my responsibilities with 

the CIPM and working at NIST for – well a very long time, I am somewhat familiar with the International 

Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) and Legal Metrology, but this is really my first formal interaction with the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). 

Slide presentation follows on next page.
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 2 
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 3 
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 4 
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 5 
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 6 
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 7 
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 8 
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 9 
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 10
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 11
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 12
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 13
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 14
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 15
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 16
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 17
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 18
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 19
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 20
General – 2012 Final Report

President’s Report

GEN - 21
General – 2012 Final Report

Chairman Elect’s Address

GEN - 22

Chairman’s Address

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Portland, Maine 

July 17, 2012 

Kurt E. Floren

Commissioner, Los Angeles County Department of Agriculture

Los Angeles, California

Good morning. First, let me welcome you to the 97th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and 

Measures (NCWM). I thank you for the honor of serving as Chairman of NCWM over this past year.

Secondly, let me confess at the outset that I have failed to accomplish anything close to what I had hoped and 

intended to do in the course of my chairmanship. This year, I had the sincere pleasure of traveling around the 

country, attending regional meetings and observing the great work of so many dedicated Weights and Measures 

officials, Associate Members, and interested parties from around the states. At each, I found myself doing 

something of an apology tour, expressing frustration and regret at the lack of progress in producing final work 

products in keeping with my theme for the year, “Taking Measure of Our Worth.”

As I know I am not alone, this has been an indescribably challenging year, scrambling to retain support and funding 

for the very important work that we all do in a horrific economic environment. As I commented in my last 

newsletter article, I am so very proud of what we do. I highlighted the mottos that appear on the NCWM Website: 

“Creating Confidence – Ensuring Equity”; “Giving A Voice To All”; “The Standard for Fairness in the 

Marketplace.” 

I have always been astounded at the array of topics and issues dealt with in the work of the Conference. The 

agendas with which we are dealing this week are no exception, from railway track scale and retail motor fuel 

dispenser issues to polyethylene products, hydrogen fuel, and, of all things, animal bedding. It really is astounding – 

and sobering. What weights and measures regulatory and standards issues touch upon also touch virtually every 

consumer in this country and beyond every single day. That makes what we strive to do of tremendous worth and 

importance, not just in our governmental, manufacturing, and marketing worlds, but to every citizen in every 

community.

NCWM has accomplished a great deal over recent years. There is a temptation, as Chairman, to focus on and 

highlight what has been occurring in the last 12 months. But, it is important to consider things from a long-term 

perspective, in reverse and in moving forward. Looking back, to the credit of so many of you and of the great 

leadership provided by our past Chairs and Board members, NCWM has undertaken many major operational 

reorganizations and service delivery improvements, making it a much stronger and more effective organization:

• Just four years ago, NCWM assumed full management of its operations, including membership, 

arrangement and conduct of our meetings, hiring of an outstanding Executive Director, and establishment 

of a permanent home office, achieving fiscal soundness, stability, and organizational effectiveness not 

before enjoyed.

• Enactment of the Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) has accomplished great steps toward 

ensuring that load cell and, soon, other device manufacturing processes of those holding certificates of 

conformance result in uniformity and consistency in production, lending assurance and verification to 

quality and production-meets-type requirements.

• We have implemented the On-Line Position Forum, providing a great means to expand and enhance 

opportunities for members to actively participate in the development of standards, whether or not able to 

physically attend our meetings. The Forum is receiving increased attention and utilization, and 

enhancements continue to be identified to make it more user-friendly and functional.
General – 2012 Final Report

Chairman’s Address

GEN - 23

• The National Certification Program has been launched, with the work of the Professional Development 

Committee, our contractor and old friend Ross Andersen, and the many subject matter experts from among 

our members and their staffs teaming to continue development of exams to cover the broad spectrum of 

weights and measures disciplines. These certifications will serve to demonstrate and document the 

knowledge and competence of inspectors and ensure uniformity of skills and abilities in our system.

• Strategic Planning has been fully incorporated, not in the form of a dusty document turning yellow on a 

shelf, but a living document that is continually assessed, updated, and employed, with clear goals and 

strategies to enhance NCWM as a national and international resource, to provide ongoing and improved 

training opportunities for members, to improve the National Type Evaluation Program, and to secure the 

financial stability of the Conference.

The list goes on. And so does the work in continuing to build upon these achievements and derive ever-increasing 

returns from them. These represent the visions of many among us and, particularly, the endeavors of preceding 

NCWM Chairs and Boards of Directors who deserve great admiration for that forward vision. All of this and more 

has been done while fulfilling our core work in developing the standards and procedures that fill our handbooks and 

provide the assurance of equity in the marketplace, to which NCWM is dedicated.

All that I have mentioned are works in progress. None are complete, but, rather, are incredibly valuable 

undertakings that will and must continue to develop to produce their full potential in benefits for us all. This brings 

me back to my confession of not having fulfilled all that was my vision under our year’s theme, “Taking Measure of 

Our Worth.”

Back home in California, to say that things have been “challenging” would be a gross understatement. We, like so 

many states, have been dealing with continually declining resources and endless streams of threats to our programs. 

Our State Department of Food and Agriculture, within which resides our State Weights and Measures agency, 

Division of Measurement Standards, lost over $33 million in general fund support – 35 % of its budget – over the 

last year and a half. Program reductions have been widespread, not the least of which was utter decimation of all 

general fund support to Division of Measurement Standards, excepting only minimal funding of its metrology

laboratory, upon which local jurisdictions rely for standards calibrations. In May, even that was significantly 

reduced due to continuing State revenue shortfalls.

To add to this, multiple legislative bills seeking to exempt certain industry sectors from all weights and measures 

regulatory oversight had to be addressed, as did the impending sunset of a statute authorizing County Sealers to 

charge device registration fees, the core support mechanism for local device inspection programs. As Agricultural 

Commissioner/Sealer of our state’s largest jurisdiction and Vice-President of our statewide organization of 

Commissioners/Sealers, the call to action for self-preservation did severely frustrate advancements in formulating 

National Weights and Measures support strategies that I had envisioned in my role as your Chairman.

However, crisis often stimulates ingenuity, and I want to share some positive outcomes of these intense struggles. In 

addressing these fiscal challenges, representatives of industries affected by many threatened programs were brought 

together, teaming with regulators to examine program activities and identify least destructive approaches to 

reductions. Mutual objectives and concerns were considered and discussions of program values were undertaken in 

developing strategies to deal with funding issues. In every case, reliable, detailed data proved critical in reaching 

agreement in ranking program priorities and making sound decisions.

In the case of our device registration fee legislation, we benefited from a decades-long practice of our State Division 

of Measurement Standards in collecting and compiling statewide device inspection testing, compliance, and 

expenditure data. Each County Sealer reports monthly inspection results for 29 specific categories of devices,

recording pass/fail rates and hours expended for each. Year-end financial reports collected from all jurisdictions 

enable extrapolation of actual program costs. In negotiating with industry groups and legislators over recent 

months, this detailed information provided convincing evidence of the need for these regulatory activities and the 

actual costs of delivering the valuable consumer and competitor protection services. In negotiating with one 

industry sector originally seeking an outright exemption from all inspections and from registration fee requirements, 

the data we were able to produce served to demonstrate the value of regulatory inspections to them in securing fair 

competition and, in the end, solicited not only agreement on a fee structure, but a “support” position from them on 

the bill. As a final result, our device registration bill, even in these times of extreme economic pressure, is moving 

forward with revenue increases exceeding $2 million toward enhancements of local Weights and Measures

activities.
General – 2012 Final Report

Chairman Elect’s Address

GEN - 24

As to the State Weights and Measures funding dilemma, this same data served to convince legislators of the 

importance of State oversight, coordination, and training in support of local jurisdictions and facilitated development 

of State administrative fees that County Sealers, under newly-established statutory and regulation authorities, are 

now collecting through our device registration billings and remitting to the State Division of Measurement Standards 

to sustain its device program work.

Finally, other innovative ideas have been implemented, including securing monies in the form of cy pres awards in 

settlements of civil prosecutions brought jointly by the County and State Weights and Measures agencies against 

chronic violators. Those funds have been utilized to sustain package inspection and price verification programs at 

the State level, effectively causing non-compliant entities to carry the costs.

What this exhausting year in my state has produced is a dress rehearsal for what, I believe, must be pursued on a 

national basis. True teamwork among jurisdictions – State and County – and engagement of industry members, 

sharing and cooperating in data gathering and presenting a unified picture of the worth of Weights and Measures 

programs, is proving invaluable in producing innovative funding mechanisms very different from those of the past. 

We cannot keep doing things as we have always done them.

So, my year as Chairman draws to a close. Has progress been disappointing in taking the measure of our worth 

nationally? Yes. Is there a declaration of defeat? No. Efforts must continue. I remain committed to continuing the 

effort and hope we can team together to accomplish far more than any of us can do individually. Like so many 

major NCWM endeavors, work is ongoing. Full results are not yet realized. But, there is great promise in what can 

be achieved. I thank you for the honor you have given me this year, and hope that, through teamwork, we can 

accomplish for years to come much more than what could be done in a single challenging year.

Again, I thank you, sincerely.
General – 2012 Final Report

Chairman Elect’s Address

GEN - 25

Chairman Elect’s Address

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Portland, Maine 

July 17, 2012 

Stephen Benjamin

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Thank you Kurt, good morning everyone and thank you for being here. It is a privilege and honor to have been 

selected to serve as your Chairman for the coming year. I will be brief as I am about all that stands between you and 

your trip home.

First of all, I would like to thank all of those that have served on our committees, subcommittees, sectors and task 

groups this past year, both at the Conference and regional levels. It is your time and dedication to the issues that 

come before us that make the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) successful. I would also 

like to thank my staff for the effort they must put in while I’m fulfilling my duties, first as Chairman-elect and now 

as Chairman of NCWM. Finally, I would like to thank my family for being supportive of this opportunity.

Speaking of family, we recently went on a family vacation to the Shenandoah Valley area of Virginia, about a fivehour drive from our home. As usual, after about 30 minutes on the road, my six-year old daughter asked the 

question, “Are we there yet daddy?” Being a patient and loving father, I took a deep breath and went with my 

second response, “Not yet sweetheart.”

This scene was repeated a number of times during the drive, but I also had time to think, well aware that I had to 

deliver this speech just a few weeks later. Certainly at lot has gone on over the years in the NCWM, but I asked 

myself, “Are we there yet?” In considering this, I don’t know if there is a final destination for our organization, but 

there have definitely been milestones on the journey forward. Some of these milestones have been significant to this 

organization, such as the transition of NTEP management from NIST, OWM to the Conference, and more recently 

the transition from Management Solutions to our own Executive Director and staff. Many other milestones are in 

the form of proposals that come before us, some of them involving a great deal of time and sometimes spirited 

discussion.

You’ve all heard the cliché, “it’s not about the destination, but the journey.” As an organization we have a goal, 

“That equity may prevail,” that is the journey we are on. We proceed along this path as new technologies are 

developed for devices, new fuels are introduced, and new products are marketed and even old products in new 

packaging. In short, the world of weights and measures is constantly changing, and we must move forward to 

address these needs through our proposal process.

We have worked these past few years on moving the NCWM forward as an organization as well. How can we do 

better in promoting what we do and improve at how we do it? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think 

the biggest step recently was the management change we made in 2007. This action provided us a dedicated staff 

focused on the business of the Conference. It also allowed for funds to pursue projects such as website 

improvements, online applications and registrations, web posting of training material, and the online position forum. 

We continued on this path forward as we implemented the Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP), the 

Professional Certification Program, and the formation of the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee, which held 

their first face-to-face meeting this past Sunday. 

With this in mind, my theme this coming year is “On the Path to Tomorrow.” I encourage the continued 

development of projects such as the “tool kit” for weights and measures programs that will put facts, contacts, and 

materials to support their programs at their fingertips. The Professional Certification Program and VCAP continue 

to grow and reach more people. The Board of Directors continues to look at ways to increase services to the 

members in order to make membership meaningful. The key to moving forward is simply your involvement. Many 

of you may equate involvement with serving on an NCWM standing committee, but I say even participating at a 
General – 2012 Final Report

Chairman Elect’s Address

GEN - 26

regional level or on a task group or even replying to a question on a list server is a step on the path. We are working 

together and sharing our knowledge to move forward.

To this end I make the following appointments for the coming year:

• Laws and Regulations Committee:

Louis Sakin, Towns of Hopkinton/Northbridge, Massachusetts, five year term

• Specifications and Tolerances Committee:

Edward Seidler, Town of Framingham, Massachusetts, five year term

• Professional Development Committee:

Stacy Carlsen, Marin County , California five year term

• Nominating Committee:

Committee Chair, Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, California

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin

Thomas Geiler, Barnstable Regulatory Services, Massachusetts

Joe Gomez, New Mexico

Maxwell Gray, Florida

Randy Jennings, Tennessee

Tim Tyson, Kansas

• Credentials Committee:

To be announced later.

• Presiding Officers:

Jack Walsh, Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

John Albert, Missouri

SWMA, to be decided.

WWMA, to be decided.

• Parliamentarian:

Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

• Chaplain:

Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

• Sergeants-at-Arms:

I will be working with our members from Kentucky to designate Sergeants-at-Arms for our 2013 Annual 

Meeting.

I look forward to seeing you all in Charleston, South Carolina, for the Interim Meeting in January and have a safe 

trip home.

Thank you.
General – 2012 Final Report

Awards

GEN - 27

Special Recognitions

NCWM Lifetime Achievement Award Recipient 

Tom Geiler 

Only one NCWM Lifetime Achievement Award may be given each year. 

The 2012 recipient is Tom Geiler, Director of the Regulatory Services 

Department of Barnstable, Massachusetts.

Tom began his career as a meat cutter. He must have excelled, because he 

went on as a meat department manager for 15 years. During this same 

time, he was also a reserve police officer for his community; a position he 

would hold for 35 years. In 1974, he took the experience he gained in law enforcement and retail, and applied it to a 

new line of work as weights and measures sealer. Thirty-eight years later, he still holds that position as well as a 

few other duties. 

In those 38 years, Tom has attended 35 consecutive NCWM Annual Meetings. He has served the Education, 

Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee, the Subcommittee on Members Expenses, the Task Force on 

Planning for the 21st Century, the Laws and Regulations Committee, the Privatization Work Group, the Budget 

Review Committee, the United States/Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group, the Strategic Planning 

Subcommittee, the Legislative Liaison Committee, the Finance Committee, and many years on the Nominating 

Committee. He served twice as a NCWM Vice Chairman, two terms on the Executive Committee, and a term on the 

NTEP Board of Governors. He was the NCWM Chairman in 1994 and Chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors 

in 1995. In 2001, he returned to the Board of Directors where he served as Treasurer through 2006. Most recently, 

he has served as Credentials Committee Coordinator. He worked very hard to establish a National Train the Trainer 

Program when he served on the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee and worked closely 

with the Office of Weights and Measures to obtain the funding necessary to accomplish this. His tenure on the 

Privatization Work Group opened the eyes of legislators to the pitfalls of privatizing Weights and Measures. 

This man has been a leader at all levels of weights and measures enforcement, never seeking personal reward but 

always demonstrating concern for consensus and integrity in his arguments to advance the philosophy of Equity in 

the Marketplace. His service records to his state and regional associations are equally impressive. In addition to 

those associations, he is also affiliated with the International Society of Weighing and Measuring, International 

Society of Antique Scale Collectors, New England Parking Officials, Massachusetts Parking Officials Association, 

Massachusetts Licensing Officials Association, and if that isn’t enough, he has probably attended more Western 

Weights and Measures Association meetings than anyone who lives in the western region. NCWM proudly 

recognizes Tom Geiler with the 2012, NCWM Lifetime Achievement Award. 

Pictured: Kurt Floren, NCWM Chairman; 

Tom Geiler, Award Recipient; and Willie 

E. May, NIST.
General – 2012 Final Report

Awards

GEN - 28

Distinguished Service Award Recipient

Charles Carroll 

Charlie is a native of Chelsea, Massachusetts, and currently resides in 

Wakefield. He is a graduate of Boston College High and attended the 

University of Massachusetts Boston and Harvard School of Government. 

In his long history of weights and measures service, he was Deputy 

Sealer of Weights and Measures in Chelsea from 1959 to 1971. He was 

Inspector of Standards for the Massachusetts Division of Standards from 

1971 to 1973. He was then appointed to Supervisor until 1983 when he 

was appointed Assistant Director. In 2008, he was again promoted with 

an appointment to his current position as Director of the Division of 

Measurement Standards. He is in his 53rd year of service in weights and 

measures. During this time, he has maintained membership and active 

participation in the Eastern and Western Massachusetts Weights and 

Measures Associations, the state Weights and Measures Association, the 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association, and the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures. He rounds out his interests as an 

avid fan of Boston professional sports, and he enjoys bowling and golf. 

Charlie attended his first NCWM Annual Meeting in 1982, and this year marks his 31st consecutive year of 

attendance. During those years, Charlie has served twice as NCWM Vice-Chairman. He served four years on the 

Resolutions Committee, chairing that committee two of those years. He served five years on the Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee, chairing that committee for two years. In 1992, Charlie participated in a Canada/United

States meeting to explore opportunities in legal metrology to reduce trade barriers between our countries. From 

1996 to 1998, Charlie served on the NCWM Executive Committee and the NTEP Board of Governors. After 

NCWM incorporation, Charlie served on the Board of Directors and NTEP Committee from 1999 to 2000 and again 

from 2005 to 2009. He served on the Nominating Committee in 2011 and 2012. Charlie also served on the state 

committee that developed the certification criteria and text questions for state certification. 

What isn’t recognized in his list of services is Charlie’s consummate quiet gentleman’s approach to every situation: 

filled with the wisdom of his years of experience and his friendly smile. He has calmly served as a leader to NCWM 

through difficult and exciting times of transition and growth. All of the qualities recognized here have also been 

recognized by his colleagues at the regional and state levels where he was the recipient of the Northeastern 

association’s 1985 Man of the Year Award and the Massachusetts Weights and Measures Lifetime Achievement 

Award in 2005. 

Pictured: Kurt Floren, NCWM Chairman, 

congratulates Charles Carroll for his 

distinguished service.
General – 2012 Final Report

Awards

GEN - 29

Distinguished Service Award Recipient

Tina Butcher 

Tina Butcher, Group Leader for the Legal Metrology Devices at the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of 

Weights and Measures (OWM) began her public service in the Pest 

Management Program at the Maryland Department of Agriculture. The 

pest management experience must have prepared her well for her 

illustrious career in weights and measures. In 1983, she was transferred

to Maryland’s Weights and Measures Program where she spent five 

years as a field inspector.

In 1987, she moved to NIST, OWM. With that move, Tina quickly 

became involved in many NCWM activities. Among her list of 

contributions, she was technical advisor to the Task Force on Energy 

Allocation in 1988 and 1989; the Multiple Dimensions Measuring 

Devices Work Group in the early 1990s; the Task Force on Safety from 

1989 to 1991; the Executive Committee in 1991; the Liaison Committee 

in 1993 and 1994; the Handbook 44 Reorganization Work Group from 

1999 to 2001; and the Automatic Temperature Compensation Steering Committee in 2008 and 2009. Her technical

advisor service to NCWM standing committees include the Specifications and Tolerances Committee from 1993 to 

1998 and again from 2008 forward, and the Professional Development Committee in 2007 and 2008. Tina is wellknown for her contributions over many years to the National Type Evaluation Program. She has been technical 

advisor to many NTEP groups including the Measuring Sector from 1988 to 1995 and from 2008 to 2011; the 

Weighing Sector from 1992 to 1997, the Grain Moisture Meter Sector from 1992 to 1995, the Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Sector in 1997, the NTEP Committee from 1999 to 2001; the Laws and Regulations Committee regarding the model 

NTEP regulation from 1999 to 2002; the United States/Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group from 1994 to 2000; 

and the NTEP Long-Term Business Plan Work Group from 1998 to 2000. Tina was the NTEP Manager from 1994 

to 2000 prior to transfer of its administration to NCWM. In addition to all of these contributions to NCWM, Tina 

has made significant contributions at NIST with developmental assignments in the Malcolm Baldridge National 

Quality Award Program and in the NIST Director’s Office in 2002 and 2003. She was the recipient of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce Bronze Medal in 2003.

Through all of this continuing service, Tina has made significant and lasting contributions to codes throughout 

Handbook 44 and was integral in the creation of code sections such as the Mass Flow Meter Code. She is widely 

regarded for her superior technical writing skills and her calm manner that leads to input from others toward sound 

decision making. She has also earned the respect of NCWM members for her ability to inject important technical 

and historic information while avoiding personal dictation in the decisions. Tina’s long-term service to NCWM and 

the weights and measures community is truly remarkable. Tina’s personal time is devoted to her family and other 

activities including the Altar Guild and teaching children’s classes at her church. She is Co-Director of her 

church’s Junior Daughters of the King Chapter and enjoys volunteering in her daughter, Holly’s, various sports and 

school activities.

Pictured: Kurt Floren, NCWM Chairman and NIST, Office of Weights and 

Measures’ Tina Butcher.
General – 2012 Final Report

Awards

GEN - 30

Distinguished Service Award Recipient

Ronald Hayes

Ron Hayes, Missouri Weights and Measures Director, received his education in computer science and mathematics 

from Missouri University of Science and Technology. In 1976, Ron went to work for the Missouri Department of 

Agriculture. In his early years, he was a grain moisture meter inspector and assisted the department in developing 

that new program. He taught laboratory techniques in his role as a laboratory assistant, and he performed petroleum 

tests as an assistant metrologist. In 1982, Ron was promoted to Fuel Quality Program Administrator and Laboratory 

Manager. In 2008, he was again promoted to his current position as Director of the Division of Weights, Measures 

and Consumer Protection.

Ron attended his first NCWM Annual Meeting in 1984, and this is his 

23rd year of attendance. Ron’s experience managing the Petroleum 

Laboratory formed the foundation of much of his service to NCWM in 

his early years. He has been a member of the Southern Weights and 

Measures Association and the Central Weights and Measures 

Association after it was formed in 1985. He has been a member of the 

NCWM Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee since 1992. He has chaired 

that subcommittee since 2006. Ron chaired the Motor Fuel Regulation 

Working Group from 1993 to 1995. He has also served as a member of 

the Premium Diesel Work Group and the Automotive Lubricants Work 

Group. Ron served as a Presiding Officer of our Annual Meetings in 

2003, 2004, and 2005. In addition to his current responsibilities as chair 

of the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee, Ron is an officer on the 

NCWM Board of Directors.

Much of Ron’s work over these many years has been in concert with 

standards development within ASTM International as a member of the 

ASTM D02 Committee on Petroleum Products and serving on many 

subcommittees under it. NCWM and ASTM have much in common and 

Ron has greatly assisted both organizations to maximize each other’s 

resources toward common goals. An employee of his once described 

Ron as “wicked smart.” We can all agree with the spirit of that compliment, and we are grateful that he has applied 

his talents to our benefit.

Pictured: Kurt Floren, NCWM Chairman, presents award to Ron Hayes.
General – 2012 Final Report

Awards

GEN - 31

Distinguished Service Award Recipient

Chris Guay 

Chris Guay is a Regulatory Fellow at Procter and Gamble Company. He resides in Mason, Ohio, and has many 

hobbies including hiking, backpacking, photography, painting, and electric trains. He graduated Magna Cum Laude 

with a Chemical Engineering Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Illinois in 1982 and received his 

MBA in Management from the University of Cincinnati in 1990. Chris has been a regular attendee and supporter of 

the Ohio, Central, Northeastern, Southern, and Western Weights and Measures Associations as well as many other 

trade associations affiliated with Procter and Gamble product lines. 

Chris attended his first NCWM Annual Meeting in 1990, and this year is his 21st year of attendance. His official 

service began in 1993 on the Associate Membership Committee. He served that committee from 1993 to 1995, 

1997 to 2001, 2004 to 2005, and 2007 to present with his current term to expire in 2015. During those years, he was 

Vice-Chairman of the Associate Membership Committee in 1993, 2007, 2011, and 2012, and chaired the committee 

in 1994 and 2008. Chris chaired a special task group under the Associate Membership Committee from 1993 to 

1995 that developed recommendations to increase the involvement of industry membership in the NCWM structure, 

including appointments to standing committees. Sometimes you get what you ask for, and Chris was appointed to 

the Administrative and Public Affairs Committee from 1996 to 1998. This was followed immediately with a fiveyear term on the Laws and Regulations Committee from 1999 to 2003. In 1998, Chris participated in an important 

planning meeting as NCWM was transitioning into a nonprofit corporation that needed administrative support. He 

served on the Nominating Committee in 2001 and 2002. He served a 

five-year term on the Board of Directors from 2004 to 2008. Today, in 

addition to his service to the Associate Membership Committee, Chris 

is Chairman of the new Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee. This 

subcommittee was his brainchild to assist the Laws and Regulations 

Committee and NCWM to effectively address critical issues in the 

consumer packaging industry.

We have come to cherish Chris’ ability to speak softly, intelligently, 

and directly; never one to sugar coat a situation. In Chris’ home state 

of Ohio, he recognized the value that county officials could bring to the 

regional and national scene, and he worked directly with them to show 

them the way at a time when NCWM had a need for the additional 

expertise and leadership. Chris was mentored in his early years by one 

of our most cherished industry members, Bill Braun, who pushed us all 

to be organization oriented, not issue oriented. Chris is just that person 

as represented by his words, his service, and his actions. For this 

reason, he was awarded the Bill Braun Award by the Central Weights 

and Measures Association in 2008.

Pictured: Kurt Floren congratulates 

Chris Guay, recipient of the Distinguished Service Award.
General – 2012 Final Report

Awards

GEN - 32

2012 Contributions Award Recipient

Tim Tyson 

The Contributions Award was presented to Tim Tyson, Director of the 

Kansas Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division. 

Tim obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science from 

Kansas State University. He also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in 

Computer Science from Friends University in Wichita. Prior to his 

employment with the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Tim spent 14 

years at the management level in food manufacturing facilities and three

years in software development in the insurance industry. In 2006, Tim 

was named Director of Weights and Measures for the State of Kansas. 

He is also Director of the Department’s Feed and Seed Division and 

Grain Warehouse Licensing. In addition to their day jobs, Tim and his 

wife, Karyn, operate a ranch, and he enjoys hunting. 

In a very short time, Tim was recognized for his leadership abilities in 

the weights and measures community. He was Chairman of the Central 

Weights and Measures Association in 2008. He joined the NCWM Board 

of Directors in 2008 as an at-large director. He was elected as Chairman-Elect for 2010 and NCWM Chairman of 

the Board in 2011. This year, Tim chaired the Nominating Committee, and he is completing his service to the Board 

of Directors this week as the NTEP Committee Chair. 

Tim is thought of as the “quiet man from Kansas.” He is a man of few words, but when he speaks it is direct, on 

point, and spoken with authority and confidence. He is highly regarded for his ability to listen, analyze, and provide 

leadership with wisdom. His regional association, the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) has 

noted his significant efforts and leadership in the areas of commodity labeling and moisture allowance standards. In 

the past year, he has been innovative in his approach to demonstrate the impact and importance of weights and 

measures regulatory oversight for the citizens in Kansas. 

Attendance Recognition 

5th Year Attendees

John Albert Missouri Department of Agriculture

Chris Bradley Seraphin Test Measure

James Brown Petroleum Equipment Institute

James Byers San Diego County, California Weights and Measures

Chuck Corr Archer Daniels Midland Company

John Eichberger National Association of Convenience Stores

Ivan Hankins Iowa Department of Agriculture

Krister Hard af Segerstad IKEA

Fran Elson-Houston Ohio Department of Agriculture

Zina Juroch Pier 1 Imports

Dmitri Karimov Liquid Controls

James McGetrick BP Products

Kristin Moore Renewable Fuels Association

Julie Quinn Minnesota Department of Commerce

Pictured: Tim Tyson receives the 

2012 Contributions Award from Kurt 

Floren.
General – 2012 Final Report

Awards

GEN - 33

Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of America

Craig VAnBuren Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Tim White Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

10th Year Attendees

Cary Ainsworth USDA, GIPSA

Jerry Buendel Washington State Department of Agriculture

Judy Cardin Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

Rafael Jimenez Association of American Railroad Transportation Technology Center

Thomas McGee PMP Corporation

15th Year Attendees

Charles Ehrlich NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Kurt Floren Los Angeles County California Weights and Measures

Alan Johnston Measurement Canada

Robert Murnane Seraphin Test Measure

Bill Ripka Thermo Fisher Scientific

20th Year Attendees

Norman Brucker Precision Measurement Standards, Inc.

Michael Keilty Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA

Don Onwiler NCWM

25th Year Attendees

Louis Straub Fairbanks Scales

Richard Suiter Richard Suiter Consulting

35th Year Attendees

Thomas Geiler Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts Weights and Measures
General – 2012 Final Report

Awards

GEN - 34

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 1 

Report of the

Board of Directors (BOD) 

Mr. Kurt Floren, Chairman

Los Angeles County, California

100 INTRODUCTION

The Board of Directors (BOD/Board) submits its Final Report for consideration of the 97th National Conference on 

Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report contains the items discussed and actions proposed by the BOD during 

its Interim Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, January 22 - 25, 2012. The Board conducted Open Hearings for the 

items in Table A during the Annual Meeting held July 22 - 26, 2012, in Portland, Maine. Table A identifies the 

agenda items by reference key, title of item, page number, and the appendices by appendix designations. The 

acronyms for organizations and technical terms used throughout the report are identified in Table B. The first three 

digits of an item’s reference key are assigned from the Subject Series List. The status of each item contained in the 

report is designated as one of the following: (D) Developing Item: the board determined the item has merit; 

however, the item was returned to the submitter or other designated party for further development before any action 

can be taken at the national level; (I) Informational Item: the item is under consideration by the BOD but not 

proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the board is making recommendations requiring a vote by the active 

members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been removed from consideration by the BOD. Table C 

provides the Summary of Voting Results for each Voting Item.

During the Annual Meeting, some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent 

calendar. Consent calendar items are Voting Items that the Board has assembled as a single Voting Item during 

their deliberation after the Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not 

require discussion. The Voting Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the 

addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of the consent calendar, the Board will entertain any requests from the floor to 

remove specific items from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually.

The BOD may change the status designation of agenda items (Developing, Informational, Voting, and Withdrawn) 

up until the report is adopted, except that items which are marked Developing, Informational or Withdrawn cannot 

be changed to Voting Status. Any change from the Interim Report or from what appears on the addendum sheets 

will be explained to the attendees prior to a motion and will be acted upon by the active members of NCWM prior to 

calling for the vote.

An “Item Under Consideration” is a statement of proposal and not necessarily a recommendation of the BOD. 

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data that may have been part of the Board’s consideration will appear as 

appendix items. 

All sessions are open to registered attendees of the conference. If the board must discuss any issue that involves 

proprietary information or other confidential material; that portion of the session dealing with the special issue may 

be closed provided that (1) NCWM Chairman or, in his absence, NCWM Chairman-Elect approves; (2) the 

Executive Director is notified; and (3) an announcement of the closed meeting is posted on or near the door to the 

meeting session and at the registration desk. If at all possible, the posting will be done at least a day prior to the 

planned closed session.

Note: It is policy to use metric units of measurement in publications; however, recommendations received by 

NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this publication 

as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 2 

Subject Series List

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 100 Series

Activity Reports.............................................................................................................................................. 110 Series

Strategic Planning, Policies, and Bylaws........................................................................................................ 120 Series

Financials........................................................................................................................................................ 130 Series

Other Items – Developing Items..................................................................................................................... 140 Series

Table A

Table of Contents

Reference Key Title of Item BOD Page

100 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

110 ACTIVITY REPORTS..................................................................................................................................... 3

110-1 I Membership and Meeting Attendance......................................................................................... 3

110-2 I NCWM Newsletter and Website ................................................................................................. 4

110-3 I Meetings Update.......................................................................................................................... 5

110-4 I Participation in International Standard Setting ............................................................................ 6

120 STRATEGIC PLANNING, POLICIES, AND BYLAWS............................................................................. 7

120-1 I Strategic Planning........................................................................................................................ 7

120-2 I Regional Support......................................................................................................................... 8

120-3 I Standing Committees................................................................................................................... 8

120-4 I NCWM Publications 15 and 16................................................................................................. 10

120-5 V NCWM Bylaws Administrative Updates ..................................................................................10

130 FINANCIALS..................................................................................................................................................13

130-1 I Financial Report ........................................................................................................................13

APPENDICES

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

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

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees...................................... A3

II. Report on the 46th CIML Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, in October 2011 ........ A6

III. Future OIML Meetings................................................................................................. A9

IV. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations..................................................................... A9

Appendix B – Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes................... B1

Agenda.................................................................................................................................... B1

AMC Draft Meeting Minutes.................................................................................................. B2
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 3 

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

CTT Conformity to Type OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association OWM Office of Weights and Measures

L&R Laws and Regulations Committee PDC Professional Development Committee

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures VCAP Verified Conformity Assessment Program

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

Table C

Summary of Voting Results

Reference 

Key

Number

House of Senate Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

120-5 Voice Vote of Business Items Adopted

To Accept 

the Report Voice Vote Adopted

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

110 ACTIVITY REPORTS

110-1 I Membership and Meeting Attendance

Membership levels track closely with the economy as shown in the yearly comparison below. The Board is 

confident that the trend will reverse as it historically does when the economy improves. There was some 

improvement in state government membership as a result of outreach. Those efforts will continue. As the 

Professional Certification Program grows, NCWM expects to see an increase in memberships to take advantage of 

the waived exam fees. 

The attendance in January 2012 for the Interim Meeting in New Orleans was exceptional. That meeting had a robust 

agenda including many new proposals on an array of issues. Attendance also improved for the 97th Annual Meeting, 

in Portland, Maine, in July. Feedback has been very good for the technical sessions that have been added to the 

Sunday afternoon sessions. These sessions benefit the standards development process, and add value for 

stakeholders who attend. 

The following is a comparison of NCWM membership levels for the past six years.
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 4 

Table D 

NCWM Membership Report

June

2012

June

2011

June

2010

June

2009

June

2008

June

2007

Associate 842 813 814 822 848 863

Foreign Associate 58 62 53 53 56 53

Federal Gov’t 11 11 12 10 9 9

NIST 16 11 12 10 9 9

State Gov’t 589 567 565 696 831 825

Local Gov’t 487 495 524 558 554 565

Foreign Gov’t 14 14 12 24 22 31

Retired 195 202 196 196 232 221

Total 2,212 2,180 2,188 2,373 2,567 2,581

110-2 I NCWM Newsletter and Website

The Board continuously considers ways to monitor and improve the content of the newsletter and website. 

Members are encouraged to bring ideas and articles forward for inclusion in newsletters. Of particular interest are 

articles that would be pertinent to field inspectors and the service industry.

At the 2012 Annual Meeting, the BOD approved a number of pending enhancements to the website. Some of these 

new features include: 

• Create a mobile-friendly National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) database search; 

• Create a mobile-friendly membership directory; 

• Add the option of instant PDF download for NCWM Publication 14 sales; and

• Add the ability to apply online for NTEP certification. 

A request was received to populate all of the safety articles from past newsletters into one location on the website 

for easier access. This request will be implemented. Compliments were offered to NCWM and to NIST for posting 

links to pertinent news pieces related to weights and measures on the NCWM Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter 

accounts and the NIST Directors e-mail listserv. 

Comments and suggestions for improvements to the newsletter and website should be directed to NCWM at 

(402) 434-4880 or info@ncwm.net. 

Online Position Forum: 

Activity increased somewhat in the second year for the Online Position Forum, but it remains light. The board 

believes that participation will increase in time as members become more comfortable with it and as committee 

agenda items generate interest. Improvements were made following the first experience in 2011 so that comments 

are more easily viewed.

The Online Position Forum is not a voting system. It is simply a method to present positions, opinions, and 

supporting documents. All active, associate, and advisory members have the opportunity to login, view committee 
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 5 

agenda items, enter positions and comments, and upload supporting .pdf documents for each agenda item of 

standing committees or the Board. 

The options for each agenda item are:

• Support; 

• Support with Comments; 

• Oppose with Comments; 

• Neutral; or

• Neutral with Comments. 

Staff will notify members when the forum is ready for them to enter their comments each spring. The comment 

period will end on May 31. On June 1 members will be able to view positions, comments, and supporting 

documents by others. This will help them prepare for the deliberations and voting at the Annual Meeting in July by 

having a better idea of positions others may have.

Social Networking: 

NCWM has accounts with LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter to improve our outreach. By opening these accounts, 

NCWM is now more visible in Internet search engines and will be more identifiable to tech-savvy stakeholders. 

Users will find links to weights and measures related news stories, and they will be kept informed throughout the 

Interim and Annual Meetings of special announcements including any changes in schedules. This has been very 

helpful for meeting attendees who carry hand-held devices. In the past year, staff has posted many news articles of 

interest to the weights and measures community on the social networks, generating increased interest and following. 

Professional Certification Program: 

Professional certification exams can be purchased through the online shopping cart at www.ncwm.net/examinations. 

Exams are free for members and $75 per exam for non-members. By logging in as a member, the price will be 

adjusted to $0 in the shopping cart. As orders are received, NCWM sends an e-mail to the customer providing the 

credentials to log into the test site to take the online exam. An applicant who does not pass the exam in the first 

attempt may log in at a later date and have one retake. After that, it will be necessary to reapply. Certification is 

now available in three areas, including:

• Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems; 

• Package Checking Basic; and

• Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class III. 

See the report of the Professional Development Committee for information regarding additional exams under 

development.

110-3 I Meetings Update

Interim Meetings:

• January 27 - 30, 2013 Francis Marion Hotel, Charleston, South Carolina

• January 19 - 22, 2014 Hotel Albuquerque, Albuquerque, New Mexico

• January 2015 Hotel to be determined in Tampa, Florida
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 6 

Annual Meetings:

• July 14 - 18, 2013 Seelbach Hilton Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky

• July 2014 The Westin, Detroit, Michigan

• July 2015 TBD

NCWM strives to plan meetings in locations that offer comfortable rooms and a variety of entertainment and dining 

options close by. The following is a brief description of future planned events.

The 2013 Interim Meeting will be at the Francis Marion Hotel in historic downtown Charleston, South Carolina. It

is truly a beautiful hotel situated perfectly for attendees to get the full Charleston experience. The 2013 Annual 

Meeting will be held at the Seelbach Hilton in Louisville, Kentucky. The hotel was built in 1905 and is listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. Attendees can simply walk out the door to experience Fourth Street Live 

where there are plenty of restaurants and entertainment. 

The board has selected Tampa, Florida, for the 2015 Interim Meeting. A final decision will be made on the hotel for 

that event at the fall 2012 BOD meeting.

100th NCWM Annual Meeting: 

The board hopes to make the 2015 Annual Meeting a very special event and one that you won’t want to miss. In 

addition to addressing the business of the organization, NCWM will be celebrating its 100th Annual Meeting 

110 years after our first meeting in 1905. A small work group is developing plans for the 100th NCWM Annual 

Meeting in 2015. The group will consider locations and special events to commemorate and bring excitement to the 

occasion. Suggestions may be forwarded to Ms. Luanne Groenjes, NCWM Office Manager, at (402) 434-4880 or 

luanne.groenjes@ncwm.net. 

110-4 I Participation in International Standard Setting

Conformity to Type

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) is considering development of a Conformity to Type (CTT) 

program. An OIML Seminar on CTT was held in June 2011 in Utrecht, The Netherlands. NCWM was invited to 

share its experience with the NTEP Conformity Assessment Program and in particular, the Verified Conformity 

Assessment Program (VCAP). The presentation was given by Mr. Don Onwiler, NCWM Executive Director. 

NCWM is hopeful that the VCAP Audit Reports can also satisfy the needs of the OIML CTT at a significant savings 

to certificate holders. Mr. Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, also presented with perspectives from the 

manufacturing industry. Dr. Charles Ehrlich, National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST), Office of Weights

and Measures (OWM), was in attendance and participated in the discussions. A subcommittee has been formed that 

will describe the United States and European programs. 

Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)

Mr. Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, attended the Committee on Participant Review in Germany in 2011. 

Resolutions were developed at that meeting for the amendment of B10, the certificate system under the MAA. The 

spirit of the resolutions was to allow utilizing authorities to voluntarily accept manufacturer test data under the 

MAA. A draft amendment is being developed for vote in early 2012. See the NTEP Committee Final Meeting 

Report for more detail.

Dr. Ehrlich, NIST, OWM, gave a report of OIML activities. An updated report is included in the 2012 NCWM 

Annual Report as an appendix to the report of the Board of Directors (see Appendix A).
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 7 

120 STRATEGIC PLANNING, POLICIES, AND BYLAWS 

120-1 I Strategic Planning

The Board reviewed the strategic plan at the January 2012 Interim Meeting and identified opportunities to update it. 

Several strategies have been successfully completed, and several new strategies were introduced new strategies. 

Members are asked to provide input before the January meeting on the five current goals in the strategic plan and 

any other goals that they believe should be included. 

Five primary goals are contained in the strategic plan.

1. Enhance NCWM as a national and international resource for measurement standards development.

2. Promote uniform training for individuals involved in weights and measures.

3. Continue to improve NTEP.

4. Expand the role of NCWM as a resource for state and local weights and measures programs.

5. Preserve the financial stability of NCWM.

The strategic plan in its entirety may be viewed in the Members Only area at www.ncwm.net/content/strategic-plan. 

NCWM as a National and International Resource:

A strategy under this goal was to implement the Online Position Forum. The forum was completed in 2011 and the 

strategy will now be to make improvements to the program and promote increased use of it by our membership. 

Several ideas will be implemented to generate interest. Additionally, guidance will be developed to assist 

committees in how to preview and use comments in a consistent manner.

Promote Uniform Training: 

The Professional Certification Program is a top priority under this goal. In 2011, the Board contracted the services 

of Mr. Ross Andersen to serve as Certification Exam Coordinator working with the PDC. The Board believes this 

arrangement will greatly assist the PDC in developing a full line of certification exams.

Some states are expressing interest in using the Professional Certification Program as a prerequisite to registering 

service agents. It is unknown at this time whether the difficulty of the exams will be appropriate to test an 

individual’s expertise without undue delay in becoming state-registered. The delay can be costly for service 

agencies because they need employees who are recognized by the state to work independently with the privileges of 

being registered. To address these questions, NCWM has contacted state directors to generate a list of service 

agents from various states to voluntarily take the Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Exam. 

Continue to Support NTEP: 

A strategy of high priority under this goal is to maintain viable support for NTEP laboratories. Mr. Truex, NTEP 

Administrator, monitors the number of full-time equivalents associated with the authorized laboratories and tracks 

evaluation time and backlog statistics to ensure that NTEP evaluations can be completed in a timely manner. He 

reports these statistics quarterly to the NTEP Committee and BOD. 

NCWM has a contingency plan in place to ensure evaluation services are maintained for NTEP applicants in the 

event that insufficient services were available under the current authorized laboratory system. Another strategy 

toward this goal is the continued development of the Verified Conformity Assessment Program which has already

successfully addressed load cells. See the NTEP Committee Final Report for more details. 

Expand the Role of NCWM as a Resource to Officials:

Of high importance under this goal is NCWM’s ability to gather and compile data that will demonstrate the impact

of regulatory programs. Efforts in this regard have been difficult or impossible because of differences in how 

jurisdictions acquire and maintain device, inspection, and compliance data. The board is discussing methods of 

studying data that would not require massive changes in jurisdictional practices.
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 8 

Many programs are experiencing severe budget cuts that are diminishing their effectiveness. NCWM plans to 

develop a “toolkit” with the support of the Associate Membership Committee that can be used by program 

administrators to generate support for their programs. This toolkit will contain materials including data supporting a 

regulatory presence, industry contacts that can be called upon to explain the necessity of a regulatory presence to 

ensure a level playing field for businesses and consumer protection, and a short video production.

Preserve Financial Stability: 

This goal was originally to “ensure” financial stability. Financial reports of the past several years indicate that 

NCWM is financially stable barring any surprises. However, NCWM must recognize that it does not have sufficient 

reserves at this time to fully implement the NTEP contingency plan that was developed to ensure continued 

evaluation services if the authorized state laboratories fell victim to budget cuts. The board will study NCWM’s 

needs and establish a target for reserves for NTEP and other potential exposures. When that target is achieved, 

NCWM will be in a position to identify ways to improve services and/or reduce fees in support of its membership.

120-2 I Regional Support

Shopping Cart Service for Regional Websites:

NCWM hosts all four regional websites. In 2010, the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) asked 

NCWM to create a shopping cart on their site for online meeting registrations. WWMA reported to NCWM Board

of Directors that the online meeting registrations worked very well for them. It provides a means for WWMA 

members to pay dues and meeting registrations with credit cards. The transaction is processed through the NCWM 

PayPalTM account, and NCWM transfers the funds to the region’s bank account, less credit card fees of about 3.5 %. 

Two additional regions, the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) and the Southern Weights and 

Measures Association (SWMA) have requested online membership and meeting registration through their websites. 

This programming will be completed in time for 2012 meeting registrations. Cost will vary according to the 

complexity of the project, but ranges from around $1,200 to $1,500.

Meeting Documents on Regional Websites:

In the fall of 2011, NCWM made efforts to be the clearinghouse for all new proposals being submitted to the 

regional associations. NCWM established a requirement that all proposals shall be submitted electronically to 

simplify report writing for regional committees. A suggestion from a member prompted NCWM to post all new 

proposals on the regional websites. This addition was very well received, and NCWM hopes to receive additional 

suggestions to improve services for members and regional associations. 

Beginning in the fall 2012, just one template will be sent to each regional committee containing both the carryover 

items and the new proposals designated to the respective region. Furthermore, each new item will be identically 

numbered and titled at each region. This will not only streamline documentation for regions, but will also simplify 

the process for implementing regional reports into NCWM Publication 15. Staff expects that these improvements 

will enable them to make NCWM Publication 15 available at an earlier date this fall. 

120-3 I Standing Committees

Committee Orientation:

In 2010, NCWM began conducting Committee Orientation for committee chairs and new committee members. It is 

held at NIST, OWM in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to facilitate participation of all NIST Technical Advisors. The 

program presented by NCWM Chairman and Executive Director includes a half-day session for committee chairs 

followed by a full day for the new committee members. The focus is on leadership, administrative processes, roles 

and responsibilities, and review of NCWM Committee Member Handbook. Additionally, the committee chairs and 

NIST Technical Advisors review agenda items for the new members so that they are prepared in advance for the 

technical discussions and Open Hearings. Because the response to the first meeting in 2010 was so positive, the 

orientation is an annual event. 
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 9 

Task Groups and Subcommittees: 

Task groups and subcommittees are created via appointment by the NCWM Chairman. A task group is given a 

specific charge, and it reports to the appropriate NCWM standing committee. A task group will disband at the 

completion of its assignment. A subcommittee is charged with ongoing responsibilities in support of a standing 

committee in a specific field of expertise. 

NCWM offers resources to these task groups and subcommittees including meeting space at Interim and Annual 

Meetings, conference calling, web meeting services, dedicated e-mail listservs, a dedicated web page for posting and 

archiving documents related to their work, and broadcast e-mail services to reach targeted audiences. Additionally, 

NIST, OWM has provided technical advisors and web meeting forums. All of these tools enable year-round 

progress of task group and subcommittee work.

The board expresses great appreciation to the volunteers who serve on these important task groups and 

subcommittees in support of the work of this organization.

• Task Group on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges: 

The group reports to the Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee and is addressing method of sale and net 

quantity labeling requirements. For more information, contact: 

Chair

Ms. Judy Cardin

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-08911

Phone: (608) 224-4945 

Fax: (608) 224-4939 

E-mail: judy.cardin@datcp.state.wi.us

• Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee: 

This group reports to the L&R Committee. For more information, contact:

Chair

Mr. Ronald Hayes

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Blvd

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: (573) 751-4316

Fax: (573) 751-0281

E-mail: ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov

• Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee: 

The group reports to the L&R Committee. For more information, contact: 

Chair

Mr. Christopher Guay

Procter and Gamble, Co.

One Procter and Gamble Plaza

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Phone: (513) 983-0530

Fax: (513) 983-8984

E-mail: guay.cb@pg.com
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 10

120-4 I NCWM Publications 15 and 16 

NCWM Publications 15 and 16 are documents that provide the agendas and reports for NCWM Interim and Annual 

Meetings. Though they are NCWM publications, NIST, OWM has supported NCWM by preparing and publishing 

the documents. NIST, OWM has less staff dedicated to publications than in the past. That, combined with the 

cumbersome process they are subjected to when publishing documents, has prompted NCWM to assume this 

responsibility. As of the fall of 2011, NCWM assumed responsibility for NCWM Publications 15 and 16. As a 

result, NIST, OWM staff will be able to devote more resources to training development and other publications such 

as NCWM Annual Report, NIST Handbooks 44, 130 and 133, National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Sector Reports, etc. 

This change in responsibilities does affect flow of information and documents through the fall season in preparation 

for regional meetings and submitting reports at their completion. The 2012 NCWM Publication 15 represented

NCWM’s first product under this new initiative. The processes to reach this final product have been examined and 

refined based on experience and input from regional and national committee members, NIST, OWM staff, and the

members.

There were less shifting of responsibilities in the development of NCWM Publication 16. The committees retained

responsibility for developing the final reports for NCWM Publication 16. Once completed, they submit those

reports to NCWM for inclusion in NCWM Publication 16. The shift of responsibility to NCWM in producing 

NCWM Publication 16 proved highly successful, resulting in publication and posting of the 2012 NCWM 

Publication 16 before April 2012 and enabling the access of the On-Line Position Forum for comment/position input 

by members a full month earlier than that occurring in the prior year. 

120-5 V NCWM Bylaws Administrative Updates

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

NCWM Board of Directors (2012)

Purpose: 

Update bylaws to reflect new management procedures, shifting responsibilities, and changes to policy. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend various sections throughout NCWM bylaws as follows:

Article IV - Membership Fees and Records

Section 2 - Membership Records 

The Board of Directors shall designate an individual or organization to be responsible for membership, 

including collection of membership fees and maintenance of membership records. corporation shall 

collect membership fees and maintain membership records.

Article V - Use of the Insignia

The insignia of the Corporation may be used or displayed only by members of the Corporation with 

express written approval from the Board of Directors. is trademarked. Use or display of the insignia by 

members is allowed except that the Corporation may prohibit any use that is deemed by the Corporation 

to be inappropriate. 

Article VI - Directors

Section 4 - Insurance and Indemnification of Directors

A. Insurance and Indemnification of Directors

The Board of Directors Corporation is authorized to purchase insurance, including but not limited to, 

general liability insurance, errors and omissions insurance, and directors and officers liability insurance, 

together with any other insurance deemed by the Board to be reasonable, in such sums and for such 

premiums as the Board Corporation determines are appropriate.
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 11

Article VII - Duties of the Directors and Appointive Officials

Section 1 - Chairman

The Corporation Chairman has the role of Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and, as such, has the

broad authority customarily associated with that role, including, but not limited to, the authority to make 

policy decisions on behalf of the Corporation and take such actions as are necessary to put these decisions into 

effect. The Chairman is the principal presiding officer at the meetings of the Corporation and of the Board of 

Directors, makes appointments to the several standing and special purpose committees, and appoints other 

Corporation officials to serve during his or her term of office.

All contracts or other obligations requiring Corporation funding must be signed by the Chairman or his 

or her designee.

Section 5 - Treasurer 

The Treasurer ensures the integrity of the fiscal affairs of the Corporation and serves on the Board of Directors 

of the Corporation. The Treasurer performs other duties as assigned by the Chairman.

The Treasurer may appoint, with approval of the Board, an assistant to assist the Treasurer in the 

discharge of his or her duties.

Article IX - Committees

Section 1 - Special Purpose Committees

The Special Purpose Committees consist of the following:

A. Nominating Committee

The Nominating Committee (referenced in Article VI, Section 3) shall be appointed annually by the 

Chairman and shall consist of the most recent active Past Chairman of the Corporation as Committee 

Chairman and six active members, to include at least one member representing each of the four regions. 

The nominating committee shall make recommendations to the Corporation for nominations for the Board 

of Directors. The nominating committee shall give due weight and consideration to the recommendation of 

the Associate Membership Committee regarding the Associate Director nomination. 

B. Resolutions Committee

The Resolutions Committee shall be appointed by the Chairman and shall consist of three members 

appointed for 3-year staggered terms. 

CB. Finance Committee

The Finance Committee shall be comprised of the Chairman-Elect, Nominated Chairman-Elect,

Treasurer, and the two At-Large Directors Director representing the Associate Membership 

Committee, and the Executive Director. Each member's term on the Finance Committee shall coincide 

with the member's term as Director of office. 

Section 3 - National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee

The NTEP Committee is comprised of five members: the Immediate Past Chairman, the Chairman and the 

Chair-Elect of the Conference and two regional Directors from the Board of Directors. The NTEP Committee 

must include at least one member from each of the four regions. (amendment passed July, 2001) The NTEP 

Administrator shall serve in an advisory role to the NTEP Committee. 

The NTEP Committee fixes may develop recommendations to the Board of Directors for NTEP fees 

including, but not limited to application fees to obtain a NTEP Certificate of Conformance and the annual 

maintenance fee for retaining a National Type Evaluation Program NTEP Certificate of Conformance. The 

NTEP Committee is responsible for the operation of the NTEP program with respect to its fiscal management, 

providing guidance related to the activities of the program and establishing policy and procedures. 

Through the Chairman of the NTEP Committee, members are appointed from the Advisory, Active, and 

Associate Members to the Technical Committees of the National Type Evaluation Program. The Associate 

members represent the interest of manufacturers, retail sales organizations, and users of commercial devices. 

The Active members represent the interest of government officials and the consumer. These committees make 

technical, policy, and procedural recommendations to the NTEP Committee for implementation.
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 12

Section 5 - Duties and Fields of Operation of Board of Directors and Committees

A. Board of Directors 

The Board of Directors is the governing body of the Corporation and is authorized to make all decisions 

relating thereto, including but not limited to the following: 

1. conducts the business of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc., as a Corporation, 

which at a minimum includes (a) overseeing the preparation and filing of the biennial report and fee 

with the Nebraska Secretary of State in compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 21-301. 

2. reviews and approves the budget;

3. selects the place and dates, and also fixes the registration fee for each meeting of the Corporation;

4. fixes all fees including but not limited to meeting registrations, fees associated with NTEP 

administration, publications, and the annual membership fee; and

5. advises the responsible individual or organization, as designated by the Chairman, with respect to the 

programs for the meetings of the Corporation and its committees, and makes recommendations to the 

Corporation, the Corporation officers, and the committee chairmen; and. 

6. reviews an annual audit report prepared by an external auditor whose services are retained by 

the corporation to assess the accuracy of the financial statements, the accounting principles used, 

and evaluate overall financial statement presentation. 

The Board of Directors, in the interval between meetings of the Corporation:

1. authorizes meetings of Corporation committees in accordance with the provisions of Article VIII, 

Section 3; 

2. authorizes expenditures that are not in the budget; and 

3. acts for the Corporation in all routine or emergency situations that may arise. 

Special meetings of the Board may be held at the discretion of the Chairman, and may take place in any 

manner technologically possible, including, but not limited to, telephone conference calls and electronic 

mail. A quorum shall consist of seven members of the Board. Voting may be cast in any manner prescribed 

by the Chairman. All questions before the Board of Directors will be decided whenever practical, by voice 

vote or by ballot, and will be decided on the basis of the majority of votes cast.

The Board serves as a policy and coordinating body in matters of national and international significance 

which may include such areas as metrication; the interaction with organizations such as the International 

Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) ASTM 

International, National Conference of Standards Laboratories (NCSL), and such internal matters as may 

be required, including, for example, the Retiree Organization. 

The Chairman, on behalf of the Board, annually presents a report on Corporation activities.

F. Resolutions Committee 

Each year at the Annual Meeting of the Corporation, the Resolutions Committee presents for 

Corporation action such resolutions as it has been directed by the Corporation to prepare, and such 

additional resolutions as are deemed appropriate by the Committee.

GF. Finance Committee 

The Finance Committee may appoint an external auditor to audit the books of the Corporation and, if 

an auditor is appointed, will evaluate the recommendations of the auditor and recommend an action 

thereon to the Board. provides review and preliminary approval of the draft budget before it is 

presented to the Board of Directors for final approval.

Background/Discussion:

In 2010, the bylaws were amended after thorough legal review to reflect NCWM as a Nebraska corporation and to 

provide additional liability protections. In 2011, the bylaws were amended following a parliamentarian review of 

voting procedures. 
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 13

This year, NCWM conducted an administrative review of the bylaws to determine if amendments are needed to 

reflect new management procedures, shifting of responsibilities, and changes in policy. Based on that review, the 

board is presenting the above excerpts of NCWM bylaws with proposed amendments.

130 FINANCIALS

130-1 I Financial Report

NCWM operates on a fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. Budgets are set to be conservative on 

projected revenues and realistic on anticipated expenses. 

Below is a graphic view of the past 11 fiscal years based on year-end audit reports. The spike in expenses in 2008 

reflects the cost of the management transition. The management company was still under contract that year while 

NCWM hired employees, procured office space, furniture, computers, etc. The graph shows significant savings in 

the following years of 2009 - 2011 even though NCWM has invested significantly in new initiatives during that 

time. Those initiatives include NCWM and regional website development, the Online Position Forum, the 

Professional Certification Program, and other improvements to services.
BOD 2012 Final Report

BOD - 14

The following is the balance sheet as of June 30, 2012 in comparison with the same time the previous year.

ASSETS June 30, 2012 June 30 2011

Current Assets $ $

Checking/Savings

Associate Member Fund 20,601.39 18,451.85

Certificates of Deposit 1,126,348.07 954,265.98

Checking 34,796.11 −24,857.69

Savings 129,601.52 208,118.33

Total Checking/Savings $ 1,311,347.09 $ 1,155,978.47

Accounts Receivable 2,905.00 960.00

Other Current Assets 38,808.22 51,589.87

Other Assets 7,352.30 8,617.67

TOTAL ASSETS $ 1,360,412.61 $ 1,217,146.01

LIABILITIES & EQUITY

Liabilities $

Current Liabilities 21,499.43 10,891.87

Total Liabilities $ 21.499.43 10,891.87

Equity

Unrestricted Net Assets 1,095,648.60 931,421.51

Net Income 243,264.58 274,832.63

Total Equity $ 1,338,913.18 1,206,254.14

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY $ 1,360,412.61 $ 1,217,146.01

Mr. Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, California | Chairman

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina | Chairman-Elect

Mr. Tim Tyson, Kansas | NTEP Committee Chair

Mr. Mark Coyne, City of Brockton, Massachusetts | Treasurer 

Mr. Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo County, California | Active Membership - Western

Mr. Ronald Hayes, Missouri | Active Membership - Central

Mr. Terence McBride, Memphis, Tennessee | Active Membership - Southern

Mr. James Cassidy, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts | Active Membership - Northeastern

Mr. John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York | At-Large

Mr. Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co. | At-Large

Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. | Associate Membership

Ms. Carol Hockert, NIST, OWM | Executive Secretary

Mr. Don Onwiler, NCWM Headquarters | Executive Director

Mr. Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada | Board of Directors Advisor

Mr. Jim Truex, NCWM Headquarters | NTEP Administrator

Board of Directors
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A1 

Appendix A

Report of the Activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology 

(OIML) and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Weights and Measures (OWM)

INTRODUCTION

The NIST, OWM is responsible for coordinating U.S. participation in OIML and other international legal metrology

organizations. Learn more about OIML at www.oiml.org and about NIST, OWM at www.nist.gov/owm. 

Dr. Charles Ehrlich, Program Leader of the International Legal Metrology Program, can be contacted at 

(301) 975- 4834 by fax at (301) 975-8091 or charles.ehrlich@nist.gov. 

Note: OIML publications are available without cost at www.oiml.org. 

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Content BOD - A Page

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees ........................................................................ 3

TC 3/SC 5 Conformity Assessment (United States)............................................................................................. 3

TC 5/SC 1 Environmental Conditions (Netherlands) ........................................................................................... 3

TC 5/SC 2 Software (Germany and BIML).......................................................................................................... 3

TC 6 Prepackaged Products (South Africa).......................................................................................................... 3

TC 8 Measurement of Quantities of Fluids (Japan).............................................................................................. 4

TC 8/SC 1 Static Volume and Mass Measurement (Germany) ............................................................................ 4

TC 8/SC 3 Dynamic Volume and Mass Measurement for Liquids Other Than Water (United States and 

Germany).............................................................................................................................................................. 4

TC 8/SC 5 Water Meters (United Kingdom)........................................................................................................ 4

TC 8/SC 6 Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids (United States)........................................................................... 5

TC 8/SC 7 Gas Metering (Netherlands)................................................................................................................ 5

TC 9 Instruments for Measuring Mass (United States) ........................................................................................ 5

TC 9/SC 2 Automatic Weighing Instruments (United Kingdom)......................................................................... 5

TC 17/SC 1 Humidity (China and United States)................................................................................................. 6

TC 17/SC 8 Quality Analysis of Agricultural Products (Australia)...................................................................... 6

OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) ................................................................................................. 6

II. Report on the 46th CIML Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, in October 2011 ........................................ 6

III. Future OIML Meetings...................................................................................................................................... 9

IV. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations......................................................................................................... 9

Meeting of the Inter-American Metrology System (SIM) General Assembly and the SIM Legal Metrology 

Work Group (LMWG).......................................................................................................................................... 9

Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) .................................................................................................. 9

 
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A2 

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

ANSI American National Standards Institute ISO International Standardization 

Organization

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation IWG International Work Group

APLMF Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum LMWG Legal Metrology Work Group

B Basic Publication MAA Mutual Acceptance Agreement

BIML International Bureau of Legal 

Metrology MTL Manufacturers’ Testing Laboratory

BIPM International Bureau of Weights and 

Measures NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

CD Committee Draft1 NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

CIML International Committee of Legal 

Metrology OIML International Organization of Legal Metrology

CTT Conformity to Type OWM Office of Weights and Measures

D Document R Recommendation

DD Draft Document2 SC Technical Subcommittee

DoMC Declaration of Mutual Confidence SIM Inter-American Metrology System

DR Draft Recommendation2 TC Technical Committee

DV Draft Vocabulary3 USNWG U.S. National Work Group

GA General Assembly VIM International Vocabulary of Metrology

IEC International Electrotechnical 

Commission VIML International Vocabulary of Legal Metrology

IQ Mark International Quantity Mark WD Working Draft3

1 CD: a draft at the stage of development within a technical committee or subcommittee; in this document, 

successive drafts are numbered 1 CD, 2 CD, etc.

2 DD, DR, and DV: a draft document approved at the level of the technical committee or subcommittee 

concerned and sent to BIML for approval by CIML

3 WD: precedes the development of a CD; in this document, successive drafts are number 1 WD, 2 WD, etc.
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A3 

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

I. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE OIML TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

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

Technical Subcommittees (SC) of specific interest to members of National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM). Schedules of future activities of the Secretariats, the U.S. National Work Groups (USNWG), and the 

International Work Groups (IWG) of the committees and subcommittees are also included.

TC 3/SC 5 Conformity Assessment (United States)

The subcommittee held a meeting in Paris, France, in October 2010 to discuss the revision of the Basic Publications 

(B) 3, Certificate System and B 10, Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA). The International Committee of Legal 

Metrology (CIML) Preliminary Ballots on B 3 and B 10 closed in July 2011 without any negative votes, and a final 

CIML vote was held at the CIML Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, in October 2011. Both B 3 and B 10 passed 

the CIML vote. International comments on a new document entitled The Role of Measurement Uncertainty in 

Conformity Assessment Decisions in Legal Metrology have been received and are being used by the Secretariat to 

develop the 2Committee Draft (CD). Please see the MAA section in the National Type Evaluation Program 

(NTEP) Committee Report of this publication for more details on the activities of TC 3/SC 5. For more information 

on the activities of this subcommittee, please contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at (301) 975-4834 

or charles.ehrlich@nist.gov. 

TC 5/SC 1 Environmental Conditions (Netherlands)

The Secretariat distributed the 1 CD revision of Document (D) 11, General Requirements for Electronic 

Measuring Instruments, in February 2011. This is a very important document in the OIML system and is used by 

all of the OIML TCs as a general reference for technical and testing requirements on all measuring instruments. 

The United States submitted comments on the 1 CD in May 2011. The United States also participated in a meeting 

of TC 5/SC 1 to discuss the D 11 document and international comments on the 1 CD in Utrecht, The Netherlands, 

in June 2011. Highlights of the discussions in Utrecht included expanding the terminology section, updating

several testing sections to reflect the latest International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) reference standards, 

and including a new environmental class (“E 3”) for a non-mains local source of electrical power supply. The 

OIML Expert Report E 5, Overview of the Present Status of the Standards Referred to in OIML D 11 General 

Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments was recently published and updates all of the IEC references 

for testing requirements in D 11. The 2 CD of D 11 was received in January 2012 and comments were returned to 

the Secretariat in March 2012. Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if 

you would like further information on this project.

TC 5/SC 2 Software (Germany and BIML)

The OIML D 31, General Requirements for Software-controlled Measuring Instruments, has been published and 

will serve as guidance for software requirements in International Recommendations by OIML TCs. The United 

States participated in the technical work on this document and submitted votes and comments on several drafts of 

the document. A new project on software verification was approved by CIML, and the United States is waiting for 

the first draft of this document. Please contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or ambler@nist.gov if you 

would like to discuss OIML software efforts.

TC 6 Prepackaged Products (South Africa)

A project to develop an OIML International Quantity Mark (IQ Mark) is still ongoing. The IQ Mark is intended to 

eliminate the need for redundant inspections for compliance with legal metrology requirements for labeling and net 

contents. Receiving countries want imported packages to meet all of their legal metrology requirements, and 

packers in exporting countries want to ensure prepackages will not be rejected or require additional inspections 

after arriving in the destination country. The initial proposal for the program would require that participating 
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A4 

packagers meet specific requirements in order to participate in a program for quantity control and labeling of 

prepackaged goods. The United States is participating in a work group that is developing guidelines on acceptable 

manufacturing practices that would be used in the IQ Mark’s accreditation programs. The United States believes 

the effort to manage and certify quality control systems will add unnecessary extra costs to all participating 

suppliers. Though there is significant opposition to the IQ Mark effort from several countries (including the 

United States, Denmark, Switzerland, and Canada), TC 6 continues to move forward with this project under the 

premise that such a voluntary system would be of value to developing countries. The United States voted “no” on 

the 2 CD of the IQ Mark document in May 2010 and received the 3 CD from the Secretariat in August 2011. The 

United States voted “no” on this draft as well. The Secretariat has indicated that if roughly half of the P-members 

of TC 6 continue to oppose this project, the Secretariat will recommend to CIML to stop the project.

NIST is assisting TC 6 in two other important projects: (1) a revision of OIML Recommendation (R) 87, Quantity 

of Product in Prepackages (the OIML equivalent to NIST Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged 

Goods), and (2) a revision OIML R 79, Labeling Requirements for Prepackaged Products. 

NIST hosted a meeting of TC 6 in Gaithersburg, Maryland, September 26 - 30, 2011. Please contact Mr. Ken 

Butcher at (301) 975-4859 or kbutcher@nist.gov, if you would like more information about the work of this 

subcommittee or to participate in any of these projects.

TC 8 Measurement of Quantities of Fluids (Japan)

In October 2011, CIML reassigned responsibility of TC 8 from Switzerland to Japan. Additionally, CIML has 

approved projects to revise the following two TC 8 documents: (1) R 63, Petroleum Measurement Tables (1994), 

and (2) R 119, Pipe Provers for Testing of Measuring Systems for Liquids Other Than Water (1996). Both of these 

documents are important for other OIML recommendations involving liquid measurement. Please contact Mr. 

Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like copies of the documents or to 

participate in any of these projects.

TC 8/SC 1 Static Volume and Mass Measurement (Germany)

The United States now chairs an IWG that is drafting new sections of OIML R 71, Fixed Storage Tanks, and R 85, 

Automatic Level Gages for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage Tanks, to add specific requirements for 

specialized tanks. OIML R 80-2, Road and Rail Tankers, Test Methods, is being developed. Please contact Mr. 

Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like copies of the documents or to 

participate in any of these projects.

TC 8/SC 3 Dynamic Volume and Mass Measurement for Liquids Other Than Water (United States 

and Germany) 

Subcommittee work is continuing on the development of OIML R 117 2, Dynamic Measuring Systems for Liquids 

Other Than Water, Part 2, Test Methods, and R 117-3, Test Report Format. The first CD of R 117-2 was 

distributed in March 2011. While the 1 CD of R 117-2 generated over 400 international comments that will all 

need to be resolved, there was excellent acceptance of the methodology and concepts used in the complex new 

recommendation. A meeting of the IWG for the development of R 117 was held in Braunschweig, Germany, in 

November 2011 to resolve international comments on the 1 CD and to work to develop new annexes for 

measuring systems for foaming potable liquids for pipelines and for aircraft refueling. The IWG for the 

development of R 117 also continues to hold international webinars to accelerate the work on this high priority 

document. The 2 CD of R 117-2 will be distributed later in 2012, and the full TC 8/SC 3 subcommittee will hold 

a meeting in November 2012. If you have any questions or would like to participate in the next phases of this 

project, please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov. 

TC 8/SC 5 Water Meters (United Kingdom) 

OIML, International Standardization Organization (ISO), and the European Committee for Standardization are 

working together to harmonize requirements for water meters using OIML R 49, Water Meters Intended for the 

Metering of Cold Potable Water and Hot Water Parts 1, 2, and 3, as the base document. The Joint Working Group 

of these three organizations distributed the 2 CD of the harmonized document in May 2011 with international 
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A5 

comments returned in August 2011. NIST hosted a joint meeting of the three organizations in Gaithersburg, 

Maryland, in November 2011, and the 3 CD of the harmonized document was distributed in June of 2012. The 

American Water Works Association Committee on Water Meters is assisting in these efforts. Please contact Mr. 

Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like copies of documents or to participate 

in this project.

TC 8/SC 6 Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids (United States)

The Secretariat for R 81, Dynamic Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids, is working to 

complete project one to update: (1) electronic tests in accordance with the latest edition of OIML D 11 (2004) 

and/or the latest IEC and ISO standards; (2) technical requirements to include new developments in hydrogen 

measurements; and (3) current recommendations for density equations. OIML R 81 (1998) will be reformatted 

into two distinct parts in the format that is recommended for recently developed OIML recommendations. The 

Secretariat will ask members of TC 8/SC 6 and the USNWG to review and formally comment on the first draft of 

revised R 81, Part 1: Metrological and Technical Requirements and Part 2: Metrological Controls and 

Performance Tests in 2012. To obtain more information or to participate in this project, please contact Ms. Juana 

Williams at (301) 975-3989 or juana.williams@nist.gov. 

TC 8/SC 7 Gas Metering (Netherlands)

The Secretariat distributed the preliminary Draft Recommendation (DR) of OIML R 137-1 and R 137-2, Gas 

Meters; Part 1: Metrological and Technical Requirements, and Part 2: Metrological Controls and Performance 

Tests in May 2011. Extensive U.S. comments on both the 1 CD and the 2 CD were developed in cooperation with 

the measurement committees of the American Gas Association. The OIML R 137 document is especially 

important to the United States interests because the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B 109 

committee on gas measurement is using R 137 to create a new performance-based standard for gas meters in the 

United States. Meetings of the work group that is developing this new standard ANSI B 109.zero (109.0) were 

held in Savannah, Georgia, in February 2011; in Fort Worth, Texas, in September 2011; and in Seattle, 

Washington, in January 2012. R 137 was approved by direct CIML online approval in March 2012 and was 

published in May 2012. Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you 

would like to participate in these efforts of if you would like to obtain a copy of any of these gas measurement 

documents.

TC 9 Instruments for Measuring Mass (United States)

The CIML approved a new work item to revise OIML R 60:2000, Metrological Regulation for Load Cells. This 

revision is planned to cover everything from the basic principles of R 60 (e.g., tolerances and accuracy classes) to 

exploring the addition of new requirements. The United States distributed a first working draft revision of R 60, 

incorporating a major re-formatting of the document. USNWG members and TC 9 members were requested to 

return comments on R 60 by March 2011. A meeting was held September 19 - 20, 2011, in Braunschweig, 

Germany, to discuss the intended scope of R 60 that will be incorporated into a 1 CD of R 60, which is expected to 

be distributed later in 2012. For more information on these efforts, please contact Mr. John Barton at (301) 975-

4002 or john.barton@nist.gov. 

TC 9/SC 2 Automatic Weighing Instruments (United Kingdom)

R 134 1, Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles in Motion and Measuring Axle Loads has been 

approved by the CIML and published. The United States’ comments concerning terminology and document scope 

were incorporated in the document. The test report format of this document, R 134 2, has also been published. 

The U.S. Federal Highway Administration is sponsoring a project wherein it is anticipated that both OIML R 134 

and an American Society of Testing Materials standard will be used to help develop a new code in NIST Handbook 

44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices,

applicable to in-motion weighing systems for the pre-screening of road vehicles. A USNWG met in July 2011 to 

kick off this project. To receive a copy of the OIML documents or to obtain more information on this work, please 

contact Mr. Richard Harshman at (301) 975-8107 or richard.harshman@nist.gov. 
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A6 

The DR of OIML R 106, Part 1 Automatic Rail Weighbridges, was approved by a direct CIML online vote in April 

2011. The 4 CD of R 106-2 was approved by a TC 9/SC 2 vote in April 2011, and has been submitted to the 

International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) as a DR. The DR of R 106-2 was submitted to the CIML as a 

Preliminary Ballot with a deadline of May 22, 2012. To receive copies of these documents or to obtain more 

information on the work of this subcommittee, please contact Mr. John Barton at (301) 975-4002 

or john.barton@nist.gov. 

The Secretariat is in the process of revising OIML R 50, Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments 

(Belt Weighers). The United States returned comments on the 3 CD of this R in July 2010 and participated in a 

meeting on R 50 in Teddington, United Kingdom, in April 2011. In September 2011, a 4 CD was circulated to 

members of TC 9/SC 2 for review and comment. The United States believes that durability testing requirements 

agreed to in a formal vote by “P” members in April 2009, which were subsequently incorporated into the 3 CD, have 

been watered down in the 4 CD. Responses were due to be submitted to the Secretariat by March 30, 2012. For 

more information on this effort, please contact Mr. John Barton at (301) 975-4002 or john.barton@nist.gov. 

TC 17/SC 1 Humidity (China and United States)

The Co-Secretariats are working with a small IWG to revise OIML R 59, Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and 

Oilseeds. All drafts have been distributed to the USNWG, which for the most part is a subset of the National Type 

Evaluation Technical Committee Grain Analyzer Sector. A preliminary 6 CD was developed based on international 

comments received on the 5 CD, and a meeting of TC 17/SC 1 was held in Orlando, Florida, to address those 

comments. Per discussions during that meeting, Germany submitted suggestions for additional software 

requirements that will be included in the 6 CD that is anticipated to be distributed in late 2012. Please contact Ms. 

G. Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or diane.lee@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this IWG.

TC 17/SC 8 Quality Analysis of Agricultural Products (Australia)

This subcommittee was formed to study the issues and write a working draft document Measuring Instruments

for Protein Determination in Grains. Australia is the Secretariat. At a TC 17/SC 8 meeting hosted by NIST, the 

subcommittee discussed comments concerning the maximum permissible errors and harmonization of the 

TC 17/SC 8 R for protein with the TC 17/SC 1 R for moisture. International comments on the 2 CD were 

received and compiled. These comments were discussed at a meeting of TC 17/SC 8 in Orlando, Florida. The 

Secretariat is developing the 3 CD based on discussion at the Orlando, Florida, meeting. The 3 CD is expected to 

be distributed in late 2012. Please contact Ms. G. Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or diane.lee@nist.gov, if you 

would like to participate in this IWG.

OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)

The report on the OIML MAA can be found in the NTEP section of this document. For further information on the 

MAA and its implementation, please contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at (301) 975-4834 or e-mail charles.ehrlich@nist.gov. 

II. REPORT ON THE 46TH CIML MEETING IN PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC, IN 

OCTOBER 2011 

Mr. Mason, CIML member from the United Kingdom, assumed his responsibilities as the newly-elected President of 

the CIML for a six-year term taking over for Mr. Johnston, CIML member from Canada.

Mr. Patoray, who has been serving as BIML Director since January 2011, provided several reports on financial and 

administrative matters at BIML, including improvements that have been implemented since his arrival at BIML.

Mr. Kool, BIML Assistant Director for the last five years, had his contract renewed for another five years.

It was agreed that the funds in the special account of the BIML Translation Center may be used, as necessary, for 

translation and interpretation activities that are not currently part of the normal operation of the Bureau, in 

particular:
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A7 

• the translation of documents (with particular priority to translating from English to French to reduce the 

backlog of Publications into French);

• interpretation on an experimental basis at Conferences and Committee Meetings;

• converting existing documents of interest to the work of the Organization (minutes and resolutions of past 

Conferences and Committee Meetings and other relevant documents) into a suitable electronic format.

Zimbabwe and Georgia were welcomed as new OIML Corresponding Members.

A new Memorandum of Understanding with IEC was approved, and the Bureau was instructed to draw up a joint 

work program with the IEC and report on the progress at the 47th CIML Meeting.

The prospective establishment of a liaison with the Consumer Policy Committee of ISO was discussed. The Bureau 

was instructed to identify possible liaison activities, to encourage such activities at the TC and SC level, and to 

report on the progress at the 47th CIML Meeting.

The ongoing collaboration at all levels between OIML and the International Bureau of Weights and Measures 

(BIPM) was discussed. CIML requested its President and the BIML Director to intensify the cooperation with 

the BIPM in operational activities and to pursue further discussions and studies with BIPM concerning a possible 

collocation.

CIML approved the following Recommendation:

• OIML R 35-2, Material Measures of Length for General Use - Part 2: Test methods. 

CIML instructed the BIML to submit the following DR to direct CIML online approval after they have passed the 

appropriate subcommittee vote and then received sufficient support in the preliminary ballot:

• Draft Revision of OIML R 126, Evidential Breath Analyzers; 

• Draft Revision of OIML R 137, (Parts 1 and 2) Gas Meters. 

CIML reassigned the responsibility for the Secretariat of TC 8 Measurement of Quantities of Fluids to Japan.

CIML approved the following Draft BPs:

• Revision of OIML B 3 OIML Basic Certificate System for OIML Type Evaluation of Measuring Instruments; 

• Revision of OIML B 10-1 and OIML B 10-2 (combined into a single document B 10) Framework for a 

Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type Evaluations. 

CIML, noting the report of TC 3/SC 5 on the issue of the acceptance of manufacturers’ test results within a 

Declaration of Mutual Confidence (DoMC) under the MAA, and recalling its Resolution number 20 at the 43rd

CIML Meeting, decided that Issuing Participants may request the registration of Manufacturers’ Testing 

Laboratories (MTLs) under a DoMC provided that the conditions agreed by TC 3/SC 5 and laid down in a respective 

amendment to, or revision of, OIML B 10 are met, and that after this amendment to, or revision of, OIML B 10, 

MAA Type Evaluation Reports that contain test results from MTLs may be accepted by participants on a voluntary 

basis.

CIML approved as a new work item for OIML TC 3/SC 5:

• the amendment to, or the revision of, OIML B 10 Framework for a MAA on OIML Type Evaluations to 

include appropriate conditions for the registration of MTLs under a DoMC.

However, CIML also decided that the registration of MTLs under a DoMC remains excluded from the scope of the 

MAA, until this amendment to, or revision of, OIML B 10 is approved.
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A8 

CIML, noting the written report of the seminar on Conformity to Type (CTT) held in Utrecht, the Netherlands, on 

June 20 – 30, 2011, and noting the oral report and presentation by the CIML Member for New Zealand, Mr. 

O’Brien, on the outcome of the follow-up CTT Seminar held in Prague, Czech Republic, on October 10, 2011, 

approved the establishment of a new subcommittee of TC 3, to be titled Conformity to Type, which shall 

undertake as a work item the development of a guidance document on the Scope for Pre-market Surveillance 

Activities Focused on the Conformity Assessment of Measuring Instruments to Give Assurance that Manufactured 

(or Production) Instruments Meet Their Approved Type. The responsibility for the Secretariat of the new 

subcommittee was assigned jointly to New Zealand and BIML.

The new subcommittee was invited to take into account:

• the information provided at the seminars held in June and October 2011; and

• the current programs in the United States and the European Union and any best practices identified 

elsewhere.

CIML approved, subject to re-titling the proposed “Working Groups” as “Project Groups” and other necessary 

editorial changes, the revision of:

• OIML B 6-1 Directives for OIML Technical Work. Part 1: Structures and Procedures for the Development 

of OIML Publications; and

• OIML B 6-2 Directives for OIML Technical Work. Part 2: Guide to the Drafting and Presentation of 

OIML Publications. 

BIML was instructed to produce a guidance document for B 6-1 and B 6-2 no later than December 1, 2011, setting 

out the arrangements for implementation and to introduce the new arrangements from January 1, 2012, in an orderly 

way. An ad-hoc work group was established, chaired by the CIML Second Vice-President, to consider 

improvements to OIML B 6-1 and OIML B 6-2, suggested by CIML members in the light of the experience of 

operating the new procedures, and instructed the ad-hoc work group to present proposals for the amendment of 

OIML B 6-1 and OIML B 6-2 for consideration at its 47th Meeting.

CIML, noting the development of the 3rd edition of the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) - Basic and 

General Concepts and Associated Terms by the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology of which OIML is a 

Member Organization, noting the publication of the 3rd edition of the VIM as an OIML Vocabulary (OIML 

V 2-200:2010), recalling the requirements for the drafting and presentation of terms and definitions in OIML

Recommendations and Documents as laid down in Annex B of OIML B 6-2:1993, and in particular paragraph B.1.2 

Avoidance of Duplications and Contradictions, and considering the imminent completion of the revision of the 

International Vocabulary of Legal Metrology (VIML) by OIML TC 1, resolved:

a) that new, and revisions of existing, OIML Recommendations and Documents should apply the terminology 

and definitions of the VIM and the VIML without amendment; 

b) that terms and definitions from international vocabularies from other fields (for instance statistics) may be 

adapted when the concept that they pertain to in legal metrology is different and that such conceptual 

differences should be explained in a note; and

c) that when, in OIML Publications other than Recommendations and Documents, terms and definitions are 

used that differ from those in the VIM and the VIML, these differences should be indicated in notes, as 

appropriate.

BIML was further instructed to monitor the correct implementation of this resolution at all stages of the preparation 

of OIML publications.

CIML encouraged all its members and relevant TCs, in particular TC 2, TC 9, TC 9/SC 3 and TC 11, to actively 

participate in the discussion and provide comments to the ad-hoc OIML Work Group “New SI” before 

February 24, 2012, in particular on the impact that the proposed new SI unit redefinitions might have on legal 

metrology matters.
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A9 

CIML, taking into consideration that: 

• the net revenue from the paid subscriptions for the OIML Bulletin is relatively small;

• the OIML Bulletin is still an indispensable means of communication to the members and other interested 

parties; and

• the OIML Bulletin should be circulated to as wide an audience as possible,

concluded that:

• the OIML Bulletin should be rendered free of charge;

• electronic versions of all issues of the OIML Bulletin should be available for download on the OIML web 

site without restriction;

• printed copies of the OIML Bulletin should be provided only to OIML member states and corresponding 

members; and 

• requested that the 14th Conference consider this opinion in the budget for the 2013 to 2016 budget period.

The committee decided to award Professor Dr. Lev Issaev, its former member for the Russian Federation, the title of 

Member of Honor in recognition of his work for OIML over a period of more than 30 years.

III. FUTURE OIML MEETINGS

The 14th OIML Conference and 47th CIML Meeting will be held in Bucharest, Romania, October 1 - 5, 2012.

IV. REGIONAL LEGAL METROLOGY ORGANIZATIONS

Meeting of the Inter-American Metrology System (SIM) General Assembly and the SIM Legal 

Metrology Work Group (LMWG) 

The 2010 SIM General Assembly (GA) was held in Miami, Florida, on November 2. The GA was originally 

scheduled to be held in St. Lucia but needed to instead be held in Miami because of Hurricane Tomas. Mr. Dajes, 

INDECOPI Peru, was presented by the Organization of American States as the sole candidate for the SIM

Presidency. Mr. Senna at mjsenna@inmetro.gov.br, of INMETRO in Brazil serves as the Chairman of the SIM 

LMWG. The organization is working to build capacity in legal metrology for SIM member countries. Please 

contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov for more information.

Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) 

The 18th Meeting of APLMF was held September 5 - 8, 2011, in Busan, South Korea. The People’s Republic of 

China holds the Presidency and Secretariat of APLMF. Mr. Changcheng, APLMF President and Vice Minister of 

AQSIQ, chaired the meeting. APLMF activities are facilitated through its seven work groups. The most active is 

the work group on Training Coordination chaired by Australia.

The main objectives of APLMF are to coordinate regional training courses in legal metrology and to provide a 

forum for exchange of information among legal metrology authorities. There were no training courses given by 

APLMF in 2011. The APLMF Secretariat spent a considerable amount of time, with the assistance of the United 

States, developing a proposal to obtain support from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) - Trade and 

Investment Liberalization and Facilitation funding in order to support the delivery of the training which was agreed 

upon at the 17th APLMF meeting (see below). Changes in APEC priorities are making it more difficult to achieve 

funding. While feedback from the previously-held training courses has been positive, it is becoming clear that in 

order to continue to receive funding for the training, APLMF needs to do a more thorough job of assessing and 

documenting the impact of the training courses on the economies that receive the training.

The Secretariat reported that APLMF has been successful in obtaining APEC funding to deliver two training 

programs in 2012. The first training activity, a three-day seminar entitled Improving the Custody Transfer of Liquid 
BOD 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

BOD - A10

Fuel in the Asia-Pacific Region was held March 6 – 8, 2012, in Singapore. Mr. Ralph Richter of NIST served as the 

facilitator for this successful seminar. The second training activity, a Train-the-Trainer course on the verification of 

in-line (pipeline) turbine and positive displacement metering systems used for hydrocarbon products in the bulk fuel 

supply chain, will be held in the second half of 2012 in Thailand.

APLMF members also considered and approved an initiation of self-funded training activities. In 2012, there will 

be such training in rice moisture measurement given by Japan.

The United States was represented at the meeting in Busan by Dr. Charles Ehrlich, who serves as Chairman of the 

APLMF work group on Mutual Recognition Arrangements and by Mr. Ralph Richter. Dr. Ehrlich gave an extensive 

report and update on the OIML MAA. Mr. Richter prepared and presented the U.S. Country Report. The 2012 

APLMF meeting is scheduled to be held in November 2012 in the Philippines.
BOD 2012 Final Report

AMC Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes

BOD - B1 

Associate Membership Committee (AMC)

Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes

Robert Murnane, Chair

Associate Membership Committee

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Content Page

AGENDA...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

AMC DRAFT MEETING MINUTES ....................................................................................................................... 2

Call to Order....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Meeting Minutes................................................................................................................................................. 2

Financial Condition ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Board of Directors Report................................................................................................................................... 2

Professional Development Committee (PDC) Report ........................................................................................ 2

Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee Report............................................................................................... 2

AMC Fund Disbursement Report....................................................................................................................... 3

Filling Vacant Positions...................................................................................................................................... 3

Old Business....................................................................................................................................................... 3

New Business ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Adjournment....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Individuals in Attendance ................................................................................................................................... 4

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

AGENDA

I. Call to Order

II. Approval of Meeting Minutes

III. Financial Condition

IV. NCWM Industry Representative Reports

(a) Board of Directors Report

(b) Professional Development Committee Report

(c) Laws and Regulations Committee Report

V. AMC Fund Disbursement Requests

VI. Filling Vacant Positions

VII. Old Business

VIII. New Business

IX. Adjournment
BOD 2012 Final Report

AMC Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes

BOD - B2 

AMC Draft Meeting Minutes

July 17, 2012

Portland, Maine

Call to Order

Chairman Robert Murnane called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

Meeting Minutes

A copy of the January 2012 meeting minutes was distributed. These minutes were reviewed and a motion was made 

by Steven Grabski and seconded by Chris Guay to approve the minutes as written. With no further discussion, the 

minutes were approved.

Financial Condition

A copy of the financial report was distributed. Chairman Murnane reviewed the deposit/disbursements and reported 

a current balance of $20,691.39 as of July 1, 2012. A motion was made and seconded to accept the Financial 

Report. With no other discussion, the Financial Report was accepted.

Board of Directors Report

Gordon Johnson, the Associate Membership Representative on the NCWM Board of Directors (BOD) gave a report 

concerning BOD activities. A few of the items are repeated below.

• The BOD voted on updating the policy on recording of meetings, new policy no verbatim recording of 

meetings. 

• The Treasurer’s Report indicated NCWM is in very good financial condition.

• The NCWM is looking at a new Web provider; the BOD received cost estimates for the change over to the 

new provider. 

Gordon mentioned that additional information on the activities of the BOD can be found in the final conference 

report.

Additional information on the BOD’s topics can be found in its report to be published in the Report of the 97th

National Conference on Weights and Measures. 

Professional Development Committee (PDC) Report

Steven Grabski, the Associate Membership Representative on the PDC, gave a report about the Committee’s 

activities. The key items were:

• Two new training modules will be released in the coming weeks.

• The Committee is planning to work with the regional associations on the idea of having one registration test 

for service personnel that is accepted by all states. It was reported that New Hampshire and Arkansas are 

moving forward with requiring registered service persons to take and pass the appropriate modules. 
BOD 2012 Final Report

AMC Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes

BOD - B3 

Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee Report

Rob Underwood, the Associate Membership Representative on the L&R Committee reported that the hot topic in 

this committee is the requirements around selling blended gasolines. 

AMC Fund Disbursement Report

Chairman Murnane reported that no new funds requests have been received, and that $2,500 was distributed to each 

of the four regional associations to support their training projects. 

Filling Vacant Positions

Chairman Murnane reported that David Calix has agreed to assume the position of Secretary/Treasurer beginning at 

the conclusion of this meeting. The Committee was asked to approve David for the position and did so with a 

unanimous vote. With no additional positions to fill; Chairman Murnane reminded the members that the AMC 

position on the NCWM Board of Directors expires at the conclusion of the 2013 Annual Meeting. Nominations for 

this position must be submitted to the AMC Chairman before the conclusion of the AMC meeting held in 

conjunction with the NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting.

Old Business

None to report. 

New Business

1. The members present discussed the role of the AMC and voiced a desire for the AMC to play a more active role 

within the NCWM. These discussions led to several ideas.

a. Adam Bolain suggested that we could provide training or awareness seminars at industry type tradeshows 

with the idea of reaching out to the smaller industry groups that are impacted by the work of the NCWM. 

It was mentioned that this effort would be good for the smaller industries as well as providing possible 

increase in NCWM membership. This led to the next item.

b. All AMC members will receive an e-mail asking for information related to training issues. The information 

could include a list of possible topics for presentation sessions at the NCWM meeting or other related 

conferences; a list of other conferences or associations that are possible candidates for an AMC sponsored 

training class; and individuals that are willing to conduct training at the regional weights and measures 

associations. This e-mail will be sent out to all members in August. 

c. Paul Lewis suggested supporting the NCWM 100th meeting in July 2015. Gordon Johnson was going to 

inform the BOD of the AMC interest in supporting this special meeting with the idea that the Board could 

have some ideas on how we can help. Gordon will report on the discussion at our January meeting.

2. Bob Murnane revisited the idea of the AMC developing a toolbox of presentations and information directed at 

supporting a state weights and measures program. The contents of the toolbox would be available to state and 

local weights and measure programs for use in supporting or growing their program. Bob suggested the idea of 

forming a subgroup of AMC members to further develop the idea. Possible subgroup members are Henry 

Oppermann, Steven Grabski, Richard Suiter, and Chris Guay. Bob will discuss this with the individuals and 

report on any activity during our January meeting.
BOD 2012 Final Report

AMC Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes

BOD - B4 

Adjournment

With no further new business Chairman Murnane adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by, 

Darrell Flocken, 

Secretary, AMC

Individuals in Attendance

Sam Bell – PMAA/Echols Oil Company

Gary Benjamin – NCR Corporation

Gorden Blain – InterteK

Adam Bolain – HJ Heinz

Tim Broemmer – Avery-Weigh-Tronix

David Calix – NCR Corporation

Darrell Flocken – Mettler Toledo

Larry Goodbar – Yamato Corp.

Steven Grabski – Walmart

Chris Guay – Procter & Gamble

Gordon Johnson – Gilbarco, Inc.

Stephen Langford – Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co

Paul Lewis – Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Bob Murnane – Seraphin Test Measures

Pete O’Bryan – Foster Foods

Henry Oppermann – W&M Consulting

Frank Rusk – Coti-Global Inc.

Louis Straub – Fairbanks Scales

Rob Upright – Vishay Transducers

Rob Underwood – PMAA

Don Onwiler – NCWM

Zina Vuroch – Pier 1 Imports
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 1 

Report of the

Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee

Judy Cardin, Chairperson

Wisconsin

200 INTRODUCTION

The L&R Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) submits its Final Report for consideration of the 

97th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report contains the items discussed and actions 

proposed by the Committee during its Interim Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, January 22 - 25, 2012. The 

report addresses the following items in Table A during the Annual Meeting held July 22 - 26, 2012, in Portland, 

Maine. Table A identifies the agenda items by reference key, title of item, page number and the appendices by 

appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and technical terms used throughout the report are 

identified in Table B. The headings and subjects apply to NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Laws and Regulations in 

the Areas of Legal Metrology an Engine Fuel Quality, 2012 edition, and NIST Handbook 133, Checking the Net 

Contents of Packaged Goods, 2011 edition. The first three digits of an item’s reference key are assigned from the 

Subject Series List. The status of each item contained in the report is designated as one of the following: 

(D) Developing Item: the Committee determined the item has merit; however, the item was returned to the 

submitter or other designated party for further development before any action can be taken at the national level; 

(I) Informational Item: the item is under consideration by the Committee but not proposed for Voting; (V) Voting 

Item: the Committee is making recommendations requiring a vote by the active members of NCWM; 

(W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been removed from consideration by the Committee. Table C provides the 

Summary of Voting Results for each Voting Item.

During the Annual Meeting, some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent 

calendar. Consent calendar items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during 

their deliberation after the Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not 

require discussion. The Voting Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the 

addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of the consent calendar, the Committee will entertain any requests from the 

floor to remove specific items from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually.

Committees may change the status designation of agenda items (Developing, Informational, Voting, and 

Withdrawn) up until the report is adopted, except that items which are marked Developing, Informational or 

Withdrawn cannot be changed to Voting Status. Any change from the Interim Report or from what appeared on the 

addendum sheets will be explained to the attendees prior to a motion and will be acted upon by the active members 

of NCWM prior to calling for the vote. 

An “Item Under Consideration” is a statement of proposal and not necessarily a recommendation of the Committee. 

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration will appear as 

appendix items. 

All sessions are open to registered attendees of the conference. If the Committee must discuss any issue that 

involves proprietary information or other confidential material; that portion of the session dealing with the special 

issue may be closed provided that (1) the Chairman or, in his absence, the Chairman-Elect approves; (2) the 

Executive Director is notified; and (3) an announcement of the closed meeting is posted on or near the door to the 

meeting session and at the registration desk. If at all possible, the posting will be done at least a day prior to the 

planned closed session.

Note: The policy is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, recommendations 

received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this 

publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 2 

Subject Series List

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 200 Series

NIST Handbook 130 (HB 130) – General.................................................................................................... 210 Series

Uniform Laws.......................................................................................................................................... 220 Series

Weights and Measures Law (UWML) ............................................................................................ 221 Series

Weighmaster Law ........................................................................................................................... 222 Series

Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law .............................................................. 223 Series

Uniform Regulations............................................................................................................................... 230 Series

Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) ................................................................................... 231 Series

Method of Sale Regulation............................................................................................................... 232 Series

Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) ........................................................................................................ 233 Series

Voluntary Registration Regulation .................................................................................................. 234 Series

Open Dating Regulation (ODR)....................................................................................................... 235 Series

Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation................................................................................ 236 Series

Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation (EFR)........................................................... 237 Series

Examination Procedure for Price Verification......................................................................................... 240 Series

Interpretations and Guidelines................................................................................................................. 250 Series

NIST Handbook 133 (HB 133)..................................................................................................................... 260 Series

Other Items ................................................................................................................................................... 270 Series
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 3 

Table A

Table of Contents

Reference Key Title of Item L&R Page

200 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

210 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – GENERAL ............................................................................................ 7

210-1 W Clarification of Terminology....................................................................................................... 7

221 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW........................... 11

221-1 D Section 1. Definitions ................................................................................................................11

231 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION 

(UPLR) ............................................................................................................................................. 16

231-1 I Sections 6.12. Supplementary Quantity Declarations and 6.14. Qualification of Declaration 

Prohibited ..................................................................................................................................16

231-2 I Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers.....................................................19

231-3 V Section 10.11. Statements of Cubic Measure in Compressed Form..........................................22

232 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE ...... 23

232-1 V Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight.......................................................................................23

232-2 V Section 2.19. Kerosene .............................................................................................................31

232-3 V Section 2.23. Animal Bedding...................................................................................................32

232-4 V Section 2.33. Vehicle Motor Oil................................................................................................33

232-5 D Section 2.XX. Retail Sale of Electricity/Vehicle.......................................................................37

232-6 I Packaged Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges...............................................................................40

232-7 V Section 2.32.1. Definition of Hydrogen Fuel (H) .....................................................................45

237 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS REGULATION .................................................................................................... 46

237-1 V Section 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends..............................................................................46

237-2 I Section 2.1.5. Minimum Motor Octane Number .......................................................................51

237-3 V Section 3.3. Diesel Fuel.............................................................................................................52

237-4 V Section 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil..........................................................................55

237-5 I Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends ...........................................................................61

237-6 V Section 3.2.X. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply ..........................................................66

237-7 V Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks and Dispenser Filters..............................................................67

237-8 I Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters. ...................................................................................................69

237-9 V Section 2.XX. Requirements for Hydrogen Fuel......................................................................70

237-10 V Section 1. Definitions, Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cell 

Vehicles.....................................................................................................................................75

237-11 I Section X.X. Flex Fuel Vehicles ...............................................................................................77

250 NIST HANBOOK 130 – NCWN POLICY, INTERPRETATIONS, AND GUIDELINES, 

SECTION 2, EXCERPTS FROM NCWM PUBLICATION 3 ................................................... 78

250-1 W Section 2.7. Technology Difference of Standards .....................................................................78

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133 .................................................................................................................. 80

260-1 W Handbook 133, Section 2.3.8. Moisture Allowance - Moisture Loss for Products Not Listed. . 80

260-2 V HB 133, Section 2.3.8 Moisture Allowance - Pasta Products....................................................83

260-3 I HB 133, Section 3.10. Animal Bedding ....................................................................................87

260-4 V HB 133, Chapter 4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting - Test Procedure - Footnote Step 3.....................91

260-5 D Printer Ink and Toner Gravimetric Package Testing Work Group ............................................94

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS .................................................................................. 95

270-1 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) ............................................................................96
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 4 

270-2 D Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS) .......................................................................98

270-3 D Moisture Allowance ..................................................................................................................99

Appendices

Appendix A  Item 231-2: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Section: 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers............................................... A1 

Appendix B  Item 232-4: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of 

Commodities, 2.33. Vehicle Motor Oil; and

 Item 237-4: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation, 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil............................................................. B1

Appendix C  Item 232-6: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of 

Commodities, 2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling........................................ C1

Appendix D  Item 237-1: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation, 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends................................................................. D1

Appendix E  Item 237-2: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation, 2.1.5. Minimum Motor Octane Number .......................................................... E1

Appendix F  Item 237-3: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, 3.1. General Considerations , 3.1.X. Nozzle Color Requirements for Fuels; 

and 3.3. Diesel Fuel..............................................................................................................F1

Appendix G  Item 237-5: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends ..............................................................G1

Appendix H  Item 237-8: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, 4.3. Dispenser Filters.......................................................................................H1

Appendix I  Item 237-9: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, 2.XX. Requirements for Hydrogen Fuel; and

 Item 237-10: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation, Section 1. Definitions, Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines 

Vehicles and Fuel Cell ..........................................................................................................I1

Appendix J  Item 237-11: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation, X.X. Flex Fuel Vehicles ................................................................................... J1

Appendix K  Item 260-2: Other Items – Developing Items, NIST Handbook 133, 2.3.8. Moisture 

Allowance – Pasta Products................................................................................................K1
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 5 

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

API American Petroleum Institute NEWMA Northeastern Weights & Measures Association

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials International

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

BOV Bag on Valve NPA National Pasta Association

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

CNG Compressed Natural Gas OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

CRC Coordinating Research Council OMB Office of Management and Budget

CWMA Central Weights & Measures Assn. ORVR On-board Refueling Vapor System

D Density OWM NIST Office of Weights and Measures

EPA Environmental Protection Agency PALS Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee

EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment PDP Principal Display Panel

FALS Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle

FDA Food and Drug Association PUC Public Utility Commission

FPLA Fair Packaging and Labeling Act RFA Renewable Fuels Association

FSS Fuel Specifications Subcommittee RMFD Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser

FTC Federal Trade Commission § Section Symbol

GUM Guide to the Expression of 

Uncertainty in Measurement

S&T Specifications and Tolerances

HB 130 NIST Handbook 130, Uniform 

Laws and Regulations in the areas 

of Legal Metrology and Engine 

Fuel Quality

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

HB 133 NIST Handbook 133, Checking the 

Net Content of Packaged Goods

SWMA Southern Weights & Measures Association

HDPE High Density Polyethylene TG Task Group

IEC International Electrotechnical 

Commission

UPLR Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

ISO International Organization for 

Standardization

UPR Unit Pricing Regulation

L&R Laws and Regulations U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

LLPDE Linear Low Density Polyethylene USNHWG U.S. National Hydrogen Work Group

LMDPE Linear Medium Density 

Polyethylene

USNWG U.S. National Work Group

MLWG Moisture Loss Work Group UWML Uniform Weights and Measures Law

NAA National Aerosol Association VIM International Vocabulary of Metrology

NARUC National Association of Regulatory 

Utility Commissioners

W&M Weights and Measures

NBB National Biodiesel Board WG Work Group

NCWM National Conference on Weights & 

Measures

WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 6 

Table C 

Summary of Voting Results

Reference Key

Number

House of Senate 

Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Consent 

Calendar

231-3, 232-1, 

232-2, 232-3, 

232-7, 237-6, 

237-7, 237-9, 

237-10, 260-4

34 0 42 0 Adopted 

232-4 33 0 42 0 Adopted

237-1 30 3 31 6 Adopted

237-3 30 1 29 3 Adopted

237-4 34 0 39 0 Adopted

260-2 25 7 39 5 Returned to the 

Committee
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 7 

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

210 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – GENERAL

210-1 W Clarification of Terminology 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Mr. Steve Malone (2012)

Purpose: Clarify that weights and measures programs only provide the consumer the ability to make price and 

quantity comparisons, not the ability to make quality comparisons.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Weights and Measures Law as follows:

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director

(n) prescribe, by regulation, the appropriate term or unit of weight or measure to be used, whenever the 

director determines that an existing practice of declaring the quantity of a commodity or setting 

charges for a service by weight, measure, numerical count, time, or combination thereof, does not 

facilitate value quantity comparisons by consumers, or offers an opportunity for consumer confusion;

(Amended 1991, 20XX) 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation as follows:

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation as follows:

Section 13. Retail Sale Price Representations

13.1. “Cents off” Representations. 

(c) No “cents off” promotion shall be made available in any circumstances where it is known or there 

is reason to know that it will be used as an instrumentality for deception or for frustration of value 

price comparison; e.g., where the retailer charges a price that does not fully pass on to the 

consumers the represented price reduction or where the retailer fails to display the regular price in 

the display area of the “cents off” marked product.

13.2. Introductory Offers.

(d) No introductory offer with a “cents off” representation shall be made available in any 

circumstance where it is known or there is reason to know that it will be used as an instrumentality 

for deception or for frustration of value price comparison; e.g., where the retailer charges a price 

that does not fully pass on to consumers the represented price reduction.

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation as follows:
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 8 

1. Background (Paragraphs 4 and 5)

The NCWM eliminated the table of product groupings because it is difficult to keep it current and inclusive, so 

some newer products were not included under the uniform requirements. The table was replaced with 

requirements that specify that the unit price is to be based on price per ounce or pound, or price per 100 grams 

or kilogram, if the packaged commodity is labeled by weight. For example, the proposed revisions would 

require the unit price for soft drinks sold in various package sizes (e.g., 12 fl oz. cans through 2 L bottles) to be 

uniformly and consistently displayed in terms of either price per fluid ounce, price per quart, or price per liter. 

NCWM also increased the price of commodities exempted from unit pricing from 10 cents to 50 cents. NCWM 

believed these revisions would ensure that unit pricing information facilitates value price comparison between 

different package sizes and/or brands offered for sale in a store.

The NCWM also considered several comments on this item from members of the U.S. Metric Association. 

Most of these comments suggested that the Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) be amended to require unit pricing in 

metric units and permit inch-pound unit pricing to be provided voluntarily. When it developed the proposed 

revisions, NCWM included guidelines for both inch-pound and metric unit pricing and believes this is the 

correct approach to implementing metric revisions in the regulation. NCWM would like to make it clear that 

the UPR applies only when stores voluntarily provide unit pricing information. Its purpose is to provide a 

standard that retailers must follow to ensure that consumers will have pricing information that helps them 

make value price comparisons. The decision to provide unit price information in metric or inch-pound units 

rests with retailers who will respond to consumer preference. NCWM believes that consumer preference will 

be the deciding factor as to when and how quickly metric unit pricing is used in the marketplace. Therefore, 

NCWM does not support amendments to include mandatory provisions in the UPR as these provisions would 

take the decision to go to metric unit pricing out of the hands of consumers and retailers. Finally, NCWM does 

not want to include any requirement that may discourage retailers from voluntarily providing unit price 

information.

(Amended 1997, 20XX) 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, NCWM Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines, Section 2 as follows:

2.2.7. Aerosol Packaged Products

3. Since the labeling of aerosol packaged products by volume cannot be compared with the labeling of 

such products in terms of net weight, labeling in terms of volume and weight inhibits value quantity

comparisons and causes consumer confusion with respect to the quantity of product the consumer is 

buying and can be a form of deceptive labeling.

2.3.15. Bulk Sales

3. Present methods of sale and advertising are often misleading.

Suggestions were made that advertising on a “wrapped weight” basis would properly inform the 

consumer. However, it was pointed out that a typical purchaser does not know what “wrapped weight” 

is (i.e., gross weight). Moreover, selling packaged goods on a gross weight basis is illegal; it 

thwarts value quantity comparison with other products sold by net weight.

2.6.1. Retail Gas Sales and Metric Price Computations in General

The National Institute of Standards and Technology published equivalent rounded values for metric 

equivalents of inch-pound units should be used. They are:

3.785 411 784 liters = 1 gallon

0.264 172 052 4 gallon = 1 liter

A “Rule of Reason” should apply to the corrected value so that the value used is consistent with the 

quantity of the transaction. The converted value should never have fewer than four significant digits 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 9 

and should have at least the same number of significant digits as the number of significant digits in the 

quantity of product being converted. For example, if a 1000 gal delivery were to be converted to liters 

the value would be 3785 liters; for 10 000 gal, 37 854 L; for 100 gal, 378.5 L.

In the case of expressing a unit price equivalent for consumer value price and quantity comparisons in 

retail gasoline sales, the following formula should be used: (advertised, posted, or computing device 

unit price per liter) x 3.785 = (equivalent unit price per gallon, rounded to the nearest 1

/10 cent.)

2.6.14.2. Declaration of Net Quantity of Contents. – The following information is required to appear on the 

lower 30 % of the principal display panel of all packages:

Count

The package must include a count declaration (e.g., 1 Chamois) unless the statement of identity clearly 

expresses the fact that only one unit is contained in the package. A package containing two or more units 

shall bear a statement in terms of count (e.g., 2 Chamois).

Area

• Chamois packages must have area declarations in both inch-pound and metric units.

Metric

• For areas that measure less than 1 m2

, the area shall be stated in square decimeters and decimal 

fractions of a square decimeter or in square centimeters and decimal fractions of a square centimeter;

• For areas that measure 1 m2 or more, the area shall be stated in square meters and decimal fractions to 

not more than three places.

To facilitate value quantity comparison and simplify the measurement process, chamois should be measured in 

one quarter square foot (2.322 57 decimeter) increments. Dimensions should be rounded down to avoid 

overstating the area.

2.6.15.2. Declaration of Net Quantity of Contents. – The following information must appear on the lower 

30 % of the principal display panel of all packages:

• Count

The package must include a count declaration (e.g., 1 sponge) unless the statement of identity clearly 

expresses the fact that only one unit is contained in the package. A package containing two or more units 

shall bear a statement in terms of count (e.g., 2 sponges).

• Dimensions

The package must include the dimensions of the sponges in inches and centimeters.

To facilitate value quantity comparison and simplify the measurement process, sponges should be measured in 

1⁄2 in (1 cm) increments. Dimensions should be rounded down to avoid overstating the size of a sponge.

Background/Discussion: 

The terminology “value comparison” implies that the requirements in NIST Handbook 130 encompass more than 

price and quantity, they also include the quality. This is not the intent of the requirements or the role for weights 

and measures officials. In today’s litigious world our rules and regulations need to be as clear and concise as 

possible so that it is not implied that the weights and measure official is providing a quality measurement.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 10

This proposal makes terminology throughout the model laws and regulations consistent with the terminology used in 

the model Weights and Measures Law and the preamble of the Method of Sale Regulation, as follows:

Uniform Weights and Measures Law, Section 17. Method of Sale 

The method of sale shall provide accurate and adequate quantity information that permits the buyer to make 

price and quantity comparisons. 

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities, Preamble 

The purpose of this regulations is to require accurate and adequate information about commodities so that 

purchasers can make price and quantity comparisons.

At the 2011 Central Weights and Measures Association Interim Meeting, an industry representative commented that 

this was an interesting proposal but may create more questions. A state regulator asked the definition of value, to 

which the submitter replied, “its worth.” A state regulator expressed concern because the term “value comparison” 

is included in his state statute. Another regulator suggested that an alternative to this proposal is to define “value 

comparison” rather than change the references in the handbook. The Committee determined that “value” is an 

accepted term in the weights and measures community, and the CWMA recommendation was to Withdraw the item.

At the 2011 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed the

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) and found that the term “value” is used (see below). The Committee 

firmly believes that language within NIST Handbook 130 needs to be consistent with FPLA and congressional 

intent. The WWMA, therefore, recommends the item be Withdrawn. 

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA)

TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE

CHAPTER 39 - FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING PROGRAM

§1451. Congressional Delegation of Policy.

Informed consumers are essential to the fair and efficient functioning of a free market economy. Packages 

and their labels should enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents 

and should facilitate value comparisons (emphasis added). Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the 

policy of the Congress to assist consumers and manufacturers in reaching these goals in the marketing of 

consumer goods.

At the 2011 Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) Interim Meeting, there were no comments. 

The NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 Southern Weights and Measures Association Annual, the NIST Technical Advisor noted that a change 

in the language could cause a conflict with some state statutes who the adopt weights and measures law. It was also 

noted that FPLA consistently uses the term “value comparison.” The Committee believes the item has merit and 

warrants further discussion. The SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as an Informational Item. 

At the 2012 Interim Meeting, comments were made that language should remain consistent with language in the 

FPLA. The history between W&M documents and FPLA should remain intact to allow for traceability back to 

originating statute. The NCWM 2012 L&R Committee recommends that this item be Withdrawn in its entirety. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 11

221 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

221-1 D Section 1. Definitions 

Source: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) (2012)

Purpose: 

The 1993 version of the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) was updated in 2008 to reflect changes in 

international agreement about several of the key definitions it contains, in order to better align the definitions with 

the philosophy of the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). The current definitions of 

five entries in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law (UWML) were taken from the 1993 version of the VIM, and 

do not reflect the changes introduced in the 2008 version of the VIM. The changes proposed below are to update 

those five entries so that they reflect current international agreement on terminology. Two new definitions that are 

related to the other five definitions are also being proposed to be added. By incorporating these seven definitions, 

the UWML will be brought into agreement with current international agreement on these metrology-related 

definitions. Specific explanations for each of the proposed additions, revisions, and deletions to the definitions are 

provided below under Background/Discussion.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Weights and Measures Law as follows: 

1.14. Calibration. – An A set of operations which establishes, operation that, under specified 

conditions, thein a first step, establishes a relation relationship between the quantity values indicated by a 

measuring instrument or measuring system, or values represented by a material measure, and the 

corresponding known values of a measurand with measurement uncertainties provided by measurement 

standards and corresponding indications with associated measurement uncertainties and, in a second 

step, uses this information to establish a relation for obtaining a measurement result from an indication.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.15. Metrological Traceability. – The property of the a measurement result of a measurement or the 

value of a standard whereby the result it can be related to stated a references, usually national or 

international standards, through a documented an unbroken chain of comparisons all having stated 

uncertainties. calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.16. Measurement Uncertainty. – A non-negative parameter associated with the result of a 

measurement that characterizes characterizing the dispersion of the quantity values that could reasonably 

be being attributed to a measurand, the measurance. based on the information used.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.19. Standard, Reference Measurement. – A measurement standard, generally of the highest 

metrological quality available at a given location, from which measurements made at that location are 

derived. designated for the calibration of other measurement standards for quantities of a given kind in a 

given organization or at a given location. The term “reference measurement standards” usually means the 

physical standards of the state that serve as the legal reference from which all other standards for weights and 

measures within that state are derived.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.20. Standard, Working Measurement. – A measurement standard that is usually calibrated against a 

reference standard, and is used routinely to calibrate or check material measures, measuring instruments 

or reference materials. verify measuring instruments or measuring systems. The term 

“working measurement standards” means the physical standards that are traceable to the reference standards 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 12

through comparisons calibrations or verifications, using acceptable laboratory procedures, and used in the 

enforcement of weights and measures laws and regulations.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.21. Metrological Traceability Chain. – Sequence of measurement standards and calibrations that is 

used to relate a measurement result to a reference.

(Added 20XX)

1.22. Metrological Traceability to a Measurement Unit. – Metrological traceability where the reference 

is the definition of a measurement unit through its practical realization.

(Added 20XX)

Background/Discussion: 

Harmonization of NCWM terminology with internationally accepted terminology helps promote global acceptance 

of U.S. products abroad. Proposed modifications could interfere with commonly used NCWM terminology/ 

concepts, but the presenter of this proposal believes that is not the case here.

1.14. Calibration. – An set of operations which establishes, under specified conditions, the relationship 

between values indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, or values represented by a 

material measure, and the corresponding known values of a measurand. operation that, under specified 

conditions, in a first step, establishes a relation between the quantity values with measurement 

uncertainties provided by measurement standards and corresponding indications with associated 

measurement uncertainties and, in a second step, uses this information to establish a relation for 

obtaining a measurement result from an indication.

NOTE 1: A calibration may be expressed by a statement, calibration function, calibration diagram, 

calibration curve, or calibration table. In some cases, it may consist of an additive or multiplicative 

correction of the indication with associated measurement uncertainty.

NOTE 2: Calibration should not be confused with adjustment of a measuring system, often mistakenly 

called “self-calibration”, nor with verification of calibration.

NOTE 3: Often, the first step alone in the above definition is perceived as being calibration.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.15. Metrological Traceability. – The property of the result of a measurement or the value of a

standard whereby it can be related to stated references, usually national or international standards, 

through an unbroken chain of comparisons all having stated uncertainties. property of a measurement 

result whereby the result can be related to a reference through a documented unbroken chain of 

calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty.

NOTE 1: For this definition, a “reference” can be a definition of a measurement unit through its 

practical realization, or a measurement procedure including the measurement unit for a non-ordinal 

quantity, or a measurement standard.

NOTE 2: Metrological traceability requires an established calibration hierarchy.

NOTE 3: Specification of the reference must include the time at which this reference was used in 

establishing the calibration hierarchy, along with any other relevant metrological information about the 

reference, such as when the first calibration in the calibration hierarchy was performed.

NOTE 4: For measurements with more than one input quantity in the measurement model, each of the 

input quantity values should itself be metrologically traceable and the calibration hierarchy involved may 

form a branched structure or a network. The effort involved in establishing metrological traceability for 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 13

each input quantity value should be commensurate with its relative contribution to the measurement

result.

NOTE 5: Metrological traceability of a measurement result does not ensure that the measurement 

uncertainty is adequate for a given purpose or that there is an absence of mistakes.

NOTE 6: A comparison between two measurement standards may be viewed as a calibration if the 

comparison is used to check and, if necessary, correct the quantity value and measurement uncertainty 

attributed to one of the measurement standards.

NOTE 7: The ILAC considers the elements for confirming metrological traceability to be an unbroken 

metrological traceability chain to an international measurement standard or a national measurement 

standard, a documented measurement uncertainty, a documented measurement procedure, accredited 

technical competence, metrological traceability to the SI, and calibration intervals (see ILAC P 10:2002).

NOTE 8: The abbreviated term “traceability” is sometimes used to mean “metrological traceability” as 

well as other concepts, such as “sample traceability” or “document traceability” or “instrument 

traceability” or “material traceability”, where the history (“trace”) of an item is meant. Therefore, the 

full term of “metrological traceability” is preferred if there is any risk of confusion.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.16. Measurement Uncertainty. – A parameter associated with the result of a measurement that 

characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurance. nonnegative parameter characterizing the dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to a measurand, 

based on the information used.

NOTE 1: Measurement uncertainty includes components arising from systematic effects, such as 

components associated with corrections and the assigned quantity values of measurement standards, as 

well as the definitional uncertainty. Sometimes estimated systematic effects are not corrected for but, 

instead, associated measurement uncertainty components are incorporated.

NOTE 2: The parameter may be, for example, a standard deviation called standard measurement 

uncertainty (or a specified multiple of it), or the half-width of an interval, having a stated coverage 

probability.

NOTE 3: Measurement uncertainty comprises, in general, many components. Some of these may be 

evaluated by Type A evaluation of measurement uncertainty from the statistical distribution of the 

quantity values from series of measurements and can be characterized by standard deviations. The other 

components, which may be evaluated by Type B evaluation of measurement uncertainty, can also be 

characterized by standard deviations, evaluated from probability density functions based on experience 

or other information.

NOTE 4: In general, for a given set of information, it is understood that the measurement uncertainty is 

associated with a stated quantity value attributed to the measurand. A modification of this value results 

in a modification of the associated uncertainty.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.19. Standard, Reference Measurement. – A standard, generally of the highest metrological quality 

available at a given location, from which measurements made at that location are derived. measurement

standard designated for the calibration of other measurement standards for quantities of a given kind in 

a given organization or at a given location. The term “reference standards” means the physical standards of 

the state that serve as the legal reference from which all other standards for weights and measures within that 

state are derived.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 14

1.20. Standard, Working Measurement. – A standard that is usually calibrated against a reference 

standard, and is used routinely to calibrate or check material measures, measuring instruments or 

reference materials. measurement standard that is used routinely to calibrate or verify measuring 

instruments or measuring systems. The term “working standards” means the physical standards that are 

traceable to the reference standards through comparisons, using acceptable laboratory procedures, and used in 

the enforcement of weights and measures laws and regulations.

NOTE 1: A working measurement standard is usually calibrated with respect to a reference 

measurement standard.

NOTE 2: In relation to verification, the terms “check standard” or “control standard” are also 

sometimes used.

(Added 2005, Amended 20XX) 

1.21. Metrological Traceability Chain. – Sequence of measurement standards and calibrations that is 

used to relate a measurement result to a reference.

NOTE 1: A metrological traceability chain is defined through a calibration hierarchy.

NOTE 2: A metrological traceability chain is used to establish metrological traceability of a measurement 

result.

NOTE 3: A comparison between two measurement standards may be viewed as a calibration if the 

comparison is used to check and, if necessary, correct the quantity value and measurement uncertainty 

attributed to one of the measurement standards.

(Added 20XX)

1.22. Metrological Traceability to a Measurement Unit. – Metrological traceability where the reference is 

the definition of a measurement unit through its practical realization.

NOTE 1: The expression “traceability to the SI” means “metrological traceability to a measurement unit 

of the International System of Units”.

(Added 20XX)

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, four state regulators commented that they do not support this proposal and 

asked why the international vocabulary could not align with NCWM. A state regulator asked that NIST, OWM 

provide examples of problems caused by the lack of alignment with these two publications. The CWMA

recommends this item be Withdrawn. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a county official supported the efforts to harmonize the relationship with 

international counterparts and believes this item should be supported on those grounds. The WWMA supports the 

idea of the proposal but would like to have staff review this item before proceeding. The WWMA’s

recommendation is to make this an Information Item.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the Committee recommended the item as a Developing Item. The NEWMA 

believes that uniformity of definitions in the international marketplace will result in less confusion.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual, no comments were heard. The SWMA would like to provide members more time for 

internal review and recommend the item be forwarded to NCWM as an Informational Item. 

At the 2012 Interim, the submitter explained that the proposal allows for alignment with the international 

definitions. There is concern that the international language does not conform to existing language in HB 130. The 

language appears to be too complicated and could cause misinterpretation. The Committee is recommending that 

this language be returned to the submitter for formatting, and language review. They would like the submitter to 

share the document at the 2012 CWMA and NEWMA Annual meetings. The 2012 L&R Committee recommended
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 15

this item be considered as a Developing Item. At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, NEWMA supported this item 

and recommended that it be further developed.

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, a NIST Technical Advisor submitted modified definitions and provided 

additional background information. 

Background of each definition (May 2012) 

1.14. Calibration. – Justification to amend the definition:

This revision updates the current definition by clarifying that a calibration not only involves comparing 

indications of measuring instruments with corresponding values (and uncertainties) of measurement standards, 

but also involves using these comparisons in an “inverse” manner, in order to be able to assign a measured 

value and measurement uncertainty to an item being measured by the measuring instrument, based on the 

indication of the measuring instrument. By updating this definition, UWML will recognize that calibration 

involves a two-step process.

1.15. Metrological Traceability. – Justification to amend the definition:

This revision will update the current definition in four significant ways. First, in the 2008 VIM, “measurement 

result” means a value and an uncertainty (not just a value, as it meant in the 1993 VIM), so that traceability now 

applies to both the value and the uncertainty. Second, it is recognized that any acceptable “reference” can be 

used, and it doesn’t have to be a national or international standard. Third, the unbroken chain has to be 

documented, which wasn’t specified in the 1993 definition. And fourth, the chain is a chain of calibrations, and 

not just comparisons. This is to recognize that a comparison alone is not sufficient for traceability, since a 

comparison does not result in values being transferred along the chain (as a calibration does). Also, the term 

“Metrological” is added in front of “Traceability” in order to distinguish this type of traceability from other 

types (e.g., document traceability). By updating this definition, the UWML will be consistent with international 

practice, such as used in documents from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and 

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) that pertain to accreditation requirements for (state) metrology 

laboratories (e.g., ISO/IEC 17025).

1.16. Measurement Uncertainty. – Justification to amend the definition:

This revision updates the current definition by first clarifying that a measurement uncertainty cannot be 

negative, and also by removing “that could reasonably be attributed,” which some people found to be confusing. 

The term “Measurement” was added in order to distinguish this type of uncertainty from other types. The 

advantage to updating this definition is that the revisions will bring it into agreement with the 2008 VIM 

definition. 

1.19. Standard, Reference Measurement. – Justification to amend the definition:

This revision will update the current definition in two ways. First, it would no longer be required that a 

reference measurement standard be of the highest quality available (for example, it could be lower in a 

metrological traceability chain). Second, it is specified that a reference measurement standard is intended to be 

used for calibration of other measurement standards (as opposed to being used to make routine measurements). 

The term “Measurement” was added to the term in order to distinguish this type of reference standard from 

other types. Updating this definition will reflect current international agreement about reference measurement 

standards that is consistent with the 2008 VIM.

1.20. Standard, Working Measurement. – Justification to amend the definition:

This revision will update the current definition in two ways. First, a working standard would no longer be 

required to be directly calibrated by a reference standard (it could, for example, be calibrated by another 

working standard). Also, this revision will clarify that a working standard can be used for both calibration and 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 16

verification. The word “Measurement” was added in order to distinguish this type of standard from other types 

of working standards. By updating this definition, the UWML will reflect current international agreement about 

working measurement standards that is consistent with the 2008 VIM.

1.21. Metrological Traceability Chain. – Justification to add the following definition to the UWML:

This is a new definition for that is intended to support the revision to the definition of “metrological 

traceability” by explaining what is meant in the definition by “chain.” By adding this definition, the UWML 

will reflect current international agreement on traceability that is consistent with ISO and IEC documents that 

pertain to accreditation requirements for (state) metrology laboratories.

1.22. Metrological Traceability to a Measurement Unit. – Justification to add the following definition to the 

UWML:

This is a new definition that is intended to support the revision to the definition of “metrological traceability” by 

explaining what is meant by the expression “traceability to the SI”. For example, “(metrological) traceability to 

the SI” means metrological traceability to the definition of the measurement unit “kilogram” (kg) through the 

practical realization of the kg at NIST, obtained by calibration of a NIST mass artifact, having a mass of about 

1 kg, against the international kilogram in Paris. By adding this definition to the UWML, it will reflect current 

international agreement on traceability that is consistent with ISO and IEC documents that pertain to 

accreditation requirements for (state) metrology laboratories.

The CWMA requested that the submitter of the proposal provide a presentation at the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting 

that will brief the Conference on the changes and effects to each definition to help provide clarity. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Dr. Charles Ehrlich provided an update as to the purpose of this item. Dr. 

Ehrlich informed the Committee that he will provide a presentation at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting that will 

give further explanation for each definition. The L&R Committee recommended that the modified definitions

provided at the CWMA Annual Meeting be considered. The L&R Committee agreed to modify the language 

submitted by Dr. Charles Ehrlich and that language is reflected under the Item Under Consideration.

231 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING 

REGULATION (UPLR)

231-1 I Sections 6.12. Supplementary Quantity Declarations and 6.14. Qualification of 

Declaration Prohibited 

Source: 

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Purpose: 

Provide clearer language to help guide industry and state officials when federal agencies are inconsistent in their 

interpretations, and this proposal provides better guidance. 

Item Under Consideration: 

6.12. Supplementary Quantity Declarations. – The required quantity declaration may be supplemented by 

one or more declarations of weight, measure, or count, such declaration appearing other than on a principal 

display panel. Such supplemental statement of quantity of contents shall not include any term qualifying a unit 

of weight, measure, or count that tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity contained in the package 

(e.g., “giant” quart, “larger” liter, “full” gallon, “when packed,” “minimum,” “equivalent,” “lasts the same 

as,” or words of similar import).
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 17

6.14. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited. – In no case shall any declaration of quantity be qualified by 

the addition of the words “when packed,” “minimum,” or “not less than,” “equivalent,” or “lasts the same 

as,” or any words of similar import (e.g., “approximately”), nor shall any unit of weight, measure, or count be 

qualified by any term (e.g., “jumbo,” “giant,” “full,” or the like) that tends to exaggerate the amount of 

commodity.

(Amended 1998 and 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Manufacturers are using the terms “equivalent” or “lasts the same as” to qualify net weight statements. Clearer 

language is needed to provide consumers with better information. Industries and state officials need better guidance 

for product labeling. Currently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does not consider the terms “equivalent,” or 

“lasts the same as” exaggerated or misleading.

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator presented an example of a label (refer to Appendix A in the 

Report of the 96th NCWM [SP 1125, 2011) that was perceived as mislabeled. It was agreed that no conflicting 

information regarding the net weight statement should be in the lower one-third of the principal display panel (PDP). 

The CWMA forwarded this item to NCWM, recommending it move forward as a Voting Item.

 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 18

 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, it was reported that this language was lifted straight out of the Fair Packaging 

and Labeling Act (FPLA), and if modified, states could run into problems with their investigations. A NIST 

Technical Advisor stated that language “lasts the same as” or “equivalent” is in the marketplace, which may be

misleading to consumers. The Committee was reminded that the lower 30 % of the principal display panel should 

be free of supplementary quantity declarations as specified in the UPLR, in Section 6.12. Supplementary Quantity 

Declarations.

The NIST Technical Advisor remarked that the section was amended in 1998 to include the term “approximately” 

(which is not included in the Federal Regulations) as a prohibited term. There has been no indication that the 

differences between the UPLR and Federal Regulations are being challenged. It was also recommended that FTC be 

notified that this is an issue before the Conference. The Committee recommends that the item under consideration 

be an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, there was a recommendation to obtain additional data from the submitter of 

the proposal along with clarification from the Federal Trade Commission on their letter dated November 4, 2010. 

No additional comments were heard on this item. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item be 

Informational. 

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting, the submitter of the proposal commented that the terms “last the same as” and 

“equivalent to” are not quantity statements and should not be in the net quantity of the principle display panel area. 

The CWMA L&R Committee finds that this will be helpful for enforcement issues and recommended that this item 

be Informational.

At the 2011 NCWM National Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The Committee received a 

letter from Clorox, stating the term “lasts the same as” is being removed from their packaging. The Committee 

would like to receive additional input from the fall 2011 regional meetings on this item. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, several state regulators voiced support of the item and want clear cut 

guidelines for enforcement. Additionally, regulators would like to see the FTC follow suit in federal law. One state 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 19

regulator recommended that the item be referred to the Package and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS). The CWMA

supports this item and recommends moving it forward as a Voting Item with no language changes.

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments. The WWMA concurs with the FTC findings that 

the terms are not misleading. The added terms are deemed a quality statement rather than a quantity statement. 

WWMA recommended that the item be Withdrawn.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, no comments were made and the Committee maintained a neutral position. 

NEWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational Item.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments heard from the floor. The SWMA L&R Committee 

supports the proposal as written and recommends the item move forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, an industry representative commented that exaggerated and misleading terms 

need to be addressed. He contends that in the marketplace it is becoming commonplace to see supplemental 

information appearing on the front of the principal display panel (PDP). Mr. Guay, PALS Chair, is recommending 

the PALS Committee develops this item to provide additional guidance. The 2012 L&R Committee is 

recommending that this item be Informational and assigned to PALS for further development.

At the 2012 NEWMA and the CWMA Annual Meetings, both regions supported the development of this item 

through the PALS. At the CWMA Meeting, Mr. Guay remarked that the PALS has just been formed and have not 

had an opportunity to meet. However, during the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, he provided an update in which he 

stated this item had been reviewed by the Subcommittee. PALS is planning to provide the NCWM L&R Committee 

with governing principles regarding claims on packages, and to develop a series of recommendations regarding best 

practices for these types of label statements. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. Please refer to refer 

to Appendix A in the Report of the 96th Annual NCWM Conference [SP1125, 2011] to review supporting 

documentation.

231-2 I Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers

Source: 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Standards (2012)

Purpose: 

To allow the quantity statement in terms of weight for packages utilizing the Bag on Valve (BOV) technology, 

where the propellant is not expelled when the valve is activated. NIST HB 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulations, Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers require aerosols and similar pressurized 

containers that expel the propellant along with the product to disclose the net quantity in terms of weight.

Item Under Consideration: 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

and on a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in 

terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed.

10.3.1. Products labeled non Aerosols in Similar Pressurized Containers (bag on valve [BOV] does 

not expel propellant with product). – The declaration of quantity shall disclose the net quantity of the 

commodity in terms of fluid measure.

Background/Discussion: 

There are a number of products currently in the marketplace bearing quantity statements in terms of fluid measure 

that utilize the BOV technology. Value comparison of these products which are non-aerosol by definition because 

the propellant is not dispensed with the product is not possible, as the products using the BOV technology cannot be 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 20

compared with the traditional aerosol packaged product because the propellant is included in the net weight and is 

dispensed with the product. In the example below, two similar products are pictured; however, the one on the right 

is labeled by net weight and the one on the left is labeled by liquid measure. 

BOV technology is environmentally friendlier because the propellant is not dispensed with the product. Products 

utilizing the BOV technology only expel the product as the product is contained in a bag which is surrounded by the 

propellant inside the container. In April 2011, NIST, OWM received a letter supporting labeling of certain products 

such as the “Pure Citrus” product pictured above by liquid measure.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, the CWMA agreed that the proposal did not include a specific 

recommendation for the language for the amendment to NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulations, Section 10.3., Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers and recommended that the item be returned 

to the submitter for Development. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a comment from industry stated there are currently products in the 

marketplace that are similar but delivered in a different fashion. This should be looked at to account for new 

technology in the marketplace. Ms. Lisa Warfield, the NIST Technical Advisor read from the 2011 NEWMA 

Annual Report that recommends that the words “non-aerosol” be printed on the label so that inspectors know to test 

by fluid measure. The Committee believes there may be some confusion to the different unit pricing units but that 

consumers will be able to determine that there is new technology to expel the product. BOV technology currently 

exists in the marketplace and a proper method of sale is needed. The WWMA Committee recommends forwarding 

this item to NCWM as a Voting Item with the language modifications reflected below:

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package and 

on a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in 

terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed. 

10.3.1. Products labeled non Aerosols in Similar Pressurized Containers (bag on valve [BOV] does 

not expel propellant with product). – The declaration of quantity shall disclose the net quantity of the 

commodity in terms of fluid measure.

After the recommendation, additional comments were accepted. A county official was troubled with the wording 

“non-aerosol” and thought the intent of the proposal was to allow people to comparison shop between aerosols and 

non-aerosols. A county official stated the product could be measured by the liquid. A retired NIST, OWM 

employee questioned how it was measured. A county official wanted to know whether the entire product was 

expelled when empty. A county official stated that this was not ready for status as a Voting Item. The WWMA 

L&R Committee met briefly and decided to change the recommendation to a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, it was stated that testing for content could be problematic and that marking 

on the package should be net weight of product only, not including propellant which is not part of product. The 

Committee believes there is better comparison of net contents of product being sold if words “NON-AEROSOL 

PRODUCT” are added to product label. The recommendation is to move the item to a Voting Item with the 

following revision to add to the container language “A NON-AEROSOL” product.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 21

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, concern was expressed by an industry weights and measures consultant over 

an acceptable test procedure that would be used if volume was permitted. The NIST Technical Advisor noted that 

no specific language has been proposed and that UPLR Section 6.4., Terms: Weight, Measures, Volume, or Count 

declares that “any net content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparison is forbidden.” It was 

further noted that NIST Handbook 130, Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers apply to aerosols 

and similar pressurized containers. One manufacturer has provided input to this proposal. The National Aerosol 

Association (NAA) has been contacted for input into this proposal. Preliminary comment by NAA is that BOV 

technology or versions of it has been around since the 1990s. The NAA board member believes BOV technology is 

considered an aerosol, basing his opinion on a California Air Resources Board Regulation. The SWMA Committee 

requested that specific language be developed for this item and a complete response from the NAA. They also noted 

that test procedures will need to be discussed if a volume statement is to be considered. SWMA forwarded the item 

to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NCWM L&R Committee reviewed several letters from different 

manufacturers that utilize the BOV technology in which they recommended the appropriate method of sale for BOV 

style packaging to be volume. Concern was expressed that consumers would not be able to make value comparisons 

if similar items had different units of measure. 

A presentation provided by Mr. Paul Van Slyke with Lock Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP/Blue Magic, Inc., indicated

they believe that BOV does not fall under the aerosol guidelines. The reasoning is that a BOV container does not 

expel propellant with the product and, therefore, it inherently has less net weight. They believe that consumers do 

not have sufficient information to know differences between aerosols and BOV products. Mr. Van Slyke 

recommended two solutions amending the UPLR language as follows: 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

and on a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including 

propellant), in terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the 

container are followed, provided however that containers that separate propellant from the expelled 

product so that propellant is not expelled (such as containers using bag-on-valve technology) may be 

labeled either with weight or volume of the quantity of the commodity that will be expelled.

or

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

and on a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including 

propellant), in terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the 

container are followed.

10.3.1. Containers that separate propellant from the expelled product so that the propellant 

is not expelled (such as containers using bag-on-valve technology) shall be prominently 

labeled NON-AEROSOL. The declaration of quantity shall disclose the net quantity of the 

commodity in terms of fluid measure.

Mr. Doug Raymond, National Aerosol Association (NAA) gave a presentation in which he reported his association’s 

position is that a container using BOV technology is an aerosol and its net quantity needs to be declared in terms of 

net weight. He remarked that bag on valve technology (BOV) has been around for twenty plus years and is not new 

to the marketplace. Various products are packaged using the bag on valve (BOV) technology (e.g., sunscreen, 

wound washes, shaving cream, and car products). Different aerosol forms use liquid gas, compressed gases and in 

barrier forms using Sepro, bladder, and BOV. Mr. Raymond also stated that BOV and non-BOV products are 

designed to expel their products equally. He also claimed that classifying a BOV container as a non-aerosol is 

misleading and a safety concern since this product is pressurized.

A county regulator agreed that BOV containers should be labeled and tested by net weight. He remarked that test 

procedures need to be clarified for BOV containers. For example, should the bag be removed from the canister to 

recover the product?
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 22

Concern was also expressed that consumers would be confused if they encountered similar products with different 

unit pricing and if the products contents are labeled differently. The BOV proposal that was represented during the 

2012 NCWM Interim Meeting was based upon the views of the room air fresheners industry only. 

The Committee would like to have a better understanding of the variety and type of products in the marketplace and 

what is under current development. Clarification is needed for the term “similar products” (i.e., what products meet 

this classification as defined in NIST Handbook 130, UPLR, Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized 

Containers). The Committee is also requesting from NIST, OWM clarification on the definition of aerosol and a 

review for any updates to NIST Handbook 130, Interpretations and Guidelines, Section 2.2.7. Aerosol Packaged 

Products. The Committee made this an Informational Item. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, it was discussed that there is a conflict with the declaration of content labels 

in the marketplace between aerosols and bag on valve (BOV) products. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, a NIST Technical Advisor stated that the FDA compliance department is 

reviewing their regulations to see if there is a conflict. NIST has been in contact with the National Aerosol 

Association, and they will have a representative at the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Douglas Raymond, representing the National Aerosol Association, 

reported that the association is currently working with marketers, companies, and other trade associations, and NAA 

will provide an update on their position on this item at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting. The Committee received 

and reviewed five letters on this matter.

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to Appendix B in the Report of the 96th Annual NCWM Conference (SP1125, 

2011) and Appendix A in this document for additional content.

231-3 V Section 10.11. Statements of Cubic Measure in Compressed Form

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

American Wood Fibers (2012)

Purpose: 

Disallow pre-compression volume statements on packages of compressed animal bedding.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Packaging and Labeling Regulation, Section 10.11. Statements of Cubic Measures in 

Compressed Form. Delete Section 10.11. in its entirety: 

Delete Section 10.11. in its entirety:

10.11. Statements of Cubic Measure in Compressed Form. When the content declaration on a 

commodity sold in compressed form is stated in terms of cubic measure, an additional statement may 

indicate the amount of material from which the final product was compressed. The amount in such 

statement shall not exceed the actual amount of material that can be recovered. 

(Added 1993) 

Background/Discussion: 

Pre-compression volume statements for compressed animal bedding do not provide consumers with information 

with which to make fair comparisons of similar products, and may be considered deceptive, since the precompressed volume cannot be verified and the usable recovered volume is smaller than the pre-compressed volume. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 23

There is no way for inspectors to field test the pre-compression statement. Pre-compression statements are not in 

keeping with NIST Handbook 130, Package and Labeling Regulation, 6.14. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited 

that states, “In no case shall any declaration of quantity be qualified by the addition of the words ‘when packed’.”

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative stated that declaring a pre-compressed volume is 

potentially deceptive, and that consumers and inspectors cannot verify. The SWMA L&R Committee believes if 

pre-compressed volume cannot be verified it should not be stated on packages. SWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed the entire submitted proposal which included 

modifications to Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.23. Animal Bedding (refer to Item 232-3). The Committee 

agreed to move this item forward for a Voting Item.

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were received on this item. The NEWMA recommends this 

item be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, a state regulator remarked that allowing a third declaration of pre-compressed 

volume confuses the consumer and a pre-compressed volume statement is not relevant to the usable volume.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, a county regulator commented that having a pre-compressed statement is 

meaningless and supports a proposal to prohibit a declaration of pre-compressed volume statement on animal 

bedding.

232 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF 

SALE 

232-1 V Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (2010)

Purpose:

Update HB 130, Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight to provide new density values for heavier density plastics 

that is currently in the marketplace. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight as follows: 

2.13.4. Declaration of Weight. – The labeled statement of weight for polyethylene sheeting and film products 

under Section 2.13.1.1. Sheeting and Film, and 2.13.3.1. Bags shall be equal to or greater than the weight 

calculated by using the formula below. The final value shall be calculated to four digits, and declared to three 

digits, dropping the final digit as calculated (for example, if the calculated value is 2.078 lb, then the declared 

net weight shall be 2.07 lb).

For SI dimensions:

 M = T × A × D/1000, where:

 M = net mass in kilograms

 T = nominal thickness in centimeters

 A = nominal length in centimeters times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 122] in centimeters
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 24

D = minimum density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined defined by ASTM Standard 

D1505 10, “Standard Test Method for Density of Plastics by the Density-Gradient Technique” 

(2010 or latest issue) and ASTM Standard D883, “Standard Terminology Relating to 

Plastics” (2011 or latest issue).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear low density (D) polyethylene plastics 

(LLDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear medium density (D) polyethylene 

plastics (LMDPE) shall be 0.93 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear high density (D) polyethylene plastics 

(HDPE) shall be 0.94 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For inch-pound dimensions:

 W = T × A × 0.03613 × D, where:

 W = net weight in pounds;

 T = nominal thickness in inches;

 A = nominal length in inches times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 123] in inches;

 D = minimum density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined defined by ASTM Standard 

D1505 68, Standard Test Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient 

Technique (2010 or latest issue); and ASTM Standard D883, “Standard Terminology 

Relating to Plastics” (2011 or latest issue); and 

0.03613 the factor for converting g/cm3 to lb/in3 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear low density (D) polyethylene plastics 

(LLDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear medium density (D) polyethylene 

plastics (LMDPE) shall be 0.93 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear high density (D) polyethylene plastics 

(HDPE) shall be 0.94 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

(Added 1977) (Amended 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993, and 20XX) 

NOTE 6: The nominal width for bags in this calculation is twice the labeled width.

Background/Discussion: 

It was stated at the 2009 WWMA Annual Meeting that manufacturers and distributors of polyethylene bags are 

using the calculated target weight identified in NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale,

Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weights, to understate the net quantity of their labels. The polyethylene industry 

recognizes a density value of 0.92 g/cm3 for linear low density polyethylene (LLDP) products. When 0.92 g/cm3 is 

used to calculate the target net weight of high density polyethylene (HDPE), the product may make the target net 

weight. However, when the appropriate density value of 0.95 g/cm3 is used to test HDPE, the product often fails to 

meet the calculated target net weight. Further testing reveals than one or more of the labeled width, thickness, or 

count statements are inaccurate. It appears that some manufacturers are aware that weights and measures officials 

are restricted to testing HDPE product using the 0.92 g/cm3 value, because the actual density value is not stated on 

the product label. Existing procedural guidelines do not address HDPE materials. When testing at manufacturing 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 25

locations, weights and measures officials are able to obtain information regarding the density of the product directly 

from the manufacturer. However, at distributor locations density information is not available and officials must test 

using the 0.92 g/cm3 value designated in NIST Handbooks 130 and 133 to verify the weight of the product. When 

the product has no net weight statement on the package, 0.92 g/cm3 is the only factor that the inspector may use to 

calculate the target net weight.

Initial proposal submitted in 2009:

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4. as follows: 

2.13.4. Declaration of Weight. – The labeled statement of weight for polyethylene sheeting and film products 

under Sections 2.13.1.1. Sheeting and Film, and 2.13.3.1. Bags, shall be equal to or greater than the weight 

calculated by using the formula below. The final value shall be calculated to four digits, and declared to three 

digits, dropping the final digit as calculated (for example, if the calculated value is 2.078 lb, then the declared 

net weight shall be 2.07 lb).

For SI dimensions:

M = T × A × D/1000, where:

M = net mass in kilograms

T = nominal thickness in centimeters

A = nominal length in centimeters times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 122] in centimeters

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, Standard 

Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique (or latest issue)

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not labeled on the package, known, the minimum density (D) 

used to calculate the target net weight for linear low density polyethylene products (LLPD) and products 

other than high density (HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). For products labeled High 

Density (HDPE) or similar wording, which does not specify the minimum density (D) on the package 

label, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

For inch-pound dimensions:

W = T × A × 0.03613 × D, where:

W = net weight in pounds;

T = nominal thickness in inches;

A = nominal length in inches times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 122] in inches;

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, Standard 

Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique (or latest issue); 

and 0.03613 is a factor for converting g/cm3 to lb/in3

. 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3

. 

(Added 1977) (Amended 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993, and 201X) 

NOTE 6: The nominal width for bags in this calculation is twice the labeled width.

The 2009 WWMA Annual Meeting, the Committee supported the following with changes as presented below. 

WWMA forwarded the item as amended to NCWM, recommending it be a Voting Item: 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 26

2.13.4. Declaration of Weight. – The labeled statement ...

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3.

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight as follows:

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not known, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the 

target net weight for linear low polyethylene products (LLDP) and products other than high density 

(HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). For products labeled “High Density,” HDPE, or 

similar wording, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

The 2009 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the Committee forwarded the item to NCWM, with the recommendation that it 

be a Developing Item. 

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for changing the density factor from 0.92 g/cm3 

to 0.95 g/cm3 on this item. A county commissioner (California) indicated that the information provided by the 

WWMA was data extracted from Internet searches. Manufacturers are complaining that under current practice they 

cannot compete fairly. Mr. Jackelen urged the Committee to reject this proposal. Mr. Jackelen stated that 

0.92 g/cm3 density currently works for manufacturers and changing it to 0.95 g/cm3 will cause undue cost and waste. 

Most manufacturers do not make high density (HD) bags, but are producing blends. According to Mr. Jackelen, 

another reason to reject the proposal is if the 0.95 g/cm3 bag is punctured, it continues to tear.

A state official commented that if you use the term HD, then you are bound by the 0.95 g/cm3. If you use the 

length × width × thickness × density to determine the net weight, then the density value needs to be added on the 

package labeling. A state official said that manufacturers should consider disclosing the density factor on every 

product as part of the labeling. It was voiced that if there are questions about an absolute 0.95 g/cm3 density, then 

there should be an alternative. Another state official commented that the 0.95 g/cm3 will be factored in only when 

the density is not known. The Committee received letters that were reviewed on this item. The Committee 

recommended moving the item under consideration forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting, there was concern that there appears to be a lack of data on this item. It was 

not reviewed by all regions, nor was it presented to industry to seek comments. The NEWMA L&R Committee felt 

that this item was not an emergency and wanted the opportunity to review comments received from all the regions 

and industry.

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting, the CWMA heard no comments on this item and recommends moving it 

forward as a Voting Item.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard from Mr. Jackelen who opposed this item and requested 

that it be Withdrawn. Mr. Jackelen believes this proposal will have a detrimental effect because can liners are made 

of natural gas and oil and the cost of these two items are increasing. Currently, the 0.92 g/cm3 is an established 

practice in industry and the marketplace, and is used to set the bottom weight. Changing this density will cause 

confusion. Mr. Jackelen clarified that high density (HD) does not mean it is a better density. There are other linear 

bags that have higher quality than HD. As far as sustainability, if 0.95 g/cm3 is the established requirement it will 

cause an additional 12 million pounds of trash to be generated. 

An official countered that the intent of this proposal is to provide the inspectors with information. There is fraud in 

the marketplace on these types of items and additional information is warranted. A director recommends that a 

minor amendment be done to the item under consideration, and insert “for products labeled HD when the D is not on 

the package label use 0.95 g/cm3.” Also, use a similar statement “if the packer or manufacturer does not disclose the 

density then use 0.95 g/cm3.” The director pointed out that it is not the role of the Conference to address quality 

issues, but to have a level playing field for inspectors to test a product. Another official remarked that companies 

need to identify their product on the container, and inspectors will use what density is disclosed.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 27

The Committee received one letter asking for the withdrawal of this item, and California submitted material safety 

data sheets from several companies. The Committee considered comments received and agreed that more work was 

needed so the item was changed to an Informational status.

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The CWMA recommends that 

this item remain an Informational Item. 

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a state official commented that 10 companies have filed complaints 

concerning products being mislabeled, where the density was unknown. A state official submitted new language to 

replace a portion of language within the item under consideration. Two county officials spoke in support of the 

amended item, which would assist weights and measures officials in the field. A county official submitted a letter of 

support. The WWMA recommends that the amended language move forward as a Voting Item as amended with the 

SI dimensions included.

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight as follows:

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not labeled on the package, known, the minimum density (D) 

used to calculate the target net weight for linear low density polyethylene products (LLPD) and products 

other than high density (HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). For products labeled High 

Density (HDPE) or similar wording, which does not specify the minimum density (D) on the package 

label, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The SWMA would like to seek 

additional comments from industry, other than material safety data sheets. The SWMA recommends that the item 

move forward as an Informational item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting held in Norwich, Connecticut, they noted that this proposal is confusing and 

that additional work needs to be done to clarify the impact of the proposed changes on manufacturers and 

consumers. The NEWMA recommends this move forward as a Developing item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Jackelen restated that this item, as written, will have a detrimental effect 

on the industry due to the high cost of plastics. Mr. Jackelen further explained that high density plastics are of 

higher quality, but are of a thinner gauge which subjects it to tearing. A state regulator stated that the WWMA 

recommended a change to the language for specifying that only when the density is not known or not labeled then 

the 0.95 g/cm3 would apply. 

The Committee agreed that adding a requirement, which gives the manufacturer the option of providing the actual 

density of the plastic provides flexibility for industry and will assist weights and measures officials to ensure the 

accuracy of quantity declarations. The Committee recommends the revised language under consideration from the 

WWMA move forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA and the CWMA Annual Meetings, there were no comments heard on this item. Both 

associations recommended this item be a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, it was noted that there is a corresponding test procedure proposal on the

agenda under Item 260-2. Mr. Jackelen stated that if such a proposal passes it would have a detrimental effect on 

the plastics industry. This product is currently being made from oil and gas, both of which prices have skyrocketed. 

By adopting the 0.95 g/cm3 density, an additional 12 million pounds of plastics would be added into the marketplace 

and ultimately landfills at current productions rates. Current industry practice is 0.92 g/cm3 for high density

polyethylene. Introducing a change will only confuse the marketplace. A director spoke in support of this proposal 

saying it will give weights and measures officials a tool to check non-consumer packages. It was emphasized that 

“D” could be stated on the product, but, if not, officials need a density factor in order to conduct inspections. This 

director also reminded everyone that this issue is about accuracy and not quality. Another director expressed 

concern with the term “when D is not known.” Currently 0.92 g/cm3 is the lower density rating, when “D” is not 

known, the proposed language will allow industry to use densities lower than 0.92 g/cm3. A letter from industry was 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 28

received stating that 0.95 g/cm3 may not represent the density of HDPW currently in the marketplace. Industry 

indicated that 0.948 g/cm3 is a more accurate factor. The Committee believes that additional data from industry 

needs to be received on the density factors before proceeding with this item. The Committee returned this item back 

to Informational status.

At the 2011 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings, both associations recommended keeping this item as an 

Informational Item based on testimony at the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting.

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Jackelen commented that he does not support this proposal. A state 

official commented that the formula for testing polyethylene is used to minimize destructive testing being 

performed, also serving to speed up the inspection process. A county official recommends that a subsection (E) 

“Density” be added to NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Sections 2.13.1.1. Sheeting and Film and 

2.13.3.1. Bags add a subsection (f) “Density.” This will require manufacturers to place the density on the labeling.

The WWMA L&R Committee reviewed the ASTM definitions for high density, low density, and medium density. 

It was agreed that the use of the ASTM defined density would clarify the proposal. The WWMA L&R Committee 

took the existing language out of NIST Handbook 130 (2011) and edited as shown below. The WWMA

recommends moving the item forward as a Vote as amended below:

2.13.4. Declaration of Weight. – The labeled statement of weight for polyethylene sheeting and film products 

under Section 2.13.1.1. Sheeting and Film, and 2.13.3.1. Bags, shall be equal to or greater than the weight 

calculated by using the formula below. The final value shall be calculated to four digits, and declared to three 

digits, dropping the final digit as calculated (for example, if the calculated value is 2.078 lb, then the declared 

net weight shall be 2.07 lb).

For SI dimensions:

M = T × A × D/1000, where:

M = net mass in kilograms

T = nominal thickness in centimeters

A = nominal length in centimeters times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 123] in centimeters

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined defined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, 

Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique D883 

(2011), Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics (or latest issue)

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear low density polyethylene plastics, 

(LLDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear medium density polyethylene plastics, 

(LMDPE) shall be 0.93 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear high density polyethylene plastics, 

(HDPE) shall be 0.94 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For inch-pound dimensions: 

W = T × A × 0.03613 × D, where:

W = net weight in pounds

T = nominal thickness in inches;
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 29

A = nominal length in inches times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 123] in inches

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined defined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, 

Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique D883 

(2011), Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics (or latest issue); and 0.03613 is a factor 

for converting g/cm3 to lb/in3

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear low density polyethylene plastics, 

(LLDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear medium density polyethylene plastics, 

(LMDPE) shall be 0.93 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear high density polyethylene plastics, 

(HDPE) shall be 0.94 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

(Added 1977) (Amended 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993, and 20XX) 

NOTE 6: The nominal width for bags in this calculation is twice the labeled width.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were heard. The SWMA supported the item as written pending 

clarification of high density. SWMA recommended the item move forward as a Voting Item.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed OWM Publication 15 (2012) Item Under 

Consideration: 

NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 2.13.4.: 

2.13.4. Declaration of Weight. – The labeled statement of weight for polyethylene sheeting and film products 

under Sections 2.13.1.1. Sheeting and Film and 2.13.3.1. Bags, shall be equal to or greater than the weight 

calculated by using the formula below. The final value shall be calculated to four digits, and declared to three 

digits, dropping the final digit as calculated (for example, if the calculated value is 2.078 lb, then the declared 

net weight shall be 2.07 lb).

For SI dimensions:

M = T × A × D/1000, where:

M = net mass in kilograms

T = nominal thickness in centimeters

A = nominal length in centimeters times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 122] in centimeters

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505 -68, Standard 

Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique (2010 or latest issue)

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not known, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the 

target net weight for linear low polyethylene products (LLPD) and products other than high density 

(HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). 

For products labeled High Density (HDPE) or similar wording, the minimum density (D) used to 

calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 30

For inch-pound dimensions:

W = T × A × 0.03613 × D, where:

W = net weight in pounds;

T = nominal thickness in inches;

A = nominal length in inches times nominal width [NOTE 6, page 123] in inches;

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505 68, Standard 

Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique (2010 or latest issue); 

and 0.03613 is a factor for converting g/cm3 to lb/in3

. 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3

. 

(Added 1977) (Amended 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993, and 20XX) 

NOTE 6: The nominal width for bags in this calculation is twice the labeled width.

Mike Jackelen commented that the information he previously submitted letters to the Committee is still valid. He 

stated that if this item is passed it will have a detrimental effect on industry. Can liners are made from oil and gas 

which have drastically increased in price. Mr. Jackelen also spoke in regards to the 2011 WWMA language, and 

that the medium density is not being manufactured or used in the marketplace

An official urged that the Committee move the language from the 2011 WWMA forward as a Voting Item. The 

2012 L&R Committee designated this item as a Voting Item using language received from the 2011 WWMA along 

with editorial privileges to add reference to ASTM D1505 and ASTM D883.

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting NEWMA received a comment on whether a 0.093 g/cm3 density resolves the 

issue. It was discussed that this allows the density to meet an ASTM standard. The NEWMA recommended that 

this item be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, the CWMA recommended this item be considered for adoption at the 2012 

NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Jackelen with Berry Plastics opposed this item for several reasons; 

various blends that are made from natural resources; oil and gas, a 0.92 g/cm3 density sets the bottom limit, 

sustainability in creating waste and consumer confusion. Mr. Jackelen has submitted letters regarding his objections

to the Committee, which are on record in the Report of the 96th NCWM (SP 1125, 2011). Several state and county 

regulators support this item since the formula for testing polyethylene is used to minimize destructive testing being 

performed; also, serving to speed up the inspection process. 

After discussing the comments from the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings and the proposed changes, 

the Committee agreed to modify the language in its interim report to that shown in this final report in the Item Under 

Consideration. This will provide densities that are representative of the actual densities use by manufacturers to 

improve the usability of the weight calculations. The Committee made two editorial changes to the item to align 

with the ASTM standard: 1) replace the term “products” with “plastics”; and 2) remove the word “linear” from the 

definition of high density polyethylene. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. Please refer to 

Appendix I, Report of the 95th NCWM (SP 1115, 2010) and Appendix B in the Report of the 96th NCWM

(SP 1125, 2011) for additional content.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 31

232-2 V Section 2.19. Kerosene

(This item was adopted.) 

Source:

Kansas Department of Agriculture (2012)

Purpose: 

Establish a method of retail sale for bulk Kerosene.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation as follows:

2.19. Kerosene. – All kerosene kept, offered, exposed for sale, or sold shall be identified as such and will 

include, with the word kerosene, an indication of its compliance with the standard specification adopted by 

ASTM International (ASTM) in Specification number D3699 (2008 or latest revision).

Example: 1K Kerosene; Kerosene - 2K.

(Added 1983)

2.19.1. Retail Sale from Bulk. – All kerosene kept, offered, or exposed for sale and sold from bulk at 

retail shall be in terms of the gallon or liter.

(Added 2012) 

Background/Discussion: 

No method of sale regulation exists for kerosene except for labeling. Some individuals want to sell kerosene by 

weight which would frustrate price and quantity comparison. This proposal would better define the method of sale.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, there were several comments from state regulators expressing concerns such 

as the lack of recognition of the metric unit, bulk sales, and reference temperatures for prepackaged containers and 

whether this is prohibitive of selling by weight. Kerosene is a dwindling market and the cost of a meter could be 

prohibitive. The preponderance of comments received indicates this item needs more development. THE CWMA

did not forward the item to NCWM and recommended that the item be returned to submitter for development.

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a comment was made that the metric equivalent needs to be stated. The 

WWMA forwarded this item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item as it appears below.

2.19. Kerosene. – All kerosene kept, offered, exposed for sale, or sold shall be identified as such and will 

include, with the word kerosene, an indication of its compliance with the standard specification adopted by 

ASTM International (ASTM) in Specification number D3699 (1982 or latest revision).

Example: 

1K Kerosene; Kerosene - 2K.

(Added 1983)

2.19.1. All kerosene kept, offered, or exposed for sale and sold at retail shall be in terms of the 

gallon (as defined as 231 in3 at 60 °F [15.6 °C]). 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, it was stated that sale of kerosene is by liquid measure rather than weight 

when dispensed from bulk. Method of sale should be consistent with other such liquid methods of sale (i.e., diesel 

and gasoline [including ethanol and biofuel] products). The NEWMA recommends making this a Developing Item.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were heard and the SWMA recommends this as a Voting Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 32

At the 2012 Interim Meeting, the submitter clarified that this is to define a method of sale for retail bulk kerosene. 

The Committee reviewed all language changes submitted by the regions. The 2012 L&R Committee made minor 

editorial corrections and is recommending that it move forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the NEWMA recommends this item be considered for adoption at the 2012 

NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, a representative stated that kerosene is a liquid and must be sold by volume. 

A state representative remarked there are small retailers that are selling by weight, and it would be an unnecessary 

hardship for them to purchase equipment to sell by volume. Three state representatives rose to oppose this item 

during the open hearings. THE CWMA recommends this item be considered as a Voting Item at the 2012 NCWM 

Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting no comments were received on this item.

232-3 V Section 2.23. Animal Bedding 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

American Wood Fibers (2012)

Purpose: 

Disallow pre-compression volume statements on packages of compressed animal bedding.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for Method of Sale, Section 2.23. Animal Bedding as follows:

2.23. Animal Bedding. – Packaged animal bedding of all kinds, except for baled straw, shall be sold by 

volume, that is, by the cubic meter, liter, or milliliter and by the cubic yard, cubic foot, or cubic inch. If the 

commodity is packaged in a compressed state, the quantity declaration shall include both the quantity in the 

compressed state and the usable quantity that can be recovered. Compressed animal bedding packages shall 

not include pre-compression volume statements.

Example: 

250 mL expands to 500 mL (500 in3 expands to 1000 in3

).

(Added 1990, Amended 2012) 

2.23.1. Exemption – Non-Consumer Packages Sold to Laboratory Animal Research Industry. – 

Packaged animal bedding consisting of granular corncobs and other dry (8 % or less moisture), pelleted, 

and/or non-compressible bedding materials that are sold to commercial (non-retail) end users in the 

laboratory animal research industry (government, medical, university, preclinical, pharmaceutical, research, 

biotech, and research institutions) may be sold on the basis of weight.

(Added 2010)

Background/Discussion: 

1. Pre-compression volume statements for compressed animal bedding do not provide consumers with 

information with which to make fair comparisons of similar products, and may be considered deceptive, 

since the pre-compressed volume cannot be verified and the usable recovered volume is smaller than the 

pre-compressed volume. 

2. There is no way for inspectors to field test the pre-compression statement. 

3. Pre-compression statements are not in keeping with Package and Labeling Regulation, 

Section 6.14. Qualification of Declaration Prohibited which states, “In no case shall any declaration of 

quantity be qualified by the addition of the words ‘when packed,’....” 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 33

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting an industry representative stated that declaring a pre-compressed volume is 

potentially deceptive, and that consumers and inspectors cannot verify it. The SWMA L&R Committee agreed that 

pre-compressed volume should not be stated on packages if it cannot be verified. SWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM with the recommendation that it be considered as a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed the submitted proposal, which included removal of 

the UPLR, Section 10.11. Statement of Cubic Measure in Compressed Form (refer to Item 231-3, 

Section 10.11. Statements of Cubic Measures in Compressed Form). The 2012 L&R Committee designated this 

item as a Voting Item with minor editorial revisions.

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting there were no comments heard on this item. NEWMA recommends this 

item be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, it was remarked that required quantity statements are compressed and useable 

volume. Allowing a third declaration of pre-compressed volume only confuses the consumers and is not relevant to 

the usable volume. The CWMA recommends this item to be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM Annual 

Meeting. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting a county director spoke in support of this item. There were no comments 

received in opposition of this item.

The Committee agreed that pre-compressed volume should not be stated on packages if it cannot be verified. 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM with the recommendation that it be considered as a Voting Item.

232-4 V Section 2.33. Vehicle Motor Oil 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Central Weights and Measures Association (2011)

Purpose: 

Provide a method of sale regulation for vehicle motor oil that would correspond with the NIST Handbook 130, 

Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation and require detailed invoicing requirements.

Item Under Consideration: 

Provide specific language for Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil in NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation as 

follows:

2.33. Oil.

2.33.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil. – Vehicle engine (motor) oil shall be labeled.

2.33.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on a any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank, and the any invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes 

the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage 

tank, shall contain the viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance 

with the SAE International’s latest version of SAE J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.”

2.33.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container shall contain a 

statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil 

Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than ‘Energy Conserving’).”

2.33.1.3. Brand. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container and the invoice or 

receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 34

dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, 

trademark, or trade name of the vehicle engine (motor) oil.

2.33.1.4. Engine Service Category. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that 

includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 

3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance

and Engine Service Classification (Other than ‘Energy Conserving’)” or API Publication 1509, 

“Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System.”

2.33.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on any vehicle engine 

(motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from 

service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed 

from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary 

statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, whenever the vehicle engine (motor) 

oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API service category as defined by the 

latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification 

(Other than ‘Energy Conserving’).”

2.33.1.4.25. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or and other types of delivery 

trucks that are used to deliver vehicle engine (motor) oil are not required to display the SAE 

viscosity grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other 

documentation provides that information. 

All references to invoice or receipt will be enforceable effective on July 1, 2013.

(Added 2012)

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator stated that oil changing facilities are affecting revenues from 

legitimate businesses by masquerading as branded facilities, while selling lower-quality oil. The consumer believes 

they are receiving the advertised brand of oil. At least one branded oil company has investigated certain 

questionable installers, filed lawsuits, and have successfully closed those suits with installers in the area of 

trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices. To assist in mitigating these unlawful trade practices and to 

protect consumers against fraudulent activity, it is recommended that invoice be established. A state regulator 

questioned if businesses were using the same hose for hydraulic and motor oil, or if the hose would be flushed prior 

to using it for a different product. He remarked that there would be a contamination factor. The CWMA 

recommends that the item under consideration move forward to NCWM L&R Committee for consideration.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, it was pointed out that if Item 237-6, NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil was adopted by the Conference it 

would require a corresponding method of sale. It was also noted that this method of sale is important to consumers 

and stakeholders because not all of the states adopt the Engine Fuels and Lubricants Regulation. The Committee 

recommends this item move forward as a Voting Item. 

2.33. Oil.

2.33.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

2.33.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle 

motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the viscosity grade 

classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest 

version of SAE J300.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 35

2.33.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container shall contain a statement of 

its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J183.

2.33.1.3. Brand – The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice from service on an 

engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, 

or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle motor oil.

2.33.1.4. Engine Service Category. – The label on a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes the installation 

of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the 

engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as 

defined by the latest version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and 

Certification System.”

2.33.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on a vehicle motor oil 

container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine 

that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, 

Appendix A, whenever the vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an 

active API service category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183.

2.33.1.4.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or other types of delivery 

trucks that are used to deliver vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity 

grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation 

provides that information. 

(Added 201X)

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, membership reviewed the proposal under the background/discussion, and it 

was noted that the title to the SAE and API standard would be noted. It was also noted to change the word “motor” 

to “engine.” A representative from API did not object to these changes. The NEWMA recommended that this item 

move forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting there was support from API and a state representative. The CWMA L&R 

Committee recommended that this item move forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee was asked whether it is appropriate for Section 

2.33.1.3. Brand to be included in this proposal. American Petroleum Institute (API) and some state regulators agree 

that this section is important for traceability purposes. The API representative stated that bulk oils are the weak link 

in the property chain. API does have a licensing program for engine oil, but without knowing the brand name, it 

would be hard to determine compliance with any specifications. A state representative expressed concern with the 

cost and training for testing the “brand.” There is concern that some car manufacturers will void a warranty unless a 

specific brand is used. The FALS Chairperson supports this proposal so that producers can guarantee their product 

and enforce mislabeling. The FALS group believes this item has unanimous support. The Committee noted that the 

SAE and API standards technical title would be editorially placed in the proposal. The Committee was also asked to 

consider changing the term “motor” to “engine,” but after a discussion with the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee 

Chair, it was recommended to keep the term “motor.” The Committee added the words “or receipt” after the word 

“invoice” throughout this proposal. The Committee also believes that time needs to be granted for the

implementation of this regulation so the words, “All references to invoice or receipt will be enforceable effective on 

July 1, 2012,” were added to the proposal. The FALS and L&R Committee received a letter from the Independent 

Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) in support of this and a corresponding proposal Item 237-4 (refer to 

Appendix B.) During the voting session, a state regulator agreed that brand helps with traceability, but he believes 

the labeling requirement should be limited to specification. Several states stated they would support this item only if 

Section 2.33.1.3. Brand was removed from the proposal. On a split vote, the item was returned to the Committee.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 36

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting and the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick, gave a presentation 

outlining why brands must be addressed. Not all oil is the same; brands differ. Mr. Ferrick made it clear that this 

language was not being introduced to require states to test brands, but to allow API to address the chain of custody 

issues and effectively monitor bulk products. One state regulator supports moving this item forward as a Voting 

Item and stated that branding is not new as it is mentioned throughout NIST Handbook 130. Additionally, under the 

model law for Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Inspection, it is unlawful to misrepresent brand in addition 

to other items. Further, in the Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 

3.14.1. Labeling related to automatic transmission fluid requires “the brand name” on each container. The CWMA

believed there was overwhelming evidence for the use of “brand” in NIST Handbook 130 and recommends moving 

this item forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a presentation by Mr. Ferrick, served to clarify the issue of branding. API 

offered their assistance to the states regarding the testing of branding. There was concern regarding the bulk 

containers and comingling of product, state budgetary issues and the outlook of the future of API assistance, and 

enforcement of branding. A county official questioned the enforcement capability of API and suggested that 

language be developed that stipulates that API will enforce violations. There was support from the Western 

Petroleum Marketers Association and a state regulator. The WWMA recommends moving the item forward as a 

Voting Item with an editorial change to the effective date statement to read, “All references to invoice or receipts 

will be enforceable effective on July 1, 2013.”

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, questions were raised regarding “off brand” selling where brand is thought 

to be present. Mr. Ferrick commented that API can test at a particular facility if it is API licensed. NEWMA

recommends moving this to a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick, gave a presentation in support of this item and stated the API also 

supports Item 237-6. API routinely samples product in the marketplace to ensure it meets their standards. API has 

to know the brand when testing in order to act on enforcement to protect consumers. Mr. Ferrick recommended a 

July 2013 implementation date if adopted. A NIST Technical Advisor stated that in the Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Fuels Regulation, Section 3.14. Automatic Transmission Fluid it requires brand to be stated on the 

label, and within Section 6. Product Registration requires that the brand be stated for “engine fuel designed for 

special use.” A retired official noted that in NIST Handbook 44 effective dates for non-retroactive requirements are 

always the first of the year. Information from the floor supported that brands and quality are linked. The SWMA

recommends placing the item as a Voting Item with a July 2013 implementation date.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the FALS Chairperson remarked that FALS fully supported this item. Mr.

Ferrick, recommended that this item move forward as a Voting Item with an enforcement date of July 2013 with 

reference to invoice and receipt requirements. Mr. Ferrick is to provide guidance at all the regional meetings on the 

process to have brand tested in the event of a complaint. The L&R Committee recommends that a modification be 

made to the enforcement date to read July 2013 related to invoice and receipt requirements, and move this forward 

as a Voting item.

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick presented a review of this item to the members and indicated his 

support for this item. NEWMA recommends this item be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM Annual 

Meeting. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick gave a presentation, “Consumers Deserve to Know What Oil 

They’re Buying.” API clarified that they are a standard setting body for motor oil specifications and that automobile

manufacturers are prohibited from requiring the use of their own “brand” of motor oil. A state director requested 

regional consensus on this item. The CWMA recommends this item be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM 

Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick gave a presentation on “Does Brand Matter for Motor Oil.” The 

Committee received 33 letters in support and one letter of opposition for this item. During open hearings there were 

numerous state and county regulators and industry that supported this item. There was opposition from Jim O’Leary 

representing AOCA, who recommends that several amendments be done to this item. Areas of concern are Sections 

2.33.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil, 2.33.1.3. Brand, and 2.33.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 37

AOCA has submitted a letter to the Committee with details. A state regulator remarked that these products are 

labeled “motor oil” in the marketplace and are we in conflict in using the term “engine oil”? Ron Hayes, FALS 

Chair clarified that within the engine fuels regulations that motor oil also is defined as engine oil. 

After discussing the comments from the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting open hearings and the proposed changes, the 

NCWM L&R Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in 

the Item Under Consideration. The NCWM L&R Committee made an editorial change the term “vehicle motor oil” 

to “vehicle engine (motor) oil” throughout the item and made minor editorial changes. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To view the 

supporting documentation for this item, please refer to Appendix B in this report for additional content. 

232-5 D Section 2.XX. Retail Sale of Electricity/Vehicle

Source: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Weights and Measures (2012)

Purpose: 

Create a Developing Item to engage the weights and measures community in creating a method of sale to support 

uniformity in retail sales of electricity as vehicle fuel.

Item Under Consideration: 

Proposal to be developed. 

Background/Discussion: 

Significant work is needed to gather and incorporate all available input from stakeholders including device 

manufacturers, public utility commissions, weights and measures officials, smart grid experts, and all others that are 

in a position to contribute to the development of a method of sale for electricity as vehicle fuel. Thus, it is 

recommended that this item be taken up as a Developing Item to encourage input from stakeholders and experts in 

the development of proposed definitions, method of sale requirements, retail equipment price posting and labeling 

requirements, and any other elements needed to advance the item for adoption.

While a specific proposal for consideration has yet to be developed, some preliminary examples and points to 

consider are offered below:

2.XX.1. Definitions. 

(a) Electric Vehicle or Hybrid-Electric Vehicle. – A vehicle that employs electrical energy as a 

primary or secondary mode of propulsion.

(b) Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV). – An electric vehicle that has onboard electrical energy storage 

designed to be charged via a physical connection to an external source of electrical energy.

(c) Electricity as Vehicle Fuel. – Electrical energy transferred to and/or stored onboard an electric 

vehicle primarily for the purpose of propulsion. 

(d) Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). – A device or system used to transfer electrical 

energy to an electric vehicle, either as charge transferred via physical or wireless connection, by 

loading a fully charged battery, or by other means.

2.XX.2. Method of Retail Sale and Supply Equipment Labeling. – Preliminary review suggests that the 

method of sale should be based on metered quantities to facilitate value comparison by consumers. The 

units should be specified for all electrical energy kept, offered, or exposed for sale and sold at retail as 

vehicle fuel, such as electrical energy units in terms of kilowatt hours (kWh) and/or in the metric 

equivalent unit for electrical energy joules (J)
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 38

2.XX.3. Retail Service Equipment Labeling. – The unit price on the basis of the method of sale will be 

important to consumers as a basis for a value comparison regardless of whether the electrical energy is 

delivered through a slow plug-in charging device, a fast charging device, or by battery replacement.

2.XX.4. Presentation of Price (Street Signs and Advertisements). – The unit price according to method of 

sale will be important to clearly represent on street signs and advertisements when a consumer must 

make a value comparison before pulling their vehicle into a station to purchase electrical energy.

Although many plug-in electric vehicle (PEVs) are primarily charged in homes and at work, it is projected that will 

have a growing need for public PEV charging stations in order to address public expectations and allow for 

successful adoption of PEV technology by the public. Several states have observed emergence of PEVs and made 

inquiries regarding direction of NCWM toward a method of sale for electricity as a vehicle fuel. One resource for 

locating charging stations online at https://na.chargepoint.com/charge_point identifies nearly 1100 charging stations 

already deployed across the United States. Use of electric vehicles and hybrid-electric vehicles is increasing. 

Adoption of electric vehicles is being driven by a number of factors, including high traditional fuel prices, auto 

industry investment in PEV technology, government investment and subsidies, national fuel economy standards, and 

state and national zero-emission vehicle and greenhouse gas standards.

A single, consistent method of sale is needed to pave the way for accurate measurement and representation of 

quantities sold and to facilitate value comparison by consumers. The method of sale is a crucial element that must 

be in place before the suitability of measurement methods and device technologies can be assessed. A measurement 

that is accurate, consistent, and understandable will promote consumer confidence and will provide consumers with 

a fundamental tool to perform value comparisons and protect themselves from confusion and fraud. An electrical 

energy-based method of sale would accomplish this.

Other methods of publicly offering electrical energy for sale as vehicle fuel have appeared in the absence of a 

nationally standardized method of sale. These include time-based charges, subscriber access, and gratis (free of 

charge) access. The coexistence of multiple methods of sale for the same commodity frustrates consumers’ efforts 

to make informed value comparisons. 

The actual value to a motorist of the electrical energy that is received during charging is in terms of the distance that 

they are able to travel. The increase in the distance they can travel after receiving a charge is dependent on the 

amount of electrical energy that was delivered during the charging event. The amount of charge that a vehicle 

receives during a charging event cannot be determined solely by measuring the time that it was connected to a 

charging system. The rate per time that charge is delivered will depend on many factors that cannot be controlled 

including, but not limited to, the starting charge level, the design of the vehicle battery, the type of charging 

equipment, and other environmental variables. For these reasons, a time based method of sale will not form a sound 

basis for a consistent value comparison and an electrical energy based method of sale is strongly recommended.

The current equipment for vehicle charging that is available in the marketplace today represents a very wide range 

of charging speeds, further emphasizing the need for a single method of sale. Level 1 equipment charges vehicles 

with 110 VAC and can take 8 hours to 12 hours to fully charge a vehicle. In contrast, a fast DC type of Electric 

Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) is capable of charging a vehicle from 20 % to 80 % of full charge in 10 minutes, 

closely approximating the time of a traditional liquid (e.g., gasoline) vehicle fueling cycle. Consumers place a high 

value on their time, and so it is reasonable to expect that the unit price for electrical energy from a device that is 

capable of very fast charging will be higher. This can also be anticipated because the equipment capable of faster 

charging represents a higher capital investment. Since stations may offer multiple options for charging speed, a 

uniform language for describing the type of charging equipment available at any provider should be developed so 

that this important aspect of consumer value can be presented consistently in conjunction with the unit price to aid in 

the value comparison. 

Vehicle charging using types of EVSE that offer slower charging rates is often offered in conjunction with other 

paid services (e.g., parking, valet parking, routine vehicle maintenance). In these cases, the unit price for electrical 

energy offered should be presented separately from any price for the other paid service(s) to allow for a value 

comparison with the cost of electrical energy offered by other providers.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

L&R - 39 

For reference, a typical PEV can hold a charge of 24 kWh in onboard storage, with some vehicles capable of holding 

as high as 75 kWh. The average price of electrical energy in the United States is $0.075 per kWh and the average 

price for residential electrical energy is $0.089 per kWh. Presuming that the price for electrical energy as a vehicle 

fuel might range from $0.10 per kWh to $0.50 per kWh (perhaps depending on the speed of the ESVE charger), then 

the cost to the consumer to fill a vehicle might range from $2.40 to as high as $37.50. 

An additional issue that needs to be explored and developed is that of “battery exchanges.” Equipment already 

exists that allows consumers to swap a depleted storage device for a fully charged onboard storage device 

(i.e., battery). In this case, the amount of charge present in the fully charged device should to be communicated to 

the consumer consistent with the method of sale to enable a value comparison between this method and plug-in 

ESVE charging. The issue of whether and how to credit a consumer for the amount of charge that exists in the 

battery that is to be removed should be considered as this item develops. 

There are currently as many as eight manufacturers of EVSE that would benefit from clear direction on method of 

sale and device standards. 

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and other local Public Utility 

Commissions (PUC) interests have identified PEV use, and particularly public re-charging use cases, as having 

potentially significant impact on public utility efficiency, infrastructure needs, and pricing structures. Collaboration 

with these organizations in the development of national legal metrology standards for electrical energy sold as 

vehicle fuel would offer an opportunity for the creation and implementation of standards that take into consideration 

the missions of both NARUC and NCWM. 

There is a likelihood that stations owned and operated by public utilities will coexist with privately owned charging 

stations. There may be regulatory issues in some jurisdictions that effect price regulation and competitiveness 

between these two types of stations. This is another reason that NARUC and PUC input is critically needed on 

development of a method of sale. 

In Comments of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates to the California PUC (see Section II.A.

www.dra.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B2E02349-740A-4EA8-A4D0-69ED3C0D6623/0/R0908009DRAComments_A1b.pdf), 

the question has also been raised as to whether PUCs may require residential customers to install a separate electric submeter for PEV charging. If this occurs, it is most likely that consumers would be invoiced for charging their vehicles at 

home in the same kWh units that are used for their primary billing. If the method of sale at public charging stations 

matches the units that are billed for charging the same vehicle at the residence, this will further facilitate the value 

comparison by consumers. 

In some states, electrical energy sub-metering already falls under the jurisdiction of state and local weights and 

measures authorities. These jurisdictions must now use established standards other than NIST Handbook 44 and 

NIST Handbook 130. National standards for the sale of electrical energy in NIST Handbook 44 and NIST 

Handbook 130 would promote greater uniformity on sub-metering applications. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, an official suggested referencing FTC for labeling on alternative fuels. The 

CWMA recommends returning the item to the submitter for development and recommends the item as a Developing 

Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a state regulator commented that such vehicles already exist and there is no 

need for this matter to be addressed by NCWM. The Committee acknowledges that new technology is currently in 

the marketplace and encourages NCWM to develop a method of sale for electricity as a vehicle fuel. This was 

recommended as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, an official questioned how consumers will be charged, how the effort will 

be monitored, and whether this would be considered a regulated utility. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM 

recommending it as a Developing Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 40

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, a state regulator asked for clarification regarding the definition of an electric 

or hybrid electric vehicle. A NIST Technical Advisor noted that there is an absence of a clearly defined method of 

sale. Inquiries regarding the correct method of sale have increased as growth in charging stations have grown. The 

Technical Advisor asked that this item be made Developing because much information needs to be gathered. A 

couple state officials responded that only their utility companies can sell electricity. It was recognized that public 

utilities need to be an integral part of the process. A state official questioned whether a measuring device for 

electricity exists today and whether it was National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) approved. There was also a

question to whether a test measure can be traceable and certifiable to a standard. A state regulator expressed support 

for this item. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting concern with the definitions for primary and secondary and that it only deals 

with vehicle fuel. At this time there is no item for consideration and the language under the area 

“background/discussion” areas are to be considered. The NIST Technical Advisor remarked that OWM is currently 

gathering data and information from many resources. Eventually a work group will be formed to further develop 

this item. The NCWM L&R Committee is recommending that this item remain a Developing Item. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, a remark was made that devices are not utility electric meters but are 

subsidiary meters that fall under weights and measures jurisdiction. A stakeholder remarked that businesses are 

installing these sub-meters and support the development of this item. NEWMA supports this as a Developing Item.

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, a state official remarked that this is not a public utility and owners of these 

charging units make free market sales. States need to be concerned that this is a rapidly growing area and no 

standard currently exist. A state regulator remarked that there are quick and slow charging stations and recommends 

that consumers be charged on what the vehicle is capable of receiving and know what the device is capable of 

delivering. The CWMA supports this as a Developing Item.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor remarked that a NIST work group has been 

formed to develop this item, and there are two meetings schedule over the next several months. A draft proposal

code has been developed and is worded heavily following the California standard. Two regulatory officials rose to 

express urgency in developing this proposal. 

Mr. Marc Buttler, NIST, OWM, at (301) 975-4615 or marc.buttler@nist.gov will be the NIST Technical Advisor, if

you are interested in assisting with the development of this item. Ms. Juana Williams, NIST, OWM, will be the 

Chair for the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Workgroup (EVSE) and can be reached at (301) 975-3989 or 

juana.williams@nist.gov.

232-6 I Packaged Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges 

Source: 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) (2010)

Purpose: 

This proposal is to clarify the labeling requirements for industry, consumers and weights and measures officials. 

Item Under Consideration: 

2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling. 

2.XX.1 Definitions.

2.XX.1.1. Printer Ink Cartridges. – Any cartridge or module that contains ink or a similar 

substance in liquid form employed in the printing and/or copying of documents, papers, pictures, 

etc., that is used in a printing device and designed to be replaced when no longer able to supply 

its contents in printing and/or copying. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 41

2.XX.1.2. Toner Cartridges. – Any cartridge or module that contains toner, powder, or similar 

non-liquid substance employed in the copying or printing of documents, papers, pictures, etc. 

that is used in a printing and/or copying device and designed to be replaced when no longer able 

to supply its contents in printing and/or copying.

2.XX.2. Method of Sale and Labeling.

2.XX.2.1. Method of Sale, Printer Ink Cartridges. – All printer ink cartridges kept, offered, or 

exposed for sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count of such cartridges and the fluid 

volume of ink in each cartridge, stated in terms of milliliters or fluid ounces. 

2.XX.2.2. Method of Sale, Toner Cartridges. – All toner cartridges kept, offered, or exposed for 

sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count of such cartridges, and the net weight of toner 

substance.

(Added 201X) 

Background/Discussion: 

Over the past several years, there has been a change in the marketplace on inkjet and toner cartridges net content 

statements. Currently, there is little uniformity in the marketplace on this item, and the Committee is seeing some 

labels with a net content or with only a page yield count (e.g., prints 1000 pages). The NIST, OWM pointed out that 

according to guidelines printed in NIST Handbook 130, Weights and Measures Law, Section 19 “information 

required on packages,” these products are required to have the net contents of the ink (and toner) labeled, but 

manufacturers have resisted, claiming an exemption under the FPLA. The purpose of this proposal is to specifically 

clarify the requirements for industry, consumers, and weights and measures officials. 

At the 2009 SWMA Annual Meeting, a Lexmark representative commented that they do not believe that a net 

content statement should be required, and that a page yield is sufficient. He read the main points of a letter from 

Lexmark to Mr. Max Gray, Director, Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services, dated March 17, 2009. The main 

points within the letter were: 1) the ink associated with a cartridge is a small fraction of the total cost of the print 

cartridge mechanism; 2) a page yield can provide a meaningful comparison to a consumer, if all manufacturers 

employ the same estimating assumptions and techniques; and 3) the International Organization for Standardization 

(ISO) studied this issue for years and has rejected reliance on ink volume or quantity; instead ISO has developed a 

yield, estimating and claiming methodology that permits cartridges to be compared using a consistent yardstick. 

Unlike ink volume measurements, page yield measurements provide a consumer with a reliable way to compare the 

amount of printing that can be expected. Lexmark also stated that ink is expressly exempt from labeling as provided 

by the FPLA 16 CFR 503.2(a).

An industry representative believes this issue does need to be discussed and reviewed further. However, many 

officials believe that consumers should know what they are getting. If it is determined that page count is the 

quantity statement, then the page print standard should be reviewed and have tighter standards. Mr. Gray felt that 

more data is needed from manufacturers on this issue. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a 

Developing Item.

At the 2010 Interim Meeting, Mr. Matthew Barkley, Hewlett Packard Co., commented that the FPLA creates an 

exemption for ink, which extends to toner and ink cartridges. A declaration of weight and volume are not the best 

way for consumers to make value comparisons. Customers benefit from page count/yield. Mr. Barkley urged that 

this issue be Withdrawn. If this issue is to proceed, it should be Informational to allow for a review of the FPLA 

exemption. He suggested that page yield is widely accepted and has repeatability measures. 

Mr. Paul Jeran, Hewlett Packard Co., submitted a white paper (refer to Appendix C in the Report of the 96th NCWM 

[SP 1125, 2011]) from the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). This white paper included 

manufacturers from Epson, Hewlett Packard, Kodak, and Lexmark. Mr. Jeran explained that his background is with 

ink and toner measurement. For the same volume of ink, two different systems of the same model cartridge from 

two different vendors can print a different number of pages. In order to determine the page yield, they are using the 

ISO/IEC methodology. ISO is currently working on a photo yield standard.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 42

A state official expressed concerns with page yield being the standard page print for quantity. There is variation

based on the type of cartridge, printer, and font and if graphics/photos are being printed. There is also a concern 

with what ink cartridge re-fillers are doing. A Florida official reviewed the current practice of re-fillers, and they are 

listing on the labels the amount of ink. There are many manufactured packages in the marketplace, so value 

comparison to original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is critical. This is an expensive commodity and 

clarifications of the requirements are needed. A state official recommended that this item not be Withdrawn, but 

made Informational so additional information can be researched on this item. It is firmly believed that there needs 

to be a consistency with the declaration statement on these types of items. A consumer stated that he believes the 

net content needs to be stated with voluntary supplemental information for page yield. Some voiced their opinion 

that consumers need to know page yield in order to make a value comparison. The NIST Technical Advisor stated 

that under the FTC regulations ink and toner cartridges were not part of the CFR. NIST met with the FTC on 

February 26, 2010, to request clarification of the exemption. According to the Committee, there needs to be a test 

procedure for verification of net content developed for ink and toner cartridges. The 2010 L&R Committee 

designated this item be made an Informational Item until they can receive clarification from the FTC, review ISO 

standards, and determine what re-fillers’ current practices are. 

At the 2010 NEWMA and the CWMA Annual Meetings, both Associations received a presentation from 

Mr. Stephen Pociask, American Consumer Institute, regarding a lack of consumer information when purchasing 

computer printers and cartridges. Both Associations expressed that there are still many unanswered questions and 

would like to hear from manufacturers of ink and toner cartridges. Both associations recommended that the item 

remain as an Informational Item. 

At the 2010 Annual Meeting, Mr. Pociask presented a 2007 study done by his organization with funding by a 

telemarketing research company. An official expressed concern that the study presented was not clear and asked if 

page count based on certain fill levels or declaring the weight on the cartridge itself. Mr. Pociask responded that 

currently Quality Logic uses the ISO standards. He also concluded that net weight is easy to enforce. Mr. Pociask 

stressed that his focus is to provide information that give consumers useful information in purchasing printers and 

the life cost of the printer, including printer ink cost.

Another official stated that the study was interesting, but would like to hear from manufacturers. There are several 

issues; cartridges are only for specific printers, when comparing price per page you suggest that price is static, and 

ink cartridge re-fillers need to be addressed. 

Mr. Joshua Rosenberg, IT Industry Council (ITI), agreed that providing consumers with information is meaningful, 

however, relevant to the consumer is the number of pages that can print. The ISO standards are a good tool, but will 

lead to customer confusion. Mr. Rosenberg expressed that much more discussion is necessary on this issue.

At the 2010 Annual Meeting, the Board of Directors established the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Task Group to 

review and obtain additional information from all stakeholders. Ms. Vicky L. Dempsey, Chief Inspector, 

Montgomery County, Ohio, was appointed as Chair and Ms. Lisa Warfield was designated as the NIST Technical 

Advisor. 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, Ms. Dempsey, Chair of the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group,

announced her resignation to the association. Ms. Dempsey gave a briefing on this issue, in particular whether this 

particular form of ink is included in the exemption of the FPLA. It was indicated that FDA believes this exemption 

only applies to ink in pens, not in printer cartridges. Regulators commented that “yield’ is more important for cost 

comparison for consumers; however, other regulators felt that “yield” is not a weights and measures issue. Another 

concern was that the ISO yields are based upon approximations. Discussion also included whether regulators would 

have to purchase printers in order to verify yield. It was generally agreed that this is a very complicated matter, and 

the method of sale needs to be measurable. A regulator stated he had spoken with a manufacturer and questioned 

how the packages are filled. The response indicated that packages are filled by volume. The CWMA Committee 

supported the efforts of the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group to gather more information for development 

of this proposal. THE CWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 43

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, it was announced that NCWM is 

seeking a chairperson for the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group. The CWMA and WWMA are 

recommending that this item move forward as an Informational Item.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, it was announced that a chair is needed for the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge

Task Group. The SWMA Committee does not endorse the formation of the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task 

Group to resolve this issue. Only within the past couple years have manufacturers changed their declaration 

statement to read “yield.” Allowing the declaration by yield will open the door for other commodities to change 

their labeling (e.g., loads of laundry). The SWMA Committee recommends that these commodities be sold by 

volume and weight; however, they are not opposed to yield being a supplementary statement. This will allow for 

inspectors to verify the net contents, and also provide information for consumers to make value comparisons. The 

SWMA Committee would like to seek additional information from industry and ink re-fillers. The SWMA 

recommended the item under consideration move forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group held its first work session

chaired by Ms. Maureen Henzler, Kansas Department of Agriculture. There was discussion on the current forms 

and types of printer ink. Industry also explained that they are able to deliver less ink with a better print quality. As 

a result, they refrain from using the net content statement but believe that a page yield is more useful information for 

a consumer in making comparisons. Industry was informed that yield is not acceptable, and they cannot use words 

like “approximate” and “estimated.” It was agreed that yield could be a supplementary statement on the package. 

The 2011 L&R Committee designated this item as an Informational Item. 

The Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group requested additional information from industry with regard to: 

1. How does the ISO standard work and how does this standard fit into the weights and measures test 

procedure? 

2. How is print darkness measured? 

3. Why have manufacturers removed the net weight declaration from packages and replaced it with a page 

yield? 

4. When changing formulas, is the toner receptacle resubmitted back through the ISO standards to validate the 

page print accuracy? 

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting there were no comments heard on this item. The Committee Chair reminded 

members that the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group will be meeting on the Sunday prior to the start of the 

NCWM Annual Meeting, and that industry will be giving a presentation. NEWMA recommended that this item 

move forward as an Informational Item.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting, there were several comments heard on this item. Concern was expressed that 

ink cartridges used to have quantity on the label, but now, in the marketplace, only yield is used for labeling. A state 

director expressed concern that ink re-fillers are not being addressed under this proposal. The CWMA 

recommended that this item move forward as an Informational Item.

During the 2011 Annual Meeting of the NCWM, the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group met (Sunday, 

July 17, 2011). This task group was attended by several members of state, county, and city weights and measures 

officials as well as members of industry. Mr. Josh Rosenberg, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), and 

other members of the printer industry gave a presentation outlining their viewpoints using yield as the method of 

sale for their products. The printer industry representatives were asked questions regarding the amount of product 

each cartridge held and all agreed their respective companies were aware of the net contents of each container. A 

stakeholder stated that packages must have the weight, measure, or count – no other type of labeling is acceptable. 

Industry was also informed that “yield” is not an acceptable means of labeling for any product. The Printer Ink and 

Toner Cartridge Task Group will meet again at the NCWM 2012 Interim. The printer industry was asked to 

consolidate their presentation to only address the labeling issue of their products and address the task group with this 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 44

information. Also, the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group plans to make a proposal to the NCWM L&R 

Committee for a method of sale for packaged printer inks and toner cartridges.

During the open hearings at the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Rosenberg, with ITI (also representing 

Lexmark, HP, Kodak, Epson and Brother), entered their Sunday presentation for the record (refer to Appendix C in 

the Report of the 96th NCWM [SP 1125, 2011]). Mr. Rosenberg remarked that a label by volume or weight does not 

meet the objectives of their organization or consumers’ preference. Mr. Rosenberg believes that yield is the best 

way to enable consumers to make informed purchase decisions. He further believes there is a way to provide 

information through yield data and the ability to apply the ISO standard for yield. Mr. Rosenberg stated they will be 

in attendance at the upcoming regional meetings to address any issues or concerns. A stakeholder noted that he does 

not believe the ISO yield standard is acceptable, due to the default system of each manufacturer’s printer being 

different. He also pointed out that NCWM is not a performance based evaluation agency, and encourages the 

Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group to develop an item based on the use of weight or volume as the unit of 

measure. The L&R Committee would like to see additional work from the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task 

Group. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, no comments were recorded, and it was recommended the item remain 

Informational.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were recorded. The SWMA supports the item as written and 

recommends it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Ms. Henzler informed the Committee that the task group did not have a 

recommendation on a method of sale for either the ink or toner. They did suggest minor editorial changes to add the 

word “copying” after the word “printing” or vice versa, throughout the definitions. 

Several members of the ink and toner industry recommended that this item be withdrawn and they have reflected 

this in letters written to the Committee since this item first appeared. They remarked that having the current 

proposal will confuse and mislead consumers. They believe that consumers are not concerned with the net quantity 

of ink they are getting, but how many pages they can print. They agreed that the definitions do need additional 

work. It was also remarked that there are other ink technologies out in the marketplace such as, wax sticks and oils. 

Currently wax sticks/crayons are sold by count. 

A contractor commented that the Method of Sale Regulation states the items must be sold on the basis of weight, 

measures, or count. The regulation should be the starting point with the possibility of adding supplementary 

information. 

The Committee believes test procedures need to be developed to test these commodities. In addition, destructive 

testing of these products can be costly. The Committee wants to look at the possibility that both toner and ink be 

sold by weight. Ms. Cardin, Committee Chair, will request that the NCWM Board of Directors appoint a new work 

group to develop test procedures and to disband the current Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the NCWM Chair indicated that there was an impasse on this item. The 

Task Group is not planning to meet at this time to resolve the issues. The Committee recommends that this be an 

Informational Item. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, Ms. Judy Cardin, Task Group Chair, gave an overview of the history of this 

item and provided an update. The Task Group has been formed to focus on test procedures for weight statements on 

ink and toner cartridges. An industry representative remarked he was supportive of the Task Group’s efforts and

that an acceptable method of sale will be reached. He also recommended that the Conference get further 

participation from industry and stakeholders by sending out letters. The Committee recommends that this item be 

Informational. Additional submissions in Appendix C of this report have been part of the L&R Committees 

consideration. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 45

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting the new Printer Ink and Toner Gravimetric Package Testing Task Group met 

to discuss a test method that would require industry to label cartridges with a tare (packaged materials) weight. 

Matthew Barkley, Hewlett Packard, commented that any item under consideration should weigh benefits and 

competitive disadvantages. He also expressed concern that some proposals may create significant financial 

hardships for manufacturers and that these costs may be pass on to the consumers. The Task Group, Chaired by 

Ms. Cardin (judy.cardin@wi.gov), will continue its work on gravimetric test methods for printer ink and toner 

cartridges and will report its work at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting. The Committee is placing a Developing 

Item 260-5 on the agenda to report the work of the Printer Ink and Toner Gravimetric Package Testing WG. The 

L&R Committee will not develop Item 232-6 further until it hears the result of the new Task Group. 

Anyone interested in participating in the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Gravimetric Package Testing Task Group 

should contact Ms. Cardin, Wisconsin Weights and Measures, at judy.cardin@wisconsin.gov or Ms. Lisa Warfield, 

NIST Technical Advisor at lisa.warfield@nist.gov. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as an 

Informational Item. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review 

supporting documents, please refer to Appendix C, Report of the 96th NCWM (SP 1125, 2011) and Appendix C in 

this report to review additional documents.

232-7 V Section 2.32.1. Definition of Hydrogen Fuel (H)

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Southern Weights and Measures (SWMA)

Purpose: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Regulation for the Method of Sale, Section 2.32.1. Definitions for Hydrogen Fuel. 

Item Under Consideration: 

2.32. Retail Sales of Hydrogen Fuel (H).

2.32.1. Definitions for Hydrogen Fuel. – A fuel composed of the chemical molecular hydrogen 

intended for consumption in a surface vehicle or electricity production device with an internal 

combustion engine or fuel cell.

(Amended 2012) 

(Added 2010)

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor to the U.S. National Work Group for the 

Development of Hydrogen Measurement Standards (USNHWG) requested a new proposal move forward to modify 

the definition of hydrogen fuel to recognize the latest updates to that term by the vehicle fuel community. The 

USNHWG is proposing this modification s to avoid confusion and maintain consistency between the definitions of 

hydrogen fuel under NCWM consideration in L&R Agenda Item 237-10, a proposal for adding the term to the 

NCWM Handbook 130, Engine and Fuels Automotive Lubricants Regulation and the term currently found in 

NCWM Handbook 130, Method of Sale and the Engine Fuels Regulation. 

The SWMA L&R Committee supports the work of USNHWG and recommended this item be moved forward as a 

Voting Item with the recommendations noted above.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim, the NIST Technical Advisor to the USNHWG reported that this language had been 

approved by the USNHWG and encouraged the Committee to move the proposal forward as a Voting Item. The 

Committee agreed to add a new item to its agenda to update the current NIST Handbook 130 definition and 

recommended this proposal as a Voting Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 46

At the 2012 NEWMA and the CWMA Annual Meetings both associations supported this item and recommended 

adoption by the NCWM. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, there were no comments received on this item.

237 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS REGULATION 

237-1 V Section 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Central Weights and Measures Association (2011)

Purpose: 

Modify the language in Section 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends and 2.1.3. Gasoline-Ethanol Blends to be aligned 

with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) language in the March 2009 Growth Energy Waiver request.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows:

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications 

2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. 

2.1.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends (as defined in this regulation). – Shall meet the 

most recent version of ASTM D4814 “Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine 

Fuel” except for the permissible offsets for ethanol blends as provided in Section 2.1.32. GasolineEthanol Blends. 

(Added 2009) 

2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. – Shall contain no more than 10 volume percent ethanol. For 

other oxygenates, blends shall contain no more than 2.0 mass percent oxygen except fuels 

containing aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) shall contain no more than 

2.7 mass percent oxygen. 

(Added 2009)

2.1.32. Gasoline-Ethanol Blends. – When gasoline is blended with 1 to 10 volume percent ethanol, 

the ethanol shall meet the requirements most recent version of ASTM D4806 “Standard 

Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel” and the blend shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D4814 

with the following permissible exceptions: 

(a) The maximum vapor pressure shall not exceed the ASTM D4814 limits by more than 1.0 psi 

for: 

(1) 1.0 psi for blends containing Only 9 to 10 volume percent ethanol blends from June 1 

through September 15. 

(2) 1.0 psi for All blends containing of 1 or more to 10 volume percent ethanol for 

volatility classes A, B, C, D from September 16 through May 31. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 47

(3) 0.5 psi for blends containing 1 or more volume percent ethanol for volatility Class E 

from September 16 through May 31.

The vapor pressure exceptions in subsections 2.1.2. Gasoline-Ethanol Blends will remain in effect 

until May 1, 2016, or until ASTM incorporates changes to the vapor pressure maximums for 

ethanol blends, whichever occurs earlier. 

(b) Until May 1, 2012, or until ASTM D4814 incorporates changes to the 50 volume percent 

evaporated point to account for the volatility effects of up to 10 volume percent ethanol, 

whichever occurs earlier, the distillation minimum temperature at the 50 volume 

percent evaporated point shall not be less than 66 °C (150 °F) (see Notes 1and 2). 

(c) Until May 1, 2012, or until ASTM D4814 incorporates changes to the vapor lock 

protection minimum temperature for Classes 1 - 5 to account for the volatility effects of

up to 10 volume percent ethanol, whichever occurs earlier, the minimum temperature 

for a Vapor-Liquid Ratio of 20 for the applicable vapor lock protection class for 

gasoline-ethanol blends shall be as follows (see Notes 1 and 2): 

(1) Class 1 shall be 54 °C (129 °F) 

(2) Class 2 shall be 50. °C (122 °F) 

(3) Class 3 shall be 47 °C (116 °F) 

(4) Class 4 shall be 41.5 °C (107 °F) 

(5) Class 5 shall be 39 °C (102 °F) 

(6) Class 6 shall be 35 °C (95 °F) 

All gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blends sold in Area V (as shown in ASTM D4814 

Appendix Fig. X1.2) shall meet the vapor lock protection minimum temperatures in 

ASTM D4814.

NOTE 1: The value for the 50 volume percent evaporated point noted in Section 2.1.3.(b) and 

the values for Classes 1, 2, and 3 for the minimum temperature for a Vapor-Liquid Ratio of 20 in 

Section 2.1.3.(c) are now aligned and identical to those that are being published in ASTM D4814-

09b and apply equally to gasoline and gasoline-ethanol blends. In future editions of NIST 

Handbook 130, Section 2.1.3.(b) will be removed editorially and the reference to Classes 1, 2, and 

3 in Section 2.1.3.(c) will be removed editorially. In addition, existing Sections 2.1.3. through 

2.1.7. of NIST Handbook 130 will be renumbered. 

NOTE 2: The temperature values (e.g., 54 °C, 50. °C, 41.5 °C) are presented in the format 

prescribed in ASTM E29 “Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to 

Determine Conformance with Specifications.”

(Added 2009) (Amended 2012)

Discussion/Background: 

The EPA will make a ruling on the March 2009 Growth Energy Waiver. When the ruling is announced, the above 

regulation will need to be extended to cover E15 gasoline blends. The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is 

proposing a broader approach to recognizing the authorized proportion of ethanol. RFA recommends the following 

language:

2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. – Shall contain no more than the maximum proportion of ethanol 

authorized by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 211 of the Clean Air Act.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 48

10 volume percent ethanol. For other oxygenates, blends shall contain no more than 2.0 mass percent 

oxygen except fuels containing aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) shall contain no 

more than 2.7 mass percent oxygen. 

(Added 2009) (Amended 20XX)

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting an update was given on the current consideration by EPA to allow higher 

ethanol blends in conventional vehicles. The Fuel and Automotive Lubricants Subcommittee (PALS) Chair stated 

that the FALS may be meeting to discuss this issue at the NCWM Interim Meeting 2011. The CWMA L&R 

Committee received two letters on this issue (refer to Appendix F in the Report of the 96th NCWM [SP 1125, 2011]). 

The CWMA recommends that this item be forwarded to the FALS for further work.

At the 2010 WWMA Meeting an industry representative expressed concern on what this action will have on car 

warranties and potential liability issues. A representative stated that he opposed this item until an official ruling is 

made by the EPA. The WWMA recommends that this item be made a Developing Item. 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments heard on 

this item. The Conference would like to see a recommendation from the FALS. Both associations are 

recommending that these items go to the FALS for further development.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Ron Hayes, Chair for FALS reported that FALS held a conference call on 

January 14, 2011, and also met at the NCWM to review the FALS items. The FALS Chair reported that a consensus 

could not be reached on this item. 

An industry representative expressed concern with legal and liability challenges if the current proposal is passed. A 

representative from the renewable fuels industry recommended moving the item forward for adoption as written, 

because it recognizes EPA as the authority on setting requirements for ethanol and will not restrict ethanol use. An 

energy representative also noted the proposal collaboratively has gone through all the regions with no opposition 

and moving this forward as a vote is to recognize what EPA has decided, and their authority not to restrict ethanol 

content. A representative from API commented that passing the proposal is premature and the NCWM should delay 

action until revisions to ASTM D4814 can be completed. He also noted that the EPA decision was based on the 

durability of emissions related equipment and vehicle emissions, and does not preempt rules that are based on

grounds other than emissions; ASTM will need to determine the vehicle drivability characteristics of the fuel before 

amending the D4814 performance standard. It was suggested that the goal of the model engine fuel regulation is to 

ensure vehicle performance, so adopting the ASTM standard is appropriate. An automotive representative 

expressed support for waiting on the revisions for ASTM D4814. The 2011 L&R Committee designated this item as 

an Informational Item to allow FALS to study it further.

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications

2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. – Shall contain no more than the maximum proportion of

10 volume percent ethanol authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under 

Section 11 of the Clean Air Act. For other oxygenates, blends shall contain no more than 2.0 mass 

percent oxygen except fuels containing aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols (excluding methanol) shall 

contain no more than 2.7 mass percent oxygen. 

(Added 2009) (Amended 20XX)

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, a consultant remarked that proposed labeling is currently with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and they are working with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to agree on a 

final requirement. The NEWMA recommended this item move forward as an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting, a letter was received recommending that the CWMA not give consideration to 

the proposal until ASTM D4814, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel is completed. 

The CWMA recommended that this item move forward as an Informational Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 49

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the FALS met to modify Section 2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate 

Blends. FALS is waiting to see how E15 is incorporated into ASTM D4814, Standard Specification for Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. ASTM is currently waiting for performance data from the Coordinating Research 

Council (CRC) study. A Tennessee state official recommends that the model regulation only refer to the ASTM 

D4814 specification for gasoline-oxygenate blends. There was additional discussion regarding the vapor pressure 

exceptions provided in the model law regulation. It was also mentioned that the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) may eventually discontinue the 1.0 psi allowance for E10 blends. The Committee supports the item under 

consideration and would like to receive additional input from the Regional meetings.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair, stated they met and amended a proposal that blends 

must meet most recent version of ASTM D4814 standards. Mr. Hayes also stated E15 does not have a one-pound 

waiver. An energy industry representative explained that it took ASTM five years to modify the volatility limits for 

ethanol blended fuels. The industry representative noted 45 out of 50 states give winter one-pound relief, and if this 

ceases refinery costs will increase and supply will decrease. Furthermore, EPA may remove the summer one-pound 

relief in 2016. If this happens, where will the butane go? It took 12 years for drivability index to be developed; 

therefore, this will take some time. A state regulator questioned the need for a one pound relief suggesting one-half 

pound relief for winter fuels. Producers may manufacture fuel that exceeds ASTM specifications and will add 

ethanol to take advantage of the full one pound allowed. The energy company representative countered that 95 % of 

the gasoline in the states has ethanol and relief has been allowed with no report of problems. An ethanol company 

representative supports this proposal. The CWMA recommends moving the item forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a FALS representative supported moving the item forward as a Voting Item. 

The WWMA supports the work of FALS and feels the item is ready to be considered a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting no comments were heard. NEWMA recommended that the item remain as 

an Informational Item.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative expressed support for the item with two exceptions: 

1) keeping the 1.0 psi waiver in 2.1.3.(a); and 2) that 2.1.3.(a)(2) be modified by changing 10 % ethanol to 15 % 

ethanol. It was noted that ASTM needs to take action to recognize the effect of ethanol on gasoline vapor pressure. 

Removal of the waiver by NCWM would result in an estimated 2.5 volume percent of the available gasoline pool in 

order to comply with more stringent ASTM specification limits. The Committee believes that this item will 

harmonize NIST Handbook 130 with ASTM D4814, while allowing ASTM time to make necessary changes. The 

SWMA supported the following item with the following two exceptions and recommends this as a Voting Item. 

1. Keep the 1.0 psi waiver in 2.1.3.(a); and 

2. 2.1.2.(a)(2) is modified by changing 10 volume percent ethanol to 15 volume percent ethanol.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the FALS met in a Sunday work session. Mr. Ron Hayes, FALS Chair, 

commented that one goal since the inception of the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (formerly known as the 

Petroleum Subcommittee) is to reference ASTM standards whenever possible without exceptions. Mr. Hayes 

reviewed a presentation submitted by Mr. Jennings, Tennessee, which supported the recommended FALS changes 

as published into OWM Publication 15 (2012), that requires gasoline and gasoline oxygenates blends meeting 

ASTM D4814 without exceptions. A petroleum marketer remarked that the waiver should remain for 1.0 psi until 

additional data is submitted to ASTM.

Mr. Hayes agrees that data should come from ASTM or CRC. Mr. Bob Reynolds, Renewable Fuels Association, 

recommended that a review of the title of Section 2.1.1. “Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends” be made since 

this section refers to “ethanol”. Mr. Reynolds also commented that decisions should be delayed on vapor pressure 

until ASTM or EPA can address this issue. A comment was made to table the psi changes and recommend this item 

move forward as a vote. An informal vote was taken from those in attendance and FALS is recommending this item 

move forward as a Vote with a modification to keep the waiver. During open hearings, the FALS Chair provided a 

recommendation that FALS had approved during their Sunday work session, but expressed that some members 

withdrew their support of the new language once they saw the actual language in print.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 50

Several industry representatives supported this item as modified by the FALS, citing that there are no studies or data 

to support removal of the waiver. In addition, the waiver has been in place for over twenty years and cannot be 

arbitrarily removed; therefore, the waiver should remain. Conversely, another commenter expressed there is no data 

that supports the 1.0 psi waiver for winter grade gasoline especially for gasoline blends with the new lower T-V/L20 

lower limits. Additionally, 1.0 psi is not needed for winter fuels as the vapor pressure increase to gasoline due to 

ethanol is only 0.5 psi. A letter was reviewed that stated the 1.0 psi waiver should be removed and recommended 

this item as documented. Additional comments were made by industry and regulators that Class E fuels should have 

a cap of 15.5 lbs.

The Committee recognizes that FALS will continue to modify this language as additional data is received. The 

Committee believes that this item is needed for E15, if not, states will handle them individually. The 2012 L&R 

Committee recommends that the language move forward as Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the L&R Committee received revised language from FALS. Two 

stakeholders stated they support the new language from FALS. The NEWMA L&R Committee was advised that 

FALS continues to work on this item and will present its final position at the NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair, presented revised language. There was substantial 

agreement on this language but a final consensus was not reached. The Committee continues to support the FALS 

and looks forward to reviewing a consensus document.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Prentiss Searles opposed this item as written and submitted revised 

language for the Committee to consider. Mr. Searles would like to align NIST Handbook 130 with ASTM. 

Mr. Searles also stated that the proposal put forward by FALS was a placeholder and consensus was not reached. In 

addition, industry is opposed to such language presented by FALS. Fifteen industry/stakeholder representatives, 

five state regulators spoke in favor of the language submitted by Mr. Searles. Several states supported the proposal 

as provided in NCWM Publication 16. One state regulator stated they could support the later enforcement date as 

proposed by API if the oil companies were truly sincere in moving towards aligning states with ASTM standards 

without any exceptions including other volatility exemptions and distillation temperatures.

For both NCWM Publication 16 and the alternative language the 10 % ethanol cap is removed, thus allowing blends 

up to 15 % ethanol. 

For non-summer fuels, this alternative language retains the 1 psi waiver (with the exception of Class E fuel which 

has a 0.5 psi waiver) that currently exists within NIST Handbook 130 for 1 % to 10 % ethanol. This also expands 

the same vapor pressure waiver for all blends including blends up to 15 % ethanol, and provides a sunset date of 

May 1, 2016, at which point there will be no exceptions to ASTM standards. For non-summer fuels, the NCWM

Publication 16 language would have eliminated the 1 psi waiver for fuel with the publication of NIST 

Handbook 130 (2013).

The Committee recommends the language submitted by API be considered for adoption. 

During the voting session, a state regulator voiced concern that the Committee is asking for a Vote on new language 

that did not have proper time for review or discussion at the regional association meetings. The Committee Chair 

remarked that language changes occur often as a result of open hearing testimony and this language, when proposed 

during testimony, was widely supported as a reasonable compromise to allow the proposal to move forward. 

After discussing the comments from the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings and the proposed changes, 

the Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item 

Under Consideration.

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review 

supporting documents, please refer to Appendix F, Report of the 96th NCWM (SP 1125, 2011) and Appendix D in 

this report to review additional documents.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 51

237-2 I Section 2.1.5. Minimum Motor Octane Number

Source: 

BP Global Fuels Technology – West Coast (2011)

Purpose: 

Remove Section 2.1.5. Minimum Motor Octane Number since it is considered obsolete.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 2.1.5. Minimum 

Motor Octane Number as follows

2.1.5. Minimum Motor Octane Number. – The minimum motor octane number shall not be less than 

82 for gasoline with an AKI of 87 or greater;

Background/Discussion: In the early 1990s, the Table titled “Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel Antiknock 

Indexes in Current Practice” was removed from the body of ASTM D4814 and placed into an Appendix in 

ASTM D4814. This Appendix is non-mandatory information and is not part of the specification. It is inappropriate 

for NIST Handbook 130 to continue with the 82 motor octane number minimum for the following reasons: 

1) 82 motor octane number minimum is not an ASTM D4814 specification; 2) FTC regulates octane posting and has 

no motor octane number minimum; 3) neither the Kinder Morgan Pipeline nor the Olympic Pipeline requires a 

minimum motor octane number specification; and 4) the Colonial Pipeline has no motor octane number minimum 

for either Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) or Conventional Blendstock for Oxygenate 

Blending (CBOB).

Recent data shows a low motor octane number is actually preferable for the current fleet of vehicles. Motor and 

Research octane numbers are equally important to the performance of the motor vehicle engine. A minimum motor 

octane number requirement offers no more protection to the consumer than the road octane number that is the 

average of the Motor and Research octane numbers.

At the 2010 SWMA and WWMA Annual Meetings and the 2010 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings, all four 

associations forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as an Informational Item. The SWMA, CWMA, and 

NEWMA recommended that the item to be developed by FALS.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the FALS Chair reported that the Subcommittee recommended that this item 

be Informational to allow more time for data to be reviewed. Historical data exists and the Coordinating Research 

Council (CRC) study is currently being done that will clarify issues and provide data needed to assist with making 

decision. There were no comments heard from the floor during Open Hearings. The Committee made this item 

Informational.

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The NEWMA recommended 

that this item move forward as an Informational Item.

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting, the FALS Chair indicated that they are waiting for results from the CRC 

study and recommends this remain Informational because it is not fully developed. The CWMA L&R Committee 

recommended that this item move forward as an Informational Item.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, FALS met and a presentation was provided by Mr. Jim McGetrick regarding 

background information on minimum octane levels. FALS is still waiting for the data from the CRC study (report 

no. 660). The CRC plans to collect additional data on octane. FALS is recommending this be kept Informational 

until additional information is received and a recommendation to the Committee can be prepared. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 52

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes stated most new cars respond better to the research octane number 

rather than to the anti-knock index; however, this is still being studied by the CRC and research is ongoing. 

Therefore, it is recommended that the item remain an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA, SWMA Annual and NEWMA Interim Meetings, the recommendation was to keep this an 

Informational Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes reported to the L&R Committee that a FALS Task group continues 

to work on this item. Mr. Mahesh Albuquerque, Colorado, Task Group Chair reported that information is still being 

gathered and recommends it be an Informational Item. The L&R Committee is recommending that this item be 

Informational. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, a representative remarked that this is a non-issue. NEWMA recommends 

this be an Informational Item. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were received. The CWMA recommends this be an 

Informational Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, two industry representatives supported the further development of this item 

by the task group. Mr. Bill Studzinksi, General Motors, will be leading the discussion on this item for the FALS. 

And, a stakeholder remarked that we do not need a task force for this item and that we should refer to ASTM.

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review 

supporting documents, please refer to Appendix F in this report.

237-3 V Section 3.3. Diesel Fuel 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Missouri Department of Agriculture (2012)

Purpose: 

Establish uniform fuel dispenser nozzle colors for product recognition and limit diesel nozzle spout to a minimum 

size to prevent accidental mis-fueling.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation under Section 3.3. Diesel 

Fuel as follows:

3.3. Diesel Fuel. 

3.3.1. Labeling of Grade Required – Diesel Fuel shall be identified by grades No. 1-D, No. 2-D, or 

No. 4-D.

3.3.2. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers of 

diesel fuel shall comply with EPA pump labeling requirements for sulfur under 40 CFR § 80.570. 

3.3.3. Delivery Documentation for Premium Diesel. – Before or at the time of delivery of premium 

diesel fuel, the retailer or the wholesale purchaser-consumer shall be provided on an invoice, bill of lading, 

shipping paper, or other documentation a declaration of all performance properties that qualifies the fuel as 

premium diesel fuel as required in Section 2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel.

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999)
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 53

3.3.4. Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel. – Each dispensing device from which diesel fuel is sold 

at retail shall be equipped with a nozzle spout with a diameter that conforms to the latest version of 

SAE J285, “Dispenser Nozzle Spouts for Liquid Fuels Intended for Use with Spark Ignition and 

Compression Ignition Engines.” 

(Enforceable effective July 1, 2013)

(Added 2012) 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1998, 1999 and, 2008, and 2012) 

Background/Discussion: 

Missouri Weights and Measures receive numerous complaints each year related to the accidental mis-fueling of 

vehicles. Information received from many other states indicates the same problem exists nationwide.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, an energy company representative gave a presentation with examples of 

colors of labels and other decals on dispensers as well as fuel containers and commented that there is a “rainbow of 

colors” out there. A state regulator commented and another agreed that all mis-fueling complaints in his state 

occurred because the consumer reached for a green handle thinking it was diesel. Multiple petroleum marketers 

contacted him to address this problem (refer to Appendix F). Additionally, all diesel fuel caps and replacement caps 

are color coded. Another state regulator stated that having the nozzle match the fuel cap is a good idea. Mr. Hayes, 

FALS Chairperson, stated that larger nozzles have virtually eliminated mis-fueling of diesel into gasoline tanks in 

his state. American Automobile Association (AAA) has contacted him and supports this proposal as do several auto 

manufacturers. The CWMA L&R Committee believes the proposal is ready for consideration and recommended 

moving this item forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting the Western Petroleum Marketers opposed this item due to color limitations 

as there is not an issue with nozzle size requirements. There were several comments that a color coding system can 

be difficult to enforce. The WWMA L&R Committee concurs with the comments heard from the floor and believes 

their job is to perform quality assurance at the fuel stations. Colored nozzles are beyond the scope of their 

responsibilities. It also conflicts with current marketing practices. The WWMA recommendation is to Withdraw 

this item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting careful consideration was given to colors chosen so as not to conflict with 

existing colors. The NEWMA supports this item as a Developing Item. 

No comments were received at the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting. SWMA recommends placing this as a Voting 

Item. 

Initial Item Under Consideration published in NCWM Publication 15 (2012):

• Establish uniform nozzle color requirements for easier product identification on motor fuel dispensers. 

Limit the minimum spout size for diesel dispensers to 0.93 inches to prevent accidental mis-fueling. Add 

the following to Section 3, Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products: 

3.1.4. Nozzle Color Requirement for Fuels. – Each dispensing device nozzle from which fuel is sold at 

retail shall not be yellow or green in color unless provided in sections 3.3.5. and 3.8.3.

(Added 20XX)

3.3.4. Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel. – Each dispensing device from which diesel fuel is sold at 

retail shall be equipped with a nozzle spout having a terminal end with an outside diameter of not less 

than 23.63 mm (0.930 in). 

(Added 20XX)
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 54

3.3.5. Nozzle Color Requirement for Diesel Fuel. – Each dispensing device from which diesel fuel is sold 

at retail shall be equipped with a nozzle green in color.

(Added 20XX)

3.8.3. Nozzle Color Requirement for E85 Fuel Ethanol. – Each dispensing device from which E85 Fuel 

Ethanol is sold at retail shall be equipped with a nozzle yellow in color.

(Added 20XX)

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting during the FALS meeting, Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair, reviewed several letters 

regarding this item. A petroleum marketer recommends the term “E85” be replaced with “flex fuels.” Concern was 

expressed that if all states do not adopt this regulation it could cause confusion in the marketplace. Mr. Hayes 

remarked that this proposal simply states that gasoline nozzles can be any color, other than green or yellow. This 

would help resolve the issue of individuals putting gas into diesel tanks. Currently, diesel fuel going into gasoline 

powered vehicles is controlled by the size of the nozzle spout. An industry representative expressed concern that 

this proposal may lead to additional restrictions, and there is no data to prove it will resolve the mis-fueling problem. 

A state inspector remarked that this is not a big impact on service station operators since stations are currently 90 % 

compliant in regards to color. FALS is recommending a one year implementation date (July 2013) and to exempt 

high flow meters at truck refueling sales. Consensus was reached and there were no objections to recommend the 

item move forward as a Voting Item with the modifications suggested. 

Mr. Hayes provided the Committee with recommended modifications to the current language that would exempt 

high flow meters, with a July 2013 implementation date, and to change the term “E85” to “flex.” After considerable 

discussion with the FALS they recommend the modified language move forward as a Voting Item. 

During the open hearings a state regulator replied that it is necessary to add this proposal to the NIST 

Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation since many states will adopt it. An industry 

representative expressed concerns requiring a change to colored nozzles citing that companies use nozzle color as 

part of their image requirements, and they have contractual agreements with retailers. An industry representative 

agreed that adding a standardized color requirement will not end mis-fueling problems and some states may not even 

adopt this requirement. Several industry representatives supported language for nozzle size and proposed that the 

language for nozzle color be withdrawn citing that gas pumps are clearly marked and labeled and consumers need to 

take responsibility for using the correct nozzle. A statement was made that mis-fueling happens in less than 1 % of 

all gas pump fills. A state regulator stated consumers are overwhelmed with the number of decals on the dispensers 

with advertisements on dispenser cabinets, dispenser toppers, and now streaming videos which distracts the 

consumer from important safety warning signs. A uniform nozzle color scheme is a simple, low cost solution to 

reduce mis-fueling at the pump. 

A State Director supported this proposal due to issues with mis-fueling, agreeing there is a need to keep diesel and 

gasoline dispensers different. Another State Director questioned whether weights and measures is the appropriate 

place to regulate mis-fueling and recommended the item be withdrawn stating it oversteps NCWM bounds. Another 

State remarked that both nozzle size and color coding follow SAE practices. Another state regulator did not see how 

a color requirement will help, but does support requirements for nozzle sizes. A State Director remarked that they 

have done research on color coding, and it ultimately provides consumer protection. He submitted a letter from the 

Missouri American Automobile Association that concurs with this. A state official recommended separating this 

into two separate proposals. 

The Committee reviewed the initial item under consideration and recommended withdrawing Section 3.1.4., 3.3.5., 

and 3.8.3.; and recommends that Section 3.3.4. move forward as a Voting Item with an effective date of 

July 1, 2013. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, a stakeholder remarked that this is currently practiced in the marketplace. A

state regulator commented that the concern is the location of diesel nozzles on a dispenser and that larger nozzles 

help in alleviating the problem. Another state regulator commented that S&T had many unanswered questions, 

which he would like to see handled first. A consumer remarked that the Method of Sale should be allowed to 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 55

advance within L&R without waiting for S&T. A comment was made about how many diesel cars are unable to 

handle the larger nozzle size for the fuel intake and that automobile manufacturers should be consulted on this item. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, a state regulatory official rose to support this item and would be submitting a 

new proposal to address product identity. Two additional stakeholders rose to support this item. The CWMA

recommends this item be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 Annual NCWM Meeting, a consumer asked how many individuals have reviewed the ASTM J285 

standard to see if there are requirements for relief valve, size of fitting, or other required items. The FALS 

Chairperson clarified that this is only for dispenser nozzle spouts for liquid fuels intended for use with spark ignition

and compression ignition engines. It was recommended the L&R Committee add in the spout size requirement to 

the language. A state director requested that the actual SAE standard be referenced. Another state director urged 

the L&R Committee to also move forward with the nozzle colors to help prevent mis-fueling problems in his state

such as gasoline into diesel vehicles and E85 into “gasoline only vehicles.” 

After discussing the comments from the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting open hearings and the proposed changes, the 

L&R Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item 

Under Consideration. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review 

supporting documentation, please refer to Appendix F in this document.

237-4 V Section 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Central Weights and Measures Association (2011)

Purpose: 

Amend the Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation to require detailed invoicing requirements. Some oil 

facilities may not deliver the advertised oil, so consumers may be receiving lower quality oil. It is being 

recommended that retailers that provide oil change services be required to provide consumers with a document that 

lists the oil’s manufacturer, brand name, SAE viscosity, and service requirements as defined in API 1509, 

SAE J183, or ASTM D4485.

Item Under Consideration: 

3.13. Oil.

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil Required

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that 

includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall contain the viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in 

accordance with the SAE International’s latest version of SAE J300 “Engine Oil Viscosity 

Classification.” 

(Amended 2012)

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of any vehicle engine (motor) oil container

shall contain a statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300 J183 

“Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).” 

(Amended 2012)
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 56

3.13.1.3. Brand – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container and the invoice or 

receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil 

dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, 

trademark, or trade name of the vehicle engine (motor) oil.

(Added 2012)

3.13.1.3.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less. – A container of 

engine vehicle motor oil with a volume of 1 gal (3.785 L) or less that does not meet an active 

service category, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, shall bear a plainly visible 

cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil 

categories.

3.13.1.34. Engine Service Category. – The label on each container of any vehicle engine (motor) 

oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an 

engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not 

less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil 

Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”)” or API 

Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System.”

(Amended 2012)

3.13.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on any vehicle engine 

(motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from 

service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) engine oil 

dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible 

cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine 

Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”)” Appendix A, whenever the vehicle 

engine (motor) oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API service category as 

defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service 

Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).” 

(Added 2012)

3.13.1.4.25. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or and types of delivery trucks 

that are used to deliver vehicle engine (motor) oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity 

grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation 

provides that information. 

(Added 2012)

All references to invoice or receipt will be enforceable effective on July 1, 2013.

(Amended 2012) 

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator stated that oil changing facilities are affecting revenues from 

legitimate businesses by masquerading as branded facilities, while selling lower-quality oil (refer to Appendix G, in 

the Report of the 96th NCWM (SP 1125, 2011]). The consumer believes they are receiving the advertised brand of 

oil. At least one branded oil company has investigated certain questionable installers, filed lawsuits, and have 

successfully closed those suits with installers in the area of trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices. 

To assist in mitigating these unlawful trade practices and to protect consumers against fraudulent activity, it is 

recommended that invoice be established. A state regulator questioned if businesses were using the same hose for 

hydraulic and motor oil, or if the hose would be flushed prior to using it for a different product. He remarked that 

there would be a contamination factor. The CWMA recommends that the item under consideration move forward to 

the NCWM L&R Committee for consideration.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 57

Original Proposal:

3.13. Oil.

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of vehicle motor oil shall contain the viscosity 

grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest 

version of SAE J300.

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of vehicle motor oil shall contain a statement 

of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300183. 

3.13.1.3. Engine Service Category. – The label on each a container of vehicle motor oil container, 

receptacle, pump, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from the sale of vehicle motor oil 

dispensed from a receptacle, pump, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the engine service 

category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest 

version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System.”

3.13.1.3.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less Inactive or Obsolete 

Service Categories. – A container of engine vehicle motor oil with a volume of 1 gal (3.785 L) 

or less that does not meet an active service category, as defined by the latest version of 

SAE J183, shall bear a plainly The label on a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, pump, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from the sale of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a 

receptacle, pump, dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement 

in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil categories whenever the 

vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API service category as 

defined by the latest version of SAI J183.

3.13.1.3.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks or rail cars that are used to deliver 

vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity grade and service category or 

categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation provides that information.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative, who submitted this proposal, recommended that 

the term “pump” be dropped from the language. A state official questioned if checking the labeling on bulk tanks is 

the responsibility of weights and measures, or is it an industry issue? The Technical Advisor suggested giving 

consideration to mirroring this same language in the method of sale. The L&R Committee recognizes that statement 

of brand is required on liquid measuring devices in NIST Handbook 44. The WWMA recommends this item be 

moved forward as Informational Item and have it be reviewed by the FALS. 

3.13. Oil.

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes the installation 

of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the 

viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s 

latest version of SAE J300.

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container shall 

contain a statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300 J183. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 58

3.13.1.3. Brand – The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice from service on an 

engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, 

or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle motor oil.

3.13.1.3.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less. – A container of 

engine vehicle motor oil with a volume of 1 gal (3.785 L) or less that does not meet an active 

service category, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, shall bear a plainly visible 

cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil 

categories.

3.13.1.34. Engine Service Category. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor 

oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine 

that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 

3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, 

“Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System.”

3.13.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on a vehicle motor oil 

container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine 

that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, 

Appendix A, whenever the vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an 

active API service category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183.

3.13.1.4.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or other types of delivery 

trucks that are used to deliver vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity 

grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation 

provides that information. 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick, API, notified attendees that they were seeing a revised proposal. 

This revision was not presented at the 2010 CWMA and WWMA meetings. Mr. Ferrick supports this item stating 

that NIST Handbook 130 has required that labels on motor oil packages identify the oil’s SAE viscosity and API 

performance level. Both of these items are important pieces of information for consumers. The changes proposed 

for NIST Handbook 130 are intended to apply the labeling requirements for packaged motor oils to oils sold in bulk. 

The changes as proposed would require motor oil manufacturers and distributors to identify the oils they deliver, and 

for installers to identify the oils they dispense. Requiring distributors to identify the motor oils they deliver to 

installers will help ensure that installers know what they are dispensing, and requiring installers to do the same on 

their invoices will provide the same level of information for consumers. The SWMA L&R Committee reviewed the 

revised language submitted and agreed that the item has merit. It was also noted that the language needs to be 

similar for the regulations as well as the method of sale in NIST Handbook 130. The SWMA forwarded this item to 

NCWM recommending it as an Informational Item.

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, a representative of API spoke in favor of the need to disclose on all motor 

oil storage vessels and in receipts for oil change services the motor oil information. Currently, consumers may not 

be sure of what motor oil product they are receiving and may be subjected to fraud. A disclosure requirement would 

clearly disclose to consumers what they are purchasing and help eliminate any fraud. The NEWMA believes this is 

a consumer friendly issue, and that requiring retailer invoices for oil change services to disclose the manufacturer, 

brand name, SAE viscosity, and service requirements is appropriate. Proposed labeling requirements should be 

included on the agenda as a Developing Item.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes reported that FALS recommends moving the Western (WWMA) 

language forward. An API representative and submitter of the item also recommend that this revised version 

presented at the WWMA move forward. The 2011 L&R Committee supported this item and designated it as a 

Voting Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 59

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil.

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container, receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that includes the installation of 

vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the viscosity 

grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest 

version of SAE J300.

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor oil container shall contain a 

statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J300 J183. 

3.13.1.3. Brand – The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice from service on an 

engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle motor oil.

3.13.1.3.1. Exception for Quantities of One Gallon (3.785 L) or Less. – A container of engine 

vehicle motor oil with a volume of 1 gal (3.785 L) or less that does not meet an active service 

category, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, shall bear a plainly visible cautionary 

statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil categories.

3.13.1.34. Engine Service Category. – The label on each container of a vehicle motor 

oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that 

includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank

shall contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in 

height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and 

Certification System.”

3.13.1.4.1. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on a vehicle motor oil 

container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice from service on an engine that 

includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage 

tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with SAE J183, Appendix 

A, whenever the vehicle motor oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API 

service category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183.

3.13.1.4.2. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, or other types of delivery 

trucks that are used to deliver vehicle motor oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity 

grade and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation 

provides that information. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, it was noted that the title to the SAE and API standards technical title would 

editorially be added to the proposal. A request was made to change the word “motor” to “engine.” A representative 

with API did not object to these changes. The NEWMA recommended that the item move forward as a Voting 

Item. 

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting, the FALS Chair noted there is an identical proposal under Item 232-4 for the 

method of sale. It was remarked by an API representative that some oils have no business in the marketplace 

because they may cause engine damage. He further noted that it is vitally important for this language to be 

accepted. The CWMA recommended that this item move forward as a Voting Item with the editorial corrections.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the FALS and Committee received a letter from a stakeholder in support of 

this proposal (refer to Appendix G). There is a corresponding method of sale proposal under Item 232-4. It was 

agreed that the title to the ASTM standards would be editorially added into the proposal. A stakeholder requested 

that the Committee give consideration to implementing the requirement of this information being available on the 

receipt to a later date. This will allow retailers time to change over their system. During Committee review, it was 

agreed that the term “motor” would not be changed to “engine.” Consideration was given to adding the following 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 60

language with regard to receipts, “All references to invoice or receipt will be enforceable effective on July 1, 2012,” 

and to add the word “or receipts” after the term invoice. 

On a split vote, the item was returned to Committee. A motion was made during the voting session to remove 

Section 3.13.1.3. Brand; however, the motion failed. Mr. Hayes commented that brand is an important issue and 

removal of this section would facilitate continued fraud in the marketplace. Also, consumers would not have the 

required information to verify warranty work if product identity is removed from the proposal. Engine oils are 

different blends and stocks. Several states support the inclusion of brand.

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a presentation was given by Mr. Ferrick, API, to clarify the issue of 

branding. API offered their assistance to the states regarding the testing of branding. A state regulator supported the 

item. There was concern regarding the bulk containers and comingling of product and several states expressed 

concern regarding the enforcement of branding. The Western Petroleum Marketers Association supported this item. 

The WWMA Committee feels the proposal is fully developed and recommends moving the item forward as a Voting 

Item with an editorial change to the effective date statement to read “All references to invoice or receipts will be 

enforceable effective on July 1, 2013.”

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the NEWMA recommended the item to a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick stated that the presentation given earlier in the day also applies 

here. API has to know the brand when testing in order to take action and enforcement in an effort to protect 

consumers. Mr. Ferrick recommended a July implementation date if adopted. Because of the new information 

provided by API the SWMA recommended that the item be a Voting Item with a July 2013 implementation date.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the FALS met and Mr. Ferrick provided an updated that addressed the issues 

with the concerns on “brand.” There were no objections heard so FALS is recommending this item to the 

Committee as a Voting Item. 

Mr. Ferrick will provide guidance to at all regions and the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting on the process to have 

brand tested in the event of a complaint. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as a Voting Item with a 

modification to the enforcement date to of July 2013 for invoice and receipt requirements. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick presented a review of this item to the members, and he indicated 

his support for the item. NEWMA recommends this item be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM Annual 

Meeting. 

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick gave a presentation, “Consumers Deserve to Know What Oil 

They’re Buying.” The CWMA recommends this item be considered for adoption at the 2012 NCWM Annual 

Meeting. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Ferrick gave a presentation on “Does Brand Matter for Motor Oil.” The 

Committee received 33 letters in support and one letter of opposition for this item.

During open hearings there were three states that supported this item. The Committee agreed to make an editorial 

change the term “vehicle motor oil” to “vehicle engine (motor) oil” throughout the item and made minor editorial 

changes. The Committee maintains the status of the item as Voting. After discussing the comments from the 2012 

NCWM Annual Meeting open hearings and the proposed changes, the Committee agreed to modify the language in 

its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To view supporting 

documentation, please refer to Appendix G, in the Report of the 96th NCWM (NIST SP 1125, 2011) and Appendices 

B of this report for additional content. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 61

237-5 I Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends 

Source: 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) (2010)

Purpose: 

Amend Section 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends of the Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation to 

remove the exemption for declaration of biodiesel content on product transfer documents for biodiesel blends up to 

5 %.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3.15. Biodiesel and 

Biodiesel Blends.

3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends.

3.15.1. Identification of Product. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the term “biodiesel” with the 

designation “B100.” Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the term “Biodiesel Blend.”

3.15.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers.

3.15.2.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the grades S15 or S500. 

Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the grades No. 1-D, No. 2-D, or No. 4-D.

3.15.2.2. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers 

of biodiesel blends shall comply with EPA pump labeling requirements for sulfur under 

40 CFR § 80.570.

3.15.2.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. – Biodiesel and biodiesel blends shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.15.2.4. Biodiesel Blends. – When biodiesel blends greater than 20 % by volume are offered by 

sale, each side of the dispenser where fuel can be delivered shall have a label conspicuously placed that 

states, “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations.”

The lettering of this legend shall not be less that 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 0.8 mm (1

/32 in) stroke; block 

style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the background color to which it is applied.

3.15.3. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes Required on Transfer Documents. – The 

retailer shall be provided, a At the time of delivery of the fuel, a declaration of the volume percent 

biodiesel shall be disclosed on all transfer documents. on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or 

other document. This documentation is for dispenser labeling purposes only; iIt is the responsibility 

of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to blending.

(Amended 20XX) 

3.15.4. Exemption. 

(a) Biodiesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 % biodiesel by volume are exempted from 

the requirements of Sections 3.15.1. Identification of Product, and 3.15.2. Labeling of Retail 

Dispensers, and 3.15.3. Automotive Fuel Rating when it is sold as “diesel fuel” as required in 

Section 3.3. Diesel Fuel.

(b) Diesel fuel containing less than 1 % by volume biodiesel is exempted from the requirement 

of 3.15.3. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 62

(c) Diesel fuel containing 1 % and not more than 5 % by volume biodiesel fuel is exempt from 

disclosing the actual percent by volume of biodiesel as required in Section 3.15.3.

Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. However, the term “Contains Biodiesel” 

or other similar terms shall be used.

(Amended 20XX) 

(Added 2005) (Amended 2008 and 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2009 SWMA Annual Meeting, a discussion over blending was presented by a FALS member. Biodiesel is 

being blended at many terminals across the country in concentrations up to 5 %. Marketers downstream of the 

terminal are then attempting to blend additional biodiesel to target levels, and finding that their product is being 

over-blended because they were not aware that the fuel contained any biodiesel. Per Mr. Jennings, Tennessee, at 

least one major truck stop operator has already voiced concerns to the FALS Chairperson. This amended proposal 

will remove the exemption declaration of biodiesel content on product transfer documents for biodiesel blends up to 

5 %. Biodiesel is blended at terminals in concentrations up to 5 %. Mr. Jennings felt it was important to start this 

recommendation and have the FALS Chairperson vet the proposal out to all members of the FALS Committee for 

their comments before the NCWM Interim meeting in January 2010. The SWMA forwarded this item to NCWM, 

recommending it as a Voting Item. 

3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends

3.15.1. Identification of Product. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the term “biodiesel” with the 

designation “B100.” Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the term “Biodiesel Blend.”

3.15.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers.

3.15.2.1. Labeling of Grade Required. – Biodiesel shall be identified by the grades S15 or 

S500. Biodiesel blends shall be identified by the grades No. 1-D, No. 2-D, or No. 4-D.

3.15.2.2. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers 

of biodiesel blends shall comply with EPA pump labeling requirements for sulfur under 

40 CFR § 80.570.

3.15.2.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. – Biodiesel and biodiesel blends shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.15.2.4. Biodiesel Blends. – When biodiesel blends greater than 20 % by volume are offered by 

sale, each side of the dispenser where fuel can be delivered shall have a label conspicuously placed that 

states “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations.”

The lettering of this legend shall not be less that 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 0.8 mm (1

/32 in) stroke; block 

style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the background color to which it is applied.

3.15.3. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, a declaration of the volume percent biodiesel on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping 

paper, or other document. This documentation is for dispenser labeling purposes only; it is the 

responsibility of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to 

blending.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 63

3.15.4. Exemption. – Biodiesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 % biodiesel by volume are 

exempted from the requirements of Sections 3.15.1. Identification of Product, and 3.15.2. Labeling of 

Retail Dispensers, and 3.15.3. Automotive Fuel Rating when it is sold as “diesel fuel” as required in 

Section 3.3. Diesel Fuel.

(Added 2005) (Amended 2008 and 20XX) 

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair, gave an update on the Subcommittee’s work to 

remove the current exemption for biodiesel disclosure in diesel fuel at 5 % and below, on product transfer 

documents.

A draft of substitute language was circulated among FALS members prior to the Interim Meeting. This substitute 

language expanded the disclosure of biodiesel content on all transfer documents (not limited to ones to the 

retailer) and for levels greater than 1 % biodiesel. The substitute was an attempt to find middle ground. FALS 

members were more agreeable to this substitute, but many still felt more work is needed.

The L&R and FALS Committee received seven letters (refer to L&R Appendix E within the Report of the 95th

NCWM [SP 1115, 2010]) that do not support this proposal as stated. The Committee does support working on this 

issue and receiving feedback from industry. There is concern with the documentation and co-mingling of fuels. If 

fuel is co-mingled, it would need to be sampled every time, which could be quite costly.

An official requested that this item move forward as a Voting Item and meanwhile NEWMA and CWMA could 

review and further develop the language at their spring 2010 meetings. API stated there are many things to consider, 

such as preemption language, cost implications, commercial issue of declaring with each transaction. API has 

worked with marketers, but there continues to be a difference of opinion and no consensus. It was voiced by 

industry that all biodiesel needs to be documented on the paperwork. If not, it puts the wholesaler, retailer, and 

consumer at risk. There was a comment from a stakeholder that they do not agree with API’s comment and that this 

has been a two-year battle on who gets to do the blending. Blenders are over-blending because they are not aware of 

what the current blend is. To prevent this situation, it would require disclosure on the transfer document. The 2010 

L&R Committee designated this item as an Informational Item. At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting, a 

stakeholder reported that the FTC has not changed the existing posting rule. NEWMA recommended that this item 

remain as an Informational Item. 

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting, there were several comments stating that the exact percentage of an 

alternative fuel needs to be known. Without the percentage being known, mislabeling can occur, which is not good 

for consumer, marketers, the environment, and renewable fuels. What is the downside of providing this 

information? A representative of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) does not support this proposal and would like 

to have further discussions to seek what is best for the entire industry. They also commented that FTC declined to 

modify requirements for disclosure on product transfer documents for fuels containing 5 % or less biodiesel. A state 

official disagrees that the exact percentage is necessary since it is the blender’s responsibility to test the product 

prior to blending. A representative of the Renewable Fuels Association would like to see the proposal expanded to 

include all additives and stated that the focus needs to be in broader terms instead of renewable fuels and 

recommended that the scope include all blending components. THE CWMA recommended that item remain an 

Informational Item and that FALS form a task force under their guidance to develop this proposal.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received numerous letters (refer to Appendix E within the 

Report of the 95th NCWM [SP 1115, 2010]), and heard from fifteen stakeholders and industry representatives, 

supporting Section 3.15.3 that requires disclosure. Several participants expressed concerns with sections of the 

proposal. The FTC has the authority to protect consumers, and they are looking at requiring product transfer 

documents. Several stakeholders indicated that they expect FTC to issue a proposed rule on biodiesel in the near 

future. It would be best if we stayed in line with the FTC ruling on the biodiesel issue. The very low blends seem to 

be the challenge. The sections that are of concern to stakeholders are 3.15.4 (b) and (c), since it conflicts with 

reporting of taxes collected on biodiesel. The exact amount of the blend needs to be documented on the transfer 

document. The concern is when fuel is picked up from various locations and delivered; the actual amount of 

biodiesel is not documented. Currently blending at the terminal is not an issue. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

L&R - 64 

The NCWM L&R Committee agreed to allow time for the FALS Committee to receive additional information and 

further discuss this item. 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a representative from a Petroleum Marketers Association commented that 

disclosure sets the tone for a chain of events for biodiesel. It was important for disclosure to be provided all the way 

through the distribution process because of the potential for over-blending. He believes that it is not realistic for 

wholesale distributors to test for biodiesel due to the cost. He supports the proposal with exception of the 

exemptions provided in 3.15.4 Exemptions (b) and (c). A state regulator agreed with this testimony. Another state 

regulator commented that the current proposal follows the same format as the ethanol regulation. A petroleum 

dealer mentioned that due to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), disclosure is needed in order to meet the 

mandates for blending. 

A representative with the NBB commented that this proposal needs to be further developed by the FALS. This 

representative believes that we have not heard from all segments of the industry regarding this proposal, and also 

expressed concern that there will be no benefit to consumers if the cost of the extra testing of fuel is being passed on 

to consumers. It was mentioned that there are quick testing methods available for determining biodiesel content in 

the field; although, some are more accurate than others. The NBB representative also stated that the FTC believes 

that it is the responsibility of the blender to determine biodiesel content prior to blending. 

A producer mentioned that the disclosure proposal would require terminals to purchase equipment and to do 

additional testing. The producer is concerned about tank stratification and the need to change bills of lading as the 

content varies. Cost and manpower are major concerns for producers. A marketer provided testimony that it is 

more efficient for terminals to purchase testing equipment as opposed to requiring all downstream blenders to 

purchase testing equipment. He stated that changing bills of lading is only a software change. He believes that it is 

the blenders’ obligation to meet the law for labeling, and it is difficult if the biodiesel content is not disclosed. The 

NBB representative questioned how often marketers test. A marketer responded that they do not routinely test since 

they rely on the transfer documents to accurately state what they are getting. Another marketer stated that producers 

can control what goes into their tanks and questioned if producers know how much biodiesel is in each batch. A 

producer responded that for barrels received by water in Savannah, Georgia, the biodiesel content is only disclosed 

on Plantation pipeline shipments if it is more than 5 %. THE CWMA recommends that the proposal be further 

developed by the FALS. 

At the 2010 WWMA and SWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative spoke in support of keeping this item 

Informational and allow the FALS to further develop the requirements in light of the comments received. An 

industry representative also stated that all shipping documents should show the exact blend of biodiesel. Both 

Associations recommends that this item remain Informational. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the L&R Committee received written comments from API. The NEWMA 

recommends that this item move forward as an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, a member of both the FALS and L&R Committee reported that this item was 

debated during the FALS work sessions and a consensus could not be reached. It was agreed upon that a Biodiesel 

Disclosure Task Group be formed to further study this item. Steve Howell, MARC IV; and Samuel Bell, Echols Oil 

Company, Inc., will Co-chair this Subcommittee. The L&R Committee received five letters, yet no additional 

comments were received during Open Hearings. The Committee designated this as an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting am NBB consultant stated that a report is currently being prepared and will 

be ready for the 2011 Annual NCWM meeting. The NEWMA recommended that this item move forward as a 

Developing Item. 

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting, FALS Chair, Mr. Ron Hayes, Missouri, remarked that a work group was 

formed under FALS to develop new language. A petroleum representative opposes the item as written and it does 

not allow the blender to disclose what level blending has occurred. Another petroleum representative remarked that 

there are other implications beyond small percentages of biodiesel with other additives. It was agreed that as 

blender you should know exactly what you are getting, but it needs to be tested. The question is, “Who is the 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 65

responsible party for providing the test?” The CWMA recommends that this item move forward as a Developing

Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the FALS Chair reported that a Subcommittee has been formed to work out a 

compromise on the requirements, and a report with solutions should be prepared and available for FALS at the 2012 

Interim Meeting.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, the NBB representative stated a work group is coming up with compromise 

language for the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting. The Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

representative stated there were 137 biodiesel blenders in Iowa and the current proposed language is a real concern 

to blenders, especially the 5 % blenders. The marketers do not support an exemption of 5 % or less included on the 

product transfer documents. One state regulator agrees and suggests removing the exemption for 5 % blends stating 

that if percentage is known it reduces the need for downstream testing. The NBB representative countered that 

testing adds a lot of cost before the product reaches the consumer and that 5 % biodiesel or less meets the 

ASTM D975 diesel fuel specification and there is no performance difference. She also stated the current proposed 

language may be the best compromise that can be achieved. The state regulator stated that in her state terminals 

already certify how much biodiesel leaves the terminal. The NBB representative countered biodiesel was developed 

as a fungible product and is a drop-in fuel. Further, fungibility issues dictate that we not disclose the exact biodiesel 

content. The PMCI representative stated that gallons of biofuel must be reported, and the language in Item 237-3 is 

a compromise because his constituents did not have input into the exemption language. An energy company 

representative stated that Plantation Pipeline is saying diesel fuel may contain up to 5 % biodiesel. Therefore, batch 

certification would be required to determine content. Stratification is also a concern because even batch testing may 

not be indicative of the true content. The PMCI representative stated this issue is really about the renewable 

identification number (RIN) credit and how they are bought and sold. The NBB representative stated that weights 

and measures is most concerned with making sure there is equity in the marketplace and that profitability in the 

marketplace is left up to the market. Another state regulator questioned where the burden of analysis lies. He 

further stated if the blender is making a profit then it is reasonable to expect the blender to bear the cost. The FALS 

is currently gathering information on this item therefore the Committee recommends that the item remain 

Informational.

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments heard. The WWMA would like to get a 

recommendation from FALS before taking further action. WWMA recommended making this item remain 

Informational.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, it was agreed that any action taken should be consistent with other federal 

agency labeling. NEWMA recommended keeping it an Informational item.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, a representative of the NBB conveyed a message on behalf of the chairperson

of the FALS, that it will meet before the NCWM Interim Meeting and provide a report to FALS for the NCWM 

L&R Committee. The SWMA recommended the item remain as an Informational Item.

FALS meet at the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting. Mr. Sam Bell and Mr. Steve Howell, Task Group Co-Chairs 

provided a presentation on the updated data and study. They presented a written report to FALS on January 17, 

2012. The white paper written on this item and will be posted to the FALS prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting. A 

plan was submitted for the activities of this task group for the next eighteen months. FALS recommended that this 

item remain an Informational Item. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments received on this item.

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, the FALS Chair remarked the white paper on his item will be posted to FALS 

prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 Annual Meeting, the FALS Chair provided an update stating that Mr. Bell and Mr. Howell provided a 

presentation to the Subcommittee, however; there is no consensus on how to move forward with this item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 66

Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair, reported that work continues to progress with the task group. If you would like to 

participate in this Biodiesel Disclosure Task Group Subcommittee, contact Mr. Steve Howell, MARC-IV, 

(816) 903-6272, e-mail showell@marciv.com or Mr. Samuel Bell, Echols Oil Company, Inc., at (864) 233-6205, 

e-mail info@scpma.com. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation for this item, please refer to Appendix E, Report of the 95th NCWM (SP 1115, 2010), 

Appendix E in the Report of the 96th NCWM (SP 1125, 2011), and Appendix G within this document for additional 

content. 

237-6 V Section 3.2.X. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Renewable Fuels Association (2012)

Purpose: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3. Classification and 

Method of Sale of Petroleum Products to recognize the mandatory label requirements included in the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Mis-fueling Mitigation final rule from July 25, 2011.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows:

3.2.X. EPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. – Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers of 

gasoline shall comply with the EPA pump labeling requirements for gasoline containing greater than 

10 volume percent (v%) up to 15 volume percent (v%) ethanol (E15) under 40 CFR §80.1501.

(Added 2012) 

Background/Discussion: 

EPA included mandatory fuel dispenser labeling in the final rule. Refer to 40 CFR Part §80.1501 which included 

the creation of a fuel dispenser label that will be required on E15 fuel dispensers. This label informs and alerts 

consumers on appropriate E15 usage to avoid mis-fueling. On July 25, 2011, EPA finalized the “Regulation to 

Mitigate the Mis-fueling of Vehicles and Engines with Gasoline Containing Greater Than Ten Volume Percent 

Ethanol and Modifications to the Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Programs.” (Federal Register Notice

Vol. 76, No. 142, Monday, July 25, 2011, Rules and Regulations) NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products includes the 

regulatory requirements for identification and labeling of each type of petroleum product. There is no expected cost 

to consumers with this amendment. The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is providing the appropriate fuel 

dispenser labels for E15 free of charge.

Based on U.S. EPA’s recent action and mandatory use of a label, 

Renewable Fuels Association believes that NIST Handbook 130 

should recognize this labeling requirement identically to the EPA 

mandated labeling requirement for Diesel Fuel as can be found in 

NIST Handbook 130, Section 3, specifically Section 3.3.2. EPA 

Labeling Requirements Also Apply. For convenience a copy of the 

label follows.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, a representative with the RFA 

proposed adopting the current EPA E15 label. Two state regulators 

stood in support of this proposal. No other comments were heard. The 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 67

CWMA recommends moving this item forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a county official commented about the term within the proposal “wholesale 

purchaser-consumers.” An industry/FALS representative states that the term is in currently recognized federal 

regulations. The WWMA L&R would like FALS to review this item at their meeting prior to the 2012 NCWM 

Interim Meeting. The WWMA recommends the item as an Informational Item.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting a comment was made that this will make NIST Handbook 130 compatible 

with federal mandate. Numerous questions arose about the availability of E15 for retail use, the decrease of miles 

per gallon (mpg) with the increase in ethanol with E15, and whether or not both E10 and E15 will be available at the 

same Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) when E15 is made available. There were also questions about consumer 

confusion when E15 becomes available. NEWMA recommends that the item is an Informational Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Bob Reynolds, Downstream Alternatives, Inc., recommended this item be 

moved forward as a Voting Item so that it matches what is already in Federal law. Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair,

recommended to the L&R Committee that they move this item forward as a Voting Item. An industry representative 

expressed support for this item but inquired to why it was limited to E15? An official remarked that there has been 

no final ruling from EPA. Mr. Hayes responded to the questions by stating that this EPA labeling requirement is 

one of several steps that are necessary for final approval of E15 and addressing EPA labeling is consistent with 

referencing other EPA and FTC labeling in the model regulations for other fuels. An industry representative 

questioned why NCWM has this issue before them if it is under EPA enforcement. The Committee recommends 

this be a Voting Item with minor editorial corrections.

The NEWMA and CWMA both support this item during their spring meetings and recommended adoption by the 

NCWM. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Chuck Corr, Archer Daniels Midland, spoke in support of this item 

because it recognizes federal regulations and provides clarity. 

237-7 V Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks and Dispenser Filters

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Missouri Department of Agriculture (2012)

Purpose: 

Update regulation to address sensitivity of today’s engines to water content in fuel by amending NIST 

Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Sections 4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol 

Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol, Aviation Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel and 

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130 as follows:

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks and Dispenser Filters

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol, 

Aviation Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. – No water phase greater than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) as determined

by an appropriate detection paste or other acceptable means, is allowed to accumulate in any tank utilized 

in the storage of gasoline-alcohol blend, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, E85 fuel ethanol, aviation gasoline, 

and aviation turbine fuel.

(Amended 2008 and 2012) 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 68

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. – Water shall not exceed 25 mm 

(1 in) in depth when measured with water indicating paste or other acceptable means in any tank utilized in 

the storage of diesel, gasoline, gasoline-ether blends, and kerosene sold at retail except as required in 

Section 4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol, 

Aviation Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. (consider all fuels at 1⁄4 inch maximum water)

(Amended 2008 and 2012) 

Background/Discussion: 

The current language in this section may no longer be appropriate for today’s fuels. Engine manufactures and oil 

companies have demonstrated that today’s vehicles are prone to damage with fuels in contact with water.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, it was noted that the purpose portion of the proposal as submitted is incorrect. 

It should read “Amend Section 4.” Considerable discussion regarding the maximum allowable water content was 

heard. Due to concerns expressed in the hearing, the submitter would like to develop language for further 

consideration. The CWMA L&R Committee believes that language needs to be developed before this proposal can 

be considered. The CWMA recommends this as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, there was a comment that it may be misleading to include dispenser filters in 

this section. The WWMA reviewed and discussed this with a FALS member and modified the proposal as stated 

below and recommends the item as a Voting Item. 

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol, Aviation 

Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. – No water phase greater than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) as determined by an 

appropriate detection paste or other acceptable means, is allowed to accumulate in any tank utilized in the 

storage of gasoline-alcohol blend, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, E85 fuel ethanol, aviation gasoline, and aviation 

turbine fuel.

(Amended 2008 and 20XX) 

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. – Water shall not exceed 25 mm (1 in) 6 

mm (1⁄4 in) in depth when measured with water indicating paste or other acceptable means in any tank utilized 

in the storage of diesel, gasoline, gasoline-ether blends, and kerosene sold at retail except as required in 

Section 4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol, Aviation 

Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel.

(Amended 2008 and 20XX) 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting no comments were recorded and the Committee recommends the item be 

assigned as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative and member of FALS stated that no one knows 

what “aviation blends” means so he recommends striking its reference. The Committee believes that clearer 

language and continued discussion need to occur with this item and recommend placing it as a Developing Item. 

At the NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair, commented that FALS recommends moving this 

forward as a Voting Item with a language modification to Section 4.2. to remove the statement “consider all fuels at 

1⁄4 in maximum water.” A consultant remarked that there needs to be a reference point. A state official questioned 

whether Sections 4.1. and 4.2. would be inconsistent if the statement is removed. An industry official commented 

that there seems to be a logical inconsistency in that 1⁄4 in really means zero and is not measurable. The Committee 

recommends this as a Voting Item with the term “aviation blends” and the statement “consider all fuels at 1⁄4 in 

maximum water” in Section 4.2. be removed. 

The NEWMA and CWMA both supported this item and recommended adoption by the NCWM during their spring 

2012 Annual Meetings.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 69

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Hayes clarified that this item to remove the term “aviation blends.” A 

stakeholder suggested that the term “E85 fuel ethanol” be changed to “Ethanol Flex Fuel.” Currently, the FALS is 

tasked with addressing terms within NIST Handbook 130 for flex fuels (refer to Item 237-11). 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the

supporting documentation for this item, please refer to Appendix J within this document. 

237-8 I Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters.

Source: 

Missouri Department of Agriculture (2012)

Purpose: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation Section 4.3.1. Engine Fuel 

Dispenser Filters

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130 as follows:

4.3. Dispenser Filters.

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers.

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel,

E85 fuel ethanol and M85 methanol dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal poresized filter.

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 micron or smaller 

nominal pore-sized filter.

(Added 2008) (Amended 20XX)

Background/Discussion: 

Thirty (30) micron filters provide virtually no protection to current diesel vehicles on the road today. The high 

pressure common rail diesel engines require 10 micron to 3 micron filters on board. Current dispensers with 

30 micron filters are similar to having no filters according to engine manufacturers.

In 2007, the FALS recommended all diesel fuel, biodiesel, and biodiesel blend dispensers must be equipped with a 

10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. During the voting session, an oil company representative stated that 

his company’s stations were equipped with 30 micron filters and suggested this be amended to this size. The L&R 

Committee decided to amend this section to ensure passage of the entire item as many urgent changes were being 

considered in the Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation.

Abnormal dispenser filter plugging at retail will alert the retailer of potential storage tank problems. Requiring 

10 micron filters for all products will reduce the inventory and the potential of installing the wrong filter for all 

products at the same site.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator commented that a smaller porosity filter may be acceptable 

but for now this is a reasonable start. The CWMA supports moving the item forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, need was expressed for more technical information, and there were concerns 

that the flow rate would be diminished, the size of the filter may need to increase, and coupled with biodiesel it 

would tend to clog the filter in colder climates. Because of these reasons the WWMA L&R Committee did not 

believe there was sufficient data to justify addressing this issue. The WWMA recommends that the submitter 

provide additional studies and technical documents to support this proposal. It is recommended that the item be 

Withdrawn.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 70

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, questions were raised as to whether or not “measurement” of filter content 

was within the ability of weights and measures officials. It was noted that better filters may enhance fuel quality. 

The Committee believes that the proposal has potential, given input from industry and NCWM members. NEWMA

forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative stated that standard retailer dispensers use a 

10 micron filter, and high capacity dispensers use 30 micron filters (i.e., diesel dispensed at truck stops). The 

company’s engineers have determined that reducing a 30 micron filter to a 10 micron filter will drastically reduce 

flow rate to trucks. Another industry representative agreed and re-iterated that truck stops would see a tremendous 

reduction in flow. The SWMA L&R Committee believes this proposal is not practical and would have a negative 

impact and undue burden on the trucking industry. The SWMA recommends this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes informed the L&R Committee that FALS recommended this item 

be Informational because of industry concerns that the 10 micron filters would be too restrictive of flow in high-flow 

systems. One industry representative expressed opposition for the use of 10 micron filters and recommends this 

item to be Withdrawn. A representative of an automobile manufacturer claimed diesel passenger vehicles do not 

have the sophisticated filtration systems commonly found on commercial duty vehicles and 10 micron filters on 

dispensers are needed for protection from particulate contamination. As proposed, this item could cause clogging of 

diesel dispenser filters in colder climates. The L&R Committee believes this item has merit but lacks a consensus

and also believes that FALS needs to address these concerns. Therefore, the 2012 L&R Committee designated this 

item as an Informational Item and assigned it to FALS for further development. 

The NEWMA and CWMA, during their spring Annual Meetings, both support his item and recommended adoption 

by the NCWM.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual, several stakeholders spoke in opposition on this item. Mr. Hayes remarked that FALS

worked on this item in 2007 and believes FALS needs to continue to work on this item. The NCWM L&R 

Committee also believes that this item is not ready and supports the continued work of the FALS.

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation for this item, please refer Appendix H within this document for additional content.

237-9 V Section 2.XX. Requirements for Hydrogen Fuel 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Western Weights and Measures Association and U.S. National Work Group on Hydrogen (2009 Developing Item)

Purpose: 

Adopt engine fuel quality requirements for hydrogen in NIST Handbook 130 to address gaseous hydrogen refueling 

applications. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows:

2.17. Hydrogen Fuel. – Shall meet the most recent version of SAE J2719, “Hydrogen Fuel Quality for 

Fuel Cell Vehicles.”

(Added 20XX)

Background/Discussion: 

Twenty-four states have hydrogen refueling dispensers in operation. Hydrogen stations using permanent and mobile 

refueling systems for automobiles, fleet vehicles (buses), forklifts, and airport totes are increasing and may go 

unnoticed. Many stakeholders, who are not familiar with the weights and measures standards process, will need to 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 71

participate at this stage before it becomes a commercial application. This effort by the USNWG for the 

Development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards is to ensure there are appropriate standards and test 

procedures in place in time for dispenser manufacturers, service agencies, and officials to educate the general public, 

not if, but when, retail hydrogen applications become commercially available.

Existing codes do not fully address hydrogen refueling applications because of hydrogen’s properties and other 

technical differences in the setup and operations of dispensing systems. The development of legal metrology 

standards for newly emerging hydrogen technology is a necessary component of the hydrogen infrastructure. The 

weights and measures community must have time to consider requirements for hydrogen-refueling systems before 

this application is available for public access at corner service stations.

In 2009, the USNHWG first brought proposals for equipment, method of sale, and fuel quality requirements before 

the weights and measures community to share this information about upcoming standards for an emerging

technology. The simultaneous development of the code and corresponding test procedures continues to allow for 

input from the weights and measures and hydrogen communities, appropriate trials of the standards, and to address 

all areas of concerns early in the standards development process. A specification table listing the maximum 

permissible levels of constituents for hydrogen fuel quality was developed by the USNHWG based on the fuel 

quality standard adopted by California until such time as nationally recognized standard was available.

This item was reviewed at the WWMA and SWMA 2008 Annual Meetings and at the NEWMA 2008 Interim 

Meeting. NEWMA members generally discussed the “hydrogen issue” and its usage in the marketplace. It is 

anticipated that hydrogen at first will be relegated to “fleet vehicles” (such as compressed natural gas [CNG]), and 

that retail sales will be slow in coming to the marketplace. These associations forwarded the item to NCWM, 

recommending it as a Developing Item. 

At the 2009 Interim and Annual Meetings, the NIST Technical Advisor briefed the Committee on work that the 

USNWG Fuel Specifications Subcommittee (FSS) has done to date (refer to Appendix J in the Report of the 94th

NCWM [SP 1099, 2009]).

At the WWMA 2009 Annual Meeting, industry representatives acknowledged that some details of the specifications 

for fuel standards are in development. The WWMA Committee believed it is best to be proactive on this item so 

that hydrogen stations can be prepare for retail sales.

At the SWMA 2009 Annual Meeting, a state recommended that the test methods be published as they are developed. 

The state also requested that documentation be produced on the effects of hydrogen if certain property values listed 

in the table “Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specification,” are exceeded and why this is important in the testing of 

hydrogen.

There were no comments heard on this proposal at the CWMA 2009 Interim Meeting. 

NEWMA reviewed this proposal at their 2009 Interim Meeting and recommended leaving this as a Developing Item. 

At the NCWM 2010 Interim Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor provided an updated Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel 

Quality Specification (refer to L&R Appendix B in the Report of the 95th NCWM [SP 1115, 2010]) that amends the 

chart to identify which Standards Committee is actively working on the test method under development. The 2010

L&R Committee designated this item as an Informational Item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, no comments were received on this item. Both associations 

are recommended that this remain as an Informational Item.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Jennings, Tennessee Department of Agriculture informed the Conference 

that the ASTM is actively working on a hydrogen specification. Until further developed by ASTM, there is nothing 

that can be done on this item. Mr. Jennings would also like to provide users with information on what the 

significance is of each property. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 72

At the 2010 CWMA Interim, a representative of the USNHWG provided an update on ASTM efforts to establish 

test methods. An industry representative provided information that some of the specifications of the SAE standard 

contained parameters that could not be measured by the current test methods. A ballot cannot take place at ASTM 

until these test methods are established, and test methods will take some time to develop. The CWMA 

recommended that the item remain as an Informational Item to be further developed by the NCWM FALS due to 

their expertise in this area.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a state official, who is also a member of the USNHWG, recommended that 

this item be split into two separate proposals. One proposal would address “Specifications for Hydrogen Fuel for 

Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cells,” and the other item would address “Definitions” with the existing 

language and definitions as recommended by the USNHWG FSS. The state official reported that the USNHWG has 

worked on definitions and that moving the terms to a vote would help move the implementation and acceptance of 

hydrogen. “Specifications” could take years to develop. The WWMA L&R Committee agreed with the 

recommendation in having the definitions as a separate item (refer to Item 237-2 [237-10 in the 2012 NCWM 

Annual Report). The WWMA recommends that this item remain as an Informational Item. 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor informed the group that the WWMA 

recommended to separate the fuel specifications from the definitions. The SWMA Committee with that 

recommendation. The SWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational Item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments on this item. NEWMA recommended that the item 

remain as an Informational Item. The recommendation for the definitions is documented in Item 237-2 (Item 237-

10 in the 2012 NCWM Annual Report). 

Table 1.

Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specifications*

Property Value Unit Limit Test Method(s)

Responsible Standards 

Committee and

Status of test method

1 Ammonia 0.1 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

2 Carbon Dioxide 2.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

ASTM D7649-10

3 Carbon Monoxide 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

4 Formaldehyde 0.01 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

5 Formic Acid 0.2 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7550-09

ASTM D7653-10

6 Helium 300.0 ppm v/v to be specified ASTM D03.14

7 Hydrogen Fuel Index 99.97 % (a) to be specified

8 Nitrogen and Argon 100.0 ppm v/v ASTM D7649-10

9 Oxygen 5.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7649-10

10 Particulate 

Concentration 1.0 mg/kg Maximum ASTM D7650-10ASTM D7651-10

11

Total Allowable NonHydrogen, NonHelium,

Non-Particulate 

constituents

100.0 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified

12 Total Non-Hydrogen 

Gases 300.0 ppm v/v (b) Maximum to be specified

13 Total Halogenated 

Compounds 0.05 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified WK 23815 under ASTM D03.14
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 73

Table 1.

Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specifications*

Property Value Unit Limit Test Method(s)

Responsible Standards 

Committee and

Status of test method

14 Total Hydrocarbons 2.0 ppm v/v 

(c) Maximum to be specified WK 22378 under ASTM D03.14

15 Total Sulfur 

Compounds 0.004 ppm v/v Maximum to be specified WK 24073 under ASTM D03.14

16 Water 5.0 ppm v/v Maximum ASTM D7653-10

ASTM D7649-10

Footnotes to Table 1:

a. Hydrogen fuel index is the value obtained with the value of total gases (%) subtracted from 100 %.

b. Total Gases = Sum of all impurities listed on the table except particulates. 

c. Total Hydrocarbons may exceed 2 ppm v/v only due to the presence of methane, provided that the total gases do not 

exceed 300 ppm v/v.

*The FTC’s Fuel Rating Rule (16 CFR Part 309) see the requirements in “Labeling of Alternative Fuels” 

at business.ftc.gov/documents/bus29-labeling-alternative-fueled-vehicles; requires dispensers to bear an declaration of minimum 

percent of hydrogen determined, according to test methods described in “Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by 

Gas Chromatography” (ASTM D1946).

Updated 1/20/2011

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor submitted an updated Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel 

Quality Specification that was received from the USNHWG. The USNHWG also submitted the following updated 

specifications for the allowable level of the constituents listed in Table 1. Hydrogen Fuel Quality Specifications and 

corresponding standardized procedures for collecting and measuring each constituent are now available 

for: Ammonia [1], Carbon Dioxide [2], Carbon Monoxide [3], Formaldehyde [4], Formic Acid [5], Nitrogen and 

Argon [8], Oxygen [9], Particulate Concentration [10], and Water [16]. The next stage in the development of these 

standards is to round robin the methods to establish precision and bias. Standard Test Methods for Sulfur [15] and 

Hydrocarbons [14] will be made available shortly since these standards are in publishing. ASTM Subcommittee 

D03.14 on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells has tentative plans for sending the standards for Helium [6] and Halogenates 

[13] to ballot in March 2011. The Committee recommends that the item remain Informational.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator supported moving the item forward because we now have 

ASTM test methods for hydrogen. An industry representative countered that additional work is necessary by the 

Hydrogen Work Group. Specifically, there is concern the specifications may be too restrictive and questioned if the 

limits actually fall within the scope of the test methods. After discussion, the Committee agreed that additional 

work is needed by the work group. The CWMA recommended that the item remain as an Information Item.

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, an updated specifications chart was reviewed. Both Regions 

are recommending this item move forward as an Informational Item until further developed by the USNHWG.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, a revised chart updated on July 12, 2011, was distributed. It was noted by a 

representative of the USNHWG that the previous color coded chart was eliminated since only one constituent 

remains to be completed. The Committee is in agreement that the revised chart move forward as an Information 

item. The work on the test method for total halogenated compounds in anticipated to be completed by spring 2012

(refer to Item 237-1 in the Report of the 96th NCWM [SP 1125, 2011]). 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Ms. Macey, spoke on behalf of the USNHWG, and California stating there is 

still work being done on this item. Ms. Macey noted that this item is ready for a vote. The WWMA Committee 

fully supports this item. If updates are received from the USNHWG, the WWMA Committee would like the 

NCWM L&R Committee to have editorial privileges with any updated information on standards that are received. 

The WWMA Committee fully supported any work done by the USNHWG. It is recommended that this item be a 

Voting Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 74

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, Mr. Collins, UTC Power gave a presentation on “Background on 

SAE J2719 Hydrogen Quality for Fuel Cell Vehicles.” NEWMA recommended that the item remain as an 

Informational Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor to the USNHWG reported that the USNHWG 

recommended that Table 1 be deleted with a statement that makes reference to SAE International Standard J2719. 

This direct reference to an SAE fuel quality standard for hydrogen is proposed to entirely replace the previous table 

that had been developed by the USNHWG. SAE J2719 includes the constituents, maximum allowable levels and 

the effects of these compounds, definitions, a list of research papers supporting the document’s development, and 

corresponding ASTM test methods. The USNHWG had developed the table to be harmonized with the developing 

SAE J2719 standard and as an interim measure until there was a nationally recognized standard. SAE J2719 has 

been approved for publication, a NIST Handbook 130 standard by direct reference to SAE J2719 is preferred by the 

FSS to facilitate continued harmonization with the SAE standard and to reflect the precedence of directly 

referencing SAE and ASTM standards that is set by other fuel quality standards found in Section 2. Standard Fuel 

Specifications (e.g., Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends, Diesel Fuel, Aviation Turbine Fuels, LPG, CNG, 

etc.).

The USNHWG supports the addition of the single sentence direct reference to SAE J2719 to NIST Handbook 130 

for the purpose of meeting the need in the market place for uniformity in hydrogen fuel quality. Publication of the 

SAE J2719 standard was published in September 2011. The USNHWG will continue to accept input and work on 

this item as needed until NCWM interim meeting in January 2012. The SWMA recommended that the item be a 

Voting Item with the following changes as recommended by the USNHWG. 

The recommended change is: 

2.X. Hydrogen Fuel. – Shall meet the most recent version of SAE J2719, “Hydrogen Fuel Quality for 

Fuel Cell Vehicles.”

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Technical Advisor to the USNHWG reported that the language appearing 

in the 2011 WWMA report has been approved by the USNHWG and encourages the Committee to move it forward 

as a Voting Item. The USNHWG recommended that the status of Item 237-10 not be dependent on the outcome of 

Item 237-9. The 2912 L&R Committee designated this item as a Voting Item. 

Both NEWMA and CWMA supported this item and recommended its adoption by the NCWM during their spring 

2012 Annual Meetings. 

At the 2012 Annual Meeting, Ms. Juana Williams, NIST Technical Advisor to the DOE NIST USNHWG remarked 

that the USNHWG agrees that SAE J2719 is the appropriate fuel standard for hydrogen. This is consistent with 

national and international standards.

Additional information on this hydrogen proposal and the corresponding method of sale regulation and hydrogen gas 

measuring devices code can be found at www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/lmdg/hydrogen.cfm. For additional information on 

this item, contact Ms. Juana Williams, NIST OWM at juana.williams@nist.gov or (301) 975-3989.

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation for this item, please refer to Appendix J of the Report of the 94th NCWM (SP 1099, 2009) 

L&R Committee Item 270-4, Appendix B in the Report of the 95th NCWM [SP 1115, 2010] L&R Committee Items 

232-3 and 237-2, Report of the 96th NCWM (SP1125, 2011) L&R Committee Items 237-1 and 237-2, and Appendix 

I in this report. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 75

237-10 V Section 1. Definitions, Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel 

Cell Vehicles

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA). This item was previously within Item 237-1. 

Purpose: 

Adopt definitions for hydrogen fuel, internal combustion engine, and fuel cell.

Item Under Consideration: 

In April 2009, the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for the Development of Commercial Hydrogen 

Measurement Standards Fuel Specifications Subcommittee (FSS) presented the following recommended definitions

for consideration.

FSS supports the proposed new definitions to address gaseous hydrogen refueling applications.

1. Specification for Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cells

2. Definitions

1.21. Fuel Cell. – An electrochemical energy conversion device in which fuel and an oxidant react to 

generate electricity without consumption, physically or chemically, of its electrodes or electrolytes.

(Added 2012) 

1.29. Hydrogen Fuel. – A fuel composed of molecular hydrogen intended for consumption in a surface 

vehicle or electricity production device with an internal combustion engine or fuel cell.

(Added 2012) 

1.30. Internal Combustion Engine. – A device used to generate power by converting chemical energy 

bound in the fuel via spark-ignition or compression ignition combustion into mechanical work to power a 

vehicle or other device.

(Added 2012) 

Background/Discussion: 

This proposal was reviewed at all the fall regional meetings under Item 237-1. At the 2010 WWMA and SWMA 

Annual Meetings and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the regional associations made the recommendation to 

have the definitions for hydrogen fuel for internal combustion engines and fuel cell vehicles considered as separate 

items. The regional associations are recommending this item move forward as a Voting Item. (Refer to Item 237-1 

above for additional background information) 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, a NIST Technical Advisor reported that the USNHWG and the 2011 L&R 

Committee supported this item as a Voting Item and recommended the item be adopted by the NCWM. 

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, no comments were heard on this item. The NEWMA and the 

CWMA recommended that this item move forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, an official spoke in support of this item, and there was no additional 

comments heard. During the voting session, it was asked if online comments were reviewed for additional language 

changes, and the Committee Chair responded that the online comments were reviewed by the Committee. 

Prior to the voting session, it was recommended that the definition for hydrogen fuel be amended to the language 

submitted by Mr. Simnick (refer to Report of the 96th NCWM [SP1125, 2011]). A representative of the USNHWG 

remarked that the substitution of the word molecular for chemical is questionable; accordingly they would like to 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 76

take the language back to the USNHWG for additional review and study. An official requested that the L&R 

Committee remove this item from Voting status and return to Informational status. The L&R Committee agreed that 

additional review is required by the USNHWG. The 2011 L&R Committee removed the item from the voting 

calendar and designated it as an Informational Item prior to a vote. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Ms. Macey spoke on behalf of California and the USNHWG in support of 

this item to move forward as a vote. The WWMA Committee fully supported the work of the USNHWG. WWMA 

recommended that the item remain a Voting Item with the following revisions.

Final updated or revised proposal recommended by the WWMA: 

1.XX. Fuel Cell. – An electrochemical energy conversion device in which fuel and an oxidant react to 

generate energy electricity without any consumption, physically or chemically, of its electrodes or 

electrolytes. 

(Added 20XX) 

1.XX. Hydrogen Fuel. – A fuel composed of the chemical molecular hydrogen intended for consumption

in a surface vehicle or electricity production device with an internal combustion engine or fuel cell. 

(Added 20XX) 

1.XX. Internal Combustion Engine. – A device used to generate power by converting chemical energy 

bound in the fuel via spark-ignition or compression ignition combustion into mechanical work to power a 

vehicle or other device. 

(Added 20XX)

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the Committee supported definitions as submitted. NEWMA recommended

that the item remain as a Voting Item. 

The 2011 SWMA Committee supports the latest work of USNHWG. The SWMA recommended that the item 

remain as a Voting Item with the recommendations that appear in the 2011 WWMA Annual Report.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed the language that appears in NCWM Publication 15 

(2012). 

1.XX. Fuel Cell. – An electrochemical energy conversion device in which fuel and an oxidant react to 

generate energy without consumption of its electrodes or electrolytes.

(Added 20XX)

1.XX. Hydrogen Fuel. – A fuel composed of the chemical hydrogen intended for consumption in a 

surface vehicle with an internal combustion engine or fuel cell.

(Added 20XX)

1.XX. Internal Combustion Engine. – A device used to generate power by converting chemical energy 

bound in the fuel into mechanical work to power a vehicle.

(Added 20XX)

The NIST Technical Advisor commented that the language the work group submitted at the 2011 WWMA has been 

approved and reviewed by the USNHWG with a recommendation that it move forward as a Voting Item. The 

USNHWG also recommended that the status of Item 237-10 not be dependent on the outcome of Item 237-9. The 

2012 L&R Committee designated this item as a Voting Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 77

Both NEWMA and the CWMA support the language from the WWMA and recommended adoption by the NCWM 

during their spring 2012 Annual Meetings. The NIST Technical advisor noted at the CWMA meeting that an 

editorial change to the definition “hydrogen fuel” needs to be made to remove the word “the.”

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor to the USNHWG noted that an editorial change 

for the definition of hydrogen fuel needs to be made by removing the word “the” in front of “molecular.” After 

discussing the comments from the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings and the proposed changes, the 

Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under 

Consideration 

Additional background information on this proposal is available in the Report of the 94th NCWM (SP 1099, 2009) 

L&R Committee Item 270-4 and Appendix J, Report of the 95th NCWM (SP 1115, 2010) L&R Committee Items 

232-3 and 237-2, and Appendix B, and Report of the 96th NCWM (SP1125, 2011) L&R Committee Items 237-1 and 

237-2. To review more current documentation on this item, please refer to Appendix I in this report.

Additional information on this hydrogen proposal and the corresponding method of sale regulation and hydrogen gas 

measuring devices code can be found at www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/lmdg/hydrogen.cfm. For additional information on 

this item, contact Ms. Juana Williams, NIST, OWM at juana.williams@nist.gov or (301) 975-3989. 

237-11 I Section X.X. Flex Fuel Vehicles

Source: 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee Task Group (2012)

Purpose: 

A number of changes have occurred related to fuels restricted to use in Flex Fuel Vehicles. Fuels Lubricants 

Subcommittee (FALS) has formed a task group to begin the review of NIST Handbook 130 related to these flex 

fuels. FALS will develop proposed modifications to NIST Handbook 130.

Item Under Consideration: 

Proposal to be developed. 

Background/Discussion: 

The current wording in NIST Handbook 130 related to fuels restricted to use in Flex Fuel Vehicles should be 

reviewed. Input gathered from the regional meetings and other stakeholders will be utilized by FALS to develop 

recommended modifications to NIST Handbook 130. 

At the 2011 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments. The CWMA and NEWMA 

forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Developing Item while FALS continues its work. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, WWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as an Informational

Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Chuck Corr, Archer Daniels Midland Company, gave a presentation on 

the topic. FALS task force identified several areas where stakeholder input is needed to propose updates to NIST 

Handbook 130 and to reflect new language in ASTM D5798. No comments were made during the hearing. FALS 

is expected to have a recommendation for the Interim Meeting. The SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM 

recommending it as a Developing Item.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Ron Hayes, FALS Chair provided an update on the task group’s progress. 

Mr. Corr will lead an effort to get Regional input on a transition and implementation date. The 2012 L&R 

Committee designated this item as an Informational Item. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were received. The NEWMA recommended this remain an

Informational Item. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 78

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Corr provided a presentation on “Flex Fuel Task Force Update.” This 

presentation noted that ASTM standards D7794-12 and D5798-11 cover the standard for a full range of ethanol 

concentrations. Several comments were received that the 51 % to 83 % ethanol range is too broad. A state regulator 

was concerned with blends at the pumps; the fuel can be blended at any percentage. A stakeholder remarked that 

consumers are concerned with price and miles per gallon (MPG) and may not have enough knowledge in regards to 

blends. Another stakeholder remarked that ASTM 5798 is at the terminal and the Conference needs to address this 

issue. The CWMA recommends that FALS continue to develop this item.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Corr provided a FALS update that in Handbook 130 approximately 

18 areas have been identified where modifications may be needed. A stakeholder commented that they fully support 

the work of Mr. Corr’s Subcommittee working on this issue through FALS. Mr. Corr’s group is to provide 

additional information at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting.

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation for this item, please refer to Appendix J in this document for additional content.

250 NIST HANBOOK 130 – NCWN POLICY, INTERPRETATIONS, AND 

GUIDELINES, SECTION 2, EXCERPTS FROM NCWM PUBLICATION 3 

250-1 W Section 2.7. Technology Difference of Standards

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Total Meter Services (2012)

Purpose: 

Address potential differences between verification results of meters using vapor capture prover apparatus and 

verification results using non-vapor capture proving apparatus, such as open-neck provers. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Add the following new section to NIST Handbook 130, Interpretations and Guidelines:

2.X. Technology Differences of Standards Differences in technology of standards used can lead to 

differences in verification results. For example: A volumetric standard that captures vapor during the 

device verification process may not yield the same result as an open volumetric vessel standard where 

vapors may be lost.

(Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Evaporation Capture Provers – Small volume provers, displacer/piston type, that connect directly to the meter 

discharge have no evaporation losses associated with the device verification process. Consideration needs to be 

made of potential differences between verification results of meters using vapor capture prover apparatus and 

verification results using non-vapor capture proving apparatus, such as open-neck provers.

A. Vapor Losses During Dispensing (or Open Neck Proving)

The liquid losses from emissions or vapor losses associated with retail gasoline dispensing range from 1 in3 to 3 in3 

per 5 gal, 0.09 % to 0.26 %. The actual number varies based on the fuel chemistry that can be adjusted for seasons, 

the temperature of the dispensing, and the amount of alcohol added. The losses are actually greater in winter due to 

fuel chemistry adjustments. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 79

The range of vapor losses comes from studies by the California Air Resources Board, the EPA, and Measurement 

Canada.

Vapor Losses from Gasoline Dispensing (Liquid Equivalent)

Source of Data Pounds Gallons

Cubic Inches 

per Gallon

Cubic Inches 

per 5 Gallon

California Air Res Board Study 2008 – Summer RVP 6 0.0058 0.0010 0.2196 1.098

California Air Res Board Study 2008 – Winter RVP 12 0.0092 0.0015 0.3484 1.742

EPA 2008 Trans and Mkt Petro liq vapor 5.2 Avg 0.0110 0.0018 0.4162 2.081

Measurement Canada Low (converted from metric) 0.1658 0.829

Measurement Canada High (converted from metric) 0.5939 2.969

These documented vapor losses are the same quantities of losses that occur during an open neck proving. The 

Canadian study is a direct comparison of vapor capture and non-vapor capture proving technologies.

B. Vapor Capture Proving Simulates the Current Refueling Process

When used for gasoline dispenser verifications and calibrations, vapor capture provers most closely resemble the 

current automobile refueling process. 

Since 2000, automobiles sold in the United States have on-board vapor capture systems, On-board Refueling Vapor 

System (ORVR). Vapors associated with the fueling process are captured on the vehicle. Stage II vapor recovery 

on the dispenser that normally returns vapor to the underground tank is defeated at the nozzle in preference to the 

on-board recovery system.

Definitions:

On-board Refueling Vapor Systems (ORVR). – This equipment prevents vapors from escaping to the atmosphere 

during the fueling process, allows them to condensate, return back to liquid and re-enter the consumer’s automobile 

fuel tank.

On-board Refueling Vapor Systems (ORVR) Nozzle. – Dispenser nozzle that senses the ORVR system and 

allows the on-board canister to capture refueling vapors instead of the Dispenser/Tank vapor recovery system.

Stage II Vapor Recover. – The Stage II system consists of special nozzles and coaxial hoses at each gasoline 

dispenser that captures vapors from the vehicle's fuel tank and routes them to the station's underground or 

aboveground storage tank(s) during the refueling process.

Details:

Around 1997, the EPA amended the Regulations to force U.S. automakers to build in to the fill pipe and fuel tank a 

carbon canister vapor recovery system, the ORVR System. This equipment prevents vapors from escaping to the 

atmosphere during the fueling process, allows them to condensate, return back to liquid and re-enter the consumer’s 

automobile fuel tank. As a result, the consumer takes possession of the vapors that were once vented into the air or 

captured by the Stage II Vapor Recovery System.

The EPA phased in the rollout schedule as follows:

• 40 % of all United States’ 1998 auto production must have ORVR equipment installed; 

• 80 % of all United States’ 1999 auto production must have ORVR equipment installed; and

• 100 % of all United States’ model year 2001, and years forward, auto production must have ORVR 

equipment installed.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 80

The EPA authorized large metropolitan areas to calculate the population of total vehicles on the road in the nonattainment areas and let them phase out Stage II Vapor Recovery at the dispenser as the population of ORVR 

equipped vehicles becomes the standard in their respective geographical area. 

The EPA is currently taking comments on a proposal to waive Stage II requirements as of June 30, 2013. They 

estimate 73 % of vehicles on the road will have ORVR by that date. (Reference: EPA Fact Sheet 20110711)

The State of New York has suspended enforcement of Stage II Vapor Recovery because of the prevalence of ORVR. 

(Reference: Stage II Vapor Collection System Enforcement Discretion Directive, May 25, 2011)

C. “Predominately Negative”

Field Inspectors in some cases have guidelines or rules for addressing the predominance of a dispensing location. If 

most dispensers register less than the inspector’s verification standard volume, “negative” results, some action may 

be taken by the inspector, even though the results are in tolerance. If the inspector’s visit comes after a calibration 

by the service company using the vapor capture/closed loop prover, the “predominately negative’ site is not due to a 

purposeful “mis-calibration” of the dispensers, but the difference between the verification technologies. The range 

of difference may be one-cubic inch to three-cubic inches as noted in the studies. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, several state regulators agreed that this item is not ready to be developed until 

NIST, OWM makes a determination on whether this can be a traceable standard. Another state regulator 

commented that the proving method should matches the way the product is sold. A third regulator did not like the 

terminology and does not want the item moved forward. An independent consultant stated the need to show 

traceability. Because NIST, OWM does not recognize this as a traceable standard, the CWMA recommends the 

item be Withdrawn.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, concerns were raised about having two different methods to ascertain 

whether or not RMFDs were within tolerance if the results yielded different readings. There should not be two 

different standards. NEWMA Committee recommended that more study be conducted into the efficacy of this 

technology when considering the current method of testing RMFDs with open neck provers. NEWMA forwarded 

the item to NCWM recommending it as a Developing Item.

At the 2012 Interim Meeting, the original submitter withdrew this item. Ms. Carol Hockert, NIST, OWM Chief 

remarked that a meeting was held earlier in the week to gathered data and information on alternative test methods 

for liquid devices, and it was agreed at that session that this item would be removed from the L&R Agenda. As 

additional information and data is gathered on this technology the NIST, OWM will send a notice in regards to 

forming a work group.

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133

260-1 W Handbook 133, Section 2.3.8. Moisture Allowance - Moisture Loss for Products Not 

Listed.

Source: 

Moisture Loss Work Group (MLWG) (2011) 

Purpose: 

Provide additional guidance for making moisture allowances for products not listed in Handbook 133.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133 as follows:

2.3.8. Moisture Allowances

e. How is moisture loss handled for products not listed in NIST Handbook 133?
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 81

Officials can test products for which no moisture loss guidance has been provided. If studies are a 

necessity, they should be a collaborative effort between officials and industry. Because of the 

potential impact on interstate commerce, studies should be completed on a nationwide basis and not 

by individual jurisdictions unless circumstances justify only local consideration.

The amount of moisture loss from a package is a function of many factors, not the least of which is 

the product itself (e.g., moisture content, texture and density), packaging, storage conditions 

(e.g., temperature, humidity, and air flow), time, handling and others. If a packaged product is 

subject to moisture loss, officials must allow for “reasonable” variations caused by moisture either 

evaporating or draining from the product. Officials cannot set arbitrary moisture allowances based 

solely on their experience or intuition. Moisture allowances must be based on scientific data and 

must be “reasonable.” Reasonable does not mean that all of the weight loss caused by moisture 

evaporation or draining from the product must be allowed. As a result of product and moisture 

variability, the approach used by an official must be developed on a case-by-case basis depending on 

many factors to include, but not be limited to, the manufacturing process, packaging materials, 

distribution, environmental influence and the anticipated shelf life of the product.

NIST Handbook 130 provides a starting point for developing a workable procedure in the 

Interpretation and Guideline Section 2.5.6. regarding “Resolution for Requests for Recognition of 

Moisture Loss in Other Packaged Products.” Most studies involving nationally distributed products 

will require that products be tested during different seasons of the year and in different geographic 

locations to develop a nationally recognized moisture allowance. Some studies may require the 

development of laboratory tests used for inter-laboratory comparisons to establish moisture content 

in products at time of pack or at the time of inspection.

Moisture loss or gain is a critical consideration for any net content enforcement effort and one that, 

in most cases, cannot be addressed solely by a field official. If moisture loss issues are to be 

deliberated, it is the regulatory official’s responsibility to resolve the packer’s concern utilizing 

available resources and due process procedures. To fulfill this obligation the official may be required 

to utilize specialized test equipment and specific laboratory procedures. Additionally, the collection 

of adequate test data may require product examination over a broad geographical area and 

consideration of a wide range of environmental factors. If a national effort is required, a coordinated 

effort involving industry, trade associations, weights and measures officials, and federal agencies may 

be required. NIST will provide technical support upon request. If studies are a necessity they should 

be a collaborative effort between officials and industry but may be very time consuming depending 

on the product. Because of the potential impact on interstate commerce, studies must be completed 

on a nationwide basis and not by individual jurisdictions unless circumstances justify only local 

consideration.

Background/Discussion: 

In previous years, the Moisture Loss Work Group (MLWG) reviewed draft changes that were developed to revise 

and update Handbook 133 (2005). Some of the proposed changes and recommendations were developed to improve 

the guidance on making moisture allowances. At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, Item 260-1 (refer to the Report 

of the 95th NCWM [SP 1115, 2010]) was voted through the Conference with the exception of the item under of 

consideration. 

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator stated that Handbook 133 provides moisture allowance for 

only a few products. The regulator provided an example where a product was claiming moisture allowance for a 

product not contained in Handbook 133. This regulator was provided with only verbal assistance from NIST 

regarding what was needed to demonstrate the request for moisture allowance. The regulator believes written 

procedures need to be developed to provide guidance, and a step-by-step protocol developed for determining 

moisture allowance in a specific product. Another state regulator agreed and commented that determination of 

moisture allowance needs to be consistent. An industry representative agreed that more guidance is needed, and 

recommended that the proposal include the necessary information required to demonstrate moisture loss that

warrants an allowance. The CWMA recommends that the MLWG continue to develop this proposal.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 82

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a county official expressed concern that the existing language is conflicting 

and does not provide specific guidance to weights and measures officials (i.e., statements that moisture loss should 

be determined on a case-by-case basis and at the same time calls for a nationwide study). It was recommended that 

the MLWG focus its effort on developing a clearer criteria and process for determining moisture loss. The WWMA 

agrees that the following language within the proposal is contradictory and vague and does not provide specific 

guidance to officials. 

• should be a collaborative effort between officials and industry

• should be completed on a nationwide basis

• must be based on scientific data

• must be developed on a case-by-case basis

• may be required to utilize specialized test equipment and specific laboratory procedure

• a coordinated effort involving industry, trade associations, weights and measures officials may be required 

The WWMA recommends that this be a Developing Item. 

At both the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting and the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, both associations agreed that the 

item was not developed and recommended that this moved forward as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor gave an update that the Handbook 133 had 

amendments that were voted in at the July 2010 Annual Meeting. However, the item under consideration was pulled 

back for further development by the MLWG. A state official commented that the MLWG needs to continue to 

develop this item. The L&R Committee would like to receive additional input from the regional associations. The 

NIST Technical Advisor will set up a MLWG meeting at the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting. The 2011 L&R 

Committee designated this item as an Informational Item.

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor requested information from the region on how 

they would like to proceed on this item. Currently, the item under consideration stipulates store, data, and test 

procedures. NEWMA recommends that this item move forward as an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 CWMA Annual Meeting, a state representative remarked that current moisture loss issues with a 

company cannot be resolved due to lack of guidance for proper determination. They would like to see an emphasis 

on national studies and not case-by-case situations. There were recommendations to form a work group or get an 

organization involved that can assist. This region would like to see an easy, implementable solution on how to 

demonstrate moisture loss. The CWMA would like to see a moisture loss determination for products not currently 

listed in NIST Handbook 133. For this reason, the CWMA would like to see this as an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, a representative of Kraft Foods supported this as an Informational Item. Kraft 

will be providing NCWM with additional draft language for consideration. It is important that the language be clear 

as to who is to provide data, what purpose does the data serve, and is it for a specific product on a national or state 

level. Kraft will develop a detailed proposal to look at a few more principles of establishing moisture allowance. 

They will also provide recommendations on guidance for four areas in establishing moisture allowance in order to 

assist inspectors. The NIST Technical Advisor indicated that additional work needs to be done on this item and asks 

that comments be submitted from the fall regional meetings. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, no comments were received, and the CWMA recommended the item remain 

as an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Chris Guay, Procter and Gamble Co., commented that moisture loss 

allowance needs to be addressed by NCWM. A procedure needs to be developed that is acceptable to both industry 

and regulators. A county official opposes the item as written but believes that the MLWG should continue to work 

and develop an acceptable procedure. The NIST Technical Advisor recommended that each region submit 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 83

information to the MLWG regarding what they would like to see. There is an item under consideration and no 

comments or recommendations have been received for MLWG to develop. The WWMA acknowledges that this 

item has been on the agenda for several years and no additional comments or recommendations for changes have 

been brought forward. The WWMA recommended that this item be Withdrawn so that a better prepared proposal 

may come forward.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, NEWMA recommended that this item be Withdrawn as there is insufficient 

data to support it. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, a NIST Technical Advisor noted that this is not a NIST, OWM work group 

but a NCWM work group, and it is in need of a new Chair. No other comments were made from the floor. There is 

value in developing a process whether states decide individually to use it, or whether it is used as a tool for bringing 

items before NCWM for national consideration and uniformity. Regions are being asked to provide input. The 

SWMA recommends the item remain as an Informational Item until a new work group chair can be identified.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed that this item has been reviewed by the regions for 

last two years, and there have not been any amendments to the item under consideration. An industry representative 

recommended that the current language be deleted and this item be worked on to provide guidelines. 

The language in this item should not remain on the agenda, but the work group needs to have a Chair nominated and

the work group to be active. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as a Withdrawn Item and is placing a 

Developing Item 270-3 on the agenda to activate the work group. The L&R Chair, Ms. Judy Cardin will request that 

the NCWM Chair appoint a new Chair for this work group.

260-2 V HB 133, Section 2.3.8 Moisture Allowance - Pasta Products 

(This item neither passed or failed and was returned to the Committee.) 

Source: 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Purpose: 

Amend HB 133 by adopting a 3 % moisture allowance for macaroni, noodle, and like products (pasta products). 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133, Section 1.2.(5)a. Package Requirements as follows: 

a. Why and when do we allow for moisture loss or gain?

This handbook provides “moisture allowances” for some meat and poultry products, flour, pasta products,

and dry pet food. (See Chapter 2, Table 2-3. “Moisture Allowances”) These allowances are based on the 

premise that when the average net weight of a sample is found to be less than the labeled weight, but not by 

an amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either the lot is declared to be within the moisture allowance or 

more information must be collected before deciding lot compliance or noncompliance.

Test procedures for flour, pasta products, some meat, and poultry are based on the concept of a “moisture 

allowance” also known as a “gray area” or “no decision” area (see Section 2.3.9. “Calculations”). When 

the average net weight of a sample is found to be less than the labeled weight, but not more than the 

boundary of the “gray area,” the lot is said to be in the “gray” or “no decision” area. The gray area is not a 

tolerance. More information must be collected before lot compliance or noncompliance can be decided. 

Appropriate enforcement should be taken on packages found short weight and outside of the “moisture 

allowance” or “gray area.”

(Amended 2002 and 20XX) 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 84

Amend NIST Handbook 133, Section 2.3.8.b. Moisture Allowances as follows: 

b. What are the moisture allowances for flour, dry pet food, pasta products, and other products? (See 

Table 2-3. “Moisture Allowances.”)

Table 2-3.

Moisture Allowances

Verifying the labeled net 

weight of package of:

Moisture 

Allowance is:

Notes

Flour 3 %

Dry pet food 3 %

Dry pet food means all extruded dog and cat foods and baked 

treats packaged in Kraft paper bags and/or cardboard boxes with 

a moisture content of 13 % or less at time of pack.

Pasta Products 3 %

Pasta products means all macaroni, noodle, and like 

products packaged in Kraft paper bags, paperboard 

cartons, and/or flexible plastic bags with a moisture content 

of 13 % or less at the time of pack.

Borax See 

Section 2.4.

Wet Tare Only1

Fresh poultry 3 % Fresh poultry is defined as poultry above a temperature of 

− 3 °C (26 °F) that yields or gives when pushed with the thumb.

Franks or hot dogs 2.5 %

Bacon, fresh sausage, and 

luncheon meats 0 %

For packages of bacon, fresh sausage, and luncheon meats, there 

is no moisture allowance if there is no free-flowing liquid or 

absorbent material in contact with the product and the package is 

cleaned of clinging material. Luncheon meats are any cooked 

sausage product, loaves, jellied products, cured products, and 

any sliced sandwich-style meat. This does not include whole 

hams, briskets, roasts, turkeys, or chickens requiring further 

preparation to be made into ready-to-eat sliced product. When 

there is no free-flowing liquid inside the package and there are 

no absorbent materials in contact with the product, Wet Tare and 

Used Dried Tare are equivalent. 1

Wet tare procedures must not be used to verify the labeled net weight of packages of meat and poultry packed 

at an official United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) facility and bearing a USDA seal of inspection. 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) adopted specific sections of the 2005 4th Edition of NIST 

HB 133 by reference in 2008 but not the “wet tare” method for determining net weight compliance. FSIS 

considers the free-flowing liquids in packages of meat and poultry products, including single-ingredient, raw 

poultry products, to be integral components of these products (see Federal Register, September 9, 2008 

[Volume 73, Number 175] [Final Rule – pages 52189-52193]).

(Amended 2010, and 20XX) 

Amend NIST Handbook 133, Sections 2.3.9.b. and d. Calculations as follows: 

b. How is a Moisture Allowance made prior to determining package errors?

If the Moisture Allowance is known in advance (e.g., flour, pasta products, and dry pet food), it can be 

applied by adjusting the Nominal Gross Weight (NGW) used to determine the sample package errors. The 

Moisture Allowance (MA) in Box 13a is subtracted from the NGW to obtain an Adjusted Nominal Gross 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 85

Weight (ANGW) which is entered in Box 14. The NGW is the sum of the Labeled Net Quantity of 

Contents (LNQC e.g., 907 g) and the Average Tare Weight (ATW) from Box 13. 

(Amended 20XX)

d. What should you do when a sample is in the moisture allowance (gray) area?

This handbook provides “moisture allowances” for some meat and poultry products, flour, pasta products,

and dry pet food. These allowances are based on the premise that when the average net weight of a sample 

is found to be less than the labeled weight, but not by an amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either the 

lot is declared to be within the moisture allowance or further investigation can be conducted.

Reasonable variations from net quantity of contents caused by the loss or gain of moisture from the 

package are permitted when caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that occur under 

good distribution practices. If evidence is obtained and documented to prove that the lot was shipped from 

the packaging plant in a short-weight condition or was distributed under inappropriate or damaging 

distribution practices, appropriate enforcement action should be taken.

(Amended 2010 and 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Studies indicate that moisture loss for pasta products is reasonably predictable over time. Pasta exhibits consistent 

moisture loss in all environments and packaging, which can vary more than 4 % due to environmental and 

geographic conditions. Although it eventually reaches equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere because it is 

hygroscopic, this balance does not occur until long after packaging and shipping.

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for this item from industry and stakeholders. 

This item would amend the Moisture Allowance Table in NIST Handbook 133 giving pasta a 3 % moisture 

allowance. The Committee reviewed the submitted study (refer to the Report of the 95th NCWM [SP 1115, 2010]). 

The 2010 L&R Committee designated this item as a Voting Item.

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting a representative of the pasta industry gave the group an explanation of the 

item and expressed support for this item as written. NEWMA Committee also supports this item.

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting, a representative from the National Pasta Association stated the data supports 

the 3 % moisture allowance. A weights and measures official commented that testing in their state does not support 

the proposal. An industry representative stated that guidance is needed for an established moisture allowance, and 

currently, there are no guidelines to establish the moisture loss percentage.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, a representative for the National Pasta Association spoke on behalf of the 

proposal. This item will allow for a specific moisture loss percentage to be taken. Inspectors will now have a 

specific number that they can apply to the pasta product. Representatives of several pasta companies spoke in 

support of this item stating that it is consistent with numerous studies that have been done. A state director opposes 

this item, since pasta is known to have moisture loss due to the type of product it is. He further explained that 

applying a blanket 3 % moisture loss does not make sense, what may be good in Florida may not be good in New 

Mexico. Another official stated that applying the 3 % does not stop an inspector from going into a distribution or 

point of pack to inspect; especially if the inspectors believe the packer is under filling packages. He urged that this 

proposal be supported to provide a tool. Another official felt that the proposal should be voted through, it is 

important to recognize guidelines for consideration. A pasta association representative also agreed that this work 

goes back a couple of decades, and that several studies were provided for consideration. Another representative 

explained that they pack to net weight. Pasta contains 10 % to 13 % moisture; if the moisture standard is lowered 

the product falls apart along with the product quality. There was a split vote on this item at the 2010 NCWM 

Annual Meeting, and it was returned to the Committee.

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a state regulator provided information regarding informal testing of pasta 

products in their state. The concern is pasta can gain moisture as well as lose moisture; therefore, they oppose a 

national moisture allowance for pasta products. It was further explained that moisture loss/gain seems to be 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 86

dependent upon the type of packaging used. This regulator also commented that product is no longer warehoused 

for long periods of time, and that it is mostly in climate controlled stores, which would prevent the need for a 

moisture allowance. Another state regulator agreed that a national standard may not be appropriate due to humidity 

differences from state to state. The CWMA is recommending that this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, a state official expressed support for adopting a 3 % moisture allowance for 

pasta, citing the significant work done and data provided by the National Pasta Association. The WWMA 

Committee recommended that any additional data from studies be provided for review. The WWMA also 

recommended that the item remain as a Voting item.

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. The SWMA recommended this 

item be Withdrawn. However, if further studies are developed, then this should be taken into consideration.

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the Conference expressed strong reservations about this proposal. 

Comments were heard regarding industry practices in regards to moisture loss when packing and if there is a need to 

codify the moisture loss allowance at all. A member commented that if this proposal passed, other industries would 

now approach the Conference and ask for specific moisture allowances for their products. NEWMA recommends 

that this item be Withdrawn.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the National Pasta Association presented an overview regarding history and 

studies that have been performed on the moisture loss of pasta. Pasta is a hygroscopic product, and changes in 

moisture content in the product may occur in the package due to atmospheric changes. Hot, dry, and air conditioned 

store environments have less humidity and will pull moisture from the product. Subsequently; tropical, wet and high 

humidity environments (seldom seen in U.S. stores) will pull moisture into the product. According to Ms. Jayne 

Hoover, American Italian Pasta Company, pasta companies do pack to the law and have documented weight control 

programs. The 2011 L&R Committee designated this item as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, a representative of the National Pasta Association gave a briefing on the 

history of this item. The representative stated that pasta is a mixture of flour and water, and that a moisture loss 

allowance was granted through the Conference for flour. She noted that packages are filled to weight. However, in 

the distribution process they may lose weight. Some states argued that they cannot support this item, given that the 

data reflects inconsistent loss. There was a question regarding whether the courts specify that you must grant a 

percentage when you consider moisture loss. NEWMA recommends that this item be Withdrawn and moisture 

allowance not be considered for pasta. 

At the CWMA Annual Meeting, a state official opposed this item stating that with proper storage and limited items 

on a store shelf; moisture loss is not an issue. A representative with the National Pasta Association (NPA) stated 

that within the legal framework, the law requires that reasonable variations due to moisture loss be considered. 

There is a legal obligation to allow for reasonable variation under good distribution and manufacturing practices. 

The NPA has made available the pasta study that they believe continues to remain valid. The makeup of the product 

and the packaging has not changed, in fact, it is moisture that is adding or subtracting weight in the package. A state 

official questions whether 3 % is the correct number to use and would like to see a bell curve of data. Another state 

official would like to see data from NPA on whether moisture is different at separate points within the distribution 

points and shelf life. There was concern expressed that an average is taken rather than taking into account the 

different regional areas within the United States. A stakeholder remarked that this is a complex issue; however, we 

need to keep the solution simple. One strategy would be to define what is necessary to demonstrate moisture loss. 

Several states commented they are having issues resolving current moisture loss with companies due to lack of 

guidance on the procedure for proper determination. The CWMA recommended the item be an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, a representative from the NPA gave a presentation with background 

information and a brief legal overview on moisture loss. They also distributed a page with frequently asked 

questions and a follow-up study (refer to Appendix I in the Report of the 96th NCWM [SP 1125, 2011]) that occurred 

in 2006 - 2007 shows a 2.5 % to 5 % moisture loss. Pasta consists of flour and water. Currently in NIST 

Handbook 133 flour is given a moisture loss allowance of 3 %. Pasta is packaged in either breathable film or 

paperboard cartons. This allows for the pasta to breathe and not mold. The industry is requesting that this proposal 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 87

be adopted by the Conference to give officials the guidance that is needed when performing inspections. On a split 

vote this item was returned to the Committee.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, an industry representative stated that a uniform procedure for moisture loss is 

needed. Although difficult, we can develop a surrogate that can be easily done by manufacturers and easily verified 

by weights and measures and recommends this item be Withdrawn. The CWMA disagreed and believes that 

moisture loss is a legitimate issue and deserves consideration by NCWM. The CWMA recommended this item 

remain as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a state official requested additional information concerning good 

manufacturing and distribution processes. The WWMA firmly believed that enough data had been established by 

industry to address questions regarding moisture allowances with pasta and pasta products. The WWMA

recommended that this item remain as a Voting item.

At the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting, it was noted that NEWMA continues to oppose this item and would like the 

item Withdrawn from the agenda.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were heard. The Committee noted that it appears as if proper 

protocol has been followed by the pasta industry. If the states do not support this item, SWMA recommended that 

the reason be provided so their issue(s) can be addressed. The SWMA recommended that the item remain as a 

Voting Item.

At the 2012 Interim, the Committee reviewed documents received from the NPA. A representative with the 

American Italian Pasta Company supported the language as presented. A county inspector, which has an active 

package inspection program, remarked that a significant amount of data has been provided by the NPA. The 2012 

L&R Committee designated this item as a Voting Item. 

The NEWMA and CWMA, during their spring 2012 Annual Meetings, both support this item and recommended 

adoption by the NCWM. At both regional meetings, Ms. Hoover representing the NPA gave a presentation on the 

development of this item. She also addressed some frequently asked questions regarding variability and current 

data. Both regions had several regulators that rose to oppose this item.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Ms. Hoover provided an overview on grey area, current data, and variability. 

Ms. Hoover urged the need for uniformity in the marketplace. Another pasta representative remarked that Congress

established that it is important to keep in mind the grey area. The grey area is not a tolerance and moisture loss does 

not cause the product to be short weight. Several state representatives spoke in support of this item. Two state 

regulators oppose this item and noted that it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. On a split vote this item 

was returned to the Committee.

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the committee’s consideration. To review the

supporting documentation for this item, please refer to Appendix K, Report of the 95th NCWM (SP 1115, 2010), 

Appendix I, Report of the 96th NCWM (SP 1125, 2011), and Appendix K within this document for additional 

content.

260-3 I HB 133, Section 3.10. Animal Bedding

Source: 

Central Weights and Measures Association (2012)

Purpose: 

This proposal is to clarify appropriate test procedures for animal bedding.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 88

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133, Test Procedures – For Packages Labeled by Volume as follows:

3.10. Mulch, and Soils, and Animal Bedding Labeled by Volume

a. What products are defined as mulch and soil, and animal bedding? 

• Mulch is defined as “any product or material except peat or peat moss that is advertised, offered for 

sale, or sold for primary use as a horticultural, above-ground dressing, for decoration, moisture 

control, weed control, erosion control, temperature control, or other similar purposes.”

• Soil is defined as “any product or material, except peat or peat moss that is advertised or offered for 

sale, or sold for primary use as a horticultural growing media, soil amendment, and/or soil 

replacement.”

• Animal bedding as “animal bedding of all kinds, except for baled straw.”

b. What type of measurement equipment is needed to test packages of mulch, and soil, and animal 

bedding?

• A test measure appropriate for the package size that meets the specifications for test measures in 

Table 3-4. “Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch, and Soils, and Animal Bedding” 

• Drop cloth/polyethylene sheeting for catching overflow of material

• Level (at least 15 cm [6 in] in length)

Table 3-4.

Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch, Soils and Animal Bedding

Nominal 

Capacity

of Test 

Measure4

Actual 

Volume of

the 

Measure4

Interior Wall Dimensions1 Marked 

Intervals on

Interior 

Wall3

Volume 

Equivalent 

of Marked 

Intervals

Length Width Height2

30.2 L

(1.07 cu ft)

for testing 

packages that 

contain less 

than 28.3 L

(1 cu ft or

25.7 dry qt)

31.9 L

(1.13 cu ft)

213.4 mm

(8.4 in)

203.2mm

(8 in)

736.6 mm

(29 in)

12.7 mm

(1⁄2 in)

524.3 mL

(32 in3

) 

28.3 L

(1 cu ft)

28.3 L

(1 cu ft)

304.8 mm

(12 in)

304.8 mm

(12 in)

304.8 mm

(12 in)

1179.8 mL

(72 in3

) 

56.6 L

(2 cu ft)

63.7 L

(2.25 cu ft)

304.8 mm

(12 in)

304.8 mm

(12 in)

685.8 mm

(27 in)

406.4 mm

(16 in)

228.6 mm

(9 in)

685.8 mm

(27 in)

84.9 L

(3 cu ft)

92 L

(3.25 cu ft)

304.8 mm

(12 in)

304.8 mm

(12 in)

990.6 mm

(39 in)

406.4 mm

(16 in)

228.6 mm

(9 in)

990.6 mm

(39 in)
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 89

Table 3-4.

Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch, Soils and Animal Bedding

Measures are typically constructed of 1.27 cm (1⁄2 in) marine plywood. A transparent sidewall is useful for 

determining the level of fill, but must be reinforced if it is not thick enough to resist distortion. If the measure has 

a clear front, place the level gage at the back (inside) of the measure so that the markings are read over the top of 

the mulch. 

Notes

1

Other interior dimensions are acceptable if the test measure approximates the configuration of the package under 

test and does not exceed a base configuration of the package cross-section. 

2

The height of the test measure may be reduced, but this will limit the volume of the package that can be tested.

3

When lines are marked in boxes, they should extend to all four sides of the measure if possible to improve 

readability. It is recommended that a line indicating the MAV level also be marked to reduce the possibility of 

reading errors when the level of the mulch is at or near the MAV.

4

The Nominal Capacity is given to identity the size of packages that can be tested in a single measurement using 

the dry measure with the listed dimensions. It is based on the most common package sizes of mulch in the 

marketplace. If the measures are built to the dimensions shown above the actual volume will be larger than the 

nominal volume so that plus errors (overfill) can be measured accurately. 

(Amended 2010)

c. How is it determined if the packages meet the package requirements?

Use the following procedure:

Steps:

1. Follow the Section 2.3.1. “Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the

inspection, and select a random sample, then use the following procedure to determine lot conformance.

2. Open each package in turn. Empty the contents of the package into a test measure and level the contents 

by hand. Do not rock, shake, drop, rotate, or tamp the test measure. Read the horizontal marks to 

determine package net volume.

Notes: Mulch: Some types of mulch are susceptible to clumping and compacting. Take steps to ensure that 

the material is loose and free flowing when placed into the test measure. Gently roll the bag before opening 

to reduce the clumping and compaction of material. 

Compressed state animal bedding: To measure the usable volume, first empty the contents of the 

package on a drop cloth. Using your hands, or a tool if necessary, loosen the material until it is free of 

all clumps and compaction. When the product is free flowing, place in test measure. To determine 

volume of the compressed state animal bedding, follow section 3.9.a. Peat Moss, procedures for testing 

the volume of compressed peat moss.

3. Exercise care in leveling the surface of the mulch/soil/animal bedding and determine the volume 

reading from a position that minimizes errors caused by parallax.

d. How are package errors determined?

Determine package errors by subtracting the labeled volume from the package net volume in the measure. Record 

each package error.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 90 

Package Error = Package Net Volume − Labeled Volume

Evaluation of Results

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3.7. “Evaluating Results” to determine lot conformance.

Note: In accordance with Appendix A, Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for 

Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch and Soil Labeled by Volume, Packaged Firewood and 

Packages Labeled by Count with 50 Items or Fewer, apply an MAV of 5 % of the declared quantity to mulch 

and soil sold by volume. When testing mulch, and soil, and animal bedding with a net quantity in terms of 

volume, one package out of every 12 in the sample may exceed the 5 % MAV (e.g., one in a sample of 

12 packages; two in a sample of 24 packages; four in a sample of 48 packages). However, the sample must 

meet the average requirement of the “Category A” Sampling Plan.

Background/Discussion: 

NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale, Section 2.23. Animal Bedding states:

2.23. Animal Bedding. – Packaged animal bedding of all kinds, except for baled straw, shall be sold by 

volume, that is, by the cubic meter, liter, or milliliter and by the cubic yard, cubic foot, or cubic inch. If the 

commodity is packaged in a compressed state, the quantity declaration shall include both the quantity in the 

compressed state and the usable quantity that can be recovered.

Example: 250 mL expands to 500 mL (500 in3 expands to 1000 in3

).

(Added 1990)

However, NIST Handbook 133 does not include specific procedures for testing animal bedding volume declarations, 

compressed state quantity declarations, or usable quantity declarations. This proposal is to clarify appropriate test 

procedures for animal bedding. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, the CWMA recommended in move this item to a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee made minor editorial changes to align with the format and 

language currently in NIST Handbook 133. The submitter had the word “uncompressed” added under the note 

section within “Evaluation of Results.” The Committee agreed and recommended the removal of the word

“uncompressed.” 

This proposal includes adopting both the mulch and soil test method and the evaluation of results for animal 

bedding. The method of evaluating results for mulch and soil testing includes an exception to the maximum allowed 

variation: the MAV is 5 %, and one package out of a 12 item samples (2 packages in 24 item sample, 4 packages in 

a 48 item sample) is allowed to exceed the MAV. However, the sample must meet the average requirement of 

“Category A.” This MAV exception for mulch and soil was developed based on a study of mulch and soil test 

results. The Committee will ask industry to submit animal bedding product information and test data to determine if 

the MAV exception is appropriate for animal bedding 

An animal bedding industry representative was supportive of the 5 % allowance and also recommended a 

12 × 12 × 12 cubic foot vessel. The submitter of the proposal has been using the mulch test procedure to test animal 

bedding and has not had issues using the procedure under the item for consideration. The 2012 L&R Committee 

designated this item as an Informational Item. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the NEWMA L&R Committee received no comments.

At the 2012 CWMA Annual Meeting, the author, Ms. Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, provided an update that there is no 

current standard for animal bedding, subsequently industry is using a variety of test methods and are producing 

various results. She is encouraging the states to test animal bedding and to share data with NIST, OWM. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 91

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the L&R Committee requested that regulators and industry conduct animal 

bedding package testing, and submit their test results to judy.cardin@wi.gov or to david.sefcik@nist.gov. 

Preliminary analysis by NIST, OWM of available test data indicates that an exception for MAV is necessary for this 

product, but the Committee needs additional test data to determine the appropriate amount for that exception.

260-4 V HB 133, Chapter 4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting - Test Procedure - Footnote Step 3 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Purpose: 

Update NIST Handbook 133, Chapter 4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting – Test Procedure to provide new density values for 

heavier density plastics that are currently in the marketplace.

Polyethylene bags labeled as High Density (HDPE) or similar language have been found to package products whose 

labeled net weights meet calculated target net weights when employing a density factor of 0.92 g/cm3. When a 

density factor of 0.95 g/cm3 is used, as appropriate, in the calculation for high density polyethylene materials, these 

products commonly fail to meet the calculated target net weight. Further testing of these packages of polyethylene 

bags reveals that one or more of the labeled width, thickness, or count statements are inaccurate. HDPE product 

distributors that place a net weight statement on their packages based upon the Linear Low Density Polyethylene 

(LLDP) density value (0.92 g/cm3), have an approximately 3 % advantage over the distributor that uses the correct, 

high density, factor.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the asterisked footnote below Step 3 as follows: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133, Section 4.7. Polyethylene Sheeting, Step 3. footnote as follows: 

*Determined Defined by ASTM Standard D150503, “Standard Test Method for Density of Plastics by the 

Density-Gradient Technique.” (2010 or latest issue) and ASTM Standard D883, Standard Terminology 

Relating to Plastics (2011 or latest issue) 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear low density (D) polyethylene plastics 

(LLDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear medium density (D) polyethylene 

plastics (LMDPE) shall be 0.93 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear high density (D) polyethylene plastics 

(HDPE) shall be 0.94 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

Background/Discussion: 

A proposal was presented at the WWMA 2009 Annual Meeting indicating that manufacturers and distributors of 

polyethylene bags labeled as “High Density” or HDPE have been found to package products whose labeled net 

weights meet calculated target net weights when employing a density factor of 0.92 g/cm3. When a density factor of 

0.95 g/cm3 is used, as appropriate, in the calculation for high density polyethylene materials, these products 

commonly fail to meet the calculated target net weight. Further testing of these packages of polyethylene bags 

reveals that one or more of the labeled width, thickness, or count statements are inaccurate.

For example, a box of HDPE has stated dimensions of 24 in × 40 in × 0.4 mil, and a count of 250. Using the only 

density factor found in NIST Handbook 133, 0.92 g/cm3, the calculated target net weight, and that shown on the 

label, would be 6.38 lbs. If using the actual density factor for the HDPE bags of 0.95 g/cm3, the target net weight 

would be 6.59 lb. This means that HDPE product distributors that place a net weight statement on their packages 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 92

based upon the Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDP) density value (0.92 g/cm3), have an approximately 3 % 

advantage over the distributor that uses the correct, high density, factor.

When the original testing procedure was developed, HDPE bags had not yet entered the marketplace. Currently, this 

product is quite prevalent in the United States. Amending the test procedure will aid weights and measures 

inspectors in enforcing labeling requirements that allow true value comparisons and close a loophole within NIST 

Handbook 133.

Original Proposal:

*Determined by ASTM Standard D 1505-98 (or latest issue) “Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics 

by the Density Gradient Technique.” For the purpose of this handbook, when the actual density is not known,

the minimum density used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.92 g/cm3 when the actual density is 

not known. For products labeled “High Density, HDPE, or similar wording, the minimum density (d) 

used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

The 2009 WWMA Association supported this item and forwarded the item to the NCWM recommending it as a 

Voting Item.

NEWMA reviewed this item at their 2009 Interim Meeting. NEWMA forwarded this item to NCWM 

recommending it as a Developing Item.

At the NCWM 2010 Interim Meeting comments were heard on this item and Item 232-1 together during the open 

hearings. The Committee heard support for the suggestion that the density factor should change from 0.92 g /cm3 to 

0.95 g/cm3. A California official stated that the information provided by the WWMA was data extracted from 

Internet searches. Manufacturers are complaining that under current practice, they cannot compete fairly. 

Mr. Jackelen, Berry Plastics, urged the Committee to reject this proposal. Mr. Jackelen stated that 0.92 g/cm3 

currently works for manufacturers and that changing it to 0.95 g/cm3 will cause undue cost and waste. Most 

manufacturers do not make high density (HD) bags, but are producing blends. Mr. Jackelen also stated an additional 

reason to reject the proposal is 0.95 g/cm3 bags, if punctured will continue to tear.

An official stated that if you use the term HD, then you are bound by the 0.95 g/cm3 density. If you use the length × 

width × thickness × density to determine the net weight, then the density needs to be added to the package labeling. 

Another official stated that manufacturers should consider disclosing the density factor on every product as part of 

the labeling. If there are questions about an absolute 0.95 g/cm3 density, then there should be an alternate 

suggestion. Another official stated that 0.95 g/cm3 will be factored in when the density is not known. The 

Committee received reviewed letters that were reviewed on this item (refer to Appendix I, Report of the 95th NCWM 

[SP 1115, 2010]). The 2010 L&R Committee designated this item as a Voting Item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting, there was concern about what appears to be a lack of data on this item. It 

was not reviewed by all regions and not presented to industry to seek comments. The Committee did not perceive 

this item as an emergency. NEWMA recommended that the item be an Informational Item to allow time for all the 

regions and industry to review and comment. 

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting there were no comments on this item. The CWMA recommended that this 

item remain as a Voting Item.

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, an official stated that his comments were the same as he expressed in Item 

232-4 Method of Sale (refer to the Report of the 95th NCWM [SP 1115, 2010]). The official stated that with the 

amendments recommended by another official expressed in Item 232-4, Method of Sale, they would support this 

proposal. There is agreement that the role of the Conference is not to determine quality issues, but rather to set 

testing standards for inspectors. Moving this item to Informational status will allow time to receive additional 

information and data from manufacturers of polyethylene.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 93

The Committee believed that additional work was needed on this item including reviewing the labeling requirement 

of polyethylene. This may include requiring a mandatory statement and review of ASTM standards. Following 

Open Hearings, the 2010 L&R Committee changed the status of this item from a Voting Item to an Informational

Item to allow more time for development.

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments on this item. The CWMA recommended that the 

item remain an Informational Item. 

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Meeting, an official commented that he is in support of this item with the proposed 

amended changes to replace the existing language with: 

*Determined by ASTM Standard D 1505-98 (or latest issue) “Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics 

by the Density Gradient Technique.” For the purpose of this handbook regulation, when the actual density is 

not known (D) is not labeled on the package, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net 

weight for linear low density polyethylene products (LLDP) and products other than high density 

(HDPE) shall be 0.92 g/cm3 when the actual density is not known. For products labeled High Density, 

HDPE, or similar wording, that does not specify the minimum density (D) on the package label, the 

minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

The WWMA L&R Committee recommends that the item be a Voting Item as amended above. 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting there were no comments heard on this item. The Committee recommended 

more time to seek additional information and comments from industry other than the material safety data sheets that 

were submitted. The SWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational Item.

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting, there were no comments heard on this item. NEWMA would like this item 

to remain as an Informational Item.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, a state official remarked that within their state there are extensive labeling 

problems with poly labeling. She recommends that the Committee consider the revised WWMA language as it will 

provide guidance and language for when the density is not known. The 2011 Committee recommends the revised 

language from the WWMA for adoption by the NCWM. 

At the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, there were no comments heard on this item and both regions 

recommended this move forward as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, it was noted there is also a corresponding proposal for the method of sale 

under Item 232-1. A state official expressed concern with the term “when D is not known.” Currently, 0.92 g/cm3 

is the lower density rating when “D” is not known. The proposed language will allow industry to use products with 

densities lower than the 0.92 g/cm3. Several states spoke in support of this item since it does provide clarity for the 

test procedure. This testing can be destructive unless the density is known. A letter from industry was received 

stating that 0.95 g/cm3 density may not represent the density of HDPW currently in the marketplace. They indicated 

that 0.948 g/cm3 is a more accurate factor. The Committee believes that additional data from industry needs to be 

received on the density factors before proceeding with this item. The Committee removed this item from the voting 

calendar and designated this item as an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, the CWMA requested more information from the regions and industry. The 

CWMA, therefore, recommends that the item remains as an Informational Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, a county official recommended that density be required on the label. The 

WWMA L&R Committee reviewed the ASTM definitions for HD, Low Density, and Medium Density. It was 

agreed that the use of the ASTM defined density would clarify the proposal. WWMA recommended that this item 

be a Voting Item as revised below. Final updated or revised proposal recommended by the WWMA (taken from 

NIST Handbook 130 (2011 edition): 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 94

*Determined Defined by ASTM Standard D1505 03, “Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics by 

the Density Gradient Technique.” D1505 68, Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics by the 

Density Gradient Technique D883 (2011), Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics (or latest issue.) 

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear low density polyethylene plastics (LLDPE)

shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear medium density polyethylene plastics 

(LMDPE) shall be 0.93 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density for linear high density polyethylene plastics 

(HDPE) shall be 0.94 g/cm3 (when D is not known).

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no comments or made no recommendations.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, the Committee heard no comments on this item. The SWMA recommended 

that the item be a Voting Item pending agreement on the high density.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed language from the 2011 WWMA. The Committee 

designated this as a Voting Item using the language received from the 2011 WWMA along with editorial changes to 

add reference to ASTM D1505 and ASTM D883. 

At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, NEWMA received a comment on whether 0.093 g/cm3 resolves the issue. It 

was discussed that this allows the density to meet an ASTM standard. NEWMA agreed that this item should be

designated as a Voting Item.

During their spring 2012 Annual Meetings both the NEWMA and CWMA supported this item and recommended it 

for adoption by the NCWM.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting no comments were heard on this item. The Committee made two editorial 

changes to the item under consideration. The first change is to replace the term “products” with “plastics” and to 

remove the word “linear” from the definition of high density polyethylene. The Committee decided to change the 

language to align with the ASTM standard and maintain the status of the item as a Voting Item. After discussing the 

comments from the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings and the proposed changes, the Committee agreed 

to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. Please refer to 

Items 232-4 and 260-3 and Appendix I in the Report of the 95th NCWM (SP 1115, 2010) and Item 260-2 and 

Appendix C in the Report of the 96th NCWM (SP1125, 2011), and Appendix C within this document for additional 

content.

260-5 D Printer Ink and Toner Gravimetric Package Testing Work Group

Source: 

Printer Ink and Toner Gravimetric Package Testing Work Group (2012)

Purpose: 

Provide notice of the formation of a new Subcommittee reporting to the L&R Committee. This Subcommittee will 

provide additional guidance for developing test procedures for printer ink and toner cartridges.

Item Under Consideration: 

None
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 95

Background/Discussion:

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, it was announced there is a new Printer Ink and Toner Gravimetric Package 

Testing Work Group that met to discuss a test method that would require industry to label cartridges with a tare 

(packaged materials) weight. Weights and measures inspectors would weigh the packaged product, and subtract this 

tare weight from the gross weight of the product to obtain the net weight. The tare weight provided on the package 

would be a cartridge tare weight, or a total tare weight, that would include the weight of the empty cartridge and all 

other package materials, that could appear on the outer box. 

During open hearings, Mr. Matthew Barkley, Hewlett Packard, commented that the agenda for the work group was 

received prior to coming to the Conference, but he did not have a proper amount of time to conduct a review. 

Hewlett Packard products are manufactured on three continents and packaged within the United States. Some 

labeling could be difficult and costly, and the additional cost of doing this would be passed on to the consumer. Mr. 

Barkley did submit a letter into the Committee with his comments and concerns. Mr. Barkley also requested that his 

documentation be submitted at the 2011 NCWM Annual remain with the Committee as this item continues to 

develop (refer to Appendix C in the Report of the 96th NCWM [SP 1125, 2011]). 

Anyone interested in participating in the Printer Ink and Toner Gravimetric Testing WG should contact Judy Cardin, 

Wisconsin Weights and Measures, at judy.cardin@wi.gov or Lisa Warfield, NIST, OWM Technical Advisor 

at lisa.warfield@nist.gov. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation for this item, please refer to Appendix C, Report of the 95th NCWM (SP 1115, 2010), 

Appendix C, Report of the 96th NCWM (SP 1125, 2011), and Appendix C within this document for additional 

content.

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS

INTRODUCTION

The NCWM established a mechanism to disseminate information about emerging issues which have merit and are of 

national interest. Developing items are those items that have not received sufficient review by all parties affected by 

the proposals or may be insufficiently developed to warrant review by the NCWM L&R Committee. The 

Developing items listed are currently under review by at least one regional association, Subcommittee, or work 

group. 

The Developing Items are marked according to the specific NIST handbook into which they fall – NIST 

Handbook 130 or NIST Handbook 133. The Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals 

included in the appendices and to send their comments to the contact listed in each part.

The Committee asks that the regional weights and measures associations, Subcommittees, and work groups continue 

their work to fully develop each proposal. Should an association, Subcommittee, or work group decide to 

discontinue work on a Developing Item, the Committee asks that it be notified. When the status of an item changes 

because the submitter withdraws the item, the item will be listed in a table below. For more details on items moved 

from the Developing Items list to the Committee’s main agenda, refer to the new reference number in the main 

agenda.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 96

270-1 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) 

Source: 

The Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) (2007)

Purpose: 

Update the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST 

Handbook 130. Another task will be to update the Basic Engine and Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants 

Laboratory Publication.

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. FALS has met since the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting and continues its work on a 

number of items in addition to preparing a major revision of the Fuel Ethanol Specifications.

Background/Discussion: 

The Subcommittee met on January 24, 2007, at the NCWM Interim Meeting to undertake a review of a number of 

significant issues related to fuel standards. Their first project was to undertake a major review and update of the 

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST Handbook 130. The 

Subcommittee also met at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of items in 

addition to preparing a major revision of the Fuel Ethanol Specifications.

An additional project will be to update and possibly expand the Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Lubricants Laboratory Publication. The Subcommittee will undertake other projects as time and resources permit.

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting and Annual Meeting, the FALS Chair informed the L&R Committee that 

FALS is working toward getting changes made to the language within the document.

At the CWMA 2009 Interim, the WWMA 2009 Annual, the SWMA 2009 Annual, and NEWMA 2009 Interim 

Meetings, there were no comments heard. The associations recommend that this proposal remain a Developing 

Item. 

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, the FALS Chair, Mr. Ron Hayes, informed the L&R Committee that FALS is 

still working on this project. No comments were heard during the open hearings, and the L&R Committee agrees 

that this item should remain a Developing Item. 

At the 2010 NEWMA Annual Meeting no comments were heard on this item. NEWMA recommends that this item 

remain as a Developing Item. 

At the 2010 CWMA Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor provided information that NIST had begun work 

on the development of a handbook for state fuel laboratories. 

At the 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, a comment from a petroleum representative stated that this item is premature 

and that action needs to be taken by the EPA. Mr. Hayes clarified that this item is for a laboratory guide and that 

FALS supports NIST, OWM’s efforts to develop a handbook for state fuel laboratories. The item mentioned by the 

petroleum representative is for a new proposal that is being submitted through the regions modifying NIST 

Handbook 130, as a result of a potential EPA waiver for gasoline containing more than 10 volume percent ethanol. 

During the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, the CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings, all of the associations 

supported the recommendation that this item be considered as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor reported that a draft laboratory guide for state 

laboratories will be available for distribution and comment by March 2011. The NCWM L&R Committee

recommended this item move forward as an Informational Item. Mr. Hayes added that FALS is considering a 

number of new items including:
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 97

• Section 3.2.5. – Prohibition of Terms. – possible deletion of altitude adjustment for octane and economy 

grades; 

• Reference ASTM microbial contamination standards; 

• Reference ISO 22241.1 NOx Reduction Agent Part 1 – Quality Requirements (quality standard for Diesel 

Exhaust Fluid); 

• Section 3.1.2. – Retail Dispenser Labeling. – Review for potential clarification of “gasoline” identity on 

retail motor fuel dispensers; and

• Establish regulations to determine if OEM labelled claims for Automatic Transmission and Tractor Fluids 

are met. 

At the NEWMA 2011 Annual Meeting, NEWMA agreed that additional work is needed to establishing a 

requirement for mis-fueling. 

At the CWMA 2011 Annual Meeting, the FALS Chair noted the first draft related to mis-fueling was released for 

comment on June 6, 2011. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the FALS Chair gave an update. FALS is working on the altitude adjustment 

table. Today’s vehicle population requires fuel with the same octane requirements regardless of altitude. A state 

official expressed concern that unleaded fuel is currently marketed as regular and unleaded 85 octane. FALS is in 

agreement that ASTM needs to address this issue as it involves pre-1971 vehicles. Currently, all engine 

manufacturers require no less than 87 octane. The NIST Technical Advisor remarked that a second draft laboratory 

guide will be made available prior to October 2011 for distribution and review.

At the 2011 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings there were no comments. The CWMA and NEWMA 

recommended that the item be a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, the WWMA continues to support the work of the FALS and recommends the 

item be an Information Item. 

At the 2012 Interim Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor remarked that comments on the draft laboratory guide for 

state laboratories are due into NIST by February 1, 2012. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as a 

Developing Item and assigned its development to FALS.

At the 2012 NEWMA and CWMA Annual Meetings, there were no comments received, and it was recommended 

that the item be a Developing Item. At the CWMA meeting, the NIST Technical advisor remarked that there were 

extensive changes received on the laboratory guide for state laboratories. NIST is currently compiling another draft 

for release.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor remarked the laboratory guide for state 

laboratories (NIST, Handbook 156, Program Handbook for Engine Fuels, Petroleum and Lubricant Laboratories) 

will be published by October 1, 2012. Mr. Hayes provided an update on items that FALS items and will provide an 

additional update at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting.

If you would like to participate in this Subcommittee, contact Mr. Ron Hayes, Chairperson Fuels and Lubricants 

Subcommittee, at (573) 751-2922, e-mail: ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov or Mr. David Sefcik, NIST at (301) 975-4868, 

e-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 98

270-2 D Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS) 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS) met for the first time to 

discuss ongoing issues and agenda items in regards to packaging and labeling regulations. There were 11 attendees 

that represented industry, state and county regulatory officials, and a NIST Technical Advisor. 

The mission of PALS is to assist the NCWM L&R Committee in the development of agenda items related to 

packaging and labeling. The Subcommittee will also be called upon to provide important and much needed 

guidance to the regulatory and consumer packaging communities on difficult questions. The PALS will report to the 

NCWM L&R Committee. 

The NIST, OWM Technical Advisor reported that Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will do a review of Fair 

Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) in 2013.

It was announced at the 2011 NEWMA and CWMA Annual meetings that Mr. Chris Guay, PALS Chair, is actively 

seeking volunteers. Mr. Guay has requested at least one representative from each regional association. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the PALS were unable to meet since the Chair, Mr. Guay, was not in 

attendance. Volunteers were solicited for this Committee. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, the PALS Chair stated the goal is to be active before the 2012 NCWM 

Interim Meeting and stated there is a need to prioritize labeling issues. No action was needed, and the CWMA 

recommended that the item remain as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings, both associations recognized that this would be an ongoing 

item, and recommended that remain as a Developing Item.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, PALS met to discuss its formation and strategy for moving forward. The 

NCWM Chair will appoint eight voting members on the Committee to consist of four regulatory officials (one from 

each region), and four from industry (two retailers and two manufacturers). Mr. Guay remarked that the work of the 

Subcommittee will be done through webinar meetings and will be held approximately four times a year. PALS 

members will be responsible for providing updates at their regional meetings and to seek input into issues. Mr. 

Guay added that PALS will be developing proposals and providing guidance and recommendations on existing 

proposals as assigned by the NCWM L&R Committee. Mr. Guay also stressed the need and importance of having 

key federal agencies (FDA, FTC, and USDA) participating. Mr. Guay gave a presentation on a number of 

packaging issues he has encountered over the last several years. The NIST Technical Advisor commented that the 

FTC announced that they will be doing a review on the FPLA in 2013. Mr. Kurt Floren, NCWM Chair stated he is 

committed to making the final Committee appointments, and understands the urgency and necessity for the work of 

this Subcommittee. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as a Developing Item and assigned its 

development to PALS.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the PALS met and is currently considering the following for further 

development:

• Additional Net Content Declarations on the PDP – Package net contents are most commonly determined 

by the product form, for example, solid products are labeled by weight and liquid products are labeled by 

volume. Semi-solid products such as pastes, creams, and viscous liquids are required to be labeled by 

weight in the United States and by volume in Canada. 

• Icons in Lieu of Words in Packages Labeled by Count – Clear and non-misleading icons take the place 

of the word “count” or “item name” in a net content statement. While existing Federal regulation requires 

regulatory label information to be in “English,” the increasing presence of multilingual labels and the 

growing diversity of the U.S. population suggest more consumers are served with a clear and nonmisleading icon. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

L&R - 99 

 Multilingual Labels 

 Multipacks and Bundle Packages – The net content statements for multipacks and bundled packages of 

individually labeled products can be different based on the approach used to calculate them. The difference 

is the result of the degree of rounding for dual inch-pound and metric declarations. Using two apparently 

valid but different methods can yield one net content statement result, which provides more accuracy 

between the metric and inch-pound declarations and a different net content result, which is consumer 

friendly. 

Anyone interested in assisting the Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee, please contact Mr. Chris Guay, PALS 

Chair at (513) 983-0530, e-mail: guay.cb@pg.com or Mr. David Sefcik, NIST, OWM at (301) 975-4868, 

e-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov. 

270-3 D Moisture Allowance 

Source: 

Moisture Allowance Subcommittee (2012) 

Purpose: 

Provide notice of formation of a new Subcommittee reporting to the L&R Committee. This Subcommittee will 

provide additional guidance for making moisture allowances for products not listed in NIST Handbook 133. 

Item Under Consideration: 

None 

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the L&R Committee Chair will be requesting that the NCWM Board of 

Directors to form a new Subcommittee to review moisture allowance. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, it was announced that Mr. Kurt Floren will be the Chair for the Moisture 

Allowance Subcommittee. 

Anyone interested in assisting with the work should contact Mr. Kurt Floren, Chair at (626) 575-5451 or e-mail 

kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov or Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST Technical Advisor at (301) 975-3308 or 

lisa.warfield@nist.gov. 

Ms. Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, Chair 

Mr. Richard Lewis, Georgia 

Mr. Tim Lloyd, Montana 

Mr. Raymond Johnson, New Mexico 

Mr. Louis Sakin, Towns of Hopkinton/Northbridge, Massachusetts 

Ms. Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, Chair, Printer Ink and Toner Gravimetric Package Testing 

Mr. Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, CA, Chair, Moisture Loss Work Group 

Mr. Christopher Guay, Chair, PALS 

Mr. Ron Hayes, Missouri, Chair, FALS 

Mr. Rob Underwood, Associate Membership Representative 

Mr. Lance Robertson, Canadian Technical Advisor 

Mr. David Sefcik, NIST Technical Advisor 

Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST Technical Advisor 

Laws and Regulations Committee 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

L&R - 100

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A1 

Appendix A 

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation 

Item:

 231-2: 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers 

Table of Contents

Table of Contents L&R - A Page

Blue Magic/Beaumont Products, Inc. (e-mail, January 12, 2012)................................................................................. 3 

Blue Magic Presentation (January 22, 2012)................................................................................................................. 5 

CSPA (July 12, 2012) ..................................................................................................................................................10

Beaumont Products, Inc. (January 17, 2012)...............................................................................................................12

Beaumont Products, Inc. (July 17, 2016 correct to July 17, 2012)............................................................................. 16 

BOV Solutions (January 16, 2012).............................................................................................................................. 17 

BOV Solutions (July 13, 2012) ...................................................................................................................................20

National Aerosol Associations (July 13, 2012) ........................................................................................................... 21 

IKI (January 11, 2012)................................................................................................................................................. 23 

Locke Lord (January 6, 2011) ..................................................................................................................................... 24 

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP (April 6, 2011).................................................................................................... 36 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A3 

From: Sefcik, David

To: Warfield, Lisa

Subject: FW: More interesting aerosol information

Date: Monday, January 23, 2012 5:16:21 PM

From: Scott Ciurana [sciurana@bluemagicusa.com]

Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:55 AM

To: judy.cardin@wisconsin.gov; Sefcik, David

Cc: Morgan Gibson; Joe Stewart

Subject: FW: More interesting aerosol information

Hi Judy and David,

The communication below from Beaumont Products may answer some of the questions before the 

committee.

Thank you,

Scott Ciurana

The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 

whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from 

disclosure under law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or

agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any 

dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 

received this communication in error, please notify it@bluemagicusa.com. Thank you.

From: Steve Molnar [mailto:smolnar@beaumontproducts.com]

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:55 PM

To: Scott Ciurana

Subject: Fwd: More interesting aerosol information

This is from a recycling organization: 

http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/32/31985/Aerosol_Cans.htm

“Aerosol cans are expensive and have greater environmental

consequences. Ounce for ounce, spray-on product sold in aerosol cans 

is roughly twice the cost of bulk product. You pay for propellants in 

every aerosol can you purchase. Most aerosol cans contain 10-15% 

propellant by weight. “ 

The British are required to report aerosol fill by volume:

http://www.bama.co.uk/prescribed_quantities/
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A4 

“PRESCRIBED QUANTITIES LEGISLATION

• Effective from April 2009

• Aerosols are deregulated from prescribed quantities sizes

• All aerosols can be labeled with volume only

• Containers must show nominal fill capacity

Industry Self Regulation

• BAMA with FEA – the European Aerosol Federation – have produced a standard for ‘standard fill’

• This is designed to ensure that aerosols are not overfilled (dangerous) or under filled (deceptive 

packaging)”

The CSPA (Consumer Specialty Products Association)may have useful 

information, but we’d have to pay for it:

http://www.cspa.org/news-media -center/publications.html

1560 Big Shanty Drive Kennesaw,

GA 30144 

www.beaumontproducts.com
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A5 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A6 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A7 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A8 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A9 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A10

July 10, 2012 

Judy Cardin Delivered via E-Mail

Wisconsin Weights and Measures judy.cardin@wisconsin.gov

2811 Agriculture Drive

P.O. Box 8911 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

Re: Item 231-2 Section 10.3 Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers

Dear Ms. Cardin:

The Consumer Specialty Products Association

1 (CSPA) and its Aerosol Products Division (APD) 

represent the USA aerosol products industry, representing approximately 140 companies engaged 

in the manufacture and marketing of aerosol products. CSPA and its members are therefore 

vitally interested in the issues raised at the Interim Meeting of the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures in January regarding the appropriate net contents declaration for aerosols 

and similar pressurized containers. Starting in February, the CSPA APD formed a workgroup on 

this issue, and soon after reached out to product marketers interested in this issue that were not 

already CSPA members. This CSPA workgroup has been engaged since that time in seeking an 

industry consensus on this issue. 

CSPA has worked for decades to support the development of fair and reasonable regulations that 

promote the public good, provide a fair marketplace for all consumer specialty products, and are 

enforceable by regulators. The Association fully supports the goal of the Fair Packaging and

1 The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) is the premier trade association representing the interests of 

companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution and sale of more than $80 billion annually in the U.S.

of familiar consumer products that help household and institutional customers create cleaner and healthier environments.

CSPA member companies employ hundreds of thousands of people globally. Products CSPA represents include 

disinfectants that kill germs in homes, hospitals and restaurants; candles, and fragrances and air fresheners that eliminate

odors; pest management products for home, garden and pets; cleaning products and 

polishes for use throughout the home and institutions; products used to protect and improve the performance and 

appearance of automobiles; aerosol products and a host of other products used every day. Through its product 

stewardship program, Product Care

®

, and scientific and business-to-business endeavors, CSPA provides its members a 

platform to effectively address issues regarding the health, safety and sustainability of their products. For more 

information, please visit www.cspa.org.

1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 | Washington, DC 20006 | www.cspa.org | p.202‐833‐7304 f. 202‐223‐2636 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A11

CSPA Letter to Judy Cardin, July 10, 2012 Page 2

Labeling Act to assure that product labels give accurate information regarding the net quantity of 

contents, and thereby facilitate value comparisons by consumers. We also fully support the goals of the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) to assure that compliance can be consistently 

and effectively monitored by those regulators. 

We have determined that CSPA members are in strong consensus that net weight is the appropriate 

measure of net contents for traditional aerosol products. CSPA is still seeking consensus, however, 

regarding some types of pressurized products such as bag-on-valve (BOV) products. Our APD 

workgroup continues to work to determine whether there are any classes of these products for which 

net volume declaration would be more appropriate. 

While our search for an industry consensus continues, we urge that the NCWM Laws and Regulations 

Committee keep this issue in information gathering status. While I will not be able to attend the 

upcoming NVWM Annual Meeting, CSPA members will be in attendance and can answer any 

questions that you may have regarding our deliberations. In addition, please feel free to contact me at 

any time to discuss what we are doing, and provide your viewpoint on the issue.

Sincerely,

D. Douglas Fratz 

Vice President, Scientific & Technical Affairs

& Aerosol Products Division Staff Executive

Cc: CSPA Aerosol Products Division Executive Board, Advisors, and BOV Workgroup 

David Sefcik, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures, david.sefcik@nist.gov
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A12
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A13
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A14
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A15
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A16

Corrected date:

July 11, 2012
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A17
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A18
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A19
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A20

2400 North Essex Avenue, Hernando, FL 34442 ~ Talk * 352-746-6731 / Send * 352-

746-6765

Ms. Judy Cardin July 13, 2012 

NIST, Weights and Measures 

100 Bureau Drive – M/S 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Dear Ms. Cardin: 

We write to you in support of Scott Ciurana’s (Blue Magic, Inc.) position on the BOV volume

declaration issue.

It is BOV Solutions, Inc. recommendation that the declaration issue (item 231-2, section

10.3 Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers) currently before the Laws and 

Regulations committee remain in an information gathering phase until industry consensus 

on the proper way to measure compliance of the liquid fill declaration of a pressurized BOV 

container can be reached. 

We at BOV Solutions, Inc. strongly support Liquid Fill as the proper label declaration 

for our BOV products as the pressurized gas that propels our products from the 

container remains in the container after the product is fully dispensed. The gas and its 

weight, which in our case is simply air, should be considered part of the packaging, not

the product. Including the weight of the gas in the label will be misleading to 

customers.

By its very nature, BOV packaging prevents the gas in our container from ever mixing 

with or being dispensed with our products. This distinguishing characteristic of our 

packaging system sets us far apart from conventional aerosols.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Hertensen Founder &

CEO BOV Solutions, Inc. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2, Packaging and Labeling Regulation

L&R - A21

From: Cardin, Judy L - DATCP

To: Doug Raymond

Cc: ncwm -laws-and -regulations@lists.ncwm.net; Warfield, Lisa; Peter, Stephen T - DATCP; 

don.onwiler@ncwm.net; Lindsay Hier (lindsay.hier@ncwm.net); Sefcik, David

Subject: RE: Item 231-2 Section 10.3 Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers

Date: Friday, July 13, 2012 5:54:32 PM

Mr. Raymond,

The item will be in an Informational status for this meeting. We will next consider the voting status 

at our January, 2013 NCWM Interim meeting. I appreciate your efforts reach to a consensus 

proposal from your industry, and look forward to hearing more from you. The four regional weights 

and measures associations meet in September or October, and if you are ready in time, you should 

forward your recommendation to the Regional groups also- Lisa Warfield or I can help you get the

proposal to the regions.

Judith L. Cardin

Chief, Wisconsin Weights and Measures

Division of Trade and Consumer Protection

608 224 4945

 Follow Consumer Protection on Facebook!

From: Doug Raymond [mailto:djraymond@me.com]

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:48 PM

To: Cardin, Judy L - DATCP

Subject: Item 231-2 Section 10.3 Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers

July 13, 2012 

Judy Cardin

Wisconsin Weights and Measures

2811 Agriculture Drive

P.O. Box 8911 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

Re: Item 231-2 Section 10.3 Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers 

Dear Ms. Cardin: 

The National Aerosol Association (NAA) presented at the January meeting of the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) in New Orleans, on the Bag on Valve issue 

with the weights/volume declaration. The item number 231-2 section 10.3. Aerosols and 

Similar Pressurized Containers. This item is currently in an information gathering status.

After the January meeting, NAA representatives met with Blue Magic and others to discuss 

this issue. In addition, NAA informed other organizations interested in the pressurized 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A22

packages of this issue. Currently, we are all working together to try and determine the most 

appropriate avenue to use to convey net contents for comparison to the consumers for our 

products. 

Unfortunately at this time the industry does not have a working proposal to provide to the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). We are hopeful to be able to have a

consensus position by January to present to your organization. Thus at this time we 

recommend that the issue be kept in the information gathering status.

I will be attending the July conference and available to discuss this issue with you. Thank 

you for your attention to this issue.

On behalf of the NAA 

Doug Raymond 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A23

116 Swift Street

Edgerton, WI 53534

608-884-3411

Lawrence B. Midtbo

President

11 January 2012

Ms. Judy Cardin

Dear Ms. Cardin:

I recently saw your name on a copy list from a Mr. Paul Slykes, in reference to a letter 

Mr. Slykes sent to the Bureau of Weights and Measures regarding an upcoming

hearing on the reclassifying of BOV (Bag on Valve) form of packaging from an aerosol 

class where the unit of measure is Net Weight to a unit declaration of Fluid Ounces. 

Our company, (a Wisconsin company since 1955) has been involved in the 

pressurized packaging of products and would like you to be aware of some of Mr. 

Slykes’ misconceptions. First, the BOV technology is not “new”, it has been 

commercially used for more than 10 years. Secondly, it uses standard aerosol 

packaging components, the main difference being in the “Bag” attached to the aerosol 

valve. Thirdly, it inaccurate to call the package environmentally more friendly, when in 

fact, it has additional plastic or metal (from the bag) than a standard aerosol. He 

makes

his claim based, not on the package, but rather on the propellant type used.

We urge that you understand the process before you give your support to Mr. Slykes. 

Should you desire to follow up on this letter, I would be happy to invite you to tour our 

facility in Edgerton, WI (30 miles south of Madison) to discuss this matter in more 

depth.

Very truly yours,

Lawrence B. Midtbo

President
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A24 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A25 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A26 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A27 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A28 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A29 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A30
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A31
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A32
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A33
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A34
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A35
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A36
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A37
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A38
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A39
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A40
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A41
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A42
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A43
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 231-2 

L&R - A44 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B1 

Appendix B

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale Commodities 

Item: 

232-4: Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities, 2.33. Vehicle Motor Oil 

237-4: Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor 

Oil

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – B Page

Automotive Oil Change Association (May 1, 2012) ..................................................................................................... 3 

FTC Attachment (December 2010)................................................................................................................. 6 

Automotive Oil Change Association (July 11, 2012).................................................................................................... 9 

American Petroleum Institute (API). ...........................................................................................................................15

Orange Line Oil Company.......................................................................................................................................... 39

Van De Pol Enterprises, Inc......................................................................................................................................... 40

Form Letters Received from:

 BC Automotive Service Center.....................................................................................................................41

Dilmar Oil Company.....................................................................................................................................41

Dion and Sons ...............................................................................................................................................41

Dooley Oil, Inc..............................................................................................................................................41

Graff Motor Sales..........................................................................................................................................41

Hays Oil ........................................................................................................................................................41

Imad Hassen ..................................................................................................................................................41

Imlay City Lube Center, Inc..........................................................................................................................41

Magnum Oil ..................................................................................................................................................41

Marshall's Express.........................................................................................................................................41

Mulgrew Oil Company..................................................................................................................................41

One Stop Wash-n-Lube ................................................................................................................................. 41

Penco Oil Company ......................................................................................................................................41

Pride Auto and Truck Repair.........................................................................................................................41

Quality Petroleum Inc. ..................................................................................................................................41

R&L 10 Minute Oil Change..........................................................................................................................41

Rice Properties, Ltd.......................................................................................................................................41

Rowleys Wholesale (10 letters).....................................................................................................................41

Sun Coast Resources, Inc. (2 letters).............................................................................................................41

Sample Form Letter..............................................................................................................................................42
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B3 

May 1, 2012

Standards Department

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Re: API 1525A, First Edition, December 2011

Dear Sir/Madam:

These comments to API 1525A (First Edition, December 2011) are submitted on behalf of the Automotive 

Oil Change Association (AOCA), the national representative for 3,873 small business fast-lube facilities, all of

which utilize bulk oil storage. As you know, in 2006, AOCA published fast lube industry best practices designed to 

prevent damages associated with fraudulent, substandard, and/or shorted-load bulk motor oil distribution. We find 

1525A problematic for a number of reasons, most of which involve API’s apparent misunderstanding of fast lube 

operations and consumers’ lack of interest in API branding.

Fast lube operators need flexibility in product purchasing decisions

Although fast lubes generally stock bulk motor oil in compliance with the latest edition of 1509, attempting 

to impose it as an absolute mandate is impractical (7.1). Fast lubes service a wide variety of vehicles, many of which 

are quite old and getting older.1 Therefore, when API publishes a new edition of 1509 and/or creates a new service 

category, a reasonable phase-in period may be necessary to accommodate older vehicle owners’ needs; i.e., it may 

be in their best interests—both functionally and economically—to use motor oil developed in accordance with an 

earlier edition or service category so long as the automobile manufacturer originally recommended it and its 

continued use has no impact on any remaining warranty coverage. In addition, for fast lube operators to 

automatically upgrade bulk oil stock at API-determined intervals would be tantamount to giving API control over 

the price of oil change services regardless of what the market can bear. When has the cost of a new motor oil ever 

gone down? 

AOCA would also like to know how automobile manufacturers’ proprietary motor oils fit into the concept 

of compliance with the latest edition of API 1509? If these proprietary products are superior as some allege, then 

shouldn’t the API requirement be changed to read “meets or exceeds the latest edition of API 1509”? It is important 

to keep in mind that fast lubes follow automobile manufacturer recommendations; if a conflict arises between API 

and the automobile manufacturer, the latter wins.

Fast lubes should get the oil they order and pay for

AOCA already recommends that fast lubes order bulk product in writing and obtain a written receipt 

verifying that the product they ordered was the one delivered. The terms that must be specified include brand name 

(if any), viscosity grade, performance level, quantity, and API service category. AOCA questions, however, API’s 

requirement to include “API-license status” (7.2.1). Does API actually test the motor oil associated with every 

application for API certification? If so, adding a reference to “API-license status” could have a positive, substantive 

impact at the install level. If not, adding that reference seems like a technicality designed to support API’s brand 

 

1 The average age of U.S. cars on the road in 2011 was 11.1 years, according to the Polk Research Firm.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B4 

without any particular value to the installer or end consumer. Is it possible for motor oil to comply with the latest 

edition of 1509 without being licensed by API?

AOCA would also like to know why installers are required to use specific ordering terms when distributors 

have complete authority to designate how the oil will be described on their drop ticket and invoice (7.2.2)? 

Uniformity of terms in documentation would help everyone in the chain as well as prevent installers from needing to 

chase after distributors in order to “ensure” receipt of the correct order. Additionally, why would the installer request 

that the distributor notify him/her every time the information in 7.2.1 changes (7.2.3)? The order terms are part of 

the contract. If the distributor isn’t going to be able to meet its contractual obligations, then it’s in breach unless it 

can secure an alternate agreement with the installer. Fast lubes will not agree to alter this basic contractual 

relationship by going along with API’s creation of a new duty for installers to request distributor notification of 

failure to meet contract terms. And last, 7.2.1 cross-references 5.3.2.1, which doesn’t exist.

Fast lube operators shall maintain control over their operations

Receiving Practices: If specifically requested to do so, a distributor may assist a fast lube operator in 

labeling bulk oil tanks and related equipment, but access will not be guaranteed as required in 7.4.1. Bulk engine oil 

equipment at fast lubes is labeled and maintained in accordance with applicable laws, necessity, and private 

arrangements between individual fast lube operators and their distributors. Similarly, while a fast lube operator may

coincidentally undertake similar procedures to the cross-referenced API 1525, that guideline is designed for 

distributors and, therefore, does not belong in the installer section of 1525A (7.4.2). Placing a distributor guideline 

inside an installer requirement can lead to confusion and disputes among participants.

Section 7.4.2 would require installers to confirm that the brand name, SAE viscosity grade, API service 

category, and quantity of engine oil being delivered matches the product ordered prior to allowing the distributor to 

dispense anything. How are they supposed to do that when 1525A gives the distributor total control over the

information presented on its drop ticket and invoice? Are installers supposed to take the distributor’s word for it? 

Also, although the installer may be able to verify whether the quantity listed matches the order—assuming the 

distributor sees fit to list the quantity on its documentation—the only way to determine if the distributor actually 

dispenses the right amount of oil is to measure the subject tank before and after delivery, and/or to check the truck 

driver’s meter head to make sure it is zeroed out. 

Lastly, having the installer maintain documentation and tote samples is a compelling idea, but impractical. 

The average fast lube facility has neither room to store oil samples nor off-site facilities to transfer them to. 

Maintaining a “paper trail” might be possible if it were instead a “byte” trail of digital content, but even then care 

must be taken to ensure the requirements don’t become too onerous since fast lubes generally don’t have dedicated 

administrative support staff.

Installation: Fast lube operators already provide clear and accurate oil change options to consumers (7.5.1). 

However, the mere inclusion of a requirement to do so in this best practices document leads AOCA to wonder if 

there isn’t something specific API wants to see. AOCA would appreciate receiving a clarification from API as to 

their concept of how one “clearly and accurately” represents oil change options. 

Customer Receipts: Fast lubes may choose to identify API service category and API license status of oil 

installed on customer receipts, but inclusion of such information will not be guaranteed as required in 7.6. In the vast 

experience of fast lube operators nationwide, the average consumer does not recognize the acronym API and, 

therefore, including it adds no value. 

House Brand Clarification Request: AOCA would appreciate clarification regarding API’s preference that 

installers describe all “house” brand motor oil as “unlicensed.” First, what is API’s definition of “house” brand? 

Second, is it API’s position that an installer who uses the general house brand description for API-licensed oil is 

committing some sort of actionable misrepresentation? If so, this issue should not be handled in a voluntary best 

practices document that is—for reasons described above—unlikely to attract significant fast lube operator 

participation. AOCA would prefer to have an open discussion of any infractions perceived by API and to assist in 

industry education on the subject if appropriate.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B5 

Cost/benefit ratio may not support buy-in absent enforcement functions 

and significant consumer outreach

Although compliance with 1525A is voluntary, it is AOCA’s understanding that API will only list installers 

as compliant if they pay a fee. How much is the fee? Is it a one-time payment or an annual requirement? Has API 

considered a tiered fee structure to reflect the difference between oil company-owned facilities and independent 

facilities? Do facilities in the paid version of the program receive inspections to verify the validity of the program or 

is it a pay-to-play scenario similar to the Better Business Bureau? i.e., pay the fee and get a sticker. Although Better 

Business Bureau doesn’t actually perform any concrete approval process, they will investigate consumer complaints. 

What will API do to investigate consumer complaints? What will API do to investigate an installer’s complaint 

against a participating distributor?

How does API plan to market this program to consumers? If consumers don’t automatically recognize the 

value of fast lube operators participating in 1525A, then there is little incentive for fast lube operators to do so. As 

mentioned previously, fast lube operators nationwide report that customers don’t recognize the acronym “API.” 

Moreover, automobile manufacturers’ proprietary products and services mandates tend to eclipse the importance of 

all other organizations’ recommendations. How will API get past that to instill a concept of inherent value in 

consumers’ minds? 

AOCA appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to 1525A and looks forward to future discussions 

with API regarding the best ways to prevent bulk oil distribution fraud.

Sincerely,

Patricia Wirth

AOCA President

cc: Kevin Ferrick
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B6 

FTC Consumer

Alert

Federal Trade Commission • Bureau of Consumer Protection • Division of Consumer & Business

Education

Auto Warranties, Routine Maintenance, and 

Repairs: Is Using the Dealer a Must?

If you own a car, you know how important it is to keep up with routine maintenance and repairs. 

But can a dealer refuse to honor the warranty that came with your new car if someone else does the 

routine maintenance or repairs?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, says no. In fact, 

it's illegal for a dealer to deny your warranty coverage simply because you had routine maintenance 

or repairs performed by someone else. Routine maintenance often includes oil changes, tire rotations, 

belt replacement, fluid checks and flushes, new brake pads, and inspections. Maintenance schedules 

vary by vehicle make, model and year; the best source of information about routine scheduled 

maintenance is your owner's manual.

What is a warranty?

A warranty is a promise, often made by a manufacturer, to stand behind its product or to fix certain 

defects or malfunctions over a period of time. The warranty pays for any covered repairs or part 

replacements during the warranty period.

Do I have to use the dealer for repairs and maintenance to keep my warranty in effect?

No. An independent mechanic, a retail chain shop, or even you yourself can do routine maintenance 

and repairs on your vehicle. In fact, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which is enforced by the 

FTC, makes it illegal for manufacturers or dealers to claim that your warranty is void or to deny 

coverage under your warranty simply because someone other than the dealer did the work. That 

said, there may be certain situations where a repair may not be covered. For example, if you or your 

mechanic replaced a belt improperly and your engine is damaged as a result, your manufacturer or 

dealer may deny responsibility for fixing the engine under the warranty. However, according to the 

FTC, the manufacturer or dealer must be able to demonstrate that it was the improper belt replacement

-rather than some other defect -that caused the damage to your engine. The warranty would still 

be in effect for other parts of your car.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B7 

Will using 'aftermarket' parts void my warranty?

No. An 'aftermarket part is a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the 

original equipment manufacturer. Simply using an aftermarket part does not void your warranty. 

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny 

coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket part. Still, if it turns out that

the aftermarket part was itself defective or wasn't installed correctly, and it causes damage to another 

part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for 

that part and charge you for any repairs. The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the 

aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage.

Tips To Avoid Warranty Issues

Here's how to get the most out of your vehicle's warranty: 

• Read your warranty. Often bundled with your owner's manual, the warranty gives a general 

description and specific details about your coverage. If you have misplaced your owner's 

manual, look for it online. Check the "Owners" section of your manufacturer's website.

• Be aware of your warranty period. If problems arise that are covered under the warranty, get 

them checked out before the warranty expires.

• Service your car at regular intervals. This is a good idea in any case. But for the sake of 

keeping your warranty intact, follow the manufacturer's recommended service schedule. Details 

are in your owner's manual.

• Keep all service records and receipts, regardless of who performs the service. This includes 

oil changes, tire rotations, belt replacement, new brake pads, and inspections. Create a file to 

keep track of repairs; it will come in handy if you have to use your warranty. If you ever have

a warranty claim and it appears that you did not maintain your vehicle, your claim could be 

denied. 

• Complain. If you think a dealer's service advisor denied your warranty claim unfairly, ask to 

speak with a supervisor. If you still aren't satisfied, contact the manufacturer or go to another 

dealer. You also may wish to file a complaint with your state Attorney General, local consumer 

protection office, local Better Business Bureau, or the FTC.

For More Information

Visit ftc.gov for free information on buying, financing, leasing, renting and maintaining vehicles. 

The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B8 

to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint or get free 

information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); 

TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a new video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. 

The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database 

and investigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and 

abroad.

December 20 I 0
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B9 

July 11, 2012 

Submitted via electronic mail

Ms. Judy Cardin, Chair 

NCWM Laws & Regulations Committee 

Judy.cardin@wisconsin.gov

Re: Actions proposed in the L&R 2012 Interim Report affecting the Fast Lube Industry 

Dear Ms. Cardin: 

The following comments are submitted for your consideration on behalf of the Automotive 

Oil Change Association (AOCA), which represents the North American fast lube industry and now 

has a representative—Dr. R. Scotti Lee—on the NCWM Fuels & Lubricants Subcommittee. The 

proposed actions of immediate concern to AOCA are in the L&R Interim Report Sections 232-4 

(pages 29-31) and 237-4 (pages 47-51): both of these sections contemplate amendments to vehicle 

motor oil labeling standards that could be seriously detrimental to both the fast lube industry and 

consumers. 

The Fast Lube Industry

The fast lube industry plays a major role in the automotive maintenance delivery system, 

providing an estimated 118 million oil changes annually in the United States alone. The estimated 

16,531 facilities purchase more than $4 billion in products annually from oil companies, filter 

manufacturers, computer and software manufacturers, and additive manufacturers. In order to 

implement the services associated with these products, the fast lube industry employs over 100,000 

men and women with an estimated payroll of $2.5 billion. 

Among the various businesses that comprise the automotive maintenance sector, the fast lube 

industry has the distinction of servicing a large percentage of the motoring public while operating on 

small margins. Consumers rely on fast lube service because of a simple cost/benefit analysis: regular 

oil changes are the best and least expensive way to keep a vehicle in good working condition. Fast 

lubes are able to keep the service inexpensive because of streamlined operations combined with 

customer volume and the reasonable cost keeps customers coming back on a consistent basis. 

Another factor distinguishing fast lubes from other service providers (like automobile 

dealerships) is that, in order to remain competitive, fast lubes must be capable of servicing the entire 

vehicle fleet rather than one or two makes. Every car on the road regardless of make, model, and year 

can get excellent service from conveniently located fast lube facilities nationwide so long as 

regulators don’t inadvertently dig ditches in “the playing field” of competition for the motoring 

public’s patronage. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B10

L&R 2012 Interim Report Section 232-4; Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil in NIST Handbook 

130, Method of Sale Regulation 

AOCA has several questions and concerns regarding the recommended amendments to the 

Method of Sale Regulation under the section entitled 2.33.1 Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil. First, AOCA 

requests clarification as to whether the repeated reference to “motor oil container” includes any form of 

pre-packaged goods. If it does, AOCA urges NCWM to recognize that installers have no control over the 

packaging description of packaged goods and, therefore, should have no responsibility for whether 

packaged goods comply with section 2.33.1. Fast lubes follow vehicle manufacturers’ recommendations 

for fluids, including motor oil, which means they may carry a wide variety of packaged motor oils to 

accommodate very old, very new, and specialty vehicles. It is important that NCWM not destroy 

automotive service providers’ ability to provide consumers with the products intended for their vehicles 

because the manufacturers of those products don’t comply with proposed section 2.33.1. 

With regard to subsection 2.33.1.3 Brand, AOCA requests clarification as to what is meant by the 

following sentence: “The label on a vehicle motor oil container and the invoice or receipt from service on 

an engine that includes the installation of vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle motor oil” (emphasis 

added). Does that mean the receipt should list either the name or brand or trademark or trade name? Or 

does it mean that the receipt should list the name, brand, and trademark or alternatively the trade name 

alone? In any case, AOCA urges NCWM to eliminate the trademark requirement from the list as oil 

companies have been notoriously difficult to work with regarding trademark usage. Listing of trade name 

should suffice for identification purposes.

With regard to subsection 2.33.1.4.1, AOCA is concerned that this subsection could be used to 

prevent automotive service providers from providing consumers with the motor oil intended for their 

vehicles. As mentioned above, the fast lube industry services the entire vehicle fleet. The average age of 

cars in the current fleet is eleven years old and it is not unusual for fast lubes to have customers with 

vehicles twice that age. The fact is American consumers are hanging onto their vehicles longer than API 

is hanging onto its service categories. When API designates a motor oil category as inactive or obsolete, 

that doesn’t mean the consumers with vehicles designed to use that category turn in their cars or 

otherwise want to buy a more expensive grade of motor oil going forward. Therefore, a category of motor 

oil designed to work for particular makes and models of vehicles should not be considered “obsolete” 

with respect to those particular vehicles regardless of API’s time table for listing categories as inactive or 

obsolete. 

Another example of how the “inactive/obsolete” designation doesn’t reflect real life involves the 

growing trend of automakers developing their own proprietary oil standards. Instead of an API rating, 

many of these oils are rated by ACEA. Even if some of these oils do have an API/ILSAC rating, they 

would be technically “obsolete” under the proposed regulation, which would create an extremely 

confusing dichotomy: the exact recommended oil for a vehicle should be sold as “obsolete”? 

Installers should not be forced to designate vehicle-appropriate motor oil as “inactive” or 

“obsolete” on tanks and receipts because it would have a chilling and/or discriminatory effect on 

consumers’ opinion of the operators. Consumers don’t recognize API but a term like “inactive” could 

only be understood as negative. It is not reasonable to expect the average consumer and small business 

operator to have a twenty-minute in-depth discussion over the distinction between inactive and active API 

service categories and how an “inactive” designation doesn’t mean the type of oil originally 

recommended for the consumer’s car is suddenly now bad for it.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B11

The new standard phase-in factor must be considered as well. The standard referred to subsection 

2.33.1, SAE J183, cross-references API 1509. When API publishes a new edition of 1509 and/or creates a 

new service category, a reasonable phase-in period is necessary to accommodate older vehicle owners’ 

needs; i.e., it may be in their best interests—both functionally and economically—to use motor oil 

developed in accordance with an earlier edition or service category so long as the automobile 

manufacturer originally recommended it and its continued use has no impact on any remaining warranty 

coverage. For fast lube operators to automatically upgrade bulk oil stock at API-determined intervals 

would be tantamount to giving API control over the price of oil change services regardless of what the 

market can bear. 

In consideration of the problems outlined above, AOCA urges NCWM to include a clarifying 

sentence in 2.33.1.4.1 as follows: “NOTE: no cautionary statement per SAE J183 or other negative 

designation such as ‘obsolete’ or ‘inactive’ shall be necessary where the motor oil used is in the category 

of motor oil originally designated for the consumer’s vehicle.” 

Lastly, it is imperative that any installer labeling and/or receipt information requirements be 

matched by corresponding NCWM requirements for motor oil distributors. Installers cannot purport to 

verify via any form of documentation information that distributors have not documented at delivery. For 

NCWM to require otherwise would be manifestly unfair to installers by subjecting them to liability for 

the bad acts of distributors without any paperwork trail to rely upon in their own defense. 

L&R 2012 Interim Report Section 237-4; Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil in NIST Handbook 

130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation.

AOCA’s questions and concerns with this section are identical to those described above with 

regard to L&R 2012 Interim Report Section 232-4. AOCA urges NCWM to include a clarifying sentence 

in subsection 3.13.1.4.1 as follows: “NOTE: no cautionary statement per SAE J183 or other negative 

designation such as ‘obsolete’ or ‘inactive’ shall be necessary where the motor oil used is in the category 

of motor oil originally designated for the consumer’s vehicle.”

Potential Overlap with the Motor Oil Matters Program/API Standard 1525A

To the extent that any of the proposed actions in the L&R 2012 Interim Report relate to or rely 

upon the future private enforcement of the Motor Oil Matters (MOM) Program, AOCA urges NCWM to 

table consideration pending resolution of serious issues associated with the program as it relates to 

installers. AOCA has submitted detailed objections and suggested amendments to the American 

Petroleum Institute (API)’s draft Standard 1525A, which will be the basic standard for the MOM 

Program. One of the primary reasons AOCA objects to 1525A is that it requires installers—fast lubes—to 

verify information controlled by distributors that distributors are not required to provide. Any chain of 

custody regulation aimed at preventing fraud must apply information and verification requirements 

equally throughout the chain: fast lubes cannot be expected to verify brand to consumers if distributors 

are not required to first verify that brand upon delivery. 

AOCA developed its own bulk oil delivery guidelines back in 2006 because no one wants to 

prevent bulk motor oil distribution fraud more than fast lube operators. Should a product quality problem 

occur with packaged goods, it’s relatively easy to trace the goods back to the manufacturer. However, this 

is not the case with motor oil transported in bulk; it all looks alike, it may have “changed hands” 

numerous times before reaching the fast lube facility, and even with testing can be impossible for a fast 

lube to verify because oil companies use chemical markers that only they can identify. Since motor oil 

specifications have become so precise—and so expensive—fast lube operators stand to lose thousands of 

dollars every time a distributor delivers a lesser product. Moreover, when a distributor delivers the wrong 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B12

product, it’s the fast lube operator who gets stuck holding the bag for consumer claims. It can take weeks 

before a bad load is detected and by then anywhere from 500 to 700 customers have been serviced. The 

remedy? All of the customers must be called back and re-serviced for free before any damage occurs.

AOCA’s Guidelines were developed to prevent such horrendous events: 

Product Order Specificity: When placing an order for bulk motor oil, fast lube operators should 

specify the brand (if any), viscosity grade, performance level, and quantity of motor oil they wish 

to purchase. If an operator means to purchase the highest performance level of motor oil, which is 

required for vehicles under warranty, then he/she specifies, for example, API SN / ILSAC GF-5 

until the next performance level of motor oil is due. (Note: This specification is important 

because it is legal for distributors to sell motor oil with lower performance levels; i.e., SA, SB . . . 

SJ, etc.) All of this information—brand, viscosity grade, performance level, and quantity—should 

appear on every written and/or digital summary memorializing a purchase. It is recommended 

that operators purchase motor oil meeting the specifications required by the automaker for the 

model year of vehicles being serviced.

Purchase Documentation: Although it has been a long standing industry practice to verbally order 

and re-order bulk motor oil products, fast lube operators who want the ability to verify orders 

placed should either request a written summary of each purchase order from their supplier or draft 

their own dated summary, including a supplier initial line, and fax or email it to their supplier for 

verification.

Delivery Procedure – Measuring the Tanks: Taking tank measurements assists with inventory 

control and gives the operator the ability to double-check the distributor’s measurement of 

product delivered. Prior to receiving a bulk delivery of motor oil, a fast lube operator simply 

measures via tank gauge or other measurement device the contents of the tank(s) into which the 

motor oil will be dispensed. The operator may also check the delivery truck driver’s meter-head 

to make sure it’s zeroed out. After delivery, the operator takes the same measurements again. 

Keeping this information in an ongoing log at the fast lube facility provides valuable 

documentation in the event of a dispute. 

Delivery Procedure – Verifying Distributor Documentation: Prior to allowing a distributor to 

dispense product into the fast lube facility tank(s), an operator should seek the following 

information in writing and/or digital form (i.e., email or cell phone/tablet scan) from the driver: 

(1) The brand (if any), viscosity grade, performance level, and quantity of motor oil being 

delivered;

(2) The names, addresses, contact personnel, and phone numbers of every facility that has 

come in contact with the shipment of motor oil from the original supplier down to the 

distributor currently onsite; 

(3) An agreement by the distributor to take direct responsibility for any and all fast lube 

customers affected by the delivery of product that does not meet the standards (taking 

into account any commercially-accepted degree of variation) of the product ordered by 

the fast lube operator; and

(4) An acknowledgment by the distributor that an actual sample of the load (i.e., a 

“retain”) has been taken from the truck as the product was being delivered and that this 

sample will be retained by the distributor for at least a year. 

Have any distributors been willing to provide the basic documentation described above? No. Is 

API proposing to require it in Standard 1525A? No. Is NCWM contemplating inclusion of these points in 

its regulation? No. The oil companies and distributors who seem very interested in fraud prevention—at 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B13

least according to NCWM’s regulatory history on this subject—do not, however, seem interested in doing 

much about it themselves. Their emphasis has been placed on the install level as if all bulk motor oil 

distribution fraud risk lies there alone. This is simply not true and behaving as if it were is a tremendous 

waste of a legitimate regulatory opportunity to establish a fair chain of custody system that protects 

everyone equally. After all, fast lubes are the customers of oil distributors just as household vehicle owners 

are the customers of fast lubes and oil distributors are the customers of oil companies. Either all of these 

“customers” are protected by the system or none of them are.

Another of AOCA’s primary objections to draft Standard 1525A involves API’s lack of routine 

distributor testing. For reasons described in detail above, a chain of custody standard has no real value to 

fast lubes unless it has a mechanism to identify problems with distributors’ bulk oil before it reaches the 

install level. Once it reaches the install level, it’s too late. API has provided no indication to AOCA that it 

plans to engage in anything other than an after-the-fact complaint process and the occasional random testing 

of distributors, which is a lot like a shark with no teeth: a bad actor might get caught once in awhile, but 

he’d have to be so far out in the open as to get swallowed whole. For further information on this subject, 

AOCA’s entire set of comments and suggested amendments to draft 1525A accompanies this submission. 

Again, AOCA urges NCWM to table any pending actions that rely upon connection to the MOM 

Program/1525A until such time as the problems outlined above have been solves.

Clarification of Regulatory History on Brand Identification Requirements

The existing regulatory history regarding the rationale for adding brand identification on service 

receipts indicates that it is necessary for automobile warranty purposes: “consumers would not have the 

required information to verify warranty work if product identity is removed from the proposal.” (L&R 2012 

Interim Report at 50) This reflects an all too common misunderstanding. In fact, the federal Magnuson Moss 

Warranty Act specifically prohibits automobile manufacturers from creating product “tying” arrangements 

under their warranties. The only exceptions to this rule require the manufacturer to either give the tied 

product to the consumer for free or obtain a waiver from the FTC after having first proven that only the tied 

product will allow the warranted product to function properly. The latter option has never been 

accomplished by an automobile manufacturer, and the former, if offered, would place consumers outside the 

normal service arrangement where buying motor oil is a factor. 

AOCA would very much appreciate it if the L&R Committee and/or the Fuels & Lubricants 

Subcommittee would formally disconnect the issue of requiring brand on receipts from automobile 

manufacturers’ warranty requirements. Something to the effect of the following sentence would be helpful:

“Despite prior subcommittee discussion on this subject, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act 

prohibits manufacturers from tying branded products to warranty coverage and, therefore, 

NCWM’s sole purpose in requiring motor oil brand designation on receipts would be to 

promote anti-fraud, chain of custody measures.”

For your reference, a copy of the Federal Trade Commission’s most recent Magnuson Moss Warranty Act 

Bulletin accompanies this submission. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B14

Conclusion

AOCA appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on these crucial issues. If you have any 

questions or concerns regarding this submission or require additional information, please contact the 

undersigned at 1-800-331-0329.

Sincerely,

 Patricia Wirth

 AOCA President

cc: Ron Hayes, Chair, Fuels & Lubricants Subcommittee
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B15

Kevin Ferrick

Manager, Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System

Certification Programs

1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-4070

USA

Telephone 1-202-682-8233

Fax 1-202-962-4739

Email ferrick@api.org

www.api.org/eolcs

July 13, 2012 

Judy Cardin 

Chair, National Conference on Weights and Measures

Laws and Regulations Committee 

Dear Ms. Cardin:

API received a copy of the July 2012 letter the Automotive Oil Change Association sent to you 

regarding items 232-4 and 237-6 currently under consideration by the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures Laws and Regulations Committee. I believe a number of comments made 

in the letter are incorrect and merit a response. For ease of reference, I have excerpted specific 

AOCA statements (in italics) and then follow with my response. 

AOCA: Does that mean the receipt should list either the name or brand or trademark or 

trade name? Or does it mean that the receipt should list the name, brand, and trademark or 

alternatively the trade name alone?

Ferrick: Yes, the receipt should list name or brand or trademark or trade name. One is 

sufficient. It's at the installer's discretion. 

AOCA: When API designates a motor oil category as inactive or obsolete, that doesn’t mean 

the consumers with vehicles designed to use that category turn in their cars or otherwise 

want to buy a more expensive grade of motor oil going forward.

Ferrick: API service categories generally are declared obsolete when the tests used to verify 

the oil's performance are no longer available. API does not advocate preventing oil marketers 

from manufacturing and selling oils meeting an obsolete standard, but if such oils are being 

used, consumers deserve to know that there is currently no way to verify through ASTM 

engine testing the claims made for the oils. The API industry standard for engine oil 

performance, API 1509, Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, requires engine 

testing to establish that an oil meets the requirements for a current API service category. Oils 

claiming to meet an obsolete category such as API SG are either formulated based on 

perhaps 20-year-old data or crafted using engineering judgment. 

Consumers also deserve to know that, for most automobiles, the latest API service category 

meets or exceeds the performance level of the previous categories. This means an API SL, 

SM, or SN oil will meet or exceed API SG, SH, and SJ performance requirements.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B16

When API does adopt a new service category or performance standard, the standard’s 

introduction includes waiting and “phase-in” periods. For ILSAC GF-5, API instituted a 9- 

month waiting period before oils could be licensed against the standard. Once the GF-5 

standard went into effect, API permitted oil marketers to maintain licenses against the GF-4 

standard for 1 year after the GF-5 first licensing date. It is also important to note that API still 

licenses oils to use the API Service Symbol in conjunction with earlier API categories back

to API SJ. API SJ has been in effect since 1993. Thus, API licenses motor oils meeting 

owner's manual recommendations for vehicles up to 20 years old. 

Most OEMs selling automobiles and trucks in the North American market recommend oils 

meeting ILSAC or API performance requirements. When ILSAC introduces a new 

specification, ILSAC recommends that specification for its current and previous model year 

vehicles because the new specification is an improvement over the earlier one. This has also 

been true to some extent for the last few diesel categories. Additionally, ILSAC recommends 

oils displaying the API Starburst, an evergreen symbol not tied to an API service category. 

ILSAC opted for this evergreen symbol specifically because ILSAC wants its customers to 

use oils meeting the latest and most stringent performance requirements.

AOCA: Many of these oils are rated by ACEA.

Ferrick: ACEA oils are recommended for European automobiles, and these usually include 

an API rating. Most US, Korean and Japanese automakers recommend oils meeting the latest 

ILSAC standard for their new cars and older cars on the road today. It might also be useful for 

you to know that ACEA does not monitor the quality of oils in the marketplace that claim 

ACEA performance, a stark difference between API and ACEA.

AOCA: Installers should not be forced to designate vehicle-appropriate motor oil as 

“inactive” or “obsolete” on tanks and receipts because it would have a chilling and/or 

discriminatory effect on consumers’ opinion of the operators. Consumers don’t recognize 

API but a term like “inactive” could only be understood as negative. It is not reasonable to 

expect the average consumer and small business operator to have a twenty-minute in-depth 

discussion over the distinction between inactive and active API service categories and how 

an “inactive” designation doesn’t mean the type of oil originally recommended for the 

consumer’s car is suddenly now bad for it.

The new standard phase-in factor must be considered as well. The standard referred to 

subsection 2.33.1, SAE J183, cross-references API 1509. When API publishes a new edition 

of 1509 and/or creates a new service category, a reasonable phase-in period is necessary to 

accommodate older vehicle owners’ needs; i.e., it may be in their best interests—both 

functionally and economically—to use motor oil developed in accordance with an earlier
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B17

edition or service category so long as the automobile manufacturer originally recommended

it and its continued use has no impact on any remaining warranty coverage. For fast lube 

operators to automatically upgrade bulk oil stock at API-determined intervals would be 

tantamount to giving API control over the price of oil change services regardless of what the 

market can bear.

Ferrick: API service categories generally are declared obsolete when the tests used to verify 

the oil's performance are no longer available. API does not advocate preventing oil marketers 

from manufacturing and selling oils meeting an obsolete standard, but if such oils are being 

used, consumers deserve to know that there is currently no way to verify through ASTM 

engine testing the claims made for the oils. The API industry standard for engine oil 

performance, API 1509, requires engine testing to establish that an oil meets the

requirements for a current API service category. Oils claiming to meet an obsolete category 

such as API SG are either formulated based on perhaps 20-year-old data or crafted using 

engineering judgment.

Consumers also deserve to know that, for most automobiles, the latest API service category 

meets or exceeds the performance level of the previous categories. This means an API SL, 

SM, or SN oil will meet or exceed API SG, SH, and SJ performance requirements.

When API does adopt a new service category or performance standard, the standard’s 

introduction includes waiting and “phase-in” periods. For ILSAC GF-5, API instituted a 9- 

month waiting period before oils could be licensed against the standard. Once the GF-5 

standard went into effect, API permitted oil marketers to maintain licenses against the GF-4 

standard for 1 year after the GF-5 first licensing date. It is also important to note that API still 

licenses oils to use the API Service Symbol in conjunction with earlier API categories back

to API SJ. API SJ has been in effect since 1993. Thus, API licenses motor oils meeting 

owner's manual recommendations for vehicles up to 20 years old. 

If AOCA members want to give consumers an option to use an oil meeting an older or 

obsolete performance category, AOCA should make it clear to the consumer that that's what 

they're getting. Lack of consumer knowledge could easily result in misapplication. 

AOCA: NOTE: no cautionary statement per SAE J183 or other negative designation such as

‘obsolete’ or ‘inactive’ shall be necessary where the motor oil used is in the category of 

motor oil originally designated for the consumer’s vehicle.”

Ferrick: Engine oil consumers include installers and vehicle owners. Omitting the cautionary 

statement would deprive installers of the warning that it is no longer possible to perform 

engine testing for performance characteristics on the oil installers are purchasing. The API 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B18

industry standard for engine oil performance, API 1509, requires engine testing to establish

that an oil meets the requirements for a current API service category. The obsolete 

designation puts the installer on notice that they are assuming additional risk by selling an oil 

that may not have undergone engine testing, could fail to meet performance requirements,

and could harm their customers’ vehicles. Omitting the obsolete designation would also 

deprive vehicle owners of a warning that the performance level of the oil being installed in 

their vehicles cannot be independently engine tested. 

Further, deletion of references to an oil’s obsolete status and deference to the vehicle 

manufacturer’s original oil recommendation may not address the issue. With the 

introduction of the API Starburst in 1993, vehicle manufacturers began recommending in 

their owners’ manuals that owners use oil bearing the API Starburst certification mark rather 

than recommending specific API service categories. The Starburst mark is evergreen, 

meaning it is used for the most recently approved engine oil standard. Therefore, in the

common case of a vehicle manufacturer that has recommended the Starburst sometime in the 

last 20 years, deferring to the vehicle manufacturer’s original oil recommendation may not 

give consumers the information they need to make an informed decision on the right oil for 

their vehicle.

AOCA: Lastly, it is imperative that any installer labeling and/or receipt information 

requirements be matched by corresponding NCWM requirements for motor oil distributors.

Ferrick: API is launching a voluntary licensing program for distributors and installers that 

have implemented basic chain of custody procedures for engine oils. API’s goal is to ensure 

that distributors and installers have the information they need to be able to clearly identify 

the engine oils ultimately being installed in consumers’ vehicles.

AOCA: fast lubes cannot be expected to verify brand to consumers if distributors are not 

required to first verify that brand upon delivery

Ferrick: API's program requires that participating distributors verify the identity of the 

products delivered. 

AOCA: testing can be impossible for a fast lube to verify because oil companies use chemical 

markers that only they can identify

Ferrick: Bench testing to confirm volatility and SAE J300 viscosity requirements can easily 

be done to verify well-known, published industry parameters. Oil marketers that don't use 

markers (not all do) routinely rely on this type of testing when confirming product identity. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B19

AOCA: It is recommended that operators purchase motor oil meeting the specifications

required by the automaker for the model year of vehicles being serviced.

Ferrick: Deletion of references to an oil’s obsolete status and deference to the vehicle 

manufacturer’s original oil recommendation may not address the issue. With the introduction 

of the API Starburst in 1993, vehicle manufacturers began recommending in their owners’

manuals that owners use oil bearing the API Starburst certification mark rather than 

recommending specific API service categories. The Starburst mark is evergreen, meaning it 

is used for the most recently approved engine oil standard. Therefore, in the

common case of a vehicle manufacturer that has recommended the Starburst sometime in the 

last 20 years, deferring to the vehicle manufacturer’s original oil recommendation may not 

give consumers the information they need to make an informed decision on the right oil for 

their vehicle.

If an installer carries inventory of older category oils in bulk, the possibility of misapplication 

in cars needing oils meeting more recent categories is likely increased. Requiring the 

information in the revised HB 130 language may help prevent misapplication. 

AOCA: fast lube operators who want the ability to verify orders placed should either request 

a written summary of each purchase order from their supplier or draft their own dated 

summary, including a supplier initial line, and fax or email it to their supplier for verification.

Ferrick: API adopts its consensus industry standards through an open, transparent process that 

responds directly to all technical comments, whether submitted by oil marketers, distributors, 

installers, or other interested parties. In response to AOCA's comments on the previous ballot 

of API 1525A, Bulk Engine Oil Chain of Custody and Quality Documentation, API plans to 

conduct an open ballot on the provisions shown in the attached draft API 1525A. 

AOCA: (1) The brand (if any), viscosity grade, performance level, and quantity of motor oil 

being delivered;

(2) The names, addresses, contact personnel, and phone numbers of every facility that has 

come in contact with the shipment of motor oil from the original supplier down to the 

distributor currently onsite;

(3) An agreement by the distributor to take direct responsibility for any and all fast lube 

customers affected by the delivery of product that does not meet the standards (taking into 

account any commercially-accepted degree of variation) of the product ordered by the fast 

lube operator; and
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B20

(4) An acknowledgment by the distributor that an actual sample of the load (i.e., a “retain”)

has been taken from the truck as the product was being delivered and that this sample will be 

retained by the distributor for at least a year.

Have any distributors been willing to provide the basic documentation described above? No.

Ferrick: As part of the open development process of API 1525A, API has received comments 

from marketers, distributors, and installers confirming that distributors routinely provide the 

basic information in item 1 through bills of lading and other materials.

AOCA: Is API proposing to require it in Standard 1525A? No.

Ferrick: API 1525A requires or recommends 1, 2, and 4 above. API sets industry standards 

following procedures accredited by the American National Standards Institute. API’s 

Procedures for Standards Development do not permit API standards to include substantive 

allocations of business risk between buyers and sellers, such as guarantees and warrantees. 

However, with the documentation required by API 1525A, the installer would be free to 

negotiate its own warranty provisions as it sees fit.

AOCA: Is NCWM contemplating inclusion of these points in its regulation? No.

Ferrick: API’s requested changes to the NCWM provisions are intended to provide 

consumers with basic product identity information. 

AOCA: Their emphasis has been placed on the install level as if all bulk motor oil 

distribution fraud risk lies there alone. This is simply not true and behaving as if it were is a 

tremendous waste of a legitimate regulatory opportunity to establish a fair chain of custody 

system that protects everyone equally.

Ferrick: API is currently balloting a new, voluntary industry standard, API 1525A that will 

provide chain of custody guidance for the entire engine oil supply chain, for marketers, 

distributors, and installers. API appreciates AOCA’s technical comments submitted during 

the open standards development process of API 1525A, and API has incorporated most of 

AOCA’s suggested changes into a final draft form of API 1525A that is currently being 

balloted. 

AOCA: API has provided no indication to AOCA that it plans to engage in anything other 

than an after-the-fact complaint process and the occasional random testing of distributors, 

which is a lot like a shark with no teeth: a bad actor might get caught once in awhile, but 

he’d have to be so far out in the open as to get swallowed whole.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B21

Ferrick: Upon adoption of the final API 1525A, API intends to implement a voluntary 

industry certification program that will license distributors and installers to use an API 

“Motor Oil Matters” certification mark that will serve as a representation by the distributor or 

installer to its customers that the distributor or installer has implemented chain of custody 

requirements consistent with API 1525A. API will test distributors before licensing and 

conduct random sampling and testing of products at licensed distributors and installers for 

product identification. Additionally, as per AOCA’s comments on the draft API 1525A, API 

is currently balloting a final draft that includes a requirement for licensed distributors to 

maintain information on oils for at least 1 year. This requirement would include Certificates of 

Analysis and other quality information. 

I appreciate the opportunity to respond. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Ferrick

Manager, API Global Industry Services/EOLCS 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B22

Bulk Engine Oil Chain of Custody and

Quality Documentation

DRAFT WITH BALLOT ITEMS JULY 2012

API 1525A

FIRST EDITION, XXXXX 2012
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B23

Bulk Engine Oil Chain of Custody and Quality

Documentation

Downstream Segment

DRAFT WITH BALLOT ITEMS JULY 2012

API 1525A 

FIRST EDITION, XXXXX 2012
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B24

Special Notes

API publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respect to 

particular circumstances, local, state, and federal laws and regulations should be 

reviewed.

Neither API nor any of API's employees, subcontractors, consultants, committees, or 

other assignees make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with 

respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained herein, 

or assume any liability or responsibility for any use, or the results of such use, of any 

information or process disclosed in this publication. Neither API nor any of API's 

employees, subcontractors, consultants, or other assignees represent that use of this 

publication would not infringe upon privately owned rights. 

API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been made 

by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; 

however, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection 

with this publication and hereby expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss 

or damage resulting from its use or for the violation of any authorities having jurisdiction 

with which this publication may conflict.

API publications are published to facilitate the broad availability of proven, sound 

engineering and operating practices. These publications are not intended to obviate the 

need for applying sound engineering judgment regarding when and where these 

publications should be utilized. The formulation and publication of API publications is not 

intended in any way to inhibit anyone from using any other practices. 

Any manufacturer marking equipment or materials in conformance with the marking 

requirements of an API standard is solely responsible for complying with all the 

applicable requirements of that standard. API does not represent, warrant, or guarantee 

that such products do in fact conform to the applicable API standard.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any 

means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the 

publisher. Contact the Publisher, API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

Copyright ©2011 American Petroleum Institute
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B25

Foreword

API 1525A Bulk Engine Oil Chain of Custody and Quality Documentation provides procedures for 

managing bulk engine oil chain of custody to ensure oil quality from the point of manufacture to 

installation in the end user’s vehicle. All parties involved with supplying finished bulk engine oil to 

consumers have a role in protecting the quality of the oil throughout the supply chain. 

Responsibility for quality starts with the marketer/blender and ends with the installer. The blender, 

the transporter/distributor and the installer that originally ordered the product have a role in 

ensuring the quality of the engine oil received matches the quality ordered.

Nothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any right, by implication 

or otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use of any method, apparatus, or product covered by 

letters patent. Neither should anything contained in the publication be construed as insuring 

anyone against liability for infringement of letters patent.

This document was produced under API standardization procedures that ensure appropriate 

notification and participation in the developmental process and is designated as an API standard. 

Questions concerning the interpretation of the content of this publication or comments and 

questions concerning the procedures under which this publication was developed should be 

directed in writing to the Director of Standards, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Requests for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part 

of the material published herein should also be addressed to the director. 

Generally, API standards are reviewed and revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn at least every 5 

years. A one-time extension of up to 2 years may be added to this review cycle. Status of the 

publication can be ascertained from the API Standards Department, telephone (202) 682-8000. A 

catalog of API publications and materials is published annually and updated quarterly by API,

1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. 

Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the Standards Department, API, 1220

L Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005, standards@api.org.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B26

Contents

1 Scope .................................................................................................................................

2 Normative References ........................................................................................................

3 Terms and Definitions ........................................................................................................

3.1 Terms .................................................................................................................................

3.2 Definitions............................................................................................................................

4 General Principles...............................................................................................................

4.1 Equipment for Handling, Sampling and Testing Engine Oils.........................................

4.2 Procedures ..........................................................................................................................

5 Requirements for Marketer/Blenders Supplying Engine Oil to

API-Certified Distributors...................................................................................................

5.1 Basic Requirements for Marketer/Blenders .....................................................................

5.2 Marketer/Blender Practices to Support Chain of Custody .............................................

5.3 Chain-of-Custody Documentation—Marketer/Blender Delivery to Distributor ............

6 Requirements for Distributor of Bulk Engine Oil.............................................................

6.1 General Requirements and Record Retention .................................................................

6.2 Chain-of-Custody Documentation—Distributor Receipt of Engine Oil .........................

6.3 Chain-of-Custody Documentation—Distributor Delivery to Installer............................

6.4 Direct Delivery from Marketer/Blender to Installer..........................................................

6.5 Multiple Transfers Between Initial Distributor and Installer...........................................

7 Installer Ordering, Receipt and Installation of Bulk Engine Oil .....................................

7.1 Product Offering..................................................................................................................

7.2 Order Information................................................................................................................

7.2 Oil Ordering Practices ........................................................................................................

7.3 Installer Receiving Practices .............................................................................................

7.4 Installation Practices ..........................................................................................................

7.5 Customer Receipts .............................................................................................................
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B27

Bulk Engine Oil Chain of Custody and Quality Documentation

1 Scope

This document provides procedures for managing bulk engine oil chain of custody to ensure oil quality 

from the point of manufacture to installation in the end user’s engine. The procedures specifically address 

the following key topics: marketer/blender practices; the ordering of oils meeting API 1509; chain-ofcustody documentation that identifies bulk engine oil throughout the supply system; and requirements for 

informing consumers about the types of engine oil available for installation and requirements for 

notification (written and/or electronic) of the oil installed in engines. 

All parties involved with supplying bulk engine oil to consumers (end users) have a role in protecting the 

quality of the oil throughout the supply chain. Responsibility for quality starts with the marketer/blender 

and ends with the installer. The marketer/blender, the distributor and the installer that originally ordered 

the product have a role in ensuring the quality of the engine oil received matches the quality ordered.

This document builds on procedures published in API Recommended Practice 1525, Bulk Oil Testing, 

Handling, and Storage Guidelines. API 1525 addresses storage and handling of bulk oil, facility and 

equipment standards, loading and unloading, comingling in distributor storage, multiple transporters 

between marketer/blender and oil-change facilities, personal safety equipment, training, and 

governmental requirements and reviews. 

2 Normative References

The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated 

references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced 

document (including any amendments) applies. 

API 15091, Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System

API 1525, Bulk Oil Testing, Handling, and Storage Guidelines

API Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) Application for Licensure 

ASTM D4452, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and

Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity)

ASTM D1500, Standard Test Method for ASTM Color of Petroleum Products (ASTM Color Scale)

ASTM D4052, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and

Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity)

ASTM D4927, Standard Test Methods for Elemental Analysis of Lubricant and Additive Components— 

Barium, Calcium, Phosphorus, Sulfur, and Zinc by Wavelength Dispersive X Ray Fluorescence 

Spectroscopy

ASTM D4951, Standard Test Method for Determination of Additive Elements in Lubricating Oils by

Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry

ASTM D5293, Standard Test Method for Apparent Viscosity of Engine Oils Between 5 and 35°C Using the

Cold Cranking Simulator

1 API, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 USA 2 ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 USA 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B28

API 1525A

ASTM D5762, Standard Test Method for Nitrogen in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Boat Inlet

Chemiluminescence

ASTM D5949, Standard Test Method for Pour Point of Petroleum Products (Automatic Pressure Pulsing

Method)

ASTM D5950, Standard Test Method for Pour Point of Petroleum Products (Automatic Tilt Method) 

ASTM D5985, Standard Test Method for Pour Point of Petroleum Products (Rotational Method) 

ASTM D6362, Standard Practice for Certificates of Reference Materials for Water Analysis

ASTM D6481, Standard Test Method for Determination of Phosphorus, Sulfur, Calcium, and Zinc in

Lubrication Oils by Energy Dispersive X ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy

ASTM D7279, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids by

Automated Houillon Viscometer

ISO 17050-13, Conformity Assessment — Supplier's Declaration of Conformity — Part 1: General

Requirements

SAE J3004, Engine Oil Viscosity Classification

3 Terms and Definitions

For the purposes of this document, the following definitions apply:

3.1 Terms

a) May—indicates provisions that are optional and, consequently, are at the discretion of the designer or 

operator.

b) Must—indicates important legal or safety considerations.

c) Shall—indicates provisions that are mandatory to meet this API standard.

d) Should—indicates provisions that are recommended but not mandatory. Implementation of these 

provisions will be made based on consideration of the following, as appropriate: (a) risk/benefit analysis, (b)

company standards, (c) company experience, and (d) company philosophy.

3.2 Definitions

a) API service category—is an engine oil designation (for example, API SM, SN, CH-4, CI-4, and CJ-4)

that defines a specific level of performance as measured in engine and bench tests.

b) Batch—is a delivery of finished engine oil from a marketer/blender to a distributor from a maximum of

one vehicle, rail car or portable container. A delivery of the same product from multiple compartments from a 

single vehicle at the same time may be considered a single batch if loaded from a single storage tank.

c) Bulk engine oil—is engine oil dispensed and delivered in metered quantities.

d) Distributor—is the entity that stores and delivers to multiple users (other distributors or installers)

finished engine oils obtained from another source or from a qualified in-house blending operation.

e) Formulation—is a specific mixture of lubricant base stocks and performance additives (additive

package), including treat levels of all components, that results in an engine oil.

f) Installer—is the entity that puts engine oil into the engine of a consumer (end user).

3 ISO, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, 1211 Genève 20, Switzerland 4 SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 USA 10
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B29

BULK ENGINE OIL CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND QUALITY DOCUMENTATION

g) Licensable category—is an API service category listed in API 1509 as eligible for use in the API Service 

Symbol. 

h) Licensed formulation—is a formulation that meets the requirements of API 1509 for the service category 

claimed and is licensed by API. 

i) License status—is a statement that the formulation used to blend an engine oil is licensed or not

licensed by API. 

j) Candidate Data Package – is a record of each test program conducted under the American Chemistry 

Council Code of Practice (see www.americanchemistry.com for details). 

k) Marketer/blender—is the entity that mixes engine oil base stocks and performance additives (additive 

package) to produce an engine oil. 

l) Ownership—is the top management position in the legal entity (private or corporate) responsible for all 

actions carried out by all distributors and/or installers owned or controlled by the entity.

m) Product—is a marketer/blender’s finished engine oil sold in bulk with a unique brand name, viscosity 

grade, and API service category. 

n) Product delivery—is the offloading of product to a distributor or installer’s tanks or the transfer of 

product in a portable container to the distributor or installer’s custody. 

o) Product identification information—is the unique marketer/blender’s name, brand name, viscosity 

grade, API service category, and API licensure status that is specific to an engine oil or engine oils. 

p) Product quality—is defined as an engine oil’s ability to meet API, OEM, industry, national or

international specifications. 

q) Qualified formulations—are specific engine oil formulations identified by unique codes for which 

acceptable performance against API performance standards has been demonstrated. Proof of performance 

against API standards requires the successful completion of engine and bench tests. 

r) Quality assurance—is a program for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of the various aspects

of a project, service, or facility to ensure that standards of quality are being met.

s) Quality control—is the aggregate of activities (as design analysis and inspection for defects) designed

to ensure adequate quality especially in manufactured products. 

t) Quality statement—is a document that confirms that an engine oil delivered meets the characteristics 

and performance level expected from the marketer/blender. The quality statement can be a Certificate of 

Analysis (C of A), Certificate of Conformance (C of C) or other document as agreed between the parties prior 

to product delivery. 

 1) Certificate of Analysis (C of A)—is a certification report of the analysis performed to develop the

 certified values reported on the Certificate of Analysis. It shall list the test method(s) used for analysis and

industry specification limits for tests listed, when available, for the engine oil(s) supplied (see latest edition

ASTM D6362). 

 2) Certificate of Conformance (C of C)—is a document that contains a Certificate of Conformity of a 

 manufactured product. The certificate documents that the product conforms to manufactured 

specifications (see latest edition ISO/IEC 17050-1). 

4 General Principles

4.1 Equipment for Handling, Sampling and Testing Engine Oils

Engine oils should be handled, sampled and tested in accordance with the latest edition of API 1525. At 

minimum, clean, dry, and clear glass or plastic bottles shall be used when making visual comparisons to 

reference samples for color, water, and contamination.

4.2 Procedures

Engine oil marketer/blenders, distributors and installers should have written procedures consistent with 

those described in the latest edition of API 1525.

11
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B30

API 1525A

5 Requirements for Marketer/Blenders Supplying Engine Oil to API-Certified

Distributors

5.1 Basic Requirements for Marketer/Blenders

5.1.1 A marketer/blender shall have available for supply to distributors or installers engine oils that are in 

compliance with the latest edition of API 1509.

5.1.2 The marketer/blender shall clearly identify to all recipients for each engine oil to be supplied the API 

license status, API service category, SAE viscosity grade, and brand name. Notification may be made by 

paper or electronic record.

5.1.3 The marketer/blender shall verify an engine oil’s license status by providing a valid copy of its 

Schedule A License Agreement or citing API’s on-line Directory of Licensees (www.api.org/eolcs). Notification

may be made by paper or electronic record. 

5.1.4 The marketer/blender owning the brand name must maintain pertinent sections of the Candidate 

Data Package provided by the technology supplier sufficient to document the API service category of 

each formulation supplied.

5.1.5 Records required by this section shall be maintained a minimum of 6 months. Candidate Data 

Packages shall be maintained as long as the formulations the packages support are supplied.

5.2 Marketer/Blender Practices to Support Chain of Custody

5.2.1 Batch Quality and Tracking Management

The marketer/blender shall implement and maintain a quality testing and tracking system to allow 

identification of and assure conformance to the API service category claimed for every batch of engine oil 

delivered to distributors and installers. 

5.2.1.1 Tracking System

The tracking system shall include, at minimum:

a) A separate, unique code for each blend/batch.

b) Blend code traceable to Part Q of the API Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) 

Application for Licensure.

c) Certificates of Analysis for components used in oil batches. 

d) Records of the results of quality certification testing (See 5.2.1.2) on each batch.

e) Record of batches in a tank for a given day (identify the most recent two batches added to a tank). 

f) The customers for all deliveries made each day from each engine oil storage tank. 

5.2.1.2 Batch/Quality Certification Testing

The marketer/blender shall run appropriate tests on each batch to certify the oil has been blended to meet 

identifiable properties. Tests should include the following (appropriate ASTM procedures, when available, are 

recommended):

a) Kinematic viscosity at 100°C—ASTM D445 or D7279.

b) CCS @ temperature for viscosity grade (defined in SAE J300)—ASTM D5293. 

c) Additive elements sufficient to confirm additive package and additive component level (Ca, Mg, P, Zn, 

Molybdenum, Na, B & N and/or others if appropriate)—ASTM D4951; D4927; and D6481, D5762 or 

D6443.

d) Appearance (Visual).

12
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B31

BULK ENGINE OIL CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND QUALITY DOCUMENTATION

e) Color (ASTM D1500). 

f) Specific gravity/density (ASTM D4052). 

g) Pour point (ASTM D5949, D5950, D5985). 

5.2.1.3 Retain Samples

The marketer/blender shall retain at least 8 ounces of product from each blend, and these retain samples shall 

be traceable to the batch. The marketer/blender shall retain samples for a minimum of 3 months (up to 6 

months is recommended)in an environment free from exposure to UV light to prevent deterioration and

contamination.

5.3 Chain-of-Custody Documentation—Marketer/Blender Delivery to Distributor

5.3.1 Order Information

The marketer/blender shall provide a paper or electronic record with each sale of product that identifies the

quality of the product. At minimum, the record shall include the following:

a) Brand name.

b) SAE viscosity grade. c) API service category. 

d) API license status (API-licensed or unlicensed). The API license status of the oil shall be confirmed by the

distributor. API-licensed oils are listed on-line at www.api.org/eolcs.

e) Information necessary to ensure traceability to product performance claim. 

5.3.2 Bill of Lading

The marketer/blender shall provide a Bill of Lading, consisting of a paper or electronic record, for each oil 

delivery to each distributor or installer receiving an engine oil or oils. This Bill of Lading shall include the 

information below for each oil in each compartment delivered or the distributor shall be able to link to a 

system [for example, through product or stock-keeping unit (SKU) numbers] that defines the following:

a) Marketer/blender name(s). 

b) Brand name(s). 

c) SAE viscosity grade(s). 

d) API service category. 

e) API license status (API-licensed or unlicensed). 

f) Oil quantity(s). 

g) Date of shipment.

h) Delivery vehicle compartment from which oil is dispensed.

5.3.3 Quality Statement

5.3.3.1 The marketer/blender shall provide, if requested by an API-licensed distributor, a quality statement 

for all engine oil deliveries to the distributor at the time of product delivery. The quality statement shall 

certify that the product has been inspected and tested and conforms to established specifications. The person

responsible for the product quality shall sign the quality statement either by actual signature or electronic 

identification.

5.3.3.2 The quality statement shall be in the form of a Certificate of Analysis (C of A), Certificate of

Conformance (C of C) or other document as agreed between the parties prior to product delivery.

13
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B32

API 1525A

5.3.3.3 The quality statement should contain at least the following information about each engine oil 

being transferred:

a) Marketer/blender name(s). 

b) Brand name(s). 

c) SAE viscosity grade. 

d) API service category. 

e) API license status (API-licensed or unlicensed). f) Oil quantity. 

g) Date of shipment.

5.3.3.4 The C of A should include results from tests as agreed between the marketer/blender and the oil 

recipient (see 5.2.1). Examples of tests include the following:

a) Kinematic viscosity at 100°C—ASTM D445 or D7279.

b) CCS @ temperature for viscosity grade (defined in SAE J300)—ASTM D5293. c) 

Elemental analysis—ASTM D4951, D4927, D6481 or D5762. 

d) Appearance (Visual). 

e) Density, relative density by digital density meter (ASTM D4052) or API gravity by D1250 

f) Pour point (ASTM D5949, D5950, D5985). 

The C of A should list industry specification limits for tests run, when available, for the engine oil(s) 

supplied. The marketer/blender and distributor shall agree on what test results will be shown in the C of A or C 

of C.

5.3.3.5 A C of C should contain a statement of conformity that states that the engine oils manufactured 

meet the industry standards claimed.

5.3.4 Retain Sample

The marketer/blender shall draw a minimum of 4 ounces of engine oil loaded onto the delivery vehicle. If the

vehicle is loaded from more than one storage tank, the marketer/blender shall take a retain that 

represents product from each storage tank. Retain samples shall be traceable to the delivery, including the

unique delivery vehicle identification and compartment number. Retain samples shall be retained for a 

minimum of 3 months (up to 6 months is recommended)s from the date of shipment in an appropriate 

environment free from exposure to UV light to prevent deterioration and contamination.

5.3.5 Invoice

All invoices for engine oil delivered to a distributor shall contain at least the following information or link to a

system (for example, through product or SKU numbers) that defines the following:

a) Marketer/blender name(s). 

b) Brand name(s). 

c) SAE viscosity grade(s). 

d) API service category. 

e) Oil quantity(s). 

f) Date of shipment.

5.3.6 Record Retention

The marketer/blender shall maintain copies of the order, Bill of Lading, quality statement and invoice for at

least 6 months in paper or electronic format. 

14
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B33

BULK ENGINE OIL CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND QUALITY DOCUMENTATION

6 Requirements for Distributor of Bulk Engine Oil

6.1 General Requirements and Record Retention

6.1.1 This section applies to all bulk engine oils handled by the distributor. Records required by this 

section shall be maintained a minimum of 6 months1 year in paper or electronic format. 

6.1.2 A distributor’s engine oil offerings shall comply with the latest edition of API 

1509. 

6.2 Chain-of-Custody Documentation—Distributor Receipt of Engine Oil

6.2.1 Order Information

The distributor shall order engine oil from a marketer/blender by requesting and ensuring receipt of, at 

minimum, the information listed below: 

a) Brand name.

b) SAE viscosity grade. c) API service category. 

d) API-license status (API-licensed or unlicensed). The API license status of the oil shall be confirmed by 

the distributor. API-licensed oils are listed on-line at www.api.org/eolcs.

e) Information necessary to ensure traceability to product performance.

6.2.2 Purchase Order

6.2.2.1 When ordering engine oil from a marketer/blender, the distributor shall order by requesting the 

information listed in 6.2.1. As an example, a distributor would order 2,000 gallons of Brand X SAE 5W-30

API-licensed ILSAC GF-5/API SN engine oil. The distributor shall confirm the API license status of the

engine oils ordered. API-licensed oils are listed on-line at www.api.org/eolcs. 

6.2.2.2 The distributor shall document in writing the order placed including the information required in 

6.2.1.1. If the distributor places a Vverbal orders, the distributor should request a written summary 

from the marketer/blender or draft a dated summary and fax or email it to the marketer/blender for 

return verification. The written summary shall include at least the information are acceptable provided 

that the distributor documents the information required by 6.2.1.1 after placing the verbal order. 

6.2.3 Receiving Inspection

The distributor shall ensure that the Bill of Lading and quality statement, if requested, meet the

purchase order requirements prior to product off-loading. This review must include confirmation of the

following: 

a) Marketer/blender name. 

b) Brand name.

c) SAE viscosity grade. 

d) API service category. 

e) Oil quantity. 

f) Date of shipment.

g) Delivery vehicle compartment from which oil is dispensed.

h) Bill of Lading number. 

i) Carrier identification.

j) Density or relative density by ASTM D4052 or API gravity by D1250. 

k) Batch number or other method of traceability. 

l) Supply point.

m) Person taking delivery. 15
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B34

API 1525A

6.2.4 Record Retention

The distributor shall maintain records of product deliveries received from marketer/blenders for at least 6 

months. Records shall include the batch identification, the purchase order, the Bill of Lading, and the 

quality statement as well as the product identification information in 6.2.1.1, date of delivery and the 

unique identification of the delivery vehicle, including compartment number. 

6.2.5 Retain Samples

The distributor shall draw a minimum of 4 ounces of engine oil from each delivery vehicle compartment from 

which delivery is accepted. The sample shall be traceable to the specific production batch and shall be

retained for a minimum of 3 months (up to 6 months is recommended)in an appropriate environment free

from exposure to UV light to prevent deterioration and contamination.

6.3 Chain-of-Custody Documentation—Distributor Delivery to Installer

6.3.1 Customer Order

The distributor shall document the specific engine oil(s) ordered by the installer including product 

identification information (see 3.2). 

6.3.2 Drop Ticket

6.3.2.1 The distributor shall provide a drop ticket for each engine oil delivery that includes at least the 

following information for each oil delivered:

a) Marketer/blender name(s). 

b) Brand name(s). 

c) SAE viscosity grade(s). 

d) API service category. 

e) Oil quantity(s). 

6.3.2.2 If the format for the drop ticket limits the number of characters that can be used, abbreviations 

may be used as long as the brand, viscosity grade, and API service category are discernable. For example,

“Brand X SAE 5W-30 ILSAC GF-5/API SN” could be abbreviated as “BrdX5W30GF5SN.”

6.3.3 Invoice

All invoices for engine oils delivered to installers shall contain, at minimum, the following information on the

engine oils delivered:

a) Marketer/blender name. 

b) Brand name.

c) SAE viscosity grade. 

d) API service category. 

e) API-license status (API-licensed or unlicensed).

6.3.4 Pre-Dispensing Verification

Before dispensing engine oil into an installer’s bulk tank, the distributor shall confirm with the installer that the

brand name, SAE viscosity grade and API service category of the engine oil being delivered matches the oil

ordered. This confirmation shall be provided in written form (paper or electronic format). The distributor

should dispense the oil in accordance with API 1525.

6.3.5 Post-Dispensing Verification 16
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B35

BULK ENGINE OIL CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND QUALITY DOCUMENTATION

After the engine oil has been dispensed, the distributor shall allow the installer to verify that the meter- head

on the delivery vehicle is zeroed out.

6.3.46 Retain Samples

The distributor should as a best practice retain at least 4 ounces of engine oil from each compartment of the

delivery vehicle either after loading product into a compartment or at time of delivery to an installer. The

sample shall be traceable to the delivery of oil from each compartment at each drop and shall be retained for

a minimum of 3 months (up to 6 months is recommended) in an environment free from exposure to UV light to 

prevent deterioration and contamination. 

6.3.57 Record Retention

The distributor shall maintain records of product deliveries to installers for at least 6 months. Records shall 

include the customer order, the drop ticket, and the invoice as well as the product identification 

information, date of delivery, and unique identification of the delivery vehicle including compartment number.

6.4 Direct Delivery from Marketer/Blender to Installer

If a marketer/blender delivers engine oil directly to an installer, the requirements in paragraph 6.3 shall apply. 

6.4.1 Retain Samples from Compartments

The marketer/blender shall retain at least 4 ounces of engine oil loaded into each compartment of the 

delivery vehicle. The samples shall be retained for a minimum of 3 months (up to 6 months is 

recommended)in an environment free from exposure to UV light to prevent deterioration and contamination.

6.4.2 Retain Samples from Intermediate Bulk Container (IBC)

A marketer/blender delivering engine oil by intermediate bulk container (IBC) shall retain at least 4 

ounces of engine oil loaded into the IBC. The samples shall be retained for a minimum of 3 months (up to 6 

months is recommended)in an environment free from exposure to UV light to prevent deterioration and

contamination.

6.5 Multiple Transfers Between Initial Distributor and Installer

6.5.1 If an engine oil is transferred more than once after being shipped to a distributor by a 

marketer/blender, practices outlined in Section 6 shall be followed by each entity transferring the oil. This is 

mandatory to maintain chain of custody and ensure the final user of the engine oil receives the proper 

information on each oil.

6.5.2 Distributors operating in accordance with this standard that receive engine oil from another distributor

shall draw a minimum of 4 ounces of engine oil from each delivery vehicle compartment from which delivery 

is accepted.

6.5.3 Two or more products with different properties as identified in items a through e of 5.3.3.3 shall not be 

commingled, even if the products are similar. Mixing different oils with different additive systems is in conflict with

the requirement under 5.3.1 to provide sufficient documentation to identify product properties and quality. 

The distributor shall ensure that tanks are drained and flushed between different products, different grades of the

same product, and different products or product groups. 

7 Installer Ordering, Receipt and Installation of Bulk Engine Oil

17
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B36

API 1525A

7.1 Product Offering

An installer’s bulk engine oil offerings shall comply with the latest edition of API 1509.

7.2 Order Information

7.2.1 The installer shall order engine oil from a distributor by requesting and ensuring receipt of, at 

minimum, the information listed below: 

a) Brand name.

b) SAE viscosity grade. 

c) API service category. 

d) Verification of API-license status (API-licensed or unlicensed). The API license status of the oil shall be

confirmed by the distributor. API-licensed oils are listed on-line at www.api.org/eolcs.

e) Information necessary to ensure traceability to product performance. At a minimum, the information

found in 5.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.1 shall be deemed necessary to ensure traceability.

7.2.2 The distributor shall designate how the oil will be described on its drop ticket and invoice in

accordance with 6.3.2.1. 

7.2.3 The installer shall should request that the distributor notify him or her every time the information 

above changes. 

7.3 Oil Ordering Practices

7.3.1 When ordering engine oil from a distributor, an installer shall request a specific brand, SAE 

viscosity grade, API service category, and quantity of oil per the information agreed-upon by the entities 

involved. As an example, the installer staff member responsible for ordering engine oil would order 2,000 

gallons of Brand X SAE 5W-30 API-licensed ILSAC GF-5/API SN engine oil. If the distributor no longer 

carries the brand requested, the installer shall request and receive the information required under 7.2.1 

before accepting a substitute brand.

The API license status of the oil shall be confirmed by the distributor. API-licensed oils are listed on-line at 

www.api.org/eolcs.

7.3.2 If a verbal order is placed, the installer shall may request a written summary from the distributor or draft 

a dated summary and fax or email it to the supplier distributor for return verification. The written 

summary shall include at least the information required by 7.2.1.

7.4 Installer Receiving Practices

7.4.1 The distributor shallinstaller should request that the distributor assist the installer in labeling all bulk oil 

tanks with the brand name, SAE viscosity grade, and API service category of the engine oil being stored.

7.4.2 Prior to allowing a distributor to dispense product into a bulk tank, the recipient of the delivery shall 

complete the following steps:

a) Using the paper or electronic confirmation provided by the distributor in accordance with 6.3.4,

confirm that the brand name, SAE viscosity grade, and API service category, and quantity of engine oil 

being delivered matches the product ordered. Delivery of the product should be conducted in accordance with

API 1525.

a)b)Measure via tank gauge or other device the contents of the tank into which the engine oil will be 

dispensed. The installer may also check the distributor’s meter-head to make sure it is zeroed out. After

delivery, the installer should take the same measurements again. The installer should document these

18
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B37

BULK ENGINE OIL CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND QUALITY DOCUMENTATION

measurements in a written log maintained by the installer to provide a long-term record that can be used to

verify the quantity of deliveries.

7.4.3 Drop tickets or any other written documentation associated with the quality and quantity of the bulk 

engine oil delivered shall be kept for at least 6 months by the installer. 

7.4.4 An installer receiving engine oil in an unsealed tote should retain 4 ounces of the oil from the tote. The

sample shall be retained for a minimum of 3 months (up to 6 months is recommended)in an environment

free from exposure to UV light to prevent deterioration and contamination.

7.5 Installation Practices

7.5.1 Engine oil change options shall be clearly and accurately represented to consumers through a menu

board, list of services, or other promotional methods. 

7.5.2 Bulk engine oil installation hoses, hose reels or nozzles shall be clearly labeled with the brand name, 

SAE viscosity grade, and API service category of each oil being dispensed. 

7.6 Customer Receipts

The customer receipt for the engine oil change shall clearly identify the brand name, SAE viscosity grade, API 

service category and API license status of the oil installed. For example, the receipt would provide the following

information: “Specific Brand SAE 5W-30 API-Licensed SN/GF-5.” 

An installer has the option to indicate that the brand of oil is a “house brand.” Note, however, that an API 

engine oil license is not transferable and the licensee does not have the right to grant sublicenses. If an 

installer chooses to rename an engine oil as a “house brand,” the oil must be identified as “unlicensed.” For 

example, the receipt would provide the following information: “House Brand Unlicensed 5W30 SN/GF-5.”

19
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B38

From: Scott Tredinnick

To: judy.cardin@wisconsin.gov

Cc: don.onwiler@ncwm.net; Warfield, Lisa; Scott Tredinnick

Subject: Handbook 130

Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:24:31 PM

Attachments: DOC062712-001.pdf

Dear Ms. Cardin,

With the downturn in the economy and unethical business practices, the sale of uncertified bulk oil and

sometimes even waste oil being re-sold as new oil in the Los Angeles marketplace has become unbelievable. 

Orange Line Oil only sells quality products and supports Handbook 130 and the API.

Imagine how you would feel, if you took your new car to a quick lube facility and they changed your oil with

out-of-spec product just to save a few cents. You would most likely not see an immediate problem; however,

as you drove your car with the non-spec oil, your engine would slowly be destroyed due to the lack of proper

lubrication, while at the same time your catalytic converter would become clogged and possibly ignite a fire

under you vehicle.

Please encourage the committee to adopt these important changes for Handbook 130. 

Sincerely,

Scott Tredinnick

President/CEO

www.orangelineoil.com

(909) 623-0533
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B39

Orange Line Oil Company, Inc. 404 E. Commercial St.

OUA LITY & SERVICE S INCE: 1970

Ms. Judy Cardin

Chair, Laws & Regulations Committee,

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Wisconsin Weights and Measures

2811 Agriculture Drive

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI

53708-8911 

judy.cardin@wisco

nsin.gov

Dear Ms. Cardin:

As a motor oil distributor, Iam expressing my support for the proposed changes to Handbook 130 (Laws and 

Regulations Committee interim report sections 232-4 and 237-4). This set of changes will help my business to

further highlight its commitment to providing quality products to my customers.

It's important for customers to know they're receiving the motor oil they've come to know and trust. The

proposed changes to Handbook 130 would standardize the motor oil information installers provide to

customers on the quality of the bulk oil installed.

If adopted, Handbook 130 will also help API in its annual audit of motor oils. This important program has for

many years helped to ensure the quality of motor oils, but the level of information currently available from

installers has made it difficult to verify the chain of custody for bulk oils.

I support the changes proposed for Handbook 130 and strongly urge you to support them as well.

Scott Tredinnick

President

C: Don Onwiler

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street

Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508 

don.onwiler@ncw

m.net

Lisa Warfield

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive

MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

lisa.warfield@nist.gov

Pomona, CA 91767
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B40
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B41

Form letters were received from the following individual/organizations in support of NIST Handbook 130, Laws 

and Regulations Committee Interim Report. 

Item 232-4: Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities, 2.33. Vehicle Motor Oil and

Item 237-4: Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Motor Oil

Required. 

Name Organization Address

Sita Compton, Owner BC Automotive Center 378 N. Tuscola Road., Bay City, MI 48708

Robert Scott, Vice 

President Lubricants

Dilmar Oil Company 1951 W. Darlington Street, Florence, SC 29501

Marla Carlson, Director of 

Sales

Dion and Sons, Inc. 1543 West 16th Street, Long Beach, CA 90813

K. John Dooley, President 

Oil Inc.

Dooley Oil, Inc. P.O. Box 370, Laramie, WY 82073

P.O. Box 1831, Fort Collins, CO 80522

P.O. Box 189, Evansville, WY 82636

P.O. Box 1241, Cheyenne, WY 82007

John P. Kirby Graff Motor Sales 1100 W. Cedar Avenue, Gladwin, MI 48624

Garrett Otten, Sales 

Manager

Hays Oil 8290 14th Street, White City, OR 97503

Imad Hassen Unknown

Patricia Blonde Imlay City Lube Center, Inc. 1824 S. Cedar Street, Imlay City, MI 48444

Charlene Radwanski Magnum Oil 2668 Knowles Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R2G 

2K^

Randy Marshall Marshall’s Express 2325 W. Grand River, Howell, MI 48843

Ronald Smith, Lubricant 

Manager

Mulgrew Oil Company 10314 Silverwood Drive, Dubuque, IA 52003

Patrick Feldpausch, 

President

One Stop Wash-n-Lube Dewitt, MI 48820

Joe Smith, President Penco Oil Company 510 N. Palace, P.O. Box 659, Tyler, TX 75710-

0659

John E. Coteil Pride Auto Truck Repair Not provided

Sam Edmondson Quality Petroleum, Inc. P.O. Box 15308, Little Rock, AR 7221-5308

William D. Rice, President Rice Properties Ltd., D/b/a J. 

R.’s Lube Shop

P.O. Box 189, New Baltimore, MI 48047

John Wisz, Owner R&L 10 Minute Oil Change 880 W 14 Mile Road, Birmingham, MI 48009

Mike Rowley, Brenda 

Rowley, Franklin Hanes, 

and various (10 letters 

received)

Rowleys Wholesale Rowley Brothers, 3604 Wilder Road, P. O. Box 

1115, Bay City, MI 48706

Jacques Poirier, Vice 

President – LA Operations 

and Louisiana

Sun Coast Resources, Inc. http://suncoastresources.com

Steven Oxener, Sales 

Representative

Sun Coast Resources, Inc. http://suncoastresources.com
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 232-4, Method of Sale and

Item 237-4, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - B42

THE FORM LETTER TEXT FOLLOWS.

Ms. Judy Cardin

Chair, Laws & Regulations Committee,

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Wisconsin Weights and Measures

judy.cardin@wisconsin.gov

Dear Ms. Cardin:

As a motor oil distributor/installer, I am expressing my support for the proposed changes to Handbook 130 (Laws 

and Regulations Committee interim report sections 232-4 and 237-4). This set of changes will help my business to 

further highlight its commitment to providing quality products to my customers. 

It’s important for customers to know they’re receiving the motor oil they’ve come to know and trust. The proposed 

changes to Handbook 130 would standardize the motor oil information installers provide to customers on the quality 

of the bulk oil installed. 

If adopted, Handbook 130 will also help API in its annual audit of motor oils. This important program has for many 

years helped to ensure the quality of motor oils, but the level of information currently available from installers has 

made it difficult to verify the chain of custody for bulk oils.

I support the changes proposed for Handbook 130 and strongly urge you to support them as well. 

Sincerely,

C: Don Onwiler

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

don.onwiler@ncwm.net

Lisa Warfield

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

lisa.warfield@nist.gov
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C1 

Appendix C

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale Commodities 

Item: 

232-6: 2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling 

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – C Page

Hewlett Packard, Matthew Barkley (July 17, 2012)...................................................................................................... 3 

Information Technology Industry Council (ITT) (August 10, 2011)............................................................................. 5 

Information Technology Industry Council (ITT), Printer Ink and Ink Cartridges: Best Practices for Conveying 

Yield Performance to the Consumer ............................................................................................................... 8 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C3 

From: Barkley, Matthew

To: Warfield, Lisa

Cc: Cardin, Judy L - DATCP

Subject: Open Hearing Comments: Transcript

Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:42:42 PM

LisaBelow is the transcript of the comments I made during the Open Hearings. I hope this helps. Please let

me know if you have any questions.

Thanks and regards, 

Matt

--------------------------

Chair, Members of the L&R Committee, and members of the association – my name is Matthew

Barkley representing Hewlett Packard. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

As the agenda and proposal regarding test methodology were delivered late last week, and our first

opportunity to discuss it in detail just yesterday, HP and industry in general have not yet had the time to 

formulate a clear position or provide detailed comments on the test methods we discussed. However, as

the proposal moves forward in consideration and revision by the NCWM I would urge the membership to 

keep in mind the following concerns which HP and other industry members have:

First, any proposal should weigh whether it creates significant competitive disadvantage or advantage

for any particular technology or sub-sector of our industry. For example, since our products are subject

to re-use and remanufacturing we should be sure that the burdens of compliance are fairly and

consistently placed across all players in the market.

Second, some of the proposals discussed by the work group could place manufacturers under a substantial

cost burden to comply – costs incurred as a result of mandatory changes to a very complex, very developed

and very global manufacturing and distribution system. For example in our discussions yesterday, I cited the

example of products manufactured in various locations around the globe and imported to the US for final

packaging in a variety of states – as individual cartridges or as multipacks. The costs from changes to this

complex system would surely be passed on to consumers.

Third, we must ensure that the proposals put forward into consideration be clearly aimed to help consumers

make value comparisons that inform their purchase decisions – to HP this is an especially important criteria

as whatever gets places on packaging for our industry will be used by consumers to facilitate – or even be

determinative to – their purchase decisions amongst several different competitive options in the market. It

would be harmful to HP, to the substantial
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C4 

investments its made in its product and technology, and to its customers if changes to Handbooks

130 and 133 resulted in consumers making erroneous value comparisons in their purchase decisions.

To that end, I would like to submit to the record a letter and addendum industry prepared and submitted

to the former work group chair following our meetings last year in Missoula. While clearly linked to our

discussions on the method of sale proposal it also addresses industry’s concerns with testing methodology

and the comments I have made here today.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C5 

August 10, 2011

Ms. Maureen Henzler

Chair, Task Group on Printer

Ink and Cartridges

<Via Email>

Mr. Ms. Henzler:

On behalf of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) and participating industry members, I would like to 

take this opportunity to share additional comments on the NCWM proposal before Laws & Regulations 

Committee’s Task Group on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges (“the TG”). We appreciate the opportunity to 

participate in the 96th Annual Meeting and to share our presentation with the TG concerning products, 

technologies, consumer value, and the ISO/IEC standards related to the proposal. We regret that there was 

insufficient time to provide our entire presentation, nor time for the TG to fully discuss the complex issues raised 

by the presentation. A copy of the presentation is attached along with additional comments that will both be 

submitted for inclusion in the NCWM Publication 16. We look forward to continuing to inform and support the 

TG’s efforts.

The participating industry members viewed the TG session in Montana to be very productive. At the same time, it 

is clear that a great deal of work remains. To facilitate the process moving forward, we recommend that all 

interested parties reflect on the content shared to-date and frame questions, observations, and the like, to be 

shared with the group in advance of our next meeting. We would also suggest that it might be helpful for the 

Chair to circulate a “work plan” to identify all steps necessary to reach a satisfactory outcome for the TG process. 

This should be shared with all participants for feedback. A work plan might also help avoid any further 

misunderstanding or miscommunication concerning expectations of participants.

This miscommunication was evident at the TG meeting in Montana, when there were several comments indicating 

that a proposal was expected as part of industry’s presentation. We were unaware that any of the TG participants 

were asked or expected to develop a proposal. To our knowledge, the only proposal pending comes from the 

Southern Weight and Measures Association and mandates that provision of weight and volume measurements on 

inkjet and toner cartridges. Our presentation in Montana addressed (as time allowed) questions circulated by the 

Chair to task group members at the 2011 Interim meeting and detailed the reasons for our opposition to this 

proposal. Our presentation also outlined the general reasons why we believe that the application of page yield

based on relevant ISO/IEC standards might better achieve the current proposal’s objective to clarify the labeling 

requirements for industry, consumers and weights and measures officials.

1101 K Street, NW • Suite 610 • Washington, DC 20005 • t: 202.737.8888 • f: 202.683.4922 • www.itic.org
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C6 

It is our hope that a full discussion of the issues, including resolution of the many questions and concerns 

highlighted in the attached, will help the TG progress toward a resolution acceptable to all stakeholders. To that 

end, we make the following recommendations:

• Poll all stakeholders to identify missing or incomplete information. We have highlighted several items in 

the addendum to this letter. It would be helpful for state regulators and other TG members to identify 

any outstanding technical or other information that industry could begin working to develop and provide.

• Provide further input on how best to communicate efficiently and effectively on these complex issues. 

We appreciate the suggestion that industry representatives attend the upcoming NCWM regional 

meetings and hold further discussion on this issue. However, considering the early stage of our 

exploration of the issues involved and the need for additional guidance from the TG (as noted above), we 

question how effective it would be to attend such meetings at this time.

• Have the TG jointly develop a formal written request to the FTC seeking legal determination as to the 

scope of the “ink” exemption under the FPLA. Resolution of how federal law applies to the labeling of 

cartridges is central to what, if any, action is considered by the NCWM.

• Compile all consumer complaints submitted to weights and measure jurisdictions that would be helpful 

in determining the scope and nature of the problem being addressed by the proposal before the TG. 

Such data will help the participating industry members to better understand the consumer complaints 

that brought this issue before NCWM and evaluate possible solutions.

• Provide further detail of the intended end-point of this process. Will a final report be submitted to the 

Laws & Regulations Committee? Will all stakeholders be able to review the draft report before it is 

finalized and sent to the L&R Committee? Is the goal to reach consensus? If not, or consensus is not 

reached, what is the goal? How have other working groups addressed these issues?

We appreciate the thoughtful dialogue advanced by the Task Group and look forward to your reply regarding the 

next steps in the process.

Sincerely,

Josh Rosenberg

Director, Global Policy

1101 K Street, NW • Suite 610 • Washington, DC 20005 • t: 202.737.8888 • f: 202.683.4922 • www.itic.org

Information Technology Industry Council, Industry 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C7 

Printer Toner and Ink Cartridges:

Best Practices for Conveying Yield Performance to the consumer

This paper has been prepared by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). ITI is the premier 

voice, advocate, and thought leader for the information and communications technology (ICT) industry. 

ITI is widely recognized as the tech industry's most effective advocacy organization in Washington D.C., 

and in various foreign capitals around the world. ITI’s members include the leaders of printer 

manufacturing technologies including Epson, Hewlett Packard, Kodak, and Lexmark, among others.

Executive Summary:

The ultimate goal of any product measure is to provide information to a customer that facilitates an 

informed purchase decision. At first glance, comparing the volume or weight of ink or toner would seem 

to be a good proxy for the page yield. For a host of reasons this is often not the case. Toner and ink 

cartridges are complex mechanisms designed to deliver a consistent customer experience and because

of this, ink or toner can be used in different amounts when printing and for purposes other than

printing. All of this is highly dependent on the design of the larger printing system of which the cartridge 

is a critical but not independent part.

The printing industry realized the difficulty of presenting cartridge performance information to the 

customer and because of this voluntarily chose to develop severalstandardsfor measuring yield 

performance. These standards are developed specifically for these devices and use standard test 

patterns and methods to provide accurate and repeatable measurement. Moreover, the standards 

include protocolsfor clear and consistent communicationsto users regarding cartridge yields. The 

industry wholly believes that these test procedures provide a more reliable means of measurement and 

a more accurate method for consumersto determine value than comparing the volume or weight of ink

or toner.

1101 K Street, NW • Suite 610 • Washington, DC 20005 • t: 202.737.8888 • f: 202.683.4922 • www.itic.org
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C8

Printer Toner and Ink Cartridges:

Best Practices for Conveying Yield Performance to the consumer

Objectives of weights and measuresregulationsinclude facilitating value comparisons and providing a 

standard of fairness in the marketplace. When it comes to selecting printer hardware and replacement 

supplies, these objectives dictate that weights and measures criteria that could lead the consumer to 

making economically incorrect decisionsregarding value should not be implemented.

Some customers are interested in making comparisons on the relative value between printing supplies, 

both at the initial printer purchase and afterwards when purchasing additionalsupplies. In addition to 

cost, product reliability, brand reputation and print quality another important measure considered by 

some customers during the supply purchase is page yield. At first glance, comparing the volume or 

weight of ink or toner would seem to be a good proxy for the page yield. Unfortunately this is often not 

the case. This paper will outline the drawbacks of using weight or volume as a proxy for page yield and 

highlight the reasons why all major printer manufacturers use a set of ISO/IEC standardsto measure and 

communicate printer yield.

Depending on the printing technology, the use of ink or toner can be impacted by several factors. 

The amount of toner applied in printing pages compared to the amount of toner supplied in the

cartridge is dependent on many factors and that a simple measure of the weight of the toner will not

give a clear indication of ultimately how many pages can be printed. In electro-photographic (laser) 

printers, different toner formulations will use different amounts of toner when printing the same page. 

This is due to charge, particle size and formulation variation between toners. These attributes are 

engineered and varied by each cartridge vendor to provide what they feel to be the best experience to 

their customers. Some customers prefer thin sharp lines and fine detail, others prefer thick bold lines. 

Depending on the choices that a given manufacturer makes in toner formulation (base polymer, particle 

size, charge distribution and charge control agents), the amount of toner used to print the same page 

may vary. Additionally, the amount of toner cleaned and deposited in the waste hopper depends on 

several variables including the job size, coverage environment and printer design. Finally, the bulk 

densities of toners are not the same; for a given volume of toner, there can be significant differencesin 

weights. All of these factors result in the reality that two different tonersupplies of the same weight

will not necessarily deliver the same number of pages.

Similar to laser printers, inkjet printer cartridge vendors manipulate several variables in their ink 

formulation to meet the needs they identify as important for their customers. Some of the variables 

that manufacturers consider and apply include: different ink formulations; dye vs. pigment inks, actual 

loads of pigment or dye in the ink formulation, and drop size. Different combinations of these ink 

content characteristics will result in substantially different ink consumption rates while printing the

2
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

same page. In addition, all inkjet systems perform routine servicing, and those servicing routines may be 

driven by a number of factors such as the ink formulation, usage and content. In addition, changes to 

non-ink materials by the inkjet cartridge manufactures or during remanufacture can affect the amount

of ink that can be used in printing pages. Finally, for the same volume of ink, two different systems or

the same model cartridge from two different vendors can print a different number of pages.

Ultimately what matters to many customersis answering the question, “How much can I print with a 

cartridge in a given printer?” Page yield reported using the ISO/IEC methodology better addressesthis 

question than weight or volume. ISO/IEC JTC1 SC28 identified this as a consumer need in 2000 and 

started working on a family of standards that address this customer need. Standards now published 

measure yield for monochrome laser printers (ISO/IEC 19752), color laser and color inkjet printers 

(ISO/IEC 19798 & ISO/IEC 24711) using a common test suite (ISO/IEC 24712). Currently under 

development are standards to measure photo yield consisting of a methodology for inkjet printers 

(ISO/IEC 29102) and a photo test suite for any printing technology (ISO/IEC 29103). These standards are 

based on common design philosophies and change their methods slightly, depending on the technology 

being measured. The following attributes are endemic to each standard:

1. Use of a well defined consumer type document for printing – Coverage can vary depending on 

how it is measured and depending on what choices are made in defining coverage; the same 

“coverage” page can perform differently. For the ISO/IEC standards, the test pages were 

defined so that a consumer can more easily relate them to their work stream. These pages are 

freely available so customers can view and understand what the standard is based on. These 

test pages can be found at www.iso.org/jtc1/sc28.

2. Testing of multiple printers and cartridgesto account for printer and supply variation – There is 

manufacturing variation not only with how much ink or toner is put in a supply, but how 

effectively a printing system uses that ink or toner. This usage is also impacted by the specific 

printer used during test; some printers of the same model will use more or less ink or toner. For 

this reason, the ISO/IEC standardsrequire a minimum of three cartridgesto be used on a 

minimum of three printers(minimum of 9 cartridgestested). The yield information from these

9 cartridges is reported using a lower 90% confidence bound (LCB) on the mean. This gives a 

reliable estimate of lowest predicted average yield with 95% statistical confidence. The LCB not 

only takes into account the average performance of the cartridgestested, but also the breadth

of variation in the cartridges and printers tested. The goal is to try and characterize the end user 

experience taking into account some of the normal variationsin printers and supplies.

3. A well controlled printing environment – The environmentthat a printing system operates in

can have an impact on the number of pages printed for a given amount of ink or toner. For laser 

systems both temperature and humidity can impact the amount of toner used. For this reason 

both the temperature and humidity are controlled for toner yield testing. For inkjet,

3
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 232-6, Method of Sale

L&R - C10

temperature is the main environmental driver for ink usage, so only temperature is

controlled during testing.

4. A well defined end of life criteria – For the purposes of the ISO standards, end of life is defined 

in one of two ways. First, when the printer stops printing and reportsthat the supply should be 

changed. The other method requires a visual assessment of elements on the test targets. This 

visual assessment is defined as a visually significant fade in the target elements greater than

3mm as compared to the 100th print for that cartridge. These two methods are meant to

represent the two common criteria that users would choose to determine if a supply has to

be changed.

When the publication of the first yield standard occurred in the summer of 2004 it was accepted by 

industry and consumer’s groups as the best method for conveying one attribute of cartridge 

performance that was of interest to customers. Building on this acceptance, ISO/IEC JTC1 SC28

created additionalstandardsfor yield; these have been met with similar market acceptance as the 

original.

Because well established methods for the measure of cartridge yield exist and weight and volume

are not as useful or meaningful in making value comparisons, this group recommendsthat cartridge 

performance information be conveyed to customers using the developed ISO/IEC yield standards.

Footnotesto press releases and reception of ISO yield standards:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2183959,00.asp

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/040617b.html

http://www.incits.org/press/2007/pr200701.pdf

 4 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D1 

Appendix D

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation 

Item: 

237-1: 2.1.2. Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends 

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – D Page

Colonial Pipeline Company........................................................................................................................................... 3 

energy API.....................................................................................................................................................................4 

ExxonMobil................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Herman and Associates ................................................................................................................................................. 8 

Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. .............................................................................................................................10 

Marathon Petroleum Company.................................................................................................................................... 12 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D3 

 

Colonial Pipeline Company 

 

 January 20, 2012

Mr. Ron Hayes

 Colonial Pipeline objects to aligning the RVP 1.0 psi relief in HB 130 with ASTM D4814. D4814 does not 

address the 1.0 psi for RVP during Non-VOC periods that the EPA addresses. It is Colonial ‘s 

understanding that all states along our system grant a 1.0 psi waiver for Non-VOC controlled RVP with 

the exception of Virginia, which adopts the latest version of HB 130. If this proposal were to go into 

effect, it would create a unique fuel to the State of Virginia markets.

The Northeast is already seeing multiple refineries shut in, and creating a unique fuel for one state 

would constrain a supply system and possible create shortages to the consumer. 

 Regards,

 Keith Penn

 Quality Assurance Coordinator 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D4 

Brian Knapp

Marketing Policy Advisor, Downstream

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005-

4070 

USA

Telephone 202-682-8172

Fax 202-682-8051

Email knappb@api.org 

www.api.org

January 19, 2012 

Laws & Regulations Committee c/o 

Judy Cardin, Chairwoman 

Wisconsin Weights & Measures PO 

Box 8911 

2811 Agriculture Drive 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee c/o 

Ronald G. Hayes, Chairman Missouri

Weights & Measures

PO Box 630 

1616 Missouri Boulevard

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Re: 2012 Interim Meeting – NCWM Publication 15: Item 237-1

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, Section

2.1.2 – Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends

Dear Committee Chairs: 

I write today to clarify and expand on the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) comments made at the 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS) Meeting during the 2011 Annual NCWM Meeting in Missoula, 

Montana regarding changes to Handbook 130 Section 2.1.2 Gasoline-Oxygenated Blends.

The current NIST Handbook 130 provides a 1.0 psi RVP allowance for 9-10 vol% ethanol during EPA RVP 

control period (summer) and a 1.0 psi RVP waiver during the remainder of the year for blends of 1-10 

vol% ethanol. At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the FALS provided a new draft proposal that would 

simply reference the ASTM standard and delete Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.

Removal of the 1 psi RVP waiver for non-VOC gasoline by NCWM would reduce the available gasoline 

pool by an estimated 2.5 vol%. Additionally, the current 1 psi RVP waiver for E10 has been in Handbook 

130 for nearly 20 years, and allowing it to remain preserves the status quo. This waiver has been 

thoroughly vetted by the states and industry. It was supported by state regulators, the automotive 

industry and the ethanol industry. 

By the end of this January, NIST Handbook 130 and ASTM D4814, Standard Specification for Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, will be harmonized for two of the three volatility properties: T 50 min and 

TV/L = 20. It is requested that for the third volatility property, RVP, the 1.0 psi RVP waiver for non-VOC 

gasoline be allowed to remain in place until ASTM takes action. 

API appreciates the opportunity to provide these further comments, and would be pleased to provide 

additional information regarding our views on this proposal. Please contact me at (202) 682-8172 if you 

have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Knapp 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D5 

Madam Chair, L&R Committee Members, Delegates and Associate Members,

My name is Win Gardner. I'm Fuels Quality Manger at ExxonMobil and I appreciate the opportunity to 

comment on item 237-1regarding gasoline oxygenate blends. I'm the vice chair of the volatility section of the

committee at ASTM which deals with RVP and other volatility properties. And, I have been a member of the

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee since its inception in the early nineties and worked with Ron Hayes,Curt

Williams, Randy Jennings and a few others in this room to hammer out compromise positions on issues like the

one we face here. Ihave always appreciated the willingness of this group to come to middle ground in order to

move things forward.

ExxonMobil is opposed to the adoption of the language in Publication 16 for item 237-1.

You've been advised that the FALS did not reach consensus on alternate language for this item. A vote, taken in

May, offered three options and FALS members were asked to list their preferred option, other options which

were acceptable and those that were unacceptable. The options were... 1) to do nothing, 2) to adopt the

language In Pub 16 and a 3) to adopt one that would provide RVP allowances for ethanol blends. There were

20 members who submitted votes.

While no single option garnered enough Preferred and Acceptable votes to stand out against the other 

options, there was consensus on all of the key aspects of this issue.

Elimination of the 10% ethanol cap -18 of the 20 members voting found elimination of the 10% ethanol cap to

be either preferred or acceptable.

RVP allowances for ethanol blends -17 of the 20 members voting found RVP allowances to be either 

preferred or acceptable, although there was disagreement regarding how much of an allowance should be

allowed.

Capping Class E RVP at 15.5 psi or less -15 of the 20 members voting supported options which limited

ASTM Class E RVP to either 15 or 15.5 psi.

Sunset date for the expiration of RVP allowance - Another area of consensus that has been apparent in the

FALS meetings is the desire to align ASTM 04814 with Handbook 130. 14 of the 20 voters expressed support the

option which included the sunset date of May 1, 2016 when the RVP allowances would expire.

I've included the tally sheet for the FALS vote, modified to show support for the several key areas of 

consensus below.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D6 

Concluding my remarks, ExxonMobil cannot support the proposed change as it appears in publication

16. We can accept alternative language which maintains RVP allowances, eliminates the 10% ethanol 

cap, restricts the maximum Class E RVP and sets a sunset date to ensure alignment between Handbook

130 and ASTM 04814. We believe, and have shown, that strong consensus exists for such alternative

language.

Thank you for your consideration.

K. W.Gardner

Fuels Quality Manager

ExxonMobil
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D7 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D8 

Herman & Associates

3730 Military Road NW Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20015 

202-362-9520 

202-362-9523 f MHerman697@aol.com 

www.HermanAssociates.com

July 17, 2012

Ms. Judy Cardin 

Chair, Laws and Regulations Committee 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Re: Item 237-1 - Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends

Dear Chairperson Cardin: 

We are writing to you to express our support for the alternative proposal submitted by 

API for Item -237-1 on July 16, 2012.

Herman & Associates is a Washington, DC-based consulting firm with expertise in fuel 

specifications and regulations. Our company provides legislative and regulatory assistance 

to a broad spectrum of companies in the transportation and energy sector. In addition, I 

am a founding member of the NCWM Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee. I also serve as

Chair of the ASTM D02.A Section on Oxygenated Fuels and Components in ASTM which 

governs standards for ethanol, E85, Mid-Level Ethanol Blends, and other oxygenated fuels.

In particular, we support the API proposal submitted to the Laws and Regulations Committee 

on July 16, 2012 as an alternative proposal to that incorporated in Publication 16.

The proposed alternative provides the necessary flexibility to permit marketing of gasolineethanol blends while providing ASTM the time necessary to review vapor pressure

specifications for gasoline-ethanol blends.

Adoption of the proposed alternative language provides a number of benefits:

• Is Consistent With State Laws and Regulations in 46 States Providing a 1.0 psi RVP Waiver 

to Ethanol Blended Fuels: Forty Six states provide ethanol blends a year-round vapor 

pressure waiver. This proposal would continue that treatment, while providing
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D9 

the necessary lead-time for ASTM to review volatility standards for ethanol blended fuels.

• Facilitates Ethanol Marketing: This proposal provides the necessary flexibility to refiners

and marketers by allowing ethanol to be blended with a commercially available gasoline 

meeting ASTM specifications without major disruptions of supply. 

• Facilitates Compliance with State and Federal Renewable Fuels Mandates: This proposal

will enable marketers to more easily comply with state and Federal Renewable Fuels Standard

programs by facilitating the marketing of ethanol-blended fuels. In addition to the Federal

Renewable Fuels program, many states have adopted ethanol mandates requiring the use of 

ethanol blended fuels.

• Allows for ASTM Review of RVP Allowances for Ethanol-Gasoline Blends: ASTM is a data 

driven organization. This proposal provides the necessary lead-time for ASTM to conduct 

the necessary studies in order to determine what if any changes are required to ethanol 

vapor pressure standards. The sunset date in the proposal provides the necessary lead-time

for ASTM to conduct CRC studies, review the available data, and make determinations 

regarding modifications to the ASTM D4814 standard for gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate 

blends.

In conclusion, we support the proposal submitted by the industry and API to revise and 

update the wording regarding ethanol-gasoline blends in the Uniform Engine Fuels and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST HB 130. Adoption of this proposal will facilitate 

ethanol marketing while enabling NCWM's model regulation to be aligned with the fuel

specifications in 46 states throughout the U.S.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please feel free to contact us 

should you have any questions or if we can clarify any item.

Sincerely, 

Marilyn J. Herman

President, Herman & Associates 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D10

ROD LAWRENCE Manager 

Quality Control Magellan

Midstream Partners One 

Williams Center MD 31 

Tulsa, OK 74172 (918) 574-7286 

rod.lawrence@magellnalp.com

January 19, 2012 

Mr. Ron Hayes

Chairman

Fuels and Lubricants Sub Committee

National Conference of Weights and Measures 

1135 M Street, Suite 110 

Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 

RE: Magellan Midstream Partners Comments – Potential Amendments to Handbook 130 – Engine 

Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Dear Ron: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to NCWM’s Fuels and Lubricants Sub-Committee.

Background - Magellan owns and operates the nation’s longest refined products pipeline system and over

80 petroleum distribution terminals. Our pipeline system transports refined petroleum products 

from refinery origins in TX, OK, KS, MN and WI to distribution terminals in Texas, Oklahoma, 

Kansas,

Missouri, Colorado, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota and 

Wisconsin. Our pipeline system is connected to over 40% of the nation’s refining capacity. The 

majority of our terminals have the storage and distribution capacity for fuel-grade ethanol. 

Magellan does not generally own the petroleum products transported or stored in our system. The 

petroleum products are owned by our shippers and position holders. The Magellan Pipeline system is an 

“open-stock” system which depends upon product fungibility. The system is very efficient and appeals 

to a wide variety of shippers and position holders because of our ability to transport and store large 

volumes of a common grade of refined products. At this time, the most common grade of gasoline in 

our system is “N grade” – 87 octane with an RVP meeting ASTM, NCWM and state standards. 

While we appreciate the desire to align NCWM’s Handbook 130 with the recent EPA waivers regarding 

higher level ethanol blends, we believe the negative impacts to the supply and distribution of gasoline 

would be far greater than any benefit associated with harmonizing NCWM with EPA’s recent action. 

Therefore, Magellan is opposed to a proposal under consideration to amend Section 2.1.2.(a)(2) which

would eliminate the 1psi waiver for ethanol blends during the winter months. We are opposed to the 

elimination of the waiver because it would (1) create a boutique fuel in several states (2) reduce pipeline 

efficiency which would result in supply disruptions (3) reduce gasoline supply by requiring a reduction 

of RVP and (4) impact the price unsuspecting motorists pay at the pump. Lastly, we are opposed 

because we are not aware of technical data which would support the need to modify section 2.1.2. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D11

Boutique Fuel – A “boutique fuel” is a specialized fuel formulation that is unique to a particular market, 

usually by virtue of federal, state or local laws, and that cannot be obtained from other markets in the 

same regional distribution system. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05) already limits the 

number of boutique fuel formulations created under Clean Air Act-mandated State Implementation 

Plans (“SIP” fuels) to the number of fuels available in September 2004. EPACT prohibits EPA from 

adding to the number of fuel formulations but allows a new formulation when an existing formulation is 

dropped. EPA’s definition of a boutique fuel does not include specific formulations that are a result of 

renewable 

fuel mandates; federal or local. However, the elimination of the 1psi RVP waiver would indeed create 

the need for a special fuel suitable for ethanol blending. 

As an example, if the proposed amendment to Section 2.1.2 was enacted, the state of Kansas

would automatically adopt the standard. Therefore, the RVP of gasoline suitable for sale in 

conventional gasoline areas in the state of Kansas would need to be reduced if a distributor 

chooses to blend 10% volume ethanol with the base gasoline. This would create a special or 

boutique fuel. 

Fungibility – Our pipeline system delivers gasoline to terminals in Wichita, Topeka, Great Bend, Scott 

City, Olathe, St. Joseph and Kansas City. With the exception of Kansas City and Olathe, the remainder 

of our terminals in the state of Kansas distribute N grade gasoline (87 octane) with an RVP which meets 

the ASTM and state standards. The N grade gasoline can be delivered directly to retail service stations

with 

or without the addition of 10% volume ethanol. The elimination of the waiver under Section 2.1.2 

would create the need for a new product which would be suitable for ethanol blending. In most cases,

Magellan does not have adequate storage capacity to accommodate an additional grade of gasoline. A 

new fuel would require (1) adequate storage and (2) other modifications to the terminal piping and 

loading rack. 

Generally, the addition of a new, special fuel formulation will decrease pipeline efficiency which can 

lead to increased supply disruptions.

Reduction of Gasoline Supplies – While we are not the experts in this area, the proposed amendment 

to Section 2.1.2 would require refiners to remove various blendstocks. The components most likely 

to be removed to reduce the RVP of gasoline are butane and pentanes which are lower in value than

finished gasoline. Therefore, available gasoline supply is reduced which can have pricing 

implications for motorists.

Thank you again for providing Magellan the opportunity to provide comments to the proposed 

amendments to Section 2.1.2. We encourage the Sub-Committee to reject the proposed amendment at

this time.

Sincerely, 

Rod Lawrence
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D12

Testimony of Russ Lewis, Marathon Petroleum,

at the NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting Open Hearings on July 15, 2012 in Portland, Maine

Madam Chair, L&R Committee members, Delegates, and Associate members of NCWM – Good day.

I am Russ Lewis, a research chemist/supervisor at Marathon Petroleum that manages one of the fuel 

quality sections for our company. I have worked in fuels quality and quality-related issues for 24 years 

and am an active member of ASTM, CRC, and NCWM, among several other industry organizations. 

Marathon does not support the proposed language present in Publication 16 for Item 237-1. This was 

supposed to have been a placeholder and does not represent a consensus position of the FALS 

members. 

You are going to hear a lot of testimony regarding Item 237-1. All with varying perspectives on what is 

the right thing to do as a path forward. I would like to take some time to give the background on Item 

237-1 and how we got to where we are today. 

On August 27, 2010, Kristy Moore of the RFA filed a Pub 15 to revise language of NIST HB 130 to remove 

the 10% ethanol maximum on gasoline blends. This proposal made no mention of removing the vapor 

pressure waiver currently in HB 130. The focus of her proposal was to remove the E10 cap from the 

model regulation. 

Ms. Moore’s Pub 15 proposal was discussed at the FALS session on Sunday during the interim January 

2011 meeting but no decision/consensus was achieved on the proper language to consider at that time. 

The item remained informational.

Ms. Moore’s proposal was again discussed at the July 2011 annual meeting during the FALS session. 

During this time, Randy Jennings of Tennessee suggested an alternative proposal that would focus on 

“ASTM D4814 only”. Jim McGetrick of BP raised concern about the 1 psi vapor pressure waiver and the 

potential impact to production. Several other oil companies present affirmed this concern. Oil 

companies stated that they would need time to review Mr. Jennings alternative proposal to determine 

potential impacts on production and get back with NCWM. There was no consensus or vote taken 

during the FALS meeting to accept Mr. Jennings’ proposal in lieu of Ms. Moore’s as a voting item. When 

the minutes of the 2011 Annual meeting were published, Mr. Jennings’ proposal was listed as a 

recommended voting item. There was discussion by several FALS members after this was published as 

to how this became the item moving forward in any form other than Informational.

As a result of this proposed change to the gasoline model regulation, Marathon proposed an alternative 

to Mr. Jennings’ proposal during the annual 2011 SWMA meeting in October of that year. The 

Marathon proposal would have removed the ethanol cap and continued with the 1 psi waiver during 

non-VOC season for ethanol-blended gasoline. This was accepted during the SWMA and was 

recommended to NCWM as an alternative voting item at the 2012 interim meeting.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D13

During the 2012 NCWM interim meeting in January of this year, a very long discussion was held on Mr. 

Jennings’ Pub 16 proposal and Marathon’s alternative at the FALS session on Sunday. At the conclusion 

of the meeting, many of those in attendance thought that consensus had been reached on a path 

forward that would remove the ethanol cap and keep the vapor pressure waiver in place. 

At the Open Session on Monday at the 2012 Interim NCWM, FALS presented language that would have 

kept the 10% maximum cap in place, while keeping the vapor pressure waiver intact. This resulted in 

several entities speaking in opposition of the FALS recommendation.

Following the Monday open session at the 2012 Interim NCWM, compromise language based on 

discussions heard during the Sunday FALS and the Monday Open Session was crafted and circulated for 

comment to several of the stakeholders. The initial compromise language would have removed the E10 

cap, kept the 1 psi waiver in place for all but Class E which would get a 0.5 psi waiver, and put in a sunset 

date to give ASTM to make changes to the specifications. The initial review of this proposal received 

general agreement with some word-smithing identified. It was reported to the L&R by the FALS chair 

that compromise language was being prepared and that something should be available for the annual 

meeting to consider in place of the Pub 16 proposal by Mr. Jennings. It was understood that this was 

supposed to be a placeholder for FALS to work toward consensus from the group.

Over the next several months (March – May), multiple teleconferences were held and revisions were 

circulated to the FALS group. On May 9th, a final compromise proposal was put forward. This language 

contained “staggered” vapor pressure relief for gasoline classes, removal of the E10 cap, and a sunset 

date for ASTM implementation. All individuals on the call were asked if they could live with the 

proposal. No one took exception. It was determined that FALS would send out the proposal for vote. 

Once the options were circulated for voting by FALS, additional entities that had not been involved 

initially had the opportunity to review and weigh in on the items. Several of pipeline companies 

expressed concerns with the “staggered” vapor pressure approach. As a result of these concerns and 

apparent changes of heart by a couple of other parties that had been involved in the process, a strong 

consensus was not reached on any of the options presented. However, most voters were still in 

agreement that some form of vapor pressure relief is needed and the E10 cap should be removed.

Yesterday during the FALS session, a discussion of roughly 1.5 hours was held on this item. Many “new” 

stakeholders attended this NCWM as a result of the potential impact to their business. Once the 

discussion was wrapped up, there appeared to be a general agreement among most of the membership 

that some vapor pressure relief should remain in place, the E10 cap should be removed, harmonization 

with ASTM is needed but that time for ASTM to change the specifications should be given and that a 

sunset date was the appropriate mechanism for NIST Handbook 130. Although it was requested the 

FALS chair take a vote, no vote was taken (not even a straw vote). 

My industry is not trying to impede harmonization with ASTM D4814. Rather we are asking for the time 

needed to generate the data required by ASTM to make changes to the vapor pressure limits in the 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 237-1, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - D14

D4814 specifications, similar to what was done for TVL20 and T50 waivers that were previously listed in 

NIST Handbook 130. We have 20+ years of data suggesting that the currently allowed vapor pressure 

waiver is not creating customer issues. We heard during the FALS session on Sunday that the TVL20 

limits now listed in ASTM further restrict the maximum vapor pressure that can be achieved with 

ethanol blending. Eliminating this waiver is not in the best interest of the consuming public or the 

private sector. 

It is my opinion that consensus was never established on Mr. Jennings’ Pub 16 proposal, either during 

the July 2011 Annual NCWM meeting or since then (including the vote in May by the FALS group which 

showed this option with the least amount of support). What is apparent is that if the Pub 16 Item 237-1 

is accepted by this body, then significant negative and immediate impact on production and distribution 

will be observed in the marketplace. Removal of the vapor pressure waiver is estimated to negatively 

impact 840,000 gallons of gasoline blending components per day during the non-VOC blending period 

for my company alone.

A compromise position can be reached that will allow for the removal of the E10 cap, keep in place 

vapor pressure relief that has been in effect for over 20 years with minimal disruption to 

production/distribution, and put in place a sunset date for implementation of ASTM specification 

changes which would then harmonize ASTM D4814 and NIST Handbook 130.

With that said, I strongly encourage this body to reject the Pub 16 proposal and consider alternative 

language that was presented by Prentiss Searles of API. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present this information today.

Russ Lewis

Supervisor

Process Reliability and Development

Refining Analytical & Development

Marathon Petroleum Company

 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – Item 237-2, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E1 

Appendix E 

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation 

Item: 

237-2: 2.1.5. Minimum Motor Octane Number 

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – E Page

Flint Hills Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – Item 237-2, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – Item 237-2, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E3 

'

January 9,2012

Ms. Judy Cardin, Chair

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Laws and Regulations Committee

2811Agriculture Drive, PO Box 8911

Madison, WI 53718

Dear Ms. Cardin,

We have reviewed L&R item 237-2Section 2.1.7. Minimum Motor Octane Number. and the

comments from the regional weights and measures associations as published in the

NCWM Publication 15. We are in agreement with the report from the 2011Southern

Weights and Measures Association L&R Committee and the two exceptions they cite;

keep the 1.0 psi waiver in 2.1.3.a. and modify 2.1.2.a 2 by changing 10% ethanol to 15%

ethanol.

We support this proposal with the two exceptions as a reasonable approach to harmonize 

NIST Handbook 130 with ASTM D4814 without significantly increasing refinery costs that

could potentially lead to decreasing supplies.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

cc: Don Onwiler, NCWM Executive Director

1135 M Street,Suite 110

Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

.4111 East 37th Street·North- Wichita, Kansas 67220- P.O.Box 2917- Wichita, Kansas 67201 -
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – Item 237-2, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - E4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix F – Item: 237-3, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F1 

Appendix F

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation 

Item: 

237-3: 3.1. General Considerations, 3.1.X. Nozzle Color Requirements for Fuels 

3.3. Diesel Fuel

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – F Page

Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association (April 25, 2011).....................................................3

NATSO, PMMA, engery API, SIGMA and NACS (January 19, 2012)........................................................................5 

AAA Missouri (January 23, 2012) ................................................................................................................................6 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix F – Item: 237-3, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix F – Item: 237-3, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F3 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix F – Item: 237-3, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F4 

January 19, 2012 

Judy Cardin Lisa Warfield and David Sefcik 

Chairwoman, NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee NIST

Wisconsin Dept. of Ag & Consumer Protection Office of Weights and Measures 

PO Box 8911, 2811 Agriculture Drive 1000 Bureau Drive Stop 2600 

Madison, Wisconsin 53708 Gaithersburg, MD 20899‐2600

Dear Chairwoman Cardin, Mrs. Warfield and Mr. Sefcik: 

The undersigned organizations, representing thousands of small business petroleum marketers, truck stop 

operators and convenience store owners, would like to thank you for your efforts to address important issues 

relevant to our industry during the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) interim and annual 

meetings. We are writing you today to urge you to withdraw items 237-3 Section 3.1 Standardized Colors for 

Nozzles and 237-8 Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters from the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee agenda. We 

believe that both items are not practical and could potentially lead to unintended consequences on our member 

companies and their customers. 

237-3 Section 3.1 Standardized Colors for Nozzles 

Preventing consumer misfueling is important to our member companies; however, 237-3 Section 3.1 Standardized 

Colors for Nozzles is unnecessary and outside the scope of the NCWM mission. Regulations are already in place 

requiring clear, conspicuous labeling for consumers, and there is no evidence that color coding will be any more 

effective in preventing misfueling. Fuel retailers go to great lengths with conspicuous labels and separate 

dispensers, in some cases, to ensure customers know what fuel they are dispensing. Adding measures designed to 

remove conscious decision-making on the part of the costumer regarding their fuel choice is the incorrect 

precedent to set given the future availability of many different automotive fuels (i.e., ethanol blends, biodiesel 

blends, biobutanol, etc.) It is important that consumers remain engaged in the refueling process. 

Furthermore, an additional precedent that this proposal sets is one where each fuel is assigned a specific color in 

order to “alert” consumers. There are not enough distinct colors to accommodate all the different types of fuel a 

marketer currently is selling or mandated to sell, such as ethanol blended fuels. Additionally, this precedent 

would eliminate the ability for uni-hose dispensers because these dispensers dispense multiple types of fuel from 

one nozzle. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F5 

Finally, our associations believe the NCWM is attempting to go beyond their scope of mission, which is the 

“development and implementation of uniform and equitable weights and measures standards.” Regulating nozzle 

size for the purpose of preventing misfueling has nothing to do with weights or measures standards in the opinion 

of the undersigned organizations. 

237-8 Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters 

Our associations also oppose item 237-8 Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters which would mandate a 10 micron or 

smaller nominal pore-sized filter for diesel fuel dispensers. This change is unnecessary. The diesel engines on 

trucks are equipped with two or three filters, which are more than adequate in filtering out any impurities. As 

biodiesel blends continue to be more frequently used in the marketplace, smaller filters may also clog due to the 

fuel’s properties, especially in colder climates. In addition, a 10-micron filter will slow the fueling process by 50 

percent or more. This additional time in refueling could be costly to the trucking industry. With federal 

regulations limiting the hours-of-service that commercial drivers can operate their trucks, saving time during 

fueling is critical. Any lost time resulting from a slower refueling process could increase waiting time in the 

fueling lanes at truck stops, resulting in traffic backups in the lanes, jeopardizing safety and increasing idling 

time. 

Our associations agree with the Western and Southern Weights and Measures Regions’ position that item 237-8 

be withdrawn from the agenda. 

Sincerely, 

American Petroleum Institute, API

NATSO, Representing America’s Travel Centers and Truckstops 

NACS, The Association for Convenience and Fuel Retailing 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America, PMAA 

Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, SIGMA 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix F – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - F6 

From: Cardin, Judy L - DATCP

To: ncwm -laws-and -regulations@lists.ncwm.net

Subject: [ncwm-laws-and-regulations] FW: Uniform Color for Nozzles

Date: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:09:31 PM

This came on Monday.

-----Original Message----- 

From: MRight@aaamissouri.com [mailto:MRight@aaamissouri.com] 

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:18 AM

To: Cardin, Judy L - DATCP Cc:

Ron.Hayes@mda.mo.gov Subject:

Uniform Color for Nozzles

Please accept this email as our endorsement of the proposal by the Missouri Department of Agriculture for

standardized colors for gasoline and diesel dispensing nozzles and a minimum diameter for diesel 

dispensers.

With the expanded array of fueling options, motorists are often confused by the complexities of 

information on the pumps and an alarming number of motorists are misfueling their vehicles, costing 

hundreds of dollars in needless repairs.

The proposal before your group would offer a significant step in helping to protect consumers from the 

growing complexities of fuel options that can have expensive and hazardous consequences if an 

inappropriate fuel choice is made.

Thank you for your consideration of our views on this important consumer protection regulation. 

Mike Right, Vice President, Public Affairs, AAA Missouri.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G1 

Appendix G

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation 

Item: 

237-5: 3.15. Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – G Page

Product Transfer Documentation: Biodiesel Current Status and Considerations (Jan. 22, 2012) ................................ 3 

Working Group Update E-mail (June 14, 2012).......................................................................................................... 15 

Biodiesel Product Transfer Documentation Working Group, Fuels & Lubricants Subcommittee (Jan. 20, 2012)..... 16 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G3 

Product Transfer Documentation: Biodiesel Current Status and Considerations

Prepared by Steve Howell and Sam Bell as background for discussion with the Biodiesel Product 

Transfer Document Working Group of the Fuels & Lubes Subcommittee of NCWM. 

It has not been approved or sanctioned by the Fuels & Lubricants Subcommittee or by NCWM. 

The options for consideration are not exhaustive. Additional background and options for 

consideration are being solicited and are encouraged.

Original Draft: January 16, 2012; Last updated January 22, 2012. 

Biodiesel Industry Background

Biodiesel is a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from 

vegetable oils or animal fats which meets the requirements of ASTM D6751, ‘Standard 

Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels’. Biodiesel is 

intended to be used in equipment or applications that currently use petroleum based diesel 

fuel or heating oils. Biodiesel can be used as a pure fuel, or as a blend with conventional 

petrodiesel as it blends completely with petrodiesel in any percentage and does not come 

out of solution even in the presence of tank water bottoms. Most biodiesel used today is in 

blends of B20 or less with petrodiesel.

Biodiesel, being made from fats and oils produced each year as natural by-products of 

producing food (high quality meats or seed oil meal such as soybean meal), is a renewable, 

domestically produced fuel. Biodiesel use reduces particulate matter, unburned 

hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions compared to petrodiesel when used in unmodified diesel engines, and also reduces NOx in home heating oil applications. Biodiesel 

was recently certified by US EPA as an ‘Advanced Biofuel’ under the new Renewable Fuel 

Standard-2 program and is a low cost compliance option for RFS2 ‘obligated parties’ (i.e. 

petroleum refiners) to meet the Bio-mass based diesel and Advanced Undifferentiated 

Biofuels requirements of the RFS2. These two category requirements ramp up over time, 

reaching a total fuel requirement of 5 billion gallons by 2022.

Since biodiesel is produced domestically it creates domestic jobs, reduces dependence on 

foreign oil, and reduces the overall US trade deficit. According to the National Biodiesel 

Board, 800 million gallons per year of biodiesel production support over 31,000 domestic 

jobs, while 2.5 billion gallon per year would support 74,000 domestic jobs. 

Lastly, B20 and lower blends can be transported, stored, blended and dispensed using the 

same equipment as conventional petrodiesel. Biodiesel blends (B5) are currently being 

transported in pipelines that carry jet fuel in Europe as well as non-jet pipelines in the US. 

Efforts are currently underway to facilitate biodiesel blend pipeline shipments in jet lines in 

the US as well. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G4 

All of these factors have given rise to increasing biodiesel use in the US, with over 1 billion 

gallons of B100 produced and used in the US in 2011. At present, installed biodiesel 

production capacity exceeds 2 billion gallons or pure biodiesel (B100) per year, and the 

National Biodiesel Board has provided comments to the US EPA that there is a sufficient 

current supply of oils and fats available for biodiesel production to allow the industry to 

supply 2.5 billion gallons of B100 by 2017.

Current status of ASTM Specifications and Previous Deliberations on Blend Content Disclosure

The effort to develop an ASTM specification for biodiesel began in 1993. The biodiesel 

specification was developed as a performance specification in a similar way as ASTM has 

developed specifications for petroleum based diesel fuels (petrodiesel for short). 

For traditional petrodiesel, the specification is based on the properties necessary for proper 

engine operation and not on the particular crude oil, refinery unit operations, or blending 

done to achieve the final petrodiesel product. As long as it meets the performance 

specifications identified in D975 it is an acceptable fuel. In addition, there are two grades of 

D975 fuel used for conventional diesel engines, No. 1 and No. 2. Even though blending No. 1 

and No. 2 diesel fuel is common—especially in northern parts of the country in the winter—

there is no separate set of specifications for blends of No. 1 and No. 2 petrodiesel. If the No. 

1 meets spec, and the No. 2 meets spec, then the two may be blended in any percentage and 

used in conventional engines without re-analyzing or checking fuel properties. 

Following the lead and example of the petrodiesel industry, the biodiesel (B100) 

specifications were based on the properties needed for proper engine operation and not on 

the vegetable oil or animal fat feedstock, biodiesel processing options, or blending done to 

achieve the final B100 product. The B100 specification (approved as D6751 in 2001) was also 

based on precedent set by petrodiesel as far as blending with petrodiesel was concerned. If 

the B100 met specification and the petrodiesel met specification (either No. 1 or No. 2) then 

biodiesel and diesel fuel may be blended in any percentage and used in conventional diesel 

engines without re-analyzing or checking fuel properties. 

Although Europe had experience with B100 as a pure fuel, most experience in the US was 

with B20 blends or lower. So in the end, ASTM members voted to change the biodiesel 

specification to a blend stock specification intended for B20 use and lower. Users should 

consult their engine manufacturer for use of D6751 in blends higher than B20. Passage of 

D6751 in 2001—and the use of the ‘if the parent fuels meet their specifications the two can 

be blended’ philosophy—provided a base set of quality procedures which allowed the 

industry to thrive. Soon after the initial specs passed in 2001, OEM’s, regulators, and users 

requested ASTM go ahead and develop finished product specifications for biodiesel blends as 

it was difficult to determine if a biodiesel blend was acceptable if the parent fuel analysis 

was not known or available. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G5 

After significant deliberation, ASTM modified the existing petrodiesel specification ASTM 

D975 to include the allowance of up to 5% biodiesel meeting D6751 prior to blending as a 

fungible component into the D975 performance specification in 2008. No changes were 

made to the test methods or parameters in D975 for the B5—the finished biodiesel blend 

must meet all the same requirements as petrodiesel did previously. Biodiesel is now just 

considered one of a variety of blending compounds at the disposal of refiners and blenders, 

as the engine does not care if the blend contains 1% or 5%--it all meets the same 

performance standard, ASTM D975. As part of the balloting and deliberation, however, 

significant changes to the D6751 standard were required before the ASTM committee 

agreed to modify D975 to include up to B5. An oxidation stability parameter was added to 

D6751, the acid number was lowered, and further controls were required on veg oil and 

animal fat minor components—those which can be found in vegetable oils and animal fats 

but which aren’t found in petrodiesel and are not therefore measured in petrodiesel.

ASTM decided the B6 to B20 standard would need to be a separate specification, since the 

committee determined B6 to B20 should contain additional parameters for acid number and 

stability that are not found in D975. It passed in 2008 as D7467. The B6 to B20 specification, 

D7467, is also a performance based specification not dependent on the blend level as the 

engine doesn’t care whether the blend contains 6%, 11%, or 20%. With little experience and 

only small use of blends over B20, very little work has been done on finished specifications 

higher than B20 at ASTM. 

While the biodiesel levels must be maintained within the stated values of D975 or D7467, 

and this is a requirement of the specification, the specifications do not require the exact 

blend level to be reported for either D975 or D7467. This is because ASTM sets performance 

based specifications and as long as the blend falls within the specification sufficient engine 

performance does not depend on the exact blend level. There was also a strong desire 

among the ASTM members to maintain the low cost, fungible, performance based nature of 

the ASTM specifications so there was no need to re-analyze any property of the fuel after 

blending or co-mingling two compliant fuels together. Requiring the reporting of the exact 

blend level would require re-analysis for the blend level in order to provide that information 

each time two D975 fuels or two D7467 fuels were blended or co-mingled. Negatives were 

cast on both the D975 and on D7467 ballots suggesting the exact blend level of biodiesel 

should be a requirement. These negatives were overwhelming voted non-persuasive using 

the reasoning stated above. 

Subsequent to the passage of the blend specifications in 2008, ASTM received a comment 

from members of the truck stop industry that adding 5% biodiesel to diesel fuel already 

containing an un-disclosed amount of biodiesel may cause the resulting blend to fall outside 

of D975, and they requested changes in the ASTM standard to address this issue. After much 

deliberation and several ASTM subcommittee ballots on the wording, the subcommittee 

passed ballot wording below which was aimed at addressing the concern. Some members 

thought the information was redundant, but the ASTM members were willing to put in the 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G6 

wording to show support for the truck stop industry. The proposed wording in D975 (a 

similar version was balloted for D7467) was:

“A D975 compliant diesel fuel may contain up to 5 vol% biodiesel without declaring the 

biodiesel content. Therefore those blending biodiesel into a D975 compliant fuel to 

produce a D975 compliant diesel fuel are cautioned to confirm the biodiesel content of 

base diesel fuel or of the resulting blended product in order to ensure that the final blend 

does not exceed the maximum allowable biodiesel content of 5 vol%.” 

Very few negatives were received on this wording at the ASTM D2 main committee level 

indicating good overall support for the additional informative wording. In the end this 

wording was not adopted by ASTM at the request of different members of the truck stop 

sector, the standard was left as-is (i.e. no reporting requirement for exact blend level) and 

further discussion of the issue was dropped from consideration. 

Current status: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Labeling Requirements

In 2008, the Federal Trade Commission amended the Fuel Rating Rule - 16 CFR Part 306 – to 

incorporate specific labeling requirements for biodiesel and all biomass-based diesel fuels 

above 5 percent concentration, as required by Section 205 of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”), 42 U.S.C. 17021. The Fuel Rating Rule designates methods for 

rating and certifying fuels, as well as posting the ratings at the point of sale. The Rule also 

requires refiners, importers, and producers of any liquid automotive fuel to determine that 

fuel’s “automotive fuel rating” before transferring it to a distributor or retailer. In addition, 

any covered entity, including a distributor that transfers a fuel must certify the fuel’s rating 

to the transferee either by including it in papers accompanying the transfer or by letter. 

Finally, the Rule requires retailers to post the fuel rating by adhering a label to the retail fuel 

pump and provides precise specifications regarding the content, size, color, and font of the 

label. 

The Commission received 12 comments in response to its March 2, 2009 Federal

Register Notice of changes to the Fuel Rating Rule. The comments generally supported the 

Rule but proposed several amendments, focusing on three key issues, only one of which was 

related to biodiesel or biomass-based diesel. Commenters urged the Commission to change 

its biodiesel fuel provisions in two ways: 1) by requiring producers to rate (i.e., specify exact 

blend level) biodiesel blends at or below 5 percent concentration; and 2) exempt biomassbased diesel (or non-ester renewable diesel) from the Rule.

On March 16, 2010, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

responding to the commenters’ suggestions including a response to the two issues 

pertaining to biodiesel and biomass-based diesel. The Commission did not propose revising 

the Rule’s biodiesel fuel provisions. The Commission explained that rating blends at or below 

5 percent would unnecessarily burden producers and distributors by requiring them to rate 

fuel that does not require a label under EISA and that retailers blending biodiesel did not 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G7 

need such rating and certifications to comply with the Rule. The Commission found that 

although the Rule may burden small businesses, adopting the proposed change would 

increase the OVERALL rating burden on industry. Currently, the Rule does not require rating 

or labeling of blends at or below 5 percent concentration. Under the commenters’ proposed 

change, however, ALL manufacturers would have to rate these blends regardless of whether 

retailers would eventually use them to create a fuel subject to the Rule. The Commission 

found that the commenters had not provided evidence showing that the burden on retailers 

who blend a fraction of this fuel would be greater than the burden they propose putting on 

manufacturers to rate ALL of it. Therefore, the Commission declined to require rating on 

blends of 5 percent and below. 

With regard to other biomass-based diesel fuels (or non-ester renewable diesel), the 

Commission defines biomass-based diesel as any “diesel fuel substitute produced from 

nonpetroleum renewable resources that meets the registration requirements for fuels and 

fuel additives established by the Environmental Protection Agency,” without limitation, 

including limitations regarding co-processing. Thus, all renewable diesel blends discussed in 

the record are “biomass-based diesel blends” under EISA, and there is no inconsistency in 

treatment. Therefore, the Commission declined to exempt or distinguish any difference for 

non-ester renewable diesel.

Therefore, NCWM should consider adding a section for non-ester renewable diesel that 

mirrors the same exact wording as the biodiesel section in Handbook 130. 

Consumer needs/considerations:

The needs of consumers to know the content of biodiesel in the fuel they buy falls into two 

general areas. 

One area is the need for a consumer to know the biodiesel blend level in order to determine 

if that level is recommended, supported, or approved by the particular equipment they plan 

to use the fuel in. At present, all manufacturers support the use of B5 in diesel engine 

applications, while a little over 60% support up to B20 blends and an even lower percentage 

supporting blends over B20. The ASTM specifications mirror this, with blends up to B5 

considered fungible fuels with conventional petrodiesel (ASTM D975), B6 to B20 blends 

falling under D7467, and there being no separate ASTM specifications for biodiesel blends 

over B20. The proper affixture of the FTC label on a public pump—which is now a Federal 

legal requirement in all states in US—is sufficient to meet this consumer need and is already 

supported by marketers, petroleum refiners and biodiesel producers. This need could be 

considered a consumer requirement, and information to facilitate the proper labeling of 

consumer pumps on product transfer documents seems appropriate for a model regulation 

by NCWM. 

The second area is one of a more general desire of a customer to know how much biodiesel 

is in the blend they are using for reasons outside of the vehicle warranties mentioned above. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G8 

Some customers may want to only purchase B20 so they maximize their usage which is 

supported by their OEM, or some may wish to use a minimum of B2 to insure the fuel has 

proper lubricity, or some may want to use blend levels higher than B5 to maximize the 

emissions and carbon reductions which can be garnered through the use of higher blends of 

biodiesel. These needs can be considered more of a desire than a requirement, and may or 

may not be appropriate for a model regulation by NCWM depending on the number of 

customers who desire such information vs. the cost of providing it to every customer. Some 

consumers may want to pay additional for the information and some may not, so the greater 

good of the consumer needs to be taken into account.

For purposes of this discussion cold flow properties are not taken into account, as the cold 

flow considerations and needs by consumers are the same for biodiesel blends as they are 

for petrodiesel. Therefore, consumer information on cold flow properties for biodiesel 

blends and petrodiesel should be exactly the same and there is no need for NCWM to treat 

them differently.

Other needs for blend content declaration:

In some states, statewide legislation providing usage requirements or incentives have been 

put into place. This varies widely by state, but for the most part each piece of legislation 

specifies or requires a certain blend level to meet the legislation. Some states require that a 

minimum of 2% or 5% biodiesel be used, while others provide incentives only if the biodiesel 

content is over a certain value (i.e., 1%, 2%, 11%, 20%, etc.) or the incentives are based upon 

how much biodiesel is actually used (i.e., using 10% yields more incentives than use of 2%). 

In these states, the nature of the use requirements or incentives may have already caused 

state legislation mandating blend level disclosure. Or, the state legislation may have 

provided the impetus for private companies to provide blend level declaration on product 

transfer documents of the exact level of biodiesel or declaration of a minimum biodiesel 

level as either a means to secure an incentive or as risk mitigation to potential penalties. 

For the most part, whether by state legislation or private market force, biodiesel blend 

content is already being placed on product transfer documents to meet these needs without 

further action by NCWM on a national basis. In addition, it is difficult for these requirements 

to be placed into an NCWM model regulation for the entire country as they vary widely from 

state to state and are constantly changing based on the legislative branch in each state. 

Other considerations, RFS2: 

The Congressionally mandated Renewable Fuel Standard-2 places requirements on large 

refiners and importers of petroleum products (so called ‘obligated parties’) to insure that 

increasing levels of renewable biofuels are used in the US each year. Certain requirements 

are placed on each individual biofuel that is eligible for the RFS2, largely based on the life 

cycle reduction of CO2 compared to its petroleum based counterpart. Each obligated party 

is required to manufacture or purchase increasing amounts of RFS2 qualifying biofuels and 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G9 

see to it the increasing RFS2 mandated levels are incorporated into the fuels sold in the US 

each year. In addition to the other requirements mentioned, the RFS2 program contains 

requirements for four different categories of fuels. Biodiesel produced today fits under two 

of the four categories, ‘Biomass Based Diesel’ and ‘Advanced Biofuel--Undifferentiated’. The 

biomass based diesel category requires 1 billion gallons in 2012, and the advanced biofuels—

undifferentiated category ramps up over time eventually requiring an additional 4 billion 

gallons by 2022. In order to facilitate the most cost effective means to achieve the RFS2 

volumes, EPA worked with the obligated parties, biofuel producers, and other stakeholders 

to determine how best to implement the RFS2 volumes. 

As part of this effort, EPA determined they would allow obligated parties to purchase credits 

for renewable fuels from other obligated parties who had over-complied, or from those who 

used fuel but were not covered by the program as an obligated party. To manage this 

effectively, EPA set up a kind of renewable fuel currency called a ‘Renewable Identification 

Number’. Renewable fuels produced or imported in the US generate a unique RIN value 

ranging from 1 to 2.5 RIN’s per gallon and biofuels producers or importers must submit 

paperwork on these gallons to EPA and make the RINs available to the obligated parties. At 

the end of the year, each obligated party must report to EPA the RIN numbers of the 

renewable fuels they have incorporated and used—along with those they have purchased 

from others who may have over-complied—in sufficient number to meet their individual 

RFS2 requirement. 

The buying and selling of RINs has provided a unique environment for biodiesel 

blenders/marketers, petroleum refiners, and biodiesel producers. From a layman’s 

perspective, downstream fuel blenders who are not covered by RFS2 can purchase biodiesel 

with RINs attached and then sell the RINs on the open market to obligate parties or other 

traders. Alternatively, a biodiesel company can sell biodiesel with the RINs detached and sell 

the RINs on the open market—or a variety of choices in between. At the end of 2011, the 

RIN values for biodiesel were in a range equating to around $2/gallon of biodiesel. The RIN 

market is still relatively young, but the value of the RIN allows biodiesel to be priced similar 

to petrodiesel (or less than petrodiesel in some cases), or it value has been used to facilitate 

blending infrastructure and marketing of biodiesel blends where it was not profitable to do 

so previously.

The RFS2 and the resulting RIN value has heightened the discussion on blend level disclosure 

on product transfer documents. It will be necessary to either know the blend level of the 

petrodiesel before blending—or measure the blend level afterward—to determine which 

FTC label to utilize for a public dispenser if one is going to add more biodiesel and benefit 

from the RIN values facilitated by RFS2. 

Biodiesel blend testing technology:

 

ASTM has approved D7371 as the referee test method for determining biodiesel blend 

concentration. It utilizes mid infrared equipment (FTIR-ATR-PLS Method) that is normally 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G10

suited for a chemical lab environment. Method EN14078 used in Europe can also be used, as 

it is also a mid IR method. Several advances in rapid analysis technology more suitable for 

field determinations (suitcase type analysis) to analyze biodiesel blends as an alternative to 

the mid IR have occurred over the past two years. The following field methods are currently 

in use in the field and are being used as screening instruments for biodiesel blenders.

Wilks Enterprise InfraCal Biodiesel Blend Analyzer

Miniscan IRXpert (new technology to IROX Diesel)

Petrospec by Ametek

At a biodiesel technical workshop in November, one pipeline company reported positive 

experience with the Wilks unit in the field (approximate cost $6,000 to $7,000), with the unit 

being reliable and providing accurate values. Wilks is in the process of securing an ASTM test 

method number that will cover its technique for blend level determination, and will request 

it be added as an official option in the ASTM specifications once complete.

There are two additional industry developments of interest. Veeder Root is in the process of 

developing an option to add biodiesel blend level testing capability to their existing tank level

controls and/or leak detection equipment for storage tanks. Kam Controls is in the process 

of commercializing an in-line piece of pipeline equipment that will provide instantaneous 

values of biodiesel blend content down to the ppm level. While neither of these units is 

commercially available at the present time, they may represent significant steps forward in 

blend level testing technology.

One of the major issues in this discussion is who will pay for the equipment to run the testing 

and how much effort the test will take to run in terms of overall ‘time to result’, personnel 

time for sampling and running the analysis, and out of pocket disposables for the test. 

Continued development of quick, inexpensive field tests for biodiesel blend level 

determination—or of in-line or on-tank equipment that takes little time to get a result and 

essentially no on-going manpower—will help to facilitate the cost effective procurement and 

sharing of blend level data. This should be encouraged.

In addition, in the past there have been significant federal grants and funding available for 

support and development of alternative fuel vehicles or infrastructure. Use of this type of 

funding for the purchase and installation/use of biodiesel blend level testing equipment 

could be of significant assistance in facilitating the cost effective documentation of biodiesel 

content in petrodiesel. 

Summary: Downstream Marketer/Blender Comments/Desires for Blend Level Documentation

In general, downstream marketers and blenders active in deliberations have been various 

state based petroleum marketers or convenience store associations and the national PMAA 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G11

group. Additional interactions have occurred with individual marketers in preparation of this

document. 

The most common feedback from these groups in deliberations at NCWM is the desire to 

have the exact biodiesel blend concentration declared at all points in the distribution system. 

This would include invoices, bills of lading, shipping papers, and product transfer documents. 

Disclosure of specific blend content would help to facilitate blending more biodiesel into 

petrodiesel downstream as no biodiesel measuring equipment would be needed 

downstream. Accurate record of the amount blended, and the initial biodiesel content, 

would be sufficient to provide the information needed to label the product at the pump as 

D975, D7467 or with content higher than B20. It would also help to avoid potential overblending (and the various liabilities associated with over-blending such as mis-labeling, 

equipment compatibility, or breach of supply contract) if the base D975 fuel already 

contained some level of biodiesel and the biodiesel added by the marketer is sufficient to 

put the product in a different specification category.

If exact blend level is not disclosed, marketers wishing to add more biodiesel to a D975 fuel 

and sell the biodiesel as a D975 fuel will need to perform an analysis on the fuel prior to 

blending (or after blending) as adding more biodiesel to diesel fuel already containing 

biodiesel may cause the fuel to be outside of the D975 ASTM specification. This sampling 

and testing will require each marketer to purchase equipment and provide staff to take the 

sample and conduct the analysis prior to adding more biodiesel. Alternatively, the marketer 

can take a sample and ship it to an outside laboratory for analysis. From a practical basis, 

marketers may not be in a position to hold fuel while the analysis is being conducted either 

internally or by an outside laboratory unless sufficient isolated storage is available. 

Marketers would also either need to pass the cost associated with the analysis onto their 

customer or add these costs to their expenses, neither of which are desired by the marketer 

unless the added value of marketing biodiesel and garnering of the RIN value outweigh the 

costs.

If exact blend level is not disclosed, marketers wishing to add more biodiesel to a D975 fuel 

and sell the biodiesel as a D7467 fuel will need to conduct an analysis prior to blending in 

order to determine the amount that needs to be added so the finished fuel falls between 6 

and 20 % biodiesel. Alternatively, the marketer can add a minimum of 6 % biodiesel or a 

maximum of 15 % biodiesel to a D975 compliant fuel and be assured the fuel will still fall 

within D7467. 

In areas where there is significant downstream blending, it may be more cost effective for 

the consumer for the terminal or bulk supplier to purchase the testing equipment and 

conduct the blend level analysis for downstream petroleum marketers who wish to blend in 

more biodiesel than for each downstream marketer to purchase the same piece of 

equipment and conduct the analysis themselves. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G12

Summary: Upstream Petroleum Refiner Comments/Desires

In general, upstream petroleum refiners active in deliberations have been individual refiner 

companies and the API. Additional interactions have occurred with the pipeline companies 

as part of the development of this document. 

The most common feedback from this sector is for the inclusion of ranges of biodiesel 

content consistent with and necessary to meet the FTC required labeling provisions, but not 

the exact blend level. In addition, the blend range should not be required on all transfer 

documents—only those documents necessary for their customers to be able to label the 

pump properly. Requiring the disclosure of exact biodiesel content would mean taking a 

sample and re-analyzing for blend content every time two D975 fuels were blended or comingled, or every time two D7467 fuels were blended or co-mingled—regardless of whether 

additional biodiesel will be added downstream. This co-mingling can happen at a refinery 

storage tank, at a pipeline terminal tank, at a bulk blending tank, or through various other 

activities of the downstream marketers. Allowance of co-mingling of product meeting the 

same specification without re-analysis is a key factor in reducing the cost to the end user 

while still providing fuels that meet the required ASTM specifications.

This market sector believes if an entity receives a D975 fuel and chooses to blend in more 

biodiesel, then it should be that entity’s responsibility—or their liability—for determining 

whether the fuel remains a D975 fuel, should be classified as D7467, or classified as over 

B20. To require exact blend level disclosure on all diesel fuel would place the cost burden on 

all diesel consumers, whether or not more biodiesel was being added to the fuel they 

receive. At present, there are many more cases where diesel fuel is co-mingled than there 

are cases where more biodiesel is planned for blending into petrodiesel. Exact blend level 

disclosure—and the resulting additional testing it would require—could increase the cost of 

fuel to many customers for the benefit of relatively few. This market sector also brought up 

the issue of whether the FTC regulation (16 CF 306.4) preempts state laws that are not the 

same as the FTC rules.

Blends up to B5 are commonly transported in pipelines in Europe, including those that carry 

jet fuel provided the biodiesel found in jet fuel is no higher than 5 ppm. Biodiesel blends are 

also being transported via pipeline in the US, but only on pipelines that do not carry jet fuel 

at present as the 5 ppm level in jet is harder to maintain in the US pipeline system. Work is 

underway to increase the allowable level of biodiesel in jet fuel to 100 ppm, which may be 

sufficient for more common use of biodiesel blend transport in US pipelines that also carry 

jet fuel—especially as biodiesel volumes rise due to the RFS2. Pipeline transport is the least 

expensive means of fuel transport, and as the biodiesel industry grows refiners expect more 

biodiesel blends will be transported on the US pipeline system.

If the exact blend level within each grade of biodiesel (D975, D7467, over B20) is required to 

be disclosed then each pipeline terminal tank, bulk blending tank, or other location 

throughout the downstream distribution chain will need to perform an analysis on the fuel 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G13

every time product is sold from that tank if new fuel has been introduced since the last test. 

This will require the tank owner to purchase testing equipment and provide staff to take the 

sample and conduct the analysis prior to adding more biodiesel. Alternatively, the tank 

owner can take a sample and ship it to an outside laboratory for analysis. From a practical 

basis, the tank owner may not be in a position to hold fuel while the analysis is being 

conducted either internally or by an outside laboratory unless sufficient isolated storage is 

available. It may also be very difficult to secure samples from many of these tanks as they 

aren’t normally sampled, the tanks may be stratified with fuels of different batches with 

differing biodiesel concentrations (all meeting specification), or the tanks may be manifolded 

where the product going to the rack actually comes from several tanks at the same time 

each with different biodiesel concentrations. 

Tank owners would also either need to pass the cost associated with the analysis onto their 

customer or add these costs to their expenses, neither of which are desired by the tank 

owner. This is especially true when the tank owner does not derive any of the financial 

benefit from the subsequent blending of biodiesel downstream. 

Alternatively, tank owners can stipulate that no biodiesel be contained in pipeline shipments 

or incoming diesel fuel loads they receive (and thus avoid the need for testing equipment or 

sampling) or they can segregate storage tanks or build new tanks for biodiesel blends of 

sufficient capacity and design (i.e. recirculation or in tank stirring) to be able to sample and 

analyze for biodiesel content prior to shipment to a customer.

Options for Consideration:

At a minimum, in order to meet federal biodiesel labeling requirements sufficient 

information should be provided by the seller to allow the placement of a proper FTC label 

should the buyer choose to market the fuel purchased to an end consumer. Therefore, the 

absolute minimum required to meet this need is to identify whether the fuel falls under 

D975 (i.e. B5 or less), D7467 (i.e. B6 to B20) or whether it fall over the B20 level. The current 

wording in Handbook 130 contains this information, so any future wording should also 

contain at least this minimum information.

If more biodiesel is to be added to petrodiesel, the biodiesel content in the existing fuel will 

either need to be known or measured at some point, or the fuel will need to be measured 

for biodiesel content after blending. To do so will require added expenses, additional record 

keeping, or both. 

The question in front of NCWM is whether it is in the best interest of the consumer to be 

more prescriptive on how this blend level information should be managed and to 

recommend that to the entire country via Handbook 130, whether the decision on how 

prescriptive should be left to individual states, or whether it is in the best interest of the 

consumer to let the management of that information be left to the private market. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G14

In order to modify Handbook 130, and thus make a recommendation for the entire country, 

all of the above information should be taken into account to help determine what is in the 

best interest of the consuming public.

There have been several options laid out or suggested for wording that would address 

various needs or requests for biodiesel blend content disclosure as model language for the 

entire country in Handbook 130. As a starting place for more detailed discussion and 

negotiation, all the general options—and a few new ones—are outlined below:

A. Add a requirement for specific blend level disclosure on all BOL, PTD, invoices, 

shipping papers or other documents for all biodiesel blends regardless of biodiesel 

level.

B. Requiring identification of the range of biodiesel in the fuel on all BOL, PTD, invoices, 

shipping papers or other documents but not the exact level (i.e. contains B1 to B5—

D975, contains B6 to B20—D7467, contains over B20)

C. Requiring either A or B on only some of the documents but not on all BOL, PTD, 

invoices, shipping papers or other documents

D. Require B, as well as documentation of any biodiesel intentionally added or known to 

be in the fuel for blends less than B5

E. Require A, but provide an exemption for blends below B5, with or without the 

‘intentionally added or know to be in the fuel’ wording

F. Require A, but provide an exemption for some de minimis level of biodiesel. 

G. Keep the current Handbook 130 wording as-is, with additional wording that the most 

economical way to meet this need varies depending on local conditions and is best 

left to the market to determine.

H. Requiring B, with additional wording that individual states may find more prescriptive 

guidance to be in the best interest of the consumer. 

I. Require A or B, with added clauses similar to that for E85 that would allow blends up 

to B25 to be considered to fall within the FTC labeling requirements.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G15
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G16

Biodiesel Product Transfer Document

Working Group,

Fuels & Lubricants Subcommittee

National Conference on Weights and

Measures, January 2012

Activity Update

Prepared by: Steve Howell, Co-Chair

Sam Bell, Co-Chair

Biodiesel PTD Working Group

• Objective: Develop consensus wording regarding the biodiesel 

information that should be contained on various shipping documents

• Volunteer Co-Chairs of the Working Group:

– Steve Howell with MARC-IV Consulting, Inc. and the

National Biodiesel Board (NBB)

– Sam Bell, with Echols Oil and the Petroleum Marketers

Association of America (PMAA)

• Formed in January 2011 at NCWM Interim meeting
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G17

Status Update, January 2012

• Mr. Bell and Mr. Howell have prepared a useful background

document, “Product Transfer Documentation: Biodiesel Current 

Status and Considerations”

• It contains background information on the biodiesel industry, ASTM 

specifications, FTC labeling, various needs or desires regarding

biodiesel blend content, biodiesel blend testing technology, a general 

summary of the input from all parties thus far, and other 

considerations such as the Renewable Fuel Standard-2.

• It also contains a summary of the various options that have been

proposed thus far, as well as some new options.

Status Update, January 2012

• The background document was provided to the working group 

members January 17, 2012

• A conference call of the working group was held Friday January 20 

with the following objectives:

– Overview the background document

– Solicit WG input:

• Additional considerations or factors to consider

• Additional options for wording to consider

– Outline a path forward for the WG activities
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G18

Status Update, January 2012

• The WG agreed to secure additional information on State Low 

Carbon Fuel Standards, particularly California, for the WG to 

consider

• It should be noted the background document has not been 

approved or sanctioned by the Working Group or by NCWM

– It is simply a good source of background information for the WG 

and others at this point

• It should be noted the options for consideration list is not 

exhaustive

– Additional options for consideration are expected

Status Update, January 2012

• Mr. Howell and Mr. Bell shared the plans for the WG activities over 

the next 18 months:

1. Provide 10 minute update to F&L subcommittee at January 

New Orleans Interim meeting

2. Solicit additional factors and considerations from the working 

group, as well as options for consideration, at the interim

meetingand via conference calls and face to face meetings

before the 2012 Annual meeting

3. Report on the status of the WG activities at the Annual

meeting in the summer of 2012
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-5, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G19

Biodiesel PTD Working Group

January 2012

Ron Hayes Missouri Weights and Measures

Steve Howell MARC-IV and NBB

Sam Bell Echols Oil and PMAA

Rich George BP

Rebecca Richardson MARC-IV and NBB

Curtis Williams CP Williams Energy Consulting, LLC

Brian Knapp API 

Ivan Hankins Iowa Weights and Measures

James McGetrick BP

Mike Harrington Iowa Weights and Measures

Mahesh Albuquerqu Colorado Weights and Measures

Ron Leone Missouri Petroleum Marketers

Alex Schuettenb eConoco Phillips 

Brad Stotler NATSO

Rob Underwood PMAA

John Maynes Iowa Petroleum Marketers

Ann Hines Arkansas Oil Marketers Assn.

Tim Columbus Steptoe & Johnson LLP

Andrea Martincic Arizona Petroleum Marketers

Chuck Corr ADM

Russ Lewis Marathon Petroleum

Status Update, January 2012

• Mr. Howell and Mr. Bell shared the plans for the WG activities over the next 18 

months:

4. If consensus is reached, share the consensus wording at the summer 2012 

annual meeting

5. Utilize the fall 2012 regional NCWM meetings to build support and additional 

consensus for the proposed wording and any additional input

6. Recommend consensus wording be moved to voting item at the January Interim 

2013 meeting

7. Vote on the consensus wording at the 2013 annual meeting in the summer of 

2013.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix G – Item 237-3, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - G20

Michael Fields South Carolina Petroleum Marketer

Jerry Horn Chevron

Win Gardner ExxonMobil

Bill Hornbach Chevron

Brad Oberg EPCO
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix H – Item: 237-8, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - H1 

Appendix H

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation 

Item: 

237-8: 4.3. Dispenser Filters 

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – H Page

NATSO, PMMA, energy API, SIGMA, and NACS ..................................................................................................... 3 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix H – Item: 237-8, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - H2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix H – Item: 237-8, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - H3 

January 19, 2012 

Judy Cardin Lisa Warfield and David Sefcik 

Chairwoman, NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee NIST

Wisconsin Dept. of Ag & Consumer Protection Office of Weights and Measures 

PO Box 8911, 2811 Agriculture Drive 1000 Bureau Drive Stop 2600 

Madison, Wisconsin 53708 Gaithersburg, MD 20899‐2600

Dear Chairwoman Cardin, Mrs. Warfield and Mr. Sefcik: 

The undersigned organizations, representing thousands of small business petroleum marketers, truck stop 

operators and convenience store owners, would like to thank you for your efforts to address important issues 

relevant to our industry during the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) interim and annual 

meetings. We are writing you today to urge you to withdraw items 237-3 Section 3.1 Standardized Colors for 

Nozzles and 237-8 Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters from the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee agenda. We 

believe that both items are not practical and could potentially lead to unintended consequences on our member 

companies and their customers. 

237-3 Section 3.1 Standardized Colors for Nozzles 

Preventing consumer misfueling is important to our member companies; however, 237-3 Section 3.1 Standardized 

Colors for Nozzles is unnecessary and outside the scope of the NCWM mission. Regulations are already in place 

requiring clear, conspicuous labeling for consumers, and there is no evidence that color coding will be any more 

effective in preventing misfueling. Fuel retailers go to great lengths with conspicuous labels and separate 

dispensers, in some cases, to ensure customers know what fuel they are dispensing. Adding measures designed to 

remove conscious decision-making on the part of the costumer regarding their fuel choice is the incorrect 

precedent to set given the future availability of many different automotive fuels (i.e., ethanol blends, biodiesel 

blends, biobutanol, etc.) It is important that consumers remain engaged in the refueling process. 

Furthermore, an additional precedent that this proposal sets is one where each fuel is assigned a specific color in 

order to “alert” consumers. There are not enough distinct colors to accommodate all the different types of fuel a 

marketer currently is selling or mandated to sell, such as ethanol blended fuels. Additionally, this precedent 

would eliminate the ability for uni-hose dispensers because these dispensers dispense multiple types of fuel from 

one nozzle. 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix H – Item: 237-8, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - H4 

Finally, our associations believe the NCWM is attempting to go beyond their scope of mission, which is the 

“development and implementation of uniform and equitable weights and measures standards.” Regulating nozzle 

size for the purpose of preventing misfueling has nothing to do with weights or measures standards in the opinion 

of the undersigned organizations. 

237-8 Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters 

Our associations also oppose item 237-8 Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters which would mandate a 10 micron or 

smaller nominal pore-sized filter for diesel fuel dispensers. This change is unnecessary. The diesel engines on 

trucks are equipped with two or three filters, which are more than adequate in filtering out any impurities. As 

biodiesel blends continue to be more frequently used in the marketplace, smaller filters may also clog due to the 

fuel’s properties, especially in colder climates. In addition, a 10-micron filter will slow the fueling process by 50 

percent or more. This additional time in refueling could be costly to the trucking industry. With federal 

regulations limiting the hours-of-service that commercial drivers can operate their trucks, saving time during 

fueling is critical. Any lost time resulting from a slower refueling process could increase waiting time in the 

fueling lanes at truck stops, resulting in traffic backups in the lanes, jeopardizing safety and increasing idling 

time. 

Our associations agree with the Western and Southern Weights and Measures Regions’ position that item 237-8 

be withdrawn from the agenda. 

Sincerely, 

American Petroleum Institute, API

NATSO, Representing America’s Travel Centers and Truckstops 

NACS, The Association for Convenience and Fuel Retailing 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America, PMAA 

Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, SIGMA 
L&R 2012 Final Report

Appendix I – Item: 237-9 and Item 237-10, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - I1 

Appendix I 

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation 

Items: 

237-9: 2.XX. Requirements for Hydrogen Fuel 

237-10: Section 1. Definitions, Hydrogen Fuel for Internal Combustion Engines and Fuel Cell 

Vehicles

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – I Page

California Fuel Cell Partnership .................................................................................................................................... 3 
L&R 2012 Final Report

Appendix I – Item: 237-9 and Item 237-10, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - I2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R 2012 Final Report

Appendix I – Item: 237-9 and Item 237-10, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - I3 
L&R 2012 Final Report

Appendix I – Item: 237-9 and Item 237-10, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - I4 

 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix J – Item: 237-11, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - J1 

Appendix J

NIST Handbook 130 – Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation 

Item: 

237-11: Section X.X. Flex Fuel Vehicles

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – J Page

Flex Fuel Vehicle Task Force........................................................................................................................................ 3 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix J –Item: 237-11, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - J2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix J – Item: 237-11, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - J3 

Flex Fuel Vehicle Fuel Task Force

(FFVFTF)

Interim NCWM 

January 22, 2012

New Orleans, LA

Flex Fuel Vehicle Fuel TF

• Formed at FALS – NCWM Montana 2011

• Addressfull range of blends restrictedto

FFVs

• Incorporate changes to ASTM documents

• Develop consensus wording for HB 130

• Progress has beenmade
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix J –Item: 237-11, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - J4 

Fuels restricted to FFVs

Current HB 130 language 

ASTM D4814 for conventional vehicles 

ASTM D5798 restricted to FFVs Previous 

D5798 68 to 83 % ethanol

Changesto be Incorporated

Current D5798 51 to 83 % ethanol

ASTM DXXXX MLEB ‐ full committee vote soon

GT conventional & LT 51% ethanol

Progress on Fuel for FFVs

• Ethanol Flex Fuel

– Ethanol concentrations restricted to FFVs 

– Differentiate from methanol and others 

– Easy consumer identification

• Identified locations in HB 130 needing modification

– Ethanol & Denatured Fuel Ethanol

– Definitions, specifications, labeling ... 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix J – Item: 237-11, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - J5 

Naming & Labeling ‐ Unresolved

1 ‐ Ethanol Flex Fuel

Mid‐Level Ethanol Flex Fuel ASTM DXXXX Conv. → 51% EXX +/‐ 5%

High‐Level Ethanol Flex Fuel ASTM D5798 51 → 83 % High‐Level Ethanol Flex Fuel

(Min 51%)

2 ‐ Ethanol Flex Fuel

Mid‐Level Ethanol Flex Fuel ASTM DXXXX Conv. → 51% EXX +/‐ 5%

High‐Level Ethanol Flex Fuel ASTM D5798 51 → 83 % High‐Level Ethanol Flex Fuel

(min 51%)

E85 ADTM D5798 &68  83 % E85 (Min 68%)

3 ‐ Ethanol Flex Fuel

[other options may be proposed]

How to handle transitions?? * FTC ruling ??
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix J –Item: 237-11, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants

L&R - J6 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedures

L&R - K1 

Appendix K

NIST Handbook 133 – Chapter 2. Test Procedures 

Item: 

260-2: Section 2.3.8. Moisture Allowance – Pasta Products

Table of Contents

Title of Content L&R – K Page

American Italian Pasta Company .................................................................................................................................. 3 

Moisture Loss in Pasta Frequently Asked Questions .................................................................................................... 8 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedure

L&R - K2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedures

L&R - K3 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedure

L&R - K4 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedures

L&R - K5 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedure

L&R - K6 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedures

L&R - K7 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedure

L&R - K8 

L&R Agenda Item 260-3: Moisture Loss in Pasta

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why do inspectors need to consider moisture loss? 

A lawful inspection must take account of moisture loss for any product where moisture loss occurs, such as 

pasta. Federal (and corresponding state) requirements mandate that “reasonable variations caused by loss or 

gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good 

manufacturing practice” must be recognized before the jurisdiction can determine the accuracy of the net weight 

statement. 

The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Jones v. Rath Packing Company held that the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act “permits variations from stated weight caused by gain or loss of moisture” and therefore a 

manufacturer of food “is not subject to enforcement action for violation of the net weight labeling requirements 

if the label accurately states the net weight, with allowance for the specified reasonable variations” such as 

moisture loss. 

2. When must an inspector consider moisture loss when checking packaged pasta products?

Inspectors always must account for moisture loss for pasta because the product will always have the potential to 

lose moisture. Failure to account for moisture loss for hygroscopic products like pasta renders an inspection 

invalid. Federal and state law do not permit inspectors to issue a citation, order pasta products off-sale, or issue 

a civil penalty unless moisture loss has been accounted for by the inspector. This is a well-settled matter of law. 

3. Why should Handbook 133 be amended to address moisture loss for pasta?

The modest amendment to Handbook 133 would provide inspectors with critical guidance to ensure that pasta 

product package checking is done properly and lawfully. The industry petition was brought to the Conference 

because inspectors have mistakenly interpreted the lack of express guidance in Handbook 133 about moisture 

loss in pasta to mean that they are not required to consider moisture loss for these products. Of course, that is 

not the case. 

4. Why should the Conference create a special allowance for pasta? Will passage of this proposal open the 

door to a flood of similar amendments to Handbook 133? 

The pasta industry is not seeking special treatment. The proposal would merely memorialize a well-established 

moisture loss allowance and assist inspectors in accounting for moisture loss among pasta products, as is the 

case for flour, dry pet food, meat, and poultry. Indeed, both NIST and FDA have proposed 3% as the 

appropriate gray area for pasta. 

Only a finite number of products are subject to moisture loss and the vast majority of packaged foods do not 

gain or lose moisture. The Conference should consider proposals from other industries that are able to amass 

appropriate data that supports a moisture allowance gray area.

 

5. How does a moisture allowance work? Why should pasta manufacturers be given a 3% “break” instead 

of just over-packing?

Although referred to in shorthand as a “moisture allowance,” it is important to recognize that the proposal 

before the Conference would establish a 3% “gray area.” It is not a tolerance. If a sample is found to be less 

than the labeled weight but within the 3% threshold, the lot is in the “gray” or “no decision” area. This is an 

indication for inspectors that more information must be collected before lot compliance or noncompliance can 

be decided. In such situations, inspectors can elect to conduct further investigation to determine whether 

moisture loss is the basis for the product being short weight. This same method of inspection already exists for 

flour and pet food, and the modest amendment to Handbook 133 does not introduce a new concept or loophole 

that favors pasta products. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones v. Rath Packing Company and subsequent legal precedent, affirms a 

uniform net weight compliance standard that regulates a manufacturer’s conduct at the point-of-pack. Rath 

Packing recognizes that in a national marketplace companies are not required (nor is it feasible) to target 
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedures

L&R - K9 

package weights by region and climate. Inherent in the Court’s ruling is an understanding that companies are 

not required to over-pack to address moisture loss that may occur as the result of good distribution practices. 

The law does not sanction a requirement to target distribution regionally, nor would this approach be practicable 

for manufacturers to implement.

6. Is moisture loss really unavoidable for pasta? Why can’t you just change your packaging to prevent 

moisture loss?

Pasta is hygroscopic, which means that its moisture content does not remain constant after the product is 

manufactured. Depending on the relative humidity of the atmosphere, pasta will frequently gain or lose 

moisture even when good manufacturing and distribution practices are followed. The amount of moisture loss 

depends upon many factors including the shape of the noodles, the packaging material, the length of time it is in 

distribution, the retail sales environment, and environmental conditions. 

Pasta needs “breathability” throughout its life cycle in order to maintain quality because of its hygroscopic 

nature. Without flexible packaging, dissipating moisture would remain caught in the package. This could result 

in pasta that fails to cook properly or even could cause it to spoil if subject to extreme temperature changes.

 

7. Why is 3% an appropriate level for the gray area?

The proposed value of 3% has consistently been recognized as an appropriate gray area for pasta products. The 

FDA and NIST each previously recognized 3% as an appropriate level for moisture loss in pasta. Additionally, 

the 3% level is supported by a published study conducted by North Dakota State University, commissioned by 

NPA, which was conducted in 1988 following the guidelines and input from FDA and NIST. More recent 

company-specific data also validates the findings of the North Dakota State University study and supports the 

3% threshold. (Note that some of our data suggests the need for a higher threshold.) This value also is 

consistent with the gray areas already established in Handbook 133 for flour and pet food, which are similar in 

their formulations to pasta. The North Dakota State University study and confirming industry data have been 

presented to the Conference for its review and consideration.
L&R Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix K – Item 260-2, Handbook 133, Chapter 2. Test Procedure

L&R - K10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 1 

Report of the

Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee

Steve Giguere, Chairman

Augusta, Maine

Weights and Measures

300 INTRODUCTION

The S&T Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) submits its Final Report for consideration of the 

97th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report contains the items discussed and the 

actions proposed by the S&T Committee during its Interim Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, 

January 22 - 25, 2012. The report addresses the items listed in Table A during the Annual Meeting, which was held 

July 22 - 26, 2012, in Portland, Maine. Table A identifies the agenda items by reference key, title of item, page 

number and the appendices by appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and technical terms used 

throughout the report are identified in Table B. The headings and subjects apply to NIST Handbook 44,

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, 2012 edition. 

The first three digits of an item’s reference key are assigned from the Subject Series List. The status of each item 

contained in the report is designated as one of the following: (D) Developing Item: the Committee determined the 

item has merit; however, the item was returned to the submitter or other designated party for further development 

before any action can be taken at the national level; (I) Informational Item: the item is under consideration by the 

Committee but not proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the Committee is making recommendations requiring a 

vote by the active members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been removed from consideration by 

the Committee. Table C provides the Summary of Voting Results for each Voting Item. 

During the Annual Meeting, some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent 

calendar. Consent calendar items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during 

their deliberation after the Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not 

require discussion. The Voting Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the 

addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of the consent calendar, the Committee will entertain any requests from the 

floor to remove specific items from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually.

Committees may change the status designation of agenda items (Developing, Informational, Voting, and 

Withdrawn) up until the report is adopted, except that items which are marked Developing, Informational or 

Withdrawn cannot be changed to Voting Status. Any change from the Interim Report or from what appears on the 

addendum a sheet will be explained to the attendees prior to a motion and will be acted upon by the active members 

of NCWM prior to calling for the vote. 

An “Item Under Consideration” is a statement of proposal and not necessarily a recommendation of the Committee. 

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration will appear as 

appendix items. 

All sessions are open to registered attendees of the conference. If the Committee must discuss any issue that 

involves proprietary information or other confidential material; that portion of the session dealing with the special 

issue may be closed provided that (1) the Chairman or, in his absence, the Chairman-Elect approves; (2) the 

Executive Director is notified; and (3) an announcement of the closed meeting is posted on or near the door to the 

meeting session and at the registration desk. If at all possible, the posting will be done at least a day prior to the 

planned closed session.

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as submitted. 

Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 2 

Subject Series List 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 300 Series

NIST Handbook 44 – General Code............................................................................................................... 310 Series

Scales....................................................................................................................................................... 320 Series

Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems ................................................................................................................. 321 Series

Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems ........................................................................................................ 322 Series

Weights.................................................................................................................................................... 323 Series

Automatic Weighing Systems................................................................................................................. 324 Series

Liquid-Measuring Devices...................................................................................................................... 330 Series

Vehicle-Tank Meters............................................................................................................................... 331 Series

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices................................... 332 Series

Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices.......................................................................................... 333 Series

Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices..................................................................................................... 334 Series

Milk Meters............................................................................................................................................. 335 Series

Water Meters........................................................................................................................................... 336 Series

Mass Flow Meters ................................................................................................................................... 337 Series

Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices............................................................................................ 338 Series

Hydrogen Gas-Metering Devices – Tentative Code................................................................................ 339 Series

Vehicle Tanks Used as Measures............................................................................................................ 340 Series

Liquid Measures...................................................................................................................................... 341 Series

Farm Milk Tanks..................................................................................................................................... 342 Series

Measure-Containers................................................................................................................................. 343 Series

Graduates................................................................................................................................................. 344 Series

Dry Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 345 Series

Berry Baskets and Boxes......................................................................................................................... 346 Series

Fabric-Measuring Devices....................................................................................................................... 350 Series

Wire-and Cordage-Measuring Devices ................................................................................................... 351 Series

Linear Measures...................................................................................................................................... 352 Series

Odometers ............................................................................................................................................... 353 Series

Taximeters............................................................................................................................................... 354 Series

Timing Devices ....................................................................................................................................... 355 Series

Grain Moisture Meters ............................................................................................................................ 356 Series

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers................................................................................................................ 357 Series

Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices................................................................................................. 358 Series

Electronic Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or Devices........................................ 359 Series

Other Items – Developing Items..................................................................................................................... 360 Series
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 3 

Table A

Table of Contents

Reference Key Title of Item S&T Page

320 SCALES............................................................................................................................................................. 6

320-1 W S.1.7. Capacity Indication, Weight Ranges, and Unit Weights ................................................... 6

320-2 I S.6.4. Railway Track Scales and Appendix D – Definitions....................................................... 8

320-3 V N.3.1.2. Interim Approval..........................................................................................................14

320-4 VC UR.1.2. Grain Hopper Scales ....................................................................................................19

320-5 I Appendix C – Units of Mass (ton).............................................................................................24

320-6 VC Appendix D – Definitions (Reference Weight Car)...................................................................29

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................31

321-1 V S.1.9. Zero Ready Indicator.......................................................................................................31

321-2 VC UR.1. User Requirements..........................................................................................................36

330 LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES ...............................................................................................................39

330-1 V Unit Price Posting, Selection, and Display Requirements - S.1.6.4.1. Unit Price; S.1.6.5.4. 

Selection of Unit Price; S.1.6.6. Agreement Between Indications; S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations; 

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions Where a Post-Delivery Discount(s) is Provided; UR.3.2. 

Unit Price and Product Identity; and UR.3.3. Computing Device ..................................................................40

330-2 V S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price...............................................................................................49

330-3 V S.1.6.6. Agreement Between Indications...................................................................................49

330-4 V S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations ............................................................................................49

330-5 V UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity....................................................................................49

330-6 V UR.3.3. Computing Device .......................................................................................................49

330-7 W UR.3.X. Nozzle Color for Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers.........................................................49

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS .........................................................................................................................51

331-1 I T.4. Product Depletion Test.......................................................................................................51

336 WATER METERS .........................................................................................................................................55

336-1 V S.3. Markings............................................................................................................................. 55

354 TAXIMETERS ...............................................................................................................................................57

354-1 D S.5. Provision for Security Seals ...............................................................................................57

354-2 D Global Positioning Systems Applications for Taximeters.........................................................57

356 GRAIN MOISTURE METERS ....................................................................................................................57

356-1 I UR.3.4. Printed Tickets .............................................................................................................57

358 MULTIPLE DIMENSION MEASURING DEVICES ................................................................................60

358-1 VC N.1.3.4. Test Objects with Protrusions......................................................................................60

359 ELECTRONIC LIVESTOCK, MEAT, AND POULTRY EVALUATION SYSTEMS AND/OR 

DEVICES – TENTATIVE CODE............................................................................................................................61

359-1 VC Tentative Status of Code Section 5.59.......................................................................................61

360 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS..................................................................................................63

360-1 D International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report ...............................................63

360-2 D G-S.1. Identification. – (Software) ............................................................................................65

360-3 D Part 2.20. Weigh-In-Motion Vehicle Scales for Law Enforcement – Work Group..................68

360-4 D Part 3.30. Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispenser (RMFD)..........................................................................................................................................72

360-5 D S.5. Provision for Security Seals ...............................................................................................72
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 4 

360-6 D Global Positioning Systems for Taximeters ..............................................................................75

Appendices

Appendix A  Item 320-2: NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.20. Scales, S.6.4. Railway Track Scales

 Item 320-3: NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.20.Scales, N.3.1.2. Interim Approval

 Item 320-6: NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D – Definitions (Reference Weigth Car) ......A1

Appendix B  Item 336-1: NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.36. Water Meters, S.3. Markings................... B1

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

AAR Association of American Railroad NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures

AES Advanced Encryption Standard NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association

AREMA American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

B Basic Publication NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

BCS Belt-Conveyor Scale NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

CC Certificate of Conformance OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association

OWM Office of Weights and Measures

D Document P&SP Packers and Stockyards Program

DOT Department of Transportation R Recommendation

ECR Electronic Cash Register RMFD Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser

FHWA Federal Highway Administration S&T Specifications and Tolerances

GIPSA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyard 

Administration

SI International System of Units

GPS Global Positioning System SMA Scale Manufactures Association

IATR International Association of 

Transportation Regulators

SWMA Southern Weights and Measures 

Association

IEC International Electrotechnical 

Commission

TC Technical Committee

ISO International Standardization 

Organization

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

LMD Liquid Measuring Devices USNWG U.S. National Work Group

MDMD Multiple Dimensions Measuring Device WIM Weigh-in-Motion

MMA Meter Manufacturers Association WWMA Western Weights and Measures 

Association
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 5 

Acronym Term Acronym Term

NACS National Association of Convenience 

Stores

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key Number

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Consent Calendar:

320-4, 320-6, 321-2, 

358-1, 359-1 

34 0 41 0 Adopted

320-3 34 0 43 0 Adopted

321-1 34 0 43 0 Adopted

330-1 (Items 330-2 

through 330-6 were 

consolidated into 330-1 

and voted on as a single 

item) 

31 0 43 0 

Adopted

330-2 Consolidated into 330-1

330-3 Consolidated into 330-1

330-4 Consolidated into 330-1

330-5 Consolidated into 330-1

330-6 Consolidated into 330-1

336-1 34 0 42 0 Adopted

(Report on its Entirety

Voice Vote) Voice Vote Adopted
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 6 

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

320 SCALES

320-1 W S.1.7. Capacity Indication, Weight Ranges, and Unit Weights 

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: 

Kansas Department of Agriculture (2012)

Purpose: 

Uniform testing of commercial devices.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, 2.20 Scales as follows:

S.1.7. Capacity Indication, Weight Ranges, and Unit Weights.

(a) Gross Capacity. An indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any values when the 

gross load (not counting the initial dead load that has been canceled by an initial zero-setting 

mechanism) is in excess of 105 % of scale capacity.

(b) Capacity Indication. Electronic computing scales (excluding postal scales and weight 

classifiers) shall display and record a gross or net weight of the scale capacity and the applicable 

tolerance but shall neither display nor record a gross or net weight in excess of scale capacity plus 9d.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993] 

(Amended 20XX)

The total value of weight ranges and of unit weights in effect or in place at any time shall automatically be 

accounted for on the reading face and on any recorded representation.

This requirement does not apply to: (1) single-revolution dial scales; (2) multi-revolution dial scales not 

equipped with unit weights; (3) scales equipped with two or more weigh beams; nor (4) devices that indicate 

mathematically derived totalized values.

(Amended 1990, 1992, and 1995)

Background/Discussion:

Kansas has noted that software used with electronic-computing scales does not always allow the scales to indicate a 

weight value that is above marked scale capacity, even though there is an allowance making it permissible for the 

scales to display an overcapacity indication that is up to nine divisions greater than the capacity marked. That 

creates an inspection problem when the error in a computing scale, at or near capacity, is in the direction of 

overregistration by an amount greater than the programmed limit for the overcapacity indication. In this situation,

the inspector cannot verify the scale error at capacity.

At the 2011Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) Interim Meeting, attendees representing the 

weighing industry asked how the software would know what the applicable tolerance is. They also inquired whether 

or not this item would be retroactive. Regulatory officials responded that: 

• When testing a scale at capacity and the device is over registering, it may blank out and not allow the 

inspector to determine the error at capacity. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 7 

• This proposed amendment to paragraph S.1.7. would promote uniformity, and

• Provide for ease of testing.

The CWMA recommended the proposed language be changed to “shall display and record a gross or net weight of 

the scale capacity and the applicable maintenance tolerance.” This proposal would facilitate the uniform testing 

of computing scales and allow the inspector to determine the error at capacity. CWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as an Informational Item with the above amendment to the original proposal. 

During the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Ms. Henzler, Kansas Department of Agriculture, reported that Kansas 

inspectors had discovered some unattended scanner scales that “blanked out” when a capacity test load was applied 

to the load-receiving element. The overcapacity indication on the scales discovered by Kansas is controlled by 

software that causes the scales to “blank out” at an indication slightly over capacity (e.g., one or two divisions over 

capacity). Thus, when one of these scales is being tested, if it is overregistering (i.e., registering a value that is 

greater than the test load applied) by an amount to cause the indication to reach the point where the software blanks 

the scale when a capacity test load is applied, there is no way of knowing (at that particular test load) whether or not 

the scale is performing within acceptable tolerance limits. Ms. Henzler stated that she was aware that the test 

procedures could be modified to enable that determination be made. It was her view, however, that the modified 

procedures would be labor intensive and not likely applied by service technicians, who, in the State of Kansas, are 

permitted to perform official tests on scales. She also indicated that some service technicians may not have the 

necessary equipment to apply the modified procedures. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) pointed out there 

are three critical verifications that officials need to make relative to testing an electronic-computing scale, 

manufactured as of January 1, 1993, at maximum test load: 

1. The scale must be capable of displaying the nominal capacity marked on the device.

2. The scale must not indicate or record any values in excess of nominal capacity plus 9 d.

3. The scale must be within tolerance at the maximum test load (i.e., the maximum value the device is capable 

of displaying). 

NIST, OWM has traditionally recommended a slight modification to test procedures in order to make it easy for an 

inspector to determine whether or not a scale is capable of displaying a value equal to nominal capacity and 

complying with paragraph S.1.7.(b). The following example procedures were provided: step (1) apply fractional 

weights in the amount of applicable tolerance; step (2) zero the scale; and step (3) conduct an increasing-load test to 

the nominal capacity of the scale. If the scale fails to display the nominal capacity with a nominal capacity test load 

applied due to overregistration, incrementally remove the fraction weights one division at a time until the scale 

displays nominal capacity. The amount of weight removed to cause the scale to display the capacity indication 

represents the amount of error in the scale. NIST, OWM noted that this simple modification to the procedures 

would enable an inspector to verify compliance with S.1.7., thus eliminating the need to modify a scale’s (or 

electronic cash register’s) software. Given the ease at which these procedures can be applied, consideration should 

be given as to whether or not the cost of modifying would warrant the proposed change. 

NIST, OWM noted the following additional concerns should the committee decide to proceed with the proposal:

1. The proposed new text specifies “gross or net weight.” NIST, OWM recommended that the proposed 

requirement should not apply to “net weight” indications. There is the potential to overload a scale using 

tare values above 5 % of the capacity of the scale. 

2. The proposed new text specifies “shall display and record.” If this proposal were to be adopted as written, 

all electronic computing scales manufactured as of January 1, 1993, would be required to be equipped or 

interfaced with a ticket printer.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 8 

3. The proposed new text would require the display and recording of “scale capacity and the applicable 

tolerance” that can be interpreted to mean that two separate values need to be displayed and recorded, the 

first being the value of nominal capacity, and the second being the applicable tolerance.

4. The proposed new text would require software on existing applicable computing scales to be modified 

since the proposed language is written as a nonretroactive requirement that would be applicable to devices 

manufactured after January 1, 1993, unless amended.

5. The proposed new text is not clear as to whether it is applicable to non-computing scales interfaced with 

Electronic Cash Registers (ECR) in a point-of-sale system since an ECR is a computing accessory used in 

conjunction to a non-computing scale in a point-of-sale system.

Mr. Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo LLC speaking on behalf of the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA), 

opposed the item, stating that the proposed changes were unnecessary and that the overcapacity indication should 

not be tied to device tolerance.

Mr. Calix, NCR Corporation and Mr. Grabski, Walmart Stores, Inc., also indicated their opposition to the item. 

In discussing this item, the committee agreed that the test procedures used to verify whether or not an electroniccomputing scale complies with paragraph S.1.7.(b) are well known, fairly simple to apply, and are already being 

consistently applied by field officials. The Committee considered whether service technicians would need 

additional equipment to enable them to apply those test procedures. The Committee concluded that the equipment 

needed to perform the modified procedures recommended by NIST, OWM would include that which service 

technicians should already possess in order for them to properly conduct an official test on a scale. 

During the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings, Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA, supported 

withdrawing the item. 

No further action was taken by the Committee at the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting since the Committee had 

previously agreed to “Withdraw” the item. 

320-2 I S.6.4. Railway Track Scales and Appendix D – Definitions

Source:

Systems Associates, Inc., (2012)

Purpose: 

Align NIST Handbook 44 with updated material in AAR Scale Handbook. 

Item Under Consideration: 

1) Amend NIST Handbook 44, Scales Code paragraph S.6.4. Railway Track Scales as follows:

S.6.4. Railway Track Scales. – A railway track scale shall be marked with the maximum capacity of each 

section of the load-receiving element of the scale. Such marking shall be accurately and conspicuously

presented on, or adjacent to, the identification or nomenclature plate that is attached to the indicating element of 

the scale. The nominal capacity of a scale with more than two sections shall not exceed twice its rated section 

capacity. The nominal capacity of a two section scale shall not exceed its rated section capacity.* The 

nominal scale capacity shall not exceed the lesser of;

(a) The sum of the Weigh Module Capacities as shown in Table S.6.4., or;

(b) Rated Sectional Capacity (RSC) multiplied by the quantity of the Number of Sections (Ns) minus 

the Number of Dead Spaces (Nd) minus 0.5. As a formula this is stated as RSC x (Ns - Nd - 0.5), 

(c) 640 000 lb; or
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 9 

(d) The nominal capacity listed on the CC.

Table S.6.4. 

Railway Track Scale – Weigh Module Capacity

Weigh Module Length (ft) Weigh Module Capacity (ton)

< 5 40

5 to < 10 80

10 to < 15 120

15 to < 23 160

23 to < 29 186

29 to < 35 212

35 to < 40 258

40 to < 56 284

Note: The capacity of a particular module is based on its length and determined from corresponding capacity 

values specified in Table S.6.4. 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002]

(Amended 1988, 2001, and 2002, and 20XX) 

2) Add the following definition for the term “Weigh Module” to NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D: 

weigh module – The portion of a load-receiving element supported by two sections of the weighing 

element. The length of a module is the distance to which load can be applied. [2.20]

Background/Discussion:

The capacity of a railcar weighing system has historically been based on the capacity of the pivots or load cells 

supporting the scale section. As pivots were generally the weakest element, this was logical. With the introduction 

of load cell technology, the capacity of the section could far outreach the capacity of the weighbridge. Weighbridge 

design, based on the requirements of the AAR Scale Handbook, must be capable of supporting 80 000 pound axles 

on five-foot centers. With the introduction of combined short span weigh modules over multiple sections, the use of 

the section capacity to determine scale capacity provides both the opportunity for overloaded structures and/or the 

requirement to overdesign the section. The submitter stated that determining the nominal scale capacity based on 

both the section capacity and the structural capacity is the best solution. Additionally, a 640 000 lb limit assures 

these scales can be calibrated with 12.5 % of capacity using the conventional 80 000 lb test weight equipment.

The changes to the nominal capacity specification were developed by Committee 34 - Scales, of the American 

Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) and approved, by unanimous vote, for 

inclusion in the AAR Scale Handbook. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, members of the weighing industry reported that it is inappropriate to rate a 

scale’s capacity based solely on the sectional capacity of the scale. One regulatory official questioned whether the 

capacities in Table S.6.4. should be listed in pounds. In addition to the proposed definition for weigh module, the 

CWMA noted it may also be appropriate to include a definition of dead spaces. CWMA believed there would be 

support for the item to align NIST Handbook 44 and the AAR Handbook. CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, 

recommending it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) Annual Meeting, Mr. Straub, Fairbanks Scales, 

Inc., supported the item as submitted. Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM stated that the definition of weigh module may be 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 10

confusing and suggested that the submitter include diagrams to NCWM S&T Committee illustrating some typical 

weigh module installations. The WWMA S&T Committee recognized that this proposal aligns NIST Handbook 44

with the updated material in the AAR Scale Handbook, and added that there remains some confusion around the use 

of the word “articulated” in the definition which could be clarified with illustrations. WWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item until such time that the Committee receives diagrams that illustrate 

weigh module installations from the submitter. 

At its 2011 Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) Interim Meeting, NEWMA forwarded the 

item to NCWM, recommending it as an Informational Item.

At the 2011 Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) Annual Meeting, Mr. Oppermann, Weights and 

Measures Consulting, LLC, suggested that the reference to “single or articulated” are unnecessary and could be 

deleted. It doesn’t matter how the module is put together. The SWMA S&T Committee also heard from Mr. 

Feezor, Scales Consulting and Testing, who noted that the term “articulated” refers to how the modules are 

connected. He offered to submit some drawings of how these are made in the field, and he noted that this could 

apply to more than just railway track scales. Mr. Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc., indicated support for the proposal. 

He stated that he had talked with the original submitter, Mr. Beitzel, Systems Associates, Inc., and suggested that 

perhaps diagrams from NCWM Publication 14 might be considered to help illustrate the use of the term 

“articulated.” SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item with unanimous support 

for the following change to the definition, eliminating the phrase “single or articulate”: 

weigh module – The single or articulated portion of a weighing element supported by two sections. The 

length of a module is the distance to which load can be applied. [2.20]

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Cotsoradis, Flint Hills Resources questioned whether anyone had 

considered the impact that the item would have on existing scales considering that the new language proposed is 

retroactive. 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., indicated that the proposal, if adopted, would affect two existing 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Certificate of Conformance (CCs) issued to Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems, Inc. Mr. Lewis questioned whether those CC’s would need to be updated if the proposal was adopted and 

who would be responsible for the costs associated with those updates should they be required. 

Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA, supported the item. However, he suggested that the word 

“articulated” be removed from the language in the definition originally proposed because it could be misunderstood 

and its removal would not have any impact on the requirement.

NIST, OWM stated that the SMA recommendation to delete the word “articulated” from the definition originally 

proposed would not change its meaning and agreed that it may facilitate a better understanding of the definition. 

Regarding use of the term “weighing element” in the proposed definition, NIST, OWM indicated that the term 

“load-receiving element” seemed more appropriate given the definition of the two terms in NIST Handbook 44 (i.e., 

load-receiving element and weighing element). 

Similar to the question raised by Mr. Cotsoradis, NIST, OWM questioned whether adequate consideration had been 

given to the impact the proposal might have on existing equipment, especially equipment manufactured between the 

dates January 1, 2002, (the effective date of enforcement of the nonretroactive portion of the current paragraph 

proposed for deletion) and the date the proposed changes to the paragraph would take effect. Of particular concern 

is whether or not existing equipment would be able to comply with the changes being proposed. To that end, NIST, 

OWM provided the Committee a brief analysis of existing NTEP CC’s for modular railway track scales. The 

analysis showed that the nominal capacity listed on the CC for some single module scales was greater than the lesser 

of the three values derived from the three bullets specified in the proposal. There were even more instances where 

the lesser value in the proposal exceeded the nominal capacity listed on the CC for module installations with and 

without dead spaces. NIST, OWM’s analysis did not include all of the various configurations listed on the CC’s. A 

related concern noted by NIST, OWM was whether anyone had considered the impact of the proposal relative to 

combination vehicle/railway track scales.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 11

Should the Committee decide to proceed with the proposal, NIST, OWM suggested that the Committee consider 

adding a fourth bullet to the list of proposed nominal capacity considerations that includes the nominal capacity 

listed on the CC and that a note be added to proposed Table S.6.4. to make clear that module capacities are to be 

based on the length of the module and corresponding capacities specified in Table S.4. NIST, OWM offered the 

following proposed additions to the Committee in relation to these recommendations: 

1. Add the following note to proposed Table S.6.4.:

Note: The capacity of a particular module is based on its length and determined from corresponding capacity 

values specified in Table S.6.4. 

2. Add a fourth bullet to the list of nominal capacity considerations that includes the nominal capacity listed 

on the CC: 

(a) the sum of weigh module capacities in the proposed table; 

(b) the results of a calculation using the rated section capacity, number of sections and number of dead 

spaces; 

(c) 300 000 kg (640 000 lb), or

(d) the nominal capacity listed on the CC.

NIST, OWM also noted that the current version of the proposed language uses “ton” units in the proposed table and 

“lb” units in the proposed changes to paragraph S.6.4. It was suggested that the committee consider making the 

units consistent by either including both units for every value [e.g., 640 000 lb (320 ton)] or only a single unit. Note 

that the railroad industry has traditionally rated section capacity in tons and nominal capacity in pound units. 

Additionally, NIST, OWM noted that it will likely include equivalent International System of Units (SI) values in 

NIST Handbook 44 if this item is adopted.

Mr. Oppermann, Weights and Measures Consulting, LLC., suggested amending the first sentence in the definition of 

weigh module (originally proposed) to read as follows: 

The portion of a load-receiving element supported by two sections of the weighing element. 

Mr. Beitzel, Systems Associates, Inc., stated that he supported removal of the words “single or articulated” from the 

proposed definition of weigh module, but would be opposed to adding a fourth bullet “(d)” to reference the nominal 

capacity listed on the CC. Adding a reference to the nominal capacity on the CC would create a circular argument 

in that, if added, some might interpret that to mean that the nominal capacity of a scale cannot be increased beyond 

the value specified on the original CC, even if load cell capacity and the structural integrity of the weighbridge make 

possible an increase to the capacity. Subparagraph (d) would continue to limit the nominal capacity for the system. 

With respect to NIST, OWM’s suggestion to the Committee to change the units of measure in proposed table S.6.4. 

from tons to pounds, there would be no problem as Nominal Capacity is generally represented in pounds on railway 

track scales. 

Prior to the 2012 Interim Meeting, the Committee received a letter of support of this item as proposed from the 

Association of American Railroads (AAR). 

The Committee considered the comments received during the Open Hearings and agreed with concerns for how the 

proposed new language would affect current equipment that is already in service. 

In consideration of the analysis presented by NIST, OWM the Committee agreed with their suggestion to add a 

fourth bullet to the list of proposed nominal capacity considerations that include the nominal capacity listed on the 

CC. The Committee also agreed to add a note beneath proposed Table S.6.4. to make clear that the module 

capacities are to be based on the length of the module and corresponding capacities specified in the proposed table. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 12

A final change agreed to by the Committee was to amend the definition originally proposed. All of the changes 

agreed to by the Committee are included in the Item Under Consideration. The 2012 S&T Committee designated 

this item as an Informational Item to allow time for additional information relative to these concerns and further 

analysis and comments on the amended proposal. 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings, Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of SMA, stated that SMA 

supports the proposal as written.

The Committee also heard comments from Ms. Juana Williams, speaking on behalf of NIST, OWM. NIST, OWM 

noted that bullet (d) of the proposal was added by the Committee during the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting after it 

was made known there existed at least one CC (and possibly more) for railway track scales with nominal capacities 

greater than the lessor of the values corresponding to bullets (a), (b), and (c), which created potential conflicts 

between the requirement as originally proposed and the information on some existing CCs. 

During further analysis of this item, NIST, OWM recognized that information on CCs is sometimes amended. If the 

capacity specified on a CC issued for a railroad scale were changed, it could have an impact on the application of the 

proposed requirement; perhaps causing a device that once was compliant to be in violation. For this reason, OWM 

questioned whether bullet (d) in the Item Under Consideration should be included as one of the factors to be used in 

determining whether or not a device complies. If the Committee agrees with this concern, it might, as an alternative 

to adding bullet (d), consider dividing the Item Under Consideration into two parts and assigning different 

enforcement dates to those parts. For example, new equipment could be required to comply with the proposed new 

portion of the paragraph while equipment already in service could continue to have to comply with the existing 

paragraph. Should the Committee decide to divide the paragraph into two parts, it would be necessary to include the 

two struck out sentences in the Item Under Consideration with the existing (old) portion of the paragraph. OWM 

offered an example to show how the concerns described in the analysis of this item might be addressed in the 

language and proposed modifying the requirements to be retroactive in nature.

NIST, OWM also pointed out that the current version of the proposed language uses “ton” units in the proposed 

table and “pound” units in the proposed changes to paragraph S.6.4. The Committee may wish to consider making 

the units consistent by either using both units for every value [e.g., 640 000 lb (320 ton)] or only use a single unit. 

The railroad industry has traditionally rated section capacity in tons and nominal capacity in “pound” units. 

Additionally, OWM will likely include equivalent SI values in NIST Handbook 44 if this item is adopted.

Mr. Steve Beitzel, Systems Associates, Inc., commented that, as the original submitter, he supports the changes 

proposed by NIST, OWM to the item, including the proposed change to a retroactive status and the proposed change 

of the values in the table from tons to pounds. He also suggested that the definition for “Weigh Module” be further 

modified to delete the phrase “of the weighing element” at the end of the first sentence. Mr. Beitzel also agreed with 

NIST, OWM’s suggestion to delete subparagraph S.6.4.(d).

Mr. Rafael Jimenez, AAR Transportation Technology Center, stated that AAR supported the changes outlined by 

Mr. Beitzel, including those offered by NIST, OWM.

There were three positions posted on the NCWM 2012 Online Position Forum. Of those three, two supported the 

proposal and one was neutral to the proposal. 

During its deliberations, the Committee agreed with NIST, OWM’s concern that if an NTEP CC corresponding to 

existing equipment were changed, that equipment may not be able to comply with proposed bullet (d). For this 

reason the Committee agreed that bullet (d) should be eliminated from the proposal. The Committee agreed with 

NIST, OWM’s suggested alternative to adding a fourth bullet, which was to divide the Item Under Consideration 

into two parts, assigning each a different enforcement date. The Committee also agreed to modify the proposed 

definition of “weigh module” by deleting the words “of the weighing element” from the proposed definition. In 

consideration of the number of changes agreed upon, the Committee recommended deleting the proposal under 

“Item Under Consideration” in NCWM Publication 16 and replacing it with the following: 

S.6.4. Railway Track Scales. – A railway track scale shall be marked with the maximum capacity of each 

section of the load-receiving element of the scale. Such marking shall be accurately and conspicuously 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 13

presented on, or adjacent to, the identification or nomenclature plate that is attached to the indicating element of 

the scale. The nominal capacity of a scale with more than two sections shall not exceed twice its rated section 

capacity. The nominal capacity of a two section scale shall not exceed its rated section capacity.* 

The nominal capacity marking shall satisfy the following.

(a) For scales manufactured from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 20XX: 

(1) The nominal capacity of a scale with more than two sections shall not exceed twice its rated 

section capacity. 

(2) The nominal capacity of a two section scale shall not exceed its rated section capacity.

(b) For scales manufactured on or after January 1, 20XX, the nominal scale capacity shall not 

exceed the lesser of:

(1) The sum of the Weigh Module Capacities as shown in Table S.6.4., or;

(2) Rated Sectional Capacity (RSC) multiplied by the quantity of the Number of Sections (Ns) 

minus the Number of Dead Spaces (Nd) minus 0.5. As a formula this is stated as RSC x (Ns 

- Nd - 0.5); or

(3) 640,000 lb.

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002]

(Amended 1988, 2001, and 2002, and 20XX) 

Table S.6.4.M. 

Railway Track Scale – Weigh Module Capacity

Weigh Module Length (m) Weigh Module Capacity (kg)

< 1.5 36 300

1.5 to < 3.0 72 600

3.0 to < 4.5 108 900

4.5 to < 7.0 145 100

7.0 to < 9.0 168 700

9.0 to < 10.5 192 300

10.5 to < 12.0 234 100

12.0 to < 17.0 257 600

Note: The capacity of a particular module is based on its length and determined from corresponding 

capacity values specified in Table S.6.4.M.

(Table Added 20XX)

Table S.6.4. 

Railway Track Scale – Weigh Module Capacity

Weigh Module Length (ft) Weigh Module Capacity (lb)

< 5 80 000
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 14

2) Add the following definition for the term “weigh module” to NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D:

weigh module - The portion of a load-receiving element supported by two sections. The length of a 

module is the distance to which load can be applied. [2.20]

Any additional letters, presentations, and data that was submitted for consideration for this item is located in the 

S&T Appendix A. 

320-3 V N.3.1.2. Interim Approval

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

Systems Associates, Inc., (2012)

Purpose: 

Align NIST Handbook 44 with updated material in AAR Scale Handbook.

Item Under Consideration:

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Scales Code paragraph N.3.1.2. Interim Approval as follows:

N.3.1. Minimum Test-Weight Load and Tests Recommended Strain-Load Test for Railway Track 

Scales

(Amended 1990 and 2012) 

N.3.1.1. Initial and Subsequent Tests Approval. – The test-weight load shall be not less than 

35 000 kg (80 000 lb). A strain-load test conducted up to the used capacity of the weighing system is 

recommended.

(Added 1990) (Amended 2012)

N.3.1.2. Interim Test Approval. – A test-weight load of not less than 13 500 kg (30 000 lb) and a 

strain-load test up to at least 25 % of scale capacity may be used to return a scale into service 

following repairs. An Interim Test may be used to return a railway track scale into temporary 

service following repairs that could affect the accuracy of the weighing system provided all of the 

following conditions are met:

(a) A test weight load of not less than 13 500 kg (30 000 lb) shall be used;

5 to < 10 160 000

10 to < 15 240 000

15 to < 23 320 000

23 to < 29 372 000

29 to < 35 424 000

35 to < 40 516 000

40 to < 56 568 000

Note: The capacity of a particular module is based on its length and determined from corresponding 

capacity values specified in Table S.6.4.

(Table Added 20XX)
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 15

(b) A shift (section) test shall be conducted using a test-weight load of not less than 13 500 kg 

(30 000 lb);

(c) A strain-load test shall be conducted up to at least 25 % of scale capacity;

(d) All test results shall be within applicable tolerances; and 

(e) The official with statutory authority shall be immediately notified when scales are repaired 

and placed in temporary service with an Interim Test. The length of temporary service 

following repairs is at the discretion of the official with statutory authority.

(Added 1990) (Amended 2012)

Note: The length of time the scale may be used following an interim test is at the discretion of the official with 

statutory authority. 

(Added 1990)

Background/Discussion:

The interim approval for railway track scales was added to NIST Handbook 44 in 1990 to address the response time 

for positioning proper test weight equipment following a breakdown and subsequent repairs of a railcar weighing 

system. An interim approval is not appropriate under normal scale maintenance circumstances. In addition, 

returning a scale to service without requiring a section test could overlook a serious accuracy problem, especially 

when using 30 000 lb weights. As NIST Handbook 44 requires 80 000 lb of test weights for testing a railcar scale, 

any cost impact in limiting the scope of the interim test would be minimal.

The changes to the interim test specification were developed by Committee 34 - Scales, of the AREMA and 

approved, by unanimous vote, for inclusion in the AAR Scale Handbook. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, members of the weighing industry stated that this proposal would strengthen 

the type of test conducted for an interim approval by requiring that a shift test be conducted during an interim 

approval. Regulatory officials voiced concerns that a calibration would be a repair that could affect the accuracy of 

the weighing system. Inserting the words “excluding calibration” between the words repairs and the start of the 

proposed language would help clarify that an interim approval is not meant to be used in cases where only 

calibration is being performed. CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item with the 

following amendments: 

N.3.1.2. Minimum Tests for Interim Approval. – A test-weight load of not less than 13 500 kg (30 000 lb) 

and a strain-load test up to at least 25 % of scale capacity may be used to return a scale into service following 

repairs, excluding calibration, that could affect the accuracy of the weighing system. A test for an Interim 

Approval shall include a shift (section) test using a test-weight load of not less than 13 500 kg (30 000 lb). 

All results shall meet applicable tolerances. The official with statutory authority shall be immediately 

notified when scales are repaired and placed in service with an interim test. The time period of 

temporary use is at the discretion of the official with statutory authority.

Note: The length of time the scale may be used following an interim test is at the discretion of the official 

with statutory authority.

(Added 1990) (Amended 20XX)

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, there were no comments on this proposal at the Open Hearings. The 

WWMA S&T Committee agreed that the proposal provides additional clarification of the tests to be conducted 

during an interim approval of railroad track scales and when an interim approval test is required. WWMA 

forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, there was no opposition to this item. NEWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as an Informational Item so that input from other regions may be considered.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 16

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting the S&T Committee heard comments from Mr. Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc., 

who supported the proposal. The Committee also heard comments from Mr. Feezor, Scales Consulting and Testing, 

who indicated that the definition has already been changed in the AAR Handbook and that this proposal would align 

NIST Handbook 44 with the AAR Handbook. He noted that the Interim Approval was intended to allow a scale to 

be returned to service until adequate test standards could be brought in by the railroad. There were no comments in 

opposition. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments in support of the item from Mr. Beitzel, 

Systems Associates, Inc. Mr. Beitzel stated that adding the words “excluding calibration” would agree with the 

original intent of AREMA Committee 34, which was to allow someone to return an inoperable scale to service 

following repairs using 30 000 lb of test weight. It was not AREMA’s intent to allow someone to put a scale back 

into service with only 30 000 lb of test weight if all they had done was break the seal and adjust accuracy 

(i.e., calibrate the scale). Mr. Beitzel added that 30 000 lb of test weight is an insufficient amount to calibrate a 

railway track scale. The railroads have designated a minimum of 80 000 lb of test weight be used to calibrate a 

railway track scale. Currently, paragraph N.3.1.2. does not require a person conducting an interim test to notify 

officials with statutory authority. 

Mr. Feezor, Scales Consulting and Testing, stated that the AAR developed the proposed amendments to paragraph 

N.3.1.2. in an effort to prevent someone from putting a scale back into service with an insufficient amount of test 

weights. He indicated that the adjustment of calibration is not a repair, which reflects the heart of the problem. 

Scale service personnel, contracted to perform work under a scale maintenance agreement, are breaking security 

seals when they discover railroad scales out of tolerance. They’re making calibration adjustments using only 

30 000 lb of test weight and then return those scales back to service without notifying anyone. Either the words 

“excluding calibration” need to be included it needs to be stated that “a calibration is not a repair.” 

Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA, supported the item as written in the Item Under Consideration.

NIST, OWM indicated they had no issues with the item as originally proposed but believed that adding the words 

“excluding calibration,” as suggested by the CWMA, created the potential that some might think a calibration can be 

conducted without regard to notifying the official with statutory authority and using a minimum amount of test 

weight to place the scale into service. NIST, OWM noted that the words “immediately notifying” could be modified 

to include a notification time frame to promote uniformity among railroads, service agencies and regulators (e.g., 

“shall be immediately notified within XX-hours, [X business days . . .]”). 

Prior to the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received a letter of support of this item as proposed from 

the AAR. 

The Committee considered the comments received during the Open Hearings and concluded that adding the words 

“excluding calibration” changes the intent of the proposal. The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as a 

Voting Item as originally proposed. 

The Committee originally considered the following changes to N.1.3.2. as shown in the Committee’s 2012 Interim 

Report:

N.3.1.2. Minimum Tests for Interim Approval. – A test-weight load of not less than 13 500 kg (30 000 lb) 

and a strain-load test up to at least 25 % of scale capacity may be used to return a scale into service following 

repairs that could affect the accuracy of the weighing system. A test for an Interim Approval shall include 

a shift (section) test using a test-weight load of not less than 13 500 kg (30 000 lb). All results shall meet 

applicable tolerances. The official with statutory authority shall be immediately notified when scales are 

repaired and placed in service with an interim test. The time period of temporary use is at the discretion 

of the official with statutory authority. 

Note: The length of time the scale may be used following an interim test is at the discretion of the official 

with statutory authority.

(Added 1990) (Amended 20XX)
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 17

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received numerous comments on the proposed changes.

The Committee heard comments from Ms. Kristin Macey, who suggested changing the word “may” to “shall” in the 

first sentence of paragraph N.1.3.2.

NIST, OWM noted that there appeared to be some disagreement among those who proposed the changes to the 

paragraph about how the amended paragraph was to be applied. There seemed to be some question regarding the 

meaning of the word “repair” in the “Item Under Consideration” and whether or not an adjustment to the calibration 

of a scale would be considered a “repair.” 

Regarding the issue of whether an adjustment to the calibration of a scale would be considered a repair, several 

unanswered questions should be considered:

• Under what conditions would it be permissible for a service company to make an adjustment to the 

calibration of a railway track scale when using only 30 000 lb of test weight?

• What constitutes a “repair”?

NIST, OWM suggested that the U.S. Railroads and/or S&T Committee consider developing some examples to 

explain how the amended language applied, which may assist weights and measures officials and industry in 

consistently applying the requirements. NIST, OWM offered the following scenario and associated questions to 

possibly serve as a good starting point in explaining how the language would apply:

Scenario: A scale service agency, under contract with a railway track scale owner, discovers the scale out-oftolerance when testing it using 30 000 lb of test weight.

Considering the changes proposed:

1. Given that the scale is “out-of-tolerance,” would it be permissible for the technician to break the 

seal and make adjustments to bring the scale’s accuracy closer to zero error? 

2. Would it make any difference if the scale was “in tolerance” and the technician only wanted to 

break the seal to adjust accuracy closer to zero error?

3. Would it make any difference if the service technician had performed a thorough inspection of the 

scale and could not find any obvious problem(s) to cause it to be out of tolerance?

NIST, OWM suggested, should the Committee decide to move forward with the item, amending not only N.3.1.2., 

but also N.3.1. and N.3.1.1. to make clear the testing that is to be performed and the minimum amount of test weight 

required for Initial and Subsequent Tests in comparison to an Interim Test, which is only intended to temporarily 

return a railway track scale to service following repairs. NIST, OWM offered specific suggestions for modifying the 

language for the Committee to consider, noting that the suggested changes were intended to be editorial in nature.

Mr. Rafael Jimenez, AAR Transportation Technology Center, supported the changes proposed by NIST, OWM. 

Mr. Henry Oppermann, Weights and Measures Consulting, concurred with many of NIST, OWM’s points. Mr. Lou 

Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc., suggested that the proposed N.1.3.2.(d) in OWM’s proposal would better be 

presented as a separate note rather than a bullet point.

The Committee heard numerous comments regarding the use of the word “repairs.” Mr. Oppermann noted that the 

reference to the term is ambiguous. Mr. Bob Feezor, Scales Consulting and Testing, commented that there is not 

universal agreement on the definition of the term and it is left to the official with statutory authority. Ms. Julie 

Quinn, Minnesota, commented that the CWMA has expressed concerns about the distinctions between calibrations 

and repairs since its 2011 Annual Meeting. Mr. Steve Beitzel, Systems Associates, Inc. further noted that in the 

Committee’s 1990 Final Report, the original reference to “repairs” was actually to “emergency repairs.”
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 18

The Committee also heard multiple comments agreeing that 30 000 lb isn’t adequate to permanently place a scale 

back into service and that at least 80 000 lb is required. Many acknowledged that there is limited access to adequate 

test weight loads, particularly given schedule conflicts that limit the availability of the test units.

Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of SMA, indicated that SMA supports the item. Speaking on behalf of MettlerToledo, Mr. Flocken expressed concerns about adding the words “temporary service” because this may set a 

precedence that might overlap to other scales. He also cited similar concerns about the word “repair” and suggested 

caution in using the term, noting the lengthy discussions that took place within the NCWM during discussions of 

“repaired” and “remanufactured” equipment and the overlap into other device types.

There were two positions posted on the NCWM 2012 Online Position Forum; one of which supported the proposal 

and the other was neutral to the proposal.

After considering the many comments received, the Committee acknowledged that the term “repairs” appears in the

current version of paragraph N.3.1.2. Minimum Tests for Interim Approval and in other paragraphs throughout

Handbook 44. The Committee agreed that the intent of the term “repairs” was referencing emergency situations 

such as when a railway track scale is inoperable. The Committee received some indication that AREMA

Committee 34 may be willing to assist the Committee in clarifying the circumstances under which an Interim Test 

would be appropriate.

The Committee considered the suggestion from Ms. Macey to modify the term “may” in the first sentence of 

N.3.1.2. to “shall.” While the Committee understood the rationale for Ms. Macey’s suggestion, Committee 

members believed that the word “shall” was not appropriate because an “Interim Test” is only permitted if there is 

no access to 80 000 pounds of weight. Using less weight than is normally required to return a scale to service is 

only permitted when there is no access to 80 000 lb.

The Committee agreed that the language suggested by NIST, OWM provided an alternative that was easier to read 

and apply and helped clarify the requirements for an Interim Test. The Committee considered Mr. Straub’s 

suggestion to move N.1.3.2.(d); however, the Committee concluded that the subparagraphs under N.1.3.2. were all 

conditions necessary in order to conduct an Interim test. The Committee agreed to modify the proposal offered by 

NIST, OWM by: (1) adding a new subparagraph (a) and renumbering the subsequent subparagraphs; and (2) 

modifying the reference to “time period of temporary use” to “length of Interim Use.” In summary, the Committee 

agreed to modify the “Item Under Consideration” as follows: 

N.3.1. Minimum Test-Weight Load and Tests Recommended Strain-Load Test for Railway Track 

Scales.

(Amended 1990 and 2012) 

N.3.1.1. Initial and Subsequent Tests Approval. – The test-weight load shall be not less than 

35 000 kg (80 000 lb). A strain-load test conducted up to the used capacity of the weighing system is 

recommended.

(Added 1990) (Amended 20XX) 

N.3.1.2. Interim Test Approval. – A test-weight load of not less than 13 500 kg (30 000 lb) and a 

strain-load test up to at least 25 % of scale capacity may be used to return a scale into service 

following repairs.An Interim Test may be used to return a railway track scale into temporary service 

following repairs that could affect the accuracy of the weighing system provided all of the following 

conditions are met:

(a) A test weight load of not less than 13 500 kg (30 000 lb) shall be used;

(b) A shift (section) test shall be conducted using a test-weight load of not less than 13 500 kg 

(30 000 lb);
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 19

(c) A strain-load test shall be conducted up to at least 25 % of scale capacity;

(d) All test results shall be within applicable tolerances; and 

(e) The official with statutory authority shall be immediately notified when scales are repaired 

and placed in temporary service with an Interim Test. The length of “Interim Use” is at the 

discretion of the official with statutory authority.

(Added 1990) (Amended 2012)

Note: The length of time the scale may be used following an interim test is at the discretion of the official with 

statutory authority. 

(Added 1990)

During the voting session of the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, additional changes to the language in paragraph

N.1.3.2. were proposed from the floor. Mr. Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, California, suggested replacing the 

words “Interim Use” with the words “Temporary Service” in subparagraph N.1.3.2.(e). Mr. Doug Dieman, State of 

Alaska, agreed with the change proposed by Mr. Floren, and further suggested adding the words “following repairs” 

to the amendment proposed by Mr. Floren. Mr. Dieman recommended the phrase “Temporary Service following 

repairs” rather than the abbreviated “Temporary Service,” suggested by Mr. Floren. 

The Committee considered these proposed changes and agreed to amend subparagraph (e) by replacing the words 

“Interim Use” in subparagraph (e) with the words “Temporary Service following repairs” noting that the change is 

more consistent with existing language appearing in proposed paragraph N.3.1.2. Thus, subparagraph (e) was 

amended on the floor prior to vote to read: 

(e) The official with statutory authority shall be immediately notified when scales are repaired and 

placed in temporary service with an Interim Test. The length of “Temporary Service” following 

repairs is at the discretion of the official with statutory authority.

No additional amendments were suggested or made to the language agreed upon by the Committee, and the 

Committee agreed to present the item for vote as shown in the “Item Under Consideration.” 

Any additional letters, presentations, and data that was submitted for consideration for this item is located in the 

S&T Appendix A. 

320-4 VC UR.1.2. Grain Hopper Scales

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

Nebraska Department of Agriculture (2012)

Purpose: 

Clarify that grain hopper scales shall be Class III 

Item Under Consideration:

1) Amend NIST Handbook 44, Scales Code Table T.1.1. Tolerances for Unmarked Scales, as follows:
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 20

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T - 21

S&T 2012 Final Report

Table T.1.1. Tolerances for Unmarked Scales

Type of Device Subcategory Minimum 

Tolerance

Acceptance 

Tolerance

Maintenance 

Tolerance

DecreasingLoad 

Multiplier1

Other Applicable Requirements

Vehicle, axle-load, livestock, railway 

track (weighing statically), crane, and 

hopper (other than grain hopper)

Class III L, T.N.3.1. (Table 6) and T.N.3.2. 1.0

T.N.2., T.N.3., T.N.4.1., T.N.4.2., 

T.N.4.3., T.N.4.4., T.N.5., T.N.7.2., 

T.N.8.1.4.4, T.N.9.

Grain test scales n ≤ 10 000

n > 10 000

Class III, T.N.3.1. (Table 6) and T.N.3.2.

Class II, T.N.3.1. (Table 6) and T.N.3.2. 1.0 T.N.8.1.4.4

, T.N.9.

Railway track scales weighing in- motion T.N.3.6. except that for T.N.3.6.2. (a), no single error 

shall exceed four times the maintenance tolerance. 1.0 T.N.8.1.4.4

, T.N.9.

Monorail scales, in-motion T.N.3.8. 1.0 T.N.8.1.4.4, T.N.9.

Customer-operated bulk-weighing 

systems for recycled materials

± 5 % of applied material test load.

Average error on 10 or more test loads ≤ 2.5 %. 1.0 T.N.8.1.4.4

, T.N.9.

Wheel-load weighers and portable axleload scalesTested 

individually or 

in pairs2

0.5 d or 50 lb, 

whichever is 

greater

1 % of test 

load 2 % of test load 1.53 T.N.8.1.4.4

, T.N.9.

Prescription scales 0.1 grain (6 mg) 0.1 % of test 

load

0.1 % of test 

load 1.5 T.N.8.1.4.4

, T.N.9.

Jewelers’ scales Graduated 0.5 d

0.05 % of test 

load

0.05 % of test 

load 1.5 T.N.8.1.4.4

, T.N.9. Ungraduated

Sensitivity or 

smallest weight, 

whichever is less

Dairy-product test scale Loads < 18 g 

18 g load

0.2 grain

0.2 grain

0.2 grain

0.3 grain

0.2 grain

0.5 grain 1.5 T.N.8.1.4.4

, T.N.9.

Postal and parcel post scales 

designed/used to weigh loads < 2 lb Loads < 2 lb

15 grain, 1 g, 1

/32 oz, 0.03 oz, or 

0.002 lb

15 grain, 

1 g, 1/32 oz, 

0.03 oz, or 

0.002 lb

15 grain, 1 

g, 1/32 oz, 

0.03 oz, or 0.002 

lb

1.5 T.N.8.1.4.4, T.N.9.

Loads ≤ 2 lb Table 5 Table 5 Table 5

Other postal and parcel post scales Table 5 Table 5 Table 5 1.5 T.N.8.1.4.4, T.N.9.

All other scales (including grain 

hopper) n > 5000

0.5 d or 0.05 % of 

scale capacity, 

whichever is less

0.05 % of test 

load

0.1 % of test 

load 1.5 T.N.2.5., T.N.4.1., T.N.4.2., T.N.4.3., 

T.N.5., T.N.7.2., T.N.8.1.4.4

, T.N.9.

n ≤ 5000

Class III, T.N.3.1., Table 6 and T.N.3.2. 1.0

T.N.2, T.N.3., T.N.4.1., T.N.4.2., 

T.N.4.3., T.N.5., T.N.7.2., T.N.8.1.4.4, 

T.N.9. 1 The decreasing load test applies only to automatic indicating scales.

2 If marked and tested as a pair, the tolerance shall be applied to the sum of the 

indication.

3 The decreasing load test does not apply to portable wheel load weighers.

4 T.N.8.1.4. Operating Temperature, is nonretroactive and effective for unmarked 

devices manufactured as of January 1, 1981.

(Table Added 1990; Amended 1992, and 1993, and 2012)
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 22

2) Amend NIST Handbook 44, Scales Code paragraph UR.1.2. Grain Hopper Scales as follows:

UR.1.2. Grain Hopper Scales. – Hopper scales manufactured as of January 1, 1986 that are used to weigh 

grain shall be Class III and have a minimum of 2000 scale divisions. The minimum number of scale 

divisions for a Class III Hopper Scale used for weighing grain shall be 2000. 

3) Amend NIST Handbook 44, Scales Code Table 7a. Typical Class or Type of Device for Weighing Applications 

as follows:

Table 7a.

Typical Class or Type of Device for Weighing Applications 

Class Weighing Application or Scale Type

I Precision laboratory weighing

II Laboratory weighing, precious metals and gem weighing, grain test scales

III All commercial weighing not otherwise specified, grain test scales, retail precious metals and semiprecious gem weighing, grain-hopper scales, animal scales, postal scales, vehicle on-board weighing 

systems with a capacity less than or equal to 30 000 lb, and scales used to determine laundry charges

III L Vehicle scales, vehicle on-board weighing systems with a capacity greater than 30 000 lb, axle-load 

scales, livestock scales, railway track scales, crane scales, and hopper (other than grain hopper) scales

IIII Wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load weighers used for highway weight enforcement

Note: A scale with a higher accuracy class than that specified as “typical” may be used.

(Amended 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, and 1995, and 2012) 

Background/Discussion:

NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code does not specifically state that grain hopper scales manufactured after 1986 shall be 

marked as Class III devices. There are only indirect references that give exceptions for grain hopper scales as being

class III (e.g., the phrase “commercial weighing not otherwise specified” and “hopper [other than grain hopper]” in 

Tables T.1.1. and Table 7a.). The submitter stated there may be inconsistency among jurisdictions as to whether 

grain hopper scales are required to comply with Class III tolerances. This proposal would bring about uniformity 

among jurisdictions and be in accord with the original intent of the Committee. Some states may have difficulty 

requiring Class III tolerances on hopper scales for weighing grain if they have already allowed the use of Class III L 

tolerances on hopper scales used to weigh grain. If this concern is raised then perhaps this requirement should 

remain non-retroactive. If some jurisdictions have allowed Class III L hopper scales to weigh grain, it is an 

indication that the Committee’s original intent of the user requirements and tolerances of a hopper scale used to 

weigh grain does require clarification offered by this proposal.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, regulatory officials commented that Table 7a. already states that “all 

weighing not otherwise specified” would define a grain hopper as a Class III scale; indicating that the problem is 

already addressed. CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Doug Deiman, Alaska Division of Measurement Standards/CVE, 

suggested that a modification be made to Scales Code Table 7a. by adding “Grain Hopper Scales” to the list of 

typical Class III applications. He was also concerned that a Class III L vehicle scale weighbridge could be modified 

by removing the deck and adding hoppers, and could potentially be used to weigh grain. In its deliberations, the 

Committee considered Mr. Deiman’s example as a modification of type and thus the conversion would not be 

covered by an NTEP CC. Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM reported that OWM tried to verify the exact problem that 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 23

initiated the proposal. One possibility is that the use of the word “typical” in the title of Table 7a. is not strong 

enough to ensure that Class III tolerance apply to Grain Hopper Scales. The item is not fully developed because the 

problem was not sufficiently demonstrated to justify a change to NIST Handbook 44. The WWMA S&T 

Committee believes that Table 7a. sufficiently addresses the concern and clearly states that Class III L Hopper scales 

are specifically excluded from weighing grain. The Committee notes that unmarked scales in Table T.1.1. considers 

Grain Hopper Scales as “all other scales” and that tolerances are based on NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code Table 6. 

for Class III devices which is identical to the wording in Table 7a. for scales marked with as a Class III device. The 

WWMA did not forward the item to NCWM and recommended further development by the submitter. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing

Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee did not believe it had enough information to make a 

decision on this issue. The justification provided in the proposal is not sufficient to clarify the issues that need to be 

resolved. The Committee noted that there are references in NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code to minimum numbers 

of divisions for Grain Hoppers. The Committee acknowledged that Table 7a. includes only “typical” applications 

and that additional changes might be warranted to clearly define the required parameters for grain hoppers. 

However, without additional information on the problem that needs to be resolved, the Committee is reluctant to 

offer any suggestions. Consequently, the Committee believes additional development is needed on this item before 

it is ready for consideration. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item, 

provided that the original submitter agrees to further develop the item.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Lampmann, Nebraska Division of Weights and Measures, explained the

events which led to the Division’s submission of the proposal to amend paragraph UR.1.2. Mr. Lampmann 

explained that NTEP had recently evaluated a new hopper scale installed in the State of Nebraska and issued a CC 

based on that evaluation. That particular scale is marked with a III L accuracy class designation by the 

manufacturer. The State of Nebraska was not notified in advance of the evaluation, and it wasn’t until later that the 

State discovered the scale being used to weigh grain; an application that the State had believed it necessary to use a 

Class III scale. Although it may not be appropriate to require “unmarked” hopper scales (i.e., those manufactured 

prior to 1986) to be marked Class III, Mr. Lampmann indicated that this proposal is an attempt to clearly state the 

appropriate accuracy class designation for grain hopper scales in NIST Handbook 44. 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., voiced support of the proposal by commenting that although 

everyone present in the room is aware that a grain hopper scale must be Class III, not all their customers (grain 

dealers) share that same awareness. 

NIST, OWM noted that the item, if adopted as originally proposed, would require all hopper scales used to weigh 

grain, including those manufactured prior to January 1, 1986, to be marked with a Class III accuracy class. Scales 

manufactured prior to January 1, 1986, are not currently required to be marked with an accuracy class designation

(i.e., the date a new Scales Code was added to NIST Handbook 44, which classified scales into different accuracy 

classes). Thus, it would not be feasible or reasonable to require scales manufactured prior to 1986 to be marked 

with an accuracy class designation. Additionally, it would be inconsistent with the note that appears at the bottom of 

Table 7a. in the Scales Code to require grain hopper scales manufactured as of January 1, 1986, to be designated 

Accuracy Class III because the note makes it permissible to use a scale with a higher accuracy class than that 

specified in the table. For example, it would be permissible to use a Class II hopper scale for weighing grain. With 

respect to unmarked grain hopper scales, Table T.1.1. Tolerances for Unmarked Scales specifically excludes grain 

hopper scales from other hopper scale types (e.g., those used to weigh fertilizer, aggregate, etc.). Thus, grain hopper 

scales, by virtue of the fact that they are not specifically identified as one of the device types elsewhere in the table, 

fall into the category titled “All other scales.” 

NIST, OWM stated that their analysis of this item revealed that Tables 7a. and 7b. were added to the Scales Code in 

1986 in an effort to provide guidance on how to apply General Code suitability requirements. As noted by the 1985 

S&T Committee in their final report, “suitability” had been a subject of discussion probably since the beginning of 

weights and measures. NIST, OWM concluded that the word “Typical” appearing in Table 7a. was added by 

NCWM because the table was only intended to provide guidance, and recognized the fact that the suitability of a 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 24

commercial device depends on many factors, all of which must be considered on a case by case basis by the official 

conducting the inspection. 

In consideration of these points, NIST, OWM offered the following alternative means of amending NIST 

Handbook 44 should the Committee agree to add further clarification that hopper scales manufactured as of 

January 1, 1986, used to weigh grain were intended to be designated Accuracy Class III. 

• Amend Table T.1.1. Tolerance for Unmarked scales by adding the words “including grain hopper” after 

“All other scales” to read as “All other scales (including grain hopper)”; 

• Amend Table 7a. by adding “grain hopper scales” in the “Weighing Application” column for Class III 

devices; and 

• Amend paragraph UR.1.2. to address scales manufactured after January 1, 1986. The following changes to 

UR.1.2. were suggested. 

UR.1.2. Grain Hopper Scales. – The minimum number of scale divisions for a Class III Hopper Scale 

used for weighing grain shall be 2000. Hopper scales manufactured as of January 1, 1986, and used to 

weigh grain, shall be designated Accuracy Class III and have a minimum of 2000 scale divisions. 

During the Committee work session, the question was raised as to whether a “grain hopper scale” and a “hopper 

scale used to weigh grain” were one in the same or different devices. After reviewing the definitions of “hopper 

scale” and “grain-hopper scale” in NIST Handbook 44 Appendix D, the Committee concluded that these terms are 

used interchangeably throughout the Scales Code to identify the same device. The Committee then considered 

whether or not it was the intent of NCWM to require hopper scales manufactured as of January 1, 1986, and used to 

weigh grain to be Class III. The Committee concluded that this was likely the intent of NCWM. The 2012 S&T

Committee designated this item as a Voting Item with the amendments offered by NIST, OWM. 

At their 2012 Annual Meetings, both NEWMA and CWMA supported this item as a Voting Item. The CWMA also 

noted that the proposal provides greater clarification of what is required with regard to accuracy class markings of a 

hopper scale used to weigh grain.

There were three positions posted on the NCWM 2012 Online Position Forum; two of which supported the proposal 

and the other was neutral to the proposal.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard no additional comments on this item.

The Committee recommended the item be presented for vote as proposed. 

320-5 I Appendix C – Units of Mass (ton)

Source: 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. (2012)

Purpose: 

Establish uniform abbreviations for Short Ton and Long Ton

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the Units of Mass Table on page C-19 of NIST Handbook 44 Appendix C to recognize the abbreviation “tn” 

for (net or short) ton as follows:
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 25

Units of Mass

1 assay ton17 (AT) 29.167 grams

1 carat (c) 200 milligrams (exactly)

3.086 grains

1 dram apothecaries (dr ap or 3) 60 grains (exactly)

3.888 grams

1 dram avoirdupois (dr avdp) 2711/32 (= 27.344) grains

1.772 grams

1 gamma (γ) 1 microgram (exactly)

1 grain 64.798 91 milligrams (exactly)

1 gram (g) 15.432 grains

0.035 ounce, avoirdupois

1 hundredweight, gross or long18

(gross cwt)

112 pounds (exactly)

50.802 kilograms

1 hundredweight, gross or short

(cwt or net cwt)

100 pounds (exactly)

45.359 kilograms

1 kilogram (kg) 2.205 pounds

1 milligram (mg) 0.015 grain

1 ounce, avoirdupois (oz avdp)

437.5 grains (exactly)

0.911 troy or apothecaries ounce

28.350 grams

1 ounce, troy or apothecaries

(oz t or oz ap or ℥) 

480 grains (exactly)

1.097 avoirdupois ounces

31.103 grams

1 pennyweight (dwt) 1.555 grams

1 point 0.01 carat

2 milligrams

1 pound, avoirdupois (lb avdp)

7000 grains (exactly)

1.215 troy or apothecaries pounds

453.592 37 grams (exactly)

1 micropound (μlb) [the Greek letter mu

in combination with the letters lb] 0.000 001 pound (exactly)

1 pound, troy or apothecaries

(lb t or lb ap)

5760 grains (exactly)

0.823 avoirdupois pound

373.242 grams

1 scruple (s ap or ℈) 20 grains (exactly)

1.296 grams

1 ton, gross or long (lt)19

2240 pounds (exactly)

1.12 net tons (exactly)

1.016 metric tons

1 ton, metric (t)

2204.623 pounds

0.984 gross ton

1.102 net tons

1 ton, net or short (tn)

2000 pounds (exactly)

0.893 gross ton

0.907 metric ton
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 26

FOOTNOTES:

17 Used in assaying, the assay ton bears the same relation to the milligram that a ton of 2000 pounds avoirdupois bears to the 

ounce troy; hence the mass in milligrams of precious metal obtained from one assay ton of ore gives directly the number of troy 

ounces to the net ton.

18 The gross or long ton and hundredweight are used commercially in the United States to only a very limited extent, usually in 

restricted industrial fields. The units are the same as the British “ton” and “hundredweight.”

19 The gross or long ton and hundredweight are used commercially in the United States to a limited extent only, usually in 

restricted industrial fields. These units are the same as the British “ton” and “hundredweight.”

Background/Discussion:

The submitter of this item has discovered a difference between United States and Canadian abbreviation 

requirements that may impact manufacturers that sell products in both countries and NTEP type evaluations under 

the United States/Canada mutual recognition program. Most units of mass have an abbreviation for SI and U.S. 

customary units (e.g., kg, lb, g, oz). However, the same abbreviation, the lower case “t,” is used to represent both

the metric ton and the short ton (2000 lb). If an indicator is set up to display both SI and U.S. customary units, the 

operator or customer cannot know what units are is displayed if “t” is the only abbreviation that is acceptable for 

metric ton. Because of the limited space available on today’s indicators, the words “short ton” or “long ton” are not 

always an option.

In the Canadian Lab Manual, Part 2, Section Appendix-2A in the table for abbreviations and symbols accepted in 

Canada, metric ton is abbreviated by “t” and ton (short ton) is abbreviated by “tn”. In NCWM Publication 14, 

Appendix C in a table marked Acceptable Abbreviation/Symbols there is an abbreviation for short to as TN and long 

tons as LT. In keeping with the Canadian abbreviation, the Committee considered a request that NIST Handbook 44

be amended to use the lower case “tn” and “lt” as the abbreviations for short and long ton respectively. 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ripka, Thermo-Fisher Scientific, expressed concern for the impact that 

the proposed abbreviation changes would have on the substitution or replacement of existing terms on longstanding 

industry practices. Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, expressed similar concerns. He would support the proposal 

moving forward as an Informational Item. Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM reported that NIST Handbook 44 Appendix C 

(2011 Edition) uses the lower case “t” for both the U.S. customary short ton (2000 lb) on page C-6 and the metric 

ton (2204.623 lb) on page C-19. Additionally, NIST Special Publication 811, Guide for the International Systems

(SI) doesn’t use any abbreviation for U.S. customary tons and uses the lower case (t) for the metric ton. The 

Committee believes the proposal lacks specific direction whether to add or replace the existing abbreviations in 

NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C. Additionally, there was no proposed solution or suggested abbreviation for 

indicators with both U.S. customary and metric tons used in his example. WWMA forwarded the item to NCWM

recommending it as a Developing Item. 

At its 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee heard from Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 

Mr. Lewis indicated that, based on opposition he had heard on his proposal to include an abbreviation for “long 

ton,” he suggests removing that abbreviation from the proposal. Thus, the proposal would only include an 

abbreviation for “short ton.” Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, noted that the Weighing Sector considered this and 

agreed to move this forward because of differences between the United States and Canadian requirements. Canada 

doesn’t accept upper case “TN.” Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM noted during the Committee work sessions that NCWM 

Publication 14 includes an exception to the abbreviation for “short ton,” with accepted designations of “ton” or 

“TN.” Mr. Lewis indicated that the Weighing Sector agreed to modify NCWM Publication 14 to designate the 

abbreviation for short ton as “tn.” There was support for the proposed abbreviation during the Open Hearings. 

Noting the proposed change would align the U.S. requirements with Canadian requirements, there were no 

indications that the proposed change would impact existing equipment. Mr. Flocken indicated that the same change 

is being proposed for NCWM Publication 14 scales checklists. The SWMA agreed with its Committee 

recommendation to delete the reference to “long ton” in the original submission as requested by the submitter. 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item after modifying the reference to “ton” on 

page C-6 of NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C to specify the unit “tn” as the abbreviation for “ton.” 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 27

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the original submitter, Mr. Lewis requested that the proposal in the Interim 

Agenda be modified to remove the reference to long ton and its associated proposed abbreviation “lt.” Mr. Lewis 

indicated that the intent of the proposal is to align United States and Canadian requirements and noted that the 

abbreviation “tn” is an acceptable Canadian abbreviation for short ton. 

Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA, suggested making the item Informational to allow for more discussion. 

He stated that SMA supports the abbreviation “tn” for short ton but not the long ton abbreviation “lt.”

NIST, OWM stated that they agreed with the points raised during the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting for continued 

development of the item. 

Mr. Ripka indicated that several different references for ton (short) have been used with belt-conveyor scale systems 

over the years. For example, both lower case “t” and upper case “T” have been used to abbreviate short ton. He 

stated that although he was not opposed to the item, more work is needed to ensure that references are consistent 

throughout all of NIST Handbook 44. 

The Committee considered the comments received during the Open Hearings and agreed with the recommendation 

to amend the Units of Mass table on page C-19 of NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C as shown in Item Under 

Consideration. The Committee agreed that additional work is needed on this item. The Committee asked the NIST 

Technical Advisors to undertake a review of the references in NIST Handbook 44, the Canadian requirements, and 

NCWM Publication 14, and identify any additional changes that might be needed to ensure consistency. 

Additionally, the Committee is seeking input from the community on the impact that this item might have on 

existing scales in the marketplace. The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as an Informational Item. 

Technical Advisors Note: After the 2012 NCWM Interim meeting had concluded, NIST, OWM in reviewing 

summary comments from the 2011 SWMA fall meeting, discovered an additional reference on page C-6 of Appendix 

C, NIST Handbook 44, that SWMA had identified as needing to be changed in order to be consistent with the change 

proposed in the Item Under Consideration. NIST, OWM suggests that the following change be made for future 

consideration of this item: 

Amend the abbreviation “t” representing the “net” or “short” ton on page C-6 of NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C to 

“tn” as follows: 

Avoirdupois Units of Mass6

[The “grain” is the same in avoirdupois, troy, and apothecaries units of mass.]

1 μlb = 0.000 001 pound (lb)

2711/32 grains (gr) = 1 dram (dr)

16 drams = 1 ounce (oz)

= 4371⁄2 grains

16 ounces = 1 pound (lb)

= 256 drams

= 7000 grains

100 pounds = 1 hundredweight (cwt)7

20 hundredweights = 1 ton (tn)

= 2000 pounds7
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 28

In “gross” or “long” measure, the following values are recognized:

112 pounds (lb) = 1 gross or long hundredweight (cwt)7

20 gross or long hundredweights = 1 gross or long ton

= 2240 pounds

FOOTNOTES:

6 When necessary to distinguish the avoirdupois dram from the apothecaries dram, or to distinguish the avoirdupois dram or 

ounce from the fluid dram or ounce, or to distinguish the avoirdupois ounce or pound from the troy or apothecaries ounce or 

pound, the word “avoirdupois” or the abbreviation “avdp” should be used in combination with the name or abbreviation of 

the avoirdupois unit.

7 When the terms “hundredweight” and “ton” are used unmodified, they are commonly understood to mean the 100 pound 

hundredweight and the 2000-pound ton, respectively; these units may be designated “net” or “short” when necessary to 

distinguish them from the corresponding units in gross or long measure.

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, NEWMA supported the item as amended at the 2012 Interim Meeting. NEWMA 

questioned whether the wrong “Units of Mass” table was included in the NCWM S&T Committee’s Interim Report.

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, CWMA recommended that the item remain Informational. The CWMA also 

recommended changing the abbreviation “t,” which refers to a “short ton,” to “tn” to avoid conflict with the 

recommended proposal. At that meeting Mr. Flocken supported “tn” as an acceptable abbreviation for “short ton,” 

but does not support “lt” as the abbreviation for “long ton;” he also suggested that the abbreviation “lt” was 

erroneously left in the proposal.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee acknowledged that the reference to “lt” is no longer under 

consideration. Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of SMA, reiterated the comments he made at the CWMA meeting 

and supported changing the item to “Informational.”

Ms. Juana Williams, NIST, OWM shared technical input from NIST, OWM regarding the proposed changes. NIST, 

OWM noted that the 2011 NCWM Publication 14 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems type evaluation criteria provides a 

table on page BCS-4 that indicates the U.S. short ton may be identified as “ton” or upper case “T;” the metric ton as 

lower case “t;” and the U.S. long ton as upper case “LT.” The following abbreviations appear in the 2011 version of 

Pub 14 BCS systems type evaluation criteria: 

Unit Abbreviation

pounds lb or LB

U.S. short ton ton or T

U.S. long ton LT

Metric ton t

kilograms kg

The abbreviation “T” for U.S. short ton in NCWM Publication 14 conflicts with the acceptable abbreviation for the 

U.S. short ton specified in Appendix C of NIST Handbook 44, which is “t.” A search of the word “ton” in 

Appendix C of NIST Handbook 44 revealed that nowhere is upper case “T” used, although lower case “t” appears as 

an acceptable abbreviation for both the U.S. short (or net) ton (page C-6) and the metric ton (page C-19). OWM is 

concerned that officials applying paragraph G-S.5.6.1. might be inclined to reject an upper case “T” as an acceptable 

abbreviation for the U.S. short (or net) ton even though NCWM Publication 14 indicates that the upper case “T” is 

acceptable. Officials might also find it confusing if lower case “tn” were made an acceptable abbreviation for the 

U.S. short or net ton, given that the table on page BCS-4 of NCWM Publication 14 specifies lower case “t” as the 

acceptable abbreviation for the metric ton. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 29

OWM noted that even if everyone were to agree on different acceptable abbreviations for the U.S. short or net ton, 

the U.S. long ton, and the metric ton, it is not likely that this would completely resolve all the confusion relating to 

the value of the ton in commercial transactions. The spelled-out version of the word “ton” is often used instead of 

its abbreviation to identify values displayed or recorded by a commercial device. Thus, unless the word “ton” is 

further qualified using an appropriate clarifying preface such as metric, short, net, or long, it’s unclear as to which 

ton is being referenced when the word “ton” by itself is used to identify the unit of measure. 

OWM suggested that should the Committee decide to move forward with the item, it consider changing the 

abbreviation “t” (which refers to 1 ton (short), beneath the heading “Avoirdupois Units of Mass” on page C-6 of the 

2012 version of NIST Handbook 44) to “tn” to avoid conflict with the recommended proposal. OWM also noted 

that the abbreviation “lt” was erroneously left in the table.

There were three positions posted on the NCWM 2012 Online Position Forum; two of which were neutral to the 

proposal and the other in support of the proposal.

The Committee agreed that the “lt” abbreviation for “1 ton, gross or long” in the table on page S&T-20 of 2012 

NCWM Publication 16 was erroneously left in the table from the original proposal and should be removed.

The Committee reiterated its request for input from the community on the impact that this item might have on 

existing scales in the marketplace and asked for input regarding additional changes that might be needed to the 

proposal prior to moving it forward.

The Committee recommended deleting the reference to “Long Ton” in the description of the “Purpose” of the item 

so that it reads as follows:

“Purpose: Establish uniform abbreviations for Short Ton.”

The Committee also recommended deleting the reference to “lt” in the “Units of Mass” table in the “Item Under 

Consideration” so that the reference for “1 ton, gross” reads as follows:

1 ton, gross or long19

No additional changes were recommended by the Committee. 

320-6 VC Appendix D – Definitions (Reference Weight Car)

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

Systems Associates, Inc. (2012)

Purpose: 

Align NIST Handbook 44 with updated material in AAR Scale Handbook. 

Item Under Consideration:

Replace the existing definition of “reference weight car” in NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D with the following: 

reference weight car. – A railroad car weighed on a scale for temporary use as a mass standard over a 

short period of time (typically, the time required to test one scale) as part of a test train. A railcar that 

has been statically weighed for temporary use as a mass standard over a short period of time, typically 

the time required to test one scale.

Note: A test weight car that is representative of the types of cars typically weighed on the scale under test 

may be used wherever reference weight cars are specified.[2.20]
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 30

(Added 1991) (Amended 2012)

Background/Discussion:

The proposal would require that reference cars be weighed on a static scale and would remove the statement 

regarding being part of a train. For instance, Reference Weight Cars may be used in a belt scale test where the 

concept of a train doesn't exist. The proposed definition change was developed by AREMA Committee 34 – Scales 

and approved, by unanimous vote, for inclusion in the AAR Scale Handbook. 

At the 2011 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings, both associations forwarded the item to NCWM, 

recommending it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc., supported the item as submitted. There 

was no opposition. The WWMA S&T Committee recognized that this proposal aligns NIST Handbook 44 with the 

updated material in the AAR Scale Handbook. WWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a 

Voting Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee heard one comment in support and no comments in 

opposition. The SWMA agreed with the Committee’s comments that the modification will further align NIST 

Handbook 44 and the AAR Handbook. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA, supported this item. NIST, 

OWM agreed that adding the words “statically weighed” improved the definition and made clear how reference 

weight cars are to be weighed. The Committee reviewed a January 7, 2012, letter from AAR in support of the 

proposal. The Committee agreed that the proposed changes improved the definition. The 2012 S&T Committee 

designated this item as a Voting Item. 

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, the CWMA suggested the phrase “uncoupled on both ends” be added to the proposed 

new sentence to be consistent with AREMA requirements and supported the item, as modified, as a Voting Item. 

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, NEWMA supported the item as written as a Voting Item. 

At the Committee’s 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings, Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA 

stated that SMA supports this item.

Ms. Juana Williams, speaking on behalf of NIST, OWM offered technical comments for the Committee to consider 

in its deliberation on this item. OWM noted that weighing a reference weight car, while the car is “coupled” on 

either end to another railcar or engine could result in binding/friction to the extent that the error and uncertainty in 

the reference weight car might well exceed the maximum allowable specified in NIST Handbook 44, Appendix A 

Fundamental Considerations. This section of the Fundamental Considerations specifies that the combined error and 

uncertainty of any standard used in testing commercial weighing and measuring equipment, when used without 

correction, must be less than one-third the applicable device tolerance.

OWM also commented that inserting only the word “uncoupled” into the new sentence proposed to be added to the 

definition of “reference weight car” implies that reference weight cars are to be weighed uncoupled on both ends. 

Adding the more descriptive phrase “uncoupled on both ends” as suggested by the CWMA removes all doubt 

concerning how the cars are to be weighed.

Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota, supported including the reference suggested by the CWMA.

Mr. Rafael Jimenez, AAR Transportation Technology Center, stated that AAR supports this item, but does not 

support the inclusion of the reference to “uncoupled on both ends” pending the results of additional testing. 

Mr. Steve Beitzel, Systems Associates Inc., supported the item, but does not support including procedures (including 

the statement “uncoupled on both ends”) in the definition.

There were two positions posted on the NCWM 2012 Online Position Forum; both of which supported the proposal.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 31

Although the Committee recognized the importance of proper testing procedures, it agreed that definitions are not 

the place for procedures to be specified. The Committee encouraged the collection of data by AAR and looks 

forward to reviewing that data when it becomes available.

The Committee recommended the item be presented for Vote with no changes.

Any additional letters, presentations, and data that was submitted for consideration for this item is located in the 

S&T Appendix A. 

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

321-1 V S.1.9. Zero Ready Indicator 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) on Belt-Conveyor Scales (BCS) (2012)

Purpose: 

Add a new device specification and user requirement to help ensure that a stable zero-balance condition is 

established prior to running material across a belt scale. 

Item Under Consideration:

1) Add a new paragraph S.1.9. Zero Ready Indicator to NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.21., Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Systems Code to read as follows:

S.1.9. Zero Ready Indicator. - A belt conveyor scale shall be equipped with a zero ready indicator that 

produces an audio or visual signal when the zero balance is within ± 0.12 % of the rated capacity of the 

scale during an unloaded belt condition. The type of indication (audio or visual) shall be determined by the 

individual installation.

[Nonretroacvtive as of January 1, 2014]

(Added 2012)

2) Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.21., Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Code paragraph UR.3.2. Maintenance 

by adding a new subparagraph UR.3.2. (a) and renumbering subsequent subparagraphs as follows:

UR.3.2. Maintenance. – Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions and the following:

(a) Zero Balance. – The zero balance condition of a belt-conveyor scale shall be maintained such 

that, prior to beginning any commercial transaction, with no load on the belt, the zero balance 

condition is within ± 0.12 % of the scales rated capacity. 

(Added 2012) 

Renumber subsequent subparagraphs as follows:

(a)(b) The scale and area surrounding the scale shall be kept clean of debris or other foreign material that 

can detrimentally affect the performance of the system.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 32

(b)(c) There shall be provisions to ensure that weighed material does not adhere to the belt and return to the 

scale system area.

(Added 2004)

(c)(d) Zero-load tests and simulated load or material tests shall be conducted at periodic intervals between 

official tests and after a repair or mechanical adjustment to the conveyor system in order to provide 

reasonable assurance that the device is performing correctly. The minimum interval for periodic 

zero load tests and simulated load tests shall be established by the official with statutory authority or 

according to manufacturer recommendations.

***No changes recommended for Change in Zero or Change in Factor (Reference) Tables***

(d)(e) Scale Alignment. – Alignment checks shall be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendation when conveyor work is performed in the scale area. A material test is required 

after any realignment.

(Amended 1986 and 2000)

(e)(f) Simulated Load Equipment. – Simulated load equipment shall be clean and properly maintained.

(f)(g) Zero Load Reference Information. – When zero load reference information is recorded for a 

delivery, the information must be based upon zero load tests performed as a minimum both 

immediately before and immediately after the totalized load.

(Added 2002) 

(Amended 2002, 2004, and 2009)

Background/Discussion:

The intent of the proposal is to: 1) provide an indication that the zero condition of the scale is within the specified 

requirements for accurate measurement, and 2) further clarify General Code paragraph G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of 

Equipment regarding a user’s responsibility to maintain the scale in proper operating condition. It should be noted 

that a similar proposal first appeared on the 2009 S&T Committee’s Agenda. The item was subsequently withdrawn 

at the request of the submitter in order to further develop the proposal addressing the USNWG concerns reported 

during their February 2009 NCWM Annual Meeting. Additional background information on this item can be 

reviewed in 2009 NCWM S&T Committee’s Final Reports.

It is apparent to owners, manufacturers, and service agents associated with belt conveyor scale systems that a zero 

shift may occur that is readily observed on systems running at a “no-load” level of operation (particularly those 

equipped with automatic zero mechanisms). The USNWG on belt-conveyor scales has developed a 

recommendation that would require that an indication be present which indicates a zero condition during these lowflow periods when no material is being totalized by an integrator. 

During the 2008 USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales meeting, the work group submitted a proposal to NCWM S&T 

Committee that would add a requirement to NIST Handbook 44 requiring belt-conveyor scales to include a means to 

provide the operator with an indication that the system is “ready” to operate. The recommended addition of 

paragraph S.1.6.1. would require an indication to notify an operator of an out-of-zero condition and also would 

define the limit of the width of zero for that device.

This indication would signify that the system had arrived at an acceptable stable zero condition with the belt running 

during periods when no totalization of material was taking place. The work group also acknowledged the need for 

an associated User Requirement that would provide guidance for an operator of the system in the event that the 

system failed to achieve this “ready” state.

During the February 2011 meeting of the USNWG, the work group agreed that additional effort should be expended 

to continue developing a requirement that will provide indication that an acceptable zero condition exists prior to 

any totalization operation. There was no consensus regarding specifics related to such a requirement such as: the 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 33

nature of this proposed indication and its visibility to the operator; the duration of time or length of belt travel 

needed to establish a zero condition; and the allowable limits that would be applied to any variation from the 

established zero condition. Further discussion was tabled on this item and the sub-group that was established to 

address this item agreed to further explore these issues and develop a draft proposal. The sub-group consisted of:

• Mr. Ian Burrell

• Mr. Phil Carpentier

• Mr. Paul Chase

• Mr. Todd Dietrich

• Mr. Lars Marmsater

• Mr. Bill Ripka

• Mr. Peter Sirrico

This sub-group met via e-mail and teleconference and developed draft proposals for both, a Specification 

Requirement (S.1.9. Zero Ready Indicator) and the associated User Requirement UR.3.2.(a), which has been 

submitted as a separate item.

The draft proposals were sent electronically to the entire USNWG on belt-conveyor scales, asking for review and 

comments by August 10, 2011. No additional comments were received from the members of the USNWG.

At the 2011 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings, and the SWMA Annual Meeting, both associations forwarded 

the item to NCWM, recommending it as Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific, provided the following comments and 

added that the Belt-Conveyor Scale USNWG has thoroughly discussed the topic of “zero” as it relates to a 

belt-conveyor scale condition prior to running material loads. Some of these discussions went beyond the “ready” 

topic and delved into some type of zero alarm. Responses to the alarm comments seem to agree that this is a 

separate issue and should be addressed at a different time. The USNWG considered the following in its 

development of this item.

The name of this feature/requirement. 

In the initial proposal the term “zero balance” was used, and members of the work group preferred the terms: “Zero 

Ready” and “Scale Ready.” The work group agreed that having a stable zero, within a predefined range, does not 

totally verify that the scale is ready. Thus, it was decided that we would use the term “Zero Ready” in the final 

proposal submitted to the regional S&T Committee for consideration. 

Visibility to the operator.

The work group does not believe there is a need to clutter the code by specifying the indicator must be visible to the 

operator. General Code paragraph G-UR.3.3. Position of Equipment, states “A device or system equipped with a 

primary indicating element and used in direct sales, except for prescription sales, shall be positioned so that its 

indications may be accurately read and the weighing or measuring operation may be observed from some reasonable 

“customer” and “operator” position.” It is within this General Code reference that the rate of flow limit indicator 

positioning is based (i.e., viewable by the operator) and the same requirements should hold true for the “Zero 

Ready” indicator.

Period to determine the “Zero” condition.

All testing criteria currently used for belt-conveyor scales base zero on full belt revolutions. The work group agrees 

the same basis should be used for this condition/indication. Paragraph N.3.1.1. Determination of Zero identifies: a 

“Zero-Load Test” as “a percentage of the full-scale capacity, or a change in a totalized load over a whole number of

complete belt revolutions.” The work group agreed not to redefine this during its discussions. There may be 

capabilities within belt profiling schemes that would be able to identify this condition in less than a revolution and 

the revised proposal allows for development of this or other technologies.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 34

Location of specification.

Due to the methodology of indicating retroactive or non-retroactive in the handbook, the work group agreed that the 

new requirement should not be included in paragraph S.1.5. Rate of Flow Indicators and Recorders, which currently 

has a non-retroactive date of January 1, 1986. Changing this to a non-retroactive date of January 1, 20XX, could 

possibly put some old existing systems into a non-compliance condition. Therefore, the recommendation is to add 

the zero condition statement in a new section, numbered S.1.9. simply to keep the new requirement as a stand-alone 

item, and to eliminate the need to renumber the other items in this area.

Allowable limits.

There were many opinions regarding the amount of zero error allowed prior to the initiation of the “Zero Ready” 

condition. The initial proposal used 0.06 %. The team discussions continually referenced the 0.12 % value as 

allowed during the performance of a materials test. When “testing” a belt-conveyor scale, the zero is to be 

confirmed to be able to hold a zero condition for three consecutive tests within 0.06 %. This test proves zero 

stability of an empty system only (N.3.1.2. Test of Zero Stability). After a materials test load has been delivered, the 

scale is expected to remain within 0.12 %. This ensures that the materials load test has not been compromised or 

influenced by a zero shift (T.1.1. Tolerance Values – Test of Zero Stability). If the zero requires adjustment during 

the conduct of a materials test in excess of 0.18 %, the statutory authority may establish specific intervals for zero 

testing. This requirement does not restrict the zero range. It can perhaps be argued the allowable zero range during 

“use” is 0.18 %, or even 0.25 % - the tolerance of the device itself. While this may be a high value, we need to 

make changes in the handbook that do not conflict with other requirements already in place. After final discussion, 

the sub-team of the USNWG agreed that the value to be implemented in this proposal is 0.12 %. 

The WWMA S&T Committee agreed with the recommendation and justification provided by the USNWG on beltconveyor scales. WWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Ripka spoke on behalf of the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales. Mr. 

Ripka indicated that over the past two years a subcommittee of the USNWG had worked very hard to understand 

influences that affect zero to be able to recommend improvements to help ensure a BCS started on zero. The group 

initially developed a “Specification” requirement that provides easy to understand indication that a scale is ready to 

use. Mr. Ripka indicated that it was now time to move forward to the next step (i.e., to require users to start a 

commercial transaction only when the scale is in a ready to use zero balance condition). 

Thermo Fisher Scientific supported this item as written. 

Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of the SMA, supported the item as written.

NIST, OWM indicated that the language in the proposed user requirement doesn’t necessarily require a BCS system 

operator to start a commercial transaction with the zero balance condition within ± 0.12 % of the scales rated 

capacity as is intended by the proposal. They offered the following suggested changes to the proposed user 

requirement to make the paragraph an enforceable requirement:

(a) Zero Balance. – The balance condition of a belt-conveyor scale shall be maintained such that, prior to 

beginning any commercial transaction, with no load on the belt, a the zero balance condition is 

within ± 0.12 % of the scales rated capacity can be verified. 

(Added 20XX) 

(No changes recommended for Change in Zero or Change in Factor [Reference]) Tables)

(Renumber subsequent subparagraphs)

NIST, OWM noted that their suggested changes to proposed user requirement UR.3.2.(a) had been circulated to the 

USNWG on BCS systems as part of an alternative reorganization of the User Requirements proposed by NIST, 

OWM under agenda Item 321-2 and that members of the work group had supported those suggested changes. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 35

The Committee considered the comments provided by Mr. Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Mr. Flocken, 

Mettler-Toledo, LLC, in support of the original proposal and the proposed changes from NIST, OWM that had been 

supported by the work group. The Committee agreed that the changes suggested by NIST, OWM to the language 

originally proposed for UR.3.2.(a) were needed in order to make the paragraph an enforceable requirement and thus 

modified the original proposal accordingly. The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as a Voting Item. 

The Committee then considered the effect that this agenda item would have on agenda Item 321-2 should both be 

considered Voting Items at the NCWM Annual Meeting. The Committee concluded that Item 321-1 was intended 

as a stand-alone item to be voted on separately from Item 321-2. However, if agenda Item 321-1 were to be adopted 

by NCWM, the insertion of the new user requirement proposed under Item 321-1 would change the organization and 

some of the paragraph references in the user requirement restructuring proposed under Item 321-2. It was noted that 

NIST, OWM had suggested a further reorganization of the language in the User Requirements in Item 321-2. They

circulated this language (including their suggested changes to UR.3.2. proposed under Item 321-1) to members of 

the USNWG on BCSs and indicated that they had supported this alternative proposal. The Committee decided that 

if Item 321-1 were adopted by NCWM, the user requirement proposed under Item 321-1 should be inserted into the

alternative restructuring proposal and should be voted upon as part of Item 321-2. 

At their 2012 Annual Meetings, NEWMA and CWMA supported the item as a Voting Item. NEWMA also 

acknowledged the need to renumber the paragraph should Item 321-2 pass.

In its 2012 Interim Report, the Committee proposed adding a new paragraph S.1.9. as follows:

S.1.9. Zero Ready Indicator. – A belt conveyor scale shall be equipped with a Zero Ready indicator. 

Permanent means shall be provided to produce an audio or visual signal when the zero is within ± 0.12 % of 

the rated capacity of the scale during an unloaded belt condition. The type of indication (audio or visual) 

shall be determined by the individual installation.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

(Added 20XX)

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Ms. Juana Williams, speaking on behalf 

of NIST, OWM who noted that adding a Specification requirement that defines a proper zero-load balance condition 

on a belt-conveyor scale system and an associated User Requirement that requires operators to start each 

commercial weighment with the scale at zero (i.e., in a proper zero-balance condition) would make the Belt 

Conveyor Scales Systems Code more consistent with other device codes in NIST Handbook 44 and likely improve 

the accuracy of the measurement process.

With regard to the proposed paragraph S.1.9. Zero Ready Indicator, NIST, OWM commented that the words

“permanent means” seemed confusing. NIST, OWM suggested that the Committee consider whether or not the first 

two sentences might be consolidated into a single sentence which better describes how the zero-ready indicator is 

intended to operate and offered a suggestion for the Committee to consider. 

Mr. Ripka supported the item with NIST, OWM’s proposed changes and commented that he believed the remainder 

of the Belt Scale Work Group would also support the changes. Mr. Ripka also suggested establishing a 

nonretroactive date of 2014.

Mr. Flocken, speaking on behalf of SMA, supported the original proposal, noting that he would like to review NIST, 

OWM’s proposal in more detail before commenting on it one way or the other.

A single position was posted on the NCWM 2012 Online Position Forum in support of the proposal.

Based on comments received and general support for NIST, OWM’s proposed modifications, the Committee agreed 

to modify the proposed paragraph S.1.9. as shown in the “Item Under Consideration” above and to specify a 

nonretroactive date of 2014. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 36

The Committee recommended no changes to Item 2) included in the “Item Under Consideration” and agreed to 

present both items for a vote.

321-2 VC UR.1. User Requirements

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

U.S. National Work Group on Belt-Conveyor Scales (2012)

Purpose: 

Achieve a better organization and formatting of the User Requirement section, by renumbering and/or relocated 

paragraphs within this section.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Belt-Conveyor Scales Systems UR. User Requirements section as follows:

UR. User Requirements

UR.1. Use Installation Requirements. – A belt-conveyor scale system shall be operated between 20 % 

and 100 % of its rated capacity.

(Amended 2004)

UR.1.1. Minimum Totalized Load. – Delivered quantities of less than the minimum test load shall 

not be considered a valid weighment.

UR.1.1. Protection from Environmental Factors. – The indicating elements, the lever system or load

cells, and the load-receiving element of a belt-conveyor scale shall be adequately protected from 

environmental factors such as wind, moisture, dust, weather, and radio frequency interference (RFI) 

and electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may adversely affect the operation or performance of 

the device.

UR.1.2. Security Means. – When a security means has been broken, it shall be reported to the 

official with statutory authority.

(Amended 1991)

UR.1.2. Conveyor Installation. – The design and installation of the conveyor leading to and from the 

belt conveyor scale is critical with respect to scale performance. The conveyor can be horizontal or 

inclined, but if inclined, the angle shall be such that slippage of material along the belt does not 

occur. Installation shall be in accordance with the scale manufacturer’s instructions and the 

following:

(Amended 2002 and 2012)

***Items (a) through (n) of UR.2.2. to be relocated beneath and become part of UR.1.2. Conveyor 

Installation. No other changes recommended for (a) through (n).***

UR.1.3. Material Test. – A belt-conveyor scale shall be installed so that a material test can be 

conveniently conducted.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1981]

UR.1.4. Belt Travel (Speed or Velocity). – The belt travel sensor shall be so positioned that it 

accurately represents the travel of the belt over the scale for all flow rates between the maximum and 

minimum values. The belt travel sensor shall be so designed and installed that there is no slip.

(Amended 2012)
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 37

UR.2. Installation Use Requirements.

UR.2.1. Protection from Environmental Factors. – The indicating elements, the lever system or load 

cells, and the load-receiving element of a belt-conveyor scale shall be adequately protected from 

environmental factors such as wind, moisture, dust, weather, and radio frequency interference (RFI) 

and electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may adversely affect the operation or performance of 

the device.

UR.2.1. Rate of Operation. – A belt-conveyor scale system shall be operated between 20 % and 

100 % of its rated capacity.

UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation. – The design and installation of the conveyor leading to and from the 

belt conveyor scale is critical with respect to scale performance. The conveyor can be horizontal or 

inclined, but if inclined, the angle shall be such that slippage of material along the belt does not 

occur. Installation shall be in accordance with the scale manufacturer’s instructions and the 

following:

*NIST Technical Advisor’s note: Also delete items (a) through (n) since there were relocated to UR.1.2. 

(Amended 2002)

UR.2.2. Minimum Totalized Load. – Delivered quantities of less than the minimum test load shall 

not be considered a valid weighment.

UR.2.3. Material Test. – A belt-conveyor scale shall be installed so that a material test can be 

conveniently conducted.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1981]

UR.1.2.UR.2.3. Security Means. – When a security means has been broken, it shall be reported to the 

official with statutory authority.

(Amended 1991)

UR.2.4. Belt Travel (Speed or Velocity). – The belt travel sensor shall be so positioned that it 

accurately represents the travel of the belt over the scale for all flow rates between the maximum and 

minimum values. The belt travel sensor shall be so designed and installed that there is no slip.

UR.2.4. Loading. – The feed of material to the scale shall be controlled to assure that, during 

normal operation, the material flow is in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendation for rated 

capacity.

U.R.3.4.UR.2.5. Diversion or Loss of Measured Product. – There shall be no operation(s) or 

condition(s) of use that result in loss or diversion that adversely affects the quantity of measured product.

(Added 2005)

U.R.3.3.UR.2.6. Retention of Maintenance, Test, and Analog or Digital Recorder Information. – 

Records of calibration and maintenance, including conveyor alignment, analog or digital recorder, zeroload test, and material test data shall be maintained on site for at least the three concurrent years as a history 

of scale performance. Copies of any report as a result of a test or repair shall be mailed to the official with 

statutory authority as required. The current date and correction factor(s) for simulated load equipment shall 

be recorded and maintained in the scale cabinet.

(Added 2002)

(Amended 2012)
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 38

UR.3. Use Maintenance Requirements.

UR.3.1. Loading. – The feed of material to the scale shall be controlled to assure that, during 

normal operation, the material flow is in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendation for rated 

capacity.

UR.3.1. Scale and Conveyor Maintenance. – Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be maintained and 

serviced in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and the following:

(a) Scale Clearance. – The scale and area surrounding the scale ...

(b) Weighed Material. – There shall be provisions to ensure that ...

(c) Simulated and Zero-load Test Intervals. – Zero-load tests and simulated load or ...

*** The tables under UR.3.2.(c) to be relocated beneath and become part of UR.3.1.(c). No other changes 

recommended for those tables. ***

(d) Scale Alignment. – Alignment checks shall be conducted ...

(e) Simulated Load Equipment. – Simulated load equipment shall be ...

(f) Zero Load Reference Information. – When zero load reference information is recorded ...

(Amended 2002, 2004, 2009, and 20XX) 

(Amended 2012)

UR.4. Compliance. – Prior to initial verification, the scale manufacturer or installer shall certify to the owner 

that the scale meets code requirements. Prior to initial verification and each subsequent verification, the scale 

owner or his agent shall notify the official with statutory authority in writing that the belt-conveyor scale system 

is in compliance with this specification and ready for material testing.

(Amended 1991)

*NIST Technical Advisors note: No relocation or changes are proposed for paragraph UR.4. Compliance. 

Background/Discussion:

This item comes from the recommendation of the NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG on BCS and would:

1. Consolidate applicable operational user requirements into paragraph UR.1. User Requirements,

2. Change the title of paragraph UR.3. from “User Requirements” to “Maintenance,” and 

3. Consolidate applicable maintenance requirements into paragraph UR.3.

As the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales developed new User Requirement, [UR.3.2.(a)] they recognized that 

many of the individual paragraphs within the User Requirements section were not appropriately located in the BeltConveyor Scales Code. They also recognized that paragraphs UR.1. and UR.3 were both titled “Use Requirements.” 

The draft proposal as shown was circulated to the entire USNWG by e-mail. The members of the work group were 

asked to respond with their support or comments based on this draft. All responses indicated support for the 

proposal as drafted.

At the 2011 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings, and the SWMA Annual Meeting, both associations forwarded

the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 39

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific restated the reasons and history for this 

proposal to reorganize the User Requirements. There were no comments on this item. The Committee agreed with 

the justification and background information provided with the submission of this proposal and agreed this 

reorganization helps consolidate application User’s Requirements. WWMA forwarded the item to NCWM

recommending it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Ripka, speaking on behalf of the USNWG on BCS systems supported the 

item. He noted that the proposal doesn’t change existing maintenance requirements and provides more meaningful 

headings to the requirements. 

NIST, OWM offered an alternative restructuring proposal to improve the organization of the User Requirements in 

the BCS systems code beyond that being proposed. NIST, OWM’s proposal would change the order of the User, 

Installation, and Maintenance requirements being proposed to be consistent with how similar requirements are 

organized in most other specific NIST Handbook 44 codes. The NIST Technical Advisor to the USNWG on BCS 

Systems distributed their alternative restructuring of the User Requirements to members of the USNWG prior to the 

2012 NCWM Interim Meeting. It included the technical advisor’s suggested changes to the user requirement being 

proposed under Item 321-1. USNWG members were polled and those responding supported submitting the NIST, 

OWM version to the S&T Committee for consideration. 

The Committee considered the comments received during the Open Hearings and agreed replace the original 

proposal with the alternative arrangement that was approved by the USNWG. The 2012 S&T Committee designated 

this item as a Voting Item.

The Committee also agreed that, should agenda Items 321-1 and 321-2 both pass, the proposed language adopted for 

paragraph UR.3.2.(a) in agenda Item 321-1 would be renumbered to UR.3.1.(a) and the designations of the 

remaining subparagraphs in UR.3.1. would be revised. 

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, the CWMA supported the proposed changes in the “Item Under Consideration” as a 

Voting Item and agreed that a reorganization of the paragraphs is appropriate and would make finding specific 

paragraphs in the code easier.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, Ms. Juana Williams, NIST, OWM echoed the CWMA’s comments and also 

heard support from Mr. Ripka and from Mr. Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, speaking on behalf of the SMA.

There was one position posted on the NCWM 2012 Online Position Forum, which was neutral to the proposal.

The Committee agreed that the proposed reorganization of the User Requirement paragraphs would be beneficial 

and recommended the item be presented for Vote with no changes, except unless Agenda Items 321-1 and 321-2 

were both to pass when voted on by the Conference. If this were the case, the Committee, as previously noted, 

agreed the proposed language adopted for paragraph UR.3.2.(a) in agenda Item 321-1 would be renumbered to 

UR.3.1.(a) and the designations of the remaining subparagraphs in UR.3.1. would be revised.

Based on the comments received, and general support for the proposed changes, the Committee recommended no 

changes to the “Item Under Consideration” and presented it for a vote as written.

330 LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

S&T Committee Note: Proposals under Items 330-1 through 330-6 of the Committee’s 2012 Interim Agenda were 

consolidated by the Committee into a single Item 330-1. An explanation of the Committee’s rationale is provided 

under Item 330-1.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 40

330-1 V Unit Price Posting, Selection, and Display Requirements - S.1.6.4.1. Unit Price; 

S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price; S.1.6.6. Agreement Between Indications; S.1.6.7. 

Recorded Representations; S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions 

Where a Post-Delivery Discount(s) is Provided; UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product 

Identity; and UR.3.3. Computing Device

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

NCWM Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computer Capability (2012)

Purpose: 

Update specifications to address current marketing methods for offering pricing discounts beyond simple cash/credit 

pricing and to establish a framework for “post-delivery” discounts offered after the delivery of fuel is complete. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Liquid Measuring Devices Code paragraph S.1.6.4.1. as follows:

S.1.6.4.1. Unit Price.

(a) A computing or money-operated device shall be able to display on each face the unit price at which the 

device is set to compute or to dispense.

(b) Except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck refueling 

(e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), Wwhenever a grade, brand, blend, or mixture 

is offered for 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 meet the following conditions:

(1) For a system that applies a discount prior to the delivery, all unit prices shall be displayed or 

shall be capable of being displayed on the dispenser using controls available to the 

customer through a deliberate action of the purchaser 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. This subsection shall not apply to 

fleet sales, other contract sales, or truck refueling sales (e.g., sales from dispensers used to 

refuel trucks).

[Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991]

(2) For a system that offers post-delivery discounts on fuel sales, display of pre-delivery unit 

price information is exempt from (b)(1), provided the system complies with S.1.6.8.

(Added 2012)

Note: When a product is offered at more than one unit price, display of unit price information may be 

through the deliberate action of the purchaser: 1) using controls on the device; 2) through the 

purchaser’s use of personal or vehicle mounted electronic equipment communicating with the 

system; or 3) verbal instructions by the customer.

(Added 2012)

(Amended 1989, and 1997, and 2012) 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Liquid Measuring Devices Code paragraph S.1.6.5.4. as follows:

S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price. – Except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price 

contract sales, and truck refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), when a product or 

grade is offered for sale at more than one unit price through a computing device, the selection of the unit 

price shall be made prior to delivery using controls on the device or other customer-activated controls. A 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 41

system shall not permit a change to the unit price during delivery of product. When a product or grade is 

offered for sale at more than one unit price through a computing device, the following conditions shall be 

met:

(a) Except for a system only capable of applying a post-delivery discount(s), the selection of the unit 

price shall be made prior to delivery through a deliberate action of the purchaser to select the unit 

price for the fuel delivery. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991]

(b) For a system only capable of applying a post-delivery discount(s), the selection of the unit price 

shall be made through a deliberate action of the purchaser to select the unit price for the fuel 

delivery. 

(Added 2012)

Note: When a product is offered at more than one unit price, selection of the unit price may be through the 

deliberate action of the purchaser: 1) using controls on the device; 2) through the purchaser’s use of personal or 

vehicle mounted electronic equipment communicating with the system; or 3) verbal instructions by the customer. 

(Added 2012)

The provisions in (a) and (b) do not apply to dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price 

contract sales, and truck refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks).

(Added 2012)

(Added 1989) (Amended 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1996, and 2012) 

[Technical Advisor’s Note: During preparation of the 2013 edition of NIST Handbook 44 to reflect changes 

adopted by the NCWM, NIST technical advisors noted an error in the text style for a portion of S.1.6.5.4. as it 

appeared in NCWM Publication 16. A portion of the text that appears in the existing Handbook 44 paragraph 

S.1.6.5.4. was inadvertently shown in italic font, suggesting that the entire existing paragraph was Nonretroactive in 

nature. To correct this error and to remove ambiguity in the application of the paragraph to devices manufactured 

or installed on different dates, the paragraph that was adopted was reformatted and additional editorial revisions 

made. To ensure that those revisions did not change the intent of the changes proposed to and adopted by the 

NCWM, the revised paragraph was distributed to the NCWM S&T Committee as well as the members of the NCWM 

Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computer Capability for review and approval. The 

Technical Advisors received comments in support of the revisions from multiple members of the S&T Committee and 

the Task Group; no objections were received. The revised version of the paragraph is reflected in the language 

above.]

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Liquid Measuring Devices Code paragraphs S.1.6.6. as follows:

S.1.6.6. Agreement Between Indications.

(a) When a quantity value indicated or recorded by an auxiliary element is a derived or computed value 

based on data received from a retail motor fuel dispenser, the value may differ from the quantity value 

displayed on the dispenser, provided the following conditions are met:

(a1) all total money-values for an individual sale that are indicated or recorded by the system agree; 

and

(b2) within each element, the values indicated or recorded meet the formula (quantity × unit price = 

total sales price) to the closest cent.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988]

(b) When a system applies a post-delivery discount(s) to a fuel’s unit price through an auxiliary 

element, the following conditions shall apply for computed values: 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 42

(1) the total volume of the delivery shall be in agreement between all elements in the system.

(Added 2012) 

(Added 1985) (Amended 1987, and 1988, and 2012) 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Liquid Measuring Devices Code paragraphs S.1.6.7. as follows:

S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales and for transactions 

where a post-delivery discount is provided, a printed receipt providing the following information shall be 

available through a built-in or separate recording element for all transactions conducted with point-of-sale 

systems or devices activated by debit cards, credit cards, and/or cash:

(a) the total volume of the delivery;

(b) the unit price;

(c) the total computed price; and

(d) the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number.

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the option 

to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(Added 1985) (Amended 1997 and 2012) 

Add a new paragraph S.1.6.8. to NIST Handbook 44, Liquid Measuring Devices Code as follows:

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions Where a Post-Delivery Discount(s) is Provided. – 

Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a printed receipt providing the following information 

shall be available through a built-in or separate recording element that is part of the system for 

transactions involving a post-delivery discount:

(a) the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number;

(b) transaction information as shown on the dispenser at the end of the delivery and prior to any 

post-delivery discount(s), including the: 

(1) total volume of the delivery; 

(2) unit price; and 

(3) total computed price of the fuel sale;

(c) an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit price; and

(d) the final total price of the fuel sale after all post-delivery discounts are applied.

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the 

option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.). 

(Added 2012)

Renumber current S.1.6.8. Lubricant Devices, Travel of Indicator to S.1.6.9.

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Liquid Measuring Devices Code paragraphs UR.3.2. as follows:
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 43

UR.3.2. 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) except for unit prices resulting from any post-delivery discount and dispensers used 

exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck refueling (e.g., truck stop 

dispensers used only to refuel trucks), all of the unit prices 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 the dispenser is set 

to compute.

Provided that the dispenser complies with S.1.6.4.1. Display of Unit Price, it is not necessary that all the unit 

prices for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be simultaneously displayed or posted.

(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) the identity of the grade, brand, blend, or mixture that a multi-product dispenser is set to deliver.

(Amended 1972, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1992, and 1993, and 2012) 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Liquid Measuring Devices Code paragraphs UR.3.3. as follows:

UR.3.3. Computing Device. – Any computing device used in an application where a product or grade is 

offered for sale at one or more unit prices shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and 

displays the sales price for the selected transaction.

(Added 1989) (Amended 1992)

The following exceptions apply:

(a) Fleet sales and other price contract sales are exempt from this requirement.

(b) A truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks is exempt from this requirement provided 

that:

(1) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt of the transaction containing the 

applicable price per gallon, the total gallons delivered, and the total price of the sale; and

(Added 1993)

(2) unless a dispenser complies with S.1.6.4.1. Display of Unit Price, the unit price posted on the 

dispenser and the unit price at which the dispenser is set to compute shall be the highest unit price 

for any transaction which may be conducted.

(Added 1993)

(c) A dispenser used in an application where a price per unit discount is offered following the 

delivery is exempt from this requirement, provided the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The unit price posted on the dispenser and the unit price at which the dispenser is set to 

compute shall be the highest unit price for any transaction.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 44

(2) All purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt recorded by the system for the 

transaction containing:

a. the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number,

b. transaction information as shown on the dispenser at the end of the delivery and prior to 

any post-delivery discount including the:

1. total volume of the delivery; 

2. unit price; and 

3. total computed price of the fuel sale prior to post-delivery discounts being applied,

c. an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit price, and 

d. the final total price of the fuel sale.

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the 

option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.)

(Added 2012)

Background/Discussion:

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee considered six proposals from NCWM S&T Committee’s 

Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computer Capability to modify the NIST 

Handbook 44 Liquid Measuring Devices Code to accommodate changes in marketing practices relative to price 

discounts at retail motor-fuel stations. These proposals were covered in the Committee’s 2012 Interim Agenda 

under separate Items 330-1 through 330-6. After reviewing these items and the comments received during Open 

Hearings, the Committee agreed that the proposals were interdependent and should not be addressed individually. 

Consequently, the Committee consolidated Items 330-1 through 330-6 into the single Item 330-1. The Committee 

further modified the proposals to clarify how current requirements apply when a pre-delivery discount is offered and 

to include additional requirements for the operation of equipment that offers post-delivery discounts on motor fuel 

prices. Consolidated background information for these items and a summary of the Committee’s conclusions are 

outlined below.

Proposed changes to paragraph S.1.6.4.1. Unit Price: Paragraph S.1.6.4.1. currently requires all possible unit 

prices to be posted or capable of being posted on the dispenser. In addition to the cash/credit unit prices that have 

been conventionally offered in retail fuel sales, some marketing practices now offer multiple different unit prices to 

customers both pre-delivery and post-delivery, depending on payment method, loyalty programs, services 

purchased, etc. Newer dispensers, or associated point-of-sale software, can allow for a large variety of final unit 

prices, depending on card type, loyalty programs, etc. There is no reason to display or provide unit price 

information to a customer who may not qualify for a certain discounted unit price that is being offered only to 

eligible customers. 

The Committee modified the proposal to paragraph S.1.6.4.1. to ensure that the unit prices for any pre-delivery 

discounts, such as those given for the use of cash or debit card, would be posted for every customer to see, but also 

would allow for unit price discounts that take place only after the product is dispensed. The order of requirements 

for equipment that offers pre-delivery discounts and for currently exempted devices was reworked for clarity. A 

subparagraph was added to reference new requirements for systems that offer post-delivery discounts. Inserting the 

phrase “through a deliberate action of the purchaser” would allow for the selection of a unit price through the use 

of some form of electronic activation, such as a cell phone, or swipe card.

Proposed changes to paragraph S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price: These changes would allow for greater 

flexibility in how customers can select a unit price and accommodate new technology and marketing practices. The 

current language requires the purchaser to physically make contact with the device to select a unit price. The 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 45

proposed modifications would expand the requirement to allow a customer to use a personal electronic device such 

as a cell phone to select a unit price and would also recognize verbal instructions such as those given to a console 

operator for a particular payment method as acceptable methods for selecting the unit price. For systems that are 

only capable of applying a discount after the delivery (e.g., single unit price devices), the expanded requirement 

would apply retroactively. Changes to the unit price during delivery would still be prohibited. 

Proposed changes to paragraph S.1.6.6. Agreement Between Indications: These changes would provide an 

exemption from the money values agreement requirement when the dispensing system offers discounts after 

delivery that result in total price indications that differ from that indicated on an auxiliary element.

Price discounts could be given through either: 

1. the dispenser’s roll back of the unit price, or

2. recalculation of the transaction at the lower unit price that would be performed by auxiliary equipment 

after, or post, delivery.

Roll back of unit prices prior to fuel delivery requires exact agreement of the total price displayed on the dispenser 

and the total price displayed on any auxiliary element. When a post-delivery discount is offered, a revised total 

price reflecting the post-delivery discount would be shown on the auxiliary display. This would result in a total 

price displayed on the auxiliary equipment that is different from that shown on the dispenser. A change is needed to

paragraph S.1.6.6. as shown in the “Item Under Consideration” to recognize this situation while ensuring that, at a 

minimum, there is agreement in the total indicated and recorded volume between all the elements in the system. 

Proposed changes to S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations and proposed addition of new paragraph S.1.6.8.: 

These changes could help to ensure that fuel dispensers provide receipts with sufficient information to allow 

customers to fully understand any post-delivery discounts and allow the use of electronic as well as printed receipts. 

Proposed new paragraph S.1.6.8., like paragraph S.1.6.7., would exempt certain types of sales, while specifying 

where a receipt must be generated and addressing information that must be recorded in post-delivery discount 

transactions. 

Customer confusion can result when service station consoles apply post-delivery discounts and display total prices 

that are not reflected on the total price shown on dispenser. The confusion could be resolved if the dispenser’s 

printed receipt showed the total price, volume, and unit price displayed on the dispenser at the end of the delivery 

along with an itemization of any additional “post-delivery” discounts that are applied following the delivery. An 

itemization of the post-delivery discounts on the receipt would enable the customer to verify that, particularly in the 

case where multiple discounts (for example, a unit price discount given for the purchase of an item in the 

convenience store along with a discount for purchasing a certain quantity of fuel) are given, all discounts to which 

they believe they are entitled have been applied. Combined with the printing of the information shown on the 

dispenser, this itemized information would allow the customer to reconstruct how the final total sale information, 

including all applied discounts, was calculated and to better understand and follow the transaction. Additionally, 

this information could be used by weights and measures officials and service station owners in the case of customer 

disputes to recreate transactions and ensure that all discounts for which the customer was eligible have been applied.

Proposed changes to S.1.6.7. also recognize that electronic receipts such as those delivered to computers or smart 

phones are making their way into the marketplace.

Proposed changes to UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity: These changes would provide realistic 

requirements for displaying or posting unit prices in consideration of the discount marketing practices being offered 

to consumers.

Paragraph U.R.3.2. currently requires all unit prices at which the product is offered for sale to be capable of being 

posted while only making an exception to this requirement for fleet and price contract sales and truck refueling 

dispensers. The growing trend of post-delivery unit pricing in the form of rewards cards, car wash discounts, and 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 46

others, makes posting all of these unit prices impractical. Unit price discounts may apply only to certain customers 

using certain types of credit cards. A requirement to post all of these unit prices is also unrealistic.

The amendment would ensure that motor-fuel unit prices for pre-delivery discounts such as cash or debit card 

purchases are displayed on or adjacent to the dispenser. Any post-delivery discounts such as loyalty cards, car wash 

purchases, discounts based on volume of purchase, etc., would be exempt from any requirement to display each of 

the unit prices on the dispenser. After the product is dispensed, the unit price displayed on the pump would

automatically revert to the highest unit price offered by the retailer. This would avoid confusion possibly caused 

when drivers pull up to a pump and see a unit price to which they are not entitled. Other proposals presented as part 

of this agenda item would ensure there are sufficient safeguards to provide both the customer and the operator with 

sufficient information about the transaction.

Proposed changes to UR.3.3. Computing Device: These changes would add a new exemption to the requirement 

for computing and displaying the total sale price for all unit prices available in a given application for a particular 

product or grade for applications where a discount is offered following the delivery. This new exemption (which is 

in addition to those already existing for fleet and other price contract sales and devices used exclusively for truck 

refueling) would only apply in such instances if: (1) the unit price posted on the dispenser and the unit price at 

which the device is set to compute are the highest unit price for any transaction; and (2) the customer is provided 

with a printed receipt containing adequate information about the transaction, including an itemization of the 

discounts, to allow the customer to verify all applicable discounts have been applied. This information would allow 

the customer to recreate their transaction, including the application of discounts, using the receipt provided by the 

dispenser. The proposed revisions would also allow electronic receipts to be provided in lieu of paper receipts. 

The new exemption proposed in paragraph UR.3.3. recognizes that various methods of pricing fuel are coming to 

the retail market. In addition to discounts offered for cash or debit cards, new post-delivery discounts to unit prices 

are becoming more common. These include loyalty cards, discounts based upon the type of credit card used, 

discounts for car washes purchased, etc. In order for consumers to be confident that they are receiving all the 

discounts to which they are entitled, it is essential that the dispenser receipt display the original unit price and 

subtotal, the discounts that were applied to the original unit price, and the final total price that the customer is 

charged.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Ms. Williams, NIST, OWM, suggested some changes to the language to 

eliminate some observed gaps and also suggested that the committee consider developing definitions for some of the 

terminology being introduced. She encouraged the Committee to consider grouping Items 330-1 through 330-6 

together into a single item, noting that the basis for proposing changes to some paragraphs hinges on related changes 

proposed to other paragraphs in this series of items. Ms. Williams also noted that, in analyzing the proposed 

changes and their impact on the marketplace, it is critical that the language be compared with actual examples of 

pricing scenarios and associated receipts to ensure that the proposed changes meet the needs of the weights and 

measures community and the marketplace. The task group had planned to do such an analysis using the numerous 

examples and receipts that were submitted by its membership. Ms. Williams encouraged the group to complete that 

task and encouraged others in the community to do the same. NIST, OWM offered the following general comments 

in writing to the Committee. 

1. Any proposed device specifications should be examined to ensure that equipment currently offering predelivery discounts is not precluded from also offering post-delivery discounts.

2. Care should be taken to ensure that the provisions put into place in the 1990s to prevent customer confusion 

and facilitation of fraud are not circumvented. 

3. The language should ensure that systems do not frustrate value comparisons prior to the delivery.

4. Language should be examined and strengthened if necessary to ensure that mathematical computations are 

based on dispenser indications and are mathematically correct. This will eliminate rounding errors that 

occur when determining an inferred volume based on the original total and unit prices (i.e., not allowing 

different quantity values between indicated and inferred quantities as proposed in paragraph S.1.6.6. 

Agreement Between Indications).
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 47

5. Add a definition(s) in NIST Handbook 44 such as “pre-delivery,” “post-delivery discounts,” etc. to lend 

clarity to the terminology used in these proposals and to make sure it is understood.

6. Any proposed language should be analyzed to ensure that there are no conflicts with NIST Handbook 130 

Weights and Measures Laws and Regulations.

Mr. Humphreys, Chair of the Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computer Capability, 

thanked NIST, OWM for the comments and noted their recommendations are supported by the task group based on 

a poll that was taken. Mr. Humphreys encouraged the committee to review and accept those changes. He indicated 

that he believed it would be reasonable for the task group to complete a review of the receipts and examples by the 

July meeting.

Mr. Eichberger, National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), emphasized the importance of adopting 

language that won’t inhibit a retailer from offering a discount. Mr. Eichberger commented that the proposed 

language provides a good balance while giving the retailer the flexibility to offer a discount. He didn’t believe 

NACS members would have a problem with the changes offered by NIST, OWM and also supported consolidating 

the items. Mr. Columbus, Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, representing SIGMA, a fuel marketers association, also spoke 

in support of the proposed changes. Mr. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc., spoke in support of the recommendations by NIST, 

OWM. Mr. Johnson questioned the reference in paragraph UR.3.2. to the display of the unit price between 

transactions and suggested that the Task Group may need to clarify how the time limit requirements would be 

applied and interpreted for various types of transactions. Ms. Butcher, NIST Technical Advisor, suggested 

considering other Liquid Measuring Devices (LMD) Code paragraphs with similar references and mirroring them to 

clarify when a transaction is considered completed and to ensure that the customer has adequate time to observe the 

transaction information. Mr. Saunders, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, also expressed 

a concern about the time limit, citing customer complaints in instances where the information is not displayed long 

enough for the customer to observe the final details of the transaction. Others in the audience, including Mr. Carroll, 

Massachusetts Division of Standards, and Mr. Andersen, retired member, agreed that further examination by the task 

group of these references is warranted to ensure that the language is correct. Mr. Eichberger offered to research 

existing marketing practices relative to this point and report back to the task group. In response to Mr. Johnson’s 

and Mr. Sander’s questions, the Committee modified paragraph UR.3.2.(a) to include a generally accepted point at 

which a transaction is considered complete relative to termination of the delivery and settlement of payment.

The Committee agreed that Agenda Items 330-1 through 330-6 need to be consolidated into a single agenda item. 

After hearing support during the Open Hearings for the recommendations of the Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel 

Dispenser Price Posting and Computer Capability as well as the additional changes proposed by NIST, OWM, the 

Committee agreed to the modified proposals as shown in the “Item Under Consideration” above. The Committee 

recognized the importance of assessing the proposed language against receipts and scenarios that are being 

encountered in the field to ensure that the proposed changes are appropriate. The Committee asked that the task 

group: (1) compare the examples of receipts and scenarios that were submitted to the task group to ensure that the 

proposed language provides for clear and understandable transactions; and (2) address the questions raised about the 

application of the requirements relative to the unit price display following a delivery. Additionally, the Committee 

asked that the regional weights and measures associations, regulatory officials, manufacturers, and device owners 

evaluate the proposed changes as they pertain to existing marketing practices. The 2012 S&T Committee designated 

this item as a Voting Item.

During Open Hearings at the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard suggestions to establish an 

effective date for the requirements, with suggestions of 2014 or 2015 as possibilities. However, the Committee saw 

no merit to establishing an effective date. The Committee noted that the current requirements in NIST Handbook 44 

do not permit systems to offer post-delivery discounts. The changes proposed by the Task Group would establish 

the option for a system to be used to offer post-delivery discounts, provided the system meets certain requirements 

to provide the customer with information about how the discounts are applied. The Committee recognized that the 

criteria outlined by the Task Group includes important provisions that should be in place in order to take advantage 

of the option to offer post-delivery discounts and maintained that these are essential for all systems where postdelivery discounts are to take place. However, the proposed changes are permissive; thus, an effective date is 

unnecessary. A system is not required to meet the new requirement unless the device owner decides to offer postdelivery discounts.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 48

The Committee considered suggested clarifications to the language offered by NIST, OWM. NIST, OWM 

suggested changes to paragraph S.1.6.7. to require clear identification of transaction information on the receipt. 

Additionally, NIST, OWM suggested changes to S.1.6.8. that would require information related to the fuel 

transaction to be grouped together and to clearly designate the required information on the receipt, with the goal of 

assisting the customer in interpreting the transaction information. NIST, OWM also provided examples of possible 

receipt formats that could be incorporated into guidance documents such as NCWM Publication 14. However, the 

Committee agreed that the proposed language is adequately clear as proposed and noted that any deficiencies that 

might be discovered in the language as it is implemented, can be identified and addressed in the future.

The Committee originally considered and proposed for voting in its 2012 Interim Report the following proposed 

changes to UR.3.2.:

UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity.

(a) The following information In the case of a computing type or money-operated type dispenser, the 

final unit price that includes any pre-delivery discounts and at which the device or system is set 

to compute shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on the face of a retail dispenser used in direct 

sale:. At the completion of a transaction, the displayed unit price shall revert to the highest unit 

price available. Additionally, any discounted prices may be posted on or adjacent to the 

dispenser. The completion of a transaction is defined as the time the delivery has been 

terminated and payment has been settled. The payment may be automatic if the delivery is to a 

pre-paid amount. If the sale is prepaid, the delivery is considered terminated after the “handle” 

is in the off position or after the nozzle has been returned to a designed hanging position. 

(1) except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck 

refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), all of the unit prices 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 the 

dispenser is set to compute.

Provided that the dispenser complies with S.1.6.4.1. Display of Unit Price, it is not necessary that all the 

unit prices for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be simultaneously displayed or posted.

Note: Dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, or other price contract sales, and truck refueling (e.g., 

truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), are exempt from paragraph U.R.3.2.(a).

(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) the identity of the grade, brand, blend, or mixture that a multi-product dispenser is set to deliver.

(Amended 1972, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1992, and 1993, and 2012) 

However, during the 2012 Annual Meeting, the Committee was made aware of a potential negative financial impact 

on device owners as a result of the proposed changes to UR.3.2. to require a reversion of the unit price to the highest 

unit price available. Even with a phase in period or grace period, older equipment may never be able to comply, 

including equipment that doesn’t participate in post-delivery discounting. Consequently, the Committee 

recommended the changes to paragraph UR.3.2. as shown in the “Item Under Consideration.” The remaining 

proposals in the “Item Under Consideration” were unchanged from the Committee’s original proposal in the 2012 

NCWM Publication 16.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 49

330-2 V S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price

This item was consolidated with Item 330-1 as a result of action by the Committee at the 2012 Interim Meeting.

330-3 V S.1.6.6. Agreement Between Indications

This item was consolidated with Item 330-1 as a result of action by the Committee at the 2012 Interim Meeting.

330-4 V S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations

This item was consolidated with Item 330-1 as a result of action by the Committee at the 2012 Interim Meeting.

330-5 V UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity

This item was consolidated with Item 330-1 as a result of action by the Committee at the 2012 Interim Meeting.

330-6 V UR.3.3. Computing Device

This item was consolidated with Item 330-1 as a result of action by the Committee at the 2012 Interim Meeting.

330-7 W UR.3.X. Nozzle Color for Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: 

Missouri Department of Agriculture (2012)

Purpose: 

Prevent accidental mis-fueling by establishing uniform fuel dispenser nozzle colors for product recognition. 

Item Under Consideration: 

The Committee considered a proposal to add the following paragraph to NIST Handbook 44, Liquid Measuring 

Devices Code:

UR.3.X. Nozzle Color for Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers.

(a) Diesel fuel nozzles shall be green in color and shall be used only for diesel fuel, and

(b) E85 fuel nozzles shall be yellow in color and shall be used only for E85.

Background/Discussion:

Missouri Weights and Measures Division receive numerous complaints each year related to the accidental misfueling of vehicles. Information received from many other states indicates the same problem exists nationwide. 

If uniform colors were established for nozzles or nozzle covers, the same colors could be used for fill connections on 

storage tanks. If color codes were consistent for both fill openings and dispensing nozzles there would likely be far 

less contamination of fuel in storage tanks and damage to vehicles. 

The submitter also noted that some diesel auto manufacturers now require a minimum of 23.63 mm (0.930 in) 

outside diameter for nozzle spout size. This diameter was a common size for all fuels prior to the introduction of 

unleaded gasoline.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 50

The proposal would establish uniform fuel nozzle colors for product recognition on retail motor fuel dispensers to 

prevent accidental mis-fueling of passenger vehicles. The proposal would require yellow colored nozzle covers for 

E-85 and mid-level ethanol blends for flex-fuel vehicles and restrict the color yellow from use to identify other 

products. The proposal would also require green colored nozzle covers for diesel fuel and mid-level blends of diesel 

fuel and restrict the color green from use to identify other products. In the future, consideration could be given to 

establishing color codes for other products (e.g., gasoline, kerosene)

At the 2011 CWMA and NEWMA Interim Meetings and the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, the associations 

forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item. During the CWMA meeting, a number of 

regulatory officials supported for this item to promote uniformity. There was discussion at that meeting about overregulating and whether the consumer would be aware of and pay attention to this color coding system. Industry 

members suggested that more lead time is needed on this requirement to allow for consumer education, and time to 

defray the costs associated with this change. Others expressed concern that this requirement would adversely affect 

certain brands. At the NEWMA meeting, many members noted they have received complaints on this issue and 

would support a standard to help the consumer more readily identify diesel is being selected. SWMA is amenable to 

considering a proposal to address the issue of mis-fueling; however, SWMA does not believe the proposal is 

complete as written and expressed concern that the proposal may not completely address the problems that lead to 

mis-fueling. In particular, they believe that nozzle size requirements should be considered.

At 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, there was no testimony in support of the proposal. WWMA noted that the 

proposal doesn’t prevent accidental mis-fueling and the potential number of colors for different grades and types of 

fuel products could be more confusing to customers. WWMA noted that a similar proposal was submitted to 

NCWM in 2002 and was ultimately withdrawn in 2003 due to lack of support. WWMA did not forward the item to 

NCWM since no new justification was provided.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Hayes, Missouri Department of Agriculture, spoke in support of the 

proposal and provided an amended version for the Committee to consider that would also reference nozzle size. Mr. 

Hayes noted that their jurisdiction handles numerous complaints and suggested that larger nozzle sizes may provide 

additional protections against mis-fueling. Mr. Columbus, NACS and SIGMA, opposed the proposal, citing 

concerns about the impact on companies that have invested significant costs in branding and station design and 

questioning whether the change would be effective in preventing mis-fueling. NIST, OWM pointed out that, as 

noted by the WWMA, a similar proposal had been considered by the Committee in the past and suggested that the 

Committee revisit those discussions to determine whether or not changes or new factors would warrant 

reconsideration of the issue. NIST, OWM also noted that the Committee should give careful consideration to 

whether this proposal would be overly restrictive with regard to businesses that have established color schemes 

associated with their brands, particularly given comments that indicate that color alone may not be effective in 

preventing mis-fueling. NIST, OWM noted that NIST Handbook 44 presently includes identity requirements and 

that amendments to that paragraph to require additional markings on the nozzle as to the product identity might offer 

a more reasonable alternative for clarifying product identity.

The Committee considered the comments from Open Hearings at the Interim Meeting suggesting that color coding 

of nozzles would not prevent accidental mis-fueling. The Committee considered additional amendments that were 

proposed during the Open Hearings to incorporate nozzle size requirements into the proposal. The Committee 

concluded that requiring either: 1) color coding of nozzles; or 2) nozzles of different sizes for different products 

offered for sale, wouldn’t prevent accidental mis-fueling. Additionally, the Committee had concerns that size 

requirements could negatively impact consumers whose diesel-fueled vehicles may not accommodate nozzles with 

larger diameters. Consequently, the Committee designated this item as a Withdrawn Item.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 51

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS

331-1 I T.4. Product Depletion Test

Source: 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (2009 – Developing Items Part 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters, Item 1.)

Purpose: 

Enable more consistent application of the tolerances between older and newer meters and address an unintentional 

gap that allows an unreasonably large tolerance for smaller meters.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meter Code paragraph T.4. and the accompanying 

Table T.4. as follows: Note that this option was identified as “Option 2” in the Committee’s 2011 Final Report and 

2012 Interim Agenda.

T.4. Product Depletion Test. – The difference between the test result for any normal test and the product 

depletion test shall not exceed tolerance shown in Table T.4. 0.5 % percent of the volume delivered in one 

minute at the maximum flow rate marked on the meter for meters rated higher than 380 Lpm (100 gpm) 

or 0.6 % percent of the volume delivered in one minute at the maximum flow rate marked on the meter 

for meters rated 380 Lpm (100 gpm) or lower. Test drafts shall be of the same size and run at approximately 

the same flow rate.

[Note: The result of the product depletion test may fall outside of the applicable test tolerance as specified in 

Table 1.] 

Delete current Table T.4.

Table T.4.

Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Meters Size Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances

Up to, but not including, 50 mm (2 in) 1.70 L (104 in3)

1

From 50 mm (2 in) up to, but not including, 75 mm (3 in) 2.25 L (137 in3)

1

75 mm (3 in) or larger 3.75 L (229 in3)

1

Based on a test volume of at least the amount specified in N.3. Test Drafts.

Background/Discussion: 

This item was submitted to NEWMA at its 2008 Interim Meeting to propose an alternative to existing product 

depletion test tolerances which are based on the size of the meter. The alternatives presented by the original 

submitter propose basing tolerances on a percentage of maximum flow rate rather than meter size. The submitter 

noted that, while a nonretroactive marking requirement added in 2008 eliminates difficulties in determining meter 

size for newer metering systems, inspectors are still faced with difficulties consistently determining meter size for 

older systems, and those systems will likely remain in service for many years. Additionally, the submitter noted that 

the original proposal to base tolerances on meter size did not consider the possibility of smaller meters (e.g., down to 

1⁄4 inch diameter) being mounted on vehicles. Applying current tolerances to these smaller meters based on meter 

size would result in a 22.5 % relative error for one minute of flow during a product depletion test. Even a slightly 

larger, one-inch meter would have a relative error of 2.25 %. These tolerances seem inappropriately large. While 

the submitter noted that two-inch meters and three-inch meters are expected to comprise the largest number of 

vehicle-mounted meters, the current tolerances based on meter size provide an inappropriately large tolerance for 

smaller meters. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 52

The Committee has agreed with the concept of basing the product depletion test tolerances on the marked maximum 

flow rate of the meter rather than on the marked meter size and has considered several proposals for modifying the 

tolerances since this item was introduced in 2008. Details of these proposals and associated discussion can be found 

in the Committee’s 2009 to 2011 Final Reports (The Final Reports of the 94th, 95th, 96th, and 97th NCWM). While 

recognizing that one goal of the original proposal was to reduce what the submitter considered an unreasonably large 

tolerance for smaller meters, the Committee expressed concern about the impact the proposal would have on these 

meters based on comments from Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA), including comments during the 2011 

NCWM Annual Meeting.

From 2009 to 2011, the Committee repeatedly requested data to support or oppose the proposals under consideration 

with little success. At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reiterated its need for data to evaluate the 

impact of any proposed tolerances changes. Following the meeting, NIST Technical Advisor, Ms. Butcher

distributed a request on the NIST, OWM Director’s list serve on behalf of the committee asking weights and 

measures jurisdictions to submit data.

At their fall 2011 Meetings, CWMA, SWMA, and WWMA encouraged the collection of data. Since work continues 

on this issue, all three associations recommended that the item be a Developing Item until data has been submitted 

and analyzed. SWMA also noted that there does not appear to be a clear preference for either of the two options 

presented in NCWM S&T Committee’s 2011 Final Report; the SWMA heard that a third proposal may be under 

development by the MMA.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, it was suggested that there is not a lot of product depletion testing in the 

field. If the truck only has one tank, it makes the logistics of testing very difficult. NEWMA also noted that 

variations in product flow rate and clinging of product will also skew test results. Members believe it is much easier 

to ascertain product flow information from the ID plate rather than determine actual meter size with piping 

variations. NEWMA encouraged jurisdictions to forward any data to the S&T Committee NIST Technical Advisor. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the committee reiterated its position that tolerances for the product depletion 

test of a vehicle tank meter should be based on the marked maximum flow rate of the meter rather than meter size. 

The Committee considered the three options for modifying NIST Handbook 44, including two options presented in 

its 2011 Interim Agenda and a third option submitted by the MMA prior to the meeting. A summary of the three 

options is outlined in the following table. A second table illustrating examples of tolerances for common meter sizes 

and maximum flow rates is also included.

Summary of Product Depletion Tolerance Options Considered

Marked Maximum Flow Rate or Meter Size Tolerance 

(% of Marked Max Flow Rate)

Current Up to but not including 2 in 104 in3

2 in up to but not including 3 in 137 in3

3 in and larger 229 in3

Option 1: All Maximum Flow Rates 0.5 %

Option 2: Marked Max ≤ 100 gpm 0.6 %

Marked Max > 100 gpm 0.5 %

Option 3: Marked Max ≤ 60 gpm 0.8 %

Marked Max > 60 gpm up to and including 100 gpm 0.6 %

Marked Max > 100 gpm 0.5 %
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 53

Examples of Product Depletion Tolerance Options for Different Meter Sizes/Flow Rates

Size

(inches)

Marked 

Maximum Flow 

Rate (gpm)

Current 

Tolerance

Option 1 

(0.5 % max)

Option 2 

(0.6 % max) 

(0.5 % max)

Option 3 

(0.8 % max) 

(0.6 % max) 

(0.5 % max)

11⁄2 60 gpm 104 in3 69 in3 83 in3 111 in3

2 100 gpm 137 in3 115 in3 139 in3 139 in3

2 150 gpm 137 in3 173 in3 173 in3 173 in3

3 150 gpm 229 in3 173 in3 173 in3 173 in3

3 200 gpm 229 in3 231 in3 231 in3 231 in3

3 300 gpm 229 in3 346 in3 346 in3 346 in3

3 350 gpm 229 in3 404 in3 404 in3 404 in3

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting Open Hearings, members of the MMA supported Option 3. Mr. Andersen, 

who originally proposed the item in 2008, pointed out that the tolerances in Option 1 were the same as those that 

apply prior to modifying the tolerance to be based on meter size.

Ms. Butcher, NIST Technical Advisor, reported that the Committee received product depletion test data from nine 

state and county weights and measures jurisdictions. She brought a copy of the raw data for examination by the 

Committee during its work sessions and also distributed a summary to the Committee as shown in the following two 

tables. She explained how the data was analyzed and noted that assumptions were made about meter size in some 

instances where meter size and/or maximum flow rate were not both provided. The first table summarizes for each 

jurisdiction the number of meters on which the product depletion test was conducted along with a comparison of the 

number that failed the current and proposed tolerances; the data includes both total meters for each option along 

with a breakdown of meters in three different flow rate categories. The second table provides a summary showing 

these totals for all jurisdictions combined.

Summary of Product Depletion Test Data Submitted by State and County Weights and Measures 

Jurisdictions as of January 1, 2012

Total 

Meters

Failed Current 

Tolerance

Failed 

Option 1

Failed 

Option 2

Failed 

MMA

Marked 

Max

Jurisdiction #1 67 0 2 1 1 ---

1 0 1 1 1 60 gpm

53 0 1 0 0 100 gpm

12 0 0 0 0 > 100 gpm

1 0 0 0 0 ??

Jurisdiction #2 9 0 0 0 0 No Data

Jurisdiction #3 288 21 33 22 20 ---

28 1 5 3 1 60 gpm

228 17 25 16 16 100 gpm

32 3 3 3 3 > 100 gpm
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 54

Summary of Product Depletion Test Data Submitted by State and County Weights and Measures 

Jurisdictions as of January 1, 2012

Total 

Meters

Failed Current 

Tolerance

Failed 

Option 1

Failed 

Option 2

Failed 

MMA

Marked 

Max

Jurisdiction #4 196 7 18 9 6 ---

14 0 3 3 0 60 gpm

153 5 14 5 5 100 gpm

29 2 1 1 1 > 100 gpm

Jurisdiction #5 134 7 12 7 7 ---

10 2 3 2 2 60 gpm

72 4 8 4 4 100 gpm

52 1 1 1 1 > 100 gpm

Jurisdiction #6 200 20 29 20 20 ---

0 0 0 0 0 60 gpm

178 16 25 16 16 100 gpm

22 4 4 4 4 > 100 gpm

Jurisdiction #7 196 13 14 13 13 ---

0 0 0 0 0 60 gpm

150 11 12 11 11 100 gpm

46 2 2 2 2 > 100 gpm

Jurisdiction #8 761 0 7 1 0 ---

103 0 1 1 0 60 gpm

629 0 6 0 0 100 gpm

29 0 0 0 0 > 100 gpm

Jurisdiction #9 71 26 26 20 20 No Data

Summary of All 

Jurisdictions

156 3 13 10 4 60 gpm

1463 53 91 52 52 100 gpm

222 12 11 11 11 > 100 gpm

81 26 26 20 20 No Info.

Totals 1922 94 141 93 87

The Committee expressed sincere appreciation to those jurisdictions that submitted data. The Committee discussed 

the data and the summaries. The Committee recognized that the data was not obtained under controlled conditions

or as part of a structured survey or study; however, the data was extremely valuable in assessing the relative impact 

of the three options proposed. The Committee agreed that Option 2 represents a reasonable compromise between 

the original proposal and the MMA’s proposal (designated Option 3 in the tables above). The Committee
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 55

acknowledged that this item has included multiple proposals up to this point and it is important to designate a single 

option for consideration by NCWM so this item can move forward. Consequently, the committee presented

Option 2 for consideration. Because this item has included multiple proposals up to this point, the 2012 S&T

Committee designated this item as an Informational Item and requested comments on the proposal as shown in the 

Item Under Consideration prior to moving the item forward as a Voting Item.

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, NEWMA expressed its support for moving this item ahead as a Voting Item in the next 

NCWM cycle. At its 2012 Annual Meeting, CWMA supported the item as “Informational.”

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings, Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls, speaking on behalf of 

the Meter Manufacturers Association, commented that, while MMA is aware that the Committee did not support 

MMA’s proposed “Option 3,” the MMA supports “Option 2” recommended by the Committee. 

The Committee asks the Regional Weights and Measures Associations and industry for input regarding whether or 

not the proposed changes are ready for adoption in the next NCWM cycle.

336 WATER METERS

336-1 V S.3. Markings 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

Neptune Technology Group, Inc. (2012)

Purpose: 

Add marking requirements for Utility Type Meters under NIST Handbook 44: Section 3.36. Water Meters.

Item Under Consideration: 

Add the following to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.36. Water Meters Code:

S.3. Markings

S.3.1. Location of Marking Information; Utility Type Meters. – All required markings, including 

those required by G-S.1. Identification, shall be either on the meter body or primary indicator.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2013]

(Added 2012)

Background/Discussion:

Utility water meters are type approved under the California Type Evaluation Program; however, they are not yet 

accepted for evaluation by NTEP. Water meter manufacturers have set precedence since 1982 for the marking 

requirements of utility water meters. This precedence has been upheld by California state and county inspectors 

since its inception without incidence or harm. In many utility-type meter installations, visibility of markings on the 

meter body can be quite limited, while visibility of markings on the primary indicator is usually substantially better.

The submitter also stated that marking requirements are needed in Water Meter Code of NIST Handbook 44 as 

outlined in the Item Under Consideration before NCWM can offer NTEP Certification of these devices. When 

water meters are accepted for NTEP certification, utility type water meter manufacturers could participate in the 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector and play a more active role in 

providing greater visibility and education to the industry regarding utility water meters and their use.

The following water meter manufacturer representatives expressed support for the proposal on behalf of their 

respective companies: Mr. Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc.; Mr. De Jarlais, Badger Meter, Inc.; 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 56

Mr. Leckman, Badger Meter, Inc.; Mr. Swanson, Sensus Metering; Mr. Koch, Master Meter, Inc.; and Mr. Watson, 

Elster AMCO Water. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc., spoke on behalf of the Water 

Meter Manufactures consisting of Badger Meter, Inc., Neptune Technology Group, Inc., Sensus Metering, Master 

Meter, Inc. and Elster Amco voicing their support of the item. WWMA received letters of support from the water 

meter manufacturers group. Mr. Hasmeyer of Alameda County, California, opposed the item based on the proposal 

allowing identification information located on an accompanying document. Based on comments received, the 

submitter proposed amendments to the item, removing the reference to supplemental documentation. WWMA 

forwarded the item as modified below to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item: 

S.3. Markings 

S.3.1. Location of Marking Information; Utility Type Meters [See also G-S.1. Identification, G-S.4. 

Interchange or Reversal of Parts, G-S.7. Lettering and G-UR.2.1.1. Visibility of Identification]

The markings may be either on the meter body or primary indicator. The manufacturer’s name or 

trademark, the model designation, and identifying symbols for the model and serial numbers as required 

by G-S.1. Identification shall also be marked on the meter body or primary indicator. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2013] 

(Added 20XX) 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc. spoke in support of the proposed 

marking requirement on behalf of Neptune and four other water meter manufacturers (including Badger Meter, 

Elster, Master Meter, and Sensus). The Committee also received letters of support from Mr. Koch, Master Meter, 

Inc., and Mr. Swanson, Sensus. Mr. Cooper, speaking on behalf of the MMA, expressed support for the proposal as 

modified by the WWMA. NIST, OWM suggested eliminating the references to the General Code requirements in 

the title of the paragraph, noting that the Introduction Section of NIST Handbook 44 clarifies that the General Code 

requirements also apply. Referencing specific paragraphs also creates the risk of inadvertently missing paragraphs 

that should be applied.

After considering the comments received, the Committee agreed to the alternative language proposed by the 

WWMA and also agreed that the General Code paragraph references in the bracketed portion of the item proposed 

are not needed. The Committee amended the proposed language accordingly and presented the following 

recommended language for a vote in its 2012 Interim Report:

S.3. Markings 

S.3.1. Location of Marking Information; Utility Type Meters. - The markings may be either on the 

meter body or primary indicator. The manufacturer’s name or trademark, the model designation, and 

identifying symbols for the model and serial numbers as required by G-S.1. Identification shall also be 

marked on the meter body or primary indicator.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2013] 

(Added 20XX) 

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Ms. Kristin Macey, California,

suggesting modifications to the proposed language to change the reference from “may” to “shall.”

The Committee also heard comments from Mr. Noel who expressed support for the proposal and agreed with Ms. 

Macey’s suggested change.

Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls, speaking on behalf of the Meter Manufacturers Association, stated that MMA 

supports the proposal.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 57

Committee Chairman, Mr. Steve Giguere, Maine, reported that the Committee also received letters of support from 

Mr. Alex Watson, Elster AMCO, and Mr. Swanson.

The Committee recommends modifying the proposed paragraph in the “Item Under Consideration” in its Interim 

Report to read as shown in the “Item Under Consideration” above. The revisions made by the Committee include 

changing the word “may” to “shall” and consolidating the language to eliminate redundancies in the language.

Any additional letters, presentations, and data that was submitted for consideration for this item is located in the 

S&T Appendix B. 

354 TAXIMETERS

354-1 D S.5. Provision for Security Seals 

The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as a Developing Item and moved it to Section 360 Developing Items 

as Item 360-5. 

354-2 D Global Positioning Systems Applications for Taximeters

The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as a Developing Item and moved it to Section 360 Developing Items 

as Item 360-6. 

356 GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

356-1 I UR.3.4. Printed Tickets 

Source: 

Grain and Feed Association of Illinois (2012)

Purpose: 

Change the mandatory printing of tickets from grain moisture meters to an “on demand at the time of transaction” 

printing and remove the requirement of printing the calibration version identification. Note that the Committee did 

not agree with proposed removal of the requirement to print the calibration version identification; this position is 

reflected in the version of the proposal currently under consideration by the committee.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Grain Moisture Meter Code 5.56.(a) as follows:

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets.

(a) Printed tickets shall be free from any previous indication of moisture content or type of grain or seed 

selected.

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket at the time of the transaction or as otherwise specified 

by the customer. The printed ticket shall include the date, grain type, grain moisture results, and test 

weight per bushel, and calibration version identification. The ticket information shall be generated by 

the grain moisture meter system.

(Amended 1993, 1995, and 2003, and 20XX) 

Background/Discussion:

According to the submitter, the user requirement to provide a printed ticket for every single load is unrealistic in the 

country elevator industry. Traffic patterns at country elevators do not lend themselves to providing a printed ticket 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 58

to all customers and customers really don’t want them. As the speed and capacity increases in the industry, 

outbound scales are being located at a distance from the inbound scale and the scale house where the moisture tester 

is located to alleviate traffic bottlenecks. When the outbound scale is located away from where the ticket is printed, 

the truck driver must circle back around to pick up the ticket, thus, causing logistical problems. In addition, since 

meters are sealed, inspected and required to have the correct calibration, there is no need for the calibration version 

identification to be printed on the ticket. Also, most customers are not going to know if it is the correct calibration 

version identification or not. There have been problems getting the information from the grain moisture meter to the 

grain accounting system – especially the calibration version identification. Some grain accounting systems have to 

be “hard coded” for calibration version identification which must be changed whenever the calibration changes. The 

change will be at an added cost for the industry.

When a consumer pays at a gas pump, they have the option of a receipt on demand at the time of transaction or not 

receiving a receipt. There would be a cost savings to moisture meter users as they would save on paper and filing 

space, and in the situation where the calibration version identification is “hard coded,” there will be a cost savings of 

the expense to have the grain accounting software provider make those changes.

Since moisture meters are capable of printing the ticket, some would argue that they should just go ahead and print 

them and provide them to the customer. In addition, the requirement does not say when the ticket shall be given to 

the customer; thus, the printed tickets could be saved for weeks, months, or even years in case the customer had a 

concern at some point. Printing the calibration version identification ensures the correct calibration is being used.

The submitter proposed amendments to paragraph UR.3.4. Printed Tickets as follows:

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets.

(a) Printed tickets shall be free from any previous indication of moisture content or type of grain or seed 

selected.

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket on demand at the time of the transaction showing the 

date, grain type, grain moisture results, test weight per bushel, and calibration version identification. 

The ticket information shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system.

(Amended 1993, 1995, and 2003, and 20XX) 

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, some jurisdictions opposed the proposal citing that it is a fundamental 

element of a point of sale transaction that there is either a witness to the transaction or that a receipt is made 

available. Others supported the item and recognized that many customers refuse to take the printed tickets. The 

CWMA believes that the calibration version identification is not necessary on the ticket since most jurisdictions are 

already verifying the calibrations version when the device is inspected. This proposal is not eliminating the 

opportunity for the seller to obtain a printed ticket. CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a 

Voting Item. 

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting, the Committee heard no comments on this item. The WWMA amended the 

proposal to make the language consistent with other codes such as 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia LiquidMeasuring Devices Code paragraph UR.2.6. Ticket Printer: Customer Tickets. WWMA forwarded the modified 

version below to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets.

(a) Printed tickets shall be free from any previous indication of moisture content or type of grain or seed 

selected.

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing at the time of the transaction or as otherwise 

specified by the customer. The printed ticket shall include the date, grain type, grain moisture 

results, and test weight per bushel, and calibration version identification. The ticket information

shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 59

(Amended 1993, 1995, and 2003, and 20XX) 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting there were no comments. Deferring to the expertise of the Grain Analyzer 

Sector, NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, Ms. Butcher, NIST Technical Advisor, noted that the proposed language 

submitted was slightly different from that discussed by the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector and provided a summary 

corresponding to this item prepared by Ms. Lee, Grain Analyzer Sector Technical Advisor. Ms. Butcher also

pointed out that WWMA proposed alternate language that is consistent with printed tickets requirements in other 

Codes. SWMA agreed that the customer should be given the option of receiving a printed ticket from a transaction 

and that the proposed changes would clarify the responsibility of the device user. SWMA preferred the option 

forwarded by WWMA since it mirrors existing language in other NIST Handbook 44 codes. SWMA forwarded the 

item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item as revised by WWMA. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments in support of the alternative language 

submitted by the WWMA. NIST, OWM reported that the proposed language submitted to the regional weights and 

measures associations was different from that agreed to by the Grain Analyzer Sector at its August 2011 meeting. 

The Grain Analyzer Sector had specifically opposed deleting the phrase “calibration version identification.” NIST, 

OWM also noted that not all grain moisture meters are Category 3 devices; consequently, calibration version 

identification information is a critical component on the printed receipt to reconstruct the basis for a sale and help 

officials to resolve complaints. 

The Committee agreed that the version proposed by WWMA and SWMA was preferable since it mirrors similar 

language in other NIST Handbook 44 Codes. The Committee also agreed that, given the Grain Analyzer Sector’s 

opposition to deleting the reference to “calibration version identification,” this phrase should be retained in the 

paragraph. The Committee presented an amended version of the proposal. The Committee recognized that the 

regional associations were not aware of the Sector’s position on the proposed deletion of the reference to the 

calibration version and that the submitter has not had an opportunity to review the significant changes from the 

original version. The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as an Informational Item to allow additional 

opportunity for input.

In its 2012 annual report, NEWMA suggested that this item remain informational, noting little experience within 

NEWMA on grain moisture meters. The CWMA also supported the item remaining Informational, citing the need 

for additional input on the modifications to the proposal.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard no additional comments during its Open Hearings. The 

Committee reiterates its request for input on the modifications to the proposal, particularly from the original 

submitter and any regional weights and measures association that has not had an opportunity to review the 

modifications. The Committee recommended no changes to the “Item Under Consideration.”
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 60

358 MULTIPLE DIMENSION MEASURING DEVICES

358-1 VC N.1.3.4. Test Objects with Protrusions 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

Multiple Dimensions Measuring Device (MDMD) Work Group (2012)

Purpose: 

Update the MDMD code based on the MDMD Work Group’s clarification of irregularly shaped objects and 

protrusions.

Item Under Consideration: 

Delete paragraph N.1.4.3.Test Objects with Protrusions: 

N.1.4.3. Test Objects with Protrusions. – If the device is marked with a minimum protrusion dimension 

to be measured, a test object with protrusion shall be used to verify the marked limitation during type 

evaluation.

(Added 2008)

Background/Discussion:

The MDMD Work Group determined that a “protrusion” is nothing more than the part or parts of an object that 

changes the object from a hexahedron shape to an irregularly shaped object. Therefore, no special test object is 

required for type evaluation and the reference to testing objects with protrusions as specified in N.1.4.3. Test Objects 

with Protrusions is unnecessary. If appropriate, the manufacturer is required to mark the unit with a “minimum 

protrusion size” as stated in Note 7 of Table S.4.1.b. and the irregularly-shaped object used during type evaluation 

will be configured to verify the manufacture’s declared limitation.

At the fall 2011 regional meetings, the CWMA, WWMA, and SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, 

recommending it as a Voting Item. At the WWMA meeting, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC commented on 

behalf of the MDMD Work Group, that the proposed deletion of N.1.4.3. will harmonize NIST Handbook 44 with 

Canadian requirements and other international recommendations for MDMDs regarding irregular shaped objects. 

SWMA received additional background from Mr. Flocken that the current MDMD Code includes requirements for 

hexahedrons (e.g., a six-sided box) and irregularly-shaped, non-hexahedrons (e.g., something other than a six-sided 

box such as a tailpipe). The code also includes provisions to address objects with “protrusions.” However, the

MDMD Work Group believes that objects with protrusions should be addressed the same way as irregularly shaped 

objects. Thus, the proposed change would simplify the requirements by reducing the types of objects addressed in 

the code to two categories: hexahedrons and non-hexahedrons.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as an 

Informational Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meetings, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC supported the item and echoed comments 

that he provided during the regional association meetings. NIST, OWM suggested that the Committee consider 

deleting the term “minimum protrusion size” from Table S.4.1.b. Note 7 to coincide with the proposal.

The Committee considered NIST, OWM’s proposal to delete the term “minimum protrusion size” from Note 7 in 

Table S.1.4.1.b.; however, based upon a later recommendation from NIST, OWM to withdraw that proposal, the 

committee decided to maintain the item as originally proposed by the MDMD Work Group.

Hearing no opposition to the changes proposed by the MDMD Work Group and deferring to that group’s expertise, 

the Committee agreed with the proposal to delete paragraph N.1.4.3. Test Objects with Protrusions from the MDMD 

Code. The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as a Voting Item. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 61

At their 2012 Annual Meetings, NEWMA and CWMA supported this item as a Voting Item. 

At its Open Hearings during the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Darrell 

Flocken, speaking on behalf of SMA, supporting the proposed changes. Mr. Flocken reiterated that the proposed 

changes were essentially “housekeeping” in nature. The Committee is recommended no changes to the “Item Under 

Consideration.”

359 ELECTRONIC LIVESTOCK, MEAT, AND POULTRY EVALUATION SYSTEMS 

AND/OR DEVICES – TENTATIVE CODE

359-1 VC Tentative Status of Code Section 5.59. 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: 

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA), 

Packers and Stockyards Program (P&SP) (2012)

Purpose: 

Remove the Tentative Code status of Section 5.59., making it enforceable.

Item Under Consideration: Amend the title of NIST Handbook 44, Tentative Code 5.59. as follows:

Section 5.59. Electronic Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or Devices – Tentative 

Code

This tentative code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be enforced. The 

requirements are designed for study prior to the development and adoption of a final Code for Livestock, 

Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or Devices. Officials wanting to conduct an official 

examination of a device or system are advised to see paragraph G A.3. Special and Unclassified 

Equipment.

Background/Discussion:

Electronic livestock carcass evaluation equipment is used in livestock procurement to determine the value of the 

livestock being purchased. There is no independent, third party verifying the accuracy of these devices. In 2010, 

106.9 million hogs weighing 21.8 billion pounds with a total value of $15.7 billion were commercially slaughtered. 

Of these, approximately 80 % were made on a carcass yield weight basis with an electronic carcass evaluation 

device. In 2010, 27 million steers and heifers weighing 34.6 billion pounds with a total value of $33 billion were 

commercially slaughtered. The use of electronic carcass evaluation devices in the beef industry is just beginning to 

take hold, so there is no data at this point that indicates the number of transactions in which carcass evaluation 

devices are being used commercially. Electronic carcass evaluation devices are also used to measure composition or 

quality constituents in individual cuts of meat for further sale to consumers. Studies have shown that improper use 

of electronic carcass evaluation equipment can change the value of livestock, meat and poultry. The impact of 

calibration, machine, and formula errors is unknown. The economic impact of the use of electronic livestock, meat 

and poultry evaluation equipment is very large. The revenues of livestock and poultry producers in every state are 

or will be affected by the use of these devices.

State and federal regulatory agencies are charged with protecting livestock, meat and poultry producers as well as 

the consumer in the marketing of livestock, poultry and meat food products. USDA, GIPSA, P&SP references NIST 

Handbook 44 in 9 C.F.R. 201.71(a) in its livestock, poultry and carcass weight scale programs to ensure that all 

scales are installed, maintained and operated to safeguard accurate weights. NIST Handbook 44 currently includes a 

tentative code for electronic carcass evaluation devices. Changing the status of the code from “tentative” to 

“permanent” would assist state and federal regulatory agencies in the enforcement of standards that would ensure 

compliance, accuracy and consistency across the country. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 62

ASTM International, an organization that develops voluntary international standards, has established the 

F-10 Committee specifically to address electronic livestock, meat and poultry evaluation devices and systems. It 

developed several standards referenced in the tentative code. The F-10 Committee remains committed to continuing 

the development of new standards and the revision of current standards to assist the livestock industry as technology 

takes a larger role in the determination of value in livestock. Changing the status of the NIST Handbook 44 code to 

“permanent” would also support the efforts of this committee to ensure consistency and accuracy across the country.

At the SWMA 2011 Annual Meeting Mr. Ainsworth, USDA, asked the SWMA to consider moving this proposal 

forward to the NCWM S&T Committee as a Voting Item based upon the rationale provided in the background 

information. The SWMA heard no opposition to the proposed changes and acknowledged that there has been no 

negative feedback since the code was given tentative status several years ago. SWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, two states reported that their inspectors have no experience with this 

equipment and they expressed reservations about having enough knowledge about the equipment to consider the 

proposal or resources to train inspectors to test the equipment. One of those jurisdictions also questioned adoption 

of a code that would only meet the needs of one jurisdiction, albeit a federal government agency.

One state and two private sector representatives supported the proposal. They noted that, if NCWM is to fulfill its 

mission of being the organization that develops the legal metrology standards for the United States, it isn’t wise to 

turn agencies away, particularly those that have experience working with the equipment in question and that have an 

immediate need for the standard. While there are sometimes risks in adopting requirements for new technologies 

and applications, at some point adoption of the requirements must proceed and consideration must be given to the 

expertise of the members of the work group that developed the standards and who have applied it thus far. NIST 

Handbook 44 is regularly revised to respond to changes in the commercial marketplace and the need for 

modifications in new areas of application

NIST, OWM reported contacting two state jurisdictions where this equipment is in use in large facilities in an effort 

to gather additional input on this item for the Committee. While these jurisdictions had not applied the code, 

Mr. Wilke, USDA GIPSA, reported that GIPSA applies the code to electronic carcass evaluation systems on a 

regular basis and is satisfied with the results obtained from its use. He also reported that new devices being 

manufactured have been found to comply with the requirements in the code.

After considering comments on this issue, the Committee acknowledged that, although there is no evidence that 

states have applied the tentative code, one regulatory agency, USDA GIPSA has applied the code on a regular basis 

and is requesting that the tentative status be lifted to allow enforcement of the code. The 2012 S&T Committee 

designated this item as a Voting Item. 

At their spring 2012 Annual Meetings, NEWMA and CWMA supported the item as a Voting Item, noting that 

another regulatory agency needs the ability to enforce this code.

At 2012 Annual Meeting, Mr. Richard Suiter, Richard Suiter Consulting, referenced comments received by the 

committee from weights and measures jurisdictions who were concerned about not having the testing equipment or 

knowledge to test these devices. Mr. Suiter pointed out that Section 5.59. includes requirements for the device 

owner to provide traceable test standards, thus removing any burden on the jurisdiction to provide them. Mr. Suiter 

also noted that testing these devices may require an additional investment of time; however, the devices are typically 

located in facilities where other devices under weights and measures regulation are located and the amount of 

additional time required should not be significant. 

The Committee also heard from Mr. Alan Christian, USDA, GIPSA Packers and Stockyards Program, who 

reiterated comments made by GIPSA at the 2012 Interim Meeting. He cited the importance of changing the status 

of the code to “permanent,” noting that a vast number of producers are paid based, not only on the weight of the 

animal, but also on other quality factors. The lack of enforceable standards can result in significant harm to sellers 

who rely on the accuracy of these measurements for fair payment.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 63

The Committee noted that there was one position, neutral to the proposal, posted on the NCWM 2012 Online 

Position Forum. The Committee maintained its support of the proposed change, recommending the removal of the 

“tentative” status from the code, with no change to the “Item Under Consideration.”

360 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS

360-1 D International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report 

Many issues before the OIML, the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum, and other international groups are within 

the purview of the Committee. Additional information on OIML activities will appear in the Board of Directors 

agenda and Interim and Final Reports and on the OIML website at www.oiml.org. NIST, OWM staff will provide 

the latest updates on OIML activities during the Open Hearings at NCWM meetings. For more information on 

specific OIML related device activities, contact the NIST, OWM staff listed in the table below. The list below of 

OIML projects only represents active projects. 

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Staff Contact List for International Activities

Contact Information Responsibilities

Mr. John Barton –LMDP

Phone: (301) 975-4002

Email: john.barton@nist.gov

• R 21 Taximeters

• R 50 Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Belt Weighers)

• R 60 Metrological Regulations for Load Cells

• R 106 Automatic Rail-weighbridges

Mr. Kenneth Butcher –LMP

Phone: (301) 975-4859

Email: k.butcher@nist.gov

• TC 6 Prepackaged Products

Dr. Charles Ehrlich –ILMP

Phone : (301) 975-4834

Email : charles.ehrlich@nist.gov

• International Committee of Legal Metrology Member for the United States

• V1 International Vocabulary of Terms in Legal Metrology

• V2 International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology

• B 3 OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments

• B 6 OIML Directives for the Technical Work

• B 10 Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type 

Evaluations

• TC 3/SC 5 Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement in Legal Metrology 

Applications, Guidelines for the Application of ISO/IEC 17025 to the 

Assessment of Laboratories Performing Type Evaluation Tests

• TC 3 Metrological Control

• ISO/IEC Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement

Mr. Richard Harshman –LMDP

Phone: (301) 975-8107

Email: richard.harshman@nist.gov

• R 51 Automatic Catchweighing Instruments

• R 61 Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instruments

• R 76 Non-automatic Weighing Instruments

• R 107 Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (totalizing 

hopper weighers)

• R 134 Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles In-Motion and 

Measuring Axle Loads

Ms. Diane Lee –LMDP

Phone: (301) 975-4405

Email: diane.lee@nist.gov

• R 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds

• R 92 Wood Moisture Meters – Verification Methods and Equipment

• R 121 The Scale of Relative Humidity of Air Certified Against Saturated 

Salt Solution

• TC 17/SC 8 Measuring Instruments for Protein Determination in Grains
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 64

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Staff Contact List for International Activities

Contact Information Responsibilities

Mr. Ralph Richter –ILMP

Phone: (301) 975-3997

Email: ralph.richter@nist.gov

• D 11 General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments

• R 35 Material Measures of Length for General Use

• R 49 Water Meters (Cold Potable Water and Hot Water Meters)

• R 71 Fixed Storage Tanks

• R 80 Road and Rail Tankers (static measurement)

• R 85 Automatic Level Gauges for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed 

Storage Tanks

• R 95 Ship’s Tanks

• R 117 Measuring Systems for Liquids Other Than Water (all measuring 

technologies)

• R 118 Testing Procedures and Test Report Format for Pattern Examination 

of Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles

• TC 3/SC 4 Verification Period of Utility Meters Using Sampling 

Inspections

• R 137 Gas Meters (all measuring technologies)

• R 140 Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel (i.e., large pipelines)

• ISO TC 30/SC 7 Water Meters

Dr. Ambler Thompson –ILMP

Phone: (301) 975-2333

Email: ambler@nist.gov

• D 16 Principles of Assurance of Metrological Control

• D 19 Pattern Evaluation and Pattern Approval

• D 20 Initial and Subsequent Verification of Measuring Instruments and 

Processes

• D 27 Initial Verification of Measuring Instruments Using the 

Manufacturer’s Quality Management System

• D 31 General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring 

Instruments

• R 34 Accuracy Classes of Measuring Instruments

• R 46 Active Electrical Energy Meters for Direct Connection of Class 2

Ms. Juana Williams –LMDP

Phone: (301) 975-3989

Email: juana.williams@nist.gov

• R 81 Dynamic Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids

• R 139 Compressed Gaseous Fuels Measuring Systems for Vehicles

List of Acronyms

B Basic Publication LMDP Legal Metrology Devices Program

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology P Project

D Document R Recommendation

ILMP International Legal Metrology Program SC Subcommittee 

LMP Laws and Metrics Program TC Technical Committee

The WWMA and the SWMA support these issues and the related device activities as an Informational Item. At the 

2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting it was noted that Dr. Ehrlich does a great job at annual and interim meetings 

explaining OIML issues. NEWMA supports the efforts of NIST to harmonize with OIML wherever possible to 

create a marketplace that reflects the global marketplace of today.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 65

360-2 D G-S.1. Identification. – (Software)

Source: 

2010 Carryover Item 310-3. This item originated from the NTETC Software Sector and first appeared on NCWM 

S&T Committee’s 2007 agenda as Developing Item Part 1, Item 1.

Purpose: 

Provide marking requirements that enable field verification of the appropriate version or revision for metrological 

software, including methods other than “permanently marked,” for providing the required information. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 1.10. General Code, G-S.1. Identification and G S.1.1. Location of Marking 

Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, Software-Based Devices as follows: 

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights, and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect, and software-based devices covered in G-S.1.1. Location of 

Marking Information*, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of identification with the 

following information: 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX]

(Amended 20XX)

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor;

(b) a model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device;

(1) The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms 

may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The 

abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial 

capitals, all capitals, or all lowercase.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001)

(c) a non-repetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component 

parts and not built-for-purpose software-based software device; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

(Amended 2003 and 20XX) 

(1) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies 

the number as the required serial number.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and 

abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, 

SN, Ser. No., and S. No.).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001]

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic

devices;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003) (Amended 20XX)

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 66

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

(Added 2006)

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, 

begin with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

(Added 2006)

(e) an NTEP CC number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number for devices that have a CC. The CC 

Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced by the terms “NTEP CC,” 

“CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of 

that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” 

(e.g., No or No.)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device.

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and, 2006, and 20XX) 

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-For-Purpose all Software-Based Devices. – 

For not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, either:

(a) The required information in G S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) shall be permanently marked or 

continuously displayed on the device; or

(b) The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be:

(1) permanently marked on the device;

(2) continuously displayed; or

(3) accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu 

and submenu identification include, but are not limited to, “Help,” “System Identification,” “G 

S.1. Identification,” or “Weights and Measures Identification.” one or, at most, two levels of 

access.

(i) For menu based systems, “Metrology,” “System Identification,” or “Help.”

(ii) For systems using icons, a metrology symbol “(M)”, “(SI),” or a help symbol (“?,” “i,” or 

an “i" within a magnifying glass).

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed on the CC, 

including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was evaluated. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006 and 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Among other tasks, the NTETC Software Sector was charged by the NCWM Board of Directors to recommend 

NIST Handbook 44 specifications and requirements for software incorporated into weighing and measuring devices, 

which may include tools used for software identification. During its October 2007 meeting, the Sector discussed the 

value and merits of required markings for software, including possible differences in some types of software-based 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 67

devices and methods of marking requirements. After hearing several proposals, the Sector agreed to the following 

technical requirements applicable to the marking of software:

1. The NTEP CC Number must be continuously displayed or hard-marked;

2. The version must be software-generated and shall not be hard-marked;

3. The version is required for embedded (Type P) software;

4. Printing the required identification information can be an option;

5. Command or operator action can be considered as an option in lieu of a continuous display of the required 

information; and

6. Devices with Type P (embedded) software must display or hard-mark the device make, model, and serial 

number to comply with G S.1. Identification.

In 2008, the Sector developed and submitted a proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee to modify G-S.1. and 

associated paragraphs to reflect these technical requirements. Between 2008 and 2011, this item appeared on the 

S&T Committee’s main agenda and the Committee and the Sector received numerous comments and suggestions 

relative to the proposal. The Sector developed and presented several alternatives based on feedback from weights 

and measures officials and manufacturers. Among the key points and concerns raised during discussions over this 

period were how to address the following:

1. Limited Character Sets and Space. – How to address devices that have limited character sets or restricted 

space for marking.

2. Built-for-Purpose vs. Not-Built-for-Purpose. – Whether or not these should be treated differently.

3. Ease of Access. – Ease of accessing marking information in the field.

• Complexity of locating the marking information

• Use of menus for accessing the marking information electronically

• Limits on the number of levels required to access information electronically

• Possibility of single, uniform method of access

4. Hard Marking vs. Electronic. – Whether or not some information should be required to be hard marked 

on the device.

5. Continuous Display. – Whether or not required markings must be continuously displayed.

6. Abbreviations and Icons. – Establishment of unique abbreviations, identifiers, and icons and how to 

codify those.

7. Certificate of Conformance Information. – How to facilitate correlation of software version information 

to a CC, including the use of possible icons.

Further details on the alternatives considered can be found in the Committee’s Final Reports from 2008 to 2011.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee concurred with the Software Sector Chair that this item 

is not ready to move forward as a Voting Item. The Committee recommended the sector review a number of 

specific comments and points (see the Committee’s 2011 Final Report for details.)
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 68

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard support for the continued work of the Sector. The 2011

S&T Committee designated this item as a Developing Item to provide the Software Sector additional time to more 

fully develop the item. The Committee looked forward to considering the sector’s future recommendations. 

At the fall 2011 regional meetings, the regional weights and measures associations noted the importance of this 

work. All regional associations recommended that the item remain as a Developing Item to allow the Sector to 

further develop the issue. 

360-3 D Part 2.20. Weigh-In-Motion Vehicle Scales for Law Enforcement - Work Group

Source: 

NIST, OWM, Mr. Richard Harshman, on behalf of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2011)

Purpose: 

Keep the weights and measures community apprised of work to develop standards for Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) 

scale systems and to encourage their participation in this work. 

Item under Consideration: 

This item is under development. Comments and inquiries may be directed to Mr. Rick Harshman, NIST, OWM at 

(301) 975-8107 or richard.harshman@nist.gov. 

The FHWA is forming a USNWG to develop proposed standards that would apply to WIM scale systems used to 

screen or sort commercial vehicles for possible violations of legal roadway weight limits with the ultimate goal of 

bringing the proposed standards before the weights and measures community for possible inclusion in NIST 

Handbook 44. FHWA has been collaborating with NIST, OWM and the commercial vehicle enforcement 

community to identify industry experts, device users, regulatory officials, and others interested in participating in the 

work group. The work group plans to develop proposed specifications, tolerance, and other technical requirements 

applicable to WIM scale systems used in official use for the enforcement of law or for the collection of statistical 

information by government agencies.

Background/Discussion: 

The nation’s highways, freight transportation system, and enforcement resources are being strained by the volume of 

freight being moved and the corresponding number of commercial vehicles operating on its roads. Traditional, 

manual-based vehicle inspection activities simply cannot keep pace with anticipated truck volume increases. 

Current U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) forecasts project freight volumes to double by 2035 and 

commercial vehicles to travel an additional 100 billion miles per year by 2020. WIM technology has been targeted 

by FHWA and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to a technology capable of supporting more effective 

and efficient truck weight enforcement programs. 

Several DOT efforts are underway and planned for the future to maintain adequate levels of enforcement that ensure 

equity in the trucking industry market and protection of highway infrastructure. Judicial support for enforcement 

decisions to apply more intense enforcement actions on specific trucks depends on support from the U.S. legal 

metrology community. Standards are needed in NIST Handbook 44 to address the design, installation, accuracy, 

and use of WIM systems used in a screening/sorting application. The implementation of a uniform set of standards 

will greatly improve the overall efficiency of the nation’s commercial vehicle enforcement process. 

Once adopted by the truck weight enforcement community, these requirements will enhance the accuracy of the 

nation’s WIM scale systems, serve as a sound basis for judicial support of next-generation truck weight enforcement 

programs and result in fewer legally loaded vehicles being delayed at static weigh station locations, thus reducing 

traffic congestion and non-productive fuel consumption and improving the movement of freight on our nation’s 

roadways.

At the 2010 CWMA Interim Meeting, a commenter said that WIM scales could be used for enforcement issues and 

evaluating or assessing fines to overweight trucks. Currently most of these scales are used for audit purposes only. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 69

The Committee believes that the efforts to establish requirements for WIM scales has merit, and when fully 

developed, will assist in expediting commerce by not having to reweigh clearly legal highway vehicles while 

protecting roadways from vehicles that exceed legal highway load limits.

At the 2010 WWMA Annual Technical Conference, Mr. Langford, Cardinal Scales Manufacturing Co., stated that 

he is a member of the work group and supports adding language defining performance parameters of WIM devices 

for use in law enforcement. Mr. Langford added that the work group will consider other existing standards to help 

develop the language in NIST Handbook 44 (e.g., OIML Recommendation (R) 134 Automatic Instruments for 

Weighing Road Vehicles in Motion and Measuring Axle Loads). Mr. Floren, Los Angeles County Agricultural 

Commissioner/Weights and Measures, added that even though these devices are non-commercial they are covered 

under the scope of NIST Handbook 44 General Code Application paragraph G-A.1.(c) Commercial and Law 

Enforcement Equipment. 

At the 2010 SWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Langford supported the direction of this work group. Mr. Langford noted 

that these WIM scales are not currently used to levy fines, but rather to screen for overweight trucks. He noted that 

the work group is just getting started and that Cardinal Manufacturing Co. is looking forward to participating in this 

work. Mr. Gray, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, questioned whether putting 

requirements for highway WIM devices in NIST Handbook 44 would obligate jurisdictions to conduct tests of these 

devices. While he doesn’t oppose the inclusion of requirements in general, he questioned the availability of 

resources to accommodate the additional workload given the extreme budget restrictions many jurisdictions are 

facing. Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, noted that DOT reported that highway weight enforcement officials are 

concerned that the use of the scales in screening will be challenged without reference to a recognized standard. 

Since many of these agencies reference NIST Handbook 44, they believed that recognition of these devices in NIST 

Handbook 44 as law enforcement equipment would lend credibility and consistency to the design, use, accuracy, and 

application of this equipment. 

The SWMA S&T Committee supported efforts of the work group. However, given some of the concerns and 

questions raised at the Open Hearings about resources for testing, the committee did not want to take a position on 

this issue until it has more information about the direction of the work group.

At the 2010 NEWMA Interim Meeting comments were heard supporting the formation of the work group but 

questioned what role existed for NCWM S&T Committee at this time.

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, Ms. Juana Williams, NIST, OWM, provided the following update on the 

progress of WIM standards development: 

Purpose of the Project: 

The FHWA’s Office of Freight Management and Operations recognized a need to encourage uniformity in the 

design, testing, installation, and performance of WIM technology and subsequently encourage acceptance by 

prosecution agencies (administrative or judicial) regarding the validity of WIM technology’s role in supporting 

commercial motor vehicle weight enforcement.

In response to this need and recognizing the credibility of having a standard included in NIST Handbook 44 because 

it lends integrity and is more recognizable in legal actions, the FHWA seeks to integrate WIM technology into the 

handbook. The FHWA recently contracted the services of the Texas Transportation Institute—The Texas A&M 

University System and Battelle (a private company) to begin this process. Additionally, a small oversight 

committee was formed by the FHWA, made up of three representatives from the FHWA, a NIST Technical Advisor, 

and a representative of a U.S. manufacturer of WIM equipment to validate that each contract deliverable is 

completed according to contract.

The intended application of the proposed new code is for screening purposes only (i.e., for screening/sorting 

commercial vehicles for possible violations of FHWA vehicle weight requirements). It is anticipated that as WIM 

technology continues to advance, this code may have a much broader application sometime in the future.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 70

As a first step in this effort, the contracted team was tasked to develop an initial, detailed Project Work Plan 

intended to guide activities and establish lines of communication from project inception to project completion. This 

deliverable has been completed and was recently submitted to the FHWA Project Oversight Committee for 

consideration.

The next step will be to establish a work group from the WIM technology stakeholder community. This process is 

already underway and the WG will be comprised of representatives from state departments of transportation, state 

law enforcement agencies, weights and measures officials, WIM technology manufacturers and vendors, academic 

researchers, and others. The initial meeting of the work group is planned, although not yet scheduled, for the middle 

of February 2011. It is anticipated that a final draft code will be ready for consideration by NCWM in 2012.

Mr. Gray, commented that although he didn’t have any issues regarding developing standards for WIM systems, he 

did not believe that inclusion of a new WIM code into NIST Handbook 44 was appropriate because the application 

of the proposed code was for screening purposes only. 

Mr. Langford supported the development of the standard and stated that the “Application” section of the General 

Code not only applies to commercial equipment, but also equipment used in law-enforcement and for the collection 

of statistical information by government agencies. He also stated that it was too early to make a determination on 

how much work would be involved in the testing of WIM systems because the work group had yet to be formed. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting Mr. Rick Harshman, NIST, OWM, provided an update on the progress of the 

WIM Work Group.

At the 2011 WWMA Annual Meeting Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM, provided the following update on the activities of 

the WIM Vehicle Scales Work Group: Mr. Harshman is the NIST Technical Advisor to the work group and 

participated in the discussions and offered technical positions on the various items during its first meeting in July 

2011. Mr. Harshman presented an overview of the process to develop the technical content of a new WIM code. He 

explained how NIST Handbook 44 was organized, and how requirements developed by the work group would fit 

into the various sections of a new NIST Handbook 44 code. He also provided an overview of the standards 

development process and discussed the benefits of the work group using a “straw man,” which he has already 

created to develop the new draft code. Mr. Langford gave a presentation on the NIST Handbook 44 amendment 

process which detailed the various steps the work group would need to complete to add a new device code to NIST 

Handbook 44. 

Several concerns and questions were raised by participants during a scheduled open discussion of the work group. 

The following are some of the more important concerns/questions discussed:

1. The application section of the code is critical. The types of WIM systems in which the code does and does 

not apply will significantly impact all other sections of the code. 

2. What tolerance should be specified in the draft code? An important related question is: What degree of 

accuracy will the judicial system (courts) accept as being sufficiently accurate enough to screen 

commercial vehicles for possible overweight violations? The degree of accuracy required will have a large 

impact on the kinds of systems that get included or excluded in the application section of the code. 

3. There needs to be a separation of requirements, i.e., those that apply to virtual weigh stations and those that 

apply to WIM systems installed at weigh stations having a static scale.

4. To adopt a draft code at the national level, two things must happen: 1) A legitimate test procedure is 

needed to enable states to test these systems, and 2) federal funding is needed to help cover the cost of 

testing.

5. Will NCWM Publication 14 type evaluation criteria be needed since these systems are not commercial and 

are unlike other devices typically covered by NIST Handbook 44? 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 71

Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, accepted the position as the WIM work group chair, and encouraged 

stakeholders to submit comments to the work group. These questions and concerns and others are to be discussed 

during the next meeting of the work group. The next meeting date has not yet been decided. 

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, it was suggested that resources may be too limited to enforce and conduct 

inspections on these devices once the code is developed. The NEWMA S&T Committee recognized, however, that 

the traffic at truck stops can be backed up and this technology would help to ease that problem. They would also be 

easier to set up than axle-load weighers. While the Committee heard some support for WIM scales, there are also 

questions. Would the WIM scales be located at permanent or temporary locations? Will fines be issued off of these 

scales? How often will the scales need to be tested? The Committee recommended continuing to collect data and 

comments on this new technology.

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, reported that he has been appointed Chair 

of the USNWG and that the work group held its first meeting in July. He also noted that Mr. Harshman, NIST, 

OWM, prepared a draft code for the work group to consider as a starting point. Mr. Flocken has created a checklist 

that he proposes to distribute to the work group along with the draft code; he plans to ask work group members to 

complete the checklist as they review the code, identifying sections which they believe need additional work. He 

hopes that this review process can be completed by mid-December, after which time the work group will meet to 

review the input from members. Mr. Flocken noted that if the timing is appropriate, it may be possible to hold a 

work group meeting in conjunction with the NCWM Interim Meeting. Mr. Flocken will submit his proposed next 

steps to the FHWA’s Project Oversight Committee for approval. He also asked that the community be patient while 

this work group gets underway and he will look forward to bringing specific proposals to the Committee as work 

progresses further. The Committee recognizes that this work is still in the developmental stages and agrees that 

additional time is needed before any proposals can be considered by the Committee. 

At the 2012 Interim Meeting, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, new chair of the Weigh-In-Motion Work Group

provided an update on the standards development for WIM scale systems. Mr. Flocken reported that the work group 

held its first face to face meeting in July 2011 to launch the project, get participants involved, and discuss some of 

the more important tasks at hand. Mr. Harshman, Advisor to the work group, had prepared a draft code for 

participants of the work group to consider as a starting point. That draft code, as well as a checklist that Mr. Flocken 

created, had been distributed to participants of the work group. Participants were asked to complete the checklist as 

they reviewed the draft code, identifying sections which they believed needed additional work. Based upon the 

comments indicated on completed checklists that have been returned thus far, it was evident that participants of the 

work group have very diverse ideas concerning the standards that should go into a new draft code. For that reason, 

Mr. Flocken and Mr. Harshman met earlier during the week to talk about how best to proceed. They decided to 

arrange a teleconference meeting with members of the FHWA’s Project Oversight Committee to seek guidance on

the scope of the project. Mr. Flocken planned to schedule that conference within a few weeks following conclusion 

of the 2012 Interim Meeting. There is a mix of support and opposition to this project and Mr. Flocken requested that 

the community be patient. He looked forward to bringing specific proposals to the Committee as work progresses 

further. 

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, NEWMA recommended that the status of this item remain as “Developing.” NEWMA 

maintains a neutral position on this item and is awaiting further proposals from the WG. At its 2012 Annual 

Meeting, the CWMA did not take a position on this item. At both the NEWMA and CWMA meetings, Mr. Flocken, 

speaking as Chairman of the WIM Work Group, provided an update on the progress of the WG, noting that work 

has been delayed pending the resolution of funding issues within the FHWA.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual meeting, the Committee heard an update from the WG Chairman, Mr. Flocken, who 

noted that the WG had not been able to meet due to funding issues, but those issues have been resolved and the WG 

will now be able to move ahead with its work.

Mr. Steve Langford spoke as a member of the WG Oversight Committee. He apologized for the delays in being 

able to progress with this work, citing factors outside of the WG’s control, but echoed Mr. Flocken’s assurances that 

the work is once again progressing.

The Committee expressed its appreciation for updates on this issue and looks forward to further progress by the WG.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 72

360-4 D Part 3.30. Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a Retail 

Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD)

Source: 

NIST, OWM and the Regional Associations (2008)

Purpose: 

Review and update criteria in the LMD Code (Section 3.30.) related to price posting and computing capability of 

RMFDs to reflect current market practices. 

Item under Consideration: 

NCWM Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computer Capability developed specific 

proposals for modifying the LMD Code to address price posting and computing requirements for RMFDs. These 

proposals can be found under Item 330-1 of the Committee’s agenda. Item 360-4 is being retained as a Developing 

Item pending any additional assignments that may be given by the Committee to the Task Group relative to the 

implementation of new code requirements that may be adopted. Comments or inquiries may be directed to NIST 

Technical Advisor, Ms. Juana Williams, at (301) 975-3989 or juana.williams@nist.gov. 

Background/Discussion: 

In the early 1990s, various sections of the LMD Code in NIST Handbook 44 were modified to address multi-tier 

pricing applications in instances where the same product is offered at different unit prices based on the method of 

payment (such as cash or credit) or other conditions of the sale. Since that time, marketing practices have evolved to 

include the addition of new practices, such as frequent shopper discounts and club member discounts. Numerous 

questions have been posed to NIST, OWM and weights and measures officials regarding the requirements for 

posting unit prices, calculation of total price, customer-operated controls, and other related topics, such as the 

definitions for associated terminology. It is clear from these questions that changes are needed to NIST 

Handbook 44 to ensure the requirements adequately address current marketplace conditions and practices. The 

Committee agreed that changes are needed to the LMD Code relative to these issues and, in 2010, established a task 

group to further develop this issue and present an alternative recommendation for its consideration.

Additional details on this item can be found in the Committee’s 2008 to 2011 Final Reports.

The Committee notes that, should the proposed changes in Item 330-1 be adopted, the work of the Task Group may 

be completed. Should questions arise regarding the application of the proposed changes, the Committee hopes that 

it may call on individual members of the Task Group to assist in responding to those questions.

360-5 D S.5. Provision for Security Seals

This item originally appeared as Item 354-1 in the Committee’s 2012 Interim Agenda.

Source: 

Frias Transportation Infrastructure LLC (2012)

Purpose: 

Allow for a more advanced and secure method of sealing a Taximeter.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Taximeter Code as follows:

S.5. Provision for Security Seals. – Adequate provision shall be made to provide security for a taximeter. 

Security may be provided either by:

(a) Affixing security seals to the taximeter and to all other components required for service operation of a 

complete installation on a vehicle, so that no adjustments, alterations, or replacements affecting 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 73

accuracy or indications of the device or the assembly can be made without mutilating the seal or 

seals; or

(b) Using a combination of security seals described in paragraph (a) and, in the case of a component that 

may be removed from a vehicle (e.g., slide mounting the taximeter), providing a physical or electronic 

link between components affecting accuracy or indications of the device to ensure that its performance 

is not affected and operation is permitted only with those components having the same unique 

properties; or

(c) Using a combination of security seals described in paragraph (a) and, (b) and, in the case of a 

component that is electronic data affecting accuracy or indications of the taximeter, providing a 

unique electronic security seal on the electronic data that is encrypted and protected by an 

audited authentication and authorization mechanism, so that no adjustments, alterations, or 

replacements affecting the component can be made without the authentication and 

authorization. (Encryption algorithm for electronic seals must meet NIST AES ADVANCED 

ENCRYPTION STANDARD.)

The sealing means shall be such that it is not necessary to disassemble or remove any part of the device 

or of the vehicle to apply or inspect the seals.

(Amended 1988, and 2000, and 20XX) 

Background/Discussion:

The submitter of this proposal noted that, per the Taxicab Limousine and Paratransit Association in the United 

States, there are approximately 6300 companies operating 171 000 taxicabs. More than 80 % of these companies 

operate less than 50 vehicles while 6 % of taxicab operations have more than 100 vehicles in service. Taxicab 

companies provide work for 350 000 people and transport 1.4 billion passengers annually for purposes that primarily 

include business, travel, and community transportation. A vast majority of these taxicabs are required by a 

regulatory authority to have a sealed taximeter.

The last amendments made to NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.54. Taximeters paragraph S.5. were made in 1988 and 

2000. Since then, much advancement have been made in the security of electronic data to eliminate the need for a 

physical security seal on a manual programming button used to program the way in which a taximeter can operate. 

Furthermore, the new technology without physical seals may remove the need for any programming buttons on the 

actual taximeter itself creating a more secure and tamper resistant device.

Use of a physical security seal allows the possibility for personnel who have access to such seals (like a taximeter 

shop) to compromised the seal and use incorrect programming of a taximeter resulting in unfair rates for the 

traveling public. By using an encrypted data packet that is sealed by an audited authentication and authorization 

mechanism, only certain personnel would be allowed to make such changes to a taximeter providing additionally for 

a complete audit trail of all changes. If inconsistent or flawed parameters were to be programmed to a taximeter one 

could assess who, when, and why such changes were made.

The removal and placement of physical seals along with programming of a taximeter can also be a tremendous 

burden on taxi drivers, taxi operators, as well as the taxpayer. Every time a rate change or fuel surcharge is 

approved by the regulatory body, the regulatory body must oversee the removal and replacement of new taximeter 

seals. Drivers and operators also face significant downtime while such changes are made to the taximeters. By 

using electronic seals the time it takes to change seals and program a taximeter would be reduced from 5 minutes to 

10 minutes per car to seconds per car.

For the purpose of this proposal, the submitter made reference to NIST Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). AES 

(FIPS PUB 197) believes that the encryption algorithm for such a security seal on a taximeter should meet this 

standard.
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 74

The submitter also pointed out that Nevada is one of the only states that do not reference NIST Handbook 44 on 

Taximeters. To correct this problem, alternate language was introduced in the 2011 legislative session to allow for 

the electronic sealing of a taximeter. This bill was signed into law by the Governor of Nevada on June 16, 2011.

It is difficult to estimate cost savings accurately as every regulatory body that oversees the taxicab industry has 

different rules on operations. There are also differences in who owns or maintains the vehicle or equipment. This 

new way of sealing a taximeter would, however, allow for such an option by a regulatory body or an operator to 

install new equipment that would benefit all parties dependent on such rulemaking.

The submitter suggested the following benefits to stakeholders:

• Additional level of security for taximeter; 

• Audit trail for all changes made to taximeter programming; 

• Fast implementation of approved rate changes by regulatory bodies; (In some jurisdictions, operators or 

drivers may have to wait weeks to implement fuel surcharges because the process for changing rates and 

seals under current standards is time consuming.) 

• Reduction in costly observational enforcement to industry; (Currently, the only way a regulator can 

determine if an operator has a broken seal or has tampered with a taximeter is through observational 

enforcement. An electronic seal would allow for real time reporting as to the condition of such a seal, as 

well as the programming of the taximeter.) 

• Reduction in overcharges to customers by compromised drivers, and operators; and

• Allow for new more advanced ways of programming a taximeter and delivery of such programming onto a 

taximeter.

The submitter offered the following individuals as contacts. Additionally, a letter of support was presented by 

Mr. Daus, President of the International Association of Transportation Regulators (IATR) and former Commissioner 

of the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission.

Chief Information Officer

Mr. James Wisniewski

Frias Transportation 

Infrastructure

5010 S Valley View Blvd

Las Vegas, NV 89118

Phone: (702) 210-6176

Chief Technology Officer

Mr. Mike Pinkus

Frias Transportation Infrastructure

5010 S Valley View Blvd

Las Vegas, NV 89118

Phone: (702) 210-4896

President of the IATR

Mr. Matthew W. Daus

Windels Marx Lane and Mittendorf, LLP

156 West 56th St

New York, NY 10019

Phone: (212) 237-1106

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting, it was noted that there is no prototype yet. The submitter explained that 

there is an electronic data component that is to be sealed. An official questioned how the data would get to the 

regulatory agency. Comments were made that a cloud-based system could be used. Officials were told that no 

physical seal is needed if this is implemented. An industry member commented that there should still be some type 

of security seal used. There would be a comfort level for consumers but not for weights and measures officials. 

Some questioned what would happen with regard to accessing the data if the company goes out of business. 

NEWMA recommends that this item be presented to the Taximeter Work Group being formed by NIST, OWM for 

further development. NEWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. 

At the 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Wisniewski, Frias Transportation Infrastructure, recommended

Developing status for this item. Mr. Wisniewski explained that NIST, OWM and NCWM are exploring the 

formation of a Taximeter Work Group to develop proposed changes to the code to reflect current technologies. He 

indicated that Frias Transportation Infrastructure plans to work with other manufacturers and regulators in the 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 75

taximeter community as well as NIST, OWM to further develop this issue through this work group. SWMA 

forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item, with the provision that the submitter will 

work with the Taximeter Work Group being and further develop the issue through that venue.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. McGrath, Boston ISD Weights and Measure, expressed concerns about 

the lack of a physical security seal on taximeters. He cited difficulty tracking down drivers for the purposes of 

monitoring the use of adjustments and suggested withdrawing the item as presented. Ms. Macey, California 

Division of Measurement Standards, expressed concerns about the resources required to train inspectors to apply the 

standards referenced in the proposal and she does not believe the item is sufficiently developed as presented to go 

forward on the Committee’s agenda. Ms. Williams, NIST, OWM, reported that a small group, including 

Mr. Barton, NIST, OWM, and herself, along with Mr. Nelson, California Division of Measurement Standards, 

Mr. Thompson, California Division of Measurement Standards, and Mr. Fishman, retired NY Bureau of Weights 

and Measures metrologist met to begin identifying areas of the code that need to be updated, including requirements 

relative to device security. Ms. Williams confirmed that NIST, OWM plans to establish a formal work group to 

examine issues such as these relative to updating the code to reflect current technology and practices. Citing the 

concerns raised by NEWMA and SWMA, Ms. Williams suggested that this item might be best undertaken by that 

work group. 

The Committee agreed with the Open Hearing comments that this item needs additional work. The Committee 

supports the formation of the work group by NIST, OWM and looks forward to further development of this issue. 

The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as a Developing Item. 

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, the CWMA took no position on this item. At its 2012 Annual Meeting, NEWMA 

maintained a neutral position on this item and designated this item as “Developmental.” Mrs. Tina Butcher, NIST 

OWM, reported that NIST has formed a work group on taximeters and that group held its first meeting in May. 

NEWMA looks forward to the work of the NIST Taximeter Work Group and any proposals that are generate from 

that group.

At the 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard an update from Ms. Juana Williams, NIST OWM, 

regarding the formation of a NIST Work Group on Taximeters. Ms. Williams reported that NIST OWM issued a 

Federal Register notice in April 2012 announcing formation of a NIST US National Working Group (USNWG) on 

Taximeters. Mr. John Barton, NIST OWM, is the contact for this USNWG. Anyone interested in participating in 

the Work Group should contact Mr. Barton by e-mail at john.barton@nist.gov or by telephone at (301) 975-4002. 

The USNWG held a preliminary web-based meeting in May 2012 to establish the working structure, review the 

USNWG charter, and lay out tasks to be completed. NIST distributed proposed revisions to the existing Taximeters 

Code as a “straw man” for the USNWG to consider. The revisions were based on a meeting with NTEP laboratories 

and other legal metrology experts. Comments were due to Mr. Barton by June 30, 2102. After addressing the 

comments in the proposed revisions, Mr. Barton will distribute a revised draft to work group members and interested 

observers. The USNWG plans to hold its next meeting in September 2012.

The Committee expressed appreciation to NIST, OWM for the update and looks forward to future recommendations 

from the Work Group.

360-6 D Global Positioning Systems for Taximeters

This item originally appeared as Item 354-2 in the Committee’s 2012 Interim Agenda.

Source: 

Consumer Affairs Unit, City of Seattle (2012)

Purpose: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.54. Taximeters to make it specifically apply to Global Positioning System 

(GPS) system applications used commercially to compute fares based upon distance and/or time measurements. 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 76

Item Under Consideration: 

A specific proposal was not submitted.

Background/Discussion:

GPS system applications designed to compute fares based upon distance and/or time measurements are being 

introduced into the for-hire industry (e.g., taxicabs, limousines) in major U.S. cities. Regulatory officials need upto-date technical standards to protect the consumer from being charged inaccurate fares. The absence of NCWM 

standards may encourage fraudulent practices by some users just as some taxicab drivers are known to use “zappers” 

on traditional electronic taximeters, or intentionally use the wrong rate (recent widespread problem in New York 

City and Los Angeles). The potential for fraud using computer programs and wireless technology was amply 

demonstrated by the “pulser” unit substitutions in retail motor-fuel dispensers at a very large number of gas stations 

in Los Angeles a few years ago. Section 5.54. Taximeters must be completely rewritten to reflect the new 

technology represented by “virtual taximeters.” The test methods (i.e., measured mile, dynamometer) and tolerances 

are probably satisfactory but the remainder of Section 5.54. must be updated to account for “virtual taximeter 

“technology.

GPS system applications used commercially to compute fares based upon distance and/or time measurements are: 

(1) performing the same functions of traditional taximeters (e.g., computing distance and time charges, determining 

“crossover” speeds); (2) “virtual taximeters” replacing traditional (“black box”) taximeters; and (3) substituting 

computer programs and wireless technology to replace electronic taximeters – just as electronic taximeters replaced 

mechanical taximeters some time ago. These “virtual taximeters” are the next generation of measuring devices 

employed by taxicabs – and now limousines. The “devices” consist of computer software that resides in a “black 

box” somewhere remote from the taxicab instead of inside the taxicab. However, the challenges for consumer 

protection remain (e.g., accuracy, security of calibration components and display of measurements at the point of 

sale where the decision to buy is made). 

NCWM, as a standard-setting body, has three goals: (1) consumer protection; (2) uniformity of standards and 

enforcement; and (3) providing a level playing field for businesses to fairly compete. This proposal to amend NIST 

Handbook 44 is aimed at all of these goals. Producers of traditional taximeters meet NIST Handbook 44, 

Section 5.54. (e.g., Centrodyne), but their competitors selling GPS system applications used commercially to 

compute fares based upon distance and/or time measurements (e.g., Uber) do not meet any standards. 

According to media coverage and product web sites, easily available by a search of the internet, new technology is 

being introduced to the taxicab and limousine industry for both dispatching and determining fares. There are several 

new applications for smart phones that dispatch a taxicab passenger based upon inputs from the taxicab computer 

dispatch system (e.g., Taxi Magic) but the passenger enters the taximeter fare on the smart phone application in 

order to pay electronically. The GPS system applications actually determine the fare based upon distance inputs 

from GPS such as Google Maps (e.g., Uber). Uber is active in San Francisco, New York, and Seattle. 

New technology using GPS inputs and computer programming to measure distance and time in order to compute 

fares is growing very rapidly. If NCWM does not promptly begin to examine the GPS system applications (virtual 

taximeters) as measuring devices, then the consumer is not being protected and the taximeter industry will not be 

afforded a level playing field.

At the 2011 NEWMA Interim Meeting and 2011 SWMA Annual Meeting, both regions agreed that the issue should 

be taken up by a work group being formed by NIST, OWM and NCWM. SWMA further commented that the 

submitter should work with that work group and also noted that the use of technologies and devices such as GPS 

need to be reviewed and addressed by NIST Handbook 44 for applications (such as that described by the submitter) 

where they will be used to generate commercial measurements. NEWMA and SWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item. 

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, NIST, OWM reported that NCWM and NIST had agreed that a work group is 

needed to review and revise the NIST Handbook 44 Taximeters Code to better reflect current technology and 

practices. After consultation with NCWM, NIST, OWM agreed to establish a work group and held a meeting of 

NTEP representatives and NIST, OWM representatives to identify areas of the code that require revision. Once a 

draft revision of the code (a “straw man”) has been prepared, NIST, OWM will expand the work group by extending 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 77

an invitation for other interested parties, including regulators, manufacturers, and users to begin review and 

discussion of the draft.

NIST, OWM noted that this item on GPS-based systems needs additional work and review and suggested that the 

work group might further develop this issue. The Committee also heard from representatives of two jurisdictions 

who expressed concerns about the ability to regulate these systems to ensure that consumers have adequate 

information and the ability to do value comparisons. Both cited recent examples of numerous consumer complaints 

during New Year’s Eve when fares were raised significantly. Conventional taximeters must to conform to the 

requirements of NIST Handbook 44 with regard to accuracy, operation, fare changes, and posting requirements. 

These systems are competing with conventional taximeter, yet changes in fare can be made at any time without any 

control by regulatory authority. An official acknowledged the advantages that such systems can bring for consumers 

and encouraged the work group in its efforts to establish requirements for these systems, stating that weights and 

measures requirements should not inhibit new technology. A retired official also encouraged the work group to take 

on these issues and urged the work group to carefully study these systems to ensure that appropriate safeguards are 

put into place to protect consumers without placing a significant cost burden on design of the equipment.

At the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed with the comments that this item needs additional work 

and supported the formation of the Work Group by NIST, OWM. The Committee designated this item as a 

Developing Item. 

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, CWMA received no comments on this issue and took no position on it.

At its 2012 Annual Meeting, NEWMA maintained a neutral position on this item and designated it as “Developing.” 

Ms. Tina Butcher, NIST, OWM, reported that NIST has formed a work group on taximeters and that group will hold 

its first meeting in May. NEWMA looks forward to the work of the NIST Taximeter Work Group and any 

proposals that are generate from that group.

At the Committee’s 2012 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings, Ms. Williams, reiterated the comments offered 

by NIST, OWM on Item 360-5 and noted that these comments also apply to this item.

The Committee expressed appreciation to NIST, OWM for the update and looks forward to further development of 

this issue and future recommendations from the Work Group. Interested parties should contact Mr. John Barton, 

Legal Metrology Devices Program, NIST, OWM at (301) 975-4002 at john.barton@nist.gov. 

Mr. Steve Giguere, Maine | Committee Chair

Mr. Mahesh Albuquerque, Colorado | Member

Mr. Brett Gurney, Utah | Member 

Mr. Paul Moyer, Nebraska | Member

Mr. Kenneth Ramsburg, Maryland | Member

Mr. Ted Kingsbury, Measurement Canada | Canadian Technical Advisor

Ms. Tina Butcher, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor

Mr. Rick Harshman, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor

Ms. Juana Williams, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor

Specifications and Tolerances Committee
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

S&T - 78

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Items 320-2, 320-3, and 320-6: Scales

S&T - A1 

Appendix A

NIST Handbook 44 – Section 2.20. Scales 

Items: 

320-2: S.6.4. Railway Track Scales 

 320-3: N.3.1.2. Interim Approval 

 320-6: Appendix D – Definitions (Reference Weight Car)

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Contents S&T – A Page 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc ......................................................................................................................A3
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Section 2.20. Scales: Items 320-2, 320-3, and 320-6

S&T - A2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Items 320-2, 320-3, and 320-6: Scales

S&T - A3 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Section 2.20. Scales: Items 320-2, 320-3, and 320-6

S&T - A4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 336-1: Water Meters

S&T - B1 

Appendix B

NIST Handbook 44 – Section 3.36. Water Meters 

Item: 

336-1: S.3. Markings 

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Contents S&T - B Page 

Elster........................................................................................................................................................................... B3

Sensus......................................................................................................................................................................... B4
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 336-1: Water Meters

S&T - B2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 336-1: Water Meters

S&T - B3 
S&T Committee 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Item 336-1: Water Meters

S&T - B4 
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 1 

Report of the

Professional Development Committee (PDC)

Mr. Stacy Carlsen, Committee Chair

Marin County, California

400 INTRODUCTION

The PDC (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) submits this Final Report for consideration of the 97th

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report contains the items discussed and actions 

proposed by the Committee during its Interim Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, January 22 - 25, 2012. The 

Committee conducted Open Hearings for the items in Table A during the Annual Meeting held July 22 - 26, 2012, in 

Portland, Maine. Table A identifies the agenda items by reference key, title of item, page number, and the 

appendices by appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and technical terms used throughout the 

agenda are identified in Table B. The first three digits of an item’s reference key are assigned from the Subject 

Series List. The status of each item contained in the report is designated as one of the following: (D) Developing 

Item: the committee determined the item has merit; however, the item was returned to the submitter or other 

designated party for further development before any action can be taken at the national level; (I) Informational 

Item: the item is under consideration by the Committee but not proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the 

Committee is making recommendations requiring a vote by the active members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: 

the item has been removed from consideration by the Committee. Table C provides the Summary of Voting Results 

for each Voting Item.

During the Annual Meeting, some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent 

calendar. Consent calendar items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during 

their deliberation after the Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not 

require discussion. The Voting Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the 

addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of the consent calendar, the committee will entertain any requests from the floor 

to remove specific items from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually.

Committees may change the status designation of agenda items (Developing, Informational, Voting, and 

Withdrawn) up until the report is adopted, except that items which are marked Developing, Informational or 

Withdrawn cannot be changed to Voting Status. Any change from the Committee Interim Report (as contained in 

this publication) or from what appears on the addendum sheets will be explained to the attendees prior to a motion 

and will be acted upon by the active members of NCWM prior to calling for the vote.

An “Item Under Consideration” is a statement of proposal and not necessarily a recommendation of the Committee. 

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. All sessions are 

open to registered attendees of the conference. If the Committee must discuss any issue that involves proprietary 

information or other confidential material; that portion of the session dealing with the special issue may be closed 

provided that (1) the Chairman or, in his absence, the Chairman-Elect approves; (2) the Executive Director is 

notified; and (3) an announcement of the closed meeting is posted on or near the door to the meeting session and at 

the registration desk. If at all possible, the posting will be done at least a day prior to the planned closed session.

Note: The policy is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, recommendations 

received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this 

publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 2 

Subject Series List

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 400 Series

Education........................................................................................................................................................ 410 Series

Program Management..................................................................................................................................... 420 Series

Table A

Table of Contents

Reference Key Title of Item PDC Page

400 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

410 EDUCATION.................................................................................................................................................... 3

410-1 I Professional Certification Program.............................................................................................. 3

410-2 I Instructor Improvement .............................................................................................................10

410-3 I Recommended Topics for Conference Training........................................................................12

420 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................14

420-1 I Safety Awareness ......................................................................................................................14

420-2 I PDC Publication ........................................................................................................................15

APPENDICES

Appendix A  Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan................................................... A1

Appendix B  Draft Module – Weights and Measures Core Mathematics.................................................... B1

Appendix C  Safety Incident / Accident Report........................................................................................... C1

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

ADDIE Analysis, Design, Development, 

Implementation, and Evaluation NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

BOK Body of Knowledge OWM Office of Weights and Measures

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association PDC Professional Development Committee

ISO International Standardization 

Organization RSA Registered Service Agents

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas SME Subject Matter Expert

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures SWMA Southern Weights and Measures Association

NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 3 

Table C

Summary of Voting Results

Reference 

Key

Number

House of Senate Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

To Accept 

the Report Voice Vote Adopted

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

410 EDUCATION

410-1 I Professional Certification Program

Source: 

Carryover Item 401-1 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its Agenda in 2003 and has 

undergone continuing development.) The numbering change reflects harmonization in all NCWM reports. More 

information on the Committee’s work is available at www.ncwm.net/content/ntp. Copies of reports from recent 

years are also available on the website under interim and annual meeting archives pages. 

Background/Discussion: 

It is important that users of the Professional Certification Program understand how the pieces fit together and form a 

coherent system. To illustrate the relationships the Committee can describe the system as a triangle of 

interdependent parts (see diagram below). The standards come in the form of goals with measureable learning 

objectives. The education part involves training provided to help the candidate reach the desired level of proficiency 

for each of the learning objectives. The certification involves an assessment of proficiency that measures whether or 

not the objectives have been met.

Certification Triangle

The Committee has until now focused attention on the standards and the certification pieces in the triangle as 

illustrated in the following flowcharts.
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 4 

Standard Subsystem

Certification Subsystem

The Committee has described this work in a number of documents. In those documents, the committee is using 

terminology consistent with current usage in the education and certification field. The following important terms 

will be used throughout the Committee’s work on the subject. 

Body of Knowledge (BOK) – refers broadly to the knowledge and skills required to function as a weights and 

measures professional. The term may refer broadly to the entire scope of knowledge and skills required within the 

profession or in a more directed manner to any selected subset for which the particular person is responsible. The 

BOK describes what you expect the weights and measures professional to achieve as opposed to how weights and 

measures professional will achieve it. To make the BOK more manageable in administration of the Professional 

Certification Program, it will be subdivided into modules in a tree-like structure moving from general knowledge 

and skills to more specific areas. 

Module – refers to a group of related subject materials within the BOK. The module contains the articulated 

learning objectives for the subject area. Each module is considered a single, self-contained course of study. 

However, a broader course may span multiple modules and specific training may include only part of a module or 

parts of multiple modules. The PDC has created a standard format to create modules for the Professional 

Certification Program. The Committee has also created the Curriculum Outline and work plans to help manage the 

work activities within the program to create the many modules necessary to cover the entire profession. 
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 5 

Learning Objective – refers to the articulation of expectations of performance in measureable terms. Learning 

objectives are stated using active terms to be precise and measureable. There are two types of learning objectives, a 

terminal objective and an enabling objective. Terminal objectives state broadly the expectation of performance. 

The enabling objectives state the specific parts or steps required to demonstrate competence. The PDC has 

developed a guide to writing the learning objectives for both terminal and enabling which include the active verbs 

associated with the cognitive levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy. In training, the instructor will typically choose learning 

activities to explore each of the enabling objectives in an attempt to reach the terminal objective. In assessment, the 

questions will typically test for competence in each of the enabling objectives to demonstrate that the terminal 

objectives have been met.

Professional Certification – refers to verification of proficiency relative to all or part of the BOK for the profession 

as designated by the PDC for inclusion in a certification exam. The selected BOK includes all or part of specific 

modules and is documented in an exam description. Each of the modules, or combinations, is given a specific 

weighting in the design of the exam. After obtaining a passing score on the exam, the candidate is issued a 

certificate stating the competency standard has been met. 

Curriculum – refers to the list of modules that are used to document the BOK (see Appendix A).

Bloom’s Taxonomy – refers to a classification of levels of cognitive leaning widely used in the field of education. 

The levels are knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, integration, and evaluation. The active verbs used in 

the articulation of learning objectives define the cognitive level. In training, the learning activities are matched to 

the cognitive level. In assessment, the form of the question is also matched to the cognitive level. The use of 

Bloom’s Taxonomy is described in detail in the Body of Knowledge Model document.

The PDC has prepared program documents that are available on NCWM website. 

• The Curriculum Outline, which breaks the profession of weights and measures into component parts called 

modules.

• The Body of Knowledge Model, which explains how to create modules to document the learning 

objectives.

• The Modules developed thus far.

• The Certifications developed thus far. 

Results of the Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems exam indicate it will be very important as the program moves 

forward that trainers integrate the learning objectives into their materials and design courses in such a way that 

candidates will achieve the desired levels of learning. See Item 401-2 Instructor Improvement. 

At the 2011 Interim Meeting, the committee addressed the need to build partnerships between the states, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), and NCWM. Each group 

has roles in relation to the Certification Triangle as shown in the diagram below.
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 6 

Professional Certification Program

Applying Certification Triangle (Triumvirate Partnership)

States NCWM PDC NIST

• National Certified Workforce

• Assessment Tools and 

Certification Triangle Applied

• Student Meets Training 

Milestones

• Feedback to Trainer and 

Employee

• Value Exam Results = 

Recognition + Adult Learning

• Develop New Training 

Standards

• NCWM/NIST Regional 

Education and Training

• Website and Administer 

Professional Certification 

Program

• Enlist SMEs

• Learning Objectives and 

Standards

• Curriculum Work Plans, 

Discipline, Segments

• Write/Verify Exam Questions

• Exam Evaluation/Statistical 

Analysis

• Training and Education

• Instructor Improvement “ADDIE”

• State Instruction Support

• Technical Materials

• Train the Trainer Material

• Classroom and Field Training

At the 2012 Interim Meeting, the Committee received a comment from NIST, OWM that there is a need to provide 

an assessment tool to measure basic competence in fundamental subject areas such as NIST Handbook 44. They 

hope to partner with NCWM to administer those assessments using NCWM testing service. This would assure that 

participants at NIST, OWM sponsored training possess basic levels of proficiency in prerequisite materials so that 

instructors can deliver the primary material rather than spend time bringing all students up to the prerequisite level. 

The Committee agrees and believes this fits with ongoing efforts to create a BOK and an exam to assess competence 

in mathematics for the entry level inspector. This could also be a useful tool to any jurisdiction offering training in 

these basic areas. The Committee will call these baseline competency examinations defined as:

Baseline Competency Examination – refers to verification of proficiency relative to one of the basic modules in 

the BOK for the profession. After obtaining a passing score on the exam, the candidate is issued a certificate stating 

the competency standard has been met. 

The initial modules under consideration for the basic competency examinations are:

• Module XX. Weights and Measures Core Mathematics 

• Module 4.2. NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control

• Module 4.3. Weighing Systems – General

• Module 4.4. Dynamic Volume Measuring Systems – General
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 7 

The BOK document for the Core Mathematics module has been drafted and will be posted on the website and 

appears in Appendix B.

The professional certifications currently developed (or in development) are:

• Retail Motor Fuels – Certification available through NCWM;

• Basic Package Labeling/Checking;

• Small Capacity Scales; and

• Vehicle Tank Meters.

The Committee reported that 18 Subject Matter Expert (SME) volunteers are working on the Basic Package 

Labeling/Checking Exam and 20 SME volunteers are working on the Small Capacity Scales Exam. Those exams 

are nearing completion. Invitations will be sent shortly to NCWM members to solicit SME volunteers to work on 

the Vehicle Tank Meter Exam. The Committee noted that SME’s are the backbone of the program but also that they 

have competing priorities. One consideration is the idea of doing this work using web meetings, one to brief and 

train SME’s at the start of a project and one at the end to resolve any remaining issues with complex questions on 

the exam. The idea is to minimize the time commitment of our SME volunteers while maintaining high quality in 

our exams. 

The PDC conducted a survey in November 2011 to evaluate priorities for future exam development, appropriate 

range of device capacities to include in the medium or large capacity scale modules, request feedback from people 

who had taken the Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems Exam, appropriateness of our examinations for Registered 

Service Agents (RSAs), and potential problems in standardizing exams on the current NCWM standards.

The committee received 134 responses covering 25 states, approximately 80 % weights and measures and 20 % 

industry. Based on the responses the committee has selected the following subjects for priority development and 

will be requesting that the Board of Directors extend the Certification Coordinator’s contract for these new projects: 

• Medium Capacity Scales; 

• Large Capacity Scales III and IIIL; 

• Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid; and

• Price Verification. 

Survey questions on the Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems Exam indicated that the majority were somewhat or 

very satisfied with the test taking experience, that the exam questions were appropriate to the basic level inspector, 

that the questions were straight forward and clearly written, and that they were able to finish in the allotted time. 

The only problems identified seemed to be related to computer connections and loading of graphics. NCWM staff 

worked with the testing service to mitigate these issues. 

On the issue of using NCWM professional certifications for RSAs, the majority responded with interest in this area. 

The Committee worked with NCWM staff to solicit RSA volunteers to take the exam for free in order to obtain 

feedback. Volunteers who passed the exam would receive the formal certificate if they were members or if they pay 

the $75 testing fee as non-members. Four RSAs took the exam thus far and others are scheduled to take it. The 

Committee will gather additional data, evaluate the results and report at the Annual Meeting. 

At the 2012 Interim Meeting, several state officials questioned the appropriateness of charging these volunteers for 

the certificate if they are non-members. They noted that the service agents invested considerable time in taking the 

exam so that those who passed could have been rewarded with a waiver of the fee. Mr. Onwiler, NCWM Executive 

Director, reported that the exam fee structure is controlled by the Board of Directors. The exam fee is waived for
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 8 

members as a way to improve membership value. The exam has always been available to service agents, but this 

was a means of acquiring volunteers for data collection without making them pay fees as non-members. The 

Committee verified that participants were advised of the conditions when the volunteers were contacted. The 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) made a proposal in 2011 that NCWM consider a tiered 

membership that would allow for a group rate category or reduced fees for non-members presently employed in a 

weights and measures related field wishing only to take the examinations. The Committee will ask the Board to 

consider these comments.

On the subject of the use of the current NCWM standard as the basis of all exams, the feedback from the survey 

clearly indicated that this should not be a problem for most jurisdictions. Therefore, the Committee will develop all 

exams based on the current editions of NCWM standards. 

Officials had concerns about preparing their workforce for taking the Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems Exam. 

As the PDC proceeds in offering other certifications, the Committee wants jurisdictions and industry to feel 

supported and confident that the training they provide for their workforce will be comprehensive and will prepare 

their people to take the certification exams without providing them with the exam questions. The Committee, 

therefore, recommends better communication so they understand what tools are available to help them create their 

own comprehensive training programs. The critical viewpoint is that a professional has to be prepared to perform 

the job and not just prepared to take the exam. This is the age old question of training to the learning objectives (the 

BOK) or training to the exam. The Committee strongly believes that training has to focus on the BOK and not on 

the exam questions. 

At the 2012 Annual Meeting, the Committee met with the Board to provide an update on progress and agree on 

priorities. The Certification Coordinator reported that two additional question banks for small capacity scales and 

package checking had passed the technical review and were submitted to NCWM Headquarters. He also reported 

that SME volunteers are now working on the Vehicle Tank Meter Exam, and he is expecting to start the search for 

SME volunteers for the medium and large capacity scale exams shortly after the Annual Meeting. NCWM 

Executive Director, Don Onwiler, reported that there has been a slight glitch in the system that must be corrected 

before two new the exams can be opened for use. This involves making sure that Headquarters controls the 

individual’s access to exams. Each candidate gets access to initially take the exam and then can get a retest if they 

fail. The original process had given the candidate access to all exams using the same credentials. As soon as this is 

corrected, they will broadcast the availability of the two new exams.

The idea of accrediting the certification program was discussed. The Executive Director reported that he had been 

discussing the idea with the Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE) to see what parts of our program might be 

potential stumbling blocks. One area involves the SMEs who develop and vet the test questions. Our problem is 

that our SMEs are virtually all trainers within their jurisdictions and the vetting and training functions need to be 

separated. One possible avenue that we are pursuing is to restrict the access each SME has to the exam bank by only 

allowing them to review a part (~1⁄4) of the test bank. The advice also suggested that SMEs be asked to sign over 

rights to the test questions and that NCWM seek to copyright its exams. The Committee and the Coordinator will 

continue to work with the Executive Director toward the goal of meeting the accreditation standards, and both the 

Coordinator and Headquarters will work on documenting procedures as a necessary step in that process. The 

Executive Director will continue to seek advice towards this long term project from ICE.

The Executive Director provided the Committee and the Board with the following statistics on the Retail Motor Fuel 

Exam. 
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 9 

FY 2011 FY 2012

Number of Individuals taking the exam 76 128

Number of Organizations taking the exam 32 68

Number of Exams taken 189 Note(1) Note (2)

Number of Certificates issued 45 79

 Further Breakout State Gov’t

 Local Gov’t

 Industry

86

37

5

Note 1. In the Beta testing phase several took the exam multiple times.

Note 2. Results unavailable yet for FY 12

The Committee and the Board agreed that priorities will remain on the Professional Certifications. The Committee 

will not be pursuing the competency exams. This will help focus efforts to get the exams out based on priorities 

established by the survey the Committee conducted.

The Committee understands that the SMEs are the critical part of our certification program. The Committee wants 

to recognize those that are contributing and also encourage others to volunteer on future projects (i.e., the medium 

and large capacity scale exams that will start soon). To this end, the Committee wants to express gratitude by giving 

recognition to the following who contributed to the package checking and small capacity scale exams.

Package Checking Basic Small Capacity Scales Class III

Butcher, Ken, NIST OWM Chesser, Tim, AR

Chesser, Tim, AR D'Arcy, Carlos, FL

D'Arcy, Carlos, FL Dillibaugh, John, PA

Dillibaugh, John, PA Feagan, Bruce, WA

Feagan, Bruce, WA Guerney, Brett, UT

Guerney, Brett, UT Hicks, Tyler, OK

Hicks, Tyler, OK Johnson, Ray, NM

Johnson, Ray, NM McGee, Robert, SC

McGee, Robert, SC Merritt, Kevin, ID

Merritt, Kevin, ID Miller, Rachelle, WI

Miller, Rachelle, WI Paquette, Marc, VT

Paquette, Marc, VT Shultz, Steve, NV

Shultz, Steve, NV Smith, Dan, AK

Tubacki, Jeff, IL Stokes, John, SC

Wilson, Peter, VA Tubacki, Jeff, IL

Wilson, Peter, VA

The Committee heard testimony from a number of individuals during the open hearings and appreciates the 

comments. In particular, the Committee is very pleased that states are starting to find ways to integrate our 

standards and the certifications in their programs. One state reported their efforts to mandate in regulation that 

Registered Service Agents get NCWM certification to demonstrate competence. Another is giving CEUs to county 

officials who obtain NCWM Certification. Others are using the exam results to evaluate their training efforts. One 

jurisdiction is using NCWM certifications in labor relations to demonstrate that retention and promotion decisions 

are being based on an unbiased third party assessment. The CWMA is considering whether it might be possible to 

use the NCWM exam in their reciprocal testing program for RSAs. 

One state director reported that he had his entire staff take the RMFD exam. He provided some valuable feedback 

that the Committee and the Coordinator will consider. One involved making clear which versions of the handbooks 

are being used in the exams. He also reported that candidates taking the exam wanted to learn about which 

questions they got wrong. He also wanted the Committee to look at extending the Certification Program to accredit 

the overall weights and measures program.
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 10

The Committee understands the concern about the wrong answers, but maintaining the integrity of the test precludes 

us from giving that kind of specific feedback on the exam. At the end of the exam, the candidate is provided with

the pass/fail on each segment of the exam and the final score. The candidate is also provided with the option of 

designating the e-mail address where the results will be sent. Thus, the results could go to a supervisor or the 

director. The Committee is considering avenues to provide feedback that will help states identify potential 

weaknesses in their training programs. Again, the Committee wants to divert the focus from the test back to 

ensuring mastery of the learning objectives in the BOK. To that end, the Committee is considering providing 

general statistics on each part of the exam so that a jurisdiction or company could compare their staff’s results with 

the composite of all those who took the exam. There is a further fear that providing detailed feedback on specific 

learning objectives, where exam results showed low scoring, would then divert the focus from the broad objectives 

of the BOK.

410-2 I Instructor Improvement

Source: 

Carryover Item 401-3 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background/Discussion: 

Prior to the 2010 Annual Meeting, Ms. Georgia Harris, NIST, OWM, provided the Committee with reference 

material on teaching methods and assessment of training success. Distilling the essence of these materials, the 

Committee believes that instructors need training in more than just the technical material; they need training in 

setting the learning objectives, developing the training materials with those objectives in mind, selecting training 

methods that incorporate adult learning styles, and evaluating the effectiveness of their training.

Education Subsystem

The chart below covers three levels of learning objectives and relates them to (1) the training activities most likely to 

be successful and (2) the best methods for assessing the success of the training. The curriculum segments state the 

learning objectives using verbs similar to those in the bottom row of the table. These drive both the training 

activities required to promote adult learning and the assessment tools appropriate to measure success at that level.
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 11

Assessments Multiple Choice Multiple Choice Practical Examples Short Answer

Training Activities Lecture

Videos

Examples

Discussion

Review

Learner

Presentation

Exercises

Simulations

Demonstrations

Cognitive Levels Knowledge Comprehensive Application

Define

Relate

List

Restate

Discuss

Describe

Identify

Employ

Apply

Use

Illustrate

NIST, OWM has expressed a strong interest in collaborating with NCWM in efforts to educate instructors in adult 

learning techniques and relating them to the learning objectives in NCWM curriculum. The Committee will be 

posting NIST, OWM material on converting technical content to training material on the PDC training resources 

web pages. The importance of pre-training analysis and post-training evaluation cannot be overestimated. Failure 

to include these steps often leads to failure of training efforts.

Professional Certification Program

Systems Approach to Training Evaluation

The Committee is calling on the states and other training developers to implement the Analysis, Design, 

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model in their training preparations and post training 

evaluation. Everyone needs to participate in the development of new BOK modules and then encourage their 

trainers to use existing BOK modules in their training plans.

The Committee encourages members to also look at the presentation on A Complete Training Program prepared by 

Ms. Carol Hockert, NIST, OWM. The presentation outlines ways to develop training programs and improve 

instruction of weights and measures material. It can be found 

at: ncwm.net/sites/default/files/meetings/annual/2012/PDC%20docs/2012_Pub16_PDC_A_Complete_Training_P

rogram_Presentation.pdf. 

At the 2012 Interim Meeting, advisors from NIST, OWM reported that they are using NCWM BOK in preparing 

new training initiatives. They are stressing adult learning techniques, particularly focusing on the use of hands-on 

training as the most popular and effective training tool. This ties in closely with the new baseline competency 

exams discussed in Item 410-1. NIST, OWM is using these exams to ensure students in NIST sponsored training 

courses are competent in prerequisite course materials prior to taking training. They reported that they are already 

drafting questions for the baseline competency exams. They see significant efficiencies in using NCWM testing 

services for this purpose since they are already in place. 
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 12

Ms. Hockert, NIST, OWM, recommended a basic math prerequisite for persons taking Metrology or other related 

weights and measures courses sponsored by NIST. The math exam would allow trainees to demonstrate entry level 

math skills and make the training process more efficient and effective. One official discussed the California

licensing requirement of a college degree which requires a certain number of math courses and asked if this would 

satisfy the need for the math prerequisite. Several California officials expressed concern about the Professional 

Certification Program replacing existing state licensing programs, and if adopted it might require amendment of 

existing state statutes. Because math competency is an essential skill for weights and measures work, the 

Committee recommends that the PDC include in its scope the development of an exam to demonstrate basic math 

competency before taking the Fundamentals of Metrology or other training courses at NIST.

At the 2011 Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA), it was stated that we should consider training 

state trainers on adult learning techniques as well as subject matter. No further recommendations were made.

At the 2012 Annual Meeting, the Committee stressed instructor improvement. The Committee reviewed the 

importance of using the NCWM learning objectives and the ADDIE model in training. This stresses the importance 

of training to the goals in the BOK and not training to pass the test. If the training is appropriate and has been 

delivered effectively, the employee should have no problem passing a fair exam. The end is not a certificate on the 

wall, but rather a competent inspector. In other words, 

JOB SUCCESS = EXAM SUCCESS

Ms. Hockert, NIST, OWM, stressed that good training requires a partnership between the trainee, trainer, and the 

supervisor. The Committee agrees that buy-in from all levels is critical to training success.

410-3 I Recommended Topics for Conference Training

Source: 

Carryover Item 401-5 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background/Discussion: 

The Board of Directors has charged the Committee with recommending appropriate topics for the technical sessions 

at future Annual Meetings. The Board of Directors asked the PDC to review and prioritize possible presentations 

and submit those to NCWM Chairman. The Chairman will coordinate with NCWM staff to secure presenters and 

schedule the sessions.

The PDC continues to carry the following list and recommends these topics for possible training seminars, 

roundtables, or symposia for presentation at NCWM meetings:

• Marketplace Surveys;

• Alternative Fuels Issues (Fuel Volatility, Ethanol Blending, and Biodiesel Blend);

• Ergonomics (including Proper Lifting Techniques, Back and Stress Techniques, and Office Ergonomics);

• Public Relations (specifically dealing with aggressive/angry people) (recommended by the SWMA);

• General Safety Issues (recommended by the WWMA);

• Defensive Driving (recommended by the WWMA);

• Administrative Civil Penalty Process (recommended by the WWMA);

• Price Verification (recommended by the WWMA);

• Customer Service (recommended by the WWMA);
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 13

• Ethics (recommended by the CWMA);

• Moisture Loss; 

• Economic Justification of Weights and Measures Programs;

• Demonstrating the Value of Enforcement Programs;

• Documenting Investigations for Court Proceedings;

• Training the Trainer in Adult Learning Methods; 

• Honing Presentation Skills; and

• Emerging Issues.

The PDC asked for suggestions for future training or recommendations on how to prioritize suggestions already on 

the list. Based on the needs identified in the first two items (401-1 and 401-2), the Committee would like to 

recommend that the regional associations and NCWM consider offering training for trainers on how to identify 

learning objectives, and design training materials that integrate interactive activities and adult learning styles. NIST 

has a 1.5-hour course on taking technical material and turning it into a course for adult learners, which may be 

appropriate to fill this need.

The following is a list of recent presentations, available at www.ncwm.net/content/annual-archive: 

• An Overview of Unit Pricing in the United States (Mr. David Sefcik, 2011);

• Grocery Unit Pricing in Australia (Mr. Ian Jarratt, 2011); 

• Grocery Unit Pricing in Canada (Mr. Ian Jarratt, 2011);

• The U.S. Hydrogen Measuring System: The Turning Point? (Ms. Kristin Macey, 2011);

• Corrosion in Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Underground Storage Systems (Mr. Prentiss Searles and Ms. Lorri 

Grainawi, 2010);

• Risk-Based Inspection Schemes (Mr. Henry Oppermann, 2010); 

• Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) (Mr. Gordon Johnson and Mr. Randy Moses. 2009);

• Fuel Volatility and Ethanol Blending (Mr. Jim McGetrick, 2009);

• Investigative Techniques (Mr. Michael Cleary, 2009);

• Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Field Test Procedures; 

• Elements of an Effective Safety and Health Program (Mr. Dan Whipple, 2008);

• Analyzing Temperature Compensation Data (Mr. Henry Oppermann and Mr. Steven Malone, 2007);

• The Great Temperature Compensation Debate (Mr. Ross Andersen, 2007);

• NIST Handbook 44 Scale Code Tare Changes (Mr. Steve Cook).
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 14

The Committee discussed the benefits of, and avenues to, sharing training resources within the weights and 

measures community, including a training events calendar, a repository of presentations, lesson plans, videos, and 

other valuable training tools. The Committee believes the Associate Membership Committee funds may be well 

used in this area. 

The Committee further recommends the following training topics be scheduled for the 2012 Annual Meeting:

• Economic Justification of Weights and Measures Programs; 

• Training the Trainer in Adult Learning Techniques; and 

• How to Conduct and Analyze a Marketplace Survey. 

These topics are in keeping with the Chairman’s theme, “Taking Measure of our Worth”, and ongoing efforts in 

training at NIST, OWM.

420 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

420-1 I Safety Awareness

Source: 

Carryover Item 402-1 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.)

Background/Discussion: 

In the past, the Committee’s responsibility extended to the identification of safety issues in the weights and 

measures field and included efforts to increase safety awareness. Jurisdictions are encouraged to send their safety 

reports and issues to their regional safety liaison, who in turn will forward them to the PDC. Below is a list of the 

Regional Safety Liaisons.

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA): 

Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota Weights and Measures Division

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA): 

Mr. Michael Sikula, New York Bureau of Weights and Measures

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA): 

Mr. Steve Hadder, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA): 

Mr. Douglas Deiman, Alaska Division of Measurement Standards/CVE

The Committee will continue asking the regions to prepare articles for the NCWM Newsletter and has revised the 

schedule as follows for future issues. The Committee plans to notify the Regional Safety Liaisons as their 

assignment date approaches.

CWMA 2013, Issue 1 February January 18, 2013

NEWMA 2013 Issue 2 May April 16, 2013

SWMA 2013, Issue 3 September July 16, 2013

WWMA 2014, Issue 1 February January 18, 2014

CWMA 2014, Issue 2 May April 16, 2014

Email all articles to NCWM headquarters at info@ncwm.net. 

The Committee would like to thank those persons who submitted safety related articles to NCWM Newsletter. In 

particular, the Committee recognizes the contributors for the 2011 NCWM Newsletters.
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 15

• Consumer Tips for Proper Gasoline Handling, 2011 Issue 1 (Mr. Steve Hadder, FL)

• Vehicle Safety Issues for Weights and Measures Inspector, 2011 Issue 2 (Mr. Douglas Deiman, AK)

• Controlling the Risk of Solitary Workers, 2011 Issue 2 (Mr. Brett Gurney, UT)

• Incident Reports Improve Safety, 2011 Issue 3 (Ms. Julie Quinn, MN)

The Committee asks for suggestions for safety articles that people would like to see in future newsletters or safety 

issues that need to be addressed immediately. The PDC reminds regional associations to check the submission 

deadlines for their upcoming article assignments. Send completed articles to NCWM headquarters by the 

submission deadline.

The PDC received a request during the work session that the publication dates be kept current in this ongoing item.

At the 2011 CWMA Interim Meeting, it was noted that the CWMA PDC developed an Incident/Accident Report 

(Appendix C) to be used for people to send in reports in a systematic way. The purpose was to make it easier for 

people to report incidents and accidents, and also to count the types and causes of incidents and accidents so we can 

learn from them. The Committee recommends including this report as an appendix so other regions can consider its 

use as well. It should be added to the CWMA website so people can download and use it. It was recommended that

the Committee should concentrate on safety issues rather than on counting incidents as many jurisdictions will not 

submit the reports.

At the 2012 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard a request that there could be a benefit in compiling the safety 

articles from the NCWM Newsletters on the website to make them more accessible. The NCWM currently provides 

access to the past editions of the NCWM Newsletter on the website but you would have to search each edition 

individually to find an individual article. The Committee will consider that suggestion and consult with 

Headquarters on a solution.

420-2 I PDC Publication

Background/Discussion: 

The Committee is updating the PDC pages on the website, and will make a concerted effort to update relevant 

documents and get them posted to the website so that interested parties can easily find and utilize the materials. The 

three main sections of material include:

1. Committee Active Working Documents – includes active documents describing the developing 

professional certification program, the curriculum plan, BOK documents currently under development and 

open for comment (i.e., prior to release of a certification exam, program guidelines and administrative 

procedures); 

2. Professional Certification Documents – includes the certification exam shopping page, exam 

descriptions, related BOK documents, aids to taking the certification exams; and

3. Committee Archives – includes an archive of historical documents that provide insight into the evolution 

of the Committee since inception and evolution of the Professional Certification Program. Interested 

parties should also refer to meeting archives at www.ncwm.net/content/meeting-archive. 

In addition, the Committee believes it is vital to move forward with a more formal set of administrative procedures 

for running a credible certification program. The Committee will make efforts to continue the work of Mr. Sikula, 

New York, at the request of the Board of Directors, to document our procedures following International 

Standardization Organization (ISO) 17024 Guidelines for Certification Bodies. The Board of Directors is also 

considering alternative ANSI standards. The Committee will be working with the Board on this project. NCWM 

management has ultimate responsibility for contracting with the testing service, policy issues, and staffing (both 

headquarters staff and the Certification Coordinator). The Committee expects to deal primarily with the technical 

details and the practical issues of developing the BOK and the certification exams.
PDC 2012 Final Report

PDC - 16

Mr. Stacy Carlsen, Marin County, California | Committee Chair

Ms. Cheryl Ayer, New Hampshire | Member 

Ms. Kristin Macey, California | Member

Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota | Member

Mr. Dale Saunders, Virginia | Member

Mr. Steven Grabski, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | Associate Membership Representative

Mr. Ross Andersen | Certification Coordinator

Professional Development Committee 
PDC 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan

PDC - A1 

Appendix A

Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan

Revised January 2010

Segment/Subject

Level 1/Level 2/Level 3

1. Fundamentals of Weights and Measures

1.1. Introduction to Weights and Measures Programs

1.2. Weights and Measures Laws and Regulations

1.3. Field Standards and Test Equipment

1.4. State Program Scope and Overview

1.5. Enforcement Powers

2. Weights and Measures Administration

2.1. Fundamentals of Weights and Measures Administration (Commercial System, Powers and Duties, etc.)

2.2. Administration Functions (Personnel, Management, Budget, Safety, etc.)

2.3. Legislation and Regulations (Legal Considerations, Interaction with Legislature, Stakeholders, Industry, etc.)

2.4. Regulatory Control (Device Inspection, Commodities, Complaints)

2.5. Laboratory Metrology Administration (Purpose of Laboratory, Responsibilities of Metrologist, NIST 

Expectations for Recognition of Laboratory, Quality System, Training Requirements, etc.)

2.6. Public Relations and Communications (Publicity, Public Relations, Communications)

3. Laboratory Metrology

3.1. NIST Basic Metrology

3.2. NIST Intermediate Metrology

3.3. NIST Advanced Metrology

4. Device Control Program

4.1. Safety Considerations

4.2. NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control

4.3. Weighing Systems, General

4.3.1. Static Electronic Weighing Systems, General

4.3.2. Static Mechanical and Hybrid Weighing Systems, General

4.3.3. Dynamic Weighing Systems, General

4.3.4. Precision Weighing Systems Class I and II

4.3.5. Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class III

4.3.6. Medium Capacity Weighing Systems Class III

4.3.7. Large Capacity Class III and III L Weighing Systems (Vehicle and Livestock)

4.3.8. Large Capacity Class III and III L Weighing Systems - Advanced

4.3.9. Railroad Track Weighing Systems

4.3.10. In-Motion Railroad Track Weighing Systems

4.3.11. Hopper Weighing Systems

4.3.12. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems

4.3.13. Automatic Weighing Systems

4.3.14. Belt Conveyor Weighing Systems

4.3.15. In-Motion Monorail Weighing Systems

4.3.16. Point-of-Sale Weighing Systems

4.3.17. Other Specialty Weighing Systems

4.4. Dynamic Measuring Systems – General

4.4.1. Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

4.4.2. Loading Rack and Other Stationary Metering Systems

4.4.3. Loading Rack and Other Stationary Metering Systems – Advanced
PDC 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan

PDC - A2 

4.4.4. Vehicle-Tank Meter Systems

4.4.5. Vehicle-Tank Meter Systems – Advanced

4.4.6. Milk Metering Systems

4.4.7. Water Meters

4.4.8. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) / Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Metering Systems

4.4.9. LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Metering Systems – Advanced

4.4.10. LPG Vapor Meter Systems

4.4.11. Mass Flow Metering Systems

4.4.12. Other Metering Systems (Cryogenics, Carbon Dioxide, etc.)

4.5. Static Volume Measuring Systems – General

4.5.1. Liquid Measures

4.5.2. Farm Milk Tanks

4.5.3. Dry Measures

4.6. Other Measuring Systems

4.6.1. Taximeters and Odometers

4.6.2. Wire and Cordage Measuring Systems

4.6.3. Linear Measures

4.6.4. Timing Devices

4.6.5. Weights

4.6.6. Multiple Dimension Measuring Systems

4.7. Quality Measuring Systems

4.7.1. Grain Moisture Meters

4.7.2. NIR Grain Analyzers

4.7.3. Carcass Evaluation Systems

5. Market Practices, Laws and Regulations (NIST Handbook 130) and Commodities (NIST Handbook 133)

5.1. Safety Considerations – Market Practices, NIST Handbook 130, NIST Handbook 133

5.2. NIST Handbook 130 – Laws and Regulations 

5.2.1. NIST Handbook 130 – General Provisions

5.2.2. Packaging and Labeling Regulations

5.2.3. Method of Sale Regulations

5.2.4. Quality of Automotive Fuels and Lubricants

5.2.5. Price Verification

5.3. NIST Handbook 133 – Package Net Contents Control

5.3.1. Commodities – General

5.3.2. Packages Labeled by Weight, Standard and Random

5.3.3. Packages Labeled by Weight, Special Commodities

5.3.4. Packages Labeled by Volume (Volumetric and Gravimetric Testing)

5.3.5. Packages Labeled by Volume, Special

5.3.6. Packages Labeled by Length/Area/Thickness

5.3.7. Packages Labeled by Count

5.3.8. Other Package Types

5.4. Test Purchases

5.5. E-Commerce

Note: Initial Verification has been intentionally been left off this listing and will be addressed later.
PDC 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Draft Module – Weights and Measures Core Mathematics

PDC - B1 

Appendix B 

Draft Module – Weights and Measures Core Mathematics

Overview and Scope:

This module sets standards for core mathematical skills that are an integral part of every weights and measures 

official’s repertoire. The module is geared toward specific concepts related to understanding of numerical 

information, interpreting device indications, graphs, and charts, and performing a range of mathematical operations 

that are commonly used in weights and measures work, both in the field and the laboratory.

Prerequisites: 

• None

Objectives and Competencies:

1. Expressing and Interpreting Numerical Values

A weights and measures professional should be capable of expressing and interpreting numerical data in various 

forms. To demonstrate this, the professional can: 

1.1. Express and interpret real numbers, both positive and negative, as integer or decimal

1.2. Express and interpret numbers in scientific notation

1.3. Express and interpret numbers with exponential powers or roots

1.4. Express and interpret numbers as fractions or mixed numbers (integer with fraction)

1.4.1. Know basic fraction nomenclature (numerator, denominator, etc.) 

1.4.2. Know nomenclature of common (X/Y) and binary fractions (X/2

n

)

1.5. Interpret analog indications

1.5.1. Interpret analog readings, both for single unit and combination unit (e.g., lb and oz) 

1.5.2. Interpret readings of an analog device using a vernier scale

1.5.3. Interpolate readings between graduations to less than one scale division (e.g., to 1⁄2, 1⁄4, or 1

/5

division)

1.5.4. Calculate the number of analog divisions for combination unit indicators

1.6. Express or interpret numerical data in graphs and tables

1.6.1. Interpret information from existing graphs and tables

1.6.2. Interpolate values at intermediate points on a graph or table

1.6.3. Create bar, line or scatter graphs from data tables

1.6.4. Organize date in a table

1.7. Interpret measurement units in customary and SI

1.7.1. Interpret customary units of measure (understand meaning and be able to discern which of two 

values is larger or smaller)

1.7.2. Interpret the SI prefixes and suffixes used in measurement units (understand meaning and be able 

to discern which of two values is larger or smaller)

2. Performing Basic Operations on Real Numbers 

A weights and measures professional should be able to perform basic mathematical operations on real numbers. 

To demonstrate this, the professional can: 

2.1. Add or subtract real numbers correctly

2.2. Multiply and divide real numbers correctly

2.3. Calculate percentages of related real numbers correctly

2.4. Calculate prices after discounts correctly

2.5. Calculate exponential functions of real numbers (powers and roots)

2.6. Calculate expressions resulting from multiple, mixed operations on real numbers correctly

2.6.1. Calculate expressions organized by parentheses

2.6.2. Calculate simple expressions without parentheses using algebraic notation 

(e.g., 1 + 2 × 3 − 6 = 1 + (2 × 3) − 6 = 1)

2.6.3. Apply the associative property (e.g., (5 + 2) + 1 = 5 + (2 + 1)

2.6.4. Apply the distributive property (e.g., 2 × (1 + 3) = (2 × 1) + (2 × 3)

2.7. Convert measurement units to other units (e.g., convert lb to oz or kg to g, and lb to kg or L to gal) 

2.8. Discuss and employ the basic principle of significant digits when expressing numerical data
PDC 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – Draft Module – Weights and Measures Core Mathematics

PDC - B2 

2.8.1. Explain the basic principle of significant digits

2.8.2. Interpret relative accuracy of numbers expressed with and without a +/- notation or with an 

uncertainty value

2.8.3. Express real numbers with the correct number of significant digits (e.g., 1,245,427 or 2.3589127 

with three significant digits is 1,250,000 or 2.36 respectively)

2.8.4. Express the results of simple operations of two numbers with different numbers of significant 

figures correctly (e.g., 1.27 × 345.37 = 438.6199 = 438 result is limited to three significant digits 

because 1.27 has three)

3. Rounding and Truncating Numerical Values

A weights and measures professional should be able to correctly round or truncate numerical values and know 

when it is appropriate to round or truncate. To demonstrate this, the professional can: 

3.1. Round values correctly

3.1.1. Apply five up/four/down rounding to a real number

3.1.2. Apply the NIST Handbook 44 odd/even rule to rounding of real numbers

3.1.3. Verify correct rounding in applications, both with and without mathematical agreement to one-half 

cent (e.g., count 3 for $1 expressed without agreement as 1 @ $0.34, 2 @ $0.68, and 3 @ $1.00 or 

weight 3 lb for $1 expressed with agreement as 1 lb @ $0.33, 2 lb @ $0.67 and 3 lb @ $1.00) 

3.1.4. Apply rounding rules correctly in multistep calculations (i.e., only rounding at the end)

3.1.5. Describe when it is appropriate to round vs. truncate values (e.g., conversion of measurement 

units)

3.2. Truncate values correctly

3.2.1. Describe when it is appropriate to truncate vs. round values (e.g., calculating tolerances, 

calculating NGW in package checking)

4. Performing Basic Operations on Fractions

A weights and measures professional should be able to perform basic mathematical operations on common 

fractions and mixed numbers. To demonstrate this, the professional can: 

4.1. Convert improper fractions to mixed numbers or mixed numbers to improper fractions 

(e.g., 7

/ = 13/4 or 25/ 8 = 21/8)

4.2. Convert common fractions and mixed numbers to real numbers correctly (e.g., 21⁄4 = 2.25)

4.3. Find the least common denominator of two common fractions

4.4. Convert a fraction to its equivalent using the least common denominator

4.5. Reduce a common fraction to its simplest form (e.g., 4

/16 = 1⁄4)

4.6. Add and subtract two common fractions or mixed numbers correctly

4.7. Multiply or divide two common fractions or mixed numbers correctly 

4.8. Calculate a power of a common fraction (e.g., (1

/7) 2 = 1/49) 

5. Perform Advanced Operations on Real Numbers

A weights and measures professional should be able to perform selected advanced mathematical operations on 

real numbers. To demonstrate this, the professional can: 

5.1. Multiply complex expressions correctly (e.g., 2 × (1 + 3x) = 2 + 6x)

5.2. Apply the distributive property to factor complex expressions (e.g., (2x + 2y) = 2 × (x + y))

5.3. Calculate basic statistical functions on numerical data

5.3.1. Find median value of a data set

5.3.2. Calculate mean or average of a data set

5.3.3. Find the range of a data set

5.3.4. Calculate the standard deviation of a data set

5.4. Interpret a logarithmic scales on a graph

Contributor: 10/5/11 – Initial Draft – Mr. Ross Andersen, Certification Coordinator
PDC 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Safety Incident/Accident Report

PDC - C1 

Appendix C 

Safety Incident/Accident Report

This form can be used to report any accidents or near misses to your regional safety coordinator. The purpose of 

this form is to share information between weights and measures programs which will help the programs identify 

hazards faced by their employees, and find ways to eliminate or mitigate those hazards. Please make sure that you 

omit any names or other identifying information in order to protect the privacy of all parties involved.

1. Date of incident/accident:

2. Describe how the incident/accident occurred:

3. Check all injury types that resulted from this action:

 Soft Tissue (strains, sprains, etc.) Slips, Trips, Falls

 Eye Injury Cuts, Bruises, Abrasions

 Burns Chemical Exposure

 Vehicle Related Injury Loss of Body Part

 Other/Unlisted (Please describe in the space below.)

4. Describe in as much detail as privacy considerations allows, the injuries selected above.

5. Check all hazardous conditions present at the time of the incident/accident:

 Defective Materials/Equipment Improper Design or Construction

 Slippery Conditions/Poor Footing Improper or Inadequate Clothing

 Personal Protective Equipment Unavailable Unable to Secure/Warn or Lock/Block

 Inadequate Clearance Inadequate Ventilation

 Inadequate Lifting Aids or Technique Hazardous Method or Procedure

 Electrical Hazard Chemical Hazard

 Natural Hazard Traffic Hazard

 Other/Unlisted (Please describe in the space below.)

6. Describe in as much detail as privacy considerations allow, the hazardous conditions selected above.

7. Check all unsafe acts which contributed to the incident/accident:

 Improper Lifting Failure to Use Personal Protective Equipment

 Failure to Shut-off or Unplug Equipment Horseplay

 Improper Use of Equipment Failure to Secure/Warn or Lock/Block

 Improper Use of Body Parts Using Hands Instead of Tools

 Inattention to Footing/Surroundings Alter or Disable Safety Mechanisms

 Unsafe Speed Unsafe Posture

 Standing Beneath Suspended or Swinging Loads Driving Errors
PDC 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – Safety Incident/Accident Report

PDC - C2 

 Unsafe Mixing of Materials Unsafe Placement of Equipment/Materials

 Other/Unlisted (Please describe in the space below.)

8. Describe in as much detail as privacy considerations allow, the unsafe acts selected above.

9. Check all other contributing factors which may apply:

 Lack of Policy/Procedures Safety Rules Not Enforced

 Hazards Not Identified Personal Protective Equipment Not Provided

 Insufficient Employee Training Insufficient Supervisor Training

 Inadequate Supervision Inadequate Workplace Inspection

 Unrealistic Schedule Poor Process Design

 Other/Unlisted (Please describe in the space below.)

10. Describe in as much detail as privacy considerations will allow, the other factors selected above.

11. Please describe any conditions, actions, or other factors which mitigated this incident and kept the consequences 

from being more severe than they were.

12. Please describe any immediate corrective actions taken to prevent additional incidents/injuries.

13. Please describe any preventative actions you are taking to reduce or eliminate similar hazards in the future.

14. Please check the boxes which apply to the person completing this report:

I was one of the people involved in the incident/accident

I witnessed the incident/accident

I investigated the incident/accident

I heard the incident/accident through some other means. (Please describe in the space below.)
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 1 

Report of the

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee 

Mr. Tim Tyson, Committee Chair

Kansas Weights and Measures

500 INTRODUCTION 

The NTEP Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) submits its Final Report for the consideration of 

the 97th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report contains the items discussed and 

actions proposed by the Committee during its Interim Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, January 22 - 25, 2012. 

The report addressed the items in Table A during the Annual Meeting held July 22 - 26, 2012, in Portland, Maine. 

Table A identifies the agenda items by reference key, title of item, page number and the appendices by appendix 

designations. The acronyms for organizations and technical terms used throughout the agenda are identified in 

Table B. Changes to NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy are by recommendation of the Committee and a 

majority vote of the Board of Directors. Changes to NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists, Test 

Procedures are by recommendation of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Sectors and a 

majority vote of the NTEP Committee. The first three digits of an item’s reference key are assigned from the 

Subject Series List. The status of each item contained in the report is designated as one of the following: 

(D) Developing Item: the Committee determined the item has merit; however, the item was returned to the 

submitter or other designated party for further development before any action can be taken at the national level; 

(I) Informational Item: the item is under consideration by the Committee but not proposed for Voting; 

(V) Voting Item: the Committee is making recommendations requiring a vote by the active members of NCWM; 

(W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been removed from consideration by the Committee. Table C provides the 

Summary of Voting Results for each Voting Item. 

During the Annual Meeting, some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent 

calendar. Consent calendar items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during 

their deliberation after the Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not 

require discussion. The Voting Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the 

addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of the consent calendar, the Committee will entertain any requests from the 

floor to remove specific items from the consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually.

Committees may change the status designation of agenda items (Developing, Informational, Voting, and 

Withdrawn) up until the report is adopted, except that items which are marked Developing, Informational or 

Withdrawn cannot be changed to Voting Status. Any change from the Interim Report or from what appears on the 

addendum sheets will be explained to the attendees prior to a motion and will be acted upon by the active members 

of NCWM prior to calling for the vote.

An “Item Under Consideration” is a statement of proposal and not necessarily a recommendation of the NTEP 

Committee. Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted 

and underlining information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be non-retroactive are printed in bold 

faced italics. Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration will 

appear as appendix items. 

All sessions are open to registered attendees of the conference. If the Committee must discuss any issue that 

involves proprietary information or other confidential material; that portion of the session dealing with the special 

issue may be closed provided that (1) the Chairman or, in his absence, the Chairman-Elect approves; (2) the 

Executive Director is notified; and (3) an announcement of the closed meeting is posted on or near the door to the 

meeting session and at the registration desk. If at all possible, the posting will be done at least a day prior to the 

planned closed session.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 2 

Note: The policy is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, recommendations 

received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this 

publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.

Subject Series List

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 500 Series

International.................................................................................................................................................... 510 Series

Activity Reports.............................................................................................................................................. 520 Series

Conformity Assessment Program................................................................................................................... 530 Series

Other Items – Developing Items..................................................................................................................... 500 Series

Table A

Table of Contents

Reference Key Title of Item NTEP Page

500 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

510 INTERNATIONAL.......................................................................................................................................... 4

510-1 I Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) ............................................................................. 4

510-2 I Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA).............................................................................. 4

520 ACTIVITY REPORTS..................................................................................................................................... 6

520-1 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports.................................................... 6

520-2 I NTETC Sector Reports .......................................................................................................... 7

530 CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM............................................................................................... 9

530-1 I Conformity Assessment Program........................................................................................... 9

540 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS..................................................................................................11

540-1 D NTEP Contingency Plan ......................................................................................................11

APPENDICES

Appendix A — NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary.................................................... A1

Appendix B — NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary............................................................. B1

Appendix C — NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary .................................................................... C1

Appendix D — NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary....................................................................... D1

Appendix E — NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary ..................................................................... E1 

Appendix F — NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports Statistical Reports.....................F1
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 3 

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

B Basic Publication NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures

CC Certificate of Conformance NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

CIML International Committee of Legal 

Metrology NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

CTT Conformity to Type NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

DoMC Declaration of Mutual Confidence OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

IV Initial Verification OWM Office of Weights and Measures

MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement R Recommendation

MC Measurement Canada SC Technical Subcommittee

MDMD Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices TC Technical Committee

MRA Mutual Recognition Arrangement VCAP Verification Conformity Assessment 

Program

MTL Manufacturers’ Testing Laboratories

Table C

Summary of Voting Results

Reference Key

Number

House of Senate Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

To Accept the 

Report Voice Vote Adopted
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 4 

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

510 INTERNATIONAL 

510-1 I Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA)

Background/Discussion: 

The MRA between Measurement Canada (MC) and NTEP labs originated April 1, 1994. Since that time, the 

original MRA has expanded, and a second MRA covering measuring devices was developed. On Tuesday, 

July 19, 2011, NCWM Chairman, Mr. Tyson, and MC President, Mr. Johnston, signed a renewal MRA that 

combines the weighing and measuring devices into one document and provides for continued cooperation between 

the two organizations and continuation of the beneficial partnership. The new MRA will be effective for five years.

The scope of the current MRA includes:

• gasoline and diesel dispensers;

• high-speed dispensers;

• gasoline and diesel meters intended to be used in fuel dispensers and truck refuelers; 

• electronic computing and non-computing bench, counter, floor, and platform scales with a capacity up to 

1000 kg (2000 lb);

• weighing/load receiving elements with a capacity of up to 1000 kg (2000 lb);

• electronic weight indicating elements (except those that are software based, i.e., programmed by 

downloading parameters); and

• mechanical scales up to 10 000 kg (20 000 lb).

The Committee continues to work with MC to explore the possibility of expanding the scope to include Multiple 

Dimension Measuring Devices (MDMD) and higher capacity scales. Technical obstacles have prevented inclusion 

of both MDMD and higher capacity scales for now, but NTEP and MC remain committed to continuing to discuss 

expansion. NTEP also requested that tests conducted at manufacturers’ premises under the supervision of an NTEP 

evaluator be included in the scope of the MRA. MC expressed the desire to keep these evaluations outside the scope 

of the MRA for scales, load receiving elements, and electronic weight indicating elements.

MC, NTEP, and all of our mutual stakeholders agree that the MRA is a benefit for the North American weights and 

measures industry. The NTEP Committee appreciates the efforts and cooperation of Measurement Canada.

510-2 I Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)

Background/Discussion: 

Information regarding the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) MAA can be found 

at www.oiml.org/maa. NCWM has signed the OIML MAA Declaration of Mutual Confidence (DoMC) for 

Recommendation (R) 60 Load Cells as a utilizing participant. A utilizing participant is a participant that does not 

issue any OIML Certificate of Conformance (CC) nor OIML Test Reports or Test Reports under a DoMC but which 

utilizes the reports issued by issuing participants.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 5 

The OIML Technical Subcommittee (SC) for Technical Committee (TC) 3/SC 5 Conformity Assessment made 

revisions to the following OIML Basic Publication (B) documents:

• OIML B 3, OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments; and 

• A combined revision of OIML B 10-1, Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type 

Evaluations, and OIML B 10-2, Checklists for Issuing Authorities and Testing Laboratories carrying out 

OIML Type Evaluations. 

At the January 2011 Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed four items related to the revisions of B 3 and B 10: 

(1) housekeeping revisions to document B 3; (2) housekeeping revisions to B 10; (3) revisions to B 10 that would 

incorporate provisions under which manufacturers’ test data would be accepted under the MAA; and (4) a resolution 

of compromise whereby countries may voluntarily accept manufacturers’ test data. The Committee recommended 

that the Board of Directors authorize the U.S. representative to vote YES on items (1) and (2), NO on item (3), and 

YES on item (4) with a qualifying statement that the United States would not accept any MAA certificates based on 

manufacturers’ test data. The Board of Directors voted to support all of the recommendations from the NTEP 

Committee.

A Meeting of the Committee on Participation Review for R 60 and R 76 was held September 21 - 23, 2011, in 

Braunschweig, Germany. Dr. Charles Ehrlich, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of 

Weights and Measures (OWM); Mr. John Barton, NIST, OWM; and Mr. Jim Truex, NCWM attended the meeting.

The International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) Preliminary Ballots on B 3 and B 10 closed in July 2011 

without any negative votes, and a final CIML vote was held at the CIML Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, in 

October 2011. Both B 3 and B 10 passed the CIML vote. International comments on a new document entitled The 

Role of Measurement Uncertainty in Conformity Assessment Decisions in Legal Metrology have been received and 

the Secretariat is using them to develop the 2nd Committee Draft. 

The CIML, noting the report of TC 3/SC 5 on the issue of the acceptance of manufacturers’ test results within a 

DoMC under the MAA, and recalling its Resolution no. 20 at the 43rd CIML Meeting, decided that Issuing 

Participants may request the registration of Manufacturers’ Testing Laboratories (MTLs) under a DoMC, provided 

that the conditions agreed by TC 3/SC 5 and laid down in a respective amendment to, or revision of, OIML B 10 are 

met, and that after this amendment to, or revision of, OIML B 10, MAA Type Evaluation Reports that contain test 

results from MTLs may be accepted by Participants on a voluntary basis.

The CIML approved as a new work item for OIML TC 3/SC 5:

• the amendment to, or the revision of, OIML B 10 Framework for a MAA on OIML Type Evaluations 

MAA to include appropriate conditions for the registration of MTLs under a DoMC. 

The CIML also decided that the registration of MTLs under a DoMC remains excluded from the scope of the MAA

until this amendment to, or revision of, OIML B 10 is approved. TC 3/SC 5 voted in May 2012, to approve a 2nd

Committee Draft (CD) of an Amendment to OIML B 10 that would permit, on a strictly voluntary basis, the use of 

test data from MTLs in the MAA. The United States (NTEP) supported this 2nd CD with the provision that the use 

of manufacturer test data was clearly identified on the MAA test report because NTEP cannot use manufacturer test 

data towards issuance of an NTEP certificate. The CIML will likely vote on this at its October 2012 Meeting in 

Bucharest, Romania. 

An OIML Meeting to discuss Conformity to Type (CTT) was held June 29 - 30, 2011, in Utrecht, Netherlands. 

NCWM was invited to the meeting to give a presentation about the Verification Conformity Assessment Program 

(VCAP) initiative. NCWM Executive Director, Mr. Onwiler, made the presentation for NCWM. Dr. Ehrlich, 

NIST, OWM, forwarded a Report on OIML Utrecht Seminar on Conformity to Type to NCWM. The CIML, noting 

the written report of the seminar on Conformity to Type held in the Netherlands, June 2011, and noting the oral 

report and presentation by the CIML member for New Zealand, Mr. O’Brien, on the outcome of the follow-up CTT 

Seminar held in Prague on October 10, 2011, approved the establishment of a new subcommittee of TC 3, to be 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 6 

titled Conformity to Type. The subcommittee shall undertake, as a work item, the development of a guidance 

document on the “scope for pre-market surveillance activities focused on the conformity assessment of measuring 

instruments to give assurance that manufactured (or production) instruments meet their approved type.” The 

responsibility for the Secretariat of the new subcommittee was assigned jointly to New Zealand and the International 

Bureau of Legal Metrology. 

The Committee and NCWM Board of Directors were invited to review the reports and make comments.

During 2011, 10 NTEP certificates for load cells were issued under the MAA. All to date have been tested by the National 

Measurement Institute in the Netherlands. Eight more certificates for load cells have been issued through July 2012. The 

NTEP Administrator reviewed the test data and drafted the CCs.

520 ACTIVITY REPORTS 

520-1 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports 

Background/Discussion: 

During the 2011 Annual Meeting, Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, updated the Committee on NTEP laboratory and 

administrative activities.

The NTEP weighing and measuring laboratories held a joint meeting March 28 - April 1, 2011, in Annapolis, 

Maryland. The NTEP weighing laboratories met again in August 2011 prior to the meeting of the NTETC 

Weighing Sector in Sacramento, California, and the NTEP measuring laboratories met once more in October 2011, 

prior to the NTETC Measuring Sector meeting in Norfolk, Virginia.

NTEP Administrator, Mr. Truex, reported to the Committee that incoming applications remain comparable to 

normal. He reported there is no backlog concern for measuring devices and the brick and mortar weighing labs at 

this time. Updated NTEP laboratory statistics will be provided to the membership at NCWM Interim Meeting.

2012 NTEP Meetings:

• NTETC Belt-Conveyor Sector February 22 - 23, 2012 St. Louis, Missouri 

• NTETC Software Sector Meeting March 20 - 21, 2012 Columbus, Ohio

• NTEP Laboratory Meeting April 2 - 5, 2012 Columbus, Ohio

• NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector August 22 - 23, 2012 Kansas City, Missouri

• NTETC Weighing Sector August 28 - 29, 2012 Annapolis, Maryland

• NTETC Measuring Sector October 5 - 6, 2012 Louisville, Kentucky

The Committee announced plans to conduct a survey of NTEP customers and NTEP laboratories regarding customer 

service. The board plans to use the results of the survey to form a continuous improvement plan for NTEP. A small 

work group (WG) was formed to get the project started. The resulting draft was presented to the board during the 

2011 Annual Meeting in Montana. With any survey, the challenge is to develop a document that is concise enough 

that customers will respond, while also providing a meaningful set of data. The survey was released to active 

Certificate of Conformance (CC) holders. The NCWM Board of Directors reviewed the survey results in 

October 2011.

During the Annual Meeting, it was reported that the New York brick and mortar NTEP laboratory for weighing 

devices will soon be reopening. A new laboratory complex is nearing completion, and the New York evaluator is 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 7 

scheduled to undergo training at another NTEP laboratory. The NTEP Committee realizes the other weighing 

laboratories worked very hard to pick up the workload while the New York laboratory was off line and commends 

the labs for keeping the backlog at a minimum and completing evaluations in a timely manner.

The Committee reviewed NTEP statistics through June 2012. The latest statistics are included in this report as 

Appendix F. 

520-2 I NTETC Sector Reports

Background/Discussion: 

The NTEP Committee is happy to report that all NTETC Sector reports continue to be available to members at the 

time NCWM Publication 15 was published and is committed to ensuring that electronic versions of Sector reports 

are available with NCWM Publication 15 in the future. Please note that the Sector reports will only be available in 

the electronic version of NCWM Publication 15 on the NCWM website. 

NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector: 

The NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector met February 23 - 24, 2011, in St. Louis, Missouri. A final draft of the 

meeting summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and 

approval (see Appendix A). 

The next meeting of the NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector is scheduled for February 22 - 23, 2012, in St. Louis, 

Missouri. For questions on the current status of sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact 

the Sector Technical Advisor:

Technical Advisor

Mr. John Barton

NIST, OWM

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Phone: (301) 975-4002

Fax: (301) 975-8091

E-mail: john.barton@nist.gov

NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors: 

The NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors held a joint meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, 

August 24 - 25, 2011. A draft of the final summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2012 NCWM 

Interim Meeting for review and approval (see Appendix B). 

The next meeting of the NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors is scheduled for 

August 22 - 23, 2012, in Kansas City, Missouri. For questions on the current status of sector work or to propose 

items for a future meeting, please contact the Co-Technical Advisors:

Co-Technical Advisor

Mr. Jack Barber

JB Associates

10349 Old Indian Trail

Glenarm, IL 62536

Phone: (217) 483-4232

Fax: NA

E-mail: barber.jw@comcast.net

Co-Technical Advisor

Ms. G. Diane Lee

NIST, OWM

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20707

Phone: (301) 975-4005

Fax: (301) 975-8091

E-mail: diane.lee@nist.gov

NTETC Measuring Sector: 

The NTETC Measuring Sector met October 21 - 22, 2011, in Norfolk, Virginia. A draft of the final summary was 

provided to the Committee prior to the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval (see Appendix C). 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 8 

The next meeting of the NTETC Measuring Sector is scheduled to be held in October 5 - 6, 2012, in conjunction 

with the Southern Weights and Measures Association’s 2012 Annual Meeting. For questions on the current status of 

sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector Technical Advisor:

Technical Advisor

Mr. Marc Buttler

NIST, OWM

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Phone: (301) 975-4615

Fax: (301) 975-8091

E-mail: marc.buttler@nist.gov

NTETC Software Sector: 

The NTETC Software Sector met March 15 - 16, 2011, in Annapolis, Maryland. A final draft of the meeting summary 

was provided to the Committee prior to the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval (see Appendix D). 

The next meeting of the NTETC Software Sector is scheduled for March 20 - 21, 2012, in Columbus, Ohio. For 

questions on the current status of sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector CoChairs and/or the NTEP Administrator:

Co-Chair

Mr. James Pettinato

FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

1602 Wagner Avenue

Erie, PA 16510

Phone: (814) 898-5250

Fax: (814) 899-3414

E-mail: jim.pettinato@fmcti.com

NTEP Administrator

Mr. Jim Truex

NCWM

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (740) 919-4350

Fax: (740) 919-4348

E-mail: jim.truex@ncwm.net

NTETC Weighing Sector: 

The NTETC Weighing Sector met August 31 - September 1, 2011, in Sacramento, California. A final draft of the 

meeting summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and 

approval (see Appendix E). 

The next NTETC Weighing Sector meeting is scheduled for August 28 - 29, 2012, in Annapolis, Maryland. For 

questions on the current status of sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector

Technical Advisor:

Technical Advisor

Mr. Rick Harshman

NIST, OWM

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Phone: (301) 975-8107

Fax: (301) 975-8091

E-mail: richard.harshman@nist.gov

The NTEP Committee reviewed all 2011 NTETC Sector reports during the Interim Meeting. Reports of the BeltConveyor Scale, Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer, Software and Weighing Sectors were approved in 

their entirety. The report of the Measuring Sector was approved except for agenda items 4 and 6, which were not 

deemed consensus conclusions and were returned to the sector for consideration.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 9 

530 CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 

530-1 I Conformity Assessment Program

Background/Discussion: 

The Conformity Assessment Program was established to ensure devices produced after the device has been type

evaluated and certified by NTEP continue to meet the same requirements. This program has three major elements: 

1) Certificate Review (administrative); 2) Initial Verification (inspection and performance testing); and 3) Verified 

Conformity Assessment (influence factors). This item is included on the Committee’s agenda to provide an update 

on these elements.

Certificate Review: 

Certificates are constantly under review by NTEP staff and laboratories. Many active certificates are amended 

annually because of manufacturer submission for evaluation or issues reported by the states pertaining to 

information on the certificate. When the devices are re-evaluated and certificates are amended, the information is 

reviewed and necessary steps are taken to assure compliance and that accurate, thorough information is reported on 

the certificate.

In an effort to keep certificate information up to date, the Committee continues to offer an opportunity for active 

certificate holders to update contact information that is contained in the “Submitted By” box on certificates. This is 

offered during the payment period of their annual maintenance fee. Many CC holders have taken advantage of the 

opportunity.

Initial Verification (IV): 

The IV initiative is ongoing. Field enforcement officials perform an initial inspection and test on new installations 

on a routine basis. The Committee recognized that the states do not want IV reporting to be cumbersome. 

An IV report form has been developed. The Committee wanted to have a simple form, perhaps web based for use 

by the state and local regulators. The form has been approved by the Committee and distributed to the states. A 

completed form can be submitted via mail, e-mail, fax, or online. The form is available to regulatory officials who 

are members of NCWM at www.ncwm.net/content/initial-verification-report. 

VCAP: 

NCWM has been concerned about production meeting type and protecting the integrity of the NTEP CC since the 

inception of NTEP. Load cells traceable to NTEP certificates have been selected for the initial assessment effort. 

All holders of NTEP CCs for load cells have been notified.

The Board reconfirmed its belief that conformity assessment is vital to NTEP’s continued success and will be 

implemented. VCAP Audit Reports for manufacturers with load cell certificates were due no later than May 2011. 

VCAP Audit Reports for private label certificate holders were due no later than November 2011.

NCWM decided to require a systems audit checklist that is to be completed by an outside auditor and submitted to 

NCWM per Section 2.5 of the VCAP requirements. A VCAP Systems Audit Checklist for Manufacturers and a 

VCAP Systems Audit Checklist for Private Label Certificate Holders have been developed and are available on the 

website at www.ncwm.net/content/checklists. Additionally, the Committee developed a new NCWM 

Publication 14, administrative policy to distinguish between the requirements for parent NTEP certificate holders 

(S.1.c.) and private label certificate holders. The requirements in S.1.d. track the private label checklist 

requirements; traceability to parent NTEP CC, traceability of the private label cell to a VCAP audit, purchase and 

sales records, plan to report non-conforming product and non-conforming product in stock, plan to conduct internal 

audits to verify non-compliance action, and internal audit records. 

During the 2011NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings, the Committee announced that the next device category 

under consideration is weighing/load receiving elements, 2000 lb capacity and less using load cells that are not 

traceable to their own NTEP certificate. The Committee heard comments from several manufacturers pertaining to 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 10

VCAP and the next device category. The Committee expects there will be additional questions and is considering 

the need to form a VCAP Committee to discuss the issues. However, the Committee wanted to have a better 

understanding of the specific questions and concerns. Certificate holders and other interested parties were 

encouraged to submit written questions to the NTEP Committee so decisions could be made regarding the need for a 

VCAP Committee and, if needed, the make-up of the group.

The Committee received two letters and a list of questions. The Committee made plans to review and develop 

answers to the questions in a timely manner. 

VCAP audits for load cells were due in 2011. As a result of VCAP, 24 load cell certificates, involving 12 different 

certificate holders were changed to “inactive” status. The Committee reconfirmed its commitment to VCAP and 

decided to move forward with the next device category. The following compliance timeline was developed for 

weighing/load receiving element CC holders with active certificates using non-NTEP load cells. The Committee 

encourages affected certificate holders to start the process immediately.

NCWM / NTEP VCAP Compliance Timeline

Weighing/Load Receiving Element, 2000 lb Capacity and Less Using Non-NTEP Load Cells

January 2012 

– Ongoing

July 2012 –

November 

2013 

July 2012 –

May 2014 

July 2012 –

November 

2013 

December 

2013 

June 2014

• NTEP to 

review and 

refine VCAP 

procedures 

• NTEP 

answers 

incoming 

questions 

• NTEP 

notifies 

active CC 

holders of 

VCAP 

requirements

• Parent CC 

holders to 

put VCAP 

QM system 

in place 

• CC holder to 

have audit 

conducted by 

Certified 

Body 

• Submit audit 

report to 

NCWM/NTE

P 

• Private Label 

CC holders 

to put VCAP 

QM system 

in place 

• CC holder to 

have audit 

conducted by 

Certified 

Body 

• Submit audit 

report to 

NCWM/NTE

P 

• NTEP 

evaluates 

incoming 

audit reports 

• NTEP 

contacts CC 

holders not 

meeting 

VCAP 

requirements 

to encourage 

compliance 

• NCWM 

declares CCs 

inactive if 

Parent CC 

holder fails 

to comply 

with VCAP

• NCWM 

declares CCs 

inactive if 

Private 

Label CC 

holder fails 

to comply 

with VCAP

During the Annual Meeting, it was reported that 21 weighing element certificate holders (43 active NTEP CCs) have 

been identified and all have been notified. The following disclaimer has been advertised and communicated by 

NCWM: "NCWM is working to identify all active certificates for weighing elements 2000 lb capacity and less, 

using on-NTEP load cells. As a courtesy, certificate holders are being notified of VCAP requirements and the 

established time line. Please note that the NCWM Board of Directors does not consider it to be NCWM's 

responsibility to notify all certificate holders and affected certificates. Certificate holders are responsible for 

reviewing their active NTEP certificates and compliance with VCAP."

The Committee is working to answer questions that have recently been submitted pertaining to VCAP in a very 

timely manner. Reoccurring questions involve the five remaining device types under the VCAP umbrella. When 

will these remaining device types be added to the VCAP program? Will they be added all at one time or only a 

single device type every two to three years? 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 11

The Committee is very carefully considering possible options. With each device type added to the VCAP, the 

administrative overhead of NTEP increases proportionately. At the present time, additional device types cannot be 

added until increased capacity within NTEP administration is achieved. The NCWM Board is currently reviewing 

alternatives to this increase in capacity. When the time comes, an option under consideration is for all remaining 

device types to be added at one time. There is no formally accepted schedule for completion of this effort. The 

NCWM Board and NTEP Committee are requesting input from the stakeholders and other NCWM members.

540 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS 

540-1 D NTEP Contingency Plan 

Source: 

NTEP Committee

Purpose: 

The NTEP Contingency Plan was created to keep NTEP operating and to ensure that NTEP services are available at 

an adequate level including an appropriate number of laboratories and personnel (evaluators) to maintain viable 

support for NTEP services, including MRAs, MAAs, and potential to be an R 76 Issuing Participant.

Item Under Consideration: 

The NTEP Committee discussed contingency planning for continuity of NTEP operations. With the state of today’s 

economy, one of the NTEP-authorized labs could close due to government budget cuts. How would NTEP maintain 

workflow? Are there additional states interested in applying to become an NTEP field lab or an NTEP brick-andmortar lab? The Committee will continue to discuss these issues during a long-range planning session and 

welcomes comments from the membership.

Background/Discussion:

The Committee continues to consider whether NCWM should: 

1. Employ NTEP evaluators to conduct testing at manufacturers’ facilities; 

2. Have evaluators under contract to conduct testing at manufacturers’ facilities; 

3. Employ NTEP evaluators or have evaluators under contract to assist the state NTEP laboratories; 

4. Have a brick-and-mortar NTEP laboratory and NTEP evaluators; or

5. Use a private third party laboratory to conduct NTEP evaluations. 

The Committee has heard testimony expressing support and concerns pertaining to the options. Several stated that 

the Committee should consider adding OIML MAA participation as a Utilizing Participant to the list. Others have 

urged the Committee to continue working on the idea of NCWM NTEP evaluators, an NCWM NTEP lab, and 

keeping all options open. One member asked the Committee to consider accepting manufacturer compliance data in 

lieu of hiring NTEP contractors. Another suggestion from the floor was to consider strengthening and utilizing IV 

as part of the NTEP process. A representative of a state brick-and- mortar NTEP laboratory asked the Committee to 

move cautiously forward and not destroy the state NTEP labs. He expressed concern that the establishment of an 

NCWM NTEP brick-and-mortar lab could lead to significant legal complications for the states.

The Committee reiterated to the membership that, at this time, the preferred course of action would be the option of 

evaluators under contract. The Committee recognizes the commitment that the states with NTEP laboratories have 

made over the years and would only resort to contingency measures in the event of a severe loss of state lab 

resources. Labs are handling current demands without a need for contingency measures. The Committee is updated

on the status of the participating laboratories, personnel, and backlog on a quarterly basis and will continue to keep 

NTEP contingency a top priority. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

NTEP - 12

Mr. Tim Tyson, Kansas | Committee Chair

Mr. Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County, California | Chairman

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina | Chairman-Elect

Mr. Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo County, California | Member

Mr. James Cassidy, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts | Member

Mr. Jim Truex, NCWM Headquarters | NTEP Administrator

National Type Evaluation Program 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A1 

Appendix A

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)

Belt-Conveyor Scale (BCS) Sector Meeting Summary

February 23 - 24, 2011

St. Louis, Missouri

INTRODUCTION

The charge of the Belt-Conveyor Scale (BCS) Sector (herein after referred to as “Sector”) is important in providing 

appropriate type evaluation criteria based on specifications, tolerances and technical requirements of NIST 

Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, 

Sections 1.10. General Code and 2.21. Belt Conveyor Scale Systems. The Sector’s recommendations are presented 

to the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee each January for approval and inclusion in NCWM 

Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists and Test Procedures for national type evaluation.

The BCS Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 

issues on the agenda of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties.

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining 

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics.

Note: It is policy to use metric units of measurement in publications; however, recommendations received by 

NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this publication 

as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Content NTEP - A Page

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... A1

CARRY-OVER ITEMS........................................................................................................................................... A2

1. Report from the 2011 NTEP Committee on Changes to NCWM Publication 14................................. A2

2. Update to NCWM Publication 14 Belt-Conveyor Scale Checklist....................................................... A4

3. Develop a List of Sealable Parameters for BCS Systems..................................................................... A4

NEW BUSINESS ...................................................................................................................................................... A5

4. Linearization Feature for BCS.............................................................................................................. A5

5. Conveyor Belt Profiling........................................................................................................................ A6

6. Provision for Sealing ............................................................................................................................ A7

7. Clarification of Guidelines Used for the Selection of Instruments for Type Evaluation ...................... A8

ATTENDANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... A10
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A2 

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

BCS Belt-Conveyor Scale NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

CC Certificate of Conformance OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures OWM Office of Weights and Measures

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology R Recommendation

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program USNWG U.S. National Work Group

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

CARRY-OVER ITEMS

1. Report from the 2011 NTEP Committee on Changes to NCWM Publication 14

Review of changes adopted in 2011 edition of NCWM Publication 14, Weighing Devices.

Background/Discussion: 

Several changes to NCWM Publication 14, Weighing Devices, Belt-Conveyor Scales were recommended by the 

Sector during the February 2010 NTETC BCS Sector Meeting and are noted in the 2010 Sector Meeting Summary. 

These amendments were recommended to reflect changes to the 2010 edition of NIST Handbook 44 requirements in 

the BCS Scale Code (2.21.) and subsequently adopted into the following sections in NCWM Publication 14,

Weighing Devices, Belt-Conveyor Scales. 

• Section 1, paragraph 1.8.

The change to this section was made to reflect the amendments to NIST Handbook 44, 2.21. paragraph

S.1.3.1. Value of the Scale Division in 2009 and paragraph N.2.3. Minimum Test Load in 2008. 

Code Reference: S.1.2., S.1.3.1.

1.8. The scale division shall be in increments of 1, 2, or 5 times 10k where k is an integer and shall not be 

greater than 0.125 % (1/800) of the minimum totalized load.

1.8.1. Verify that the value of the scale division is protected by an acceptable security means 

(e.g., physical seal or audit trail).

• Section 13, Field Test Procedure

These changes provided clarification on the minimum required number of test runs to be performed during an 

official test. Although exceptions for the required number of test runs are permitted for routine field testing on 

systems that operate at one flow rate only, the note added to the 2011 edition of NCWM Publication 14

specifies that those sites which operate at only a single rate of flow are not appropriate for use in conducting a 

type evaluation.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A3 

Field Performance Test of the Belt-Conveyor Scale

N.2.1. Initial Verification. – A belt-conveyor scale system shall be tested at the normal use flow rate, 35 % 

of the maximum rated capacity, and an intermediate flow rate between these two points. The system may 

also be tested at any other flow rate that may be used at the installation. (Added 2004) verified with a 

minimum of two test runs at each of the following flow rates:

(a) Normal use flow rate;

(b) 35 % of the maximum rated capacity; and

(c) An intermediate flow rate between these two points. 

Note: The test site selected for permanence testing shall be capable of testing over a range of flow rates. Any site 

where the belt-conveyor scale system is limited to a single flow rate will not be considered acceptable.

• Section 13, Field Test Procedure

These changes in NIST Handbook 44, 2.21. are editorial in nature and were made primarily to reflect the 

consolidation of the paragraphs previously numbered as N.3.1.2. Initial Stable Zero and N.3.1.3. Test of Zero 

Stability into one paragraph now numbered N.3.1.2. Test of Zero Stability within the 2010 edition of NIST 

Handbook 44. The consolidation was recommended to eliminate redundancy within these paragraphs and was 

accomplished with only minor wording changes. These changes also resulted in the paragraph previously 

numbered N.3.1.4. Check for Consistency of the Conveyor Belt along Its Entire Length to be renumbered as 

N.3.1.3.

N.3.1.32. Test of Zero Stability. – The conveyor system shall be run to warm up the belt and the belt scale 

shall be zero adjusted as required. A series of zero-load tests shall be carried out immediately before 

conducting the simulated-load or materials test until three consecutive zero-load tests each indicate an error 

which does not exceed ± 0.06 % of the totalized load at full scale capacity for the duration of the test. No 

adjustments can be made during the three consecutive zero-load test readings. 

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004 and 2009) 

N.3.1.43. Check For Consistency of the Conveyor Belt Along Its Entire Length. – After a zero-load test 

with flow rate filtering disabled, the totalizer shall not change more than plus or minus 3.0 scale divisions 

(± 3 d) from its initial indication during one complete belt revolution.

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004)

• Section 6, Zero-Setting Mechanism

This change was made to reflect the addition of new paragraph S.3.1.1. in NIST Handbook 44, 2.21.

Code Reference: S.3.1. and S.3.1.1.

The zero-setting mechanism may be either a manual or automatic mechanism. In either case, the range of the 

zero-setting mechanism is limited to ± 2 % of the rated capacity of the scale. If a greater adjustment is needed, 

the access to the adjustment must be through some security means. An audio or visual signal shall be given 

when the automatic and semi-automatic zero-setting mechanisms reach the limit of adjustment of the zerosetting mechanism. The zero-setting mechanism must be constructed such that the zero-setting operation is 

done only after a whole number of belt revolutions (a minimum of 3 revolutions or a time period equivalent to 

the time required to deliver 1000 d of load). The completion of the zero-setting operation must be indicated. 

The low-flow lockout must be deactivated for this test.

For systems that record the zero load reference at the beginning and end of a delivery, the range of zero-setting 

mechanism shall not be greater than ± 5 % without breaking the security means.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A4 

6.4. The completion of the automatic zero-setting operation must be indicated.

6.4.1. Verify that any changes in the zero reference are indicated and/or recorded.

Conclusion: 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, reviewed these amendments to update sector members on changes to NCWM 

Publication 14. No further discussion took place.

2. Update to NCWM Publication 14 Belt-Conveyor Scale Checklist

Status report on draft proposal for amending NCWM Publication 14, BCS Checklist. 

Background/Discussion: 

Prior to the February 2009 BCS Sector Meeting, Mr. Ripka, Chair, provided a draft NCWM Publication 14, BCS 

Checklist with technical policies on the substitution of Master Weight Totalizers along with other minor editorial 

suggestions for review. Among the suggested changes that were included in this draft were proposed amendments 

to the procedures involving testing semi-automatic and automatic zero-setting mechanisms. The sector members 

suggested that it be used on a trial basis by NTEP laboratories when evaluating manufacturer's replacement 

instruments scheduled to undergo NTEP evaluation. This trial-use would serve to evaluate the checklist and to 

identify any gaps or necessary changes. During the meeting Mr. Ripka, Thermo-Fisher Scientific, stated that his 

company would possibly have an instrument that could be submitted in the near future for NTEP evaluation, 

allowing this checklist to be used on a trial basis.

At the February 2010 BCS Sector Meeting, the members were informed that there had been no instruments 

submitted to date for NTEP evaluation that would serve to demonstrate the usefulness of the checklist. 

Mr. Marmsater, Merrick Industries, Inc. indicated that his company is also expecting to have a device ready to 

submit for type evaluation soon. The possible use of the checklist during an evaluation on this instrument would be 

discussed at the 2011 BCS Sector meeting.

Conclusion: 

At the 2011 NTETC BCS Sector Meeting, the members were informed that to this point, there still have not been 

any applications submitted that would allow the use of the checklist. Mr. Marmsater, Merrick Industries, Inc. 

indicated that his company still expects to have an instrument ready to submit in the near future for type evaluation. 

No additional comments or actions were discussed at this time. 

3. Develop a List of Sealable Parameters for BCS Systems

Status report on the adoption of list of sealable parameters to be included for use in NTEP evaluations of beltconveyor scales.

Background/Discussion: 

A list of device features and parameters which were identified by the Sector as items that should be protected by

some form of security seal was developed during the 2009 NTETC BCS Sector Meeting. This list was to be 

forwarded to NTEP laboratories for use on a trial basis. Comments and recommended amendments from the NTEP 

evaluators would then be forwarded to the sector work group for further development. The listing could then be 

amended if needed and a recommendation be made to the NTEP Committee for its adoption into NCWM 

Publication 14. 

Conclusion: 

The implementation of this list of sealable parameters is subject to the review by NTEP evaluators, as listed under 

the previous agenda (update of the amended NTEP evaluation checklist). Since no manufacturer’s instruments have 

been made available at this time for the trial use of the proposed checklist or the list of sealable parameters, no 

further actions or discussion were justified at this time. The Sector was informed that a trial application and review 

of both items will be performed when the opportunity arises.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A5 

NEW BUSINESS

Note: Discussion of the following item may be related to a similar agenda item addressed during the February 23 -

24, 2011, meeting of the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for BCS that preceded the NTETC BCS Sector 

Meeting. Additional background information may be found in the USNWG 2011 Meeting Summary. 

4. Linearization Feature for BCS

Draft new test procedures for the evaluation of linearization correction features.

Background/Discussion:

Manufacturers and service agents of BCS have voiced support for the use of electronic instruments equipped with a 

linearity correction feature (i.e., multiple point calibrations) to reduce span errors that deviate from a linear pattern. 

This contrasts with reported prohibition of this type feature by certain weights and measures regulatory authorities. 

Some sector members have asked for clarification from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) on the use of this type of feature and whether it is (or should be) permitted 

within current U.S. standards.

The NIST Technical Advisor informed the Sector during the February 2011 NTETC BCS Sector Meeting that there 

is no basis for excluding the use of a linearity correction within NIST Handbook 44 that would serve as justification

to prohibit its use. In addition, there are numerous NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CC) for weighing devices 

that include this type of feature under the listing of standard features and options for that device. The sector

members were asked if they favored the development of testing procedures to evaluate linearization correction 

features for inclusion in NCWM Publication 14. Sector members were also asked whether or not the ability to 

enable/disable the feature should be a sealable parameter. Initial discussion among the Sector revealed the majority 

favored the development of test procedures to assist evaluators in the examination of BCS equipped with 

linearization correction features.

Sector member Mr. Burrell, Control Systems Technology Pty, Ltd., raised concerns however regarding the nature of 

any test procedures that would be published, thus revealing proprietary information about a specific feature included 

in the device’s programming. Other sector members raised the question of whether or not it would be sufficient to 

simply require that the ability to enable or disable any linearization feature to be a sealable parameter and that the 

manufacturer would need to work closely with the NTEP laboratories and evaluators to ensure that this type of 

feature would be examined properly. Mr. Barton, NIST Technical Advisor added that it would seem appropriate to 

develop testing procedures that would, at a minimum ensure that the existence of this feature within a device would 

not allow the device to be used in a fraudulent manner. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, stated that the NTEP evaluator must be informed by the device manufacturer of 

any feature that has metrological significance so that feature may be evaluated. Mr. Truex added that he believes 

this type of feature should be tested in a laboratory environment and probably not in a field environment.

The possibility of developing test procedures of a generic nature so as to avoid revealing sensitive technical, 

proprietary details about any particular instrument was discussed among the Sector. Those members who represent 

manufacturers at the meeting agreed that draft test procedures could be developed. They stated that the procedures 

could be drafted to be sufficient enough to provide an evaluator with instructions on thoroughly testing a device, but 

not extensive enough to expose sensitive information about the device if these test procedures are published.

Another point raised by Mr. Burrell, Control Systems Technology Pty, Ltd., was whether or not devices that are 

currently covered under an active CC that includes linearization correction features would need to be revaluated if 

and when testing procedures relative to a linearization feature are developed and published in NCWM 

Publication 14. Other manufacturers within the group expressed their belief that it would be necessary for devices 

equipped with this feature to undergo at least a partial revaluation if and when the test procedures were adopted into 

NCWM Publication 14.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A6 

Conclusion: 

Manufacturers attending the NTETC BCS Sector Meeting agreed to participate in a sub-group formed to develop a 

draft of test procedures for recommendation to the NTEP Committee. This sub-group will also consider the scope 

for the application of any newly developed test procedures (i.e., whether the test procedures will be applied 

retroactively to devices that have already received NTEP approval). The sub-group includes the following 

members:

• Mr. Bill Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific

• Mr. Peter Sirrico, Thayer Scale/Hyer Industries

• Mr. Lars Marmsater, Merrick Industries, Inc.

• Mr. Ian Burrell, Control Systems Technology Pty, Ltd.

The sub-group will continue work on developing test procedures through correspondence and will offer the first 

draft for review by the entire USNWG by April 30, 2011.

5. Conveyor Belt Profiling

Draft new NCWM Publication 14 procedures for evaluation of belt profiling (belt mapping) feature.

Note: Discussion of the following item may be related to a similar agenda item addressed during the 

February 23 - 24 NTETC BCS Sector Meeting of the USNWG for BCS that preceded the NTETC BCS Sector 

meeting. Additional background information may be found in the USNWG 2011 Meeting Summary.

Background/Discussion: 

This method of establishing a zero-condition for a totalization operation enables the belt-conveyor scale to 

synchronize the application of an individual tare weight values associated with distinct segments of the belt to the 

movement of those belt segments over the scale portion of the conveyor. If this alternative to averaging the weight 

of segments of the belt carcass is used there may be a need to establish a procedure to evaluate its effectiveness, to 

ensure that it functions as intended, and is maintained during operation of the BCS.

NIST, OWM has received inquiries seeking guidance on whether this type of feature is permitted under U.S. 

standards. It is also being reported by some members of the USNWG on BCS that some regulatory field officials 

will not issue an approval for devices equipped with this feature when it is not listed as a standard feature or option 

on the NTEP CC.

Current NIST Handbook 44 and International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Recommendation (R) 50 

(Continuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments [belt weighers]) requirements were developed for systems 

that average the weight of belt segments by continuously weighing the belt as it passes over the scale portion of the 

conveyor. The draft revision of OIML R 50 however, does include terminology that explicitly recognizes the belt 

profiling feature as a means of establishing and maintaining a zero condition. The current draft of R 50 also 

addresses the need to verify the performance of the synchronization of belt segment weights with the travel of belt 

segments over the weighing device. 

At the February 2011 NTETC BCS Sector Meeting, the Sector was asked to determine the need for including this 

feature within U.S. standards and procedures (NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14) as well. 

During the February 2011 NTETC BCS Sector Meeting, the members were asked to consider if there is there is a 

need for procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of belt profiling and to ensure that correct operation is maintained 

during totalization. A majority of sector members voiced their opinion that this feature should receive some level of 

evaluation, and that at a minimum the ability to enable or disable the belt profiling feature should be protected by a 

form of security seal. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A7 

Mr. Chase, Chase Technologies, Inc. stated that profiling should not be viewed as an independent function but that it 

is more appropriately classified as a subset of Automatic Zero Tracking. Automatic Zero Tracking features are 

already required to be protected through a type of security seal. 

Mr. Barton, NIST Technical Advisor, asked the sector members if the need exists to develop type evaluation test 

procedures to verify that the function of the belt profiling feature will be effective throughout a range of changing 

conditions that the belt-conveyor scale system may be subject to. The members generally acknowledged that its 

performance could be a concern and that changes in environmental conditions affecting characteristics of the belt 

(i.e., elasticity, length) must be compensated for.

Mr. Ripka, Chair stated that clarification is needed to provide direction for the use of the proposed NIST 

Handbook 44 requirement pertaining to conveyor belt consistency (N.3.1.3.) in association with the belt profiling 

feature. The proposed draft of N.3.1.3. will require that the condition of the conveyor belt be maintained so that 

excessive deviation from an established zero condition is controlled. Mr. Ripka asked the sector members for their 

position on whether the requirement pertaining to belt consistency would be applied to the system before or after a 

belt profiling feature is placed in operation. While there were no definitive responses, it was acknowledged that the 

use of both types of zero maintenance controls may be redundant and further consideration is needed.

Conclusion: 

While there was no consensus reached within the Sector on whether test procedures are needed to evaluate this 

feature while the device is under type evaluation, it was agreed that belt profiling is a metrologically significant 

feature. In addition, the sector members felt that at a minimum, the activation of this feature should be required to 

be protected by a form of security seal.

Mr. Barton, NIST Technical Advisor, suggested that the belt profiling is a matter that is best understood and applied 

by belt-conveyor scale manufacturers. For that reason, it may be preferable to have the analysis and necessary 

action(s) for the consideration of belt profiling features taken on by the same sub-group formed under the previous 

agenda item. That sub-group’s members agreed to work outside of the time constraints of the BCS Sector Meeting 

to develop a draft for test procedures deemed necessary to evaluate a belt profiling feature in use with a device 

submitted for type evaluation. The sub-group includes the following members:

• Mr. Bill Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific

• Mr. Peter Sirrico, Thayer Scale/Hyer Industries

• Mr. Lars Marmsater, Merrick Industries, Inc.

• Mr. Ian Burrell, Control Systems Technology Pty, Ltd.

A draft of test procedures developed by the sub-group is expected to be made available for review by the entire 

membership of the Sector by April 30, 2011.

6. Provision for Sealing

Should NCWM Publication 14, BCS Checklist and Test Procedures, Section 1.1. include NIST Handbook 44, 

G-S.8. as a code reference for sealing a device?

Background/Discussion: 

The first paragraph of NIST Handbook 44 General Code requirement G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic 

Adjustable Components is nearly identical to that of NIST Handbook 44 BCS Code paragraph S.5. Provisions for 

Sealing. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A8 

Paragraph S.5. differs, however, in that it does not include references for automatic or semi-automatic calibrations 

mechanisms whereas G-S.8. includes a second paragraph in the requirement addressing automatic or semi-automatic 

calibrations. Since automatic or semi-automatic calibrations mechanisms are incorporated into belt-conveyor scale 

systems the Sector should address this inconsistency.

The work group had no initial comments regarding this item. Mr. Barton, NIST Technical Advisor suggested that a 

draft amendment for NIST Handbook 44 Belt-Conveyor Scale Code, paragraph S.5., be developed and then 

circulated among the members of the USNWG on BCS by way of e-mail. The work group members can then 

review the draft and respond with comments electronically. If the recommendation is favored, the need to protect 

access to an automatic/semi-automatic calibration feature will need to be included as part of type evaluation 

procedures in NCWM Publication 14. The sector members agreed to review the draft recommendation and provide 

any comments on it. 

Conclusion: 

Mr. Barton, NIST Technical Advisor, will draft language for the inclusion of a second paragraph amending NIST 

Handbook 44, 2.21. paragraph S.5. to recognize the need to protect access to automatic/semi-automatic calibration 

feature by way of a security seal. This draft will be circulated among members of the USNWG on BCS and the 

NTETC BCS Sector for their review. The draft will be circulated by April 30, 2011. A final draft will be developed 

based on comments received and submitted for approval by the Specifications and Tolerances Committee.

7. Clarification of Guidelines Used for the Selection of Instruments for Type Evaluation

Parameters used for classification of devices as part of a type or “family” of manufacturer’s model design.

Background/Discussion: 

During the February 2010 NTETC BCS Sector Meeting, the sector members acknowledged that the existing 

language in NCWM Publication 14 BCS Sections A through G is vague and that it would be useful for criteria used 

in the selection of instruments to undergo evaluation as representative of a certain type or family to be further 

defined.

The existing language categorizes devices by the number of weigh idlers used for the weighing portion of the beltconveyor and, a 10:1 ratio based on the size, loading and speed of the belt/weighbridge. 

Mr. Barton, NIST Technical Advisor, offered some examples of additional requirements for a suitable representative 

device:

• One that includes all possible interfaces (communication ports, remote calibration, etc.);

• Similar or the same type of load cell or load receptors (should there be a limited capacity range for

substitution load cells or for load cells listed on the CC?);

• Single speed or variable speed operation;

• Method of zero calibration and maintenance; and

• Other metrological features such as those found listed in the Sector’s proposed table of “Belt-Conveyor 

Scale Features and Parameters” (See 1.b. above) such as:

 Selection of measurement units; 

 Division value, d; and

 Range of over capacity indications.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A9 

Mr. Burrell, Control Systems Technology Pty, Ltd., questioned the usefulness of categorizing instruments in

families and supported this view by stating that most if not all devices that are sold by his company are designed and 

constructed specifically to suit the needs of each individual customer.

Mr. Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific, informed the Sector that the options which are programmable through an 

electronic control instrument that limit the range of operation are not a significant consideration for this 

classification process. Mr. Ripka stated that it is the design structure of the system components rather than 

programmable options which will be most meaningful in providing a means to categorize BCS systems. The 

justification for his belief is that it is the design and construction of the structural elements of the system that will 

determine loading capacity and capability of a BCS.

Mr. Burrell, Control Systems Technology Pty, Ltd., also stated that it is his belief that a 10:1 ratio currently used to 

classify devices as types or families is simply an arbitrary figure and that there should be more latitude allowed. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, stated that the 10:1 ratio was selected out of the necessity to establish a basis for 

criteria and that the same ratio is used for many other type of devices.

Mr. Barton, NIST Technical Advisor, suggested that if the design and construction is the prime consideration, then 

perhaps the BCS manufacturers would be the most logical sources for drafting specific criteria to be used to show 

the commonality between devices and therefore considered as belonging to the same type or family.

Conclusion: 

Mr. Burrell, Control Systems Technology Pty, Ltd., and Mr. Ripka, Thermo Fisher Scientific, agreed to work on 

developing additional specific criteria and that they would have a draft to offer the Sector by August 1, 2011, for 

review. Mr. Burrell also recommended that Mr. Chase, Chase Technologies, Inc. be included in the development of 

the draft. Mr. Chase agreed to participate in developing this draft.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix A – NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - A10

ATTENDANCE

John Barton

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

(301) 975-4002 

john.barton@nist.gov

Ian Burrell

Control Systems Technology Pty, Ltd

37 Stanley Street

Peakhurst, NSW 2210

Australia

+61 295844500

iburrell@controlsystems.com.au

Paul Chase

Chase Technology, Inc.

502 Erie Avenue

Crosby, MN 56441

(218) 545-2356

mjc@crosbyironton.net

Rick Harshman 

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

(301) 975-8107

richard.harshman@nist.gov

Ken Jones

California Division of Measurement Services

6790 Florin Perkins Road

Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

(916) 229-3052

kjones@cdfa.ca.gov

Lars Marmsater

Merrick Industries, Inc.

10 Arthur Drive

Lynn Haven, FL32444

(850) 271-7829

lars@merrick-inc.com

Al Page 

Montana Highlands

2316 Canyon Drive

Billings, MT 59102

(406) 861-0534

awp8866@gmail.com

Randall Phillips

Southern Company Services

2550 Goodsprings Road

Parrish, AL 35580

(205) 257-7910

rmphilli@southernco.com

Bill Ripka

Thermo Fisher Scientific

501 90th Ave NW

Minneapolis, MN55433

(800) 445-3503

bill.ripka@thermofisher.com

Peter Sirrico

Thayer Scale / Hyer Industries

91 Schoosett Street

Pembroke, MA02359

(781) 826-8101 x328

psirrico@thayerscale.com

James Truex

National Conference on Weights and Measures

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH 43062

(740) 919-4350

jim.truex@ncwm.net
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B1 

Appendix B 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

August 24 - 25, 2011

Kansas City, Missouri

INTRODUCTION

The charge of the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector (herein after referred to as “Sector”) is important in providing 

appropriate type evaluation criteria based on specifications, tolerances and technical requirements of NIST 

Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, 

Sections 1.10. General Code, 5.56.(a) and 5.56.(b) Grain Moisture Meters, and 5.57. Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers. 

The Sector’s recommendations are presented to the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee each 

January for approval and inclusion in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures for 

national type evaluation.

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors, and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties.

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Note: It is policy to use metric units of measurement in publications; however, recommendations received by 

NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this publication 

as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Content NTEP - B Page

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... B1

1. Report on the 2011 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings .................................................................. B2

2. Report on NTEP and Ongoing Calibration Program (OCP) (Phase II) Testing.................................... B3

3. Review of OCP (Phase II) Performance Data ....................................................................................... B3

4. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14 to Address Issues Associated with the Expanded Grain 

Temperature Ranges of New Technology............................................................................................. B4

4.a. Proposed Changes to Test Procedures and Tolerances............................................................... B5

4.b. Proposed Changes to Appendix A ‒ Laboratory Performance and Test Procedures: ................ B5

4.c. Proposed Changes to Appendix E - Sample Temperature Sensitivity........................................ B8

4.d. Proposed Changes to GMM Checklist ..................................................................................... B10

5. Item 310-1 Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components.............................................. B10

5.a. Proposed Changes to NIST Handbook 44, Table S.2.5., Section 5.56.(a) ............................... B12

5.b. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, GMM Appendix C, Table S.2.5...................... B14

5.c. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, GMM Checklist .............................................. B15

5.d. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, GMM Appendix B.......................................... B15

5.e. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, NIR Appendix A............................................. B15
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B2 

5.f. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, NIR Checklist.................................................. B16

6. Item 310-2: G-S.1. Identification. – (Software) .................................................................................. B16

7. Other Software Requirements That May Impact Grain Analyzers ..................................................... B17

7.a. Identification of Certified Software.......................................................................................... B17

7.b. Software Protection / Security.................................................................................................. B18

7.c. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration ............................................................................ B19

8. Test Weight per Bushel Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances..................................................... B22

9. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 R 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds........................ B28

10. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds ......... B30

11. Proficiency Testing ............................................................................................................................. B31

12. Printed Ticket User Requirements ...................................................................................................... B32

13. Next Sector Meeting ........................................................................................................................... B33

14. Unified Grain Moisture Algorithm – Update ...................................................................................... B33

ATTENDANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... B36

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

AOCS American Oil Chemists Society NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

ASP Analytical Standards Program NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

CC Certificate of Conformance OCP Ongoing Calibration Program

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association

OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

GAC OWM Office of Weights and Measures

GIPSA Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration

S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee

GMM Grain Moisture Meter SMA Scale Manufactures Association

HRW Hard Red Winter SQT Soybean Quality Traits

ISU Iowa State University TW Test Weight

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures

UGMA Unified Grain Moisture Algorithm

NIR Near Infrared USB United Soybean Board

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

1. Report on the 2011 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings

The 96th Annual Meeting of NCWM was held July 17 - 21, 2011 in Missoula, Montana. 

No Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) or Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer items appeared in the S&T Committee 

Interim Report for consideration by NCWM at the 2011 Annual Meeting. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B3 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, reported that 31 states were in attendance, down slightly from last year, but 

sufficient for a quorum. Although there were no items specifically directed to GMMs and NIR Grain Analyzers, 

there were three items of interest to the Sector:

1. S&T Item 310-1 – Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components: No changes were made to

NIST Handbook 44, but the S&T Committee recommended language to be added to NCWM Publication 

14. This item was placed on the S&T Consent Calendar and was subsequently adopted by voice vote. See 

Agenda Item 5. 

2. S&T Item 310-2 Software – The NTETC Software Sector agreed to change the status of this item from 

Information to Developing because the item lacks enough information for full consideration and a full 

proposal has yet to be developed. See Agenda Item 6. 

3. NTEP Committee Item 500-7 NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy – The Committee amended 

several sections of NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy to make it clear that the 

manufacturers/Certificate of Conformance (CC) holders are obligated to meet current NIST Handbook 44

requirements, regardless of when the devices covered by the NTEP certificate(s) were evaluated and the 

certificate was issued. Refer to the NTEP Committee Item 500-7 in the Reports of the 96th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures (2011). 

2. Report on NTEP and Ongoing Calibration Program (OCP) (Phase II) Testing

Ms. Brenner, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), briefed the Sector on NTEP Grain 

Analyzer (Phase I) activity. One meter is currently in the laboratory for grain moisture and test weight per bushel 

evaluation. Type evaluation is nearing completion and she estimated that there should be activity on a CC within 

the next few weeks. If there are seven meters in Phase II for 2012, the cost to each manufacturer would go from the 

present $8750 per type (with six meters) to $10,175 per type (with seven meters). With eight meters in the program 

the cost per type climbs to $12,185. The costs for 2011 have already been set at $8750 per type.

Ms. Brenner also reported that annual GMM calibration reviews were completed on schedule and updated CCs were 

issued for six device types. Seven device types are presently enrolled in the OCP (Phase II) for the 2011 harvest. 

3. Review of OCP (Phase II) Performance Data

At the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector’s August 2005 Meeting it was agreed that comparative OCP data identifying 

the Official Meter and listing the average bias for each NTEP meter type should be available for annual review by 

the Sector. Accordingly, Ms. Brenner, GIPSA, presented data showing the performance of NTEP meters compared 

to the air oven. This data are based on the last three crop years (2008–2010) using calibrations updated for use 

during the 2011 harvest season.

There are still two meters that have not been in the program for the required three years, so data is shown for only 

four of the six meters. Next year’s data should include data from one more meter. Only the GAC2100 has been 

identified on the comparisons. It is identified as “Official Meter”. The remaining three instruments were randomly 

assigned numbers 1, 2 and 3, or, in the case of sunflowers, where only three meters have a sunflower calibration, A 

and B. 

Note: The 2008-2010 GMM Phase II comparison graphs were distributed with the August 2011 NTETC Grain 

Analyzer Sector Agenda. Until completion of NCWM Interim Meeting, held in January 2012, they can be downloaded 

from NCWM web site at: ncwm.net/content/grain-analyzer-docs. 

After that time, all NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting documents will be moved to NCWM web site Meetings 

Archive Folder.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B4 

4. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14 to Address Issues Associated with the Expanded 

Grain Temperature Ranges of New Technology

Background/Discussion: 

The recent introduction of GMMs utilizing a 149 MHz measurement frequency has made it possible to make 

accurate grain moisture measurements over a wider range of temperatures than were previously possible with the 

lower measurement frequencies used in older instruments. This has led to manufacturers requesting certification of 

wider grain temperature ranges and greater differences between instrument (room) and grain temperature. The type 

evaluation tests in the present GMM Section of NCWM Publication 14 do not adequately assess performance over 

these wider temperature ranges. Although the 149 MHz measurement frequency makes it possible to measure grain 

moisture at temperatures significantly below the freezing point of water, the acceptable accuracy of grain 

measurements below 0 °C has an upper moisture limit that will have to be specified.

Dr. Pierce, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), GIPSA Technical Services Division, expressed 

concern that the Sector had not considered the ramifications of what might happen with an ambient temperature of 

38 °C (100.4 °F). With a permissible difference of grain below ambient of 42 °C, the grain could be as low as 

− 4 °C. The meter would still be able to test frozen grain without an out of limits error. 

Others pointed out that this applied only to grain types that have been listed on the CC with 42 °C room to grain 

temperature, provided the moisture is at or below 20 %. It was generally believed that meters that had passed a test 

with grain 42 °C below a room temperature of 22 °C would also pass a test with grain 42 °C below a room 

temperature of 38 °C.

Dr. Pierce recommended that the intermediate cold temperature should be near the freezing point. It was pointed out 

that before meters were submitted for testing frozen grain, manufacturers specified a ΔTC that resulted in cold test 

temperatures of either 0 °C or 2 °C and that these temperatures had been accepted as “intermediate” temperatures 

when the testing was extended to frozen grain. In the ensuing discussion it was generally agreed that a single 

intermediate cold temperature should not be forced on manufacturers. 

The original recommendation was amended as shown below to incorporate these suggestions:

If room temperature minus ΔTC -Extreme is less than –10 0 °C an additional test will be conducted with an 

intermediate cold grain temperature equal to room temperature minus one-half ΔTC -Extreme specified by 

the manufacturer. 

This modification required corresponding modifications to the original recommendations in 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) that 

were shown in the Agenda. With these modifications the Sector agreed by consensus that the changes described in 

4(a), 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) below be included in the next edition of NCWM Publication 14.

A draft version of this meeting summary was circulated to the Sector Chair, NTEP Administrator, the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Advisor, and representatives of the NTEP Participating 

Laboratory. Ms. Brenner, GIPSA, replied with a recommendation to add the sentence, “The intermediate cold grain 

temperature specified by the manufacturer should be the temperature used for grains that will not be tested when 

frozen” to the wording shown above to reflect the intent to limit the intermediate cold temperatures to those cold 

temperatures used before meters were tested for frozen grain. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, ruled that this 

addition to the Background/Discussion portion of Item 4, and the corresponding additions to Items 4(a) and 4(c) 

could be considered editorial in nature and would not require a committee ballot. The final recommendation is 

shown below:

If room temperature minus ΔTC -Extreme is less than –10 0 °C an additional test will be conducted with an 

intermediate cold grain temperature equal to room temperature minus one-half ΔTC -Extreme specified by the 

manufacturer. The intermediate cold grain temperature specified by the manufacturer should be the 

temperature used for grains that will not be tested when frozen.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B5 

Conclusion: 

Make the following changes and additions to the GMM chapter of the 2011 edition of NCWM Publication 14 to 

address the expanded grain temperature ranges of new technology: 

4.a. Proposed Changes to Test Procedures and Tolerances:

II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Testing is required to verify that accurate results are provided when the sample and instrument are at different 

temperatures. This will be referred to as the sample temperature sensitivity test. The sample temperature 

sensitivity test will be conducted using corn, Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat, and soybean samples. Tests will 

be conducted with the instrument at room temperature and the sample temperature varying from room 

temperature plus ΔTH to room temperature minus ΔTC-Extreme where ΔTH is the magnitude of the manufacturer 

specified maximum difference for grain above room temperature and ΔTC-Extreme is the magnitude of the 

manufacturer specified maximum difference for grain below room temperature. If room temperature minus 

ΔTC-Extreme is less than 0 °C an additional test will be conducted with an intermediate grain temperature 

specified by the manufacturer. The intermediate cold grain temperature specified by the manufacturer 

should be the temperature used for grains that will not be tested when frozen. 

In no case will room temperature plus ΔTH be allowed to exceed 45 °C but, ΔTH need not equal ΔTC and in 

no case will room temperature minus ΔTC-Extreme be allowed to be less than – 20 °C. For purposes of these 

tests, room temperature will be defined as 22 °C ± 2 °C. 

Two (2) samples will be selected from each of three 2 % moisture intervals for each of the three grains - corn, 

HRW wheat, and soybeans. Three analyses will be made for each grain sample at each of the three test 

temperatures. The overall bias for the 18 observations (2 samples × 3 moisture intervals × 3 replicates) run at 

the Extreme Cold, Cold (if required), and Hot temperatures must agree with the room temperature results 

within the following tolerances:

Corn 0.45

Wheat 0.35

Soybeans 0.35

Note: When changes are made in corn, soybeans, or hard red winter wheat calibrations, the Sample 

Temperature Sensitivity Test will have to be repeated unless spectral or other such "raw" data are available 

from an earlier Sample Temperature Sensitivity Test performed by the NTEP Laboratory on the same device 

type. When such "raw" data are available, the manufacturer will be required to predict performance at each 

temperature using the new calibration. If no "raw" data are available and the manufacturer can show that the 

temperature compensation factor (or factors) are unchanged and are independent of other calibration 

parameters, the Sample Temperature Sensitivity Test will not have to be repeated. For performance limits, test 

instructions, and testing requirements applicable to the "other 12" NTEP grains (e.g., grains other than corn, 

soybeans, and hard red winter wheat), see Appendix D.

4.b. Proposed Changes to Appendix A – Laboratory Performance and Test Procedures:

TEST: Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Equipment Needed: Thermometers and Environmental Cabinet

Temperature: Instrument = 22 °C ± 2 °C

Sample = 22 °C ± 2 °C (± manufacturer specified temperature difference (T))

Sample(s) Required: HRW-2 Each

Moisture: 10 % to 12 % 

12 % to 14 % 

14 % to 16 % 

Sample(s) Required: Soybeans-2 Each
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B6 

Moisture: 10 % to 12 % 

12 % to 14 % 

14 % to 16 % 

Sample(s) Required: Corn-2 Each

Moisture: 12 % to 14 % 

14 % to 16 % 

16 % to 18 % 

Separate Sample Required for Each Model: Yes

Separate Sample Required for Each Instrument: No

General Information: 

In the following Test Procedure, the temperature equal to room temperature minus ΔTC-Extreme will be 

referred to as “Extreme Cold,” and the intermediate cold temperature specified by the manufacturer will 

be referred to as “Cold.” Room Temperature plus ΔTH will be referred to as “Hot.” For purposes of 

these tests, room temperature will be defined as 22 °C ± 2 °C.

Test Sequence:

1. Power on instruments.

2. Analyze the HRW 10 % to 12 % room temperature sample 3 times on each instrument, see example.

Analyses Replicate Instrument

1 1 1

2 1 2

3 2 1

4 2 2

5 3 1

3. Repeat step 2 for the second sample.

4. Repeat steps 2 to 3 for the 12 % to 14 % samples.

5. Repeat steps 2 to 3 for the 14 % to 16 % samples.

6. Place the HRW samples in the Environmental cabinet set at 22 °C ‒ ΔT Extreme Cold. 

7. Repeat steps 2 to 5 for the room temperature Soybean samples, and place them in the Environmental 

Cabinet.

8. Repeat steps 2 to 5 for the room temperature Corn samples, and place them in the Environmental 

Cabinet.

9. After all of the samples have equilibrated to 22 °C ‒ ΔT Extreme Cold for at least 4 hours, remove the 

first HRW sample from the cabinet. After checking the sample temperature, make the first analysis of 

HRW 1 on instrument 1. Samples must be within ± 1⁄2 °C of the target temperature.

10. Return HRW 1 to the cabinet. Run HRW 2 on instrument 2.

Note: The sample cell on each instrument is given a minimum of 10 minutes to equilibrate to room conditions 

before the next sample is analyzed. Each sample is to be checked for temperature before it is analyzed. 

Samples must be within 0.5 °C of the desired test temperature at time of analysis, and samples are to be 

reconditioned to the test temperature after each analysis. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B7 

11. In order to efficiently analyze the samples, run all of the odd numbered samples on instrument 1 and all of 

the even numbered samples on instrument 2 starting with HRW then soybeans and ending with corn. By 

the time the last corn sample has been analyzed, the HRW samples should be reconditioned to the target 

temperature. Run the odd numbered samples on instrument 2 and the even numbered samples on 

instrument 1 to complete the replicate 1 analysis. Repeat until all samples have been analyzed 3 times on 

each instrument. See Preferred Test Sequence. 

Note: Approximately 11⁄2 to 2 hours will be required to complete the first test cycle. Depending upon sample 

size, it may be necessary to wait until samples are within ± 1⁄2°C of the target temperature before completing the 

second test cycle for Replicate 1.

12. After all the Extreme cCold analyses are performed, allow the samples to equilibrate to room temperature 

for at least 4 hours.

13. Repeat steps 2 to 5 (Room 2) for the room temperature HRW samples.

14. Place the HRW samples in the Environmental cCabinet set at 22 °C + ΔT Cold. 

15. Repeat steps 13 to 14 for the room temperature Soybean samples, and place them in the Environmental 

Cabinet.

16. Repeat steps 13 to 14 for the room temperature Corn samples, and place them in the Environmental 

Cabinet. 

17. After all of the samples have equilibrated to 22 °C + ΔT Cold for at least 4 hours, run the hot Cold

samples using the same test sequence used for the Extreme cCold samples.

18. After all the hot Cold analyses are performed, allow the samples to equilibrate to room temperature for at 

least 4 hours.

19. Repeat steps 2 to 5 (Room 3) for the room temperature HRW samples.

20. Place the HRW samples in the Environmental Cabinet set to Hot.

201. Repeat step 19 for the room temperature Soybean samples, and place them in the Environmental 

Cabinet. 

212. Repeat step 19 for the room temperature Corn samples, and place them in the Environmental Cabinet. 

23. After all the Hot analyses are performed, allow the samples to equilibrate to room temperature for at 

least 4 hours.

24. Repeat steps 2 to 5 (Room 4) for the room temperature HRW samples.

25. Repeat step 24 for the room temperature Soybean samples.

26. Repeat step 24 for the room temperature Corn samples.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B8 

Preferred Test Sequence

Cycle Instrument 1 Instrument 2

1 

HRW 1 HRW 2

HRW 3 HRW 4

HRW 5 HRW 6

SOY 1 SOY 2

SOY 3 SOY 4

SOY 5 SOY 6

CORN 1 CORN 2

CORN 3 CORN 4

CORN 5 CORN 6

Cycle Instrument 1 Instrument 2

2 

HRW 2 HRW 1

HRW 4 HRW 3

HRW 6 HRW 5

SOY 2 SOY 1

SOY 4 SOY 3

SOY 6 SOY 5

CORN 2 CORN 1

CORN 4 CORN 3

CORN 6 CORN 5

The two cycles need to be repeated twice to complete the three replicates of all samples on both 

instruments.

Note: If the intermediate Cold temperature is not required, eliminate steps 13 through 19 above and use 

the results of steps 19 to 22 (Room 3) for (Room 2).

4.c. Proposed Changes to Appendix E - Sample Temperature Sensitivity

(for grains/oil seeds other than corn, soybeans and hard red winter wheat)

This Appendix specifies the procedure for conducting the sample temperature sensitivity test on NTEP 

grains/oilseeds other than corn, soybeans, and hard red winter wheat. Tests will be conducted with the 

instrument at room temperature and sample temperature varying from room temperature plus ΔTH to room 

temperature minus ΔTC-Extreme (where ΔTH is the manufacturer specified difference above room 

temperature for the grains in Section II, and ΔTC-Extreme is the manufacturer specified difference for below 

room temperature for those grains.) If room temperature minus ΔTC-Extreme is less than 0 °C an 

additional test will be conducted with an intermediate grain temperature specified by the 

manufacturer. The intermediate cold grain temperature specified by the manufacturer should be the 

temperature used for grains that will not be tested when frozen. 

In the following Test Procedure, the temperature equal to room temperature minus ΔTC-Extreme will 

be referred to as “Extreme Cold,” and the intermediate cold temperature specified by the 

manufacturer will be referred to as “Cold.” Room Temperature plus ΔTH will be referred to as 

“Hot.” For purposes of these tests, room temperature will be defined as 22 °C ± 2 °C.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B9 

A device submitted for this test must be capable of transmitting, via its communications interface, "raw" 

data as well as date, grain type, predicted moisture result, and calibration version identification and 

recording in Standard Data Format on 3.5 inch diskette all the information listed in Appendix C. If the 

device itself does not include the necessary keyboard or disk drive, the manufacturer must supply a 

personal computer and the necessary software to build a file as described in Appendix C.

 

Note: Two (2) samples are to be selected from each of three 2 % moisture intervals for each grain type for 

which the test is to be performed. Two analyses will be made for each grain sample at each of the three test 

temperatures. The overall bias for the 12 observations (2 samples × 3 moisture intervals × 2 replicates) run at 

the Extreme Cold, Cold (if required), and Hot temperatures extremes must agree with the room temperature 

results within the tolerances listed in the accompanying table.

Test Procedure:

1. Analyze the room temperature samples on the test instrument (Room 1). 

2. Condition samples to the cold Extreme Cold temperature and run them on the instrument under 

test cold Extreme Cold. 

Note: Each sample is to be checked for temperature before it is analyzed. Samples must be within 0.5 °C of 

the desired test temperature at time of analysis, and samples are to be reconditioned to the test temperature 

after each analysis. The sample cell on the instrument under test is to be given a minimum of 10 minutes to 

equilibrate to room conditions between sample analyses.

3. Bring the samples to room temperature, and run the samples on the instrument under test (Room 2). 

4. Condition the samples to the hot Cold temperature and run them on the instrument under 

test hot Cold, observing the precautions in the note following step 2.

5. Repeat step 3 to obtain another set of room temperature results (Room 3). 

6. Condition the samples to the Hot temperature and run them on the instrument under test Hot, 

observing the precautions in the note following step 2.

7. Repeat step 3 to obtain another set of room temperature results (Room 4). 

Note: If the intermediate Cold temperature is not required, eliminate step 4 above and use the results of 

step 3 (Room 2) for step 5 (Room 3).

EXTREME COLD BIAS = Extreme Cold - ((Room 1 + Room 2) / 2)

COLD BIAS = Cold - ((Room 12 + Room 23) / 2)

HOT BIAS = Hot - ((Room 23 + Room 34) / 2)

Note: When changes are made in any of the "other 12" calibrations, the Sample Temperature Sensitivity 

Test will have to be repeated unless spectral or other such "raw" data are available from an earlier Sample 

Temperature Sensitivity Test performed on the same device type by the NTEP Laboratory. When such 

"raw" data are available, the manufacturer will be required to predict performance at each temperature

using the new calibration.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B10

Moisture Ranges and Tolerances for Sample Temperature Sensitivity (for the "Other 12" NTEP grains)

Grain Type Moisture Range for Test Tolerance Limit 

(Bias at Extreme Cold, Cold, and Hot

Temperatures Extremes)

Durum Wheat 10 % – 16 % 0.35

Soft White Wheat 10 % – 16 % 0.35

Hard Red Spring Wheat 10 % – 16 % 0.35

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10 % – 16 % 0.35

Hard White Wheat 8 % – 14 % 0.35

Sunflower Seed (Oil) 6 % – 12 % 0.45

Grain Sorghum 10 % – 16 % 0.45

Two-Rowed Barley 10 % – 16 % 0.35

Six-Rowed Barley 10 % – 16 % 0.45

Oats 8 % – 14 % 0.45

Long Grain Rough Rice 10 % – 16 % 0.45

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10 % – 16 % 0.45

4.d. Proposed Changes to GMM Checklist 

1. Indicating Elements, Recording Elements and Recorded Representations

Code Reference: S.1.3. Operating Range

1.10. The operating range shall specify the following:

1.10.3. The ambient temperature range over which the meter may 

be used is specified and moisture results are neither 

displayed nor printed outside this range.

Yes No N/A

1.10.4. The temperature range for each grain or seed for which the 

meter is to be used is specified and moisture results are 

neither displayed nor printed outside this range.

Yes No N/A

1.10.4.1. If a grain or seed has multiple temperature 

ranges each intended for use over a different 

moisture range, the moisture ranges are 

specified for each temperature range, and 

moisture results are neither displayed nor 

printed if outside the applicable moisture or 

temperature ranges.

Yes No N/A

5. Item 310-1 Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components 

Background/Discussion: 

This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association and first appeared on the S&T 

Committee’s 2008 agenda. 

NTEP evaluators inspected some devices that could be sealed in an “adjustment” mode which would allow the user 

to make adjustments without breaking a physical security seal. NTEP started receiving an increasing number of 

reports that users and service agents were not following the instructions in the user’s manuals for these devices, thus 

rendering the method of sealing ineffective.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B11

The purpose of the original submitter’s proposed changes were intended to clarify what is considered an effective 

method of sealing metrological features, and what information is required to be indicated and recorded when a 

device is in a metrological adjustment mode.

The 92nd through 96th NCWM S&T Committees, regional weights and measures associations, NTETC Sectors, and 

other interested parties have considered several proposals intended to address this issue. Throughout these 

deliberations, it became apparent that a single interpretation of G-S.8. was needed and should be distributed to the 

NTEP laboratories so that type evaluation procedures for sealing could be reviewed and, if necessary, amended.

The 2010 S&T Committee agreed with comments that no changes were needed to paragraph G-S.8. Consequently, 

the Committee developed an amended proposal in its 2010 Committee Report, and recommended that the amended 

proposal be given Informational status to allow interested parties sufficient time to analyze and comment on the 

most recent language. 

The NTETC Weighing Sector and Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) both recommended that the item be 

withdrawn, believing that type evaluation procedures have been amended in applicable sections of NCWM 

Publication 14 to address the issues of incorrectly applying the requirements in G-S.8.

Although the S&T Committee agreed with the comments to withdraw this item, it was concerned that its 

interpretation would be overlooked in the future if the item was Withdrawn. The Committee agreed to remove the 

language originally proposed in its 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting Agenda and proposed revised language for 

consideration as a Voting Item. The Committee further recommended that NTETC Sectors consider adding the 

language to the applicable “Philosophy for Sealing” appendices in NCWM Publication 14.

The proposed language was made a Voting Item for the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting. After discussing the 

comments from the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings and the proposed changes from NIST, Office of 

Weights and Measures (OWM), the Committee modified the Item Under Consideration to read as follows:

Item Under Consideration: 

The current language in paragraph G-S.8. states: “A device shall be designed with provision(s) for 

applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means of providing security 

(e.g., data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that detrimentally 

affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism.”

Thus, for parameters protected by physical means of security, once a physical security seal is applied to 

the device, it should not be possible to make a metrological change to those parameters without breaking 

that seal. Likewise, for parameters protected by electronic means of security, it should not be possible to 

make a metrological change to those parameters without that change being reflected in the audit trail. 

Since this philosophy addresses provisions for protecting access to any metrological adjustment, the 

philosophy should be applied consistently to all electronic device types.

See the 2008 NCWM Annual, 2009 and 2010 Interim and Annual Reports for additional background information.

The “Item Under Consideration” was placed on the S&T Consent Calendar and was adopted by the 96th Annual 

Conference.

This item is a carryover from the 2009 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting (Agenda Item 9) and again in 

2010 (Agenda Item 5). At the Sector’s August 2011 meeting, Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, notified the Sector 

that he will add the modified “Item Under Consideration” as shown above to Appendix B of the GMM Chapter of 

the 2011 edition of NCWM Publication 14 and to Appendix A of the NIR Grain Analyzer Chapter of the 

2011 edition of NCWM Publication 14. Sector action would not be required on items 5(d) and 5(e). 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B12

5.a. Proposed Changes to NIST Handbook 44, Table S.2.5., Section 5.56.(a)

Background/Discussion:

Table S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing that appears in §5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44 lists 

acceptable methods of sealing for various categories of GMMs. When the Sector first recommended adding the 

table to NIST Handbook 44 at their September 1996 meeting, the concept of making a change to a GMM from a 

remote site involved information “...sent by to the device by modem (or computer).” In 2011, this concept has 

expanded to include the ability of the measuring device to accept new or revised sealable parameters from a 

memory chip, external computer, network, or other device plugged into a mating port (e.g., USB port) on the 

measuring device or connected wirelessly to the measuring device.

All of the GMMs in Categories 3, 3a, and 3c of Table S.2.5. use an electronic method of sealing, and most of 

them also offer access to the configuration mode thorough a keyboard entered password. In this mode, sealable

parameters can also be changed locally through the keyboard. Category 3 of Table S.2.5. currently includes the 

following requirement:

When accessed remotely for the purpose of modifying sealable parameters, the device shall clearly 

indicate that it is in the configuration mode and shall not be capable of operating in the measuring mode.

The Sector agreed by consensus that the following changes to Table S.2.5. of §5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44

should be forwarded to the S&T Committee for consideration:

• Add a note to Table S.2.5. to recognize the expanded scope of “remote capability”. 

• Delete “remotely” from the second paragraph of Category 3 requirements that begins, “When accessed 

remotely ...” to make it clear that the requirements of Category 3 apply whether accessed manually using 

the keyboard or accessed by remote means.

• Add the modified second paragraph of Category 3 requirements to Categories 3a and 3b to make it clear 

that these requirements apply to all the subcategories of Category 3.

The proposed changes to Table S.2.5. are shown below as Item Under Consideration. 

The Sector also agreed that contingent upon acceptance of Item Under Consideration the changes to the GMM 

Chapter of NCWM Publication 14 shown in Agenda Items 5(b) and 5(c) should be made. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B13

Item Under Consideration NIST Handbook 44: 

Table S.2.5. 

Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Methods of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration capability. Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration 

parameters (000 to 999) and one for configuration parameters 

(000 to 999). If equipped with event counters, the device must 

be capable of displaying, or printing through the device or 

through another on-site device, the contents of the counters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but 

access is controlled by physical hardware.

A device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote 

configuration mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measure mode while enabled for 

remote configuration.

The hardware enabling access for remote communication must 

be at the device and sealed using a physical seal or two event 

counters: one for calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one 

for configuration parameters (000 to 999). If equipped with 

event counters, the device must be capable of displaying, or 

printing through the device or through another on-site device, 

the contents of the counters.

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access 

may be unlimited or controlled through a software 

switch (e.g., password).

When accessed remotely for the purpose of modifying 

sealable parameters, the device shall clearly indicate 

that it is in the configuration mode and shall not be 

capable of operating in the measuring mode.

An event logger is required in the device; it must include an 

event counter (000 to 999), the parameter ID, the date and time 

of the change, and the new value of the parameter (for 

calibration changes consisting of multiple constants, the 

calibration version number may be used rather than the 

calibration constants). A printed copy of the information must 

be available through the device or through another on-site 

device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records 

equal to twenty-five (25) times the number of sealable 

parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are 

required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be stored 

for each parameter.)

Category 3a: No remote capability, but operator is 

able to make changes that affect the metrological 

integrity of the device (e.g., slope, bias, etc.) in normal 

operation.

When accessed for the purpose of modifying sealable 

parameters, the device shall clearly indicate that it is 

in the configuration mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measuring mode.

Same as Category 3

Category 3b: No remote capability, but access to 

metrological parameters is controlled through a 

software switch (e.g., password).

When accessed for the purpose of modifying sealable 

parameters, the device shall clearly indicate that it is 

in the configuration mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measuring mode.

Same as Category 3

Note: In addition to the definition of remote configuration capability as defined in Appendix D of HB44, as used in 

this table, “remote configuration capability” also includes the ability of the measuring device to accept new or 

revised sealable parameters from a memory chip, external computer, network, or other device plugged into a 

mating port (e.g., USB port) on the measuring device or connected wirelessly to the measuring device. 

(Added 201X)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1999 and January 1, 20XX] 

(Amended 1998 and 20XX) 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B14

Note: Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological characteristics and must be sealed.

(Added 1993) (Amended 1995 and 1997)

5.b. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, GMM Appendix C, Table S.2.5.

Changes shown below are contingent upon acceptance of Item Under Consideration. 

Table S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Method of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration capability Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for

calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one for

configuration parameters (000 to 999.) If equipped 

with event counters, the device must be capable of 

displaying, or printing through the device or through 

another on-site device, the contents of the counters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but 

access is controlled by physical hardware.

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in 

the remote configuration mode and shall 

not be capable of operating in the measure

mode while enabled for remote 

configuration.

The hardware enabling access for remote 

communication must be at the device and sealed 

using a physical seal or two event counters; one for

calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one for

configuration parameters (000 to 999.) If equipped 

with event counters, the device must be capable of 

displaying, or printing through the device or through 

another on-site device, the contents of the counters.

Category 3: Remote configuration capability, access 

may be unlimited or controlled through a 

software switch (e.g. password.)

When accessed remotely for the purpose 

of modifying sealable parameters, the 

device shall clearly indicate that it is in 

the configuration mode and shall not be 

capable of operating in the measure mode.

An event logger is required in the device; it must 

include an event counter (000 to 999), the parameter 

ID, the date and time of the change and the new 

value of the parameter (for calibration changes 

consisting of multiple constants, the calibration 

version number may be used rather than the 

calibration constants.) A printed copy of the 

information must be available through the device or 

through another on-site device. The event logger 

shall have a capacity to retain records equal to 

twenty-five (25) times the number of sealable

parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 

records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 

changes to be stored for each parameter.)

Category 3a: No remote capability, but operator is able 

to make changes that affect the 

metrological integrity of the device (e.g. 

slope, bias, etc.) in normal operation.

When accessed for the purpose of 

modifying sealable parameters, the 

device shall clearly indicate that it is in 

the configuration mode and shall not be 

capable of operating in the measure

mode.

Same as Category 3
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B15

Categories of Device Method of Sealing

Category 3b: No remote capability, but access to 

metrological parameters is controlled 

through a software switch (e.g. password.)

When accessed for the purpose of 

modifying sealable parameters, the 

device shall clearly indicate that it is in 

the configuration mode and shall not be 

capable of operating in the measure

mode.

Same as Category 3

[Non-retroactive as of January 1, 1999] 

(Amended 1998 and 20XX) 

5.c. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, GMM Checklist

Changes shown below are contingent upon acceptance of Item Under Consideration. 

2. Design of Measuring Elements

For Category 3 Devices:

2.10.5. If a measurement is in process when the device is 

accessed remotely for the purpose of modifying sealable

parameters, the measurement is either:

Yes No N/A 

• Terminated Before Results can be Displayed or Printed. OR

• Completed Before Entering the Configuration Mode

2.10.6. When accessed remotely for the purpose of modifying sealable

parameters, the device clearly indicates that it is in the 

configuration mode and is not capable of operating in the 

measure mode.

Yes No N/A

5.d. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, GMM Appendix B

Appendix B

Philosophy for Sealing

Typical Features to be Sealed

Principles for Determining Features to be Sealed

The need to seal some features depends upon:

• The ease with which the feature or the selection of the feature can be used to facilitate fraud. AND

• The likelihood that the use of the feature will result in fraud not being detected.

•

5.e. Proposed Changes NCWM Publication 14, NIR Appendix A

Appendix A

Philosophy for Sealing

Typical Features to Be Sealed

Principles for Determining Features to Be Sealed

The need to seal some features depends upon:
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B16

• The ease with which the feature or the selection of the feature can be used to facilitate fraud. AND

• The likelihood that the use of the feature will result in fraud not being detected.

Features or functions which are routinely used by the operator as part of device operation, such as 

selecting the grain calibration to be used, are not sealable parameters and shall not be sealed.

5.f. Proposed Changes to NCWM Publication 14, NIR Checklist

NIR Grain Analyzers use an electronic method of sealing similar to those of GMMs, and most of them also 

offer access to the configuration mode thorough a keyboard entered password. In this mode, sealable

parameters can be changed locally through the keyboard. The Sector agreed that contingent upon acceptance of 

Item Under Consideration the NIR Check List of NCWM Publication 14 should be modified to delete 

“remotely” from section 4 Design of NIR Analyzers, paragraph 4.9.16 as shown below. 

4. Design of NIR Analyzers

For Category 3 Devices:

4.10.7. If a measurement is in process when the device is 

accessed remotely for the purpose of modifying sealable

parameters, the measurement is either:

Yes No N/A

6. Item 310-2: G-S.1. Identification. – (Software)

Source: 

2010 Carryover Item 310-3. This item originated from the NTETC Software Sector and first appeared on the S&T 

Committee’s 2007 agenda as Developing Item Part 1, Item 1. 

Background/Discussion: 

This proposal is intended to amend the identification marking requirements for all electronic devices manufactured 

after a specified date by requiring that metrological software version or revision information be identified. 

Additionally, the proposal will list methods, other than “permanently marked,” for providing the required 

information.

After the 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee received the NTETC Software Sector’s Proposal to 

amend G S.1. Identification and/or G S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, SoftwareBased Devices in the Committee’s 2008 Interim Report. The proposal listed “acceptable” and “not acceptable” 

methods for presenting:

• NTEP CC Number

• Make

• Model

• Serial Number

• Software Version / Revision Number

At the 2009 NCWM Interim Meeting, SMA commented that it has consistently opposed having different 

requirements between embedded and downloadable/programmable software-based devices. The SMA added that it 

continues to support the intent of the proposal and will continue to participate in the NTETC Software Sector 

discussions to develop alternate proposals for the marking of software-based devices. Several weights and measures 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B17

officials expressed concerns that the proposed language does not specify how the identification information is to be 

retrieved if it is not continuously displayed, noting this could result in several ways to access the information (e.g., 

passwords, display checks, or dropdown menus). The SMA added that the identification location information on the 

NTEP CC will become outdated anytime a manufacturer changes the way the information can be retrieved. The 

SMA suggested that a limited number of methods to access the identification information be developed and 

specified as the only acceptable methods to retrieve identification information. This would make it easier for the 

inspector to verify the required identification information.

This item remained Informational to allow NCWM members to further study the proposal in order to develop a

consensus on the format for Table G S.1. Identification in the NTETC Software Sector’s 2009 Meeting Summary.

During the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearings, the S&T Committee heard from NIST, OWM relative to 

whether or not the status of this item should be changed from Informational to Developing in order to provide the 

NTETC Software Sector additional time to more fully develop the item.

The S&T Committee discussed the comments offered by NIST, OWM and the SMA. After considering those 

comments, the Committee agreed to change the status of this item from Informational to Developing because the 

item lacks enough information for full consideration and a full proposal has yet to be developed.

Conclusion: 

The NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector had no comments other than those previously submitted. See GS August 2010 

Meeting Summary, Agenda Item 6.

7. Other Software Requirements That May Impact Grain Analyzers

The items under this heading are mostly excerpts from the NTETC Software Sector’s March 2010 Meeting 

Summary intended to keep NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Members informed of developmental software 

requirements that may impact grain analyzers. For additional information, see the complete NTETC Software 

Sector 2011 Meeting Summary. This meeting summary was not available at the time of the NTETC Grain Analyzer 

Sector Meeting. No action was taken on this item at the August 2011 Sector meeting.

7.a. Identification of Certified Software

Note: This item is now partially covered by the provisional proposal to make G-S.1.(d) applicable to 

software-based electronic devices and by adding the following new sub-subparagraph G S.1.(d)(3):

“The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The 

version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated to 

the metrologically significant software.”

Also, the NTETC Software Sector recommends the following information be added to NCWM Publication 14

as explanation/examples: 

• Unique identifier must be displayable/printable on command or during operation, etc. 

• At a minimum, a version/revision indication (1.02.09, rev 3.0 a, etc.). Could also consist of/contain

checksum, etc. (crc32, for example). 

NTETC Software Sector Conclusions: 

The item needs additional discussion and development by the NTETC Software Sector. Outstanding questions: 

• If we allow hard-marking of the software identifier (the Sector has wavered on this in the past), does 

the above wording then imply that some mechanical means is required (i.e. physical seal) to 

“inseparably link” the identifier to the software? 

• Do we still have to be able to display/print the identifier if it is hard-marked?
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B18

7.b. Software Protection/Security

Background/Discussion: 

The NTETC Software Sector derived a trial NCWM Publication 14 checklist based on the International 

Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) checklist to verify that the software adequately protected against 

fraudulent modification as well as accidental or unintentional changes. The checklist has been distributed to 

current NTEP laboratories for use on a trial basis for new type approval applications.

1. Devices with Embedded Software TYPE P (aka built-for-purpose)

1.1. Declaration of the manufacturer that the software is used in a fixed 

hardware and software environment. AND

Yes No N/A

1.2. Cannot be modified or uploaded by any means after securing/verification. Yes No N/A

Note: It is acceptable to break the "seal" and load new software, audit trail is 

also a sufficient seal.

1.3. The software documentation contains:

1.3.1. Description of all functions, designating those that are 

considered metrologically significant.

Yes No N/A

1.3.2. Description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention). Yes No N/A

1.3.3. Software Identification Yes No N/A

1.3.4. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A

1.4. The software identification is:

1.4.1. Clearly assigned to the metrologically significant software and 

functions.

Yes No N/A

1.4.2. Provided by the device as documented. Yes No N/A

2. Personal Computers, Instruments with PC Components, and Other Instruments, Devices, Modules, and 

Elements with Programmable or Loadable Metrologically Significant Software TYPE U (aka not builtfor-purpose)

2.5. The metrologically significant software is:

2.5.1. Documented with all relevant (see below for list of documents) 

information.

Yes No N/A

2.5.2. Protected against accidental or intentional changes. Yes No N/A

2.6. Evidence of intervention (such as, changes, uploads, circumvention) is 

available until the next verification / inspection (e.g., physical seal, 

Checksum, CRC, audit trail, etc. means of security).

Yes No N/A

3. Software with Closed Shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs possible for the user)

3.7. Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g., function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short 

descriptions.

Yes No N/A

3.8. Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B19

4. Operating System and/or Program(s) Accessible for the User

4.1. Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the 

machine code of the metrologically significant software (program 

module(s) subject to legal control Weights and Measures jurisdiction and 

type-specific parameters).

Yes No N/A

4.2. Check whether the metrologically significant software will detect and act 

upon any unauthorized alteration of the metrologically significant 

software using simple software tools (e.g., text editor).

Yes No N/A

5. Software Interface(s)

5.1. Verify the manufacturer has documented:

5.1.1. The program modules of the metrologically significant software 

are defined and separated.

Yes No N/A

5.1.2. The protective software interface itself is part of the 

metrologically significant software. 

5.1.3. The functions of the metrologically significant software that can 

be accessed via the protective software interface.

Yes No N/A

5.1.4. The parameters that may be exchanged via the protective 

software interface are defined.

Yes No N/A

5.1.5. The description of the functions and parameters are conclusive 

and complete.

Yes No N/A

5.1.6. There are software interface instructions for the third party 

(external) application programmer.

Yes No N/A

The laboratories again indicated they had not had a chance to utilize the checklist. The list was reviewed and 

some minor modifications to the checklist text were incorporated as shown above.

NTETC Software Sector Conclusion: 

Work is ongoing on this item with the intent that it eventually be incorporated as a checklist in NCWM 

Publication 14; again the labs are requested to try utilizing this checklist for any evaluations on software-based

electronic devices.

7.c. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration

Background/Discussion: 

The NTETC Software Sector agreed that the two definitions below for Verified Update and Traced Update were 

acceptable.

Verified Update: A Verified Update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken 

and the device must be re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the 

owner/user. 

Traced Update: A Traced Update is the process of installing new software where the software is 

automatically checked for authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or 

audit trail.

The NTETC Software Sector also worked towards language proposed for defining the requirements for a 

Traced Update (currently considered as relevant for NCWM Publication 14):

For a Traced Update, an event logger is required. The logger shall be capable of storing a minimum 

of the 10 most recent updates. An entry shall be generated for each software update.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B20

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is required for the Traced Update. If software update is the only 

loggable event, then the Category 3 audit trail can be limited to only 10 entries. A log entry 

representing a software update shall include the software identification of the newly installed version.

NTEC Software Sector Conclusions: 

The general consensus of the Sector after considering feedback from external interested parties is that a new 

G-S.9. with explicit requirements [for Metrologically Significant Software] is not necessary (nor likely to be 

adopted by NCWM) and that this requirement belongs in NCWM Publication 14 lists of sealable parameters 

rather than in NIST Handbook 44; that is: 

The updating of metrologically significant software shall be considered a sealable event. 

Additional work is to be done to further develop the proposed text toward inclusion in NCWM Publication 14. 

At its August 2009 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting the Sector questioned the need for a definition of 

“Traced Update”. The Traced Update was initially intended to cover cases in Europe where the National Body 

controls a network of devices and wants to update all the devices simultaneously from a central location. 

Denmark and France do this with NIR Grain Analyzers. Even though individual states may still require that a 

device updated via a “Traced Update” must be “returned to service” by a registered serviceperson before it can 

be used, the Sector may want to consider adopting “Traced Update” requirements for all Category 3 Grain 

Analyzers. The device is still subject to later inspection by state weights and measures personnel. By designing 

to the requirements for “Traced Update”, states might be encouraged to allow devices updated to those 

requirements to be returned to service without requiring a visit by a registered serviceperson. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B21

Software Update Procedure – from OIML D 31:2008 (E)

Notes:

1. In the case of a Traced Update updating is separated into two steps: “loading” and 

“installing/activating.” This implies that the software is temporarily stored after loading without being 

activated because it must be possible to discard the loaded software and revert to the old version, if the 

checks fail.

2. In the case of a Verified Update, the software may also be loaded and temporarily stored before 

installation but depending on the technical solution loading and installation may also be accomplished 

in one step.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B22

3. Here, only failure of the verification due to the software update is considered. Failure due to other 

reasons does not require re-loading and re-installing of the software, symbolized by the NO-branch.

8. Test Weight per Bushel Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances

Source:

Mr. Adkisson, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois 

Background/Discussion: 

The Sector first considered this issue at its March 1996 meeting. At the 1997 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Meeting, the Sector agreed that priority should be given to drafting changes to the Grain Moisture Code to specify 

field test methods and reasonable tolerances. A draft of proposed changes to the Code was reviewed by the Sector at 

its March 1998 meeting. Action to forward the draft to the S&T Committee on was deferred pending receipt of 

feedback from the grain trade on the acceptability of the proposed tolerances and feedback from weights and 

measures members on a sampling of field test results applying those tolerances. Committee Ballot 84-03 to add the 

proposed changes to NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.56.(a), was issued on August 18, 1998, with ballots due for 

return by September 10, 1998. The TW tolerances proposed at that time are shown below: 

Test Weight per Bushel

Type of Grain or Seed Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerance

Corn 1.1 lb per bushel

Sorghum, soybeans, and all wheat classes 0.6 lb per bushel

Barley, oats, rice, sunflower, and all other small 

cereal grains and oil seeds

0.9 lb per bushel

Most of the sector members agreed with the need for criteria but were not in agreement with the tolerances.

In a written comment accompanying his ballot, Professor Hurburgh, Iowa State University (ISU), suggested that the 

proposed tolerances had not been calculated correctly and were not discriminating enough. Professor Hurburgh 

submitted an analysis of variances in test weight per bushel measurements based on data collected by the Grain 

Quality Laboratory at ISU. For corn, he proposed a tolerance of 0.80 pounds per bushel, setting it at plus or minus 

two standard deviations relative to the reference. His calculations assumed:

• A root mean square difference (RMSD) of 0.55 lb/bu (each sample tested once in standard quart cup and 

once in meter)

• A standard error (precision) of 0.3 for corn (and 0.15 for other grains) for both cup and meter 

The corn columns in the following table illustrate the method used by Professor Hurburgh in his calculations. The 

rest of the table has been filled in to show suggested tolerances for the remaining grains at both 95.4 % and 99.7 % 

confidence levels. Editor’s note: The grain groupings shown in the table represent the original groupings 

suggested prior to the Sector’s 1999 meeting. The groupings in the present code are the groupings adopted at the 

Sector’s September 1999 meeting.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B23

Single Test

on drop in cup and one in meter

Calculated for Replicated Tests

10 drops in cup and 3 in meter

Corn Sorghum, 

Soybeans,

Wheat 

(all classes)

Barley, Oats, 

Rice, Sunflower, 

and all other 

small cereal 

grains and oil 

seeds

Corn Sorghum, 

Soybeans,

Wheat 

(all classes)

Barley, Oats, 

Rice, Sunflower, 

and all other 

small cereal 

grains and oil 

seeds

Cup Standard Deviation

(precision/repeatability) 0.3000 0.1500 0.1500

Meter Standard Deviation

(precision/repeatability) 0.3000 0.1500 0.1500

Variance due to Cup 

precision/repeatability

(SD2 for Cup precision) 

0.0900 0.0225 0.0225 0.0090 0.0023 0.0023

Variance due to Meter 

precision/repeatability

(SD2 for Meter precision)

0.0900 0.0225 0.0225 0.0300 0.0075 0.0075

Other Variances 

(calculated so sum of 

variances equals the total 

below)

0.1225 0.0450 0.1150 0.1225 0.0450 0.1150

Total variance

(RMSD2) 0.3025 0.0900 0.1600 0.1615 0.0548 0.1248

RMSD 

(for Single Test 

conditions this is obtained 

from test data)

0.55 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.23 0.35

Tolerance 1 (lb/bu)

(2x RMSD) 1.10 0.60 0.80 0.80 0.46 0.70

Tolerance 2 (lb/bu)

(3xRMSD) 1.65 0.90 1.20 1.20 0.69 1.05

Originally Proposed 

Tolerance (lb/bu) 1.10 0.60 0.90

At the Sector's September 1999 meeting, maintenance tolerances of ±0.8 pounds per bushel for corn and oats; 

± 0.5 pounds per bushel for all classes of wheat; and ± 0.7 for soybeans, barley, rice, sunflower, and sorghum were 

proposed for further study. Although several members opposed adopting the proposed tolerances and groupings for 

the following reasons: 1) difficult to meet the proposed tolerance for wheat; 2) difficult to obtain samples for field 

test; and 3) not discriminating enough for corn, they agreed to consider them for further study. 

States agreeing to participate in a field evaluation of the proposed tolerances and test methods included:

• Arkansas • Nebraska • Maryland

• Illinois • North Carolina • Missouri

In late September 2000, the USDA/GIPSA sent one portion of a HRW standardizing sample to each of the 

participating state laboratories. Participating laboratories verified that the quart kettle used in their standard Test 

Weight (TW) per bushel apparatus met the requirements in GIPSA’s volume test procedures. They also verified that 

the apparatus was set up according to GIPSA standards before testing the HRW standardizing samples. With the 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B24

exception of one state, the test weight apparatuses were within GIPSA’s tolerance. GIPSA has since worked with 

the state to correct the test weight apparatus that was out of tolerance. 

To obtain base-line performance data on the standard quart kettle test method for corn and soybeans, GIPSA sent 

corn and soybeans samples to the participating laboratories prior to the 2002 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Meeting. Tests were run on each state’s standard quart kettle TW apparatus and on any NTEP model Grain 

Moisture Meter with TW capability that the state had in its laboratory.

Quart Kettle Method Test Weight per Bushel Test Results

for Participating State Grain Moisture Labs

with GIPSA Measurements as Reference

Corn Soybeans

Bias

(pounds per bushel) 

(avg. of 3 replicates)

Individual Lab 

Precision

(pounds per bushel)

(3 replicates)

Bias

(pounds per bushel)

(avg. of 3 replicates)

Individual Lab 

Precision

(pounds per bushel)

(3 replicates)

State 1 0.23 0.06 0.13 0.06

State 2 − 0.60 0.00 − 0.50 0.00

State 3 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00

State 4 0.27 0.06 0.27 0.06

State 5 − 0.07 0.06 − 0.13 0.06

State 6 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.06

Avg 

Bias* 0.16 --- − 0.07 ---

SDD of 

Overall

Bias*

0.16 --- 0.15 ---

* the data from State 2 was not included in Avg Bias and SDD of Overall Bias

With the exception of State 2 that reported results significantly lower than the reference for both corn and soybeans, 

the results indicate that in a laboratory setting the quart kettle method can achieve accuracies (based on the average 

of three readings) that are approximately one-half to one-third the proposed maintenance tolerances of ±0.8 pounds 

per bushel for corn and ± 0.7 pounds per bushel for soybeans.

The same set of samples used for the Quart Kettle Method tests were used to test NTEP grain moisture meters 

located in state moisture labs and in the ongoing calibration maintenance program at GIPSA. (Note: Some of the 

meters located in state moisture labs may have been used as Field Standards). For both NTEP and State Laboratory 

meters, the bias on NTEP meters using TW calibrations that had been standardized met the proposed tolerance 

requirements for corn and soybeans with one exception. The exception, with an error at least seven times greater 

than meters of the same type, was judged to be an isolated case, most likely indicating the need for service, as results 

for nine other meters of like type were well within the proposed tolerance limits. Consistent biases on the majority 

of meter models with TW calibrations that had not been standardized suggest that with proper standardization, these 

models would also meet the proposed tolerance requirements. The laboratory TW results (from both NTEP and 

state laboratories) for GMM’s are summarized below.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B25

Test Weight per Bushel Test Results

for 

Grain Moisture Meters in Participating State Grain Moisture Labs and at the NTEP Laboratory

with

GIPSA Quart Kettle Measurements as Reference

Model

Number 

of 

Meters 

Tested

Corn Soybeans

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

SDD

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

Replicates per Meter

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

SDD

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

Replicates per Meter

Model 1 2 − 0.35 0.21 0.08 0.12

Model 2 9* − 0.29 0.17 − 0.04 0.16

Model 3 3 − 1.14 0.21 − 0.66 0.07

Model 4 2 − 1.12 0.40 − 0.37 0.38

Model 5 2 − 1.48 0.35 − 1.35 0.07

* net of 1 outlier

Dr. Pierce, GIPSA, remarked that the repeatability of the meters was impressive, especially in light of the fact that 

the SD between two inspectors at GIPSA is typically 0.25 pounds per bushel for official inspections. This translates 

to 0.5 pounds per bushel at a 95 % confidence level. 

One sector member noted that the samples used for the initial tests were fairly dry (corn: approximately 13.3 % and 

soybeans: approximately 10 %). The use of low moisture samples, plus the fact that the samples were also clean and 

free of foreign material and broken kernels may have contributed to the excellent results obtained in the initial lab 

tests. Official TW determinations by GIPSA, for most large grains, are obtained prior to removal of dockage and 

foreign material.

It was also pointed out that TW measurements on high moisture samples are not reliable. In normal years, TW will 

increase as a grain samples loses moisture. The grain kernel tends to shrink somewhat as it dries. In fact, the 

volume reduction is normally greater, percentage wise, than the reduction in mass due to drying. As a result, TW 

(weight per unit volume) increases. The surface condition of high moisture corn may also contribute to additional 

variance in the packing density as the sample is loaded into the test kettle or test cell of a GMM. 

A field test was also conducted on a sampling of TW capable NTEP grain moisture meters. Participating 

laboratories obtained their own samples for this test. Each participating laboratory was to make an initial 

determination of the test weight per bushel of each sample portion with the standard quart kettle apparatus before 

sending it to the field. Tests were to be run on TW capable NTEP grain moisture meters and on the kettle test 

weight apparatus used at each commercial location selected for field-testing. Kettle tests at each location were to be 

made by the operator who normally made test weight per bushel determinations for commercial transactions. No 

instruction was to be given to the operator on how to perform the test. The participating laboratory was to make a 

final determination of test weight per bushel when the sample was returned to the laboratory. Data was to be 

collected on no more than twenty instruments per grain sample.

In August 2002, field data were received from Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. The results are 

summarized below. The Sector noted that TW errors were essentially the same for both GMM’s with TW capability 

and for the various kinds of stand-alone TW apparatus currently in use in the field. The results for corn and 

soybeans were especially encouraging considering that most of the field GMM’s had not been adjusted for optimum 

performance on TW. 

Biases reported by Arkansas were significantly greater (and all negative with respect to their reference) than those 

reported for wheat and soybeans by other states on both GMM devices and on kettle test weight apparatus. The 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B26

Arkansas weights and measures representative said that he would review the data to see if a cause for this difference 

could be determined.

Field Evaluation – Bushel Test Weight

Hard Red Winter Wheat and Soft Red Winter Wheat

State Quart Kettle Apparatus as Reference

State

Grain Moisture Meters TW Apparatus

SDD

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

replicates per meter

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to 

reference sample

SDD

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

replicates per device

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to 

reference sample

All Participating States 0.47 − 0.47 0.31 − 0.23

Illinois 0.43 − 0.52 0.50 0.02

Missouri 0.26 − 0.55 0.32 − 0.31

Nebraska 0.29 − 0.02 0.23 − 0.19

Arkansas

(net of 1 outlier) 0.45 − 0.92 0.23 − 0.36

Field Evaluation – Bushel Test Weight

Soybeans

State Quart Kettle Apparatus as Reference

State

Grain Moisture Meters TW Apparatus

SDD

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

replicates per meter

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to 

reference sample

SDD

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

replicates per device

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to 

reference sample

All Participating States 0.85 − 0.10 0.64 0.06

Illinois 0.40 − 0.09 0.41 0.25

Missouri 0.32 0.66 0.20 0.36

Nebraska 0.52 − 1.19 0.56 − 1.04

Arkansas

(net of 1 outlier) 0.85 − 0.10 0.64 0.06

Field Evaluation – Bushel Test Weight

Corn

State Quart Kettle Apparatus as Reference

State

Grain Moisture Meters TW Apparatus

SDD

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

replicates per meter

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to 

reference sample

SDD

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

replicates per device

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to 

reference sample

All Participating States 0.55 0.05 0.61 − 0.27

Illinois 0.60 0.33 0.46 0.37

Nebraska 0.38 − 0.18 0.37 − 0.59
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B27

In early 2007, an outreach study was conducted to determine which jurisdictions were inspecting GMMs for 

accuracy in test weight per bushel TW determination. Of the six states responding four had been inspecting GMMs 

for TW for several years. None of the four reported any problems with procedures or tolerances. South Carolina, 

then in its fourth year of inspecting for TW, reported a decline in meters rejected for TW indications. Initial 

rejection rate for TW was 47.57 %. The 2006 inspection year yielded a rejection rate of 12.27 %, while tests thus 

far in 2007 showed a rejection rate of 2.83 %. 

The submitter believes that test weight tolerances are too tight for field operation of GMMs at country grain 

elevators in Illinois. Some manufacturers have also expressed concern over the large number of GMM Field Test 

failures due to exceeding NIST Handbook 44 TW Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances. 

The submitter has recommended that NIST Handbook 44 TW tolerances be increased by 50 %. 

Table T.3.

Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances Test Weight per Bushel

Type of Grain or Seed Tolerance (pounds per bushel)

Corn, oats 0.8 1.20

All wheat classes 0.5 0.75

Soybeans, all barley classes, all rice classes, sunflower, sorghum 0.7 1.05

As an alternative solution, the submitter has suggested allowing GMMs to print (and display) “approximate test 

weight.” See Agenda Item 12.

Conclusion: 

Mr. Adkisson, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois, cited problems his industry is having regarding TW. GMMs 

that have failed TW during field inspection are sent to the manufacturer for repair. When the meters are returned, 

the reports indicate that no problems have been found. There are also situations where a meter has failed TW. 

When the state inspector subsequently tested the elevator’s quart kettle it matched the meter, but it didn’t match the 

state inspector’s sample. This is particularly frustrating for the country elevators in Illinois that are using the GMM 

TW only as a screening tool. 

Mr. Cunningham, Illinois Department of Agriculture, outlined the care being used to select and measure TW 

samples used in field inspection. Field inspectors carry two portions of each TW sample. The second portion can 

be compared to the first portion if any results are suspect. He was of the opinion that this was more a problem of 

meters in the field not being consistent within any one brand. 

Ms. Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corporation, referred the Sector to a USDA study that listed critical factors in the 

use of the standard quart kettle and the resultant errors if not used properly. Improperly used, the “standard method” 

isn’t so standard.

The NTEP laboratory collects TW data on two meters of each of the models in the NTEP Laboratory. That data is 

provided to the manufacturers (or CC holders). The question was raised as how that data translates to a host of field 

instruments. The two manufacturers represented at the Sector meeting outlined their instrument standardization 

procedures. Mr. Kaeding, Perten Instruments, Inc. reported that the strike-off device is the biggest source of TW 

variation between individual instruments. He suggested that even for a single grain type on a single instrument TW 

results may be sample dependent.

Professor Hurburgh, Iowa State University, described the procedure he has used with two groups of elevators to 

align their GMMs for TW on corn. Five to ten samples with some range of TW are passed around to all the 

instruments in their system. Typically, the results from the initial tests are within plus or minus one pound per 

bushel of the overall average TW of that population of instruments. Bias and skew adjustments are then made on 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B28

each of the instruments so they all read to the mean TW. At that point the problem is solved. He stressed that 

GMMs don’t read the same on TW when they first are placed in the field whatever the cause may be.

In response to a question, “If not used in trade, how is TW used?” One sector member pointed out that TW is a 

major factor in trading wheat (there are 5 TW dependent U.S. grades for wheat). Professor Hurburgh, Iowa State 

University, said that the general practice, at least for corn, (nobody knows how soybean TW is used) is if the TW 

(by meter) gets low enough to engender discounts, then the discount itself will be assessed by a quart kettle 

reading...perhaps even on a composite sample. The meter’s TW reading goes into the inventory record that is used 

in several internal operations: calculation of stored grain volume and a calculation to estimate storageability (time). 

Note: There are also 5 TW dependent U.S. grades for corn, but in normal years corn TW is typically several lbs/bu

higher than the 56 lb/bu minimum for U.S. No. 1 Corn.

Professor Hurburgh, Iowa State University, also explained that the grain dealer has a greater interest having the 

correct TW reading than the farmer has, because the TW reading is used to establish volume in storage on measureup inspections. At $7.00 per bushel corn TW is the biggest factor of error on the inventory balance. 

Professor Hurburgh, Iowa State University, objected to increasing TW tolerances as this would only cover up the 

problems. What was needed was an investigation of the whole system of calibrating meters, then translating that 

calibration into the field, and then keeping it that way. The whole system has some issues that can be fixed. 

He suggested that the Sector re-form a task force on TW and ultimately lay out a procedure that would improve TW 

both for the user and for the inspection function. Until then, suspend inspecting meters for TW until there’s a better 

way to translate the standard into practice. Pending resolution of the issues involved, continue to use the meters, but 

mandate use of the standard Quart Kettle if a discount is involved. 

Professor Hurburgh, Iowa State University, agreed to head a task force to study the whole TW system (including the 

economic impact) and to recommend solutions to the issues that need fixing. Other task force members:

• Mr.Jeff Adkisson – Grain and Feed Association of Illinois

• Ms. G. Diane Lee – NIST, OWM

• Ms. Cassie Eigenmann – DICKEY-john Corporation

• Mr. Ivan Hankins – Iowa Deptartment of Agriculture/Weights and Measures

• Mr. Tim Kaeding – Perten Instruments, Inc.

• Mr. Karl Cunningham – Illinois Department of Agriculture

The Sector decided to postpone action on the issue of tolerances until the TW task force has studied the issue and 

has recommended action.

9. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 R 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds

Background/Discussion: 

This item was included on the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of 

OIML TC 17/SC 1. In October 2008, the Secretariat of TC 17/SC 1 was jointly allocated to China and the United 

States. The Co-Secretariats (China and the United States) are working closely with an International Work Group to 

revise OIML R59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds. The 5 CD of OIML R 59, revised to comply 

with OIML’s Guide Format for OIML Recommendations and to incorporate tests for the recommended disturbances 

of OIML D 11 General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments, was distributed to the subcommittee in 

February 2009. Comments to R 59 5 CD were received from 10 countries including the United States. A 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B29

preliminary R 59 6 CD addressing those comments was discussed at the September 28 - 29, 2010, TC 17/SC 1 

meeting in Orlando, Florida. 

Ms. Lee, NIST, OWM, briefed the Sector on the September 2010 meeting. The meeting was attended by 

representatives from Australia, International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML), Canada, China, Germany, Japan, 

and the United States. Attending for the United States: 

• Ms. Cathy Brenner, USDA, GIPSA

• Ms. Cassie Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corporation

• Ms. G. Diane Lee, NIST, OWM

• Dr. Richard Pierce, USDA, GIPSA

• Mr. Richard Cantrill

Twelve items were included in the review of the preliminary 6 CD that included all the United States comments to

R 59 5 CD:

1. Efforts to Establish Recognized Traceability Under the CIPMA MRA for “Moisture in Grain” 

Measurements

2. Printed Results

3. Description of Instruments

4. Reference Conditions for Performance Tests

5. Verification

6. Level Indicating Means

7. Minimum Sample Size

8. Definition for Error Shift

9. Software

10. Harmonizing the OIML Moisture and Protein Recommendation

11. Revisions to Test Report Forms for Consistency with Laboratory Calibration Worksheets

12. Detailed Review of Comments to R 59 CD 5 

Decisions made on the three items of most interest to the United States include:

• Printed Results – The existing language for recording elements in 5 CD will remain unchanged. The 

working group agreed that since a number of counties have varying requirements for printers that the 

existing language in OIML R 59 CD 5 which states that “the meter may be equipped with a communication 

interface that permits interfacing with a recording device” allows the instrument to connect to a printer if 

this is required by the national responsible body.

• Software – Germany reviewed the current draft to determine if additional changes are required to comply 

with OIML D 31 and provided a list of items to be considered for inclusion in the draft OIML R 59.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B30

• Minimum Sample Size – The requirements for Minimum Sample Size in 5 CD will remain the same. The 

purpose of the minimum sample size 100 g or 400 kernels or seeds is to ensure that accurate results can be 

obtained when testing non-homogeneous samples. A statement is also included that the national authorities 

may determine otherwise.

Ms. Lee, NIST, OWM, reported that there is a proposal on the international front to do a study of moisture 

measurement methods with the apparent purpose of establishing a universal standard method “internationally 

accepted by competent authorities in the field of moisture measurements in grains and cereal.” During the 

TC 17/SC 1 meeting Mr. Magana, BIML, gave an overview of a discussion paper titled, Efforts to Establish 

Recognized Traceability Under the CIPMA MRA for ‘Moisture-in-Grain’ Measurements. The Sector recalled that 

previous attempts to establish a universal standard method for measuring moisture in grain had failed. One member 

speculated as to whether or not the debates on selecting a single international reference method might be made to 

devalue the United States grain crops. The U.S. reference method for grain moisture determination is lower than the 

ICC method. Attempts to change the reference method were made years ago but received much opposition from 

industry. 

USDA and NIST, OWM are preparing a formal response to address the necessity to maintain the U.S. standard airoven method for determining grain/oilseed moisture. The U.S. grain standards, domestic grain trade, and 

control/evaluation of grain inventory are all based on this air-oven method.

10. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds

Background/Discussion: 

This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of OIML TC 17/SC 8. 

Subcommittee SC 8 was formed to study the issues and write a working draft document Measuring Instruments for 

Protein Determination in Grains. Australia is the Secretariat for this subcommittee. A TC 17/SC 8 meeting was 

hosted by NIST, OWM in September 2007 to discuss the 2 CD. Discussions on 2 CD dealt mostly with maximum 

permissible errors and harmonization of the TC 17/SC 8 Recommendation for protein with the TC 17/SC 1 

Recommendation for moisture. The Secretariat distributed a 2 CD of the document in February 2010. A meeting of 

TC 17/SC 8 was held September 2010 in Orlando, Florida. At the September meeting comments to the 

Recommendation on Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds 2 CD were reviewed. It was 

agreed at this meeting that two instruments will be submitted for OIML type approval. This agreed change and 

other changes from the September 2010 meeting will be included in 3 CD. 

Other changes agreed to at the September 2010 Meeting:

• Reference method instruments (e.g. Dumas or Kjeldahl instruments) will be removed from scope of the 

document.

• TC 17/SC 8 and TC 17/SC 1 will not attempt to merge type evaluation tests for the protein measuring 

instrument and the moisture meter due to potential differences in sample set requirements.

• Mutual acceptance of test results is possible for the influence and disturbance tests that are less dependent 

on the grain-specific calibrations. Member states are expected to facilitate mutual acceptance by 

harmonizing with the model tests.

• Due to regional and seasonal variation in the grain samples used for calibration and testing, countries are 

unlikely to accept the accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility tests conducted by another country (i.e., 

where foreign produce is developed as test samples). 

• The full protein measuring range specified by the country will be tested for accuracy, repeatability and 

reproducibility.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B31

• Detailed design of the tests including the number of test samples and how the test results are pooled to 

obtain the mean absolute error, SD, SDD and SDDI will be left to the national authorities.

• Some guidance on the minimum number of samples to be used across the full protein measuring range will 

be provided, e.g., min 45 samples distributed randomly over the full range.

Ms. Lee, NIST, OWM, reported that since the United States has an established system for protein measuring 

devices, the United States is trying to incorporate what has been done in the NTEP program for protein. Progress 

toward that goal should be noticeable in 3 CD when it is released.

11. Proficiency Testing

Source:

Ms. Johnson, American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS)

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2009 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, Professor Hurburgh, Iowa State University, urged the 

representatives from the AOCS to prepare a proposal so that the collaborative (air-oven) study could be conducted 

on an on-going basis rather than on an ad hoc basis. He cautioned that the proposal would have to include corn and 

wheat as well as soybeans. 

Several years ago the AOCS in conjunction with the United Soybean Board (USB) established the AOCS-USB 

Soybean Quality Traits (SQT) Analytical Standards Program (ASP), a system of verification of analytical 

measurements. This program provided the infrastructure for the generation of reliable analytical results at all levels 

of the soybean industry by establishing industry-wide acceptance of analytical methods and protocols and their 

implementation under internationally accepted quality management standards. The AOCS has proposed the addition 

of an air-oven/grain moisture meter proficiency testing series to their ASP. Proficiency testing is a continuous 

program, samples are sent out in regular intervals (e.g., two to four times per year). Participants are able to join on a 

continuous basis.

Ms. Johnson, AOCS, proposed an air-oven/GMM proficiency testing series designed specifically to address the 

needs of GMM manufacturers and states maintaining a grain moisture laboratory. AOCS would administer the 

program, oversee distribution of samples, compile results, perform statistical analysis of results, and distribute a 

report to participants. AOCS does not collect the samples. This is subcontracted to suitable providers. AOCS does 

not have laboratories. Since GIPSA is a certified laboratory already participating in the SQT program, GIPSA airoven results could be reported for comparison if desired.

At a previous meeting, the Sector decided that a program that included distribution of two samples each of corn, 

wheat (preferably of one type), and soybeans per year would be adequate. A final report by mid-July is desirable, so 

sample distribution would have to take place in early spring (March – April).

Conclusion: 

Ms. Johnson, AOCS, presented details of the proposed Air-Oven and Moisture Meter Proficiency Testing Program 

designed specifically for the NTETC Gain Analyzer Sector for review by the Sector. The proposal included 

provisions for collecting moisture meter results in addition to air-oven results on the program samples. Several 

sector members objected to including moisture meter results stressing that this was not intended to be “backdoor 

Phase II program”. Testing moisture meter calibrations is an activity requiring a large number of samples. Two 

samples per grain are not adequate to assess meter performance. The Sector decided that the program should focus 

solely on the standard GIPSA air-oven method. 

Program Details:

• Samples – Soybeans 2, Corn 2, Hard Red Winter Wheat 2

• Cost to Participants - $100.00/year
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B32

Schedule:

• Samples (6) ship on the 15th of February

• Samples must be tested within five business days with results due by 15 March

• Reports will be posted on www.SoybeanQualityTraits.org by 1 May

• Detailed Participant Instructions will be provided to each participant

The Sector endorsed the proposal with the exclusion of instrument results.

12. Printed Ticket User Requirements

Source:

Mr. Adkisson, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois

Purpose:

The submitter believes that NIST Handbook 44 User Requirements for Printed Tickets, as specified in section 

5.56.(a), paragraph UR.3.4.(b) are not realistic for country elevators. Traffic patterns at country elevators do not 

lend themselves to providing a printed ticket to all customers. Many customers, in fact, do not want them. In 

addition, since meters in Illinois are inspected and are required to be using the correct calibration, there is no need 

for the calibration version identification to be printed on the ticket.

Item Under Consideration:

Mr. Adkisson, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois, has proposed that GMMs be allowed to print [and display] 

“approximate test weight,” and that NIST Handbook 44, section 5.56.(a), paragraph UR.3.4.(b) be modified as 

shown: 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets.

(b) If requested Tthe customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type, grain moisture 

results, and actual or approximate test weight per bushel,. and calibration version identification. 

The ticket shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system.

(Amended 1993, 1995, and 2003, and 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The Sector heard objections to including “actual or approximate” test weight in light of the Sector’s decision to form 

a task force to study the whole TW system and to recommend solutions to the issues that need fixing (see Agenda 

Item 8). Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, agreed that “actual or approximate” would be difficult words to get 

approved. He pointed out that this issue was really not something that the Sector has to decide, because it wasn’t an 

NTEP issue. He suggested that it be submitted through the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

that would be meeting in September. Mr. Hankins, Iowa Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures, agreed 

to submit the issue to the CWMA. 

Mr. Pierce, USDA, GIPSA, pointed out that an unsuccessful attempt had been made in 1994 to delete the portion of 

paragraph UR.3.4. stipulating that the customer receive a ticket. At the 1994 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T 

Committee maintained the position that the system should print the information; the information should not be 

handwritten or printed with a device separate from the grain moisture measuring system. The Committee had not 

received sufficient justification to warrant reversing the decision made by NCWM in 1993. They decided that this 

item should remain Informational to allow an opportunity for additional information to be submitted; however, they 

warned that the item would be withdrawn from the Committee's 1995 agenda unless additional information was 

provided to support making changes to this paragraph. See Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994, Report of the S&T 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B33

Committee, Item 356-6, UR.3.4. Printed Tickets. Note: Item 356-6 did not appear in the Report of the 80th NCWM, 

1995. 

The Sector generally agreed that modification of UR.3.4.(b) to make a printed ticket available upon request was 

more likely to be accepted by the S&T Committee citing “Pay at the Pump” credit/debit card transactions where the 

customer is given the choice of whether or not to have a receipt printed. The Sector was not in favor of eliminating 

“calibration version identification” believing that this is important information in the event that the ticket is ever 

questioned.

The Sector developed the following language for the submission to CWMA:

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets.

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing. A printed ticket shall be made available to 

the customer upon request at the time of transaction. The printed ticket shall show the date, 

grain type, grain moisture results, test weight per bushel, and calibration version identification. The 

ticket information shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system.

(Amended 1993, 1995, and 2003, and 20XX) 

13. Next Sector Meeting

The next NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting is tentatively planned for Wednesday, August 22 and Thursday, 

August 23, 2012, at the Chase Suites by Woodfin at KCI in Kansas City, Missouri. Sector members are asked to 

hold these days open pending confirmation of availability of facility, determination of agenda items, exact meeting 

times, and meeting duration. Final meeting details will be announced by early June 2012. 

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2012 meeting, please contact any of the following persons by 

June 1, 2012:

• Mr. Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, at jim.truex@ncwm.net

• Ms. G. Diane Lee, Co-Technical Advisor, at diane.lee@nist.gov

• Mr. Jack Barber, Co-Technical Advisor, at barber.jw@comcast.net

14. Unified Grain Moisture Algorithm – Update

At the 2010 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, Dr. Funk, USDA FGIS QARD QCT Branch, made a 

presentation entitled, Future Direction of Moisture Measurement Technology. In that presentation he offered a 

proposed timeline for choosing and implementing a new moisture technology that offers improved accuracy, better 

stability over time and crop conditions, easier calibration development, reduced support cost, and that provides

competition (it can be duplicated by any manufacturer). At the 2011 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting he 

brought the Sector up-to-date on the progress made since the Sector’s 2010 meeting. 

Significant Milestones Since the Sector’s Last Meeting:

• August 2010 – The GIPSA Executive Management Team decided to pursue adoption of new Official 

moisture measurement technology.

• June 2011 – The Grain Inspection Advisory Committee recommended that GIPSA continue to go forward 

with the evaluation and adoption of the 149 MHz technology as the new official standard for grain moisture 

measurement.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B34

Projected Timeline for Implementing the New Technology:

• July 2011 - January 2012

• Collect calibration data for new technology.

• Conduct additional “green” grain tests to quantify effects. 

• Develop detailed criteria and test processes for determining? (UGMA)-compatibility.

• Verify consistency among UGMA-based moisture meters.

• February 2012

• Finalize technology decision.

• May 2012

• Develop and validate calibrations for officially-inspected gain types.

• May 2013

• Implement new technology for initial grains. 

• September 2013 and later

• Implement new technology for other grains.

Implications for NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

• Calibration review and modifications for official moisture system may be significantly reduced upon

adoption of UGMA as Official moisture technology.

• Phase II testing may be reduced or eliminated after current 5-year agreement expires.

• Official approval of UGMA-compatible instruments may be based on confirmation of UGMAcompatibility rather than extensive moisture tests.

• NTEP certification of UGMA-compatible instruments might be similarly simplified.

Following Dr. Funk’s presentation to the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector, he conducted a question and answer 

session. Some of the questions and his responses are shown below:

Question: 

This is very significant work. I hope USDA is getting a royalty on this. 

Answer: 

No, all this is in the public domain. GIPSA decided to make it freely available to anybody wanting to use it.

Question: 

How did the? (GAC) get chosen to replace the Motomco?
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B35

Answer: 

After the 1990 Farm Bill, GIPSA set up a process by which we could choose a new official meter. The first “gate”

we set up was that the new official meter must be NTEP certified. Once we had a reasonable pool of NTEPcertified meters, we developed a set of performance criteria and a bid selection process that became the basis of 

procurement. The GAC 2100 was the successful bidder.

Question: 

In the future will there be an opportunity for another company to become the standard of choice?

Answer: 

It’s not limiting to say we have two manufacturers here. In the future I expect to see more. The idea is that for 

official inspection consistency is the name of the game. If you’re using fundamentally different technologies they 

are all measuring different things. The error (difference between instrument types) on a sample-by-sample basis 

may be 1.4 times as great as the error of any one of the instruments relative to the air-oven. So having multiple 

types of instruments in the system is not tenable because of the inconsistencies it generates from market point to 

market point. What we have done in this instance from the very beginning is to provide the means for multiple 

manufacturers to provide equivalent instrumentation. We are limiting competition in one sense (by restricting it to 

149 MHz UGMA technology), but we are saying that instruments from different manufacturers are going to have to 

give equivalent results and use the same calibrations.

Question: 

How is this technology able to measure frozen grain, and is it able to measure as accurately within normal 

moistures?

Answer: 

At the higher frequency of the new technology, if you plot the dielectric constant of wet sand as a function of 

temperature, you will find that the dielectric constant decreases slowly with decreasing temperature (from hot to 

cold) linearly until it reaches the freezing point—at which time it plunges abruptly downward and remains constant. 

A plot of the dielectric constant of moderately moist grain decreases as the temperature decreases, but when it 

reaches the freezing point it continues to decrease. The question is, under what conditions the grain continues to 

decrease linearly instead of dropping sharply. The answer is, as long as the grain is at a moisture level below the 

level where it contains freezable water it will exhibit linear behavior. That moisture level is around 20 % for cereal 

grains, a little below 20 % for soybeans, and for other oil seeds such as canola or sunflower it is down to below 

15 % or even to 10 %. The fact is, there is a linear function there that is not destroyed by freezing if you limit the 

conditions. You can’t test 30% moisture cereal grain at − 10 °C and get reasonable results. What you see if you do 

that is 20 % moisture. Anything, whether it is 21 %, 25 %, or 40 %, what you will see is 20 %, because that water 

which is above that 20 % threshold just freezes out and is invisible. As long as the moisture is below that threshold 

level, you can trust the results (if the temperature measurement is accurate and the temperature correction function is 

appropriate).

Question: 

In the past, what we have done in the code has always been non-retroactive? That means, if we continue with that 

policy, that existing meters will stay in the field, and more than likely they will be in the field for 30 years. If 

government Phase II support goes away, who supports the existing meters?

Answer:

I’m not saying it will go away, only that it could go away. GIPSA is heavily supporting Phase II both with an 

annual contribution of $30,000 plus full support of the sample gathering and testing that is required to maintain the 

calibrations for the official meter. (In addition, NIST, OWM contributes $30,000 per year.) With budgets going the 

way they are, activities (such as Phase II testing) that are not clearly required to support the official system may not 

survive, unless manufacturers or other sources are willing to fully support them.

After Dr. Funk concluded his presentation and question and answer session, the Sector heard additional questions 

and concerns related to the possible discontinuance of Phase II for GMMs. These included:

• How will manufacturers of existing non-UGMA GMMs and NIR instruments keep their NTEP CCs active?
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B36

• How will NIR instruments that aren’t yet designed be certified?

• Why are NIR protein, oil, and etc. calibrations not checked the same as moisture calibrations?

• What are the additional implications of abandoning Phase II?

• What are the additional implications to the GMM Chapter of NCWM Publication 14? 

• What are the additional implications to the NIR Grain Analyzer Chapter of NCWM Publication 14? 

These issues will have to be a carryover to the 2012 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting.

ATTENDANCE

Jeff Adkisson

Grain and Feed Association of Illinois

3521 Hollis Drive

Springfield, IL 62711

(217) 787-2417

jeffa@grai.org

Jack Barber

JB Associates

10349 Old Indian Trail

Glenarm, IL 62536

(217) 483-4232

barber.jw@comcast.net

Cathy Brenner

USDA GIPSA

10383 North Ambassador Drive

Kansas City, MO 64153-1394

(816) 891-0486

cathleen.a.brenner@usda.gov

Randy Burns

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

#1 Natural Resources Drive

Little Rock, AR 72203

(501) 219-6307

randy.burns@aspb.ar.gov

Richard Cantrill

AOCS

2710 South Boulder Drive

Urbana, IL 61802

(217) 693-4830

richard.cantrill@aocs.org

Karl Cunningham

Illinois Department of Agriculture

801 Sangamon Avenue East

Springfield, IL 62702

(217) 785-8301

karl.cunningham@illinois.gov

Cassie Eigenmann

DICKEY-john Corporation

5200 Dickey-john Road

Auburn, IL 62615

(217) 438-2294

ceigenmann@dickey-john.com

Andrew Gell

FOSS North America

8091 Wallace Road

Eden Prairie, MN 55344

(952) 974-9892 x300

agell@fossnorthamerica.com

Ivan Hankins

Iowa Department of Agriculture 

Weights and Measures

2230 South Ankeny Boulevard

Ankeny, IA 50023

(515) 725-1493

ivan.hankins@iowaagriculture.gov

Tony Herrin

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company

203 E. Daugherty

Webb City, MO 64870

(417) 673-4631

therrin@cardet.com
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B37

Thomas Hughes

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Boulevard

Jefferson City, MO 65109

(573) 751-9487

tom.hughes@mda.mo.gov

Charles Hurburgh

Iowa State University

1541 Food Science, ISU

Ames, IA 50014

(515) 294-8629

tatry@iastate.edu

Patricia Jackson

USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, TSD

10383 N. Ambassador Drive

Kansas City, MO 64153-1394

(816) 891-0450

patricia.j.jackson@usda.gov

Amy Johnson

AOCS/Soybean Quality Traits Program

2710 South Boulder Drive

Urbana, IL 61801

(217) 693-4820

amyj@aocs.org

Tim Kaeding

Perten Instruments, Inc.

6444 S Sixth Street Road

Springfield, IL 62712

(217) 585-9440

tkaeding@perten.com

G. Diane Lee

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20707

(301) 975-4405

diane.lee@nist.gov

Abdulla Mubarak

Cargill, Inc.

1400 South Blount St

Raleigh, NC 27603

(919) 899-6613

abdulla_mubarak@cargill.com

Rich Pierce

USDA, GIPSA Technical Services Division

10381 North Ambassador Drive

Kansas City, MO 64153

(816) 891-0430

richard.o.pierce@usda.gov

Jim Rouse

Iowa Crop Improvement Association

4611 Mortensen Road

Suite 101

Ames, IA 50014

(515) 294-6921

rouse@iastate.edu

Jim Truex

National Conference on Weights and Measures

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

(740) 919-4350

jim.truex@ncwm.net
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - B38

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C1 

Appendix C 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)

Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

October 21 - 22, 2011

Norfolk, Virginia

INTRODUCTION

The charge of the NTETC Measuring Sector (herein after referred to as “Sector”) is to provide appropriate type 

evaluation criteria based on specifications, tolerances and technical requirements of NIST Handbook 44, 

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, Sections 

1.10. General Code and all portions of Section 3 including codes for Liquid Measuring Devices, Vehicle Tanks 

Meters, Liquid Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Measuring Devices, Cryogenic Liquid Measuring Devices, 

Milk Meters, Water Meters, Mass Flow Meters, and Carbon Dioxide Liquid Measuring Devices. The Sector’s 

recommendations are presented to the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee each January for 

approval and inclusion in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures for national 

type evaluation.

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors, and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties.

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Note: It is policy to use metric units of measurement in publications; however, recommendations received by 

NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this publication 

as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Content NTEP - C Page

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... C1

CARRY-OVER ITEMS ............................................................................................................. C3

1. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U Evaluating Electronic Indicators Submitted Separate 

from a Measuring Element.................................................................................................................... C3

2. Development of Water Meters Checklist .............................................................................................. C6

3. Development of Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices Checklist........................................................... C10

4. Product Families Table – Include Water on Existing NTEP CC’s...................................................... C11

5. Product Families Table – Change Test Requirements for Turbine Meters from Test A to Test E...... C14

6. Product Families Table – Consolidate Product Categories for PD and Turbine Meters..................... C15

7. Add Metrological Sealing Checklist to Measuring Devices NCWM Publication 14.......................... C18

8. Product Families Table – Categorization of Liquid CO2 .................................................................... C19

9. Product Families Table – Add Hydrogen (Compressed Gas) ............................................................. C19

10. Add Units for Compressed Gases to Technical Policy V. List of Price and Quantity Markings 

on Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers (RMFDs) ........................................................................................ C20

11. Certificate of Conformance Parameters for Measuring Devices......................................................... C21

12. Test for Mathematical Agreement of Card Reader after Power Loss.................................................. C22
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C2 

13. Device Marking for Electronic Linearization for Meters.................................................................... C22

14. Product Families Table - Restore Notation “(Above 50 °C)” to the Heated Products Category 

Definition ............................................................................................................................................ C24

15. Next Meeting....................................................................................................................................... C25

ADDITIONAL ITEMS ............................................................................................................. C25

16. Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters; Paragraph T.4. Product Depletion Test...................................... C25

17. OIML B 3 Basic Certificate System for OIML Type Evaluation of Measuring Instruments and 

OIML B 10 Framework for a MAA on OIML Type Evaluations....................................................... C28

18. G-S.1. Marking (Software).................................................................................................................. C28

19. Interpretation of VTM Code 3.31., Paragraph S.2.4., with Regard to Individual vs. Multiple 

Deliveries............................................................................................................................................ C29

ACTION ITEMS TABLE ........................................................................................................ C30

ATTENDANCE......................................................................................................................... C32

APPENDICIES

Appendix A— Draft National Type Evaluation Program Evaluating Digial Indicators – Checklists

And Test Procedures....................................................................................................... C / A1

Appendix B— Draft National Type Evaluation Program Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional

Checklists and Test Procedures for Water Meters .......................................................... C / B1

Appendix C— Draft National Type Evaluation Program Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional

Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – Measuring Devices ...................... C / C1

Appendix D— Draft NCWM Publication 14, Liquid Meauring Devices 2.16........................................ C / D1

Appendix E— Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family .....................................................................C / E1

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

AWWA American Water Works Association NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

CC Certificate of Conformance NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

CIML International Committee of Legal 

Metrology

OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

CNG Compressed Natural Gas OWM Office of Weights and Measures

CTEP California Type Evaluation Program RMFD Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

DEF Diesel Exhaust Fluid S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee

LMD Liquid Measuring Devices SWMA Southern Weights and Measures 

Association

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures

USNWG U.S. National Work Group

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

VTM Vehicle Tank Meter
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C3 

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

CARRY-OVER ITEMS

1. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U Evaluating Electronic Indicators Submitted 

Separate from a Measuring Element

Source: 

California NTEP Lab – Carryover from 2007-2010 NTETC Measuring Sector Agendas

Background/Discussion: 

At its 2007 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, the Sector heard that Section U. of the NTEP Technical Policy in 

NCWM Publication 14 allows for testing an indicator separate from a measuring element. However, specific test 

criteria had not been developed for this section. The Sector heard a recommendation to develop and add specific 

criteria for testing an indicator separate from a measuring element for this section. From 2007 to 2010, the 

California NTEP laboratory worked to develop a checklist, but had received limited input on the drafts. At the 2010 

NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, Mr. Reiswig, California Division of Measurement Standards, presented a list of 

the areas of the draft checklist that specifically needed further attention and review. The Sector reviewed these 

items and agreed that Mr. Reiswig should continue developing the checklist for Electronic Indicators Submitted 

Separate from a Measuring Element. 

The Sector identified five points that require further development and input from industry in order to finalize the 

checklist. The Sector also identified a list of people who might be able to provide additional input. The Sector

agreed that Mr. Reiswig should forward the latest draft of the checklist along with the five areas requiring specific 

attention to the people listed in the original work group and to the list of possible contacts identified by the Sector. 

Mr. Reiswig should ask for their assistance in reviewing and commenting on the checklist, noting that input on the 

five areas would be of particular help.

The Sector heard a report from Mr. Ingram, California Division of Measurement Standards, on the status of the 

checklist. Mr. Ingram reported that Mr. Reiswig has changed positions within California Department of Food and 

Agriculture and that Mr. Ingram would represent the State of California at the 2011 NTETC Measuring Sector 

Meeting. Mr. Ingram noted that not much additional input had been received and the checklist has not changed 

since the Sector had last seen it in March of 2010 because of such limited feedback. Mr. Frailer, Maryland

Department of Agriculture asked if the checklist had been used in California, to which Mr. Ingram replied that some 

of the checklist tests had been applied on systems with temperature compensation in California. Mr. Ingram 

recommended that the work group be re-formed to complete the draft checklist initiated by Mr. Reiswig and also the 

associated changes to reflect the use of simulated pulses proposed in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy T. 

Testing Required for Electronic Indicators Used with Measuring Elements. 

Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc., inquired if the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) would be able to complete the work. Ms. Butcher, 

NIST, OWM, pointed out that, while NIST, OWM is certainly willing to assist in advancing the work along, the 

checklist is at a stage where what is most needed is careful consideration by the stakeholders that would be most 

affected by the checklist. Several industry members suggested that a deadline for comments should be set to 

facilitate moving the item forward on a predictable timeline. Mr. Keilty, Chair noted that there are several sections 

in the current draft that are highlighted. Mr. Ingram explained that these represent sections where Mr. Reiswig still 

had open questions or concerns about the applicability and validity of those items. Mr. Keilty stated that he did not 

see any problems with anything he had seen so far, but that he did not believe the checklist would be ready to be 

incorporated into NCWM Publication 14 until the highlighted areas had been reviewed and validated by the 

stakeholders.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C4 

Mr. Keilty pointed out that the Sector had agreed at its 2010 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting that the item had 

merit and should remain on the agenda. Mr. Miller commented that testing of electronic indicators is currently done, 

but that the checklist is needed to establish uniformity in how and what tests are applied in these cases. He stated 

that he believed the Sector would need someone to drive the issue in order to complete the checklist and volunteered 

to lead a work group. Two NTEP laboratory representatives volunteered to review and comment on the final 

product of the work group. 

The Sector then discussed the scope of work needed to complete the checklist, noting that all the sections left 

highlighted by Mr. Reiswig should be resolved. Mr. Katalinic, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, 

commented that the work group should also address the five specific points that the Sector had listed during the 

2010 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting. The Sector revisited these points and made some clarifications to them, as

noted in the decision below.

Mr. Keilty proposed a timeline with the first review in one to two months to allow the laboratories time to review 

the results and comment such that exact language would be ready for inclusion in NCWM Publication 14 before 

NCWM Interim Meeting in January.

Conclusion:

The Sector agreed that additional work is needed to finalize the checklist. Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies 

Measurement Solutions, Inc., volunteered to serve as Chair of the work group and Mr. Buttler, NIST, OWM will 

assist as needed and monitor progress of work.

Electronic Indicators Checklist Work Group members are: (Established at the October 21 - 22, 2011, NTETC 

Measuring Sector Meeting) 

Chair: 

Mr. Rich Miller, FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

Members:

• Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls

• Mr. Michael Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA

Review and Comment:

• Mr. Michael Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA

• Mr. Allen Katalinic, North Carolina Department of Agriculture

NIST Technical Advisor

• Mr. Marc Buttler, NIST, OWM

The work group is asked to address the highlighted sections of the draft checklist along with the following points 

and submit the finished checklist to the two laboratory representatives listed above for review and comment.

1. A minimum of 10 000 pulses must be collected. To ensure that there will be a change in the displayed 

indication for each pulse received, the electronic indication should be scaled such that the value of the 

smallest indicated division should equate to less than or equal to the value associated with one input pulse.

2. It is important to validate whether ± 1 pulse is an appropriate tolerance, taking into consideration applicable 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) requirements.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C5 

3. The number of different temperature inputs and API gravity values that would need to be tested to 

adequately verify the temperature compensation function of an electronic indicator must be determined. 

Spot checking of three random tables at three different temperatures would be adequate to verify an 

indicator’s temperature compensation feature is functioning properly.

4. The work group should add a step in the checklist for checking multi-point calibration along with 

associated guidance. This guidance should emphasize the necessity of working with the manufacturer of 

each device in order to set up tests to properly check multipoint calibration using simulated pulses.

5. Addressing various different input signal formats including pulses, analog, and digital communication will 

be challenging. Analog (4 - 20 mA) input devices are to be excluded from the scope at this time. The work 

group is asked to address pulse (frequency) signals in the final version of the checklist and is asked to 

consider whether or not to also include digital communications.

Appendix A contains the draft checklist. Below are the proposed revisions to Technical Policy T. 

Many different kinds of electronic indicators are available for liquid measurement. Gas pumps, vehicle tank meters, 

and wholesale meters are common applications used. In some cases, the same indicator can be used in multiple 

applications. Below are some guidelines and test procedures to be incorporated into Publication 14 to allow the 

manufactures to pretest to and to make uniform the testing for the NTEP labs for this technology.

T. Testing required for Electronic Indicators used with Measuring Elements.

If the indicator and measuring element are built into the system as a whole device then they are approved 

as a system and listed as a single device on the certificate.

If the indicator or measuring element are separable and can be used with other approved and compatible 

equipment then the following needs to be considered:

If the Electronic Indicator and Measuring Element both have a CC then the two do not need evaluation 

provided new features that would have a metrological effect have not been added to the existing 

equipment. Even though they both have a CC they still need compatibility verification i.e. approved and 

compatible. This can be verified at the local level of compliance.

If neither the Electronic Indicator or Measuring Element do not have a CC then full testing will be 

performed as per Pub 14 permanence testing for Electronic Indicating Element (20 - 30 days of 

significant use) and Measuring Element (through put).

If the Electronic Indicator does not have a CC but the Measuring Element has a CC then the Register 

will go through the 20 - 30 day permanence test.

If the Electronic Indicator has a CC but the Measuring Element does not then the measuring element will 

go through the associated through put as per the permanence for that particular technology.

Upon verification of the local authority, the NTEP lab may allow the local authority to conduct one phase 

of the evaluation, at the NTEP labs direction and control.

Testing considerations for the electronic indicator:

1. Multi-point Calibration: 

Some of the newer indicators have the optional single point or multi-point calibration. Multi-point 

calibration associates multiple meter calibration factors with different flow rates. Meter field testing 

at the local level is usually at the maximum and minimum flow ratings of the meter. Without the 

ability to print or view the multi-point parameters a meter could be calibrated with an intentional 

erroneous factor and could go undetected. The only other way would be to test at random flow rates 

and depending on the number of calibration points fraud could still be undetected; i.e., a meter 

factor that would allow an out of tolerance error for a delivery flow rate other than customary test 

flow rates.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C6 

Some manufactures have provided a method for weights and measures to view or print the 

calibration information without having to break any seals. This viewing or printing capability should 

be incorporated into NCWM Publication 14 (maybe NIST Handbook 44 too?) as a tool for W/M to 

be able to detect the possibility of fraud on these systems. It would also allow for manufactures to be 

aware of this and build this into their systems that have multi-point calibration.

2. Tests for temperature compensation:

a. Temperature test at cold temperature and verify correction.

b. Temperature test at hot temperature.

c. Temperature test at field site temperature.

d. List temperature range tested and type of probe tested on certificate.

3. Tests for pulser/encoder rotation speed:

a. Induce pulses and/or frequency at maximum to determine limitations of device.

b. Induce pulses and/or frequency at minimum to determine limitations of device.

c. List limitations on certificate.

4. Tests for power failure: Indicators are capable of operating on different voltages. May want to 

consider weighing device testing for electronic indicators and information listed on certificate.

a. Test through AC voltage range

b. Test through DC voltage range

c. Power failure

5. Tests for computation, if capable.

a. Test below $.999/gal.

b. Test above $1.00/gal.

c. Test above $2.00/gal.

d. Test at maximum unit price capability.

6. Tests for agreement of indications between indicator and totalizer if a totalizer is provided.

2. Development of Water Meters Checklist

Source: 

Mr. Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc. – Carryover from 2010 Measuring Sector Agenda

Background/Discussion: 

At its 2010 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, the Sector heard that utility type water meter manufacturers are 

receiving requests for NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CCs) from State weights and measures jurisdictions. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C7 

There is no NTEP checklist for utility-type water meters. However, utility-type water meters covered by NIST 

Handbook 44, Section 3.36. are evaluated under the California Type Evaluation Program (CTEP). 

During the 2010 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, the Sector agreed to establish a work group to further develop

the draft NTEP checklist. The Water Meters Checklist Development Work Group consisted of the following 

members:

• Mr. Andre Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

• Mr. Dan Reiswig, California Division of Measurement Standards

In developing the checklist, the work group was asked to:

1. Identify areas in NIST Handbook 44 Section 3.36. Water Meters Code where changes might be appropriate 

to update the criteria to reflect current technology and practices. For example, more specific audit trail 

criteria may need to be added to the Water Meters Code. 

2. Forward any proposed changes to NIST Handbook 44 to NCWM S&T Committee via the established 

NCWM process by preparing and submitting NCWM Form 15 to the regional weights and measures 

associations and NTETC Measuring Sector.

3. Consider any differences between American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards and NIST 

Handbook 44 and consider recommendations for aligning the two documents where that makes sense.

4. Copy the NTETC Measuring Sector Chair, Mr. Keilty, and NIST Technical Advisor, Mr. Buttler, on 

communications to the work group.

5. Copy the U.S. point of contact for OIML R 49, Mr. Richter, NIST, OWM, with any proposed drafts.

6. Distribute a subsequent draft for review by the Sector by the January 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting.

7. Distribute a final draft for review by the Sector at least a month prior to the fall 2011 NTETC Measuring 

Sector meeting.

At its 2011 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, the Sector heard a report from Mr. Noel, Neptune Technology

Group, Inc., on the progress of the checklist and status of action items from the 2010 NTETC Measuring Sector 

Meeting. Mr. Noel reported that multiple manufacturers who are all members of AWWA had compared AWWA 

and NIST Handbook 44 standards. Based on that review, this work group has developed and submitted a proposal 

to modify NIST Handbook 44 to further harmonize the two standards. Mr. Noel stated that the work group believes 

there will always be some differences, but manufacturers are committed to working with state and county weights 

and measures officials to identify and gradually eliminate differences. On October 11, 2011, Mr. Noel forwarded a 

draft Water Meters Checklist to Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, who coordinated posting of the document as 

attachment #6 to the 2011 NTETC Measuring Sector Agenda. Mr. Buttler reported that he also forwarded the draft 

checklist to Mr. Richter, NIST, OWM, who is the U.S. point of contact for OIML R 49.

Mr. Noel explained that only the content beginning on page 13 of the draft Water Meter Checklist would need to be 

included if it was decided to incorporate the checklist into the Liquid Measuring Devices (LMD) section of NCWM 

Publication 14. The rest of the information on the first 12 pages would only be needed if the Water Meter Checklist 

were to be added as a completely separate section.

Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, requested an explanation of the rationale behind the statement in the proposed 

permanence test requirements that “Flow rates during throughput testing are not to exceed 50 % of the 

manufacturer’s rated maximum flow rate.” Mr. Noel responded that it was related to California laboratory testing 

criteria and that AWWA standards state that, for permanence, continuous flow should be half of its maximum. Ms. 

Butcher stated that the requirement did not seem logical as compared to test site selection criteria for other meters 

because it implies that the meter will not pass if it has been run from 50 % to 100 % of the stated limit. In assessing 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C8 

the suitability of a given site for permanence testing, NTEP typically considers whether or not flow rates that can be 

achieved at a site are reflective of the range requested on the CC. For example, given a meter with a rated minimum 

flow of 20 gpm and maximum flow of 100 gpm, if a company picked a site that never got above 30 gpm, one might 

question whether or not the site would be adequate to demonstrate sustained performance over the rated flow range. 

Mr. Noel explained that the meter could still be tested for performance within tolerance up to the maximum rate; it 

was only the flow rate during the accumulation of the required throughput that was intended to be limited to 50 % of 

maximum rated flow. He also pointed out that throughput flow rates for other device types undergoing type 

evaluation are typically under the control of the equipment owner and that there is no stated requirement about the 

flow rate at which the throughput must be accumulated. He further noted that water meters are somewhat unique in 

that throughput during type evaluation is often under the control of a state laboratory. This difference is cited as the 

reason that a statement about the throughput flow rate is even necessary. The Sector went on to discuss whether to 

add a note identifying AWWA as the source of the 50 % constraint on permanence throughput flow rate and 

decided, if captured in the NTETC Measuring Sector Summary it isn’t necessary to add a note to NCWM 

Publication 14.

The Sector discussed the application of the special tolerance for water meters. It was noted that the far right column

of Table T.1. of Section 3.36. Water Meters in NIST Handbook 44 is labeled as “Tolerance for Special Tests 

Conducted at the Minimum Flow Rate.” Mr. Noel explained that the application of the special tolerance only at the 

minimum flow rate for water meters is in harmony with AWWA standards. It was also noted that for LMD there is 

a difference between the calculation stated in NCWM Publication 14 Technical Policy B. Tolerance Application for 

the lowest flow rate for a normal test ([50 % of the rated maximum flow rate + the rated minimum flow rate]/2) and 

the calculation stated in NIST Handbook 44 Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices paragraph N.4.1. Normal 

Tests. for the lowest flow rate considered to be a normal test (flow rates below one-half of the sum of the maximum 

discharge flow rate and the rated minimum discharge flow rate). Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, noted that, 

according to item 1.B) in the 1998 NTETC Measuring Sector Summary, the addition of the 50 % multiplier to the 

maximum rated flow rate in the calculation in NCWM Publication 14 is intentional. The purpose of the more 

restrictive criteria is to demonstrate during type approval testing that a device of the same type will comply with 

NIST Handbook 44 in the most conservative case wherein the maximum discharge rate of the device in a given 

application may be as low as 50 % of the device’s rated maximum flow rate.

The Sector noted that there exist differences between the criteria stated under the heading Normal Test Tolerances in 

Technical Policy B. Tolerance Application from the LMD section of NCWM Publication 14 and the requirements in 

NIST Handbook 44. Certain sections of the code in NIST Handbook 44 define the criteria for applying normal test 

tolerances differently than Technical Policy B. Two examples were discussed. The first example was in Section 

3.36. Water Meters where the heading “Tolerance for Special Tests Conducted at the Minimum Flow Rate” appears 

in the farthest right column of Table T.1. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Water Meters. The second example 

was in Section 3.37. Mass Flow Meters where the criteria for Normal Tests in N.6.1. includes “Any additional tests 

conducted at flow rates down to and including the rated minimum discharge flow rate.” The Sector agreed that 

Technical Policy B. in NCWM Publication 14 must be revised to acknowledge these and any other exceptions in

NIST Handbook 44. 

Conclusion:

The Sector modified the draft checklist in order to incorporate it into the LMD section in NCWM Publication 14. 

The four checklist items in the draft under the heading Additional Checklist and Test Procedures for Water Meters

were renumbered as items 44 through 47 so that they could be appended after the highest number item (43) currently 

in the LMD checklist. The Sector also agreed to propose Paragraph L. Laboratory Evaluation and Permanence Tests 

for Utility Type Water Meters as originally presented. All other information in the draft Water Meter Checklist was 

removed, as it is redundant to content already contained in the LMD section of NCWM Publication 14. This was 

done to prepare the proposal as an addendum to the LMD section instead of as a separate stand-alone checklist.

The Sector unanimously agreed to recommend the modified proposal as shown in Appendix B to the NTEP

Committee for incorporation into NCWM Publication 14 as checklist items 44 through 47. The proposed language 

for Paragraph L. Laboratory and Permanence Tests for Utility Type Water Meters is below:

L. Laboratory Evaluation and Permanence Tests for Utility Type Water Meters

All new-design meters are subject to a permanence test. NTEP reserves the right to require a 

permanence test based on the results of the initial examination.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C9 

Initial Examination

1. All meters of the new type installed at the type evaluation location are subject to evaluation. At least 

three meters of the same model must be tested.

2. At least three meters will be chosen for throughput testing on water. The minimum number of tests 

to be conducted for each of these meters will include the following:

• Three tests at the maximum flow rate

• Three tests at the intermediate flow rate

• Three tests at the minimum flow rate

3. All meters must perform within acceptance tolerance. 

4. Repeatability - When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, each test 

shall be within the applicable tolerances and the range of test results shall not exceed the following 

values:

a. 0.6 percent for tests conducted at Normal Flow Rates

b. 2.0 percent for tests conducted at Intermediate Flow Rates

c. 4.0 percent for tests conducted at Minimum Flow Rates

Subsequent Examination

1. Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of 

flow rates are to be included on the certificate of conformance provided the results are within the 

applicable tolerances.

2. The examination will be conducted as applicable:

• 200,000 gallons for throughput testing for mechanical changes of metrological significance

• Flow rates during throughput testing are not to exceed 50 % of the manufacturers rated 

maximum flow rate

3. Three tests at maximum, intermediate and minimum flow rate will be made on the throughput 

meters. Only one test at each flow rate needs to be performed on any remaining meters.

4. Repeatability – When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, each test 

shall be within the applicable tolerances and the range of test results shall not exceed the following 

values:

a. 0.6 percent for tests conducted at Normal Flow Rates

b. 2.0 percent for tests conducted at Intermediate Flow Rates

To acknowledge the exceptions between NIST Handbook 44 and the method of applying normal test tolerances 

stated in Technical Policy B. Tolerance Application, the Sector also unanimously agreed to send a proposal to 

amend Technical Policy B. such that the text under the heading of “Normal Test Tolerances” would read as follows:
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C10

“For the purpose of calculating tolerances, unless otherwise specified in Publication 14 (e.g. utility-type 

water meters and mass flow meters), normal tests conducted in an NTEP evaluation may be performed at any 

flow rate down to:” [...with the rest of the existing content remaining unchanged].

3. Development of Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices Checklist

Source: 

NIST, OWM - Carryover from 2010 Measuring Sector Agenda

Background/Discussion: 

At the July 2010 NCWM Annual Meeting, NCWM members voted to add a tentative code for commercial hydrogen 

gas-measuring devices to NIST Handbook 44. Since the majority of states require an NTEP CC for commercial 

weighing and measuring devices, offering NTEP CCs for these devices would facilitate the acceptance of these 

devices in the commercial marketplace and assist states in their assessment of these devices. 

At its 2010 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, the Sector established a work group to develop a draft Hydrogen

Gas-Measuring Devices Checklist for the Sector to consider. The Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices Checklist 

Work Group consists of the following members:

Work Group Chair: Mr. Michael Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA 

• Mr. Dennis Beattie, Measurement Canada 

• Mr. Mike Gallo, CLEANFUEL USA

• Mr. Norman Ingram, California Division of Measurement Standards 

• Mr. Dan Reiswig, California Division of Measurement Standards

• Mr. John Roach, California Division of Measurement Standards

• Mr. Van Thompson, California Division of Measurement Standards

• Ms. Juana Williams, NIST, OWM 

• Mr. Marc Buttler, NIST, OWM

Following the Measuring Sector meeting, the work group held a series of seven teleconferences from March through 

September and completed their task to develop a draft checklist. The U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for the 

development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards reviewed the checklist during September and 

October.

Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, reported that the work group had completed its work on the draft 

checklist for Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices and requested that the Sector forward the draft to the NTEP

Committee with a recommendation to add it to NCWM Publication 14. The checklist is needed in order to respond 

to pending requests for NTEP evaluation and CC’s on hydrogen gas-measuring devices. Some members of the 

Sector asked whether NTEP can issue a CC for hydrogen measuring devices while NIST Handbook 44, 

Section 3.39. Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices has “Tentative Code” status. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator,

responded that any NTEP CC issued under a tentative code is provisional, but is still an official CC. The only 

difference being that when the status of the code is changed from tentative to permanent, a device covered by a 

provisional CC may need to undergo additional evaluation to demonstrate compliance with any additional 

requirements that may have been added to the code. If no additional requirements are added when the tentative 

status of the code is changed, then any existing provisional certificates would automatically be upgraded to full 

certificates.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C11

Mr. Truex asked if the checklist should be added to the LMD section of NCWM Publication 14 or as a new, separate 

section. Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, recommended locating the new checklist in the LMD section of 

NCWM Publication 14; this proposal was based on the observation that the Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 

checklist is located in the Mass Flow Meter portion of the LMD checklist now and it would be best to keep these 

similar entities together. Mr. Truex agreed.

The Sector discussed how to address the need for guidance on permanence testing and field evaluation methods. 

Mr. Ingram, California Division of Measurement Standards, Mr. Buttler, NIST, OWM, and Mr. Keilty, Endress + 

Hauser Flowtec AG USA, recommended referencing the existing Section I. Field Evaluation and Permanence Tests 

for Mass Flow Meters to leverage the existing information developed for CNG meters in order to address this need 

for hydrogen gas-measuring devices. After reviewing Section I, the Sector agreed that all the information was

pertinent and appropriate to hydrogen with the exception of the sub-section on “Testing for Volume Units Only or to 

Add Volume Units to Existing Certificates.” The Sector agreed to reference Section I. for hydrogen gas-measuring 

devices until other guidelines specific to hydrogen are developed.

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, stated that there are stakeholders that have an immediate need for the checklist and 

that he supports adding it in the LMD section and the addition of the reference to Section I. of the field evaluation 

and permanence tests.

Conclusion:

The Sector unanimously agreed to send a proposal to the NTEP Committee to include new checklist items in the 

LMD Checklists and Test Procedures as shown in Appendix C to this summary. The Sector further agreed to 

include the following note, as also shown in Appendix C, to the beginning of the checklist:

“Refer to Section I. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test for Mass Flow Meters (All topics with the

exception of “Testing for Volume Units Only or to Add Volume Units to Existing Certificate”) for test 

procedures.”

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, noted that in anticipation that the Water Meter checklist from Agenda Item 2 

is adopted as items 44-47 in the LMD section of NCWM Publication 14, Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG 

USA, and Mr. Buttler have updated the numbering shown in Appendix C to reflect the item range from 48 to 58.

NEW ITEMS

4. Product Families Table – Include Water on Existing NTEP CC’s

Source: 

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls

Background/Discussion: 

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, noted that flow meters are approved to very tight tolerances on aggressive liquids 

such as acids, alcohols, glycols and their mixtures with water and liquid fertilizers. Many of these liquids are waterbased such as liquid fertilizers and glycol/water mixtures. Water is a significantly less aggressive fluid and has a 

higher NIST Handbook 44 tolerance than other liquids.

A note at the end of the Product Families Table in NCWM Publication 14 allows water to be used as a test product 

in the fuels product family. Despite this, NCWM Publication 14 requires separate tests on water in order to add 

water to the NTEP CC for PD and turbine meters.

The Sector was asked to consider adding the following note at the bottom of the Product Families Table of NCWM

Publication 14. This note would allow the “water” family (or specific liquids from the water family) to be added to 

an NTEP CC without additional testing based on approvals for certain other products:

The water family (in its entirety or partially) can be included on an NTEP CC based on an approved 

product or range of products with similar metrological characteristics (specific gravity, conductivity, and 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C12

viscosity – as applicable to the relevant meter technology) unless materials constituting the measuring 

element are known to deteriorate in contact with water.

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, explained that he has submitted this item to address applications where his customers 

would like the ability to measure large quantities of water (using larger meters than standard utility meters) and he 

does not feel that a device type that is already approved on other similar products should be required to undergo 

evaluation with water in order to be approved for water.

Mr. Ingram, California Division of Measurement Standards, stated that California has tested devices using water as a 

test medium. Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, added that mass meters are also often tested using 

water.

Mr. Oppermann, Weights and Measures Consulting, LLC pointed out that OIML R 117 is for fluids other than 

potable water and asked why the OIML standard for potable water R 49 is held separate from other codes. 

Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, explained that the Water Meters Code in NIST Handbook 44 was developed to address 

utility-type and batching meters, but is not limited to those types of water meters. She went on to point out that the 

LMD Code in NIST Handbook 44 specifically excludes water meters. Mr. Frailer, Maryland Department of 

Agriculture, added that, unlike the LMD Code, the Vehicle Tank Meter (VTM) Code and the Mass Flow Meters 

Code do not exclude water. Requirements already exist for devices that measure water and fall under those codes. 

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, mentioned that water is defined as a separate product category in NCWM 

Publication 14 Technical Policy C. Product Families for Meters.

The Sector discussed various different fluids, comparing properties and tolerances.

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, described a case where a device has approval for use as a VTM delivering Diesel 

Exhaust Fluid (DEF), which is a water based solution. He would like to add stationary water meter approval for that 

device with no further testing. Mr. Karimov pointed out that there are two issues preventing this expanded approval. 

The first issue is the need for further testing to add water; he feels this additional testing is unnecessary because the 

device has already been demonstrated to perform on DEF, which is largely composed of water. Mr. Karimov hopes 

to address this issue with the note he proposes to add to NCWM Publication 14. The second issue involves the 

exclusion of water meters from the Application Section of the LMD Code. Even though the tolerances in the Water 

Meters Code are larger than those in the LMD Code, a meter that has already been tested for applications covered by 

the LMD Code must still meet the specific flow rate range requirements defined by meter size in the Notes Section 

of the Water Meters Code to receive approval in stationary water applications.

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, pointed out that a note in NCWM Publication 14 Product Families Table states that 

“Water and a product such as Stoddard solvent or mineral spirits may be used as test products in the fuels, 

lubricants, industrial, and food-grade liquid oils product family.” Given this note, he asked why devices tested on 

these types of products would not also be approved for water without having to specifically test with water. Mr. 

Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, had researched the origin of the note, tracing it back to the 2005 NTETC 

Measuring Sector Meeting. During that meeting, there were multiple proposals developed for a Product Families 

Table, and a work group was formed that developed the table overnight, including this note. There is no clear 

discussion in the Sector summary for that year on the note. Mr. Buttler contacted Mr. Suiter, Richard Suiter

Consulting, and the NIST Technical Advisor at that time, and learned that the intent was to recognize that water and 

Stoddard solvent were being used commonly in industry to eliminate the danger of testing with hazardous fluids and 

to permit the use of water as a substitute test medium in those instances. Mr. Keilty asked the Sector if the note 

should be removed because of the confusion it causes. Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc., 

disagreed, stating that this would disallow the common practice to use safe fluids in the laboratory. All agreed to 

keep the note.

Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, pointed out that it is very common to perform testing on water in a 

controlled environment before testing in field applications to add new products to an approval. It was unclear to him 

why Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, would want approval for water without testing on water. Mr. Karimov replied 

that the reason he has proposed this new note is to give the NTEP Measuring Laboratories legal authority to make a 

judgment call on whether to allow water approval on a device based on the performance of the device on other 

fluids. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C13

There was discussion about the metrological impacts of differences in materials of meter construction compared to 

the metrological impacts of changing fluid product material. Mr. Andre Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc., 

asked if it is necessary to change calibration from DEF to water. Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, replied that the 

calibration must be changed from application to application. Mr. Allen Katalinic, North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture, pointed out that water expands when it freezes, unlike some other products. There was further 

discussion about how different types of water have different potential effects on permanence testing results. Mr. 

Noel suggested that the proposed note should apply to potable and tap water only because of the increased potential 

for material compatibility issues with distilled and deionized water. Mr. Karimov proposed that the NTEP 

Measuring Laboratories should have legal authority to decide whether certain water products could be included 

without testing based on the lab’s understanding of the metrological and material compatibility of the meter and the 

types of water involved in an evaluation. Mr. Noel stated that when the requirements are left open, different 

manufacturers may receive different approval for the same testing.

Mr. Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc., pointed out that different products, such as milk, have different system 

requirements. Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, agreed that there are other code requirements specific to milk and noted 

that, in the case of adding fluids that have code requirements that were not examined during previous type 

evaluations, compliance of the device with the new code requirements would have to be evaluated. Ms. Butcher 

added that when a meter application is covered by two different codes, the evaluating laboratory must evaluate the 

device by applying all the requirements from both codes. Product family categories already indicate by their 

groupings what products have similar metrological characteristics and code requirements. Mr. Karimov, Liquid 

Controls, replied that he believes the groupings are imperfect now. 

Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, requested a clarification in terms of the intended quantity or magnitude of the word 

“similar” as it appears in the proposed note. Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, replied that “similar” is intended to 

mean that the value of the critical characteristic property for the meter technology (e.g., viscosity for PD meters) for 

the proposed type of water would need to be identical to, or within the range of the physical property values of 

previously tested and approved products.

Conclusion:

Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, confirmed with the Sector that there had been sufficient discussion 

on the item and called for a vote. Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, requested that the wording of the proposed note be 

amended to include “- as determined by NTEP” in the parenthetical qualifying term for “water family.” The vote 

was, thus, on a proposal to add a note to the end of the Product Families Table that would apply to all technologies 

as follows:

The water family (in its entirety or partially – as determined by NTEP) can be included on an NTEP CC 

based on an approved product or range of products with similar metrological characteristics (specific 

gravity, conductivity, and viscosity - as applicable to the relevant meter technology) unless materials 

constituting the measuring element are known to deteriorate in contact with water.

The results of the vote are as follows:

• In favor: 9 

• Opposed: 3 

• Abstain: 1 

• Note: Two of the three laboratories were opposed to the item.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C14

The item and the voting results will be forwarded to the NTEP Committee. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator,

informed the Sector that the NTEP Committee typically does not view voting results as consensus when a majority 

of the laboratories do not support an item.

5. Product Families Table – Change Test Requirements for Turbine Meters from Test A to 

Test E

Source: 

Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls

Background/Discussion: 

In the Product Families Table of NCWM Publication 14, turbine meters require testing on individual products with 

some exceptions. This approach, which was appropriate many years ago when turbine meters were first entering the 

custody transfer arena, has become outdated in the opinion of the submitter. Turbine meters have been tested 

extensively under NTEP. Turbine meters need at least to have product tests match those of PD meters because 

turbine meter influence factors are similar to those of PD meters. 

The Sector was asked to consider replacing Test A with Test E for turbine meters and to merge the products under

turbine meters into product category groups similar to those of PD meters.

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, explained that the reason he has submitted this item is that his company expects to 

see demand for turbine meters in a growing number of different applications and on different products requiring 

NTEP approval. 

The NTEP laboratories were not ready to agree that Test A should be eliminated for turbine meters on all products 

and asked what specific details were being proposed. They pointed out that the different product categories were 

originally created for a reason and wanted to know what has changed and what specific product categories needed to 

be reviewed. Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, stated that the immediate focus should be on combining chlorinated 

solvents and fertilizer groups.

The manufacturers in the room were asked if they offer turbine meters. Mr. Rich Miller, FMC Technologies 

Measurement Solutions, Inc., said his company only sells turbine meters in petroleum applications. Mr. Andre 

Noel, Neptune Technology Group, Inc., said that his company only sells turbine meters in water applications. 

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, said that his company sells turbine meters in a wide range of applications on various 

fluids. He mentioned that they use turbine meters on acids, DEF, and alcohols, and believes that this experience has 

shown that turbine meters can be approved for ranges of viscosities, the way that PD meters are now. Ms. Butcher, 

NIST, OWM, asked if data could be provided that shows how the meter behaves going from one end of a range to 

another; Mr. Karimov replied they do not have data they could provide.

There followed discussion about the basic nature of turbine meters with Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, asserting 

that turbine meters are affected by viscosity. Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, and Mr. Noel, 

Neptune Technology Group, Inc., both said that turbine meters are velocity meters. Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies 

Measurement Solutions, Inc., disagreed and stated that turbine meters are inference devices. Mr. Beattie, 

Measurement Canada, explained that Canada uses kinematic viscosity when working with turbine meters because 

the Reynolds number is too difficult to work with.

When turbine meters were first included in the Product Families Table, there was not as much experience with the 

technology in weights and measures applications. Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, stated that, at first, turbine meters 

needed to be tested with every product because they were so new to weights and measures. He asserted that, in the 

intervening years, much has been learned and demonstrated about their performance. He explained that there are 

more different product families for turbine meters than are needed and pointed to chlorinated solvents as an 

example. Mr. Jerry Butler, North Carolina Department of Agriculture agreed that if we have proof now, we should 

move forward and update the table.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C15

The Sector reviewed the history of work done on turbine meters over the course of the NTETC Measuring Sector 

and NTEP. Mr. Henry Oppermann, Weights and Measures Consulting, LLC, recalled that the Sector was first 

formed in 1984, just prior to NTEP. Mr. Keilty, Endress + Flowtec AG USA, said that the primary focus of the 

Sector at that time was PD meter approvals. Mr. Keilty recalled that there had been a turbine meter work group in 

1994 led by Mr. Alston, Daniel Flow Products Inc. Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, added that Dr. Mattingly, NIST, 

OWM, had provided input based on NIST’s research on turbine meters to the Sector that addressed influence factors 

related to flow profile, installation, flow direction, and orientation.

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, proposed combining families into the following new groupings:

• Chlorinated solvents – one category

• Chemicals – one category

• Fertilizers – one category

Mr. Frailer, Maryland Department of Agriculture, stated that the scope of the change, as it was originally proposed, 

was too broad and that it was not possible to clearly understand the reduction in scope that was being proposed in 

the discussion without seeing how it would appear in the Product Families Table. The laboratories all agreed that 

they would need to see a detailed draft with the specific proposed groupings clearly depicted and all the pertinent 

product property data included in order for them to be able to fully understand what they were being asked to agree 

to. Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, agreed to prepare a draft table for the next sector meeting and requested 

assistance from NCWM and NIST in providing a file format of the current table that would allow him to make the 

appropriate markings for the draft.

Conclusion:

The Sector agreed to carry this item over to the NTETC Measuring Sector’s 2012 Meeting. This will allow time for 

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, to prepare a detailed proposal using the format of the current Product Families Table. 

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, will rework the table and send it to interested stakeholders for review and comment 

prior to the next sector meeting. Stakeholders were identified as all the NTEP Measuring Laboratories, Mr. Miller, 

FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc., and Mr. McAllister, Daniel Measurement. Mr. Karimov will 

include in the draft all property data for each product that is included in the recommended set of changes so that the 

Sector will have a clear view of how the products in the proposed groupings compare. The table will be updated

prior to the release of the agenda for the next NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting to incorporate the input received 

back from the stakeholders identified. Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, will ask Ms. Hier, NCWM Project 

Coordinator, to provide Mr. Karimov with the current table in a format that he will be able to modify to reflect his 

proposal. Mr. Buttler will also aid Mr. Karimov as needed in preparation of the draft.

6. Product Families Table – Consolidate Product Categories for PD and Turbine Meters 

Source: 

Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM Publication 14 has too many agri-chemical products categories for PD and turbine meters that were created 

many years ago and are outdated. This item relates to a parallel proposal to match PD and turbine product 

categories.

The Sector was asked to consider a proposal to consolidate most of the agri-chemical product categories for PD and 

turbine meters into the following two groups:

• All solvents, glycols and alcohols, and chemicals in one group

• All crop chemicals (A, B, C, and D), fertilizers, and flowables in one group
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C16

As an alternative proposal, the Sector was asked to consider adding the following note to the bottom of the Product 

Families Table or somewhere else in the LMD-Technical Policy:

If a meter is approved for a product of low viscosity in one product family or category and the same meter is 

approved for a product of high viscosity in another product family or category, the meter will be approved for this 

viscosity range in both product families/categories.

Mr. Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls, explained to the Sector that the main difference between this agenda item and 

the proposal presented in Agenda Item 5 was that this one includes both PD meters and turbine meters. Based on 

the discussion and status of Agenda Item 5, Mr. Karimov proposed limiting the scope of this item to PD meters only.

Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, asked Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, if he would consider 

developing a draft table with the changes proposed, similar to what was agreed to for Agenda Item 5. Before 

committing to that effort, Mr. Karimov wanted to know if the labs would consider the change. Mr. Ingram, 

California Division of Measurement Standards, said he would be willing to consider a proposal. Mr. Frailer, 

Maryland Department of Agriculture, added that he would want to know why the changes were being proposed. Mr. 

Karimov cited as an example that fungicides and insecticides are all water-based solutions. Mr. Frailer noted that 

there are four different categories for crop chemicals and that he would consider combining them if they are all in 

fact similar. Mr. Katalinic, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, added that Round Up is not a suspension. 

Mr. Butler, North Carolina Department of Agriculture said that PD meters have been around since the 1950’s and 

noted that the chemical products have not changed that much since then. Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies 

Measurement Solutions, Inc., stated that the Sector had been working on the format for the Product Families Table 

with the agreement that there would be no changes to content as part of that project. Since that project was

completed in 2010, the Sector can move forward with these types of proposals to change the substance of the table.

Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, asked Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, to describe the alternative 

proposal in the recommendation above. Mr. Karimov explained that the intent of his alternate proposal is to 

establish a policy that defines a single approved viscosity range for a meter rather than separate approved viscosity 

ranges for that meter by each product family. Under this proposed policy, the limits of the range of approved 

viscosities for a meter would be determined by the highest viscosity and the lowest viscosity products tested, 

regardless of the product families those two products fall within. Furthermore, this single approved viscosity range 

would apply to all products in all the product families for which the meter has been approved, regardless of the 

range of the viscosities of the products in each family that had actually been tested during evaluations. Mr. Karimov 

stated that it is his intent that the scope of the alternative proposal should still include both PD and turbine meters 

despite his earlier request to exclude turbine meters from the primary proposal. Mr. Karimov noted that his proposal 

does not have any impact on multi-product approvals.

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, asked Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, if there is any data available to support the 

validity of the alternative proposal. Mr. Karimov replied that he could not provide such data. Mr. Truex expressed 

concern about the proposal since there is no data to support it. Mr. Frailer, Maryland Department of Agriculture, 

added that it is important to remember that there are other similarities between products in the same family to 

consider in addition to just viscosity.

Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc., asked for clarification on how the proposal would 

impact permanence testing requirements. Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, said his intent was that it would still be 

necessary to do permanence testing on one product from each category. He described an example where a 

permanence test would be conducted using a high viscosity product from one family and a second permanence test 

would be conducted using a low viscosity product from another family; these tests would allow the full range of 

viscosity to be included for both families.

Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, recapped the two proposals in Agenda Item 6:

• The primary proposal suggests consolidating the solvents, glycols and alcohols, and chemicals into one 

group and consolidating all crop chemicals A, B, C, and D into another group.

• The alternative proposal is to add a note to the bottom of the Product Families Table or elsewhere in the 

Technical Policy describing the application of viscosity ranges across families.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C17

Mr. Butler, North Carolina Department of Agriculture reminded the Sector that the product families were separate 

for a reason. He gave a hypothetical example wherein a CC would include approval of a meter model family for a 

wide range of viscosities based on testing that included a high viscosity product (e.g., molasses) tested on a smaller 

meter size (and, therefore, tested at lower flow rates), and a low viscosity product tested on a larger meter size (and, 

therefore, tested at higher flow rates). The concern would be that the entire family of meters would have coverage 

for the full range of viscosities across all approved families despite the fact that no testing with high viscosity 

product at higher flow rates and on larger meters was done. Mr. Butler’s comments highlighted the concern that the 

flow profile, velocity, and other fluid flow characteristics of different products can vary significantly through 

different sized meters and at different flow rates. The current product family groupings help to ensure that an 

appropriate amount of testing is done to understand the effects of these variations. Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls,

responded that each meter model (size) should be tested on both high and low viscosity products over the range of 

approved flow rates for that meter model. He proposed to address the concern by adding the word “model” to the 

note to ensure that a wide range of viscosities is to be tested on each meter size that is selected for testing to 

adequately represent performance of the full range of sizes for that meter model family.

Mr. Ingram, California Division of Measurement Standards, interpreted the proposal as basically combining all the 

families into one and agreed with the other labs that the product families are currently separate for a reason. Mr. 

Beattie, Measurement Canada, added that, with the manufacturers taking responsibility for any variation in materials 

of construction, incorporating the proposed change would make manufacturers fully responsible for all variations of 

both meter and fluid product materials and stated that he is not comfortable with that idea. Mr. Butler, North 

Carolina Department of Agriculture asked if a change in the meter material would mean a change in the model 

number. Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, replied that was not necessarily true and it would depend 

on how manufacturers define their model structures.

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, requested that the sector vote on the alternative proposal to add a note regarding the 

expanded application of tested viscosity ranges across families. Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, asked for 

clarification as to whether mass flow meters and specific gravity would also be included in the scope of the proposed 

policy. Mr. Karimov said these are not intended to be included in the proposal and he believes that would need to be 

developed and submitted by someone with an interest in mass flow meter policy.

Conclusion:

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, withdrew the primary proposal and plans to incorporate it into the draft changes to 

the Product Families Table that will be developed for Agenda Item 5 that was carried over to 2012.

The Sector voted on the alternative proposal to add a note to the LMD Technical Policy, which was modified to 

include the qualifiers “PD or turbine” and “model” as shown below. 

If a PD or turbine meter is approved for a product of low viscosity in one product family or category and the same 

model meter is approved for a product of high viscosity in another product family or category, the meter will be 

approved for this viscosity range in both product families/categories.

The results of the vote are as follows:

• Approve: 7 

• Oppose: 5 

• Abstain: 0 

• Note: All three labs and NIST were opposed to the item as it was framed for the vote. The item and the 

voting results will be forwarded to the NTEP Committee.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C18

7. Add Metrological Sealing Checklist to Measuring Devices NCWM Publication 14

Source: 

NTEP Measuring Laboratories

Background/Discussion: 

At its 2011 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, the NTEP Measuring Laboratories agreed that a sealing table 

checklist that is modeled after the example in NCWM Publication 14, Digital Electronic Scales checklist, Section 10 

should be added to NCWM Publication 14. 

The Sector was asked to consider forming a work group to develop a sealing checklist to add to the Measuring 

Devices NCWM Publication 14 that is modeled on the example from NCWM Publication 14, Digital Electronic 

Scales checklist, Section 10.

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, summarized the development of this item. The S&T Committee has determined 

that adding this information to the type-evaluation checklists in NCWM Publication 14 is the appropriate resolution 

to an item that has been on the S&T Committee agenda for several years. The original concern was raised in 

recognition that there were some weighing devices in service that could be left in a calibration mode while sealed. 

The S&T Committee determined that appropriate requirements already exist in NIST Handbook 44, and that 

clarification of the interpretation of these requirements in the NTEP checklists would help to ensure the 

requirements are more uniformly interpreted and applied. Mr. Truex supported the decision of the S&T Committee 

and recommended the Sector move this item forward.

Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, asked where the proposed sealing checklist would be located in 

NCWM Publication 14 Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, suggested that it appear under code reference G-S.8.1.

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, explained that all the highlighted text, including the two tables would be ready to 

add to the LMD checklist under item 2.16 if any language related to “weight” and “weighing devices” and units 

were revised to include references appropriate to measuring devices. The Sector reviewed the proposal and agreed

that the item would be suitable for measuring devices if the following changes were made in the table of examples at 

the end:

• Change each instance of “lb” to “gal”

• Change each instance of “weight” to “quantity” and “weights” to “quantities”

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, noted that these terms are just provided in the tables as examples and that the 

references are not meant to be all-inclusive. Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc., added 

that PTB in Germany would require an asterisk in front if the value was a not-legal-for-trade value. Referring to the 

fourth item in the right column of the second table, Mr. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc., asked why a flashing value would 

not be acceptable as an indication representing that a device is configured with the setup or configuration mode 

enabled. Mr. Johnson added that retail motor-fuel dispensers have been using a flashing display value for 30 years 

to signify a non-valid indication. He further noted that many of these devices use a display that only has numeric 

capability, making it impossible to use letter codes as shown in the first example of an acceptable indication shown 

in the second table. Mr. Truex responded that flashing zeros or dashes would be acceptable, but a flashing value 

would not be acceptable if it was flashing at a rate that would still make the value usable. He added that if the value 

could be sent to the console and that value could be used, then that could also be a problem.

Conclusion:

The Digital Electronic Scales sealing checklist item was reviewed and revised by the Sector during the meeting to 

make it suitable for measuring devices. The Sector unanimously agreed to forward a proposal to the NTEP 

Committee to include the revised checklist item shown in Appendix D under item 2.16. in the LMD checklist.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C19

8. Product Families Table – Categorization of Liquid CO2

Source: 

NTEP Measuring Laboratories 

Background/Discussion: 

Liquid CO2 does not appear in the Product Families Table in Technical Policy C. of the LMD checklist. Therefore, 

it is difficult to determine whether liquid CO2 would fall into the compressed liquid category, or the cryogenic liquid 

category, or a new category of liquid. Without a clearly defined product category, it cannot be determined what 

tests are required to include liquid CO2 on an NTEP CC. This item was originally introduced in 2008. At that time, 

the Sector had agreed to table the issue until the reorganization of the Product Families Table was completed and 

more data was available to suggest the best approach for including liquid CO2 in the Product Families Table and for 

defining the test criteria. The Sector has not received additional data, however the issue remains that the

categorization of liquid CO2 is undefined. In the absence of data to support any other categorization and in 

recognition of the unique properties of liquid CO2, the most conservative approach would be to add liquid CO2 to 

the Product Families Table with Test A status; this will require it to be tested individually in order to be added to an 

NTEP CC.

The Sector was asked to consider adding liquid CO2 to the Product Families Table with Test A status (which

requires testing with each product) to eliminate the current ambiguous status of liquid CO2. 

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, explained that liquid CO2 does not qualify as a cryogenic liquid because the 

boiling point (− 70 °F) is considerably higher than the maximum boiling point for cryogenic liquids (− 243 °F) 

defined in NIST Handbook 44. 

The NTEP Measuring Laboratories were asked about their experience with liquid CO2. Only California has 

evaluated devices measuring liquid CO2 in commercial applications. California has issued CTEP approval, but there 

has never been an NTEP approval on a metering device on liquid CO2 to the Sector’s knowledge. The Sector agreed 

that, in the absence of data or experience to support a less conservative approach, liquid CO2 should be added to the 

Product Families Table as a Test A fluid for all technologies so that the ambiguity would be resolved. Mr. Keilty, 

Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA, commented that magnetic flow meters do not measure liquid CO2. 

Conclusion:

The Sector unanimously agreed to propose adding a separate product category for liquid CO2 and including liquid

CO2 as a Test A product for Mass Flow Meters, Positive Displacement Meters, and Turbine Meters.

9. Product Families Table – Add Hydrogen (Compressed Gas) 

Source: 

USNWG for the Development of Commercial Hydrogen Measurement Standards 

Background/Discussion: 

Section 3.39 Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices – Tentative Code was added to NIST Handbook 44 in 2011. There 

is no mention of hydrogen in the Product Families Table in Technical Policy C. Hydrogen should be added to the 

Product Families Table in Technical Policy C. to provide clarity as to the Test Requirements, Coverage, Product 

Category, and Typical Properties. 

The Sector was asked to consider adding hydrogen to the checklist for all meter types that measure compressed

gases. Because of the unique properties of compressed hydrogen gas, the NTEP Measuring Laboratories 

recommend that Test A, which requires individual testing, be specified for hydrogen gas.

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, explained that the USNWG requested this item to clarify the testing 

requirements for hydrogen gas-measuring device type evaluations.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C20

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, requested that hydrogen be added for PD and turbine meters, as well as mass flow 

meters. Mr. Cooper, Tuthill Transfer Systems, agreed, offering that this would avoid the need to revisit the issue 

later. Mr. Keilty, Chair, cautioned the Sector about adding blanket statements that include technologies which are 

not being considered in practice. Mr. Beattie, Measurement Canada, reminded the Sector that the table is not all

inclusive; products that do not appear in the table can still be approved.

Conclusion:

The Sector voted on a proposal to add hydrogen to the table for mass flow meters, PD meters, and turbine meters as

a Test A fluid as shown in Appendix E to this summary. The results of the vote are as follows: 

• Approve: 11

• Opposed: 1

• Abstain: 2 

• Note: All 3 labs and NIST approved the item as it was framed for the vote. The item and the voting results 

will be forwarded to the NTEP committee.

10. Add Units for Compressed Gases to Technical Policy V. List of Price and Quantity 

Markings on Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers (RMFDs)

Source: 

Hydrogen Checklist Work Group

Background/Discussion: 

Section 3.39. Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices – Tentative Code was added to NIST Handbook 44 in 2011. 

NCWM Publication 14, LMD Technical Policy V. List of Price and Quantity Markings on RMFDs does not include 

units for CNG or hydrogen compressed gas in the list of Acceptable Delivered Quantity representations.

The Sector was asked to consider adding “kg,” “GGE,” and “GLE” to the list of “Delivered Quantity Acceptable” in

the top right corner of the Table in Technical Policy V. as acceptable quantity units for CNG and hydrogen RMFDs.

The Hydrogen Checklist Work Group noted that the units relating to the compressed gaseous fuels CNG and 

hydrogen were missing from the table in NCWM Publication 14 Technical Policy V. Mr. Keilty, Endress + Hauser 

Flowtec AG USA, said that the proposed change should prevent confusion during type evaluation of compressed gas 

dispensers. Mr. Ingram, California Division of Measurement Standards, noted that the hydrogen gas method of sale 

regulation in NIST Handbook 130 has a provision that limits the resolution of the unit price to whole cents. 

Conclusion:

The Sector reviewed the proposal and identified additional changes that further improved the clarity of the policy. 

The Sector unanimously agreed to propose the changes to Technical Policy V. List of Price and Quantity Markings

on Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers (RMFDs) in NCWM Publication 14 as shown below: 

V. List of Price and Quantity Markings on Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers (RMFDs)

List of Price and Quantity Markings on RMFDs (Does Not Apply to Receipt Format)
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C21

Total Sale Acceptable Unit Price Acceptable Delivered Quantity Acceptable

Total Sale $ 000.00

Total $ 000.00

This Sale $ 000.00

Purchase $ 000.00

Total Purchase $ 000.00

Sale $ 000.00

Unit Price $ 0.000

Price Per Gallon $ 0.000

Price/Gallon $ 0.000

Price Per Liter $ 0.000

Price/Liter $ 0.000

Price Per GGE $ 0.000 (CNG only)

Price/GGE $ 0.000 (CNG only)

Price Per GLE $ 0.000 (CNG only)

Price/GLE $ 0.000 (CNG only)

Price Per kg $ 0.00 (hydrogen only)

Price/kg $ 0.00 (hydrogen only)

Price Per Unit $ 0.000

Price/Unit $ 0.000

Gallons

Gal

Liters

L or l

GGE (CNG only)

GLE (CNG only)

kg (hydrogen only)

Total Sale Unacceptable Unit Price Unacceptable Delivered Quantity Unacceptable

$ 000.00 Price Per Vol

Price/Vol

$/G $0.000

$/Gal $0.000

$/Liter $0.000

$/L $0.000

$/l $0.000

Price Per kg $ 0.000 (hydrogen 

only)

Price/kg $ 0.000 (hydrogen only)

G

Unit

Volume

Vol

k 

KG

11. Certificate of Conformance Parameters for Measuring Devices

Source: 

Mr. Marc Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor 

Background: 

NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy P. CC lists several options for typical information to be included on 

an NTEP CC; however, there is no guidance on the minimum information that is to be included in a CC, such as the 

sealing category and product photographs. Identifying the minimum components to be included on every CC would 

provide better guidance for NTEP Measuring Laboratories, improve consistency of CC’s, and promote easier 

interpretation by field inspectors.

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, clarified that the intent of the item was to provide guidance for new CC 

content and not to be applied retroactively to modify existing NTEP CCs.

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, told the Sector that the NTEP CC process is able to effectively ensure that the 

minimum needed information is contained on all new CC’s issued. The necessary content is being effectively 

captured by virtue of the CC application form. Mr. Truex stated that CC content is dealt with administratively and 

that there is no need to change NCWM Publication 14.

Conclusion: 

The Sector agreed that the need to include the minimum necessary information in all new CC’s can be effectively

addressed administratively by NCWM. Consequently, the Sector agreed that the proposed change is unnecessary 

and withdrew the item.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C22

12. Test for Mathematical Agreement of Card Reader after Power Loss

Source: 

Mr. Reiswig, California Division of Measurement Standards

Background/Discussion: 

During development of the draft checklist for Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices, a gap was identified for CNG 

Card-Activated Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers. NTEP evaluators have found cases where there is not mathematical 

agreement between the total quantity, the unit price, and the total price when executing the “Power Loss” test (item 

16.1) in the LMD NCWM Publication 14, Section 16. Test Methods for Card-Activated Retail Motor Fuel 

Dispensers. This test is designed to ensure that the device will not dispense any fuel after a power interruption 

without reauthorization of the card-activated device. The test does not currently call for any check of the 

mathematical agreement.

The Sector was asked to consider the addition of a procedure to 16.1 of the checklist to verify mathematical

agreement after a power loss shut down of an RMFD as shown below:

16.1. Authorize the dispenser and, with the pump “handle” on, interrupt power to any part (or all) of the 

system. The pump should de-authorize immediately. Specifically:

16.1.1. Authorize with a card and turn the “handle” on. Power down briefly, then restore power. Try to

dispense product: the dispenser must not dispense because the power failure should have deauthorized the dispenser.

16.1.2. The dispenser must maintain mathematical agreement between the computed money value 

and the quantity (Quantity × Unit Price = Sales Price) at the point in time that deauthorization occurred. 

After reviewing the proposal, the Sector was uncertain as to where within the checklist the addition should be made. 

The Sector asked Mr. Ingram, California Division of Measurement Standards, Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, 

and Mr. Keilty, Chair, to review NCWM Publication 14 and the hydrogen draft checklist during the lunch break and 

share their recommendation for the proposed location(s) for the item. After their review, this group reported to the

Sector that they found instances already in place in NCWM Publication 14 that appear to be sufficient to address the 

concern raised by the originator.

Conclusion:

The Sector agreed that provision for verifying mathematical agreement following a power loss is already covered in 

other sections of NCWM Publication 14, including the LMD Checklists and Test Procedures for Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispensers, the LMD Checklists and Test Procedures for Mass Flow Meters, and the newly proposed draft LMD 

Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices. There are references at multiple 

points in each checklist that would address mathematical agreement. Consequently, the Sector agreed that the 

proposed change is unnecessary and withdrew the item.

13. Device Marking for Electronic Linearization for Meters

Source: 

NTEP Measuring Laboratories

Background/Discussion: 

During the 2010 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, the Sector considered the item “Electronic Linearization for 

Positive Displacement Meters” and agreed to recommend that the second paragraph of Technical Policy G be 

replaced with the following:
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C23

A measuring element may use factory-established linearization curves to establish the minimum flow 

range (5:1, 10:1, or as required) providing the linearization programming is installed during 

manufacturing and the programming cannot be altered after leaving the manufacturer.

Auxiliary equipment (e.g., indicator or register) with programmable multi-point calibration that alters 

the output signal from the measuring element to extend the flow range of the system beyond the 

measuring element’s required minimum flow range may be used and the auxiliary device’s multi-point 

calibration will be noted on the CC and must be marked on the meter.

The requirements for marking flow rate limitations on devices was discussed at the spring 2011 NTEP Measuring 

Laboratories Meeting in relation to this change, and it was determined that additional clarification is needed 

regarding the marking requirement that is referenced in NCWM Publication 14, Section G. For example, if a device 

can have its range expanded by the addition of an optional auxiliary approved device that has multi-point 

calibration, how is this device to be marked, and do both ranges need to be marked on the device in case the 

auxiliary device is ever replaced or removed?

The Sector was asked to clarify how the multi-point calibration is to be marked on the meter and add specific

guidance to the LMD checklist Section 11. Marking; “Code Reference: S.4.1.1. Marking Requirements; Limitation 

on Use.” The Sector was asked to consider adding the example below or to offer other alternatives to clarify range 

of use limitations of a meter with and without an auxiliary multi-point indicator.

Without Aux Multi-Point 

Indicator

With Aux Multi-Point 

Indicator

Min Flow 20 GPM 10 GPM

Max Flow 100 GPM 100 GPM

The Sector reviewed Technical Policy G and discussed how it allows an auxiliary device to be used to extend the

flow range of a system beyond the measuring element’s minimum flow range. Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical 

Advisor, and Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, noted two main concerns to be addressed by this proposal:

1. Technical Policy G requires that “the auxiliary device’s multi-point calibration will be noted on the CC and 

must be marked on the meter.” However, there is no guidance or example of acceptable marking. 

2. When a CC lists different approved flow rate ranges depending on whether an auxiliary device is used to 

extend the approved flow rate range, how can the flow rate range marking on the device ensure that all the 

information needed by a field inspector is available when the auxiliary device can be added or removed 

without changing the marking on the measuring element?

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, illustrated these concerns further by describing a hypothetical example of a 

device that was marked with an extended range because it was originally installed with an auxiliary multi-point 

calibration device. If the auxiliary device were ever to fail or be removed and not be replaced, then the marking on 

the meter would reflect an incorrect approved flow rate range. 

Mr. Frailer, Maryland Department of Agriculture, added another example of an inspector examining a device in 

service that was marked for the range that the device would be approved for if it was not using an auxiliary device 

(e.g., 20 GPM MIN FLOW). If the inspector found the device to be operating using an auxiliary device in the 

extended range approved for that system when using that auxiliary device (e.g., down to 10 gpm), the inspector 

would still fail the device in this case because of the disagreement between the marked range and the operating 

range.

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, asked whether turbine meters were excluded. Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, 

explained that Technical Policy G applies to all technologies.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C24

Several sector members could see the need for greater clarity and discussed the best location within NCWM 

Publication 14 to make sure that the information would be clear and not overlooked during type evaluation. No 

clear location was identified. Mr. Cooper, Tuthill Transfer Systems, shared the history of the original item with the 

Sector and mentioned that the original item submitted by Mr. Cooper did not include any intent to affect marking 

requirements.

Conclusion: 

The Sector was unable to reach a consensus for guidance on how the policy for marking meters with an extended 

flow range is to be applied. Consequently, the Sector withdrew the item, and the NTEP Measurement Laboratories 

will decide how each meter must be marked on a case-by-case basis.

14. Product Families Table - Restore Notation “(Above 50 °C)” to the Heated Products 

Category Definition

Source: 

NTEP Measuring Laboratories

Background/Discussion: 

The NTEP Measuring Laboratories noted that the newly revised Product Families Table in NCWM Publication 14 

Technical Policy C. is missing the statement “(Above 50 °C)” to qualify the “Heated Products” category. This 

statement had appeared in prior versions of the Product Families Table and the Sector had not discussed deleting the 

statement. Consequently, it appears that the statement was inadvertently omitted when the table was reorganized. 

The Sector is asked to consider that NIST Handbook 44 currently lists “Asphalt at temperatures greater than 50 °C” 

in the Tolerances Table under Accuracy Class 0.3A, with an Acceptance Tolerance of 0.3 %. The table also 

specifies “Heated Products (other than asphalt) at or greater than 50 °C” under Accuracy Class 0.3, with an 

Acceptance Tolerance of 0.2 %. NIST Handbook 44 does not include a specific definition for “Heated Products” in 

the Definitions section.

The Sector was asked to consider restoring the term “(Above 50 °C)” to the “Heated Products” category 

abbreviations as shown below to clarify the temperature range that defines “Heated Products”.

Product Category Table – Category Abbreviations

Abbreviation Product Category Abbreviation Product Category

Alc Gly Alcohols, Glycols and Water 

Mixes Thereof

Fert Fertilizers

CC-A Crop Chemicals (Type A) FL&O Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and 

Food Grade Liquid Oils

CC-B Crop Chemicals (Type B) Flow Flowables

CC-C Crop Chemicals (Type C) Heated Heated Products (Above 50 °C)

CC-D Crop Chemicals (Type D) Liq Feed Liquid Feeds

Chem Chemicals Solv Chl Solvents Chlorinated

Comp gas Compressed Gases Solv Gen Solvents General

Comp liq Compressed Liquids (Fuels and 

Refrigerants, NH3)

Sus Fert Suspension Fertilizers

Cryo LNG Cryogenic Liquids and Liquefied 

Natural Gas

Water Water

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, explained that the omission of the note appears to have been an oversight that 

occurred when the new table format was added to NCWM Publication 14 in 2011. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C25

Mr. Buttler described the associated concern about heated products and the Product Families Table. Because heated 

asphalt and other heated products all fall together in the category of “Heated Products,” but have different tolerances 

in NIST Handbook 44, there was a concern that a device might be approved for a family by testing with the less 

stringent tolerance. The Sector discussed the concern further and agreed that the issue is effectively addressed by

LMD Technical Policy B. Tolerance Application, which provides an example wherein a meter tested using only the 

“agri chemical” tolerance is restricted from use in applications with tighter tolerances until additional testing is 

performed. Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, pointed out that the Technical Policy B was added because companies were 

applying for one application and associated tolerance, but if their equipment performed within tighter tolerances, 

they wanted to also add applications with tighter tolerances to the CC. This provision is intended to emphasize that 

applicants must specify the application and tolerance for the approvals they seek at the time a device is submitted for 

evaluation.

The Sector noted two issues in NIST Handbook 44 related to heated products:

• There exists an inconsistency in the Accuracy Classes and Tolerance Tables in the LMD Code and in the 

VTM Code in NIST Handbook 44 between the temperature range defined for heated asphalt and the 

temperature range defined for other heated products. Heated asphalt is defined as “greater than 50 oC,” 

whereas other heated products are defined as “at or greater than 50 oC.” 

• The description for “Heated products” in the Mass Flow Meters Code Table T.2 Accuracy Class 0.3 in 

NIST Handbook 44 is incomplete compared with the description from the LMD Code, which reads 

“Heated products (other than asphalt) at or greater than 50 oC.”

Conclusion: 

The Sector unanimously agreed to propose the addition of the statement “(Above 50 °C)” to the “Heated Products” 

abbreviation as originally proposed.

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, will investigate and address the two NIST Handbook 44 issues that were 

identified:

• Inconsistency between the temperature ranges for heated asphalt and for other heated products in the LMD 

Code and the VTM Code.

• Incomplete description for “Heated products” in the Mass Flow Meters Code

15. Next Meeting

The Sector agreed to recommend to NCWM that its next meeting be held in conjunction with the 2012 Southern 

Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) Annual Meeting. However, because the Sector must be mindful of 

meeting publication deadlines for NCWM Publication 15, the Sector noted that this decision may need to be

revisited once a date and location has been selected for the 2012 SWMA meeting.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

The NTETC Measuring Sector was asked to provide input on the following measuring-related issues on its agenda if 

time permitted during the NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting. In the interest of brevity, the narrative for each item 

is abbreviated to the extent practical. Full descriptions of NCWM S&T Committee items can be found in the S&T 

Committee’s list of carryover items and its 2011 Interim and Final Reports. 

16. Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters; Paragraph T.4. Product Depletion Test 

Source: 

Northeast Weights and Measures Association. This item was originally part of the 2010 NCWM Publication 16

Agenda Item 360-3 – Developing Items Part 3.31., Vehicle-Tank Meters - Item 1.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C26

Purpose: 

Modify the VTM code to base the product depletion test tolerances on the meter’s maximum flow rate (a required 

marking on all meters), rather than the meter size (a required marking for meters manufactured beginning in 2009). 

This will enable more consistent application of the tolerances for older meters, which are not required to be marked 

with the meter size and address an unintentional gap which allows an unreasonably large tolerance for smaller 

meters.

Item Under Consideration: 

The S&T Committee is considering two options for modifications to Paragraph T.4. and Table T.4. The committee 

is asking for feedback on both of these proposals and is particularly interested in data from manufacturers and 

weights and measures jurisdictions that would illustrate the impact of these proposals on smaller meters.

Option 1 Summary:

Option 1 proposes to modify Paragraph T.4. and Table T.4. to define product depletion test tolerances based on 

the maximum flow rate marked on the meter, instead of the meter size and to provide corresponding examples. 

The proposed tolerance is equal to 0.5 % of the volume delivered in one minute at the marked maximum flow 

rate.

Option 2 Summary:

Option 2 proposes a wider tolerance than Option 1 for meters rated 100 gpm or lower. As with Option 1, 

Option 2 proposes to modify Paragraph T.4. and Table T.4. to define product depletion test tolerances based on 

the maximum flow rate marked on the meter, instead of the meter size and provide corresponding examples. 

The proposed tolerances in Option 2 are equal to 0.6 % of the volume delivered in one minute at the marked 

maximum flow rate for meters rated 100 gpm or lower, and 0.5 % of the volume delivered in one minute at the 

marked maximum flow rate for meters rated above 100 gpm.

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee reiterated its need for data to evaluate the impact of any 

proposed tolerances changes, noting that, to date, no data has been submitted to the committee.

The Committee asked that the following test data be submitted to assist the committee in making this assessment:

• make and model of the meter; 

• marked maximum flow rate of the meter; 

• actual delivery rate during the normal test; 

• error (in cubic inches or percent) for the normal test; 

• actual delivery rate during the product depletion test; 

• error (in cubic inches or percent) for the product depletion test; and

• type of test (e.g., routine or follow-up). 

For information on submitting data, please contact Ms. Butcher, S&T Committee NIST Technical Advisor, at

(301) 975-2196 or tina.butcher@nist.gov. The committee also plans to distribute a request on NIST, OWM’s 

Weights and Measures Directors’ list serve for jurisdictions to submit data.

Mr. Karimov, Liquid Controls, speaking on behalf of the Meter Manufactures Association (MMA), indicated that 

the MMA continues to be concerned about the impact of any proposed changes on smaller meter sizes, particularly 

meter sizes that are less than 11⁄2 inches. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C27

The Committee was looking forward to receiving additional proposals and requested data by November 1, 2011, so 

that the information can be considered at the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting, and the item can remain on the 

Committee’s agenda.

Conclusion:

The Sector discussed this issue briefly. They heard an overview of an alternate proposal from Mr. Karimov, Liquid 

Controls, and Mr. Cooper, Tuthill Transfer Systems, with input from Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies Measurement 

Solutions, Inc. The Sector did not take a position on this issue.

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, noted the alternate proposal discussed during the sector meeting was 

formally submitted by the MMA to the S&T Committee on November 3, 2011, after the sector meeting. This 

proposal is provided below:

Meter Manufacturers Association Proposed Option

T.4. Product Depletion Test. – The difference between the test result for any normal test and the product 

depletion test shall not exceed:

• eight-tenths (0.8 %) of the volume delivered in one minute at the maximum flow rate marked on the meter 

for meters marked with a maximum flow rate of 227 Lpm (60 gpm) or less;

• six-tenths (0.6 %) of the volume delivered in one minute at the maximum flow rate marked on the meter for 

meters marked with a maximum a flow rate of greater than 227 Lpm (60 gpm) and equal or less than 

379 Lpm (100 gpm);

• five-tenths (0.5 %) of the volume delivered in one minute at the maximum flow rate marked on the meter 

for meters marked with a maximum flow rate of greater than 379 Lpm (100 gpm).

Table T.4. 

Tolerances for Typical Vehicle-Tank Meters on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Marked Maximum 

Flow Rate

Maintenance and 

Acceptance Tolerances

Marked Maximum 

Flow Rate

Maintenance and 

Acceptance Tolerances

114 Lpm 0.91 L 30 gpm 0.24 gal (55.4 in3)

227 Lpm 1.82 L 60 gpm 0.48 gal (110.9 in3)

379 Lpm 2.27 L 100 gpm 0.60 gal (138.6 in3)

757 Lpm 3.79 L 200 gpm 1.0 gal (231 in3)

Refer to T.4. for meters with maximum flow rates not listed.

Based on a test draft volume of a least the amount specified in N.3. Test Drafts.

Summary of the MMA Option:

The MMA Option is similar to Options 1 and 2, but proposes a wider tolerance than both Option 1 and Option 2 

for meters rated 60 gpm or lower. As in Options 1 and 2, the MMA Option is to modify Paragraph T.4. and 

Table T.4. to define product depletion test tolerances based on the maximum flow rate marked on the meter, 

instead of the meter size and to provide corresponding examples. The proposed tolerances in the MMA Option 

are equal to 0.8 % of the volume delivered in one minute at the marked maximum flow rate for meters rated 

60 gpm or lower, 0.6 % of the volume delivered in one minute at the marked maximum flow rate for meters 

rated between 60 gpm and 100 gpm (including 100 gpm), and 0.5 % of the volume delivered in one minute at 

the marked maximum flow rate for meters rated above 100 gpm.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C28

17. OIML B 3 Basic Certificate System for OIML Type Evaluation of Measuring Instruments 

and OIML B 10 Framework for a MAA on OIML Type Evaluations

Source: 

Dr. Ehrlich, NIST, OWM

Background/Discussion: 

Voting was scheduled to take place on October 14 on the standards for the MAA and OIML type evaluation 

certificate system standards at the 46th International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) meeting in Prague, 

Czech Republic. The Committee Drafts for both B 3 and B 10 were provided to the Sector for information 

purposes.

Conclusion:

Mr. Buttler, NIST Technical Advisor, reported the outcome of the October 14 CIML voting. Both items passed and 

were forwarded to International Bureau of Legal Metrology for publication. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, asked 

the Sector if any members had MAA Certificates, to which none responded. The Sector took no further action on

this item.

18. G-S.1. Marking (Software) 

Sources: 

2010 Carryover Item 310-3. This item originated from the NTETC Software Sector and first appeared on the S&T 

Committee’s 2007 Agenda as Developing Item Part 1, Item 1.

Background/Discussion: 

The NTETC Software Sector has continued to collect information and concerns of stakeholders on this item. 

During the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee heard a recommendation from NIST, OWM that this 

item should be changed to Developing in order to provide the NTETC Software Sector additional time to more fully 

develop the item based on the following points:

1. The current proposal is not developed enough for consideration by the S&T Committee. Based on the 

diversity of comments that continue to be heard on this issue, NIST, OWM believes the item is not close to 

a NCWM vote and that considerable work still needs to be done to develop the item. 

2. NIST, OWM interprets the current proposal as requiring that software be marked with a non-repetitive 

serial number. However, it is not the intent of the NTETC Software Sector to require such marking. Thus, 

it is believed that the language must be revised to resolve this issue and assure the intended interpretation is 

clear.

3. The draft of the March 2011 NTETC Software Sector Summary reported that several members envision 

G-S.1. being developed further to the extent that G-S.1.1. may not be needed. 

There was a position posted on NCWM 2011 Online Position Forum by Mr. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc., opposing the 

item as written and sharing the following comments: 

Gilbarco, Inc. does not support the current proposed language. Our pumps and dispensers have a numeric 

display capable of displaying 6 digits. It is not currently possible to display the version identifier or an 

abbreviation or symbol that identifies the version number as required in (d) (1) and (2). It is not possible to 

access the software version using “one or, at most, two levels of access" as noted in section G-S.1.1 (3). 

We do not currently offer a menu based system and do not offer functions such as “Metrology,” “System 

Identification” or “Help.” We do not have the ability not offer icons or symbols. Meeting the new marking 

requirements will be costly to the customer. We can currently display the software version number (i.e., 

Software Version number 01.8.30 would be shown on the main display as 01830 by using controls on the 

device). The software version will also be displayed during the power up cycle. Recommend the status be 

changed to Informational. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C29

After considering all the comments received, the S&T Committee agreed to change the status of this item to 

Developing because the item lacks enough information for full consideration and a full proposal had yet to be 

developed.

This item was included on the NTETC Measuring Sector’s Agenda to keep sector members informed of the item 

and to allow for sector comment, discussion, and input to the S&T Committee.

Conclusion:

The Sector discussed the item briefly. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, shared that there is still much work to be

done on this item. The NTETC Measuring Sector had no specific recommendations for the NTETC Software Sector 

to consider.

19. Interpretation of VTM Code 3.31., Paragraph S.2.4., with Regard to Individual vs. Multiple 

Deliveries

Source: 

NTEP Measuring Laboratories and Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM

Background/Discussion: 

NIST, OWM received an inquiry from a regulatory official regarding the application of the VTM Code Paragraph 

S.2.4. Zero-Set-Back Interlock. The regulator reported receiving a complaint from a buyer who received a receipt 

for an individual delivery that was labeled “multiple delivery.” This discussion revealed that the code is not clear 

regarding how the zero-set-back interlock and 3-minute timeout are to function relative to both “individual” and 

“multiple” deliveries. There currently is no requirement for a delivery to be designated as “individual” or 

“multiple.” However, the NTEP Measurement Laboratories agreed that such a provision would be beneficial to 

field officials in identifying improper use of the device. The laboratories also discussed how paragraph S.2.4. is 

currently being implemented and agreed there may be confusion on how the current language applies.

NIST, OWM requests input from the Sector on the development of a proposal to help clarify how S.2.4. was 

intended to apply and on the concept of requiring the type (i.e., “individual” or “multiple”) of delivery to be 

automatically identified. Modifications to paragraph S.2.4. might include an addition of a new user requirement that 

explains how the operator is to control and/or document “individual” vs. “multiple” delivery status. The proposal 

might also clearly explain if and how the 3-minute timeout is to function depending on the “individual” vs. 

“multiple” status.

Conclusion: 

The Sector discussed the issue briefly. Ms. Butcher, NIST, OWM, explained that the item was to engage 

stakeholders interested in seeking a solution to the issue that meets inspectors’ and consumers’ needs, but is not 

burdensome to manufacturers or users. The issue was raised when a ticket appeared with “multiple delivery” 

printed on it and it could not be explained what this means. She noted that the item is still developing and there is 

no specific proposal to consider at this point. Mr. Miller, FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc., and Mr. 

Karimov, Liquid Controls, expressed interest in providing input on the item as it is being developed.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C30

ACTION ITEMS TABLE

NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting

October 21-22, 2011, Norfolk, Virginia

Agenda 

Item Title Task Responsible Person(s) Due Date

1 

Add Testing Criteria to 

NCMW Publication 14,

NTEP Policy U. 

Evaluating Electronic 

Indicators Submitted 

Separate from a 

Measuring Element

Finalize the checklist, 

addressing all highlighted

areas and the five open issues

• Work Group 1/3/12

Forward finalized checklist to 

Mike Frailer and Allen 

Katalinic for review

• Rich Miller, FMC

Technologies 

Measurement Solutions, 

Inc.

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

1/4/12

Review finalized checklist and 

provide comments to Rich 

Miller and Marc Buttler

• Mike Frailer, MD

• Allen Katalinic, NC

1/17/12

Incorporate laboratory 

comments prior to 2012 

NCWM Interim Meeting

• Rich Miller, FMC

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

1/22/12

2 

Development of Water 

Meters Checklist

Submit recommendation to 

modify NCWM Publication 

14 to NTEP Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11

3 

Development of 

Hydrogen Gas-Measuring 

Devices Checklist

Update numbering to reflect 

48-58 and forward version 

with Item I. reference to Marc 

Buttler

• Michael Keilty, 

Endress + Hauser

Flowtec AG USA

Complete

Submit recommendation to 

modify NCWM Publication 

14 to NTEP Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11

4 

Product Families Table -

Include Water on Existing 

NTEP CC’s

Submit recommendation and 

voting results to NTEP 

Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11

5 

Product Families Table –

Change Test 

Requirements for Turbine 

Meters from Test A to 

Test E

• Update table with specific 

proposal and numbers

• Incorporate stakeholder 

input from labs, Rich Miller

• Dmitri Karimov, Liquid 

Controls

Next Sector 

Meeting

Provide Dmitri Karimov with 

workable table

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

• Lindsay Hier, NCWM

Project Coordinator

Complete

6 

Product Families Table –

Consolidate Product 

Categories for PD and 

Turbine Meters 

Submit recommendation and 

voting results to NTEP 

Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C31

Agenda 

Item Title Task Responsible Person(s) Due Date

7 

Add Metrological Sealing 

Checklist to Measuring 

Devices NCWM 

Publication 14

Update Scale checklist item 

example as agreed to in the 

sector meeting

• Technical Advisor, Marc 

Buttler

Complete

Submit recommendation to 

modify NCWM Publication 14

to NTEP Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11

8 

Product Families Table –

Categorization of Liquid 

CO2

Submit recommendation to 

modify NCWM Publication 14 

to NTEP Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11

9 

Product Families Table –

Add Hydrogen 

(Compressed Gas)

Submit recommendation and 

voting results to NTEP 

Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11

10

Add Units for 

Compressed Gases to 

Technical Policy V. List 

of Price and Quantity 

Markings on Retail Motor 

Fuel Dispensers (RMFDs

Submit recommendation to 

modify NCWM Publication 14 

to NTEP Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11

14

Product Family Table -

Restore notation “(Above 

50 °C)” to the heated 

products category 

definition

Submit recommendation to 

modify NCWM Publication 14

to NTEP Committee

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

12/1/11

Address the two NIST 

Handbook 44 issues related to 

heated products that were 

identified

• Marc Buttler, NIST 

Technical Advisor

Prior to fall 

2012 

Regional 

Association

meetings

15

Next Meeting Identify location and time of 

next SWMA Meeting and 

propose location to NTEP 

Committee

• Chair

• NTEP Administrator

• NIST Technical Advisor

2012 

Interim 

Meeting

Carry Over Actions from 2010 Measuring Sector

Hydrogen Gas-Measuring 

Devices Checklist

Monitor USNWG progress on 

developing test procedures. 

Begin development of type 

evaluation test procedures 

when USNWG completes test 

procedures work.

Hydrogen Meters 

Checklist Sub-Group

Ongoing
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C32

ATTENDANCE

Dennis Beattie

Measurement Canada

400 St Mary Avenue

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4K5

Canada

(204) 983-8910

dennis.beattie@ic.gc.ca

Tina Butcher

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

(301) 975-2196

tbutcher@nist.gov

Jerry Butler

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

(919) 733-3313

jerry.butler@ncagr.gov

Marc Buttler

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

(301) 975-4615

marc.buttler@nist.gov

Rodney Cooper

Tuthill Transfer Systems

8825 Aviation Drive

Fort Wayne, IN46809

(260) 747-7529 x 7552

rcooper@tuthill.com

Mike Frailer

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 841-5790

fraileml@mda.state.md.us

Paul Glowacki

Murray Equipment, Inc.

2515 Charleston Place

Fort Wayne, IN 46808

(260) 480-1352

pglowacki@murrayequipment.com

Norman Ingram

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828-1812

(916) 229-3016

ningram@cdfa.ca.gov

Gordon Johnson

Gilbarco, Inc.

7300 W. Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27410

(336) 547-5375

gordon.johnson@gilbarco.com

Dmitri Karimov

Liquid Controls

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044

(847) 283-8317

dkarimov@idexcorp.com

Allen Katalinic

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

(919) 218-4305

merleallen1234@aol.com

Michael Keilty

Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA

211 Pinewood Drive

Lyons, CO80540

(303) 823-5796

michael.keilty@us.endress.com

Doug Long

RDM Electronics

850 Harmony Grove Rd

Nebo, NC 28761

(828) 652-8346

doug@rdm.net

Rich Miller

FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

1602 Wagner Avenue

Erie, PA 16510

(814) 898-5286

rich.miller@fmcti.com
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C33

Andre Noel

Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

1600 Alabama Highway 229

Tallassee, AL 36078

(334) 283-7298

anoel@neptunetg.com

Henry Oppermann

Weights and Measures Consulting

1300 Peniston Street

New Orleans, LA 70115

(504) 896-9172

wm-consulting@att.net

James Truex

National Conference on Weights and Measures Inc.

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH43062

(740) 919-4350

jim.truex@ncwm.net

Richard Tucker

RL Tucker Consulting LLC

605 Bittersweet Lane

Ossian, IN46777

(260) 622-4243

rtucker83@comcast.net
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - C34

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A1 

Appendix A

Draft National Type Evaluation Program

Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

Introduction

This checklist is used for Technical Policy U. Evaluating Electronic Digital Indicators submitted separate from 

a measuring element. This section is intended for lab testing only. Is permanence necessary?

1. Identification

Code Reference: G-S.1. Identification

All equipment shall be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior visible surface after installation. 

It must contain the following information (prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals, or all 

lower case):

1.1. The name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor. Yes No N/A

1.2. A model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the 

device. The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word "Model," "Type," 

or "Pattern." These terms may be followed by the word "Number" or an 

abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word "Number" shall, as 

a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.) The abbreviation for 

the word "Model" shall be "Mod" or "Mod." Prefix lettering may be initial 

capitals, all capitals, or all lower case.

Yes No N/A

1.3. Except for not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, a norepetitive serial 

number. The serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Serial Number" or 

an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the number as the required 

serial number. Abbreviations for the word "Serial" shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter "S," and abbreviations for the word "Number" shall, as a 

minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.)

Yes No N/A

1.4. For not built-for-purpose, software based devices the current software 

version or revision designation. The version or revision identifier shall be 

prefaced by the word "Version" or "Revision" as appropriate and either word 

may be followed by the word "Number." The abbreviations for the word 

"Version" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "V." Abbreviations for 

the word "Revision" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "R." The 

abbreviations for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the 

letter "N" (e.g., No or No.)

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.1. (e)

1.5. An NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a corresponding CC 

addendum number for devices that have (or will have) a CC. The number 

shall be prefaced by the terms "NTEP CC," "CC," or "Approval." These 

terms may be followed by the word "Number" or an abbreviation for the 

word "Number." The abbreviation for the word "Number" shall as a 

minimum begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.)

Yes No N/A 

The device must have an area, either on the identification plate or on the 

device itself, suitable for the application of the Certificate of Conformance 

Number. If the area for the CC number is not part of an identification plate, 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A2 

then note its intended location below and how it will be applied.

1.5.1. Location of CC Number if not located with the identification 

information: 

 

Code Reference: G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not Built-for-Purpose, SoftwareBased Devices 

1.6. For not built-for-purpose, software-based devices, the following shall apply:

1.6.1. The required information in G-S.1 Identification. (a), (b), (d), and 

(e) shall be permanently marked or continuously displayed on the 

device. OR

Yes No N/A

1.6.2. The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be:

1.6.2.1. Permanently marked on the device. OR Yes No N/A

1.6.2.2. Continuously displayed. OR Yes No N/A

1.6.2.3. Accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if 

necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu and submenu 

identification include, but are not limited to "Help," 

"System Identification," "G S.1. Identification," or 

"Weights and Measures Identification."

Yes No N/A

Note: Clear instructions for accessing the information 

required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed on the 

CC, including information necessary to identify that the 

software in the device is the same type that was evaluated.

1.7. The identification badge must be visible after installation. Yes No N/A

1.8. The identification badge must be permanent. Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud

This applies to all metering system indicators installed at a fixed location or vehicle tank meter 

applications and controlled remotely or within the device itself. This requirement addresses the process 

of changing the unit price or unit prices set in a metering system.

1.9. The system shall prevent a change of unit price during a delivery. Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.3. Permanence How would this be conducted or not?

1.10. Equipment shall be of such materials, design and construction that, under 

normal service conditions:

1.10.1. Accuracy will be maintained. Yes No N/A

1.10.2. Operating parts will continue to function as intended. Yes No N/A

1.10.3. Adjustments will remain reasonably permanent. Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A3 

Code Reference: G-S.4. Interchange or Reversal of Parts

If a metering system has parts that may be interchanged or reversed in normal field assembly, the system 

shall either be constructed so that reversal will not affect the accuracy of the system or the parts must be 

marked to indicate their proper position. For most metering devices, this applies only to the reversal of 

connectors of cables to peripheral devices.

1.11. If a metering system has any parts that may be interchanged or reversed in 

normal field assembly, the parts must either be:

1.11.1. Constructed so that reversal will not affect performance. Yes No N/A

1.11.2. Marked or keyed to indicate their proper positions. Multiple cable 

connections but not interchangeable due to different plug styles.

Yes No N/A

1.11.3. Cables are connected but are not removable without breaking a 

seal and opening housing.

Yes No N/A

2. Indications and Recorded Representations Look at Different Codes

Code Reference: G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements

Several general requirements facilitate the reading and interpretation of displayed values. Each display 

for quantity or total price must be appropriate in design and have sufficient capacity for particular 

applications to be suitable for the application. Metering devices must be capable of indicating the 

maximum quantity and money values that can normally be expected in a particular application.

2.1. Minimum quantity value indications:

2.1.1. Display is capable of 1.0 Yes No N/A

2.1.2. Display is capable of 01 Yes No N/A

2.1.3. Display is capable of 0.01 Yes No N/A

2.1.4. Display is capable of 0.001 Yes No N/A

2.1.5. Display is capable of other: Yes No N/A

 

2.2. Money value is properly displayed

2.3. The indications must be clear, definite and accurate: Yes No N/A

2.3.1. Values must be clear, definite and accurate. Yes No N/A

2.3.2. Unit of measure is programmable Gallon, Liter, Pound. Yes No N/A

2.3.3. Unit of measure is applied by permanent marking on indicator 

housing.

Yes No N/A

2.4. The indications must be easily read under normal operating conditions. Yes No N/A

2.5. Symbols for decimal points shall clearly identify the decimal position. 

(Generally acceptable symbols are dots, small commas, or x.) 

Yes No N/A

2.6. The zero indication must consist of at least the following minimum 

indications as appropriate:

2.6.1. One digit to the left and all digits to the right of a decimal point. Yes No N/A

2.6.2. If a decimal point is not used, at least one active decade must be 

displayed.

Yes No N/A

2.7. Totalizer values must be accurate to the nearest minimum interval with 

decimal points displayed or subordinate digits adequately differentiated from 

others, if applicable.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A4 

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and Representation

2.8. Basic operating requirements for devices:

2.8.1. All digital values of like value in a system shall agree with one 

another.

Yes No N/A

2.8.2. A digital value coincides with its associated analog value to the 

nearest minimum graduation.

Yes No N/A

2.8.3. Digital values shall round off to the nearest minimum unit that can 

be indicated or recorded.

Yes No N/A

2.8.4. When a digital zero display is provided, the zero indication shall 

consist of at least one digit to the left and all digits to the right of 

the decimal point.

Yes No N/A

2.9. Agreement of indications shall be checked for several deliveries. The 

totalizer shall be checked for accuracy and agreement with individual 

deliveries and with other totalizers in the system.

2.9.1. All digital values of like value in a system agree with one another. Yes No N/A

2.9.2. Digital values coincide with associated analog values to the nearest 

minimum graduation.

Yes No N/A

2.9.3. Digital values "round off" to the nearest minimum unit that can be 

indicated or recorded.

Yes No N/A

2.9.4. The device totalizer shall agree with the total of the individual 

deliveries and with other totalizers in the system.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.3. Size and Character

Digits used for comparable values must be uniform in size and character, but subordinate values may be 

displayed in different and less prominent digits than more significant values. The latter more likely 

occurs on analog devices. In digital indications, the digits are usually of uniform size throughout a 

particular display. The size of digits may differ for different quantities, for example, the quantity and 

unit price digits may be smaller than the total price digits.

2.10. Delete this line, nothing here.

2.11. Indications and recorded representations shall be appropriately portrayed or 

designated.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.4. Values Defined

2.12. Values shall be adequately defined by a sufficient number of figures, words, 

symbols, or combinations, which are uniformly placed so that they do not 

interfere with the accuracy of the reading.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.5. Permanence

2.13. Indications, or recorded representations and their defining figures, words, 

and symbols shall be of such character that they will not tend to easily 

become obliterated or illegible.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.5.3. and G-S.5.3.1. Values of Graduated Intervals or Increments

2.14. Digital indications and recorded representations shall be uniform in size, 

character, and value throughout any series. Quantity values shall be defined 

by the specific unit of measure in use.

Yes No N/A

2.15. Indications shall be uniform throughout any series. Yes No N/A

2.16. Quantity values shall be identified by the unit of measure. Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A5 

Code Reference: G-S.5.4. Repeatability of Indications

The quantity measured by a device shall be repeatable within tolerance for the same indication. One 

condition that may create a problem is that the value of the quantity division may be large relative to the 

tolerance. A delivery must be within tolerance wherever the delivery is stopped within the nominal 

indication of the test draft. Meters that may be at the tolerance limit may be out of tolerance at an 

extreme limit of the nominal quantity indication.

2.17. When a digital indicator is tested, the delivered quantity shall be within 

tolerance at any point within the quantity-value division for the test draft.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations

2.18. All recorded values shall be digital. See also G-UR.3.3. Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.5.7. Magnified Graduations and Indications

2.19. Magnified indications shall conform to all requirements for graduations and 

indications. Do not think this is needed and intend on removing this section.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.5.6. Marking, Operational Controls, Indications and Features

All operational controls, indications, and features shall be clearly and definitely identified. 

Nonfunctional keys and annunciators shall not be marked because their marking implies that the key or 

annunciator is functional and should be inspected or tested by the enforcement official. Keys and 

operator controls that are visible to a customer in a direct sale transaction shall be marked with words or 

symbols to the extent that they can be understood by the customer and aid in understanding the 

transaction. Keys that are visible only to the console operator need to be marked only to the extent that a 

trained operator can understand the function of each key.

2.20. All operational controls, indications, and features including switches, lights, 

displays, and push buttons shall be clearly and definitely identified.

Yes No N/A

2.21. All dual function (multi-function) keys or controls shall be marked to clearly 

identify all functions.

Yes No N/A

2.22. Non-functional controls and annunciators shall not be marked. Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.7. Lettering, Readability

2.23. Required markings and instructions shall be permanent and easily read. Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.8. Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components and Provision for Sealing of 

Adjustable Components or Audit Trail

2.24. Electronic adjustable components that affect the performance of a device 

shall provide for an approved means of security (e.g. data change audit trail) 

or for physically applying a security seal. These components include the 

following: 

1. mechanical adjustment mechanism for meters, 

2. the electronic calibration factor and automatic temperature compensator 

for electronic meter registers,

3. selection of pressure for density correction capability and correction 

values, and 

4. pulser setting and gallon/liter conversion switches when they may 

accidentally or intentionally be used to perpetrate fraud.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A6 

The following philosophy and list of sealable parameters applies to provision for sealing all liquidmeasuring devices.

An electronic data audit trail is a means of allowing a weights and measures inspector to review how 

many times any electronic adjustment, which affects the accuracy of a volume measurement has been 

changed. The information contained in the audit trail shall consist of a cumulative and non-destructible 

number (even if a power failure occurs) which increments each time any of the adjustments required to 

be sealed have been changed. The electronic data audit trail information shall be capable of being 

recalled by the official on the main display of the device.

As a minimum, devices which use an audit trail to provide security for sealable parameters shall satisfy 

the following criteria and shall use the format set forth in Appendix A of the checklist for LiquidMeasuring Devices.

Philosophy for Sealing 

Typical Features to Be Sealed

Principles for Determining Features to Be Sealed

The need to seal some features depends upon:

• The ease with which the feature or the selection of the feature can be used to facilitate fraud. AND

• The likelihood that using the feature will result in fraud not being detected.

Features or functions which the operator routinely uses as part of device operation, such as setting the 

unit prices on dispensers and maintaining unit prices in price look-up codes stored in memory, are not 

sealable parameters and shall not be sealed.

If a parameter (or set of parameters) selection would result in performance that would be obviously in 

error, such as the selection of parameters for different countries, then it is not necessary to seal the 

selection of these features.

If individual device characteristics are selectable from a "menu" or a series of programming steps, then 

access to the "programming mode" must be sealable. 

Note: If an audit trail is the only means of security, then the audit trail shall update only after at least one 

sealable parameter has been changed; simply accessing the sealable parameters via a menu shall not update 

the audit trail.

If a physical act, such as cutting a wire is required to change a parameter setting and physically repairing 

the cut is required to reactivate the parameter, then this physical repair process would be considered an 

acceptable way to select parameters without requiring a physical seal or an audit trail.

Typical Features and Parameters to Be Sealed

The following provides examples of configuration and calibration parameters that are to be sealed. The 

examples are provided for guidance and are not intended to cover all possible parameters.

Calibration Parameters:

Calibration parameters are those parameters whose values are expected to change as a result of accuracy 

adjustments. Examples include the following:

1. Measuring element adjustments where linearity corrections are used (e.g., flow rate 1 and meter 

factor 1, flow rate 2 and meter factor 2, etc.)

2. Mass flow meter adjustments for zero adjustments (not simply setting the display to zero) and span 

settings.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A7 

Configuration Parameters: 

Configuration parameters are those parameters whose values are expected to be entered only once and 

not changed after all initial installation settings are made. Examples include the following.

1. Octane or other blend setting ratios (optional in Canada at this time.)

3. Temperature, pressure, density, and other sensor settings for zero, span, and offset values.

4. Measurement units (in Canada, only if not displayed or printed on the primary register.)

5. Temperature compensation table, liquid coefficient of expansion, or compressibility factors or tables.

6. Liquid density setting (in Canada, only if not displayed or printed on the primary register) and 

allowable liquid density input range.

7. Vapor pressures of liquids if used in calculations to establish the quantity.

8. Meter or sensor temperature compensation factors.

9. False or missing pulse limits for dual pulse systems (Canada only.)

10. On/off status of automatic temperature, pressure, or density correction.

11. Automatic or manual data input for sensors.

12. Dual pulse checking feature status on or off.

13. Flow control settings (optional in Canada.)

14. Filtering constants.

Liquid Measuring Device Features and Parameters

Typical Features or Parameters to be 

Sealed

Typical Features or Parameters NOT

Required to be Sealed

• Measuring Element Adjustment

(both mechanical and electronic)

• Linearity Correction Values

• Measurement Units (e.g., gallons to liters)

• Octane Blend Setting for Retail Motor Fuel 

Dispensers

• Any Tables or Settings Accessed by the 

Software or Manually Entered to Establish the 

Quantity (e.g., specific gravity, pressure, etc.)

• Density Ranges

• Pulsers

• Single Pick-up (magnetic or reluctance)

• Temperature Probes and Temperature Offsets in 

Software

• Pressure and Density Sensors and Transducers

• Flow Control Settings (e.g., flow rates for slowflow start, quantity for slow-flow start and stop)

• Temperature Compensating Systems (on/off)

• Differential Pressure Valves

• As a point of clarification, the flow control 

settings referenced above are those controls 

typically incorporated into the installations of 

large-capacity meters (wholesale meters.) The 

reference does not include the point at which 

retail motor fuel dispensers slow product flow 

during a prepaid transaction to enable the 

dispenser to stop at the preset amount.

• Analog-to-Digital Converters

• Quantity Division Value (display resolution)

• Double Pulse Counting

• Communications

Note: The above examples of adjustments, parameters, and features to be sealed are to be considered 

"typical" or "normal." This list may not be all inclusive. Some parameters other than those listed, which 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A8 

affect the metrological performance of the device, must be sealed. If listed parameters or other parameters, 

which may affect the metrological function of the device, are not sealed, the manufacturer must demonstrate 

that all settings comply with the most stringent requirements for the application of the device (e.g., the 

parameter does not affect compliance with NIST Handbook 44). 

Category 1 Devices (Devices with No Remote Configuration Capability):

• Required markings and instructions shall be permanent and easily read. Yes No N/A

• The device is sealed with a physical seal or it has an audit trail with two event 

counters (one for calibration, the second for configuration).

Yes No N/A

• A physical seal must be applied without exposing electronics. Yes No N/A

• Event counters are non-resettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes No N/A

• Event counters increment appropriately. Yes No N/A

• The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for at least 

30 days while the device is without power.

Yes No N/A

• Accessing the audit trail information for review shall be separate from the 

calibration mode.

Yes No N/A

• Accessing the audit trail information must not affect the normal operation of the 

device.

Yes No N/A

Category 2 Devices (Devices with Remote Configuration Capability but Controlled by Hardware):

• The physical hardware enabling access for remote communication must be on- site. Yes No N/A

• The physical hardware must be sealable with a security seal, OR Yes No N/A

• The device must be equipped with at least two event counters: one for calibration, 

the second for configuration parameters. 

• Calibration parameters event counter

• Configuration parameters event counter

Yes No N/A

• Adequate provision must be made to apply a physical seal without exposing 

electronics.

Yes No N/A

• Event counters are non-resettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes No N/A

• Event counters increment appropriately. Yes No N/A

• Event counters may be located either: 

• at the individual measuring device or

• at the system controller

Yes No N/A

• If the counters are located at the system controller rather than at the individual 

device, means must be provided to generate a hard copy of the information through 

an on-site device. 

Yes No N/A

• An adequate number (see table below) of event counters must be available to 

monitor the calibration and configuration parameters of each individual device.

Yes No N/A

• The device must either:

• clearly indicate when it is in the remote configuration mode, OR

• the device shall not operate while in the remote configuration mode.

Yes No N/A

• If capable of printing in the calibration mode, it must print a message that it is in the 

calibration mode.

Yes No N/A

• The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for at least 

30 days while the device is without power.

Yes No N/A

• The audit trail information must be readily accessible and easily read. Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A9 

Minimum Number of Counters Required

Minimum Counter(s) Required for 

Devices Equipped with Event 

Counters

Minimum Event Counter(s) at System 

Controller

Only one type of 

parameter accessible 

(calibration or 

configuration)

One (1) event counter One (1) event counter for each separately 

controlled device, or one (1) event 

counter, if changes are made 

simultaneously.

Both calibration and 

configuration 

parameters accessible

Two (2) event counters Two (2) event counters for each 

separately controlled device, or two (2) 

or more event counters if changes are 

made to all controlled devices 

simultaneously.

Category 3 Devices (Devices with Unlimited Remote Configuration Capability):

Category 3 devices have virtually unlimited access to sealable parameters or access is controlled though 

a password.

• For devices manufactured after January 1, 2001, the device must either:

• clearly indicate when it is in the remote configuration mode, or 

• the device shall not operate while in the remote configuration mode 

Yes No N/A

• The device is equipped with an event logger Yes No N/A 

• The event logger automatically retains the identification of the parameter changed, 

the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter.

Yes No N/A

• Event counters are non-resettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes No N/A

• The system is designed to attach a printer, which can print the contents of the audit 

trail.

Yes No N/A

• The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for at least 

30 days while the device is without power.

Yes No N/A

• The event logger must have a capacity to retain records equal to ten times the 

number of sealable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are 

required.

Yes No N/A

• The event logger drops the oldest event when the memory capacity is full and a 

new entry is saved.

Yes No N/A

• Describe the method used to seal the device or access the audit trail 

information. Is this used?

 

Code Reference: G-UR.1.1. Suitability of Equipment

A device must be properly designed and have sufficient capacity to be suitable to use in a particular 

application. A device must measure the appropriate characteristics of a commodity to accurately 

determine the quantity, have the necessary components (e.g. vapor eliminator) to eliminate factors that 

may cause measurement errors during normal use, have sufficient capacity to indicate the quantity 

measured and the associated total price if it is a computing device. The meter must have the proper flow 

rate capacity to operate over the actual flow rates for the application, and the device must have a 

quantity division appropriate for the application. Some specific requirements for device characteristics 

are given in the specific codes for particular devices. Remove?
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A10

2.25. The equipment is suitable for its intended application. Remove? Yes No N/A

2.26. Equipment shall be suitable for use in the environment in which it will be 

used. Suitability with respect to environment includes the effects of wind, 

weather, temperature variations, and radio frequency interference. A device 

must work and remain accurate under its actual conditions of use. Unless 

specific tests are developed this has no meaning!

Yes No N/A

Simulator Tests: 

All tests shall have a minimum of 10,000 pulses applied to the device for each test. Test with a minimum 

of two API/Density settings. Is this appropriate for all indicator technologies PD, Mass, Mag, etc?

Product: Meter Factor: K Factor:

1 Test with liquid temperature between 

55 – 65 degrees F at the 

manufactures rated maximum 

frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

2 Test with liquid temperature between 

55 – 65 degrees F at manufactures 

rated minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

3 Test with liquid temperature below 

35 degrees F at manufactures rated 

maximum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

4 Test with liquid temperature below 

35 degrees F at manufactures rated 

minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

5 Test with liquid temperature above 

100 degrees F at manufactures rated 

maximum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

6 Test with liquid temperature above 

100 degrees F at manufactures rated 

minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity: This way OR?

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

7 Test with liquid temperature between 

55 – 65 degrees F at the 

manufactures rated maximum 

frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density: This way?

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

8 Test with liquid temperature between 

55 – 65 degrees F at manufactures 

rated minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

9 Test with liquid temperature below 

35 degrees F at manufactures rated 

maximum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

10 Test with liquid temperature below 

35 degrees F at manufactures rated 

minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

11 Test with liquid temperature above 

100 degrees F at manufactures rated 

maximum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

12 Test with liquid temperature above 

100 degrees F at manufactures rated 

minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

13 API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

14 API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A11

15 API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

Product: Meter Factor: K Factor:

1 Test with liquid temperature between 

55 – 65 degrees F at the 

manufactures rated maximum 

frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

2 Test with liquid temperature between 

55 – 65 degrees F at manufactures 

rated minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

3 Test with liquid temperature below 

35 degrees F at manufactures rated 

maximum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

4 Test with liquid temperature below 

35 degrees F at manufactures rated 

minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

5 Test with liquid temperature above 

100 degrees F at manufactures rated 

maximum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

6 Test with liquid temperature above 

100 degrees F at manufactures rated 

minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity: 

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

7 Test with liquid temperature between 

55 – 65 degrees F at the 

manufactures rated maximum 

frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

8 Test with liquid temperature between 

55 – 65 degrees F at manufactures 

rated minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

9 Test with liquid temperature below 

35 degrees F at manufactures rated 

maximum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

10 Test with liquid temperature below 

35 degrees F at manufactures rated 

minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

11 Test with liquid temperature above 

100 degrees F at manufactures rated 

maximum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

12 Test with liquid temperature above 

100 degrees F at manufactures rated 

minimum frequency/pulse rate.

API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

13 API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

14 API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

15 API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

16 API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A

17 API Gravity/Density:

Temperature:

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix A – Draft NTEP Evaluating Digital Indicators – Checklists and Test Procedures

NTEP – C / A12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix B – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Water 

Meters

NTEP – C / B1 

Appendix B

Draft National Type Evaluation Program

Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures

for Water Meters

Note: Refer to Section L. Field Evaluation and Permanence Tests for Utility Type Water Meters for test 

procedures specific to utility type water meters.

44. Indicating and Recording Element

Code Reference: S.1.1.1. General

44.1. A water meter shall be equipped with a primary indicating element and may 

also be equipped with a primary recording element. Such elements shall be 

visible at the point of measurement or be stored in non-volatile and nonresettable memory. The display may be remotely located provided it is 

readily accessible to the customer.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.1.2. Units

44.2. A water meter shall indicate and record, if the device is equipped to record, 

its deliveries in terms of liters, gallons or cubic feet or binary or decimal 

subdivisions thereof except batch plant meters, which shall indicate 

deliveries in terms of liters, gallons or decimal subdivisions of the liter or 

gallon only.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.1.1.3. Value of the Smallest Unit

44.3. The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery and recorded delivery, if 

the device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

44.3.1. 50 L (10 gal or 1 ft3) on utility type meters, sizes 1 in and smaller, 

OR

Yes No N/A 

44.3.2. 500 L (100 gal or 10 ft3) on utility type meters, sizes 11⁄2 in and 

2 in, OR

Yes No N/A 

44.3.3. 0.2L (1/10 gal or 1/100 ft3) on batching meters delivering less than 

375 L/min (100 gal/min or 13 ft3

/min), OR

Yes No N/A 

44.3.4. 5 L (1 gal or 1/10 ft3) on batching meters delivering 375 L/min 

(100 gal/min or 13 ft3

/min) or more.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.1.1.4. Advanced of Indicating and Recording Elements

44.4. Primary indicating and recording elements shall be susceptible to 

advancement only by the mechanical operation of the device.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.1.5. Return to Zero

44.5. If the meter is so designed that the primary indicating elements are readily 

returnable to a definite zero indication, means shall be provided to prevent 

the return of these elements beyond their correct zero position.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix B – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Water 

Meters

NTEP – C / B2 

Code Reference: S.1.2.1. Graduation Length

44.6. Graduations shall be so varied in length that they may be conveniently read. Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.2.2. Graduation Width

44.7. In any series of graduations, the width of a graduation shall in no case be 

greater than the width of the minimum clear interval between graduations, 

and the width of main graduations shall be not more than 50 percent greater 

than the width of subordinate graduations. Graduations shall in no case be 

less than 0.2 mm (0.008 in) in width.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.2.3. Clear Interval Between Graduations

44.8. The clear interval shall not be less than 1.0 mm (0.04 in). If the graduations 

are not parallel, the measurement shall be made:

44.8.1. along the line of relative movement between the graduations at the 

end of the indicator, OR

Yes No N/A

44.8.2. if the indicator is continuous, at the point of widest separation of 

the graduations.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.3.1. Indicator Summary

44.9. The index of an indicator shall be symmetrical with respect to the 

graduations, at least throughout that portion of its length associated with the 

graduations.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.3.2. Indicator Length

44.10. The index of an indicator shall reach to the finest graduations with which it 

is used, unless the indicator and the graduations are in the same plane, in 

which case the distance between the end of the indicator and the ends of the 

graduations, measured along the line of the graduations, shall be not more 

than 1.0 mm (0.04 in).

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.3.3. Indicator Width

44.11. The width of the index of an indicator in relation to the series of graduations 

with which it is used shall not be greater than:

44.11.1. the width of the widest graduation, AND Yes No N/A

44.11.2. the width of the minimum clear interval between graduations.

When the index of an indicator extends along the entire length of a 

graduation, that portion of the index of the indicator that may be 

brought into coincidence with the graduation shall be of the same 

width throughout the length of the index that coincides with the 

graduation.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.3.4. Clearance

44.12. The clearance between the index of an indicator and the graduations shall in 

no case be more than 1.5 mm (0.06 in).

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.3.6. Parallax

44.13. Parallax effects shall be reduced to the practicable minimum. Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix B – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Water 

Meters

NTEP – C / B3 

45. Measuring Elements

Code Reference: S.2.1. Provision for Sealing

45.1. Adequate provision shall be made for applying security seals in such a 

manner that no adjustment or interchange may be made of:

44.13.1. any measurement elements, AND Yes No N/A

44.13.2. any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such rate 

tends to affect the accuracy of deliveries.

The adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for purposes 

of affixing a security seal.

Yes No N/A

46. Batching Meters Only

Code Reference: S.2.2.1. Air Elimination

46.1. Batching meters shall be equipped with an effective air eliminator. Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.2.2.2. Directional Flow Valves

46.2. Valves intended to prevent reversal of flow shall be automatic in operation. Yes No N/A 

47. Multi-jet Meter Indication

Code Reference: S.2.3. Multi-jet Meter Indication

47.3. Multi-jet water meters shall be clearly and permanently marked as such on 

the device or identified on the Certificate of Approval.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix B – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Water 

Meters

NTEP – C / B4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C1 

Appendix C

Draft National Type Evaluation Program

Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures

for Hydrogen Gas – Measuring Devices

Note: Refer to Section I. Field Evaluation and Permanence Tests for Mass Flow Meters (All topics with the 

exception of “Testing for Volume Units Only or to Add Volume Units to Existing Certificates”) for test procedures. 

48. Indicating and Recording Elements and Recorded Representations 

Code Reference: S.1.1. Indicating Elements

48.1. A device shall be equipped with a primary indicating element that 

continuously displays measurement results relative to quantity and total 

price.

Yes No N/A

48.2. Is the device equipped with a primary recording element? Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.2. Vehicle Fuel Dispensers

48.3. Dispensers used to fuel vehicles shall be of the computing type and shall 

indicate the mass, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.1. Indicating Elements and S.2. Operating Requirements

Primary indicating and recording elements may advance only as a result of the operation of the device. 

However, means shall be provided for readily returning the device to zero. Once the zeroing operation 

has begun, it shall not be possible to return primary indicating elements or primary recording elements 

beyond the correct zero position. It shall not be possible to indicate a value other than the latest 

measurement, or “zeros” when the zeroing operation has been completed.

48.4. Indicating and recording elements shall advance only by the operation of the 

device (except for clearing the device to zero).

Yes No N/A 

48.5. During the reset operation, it shall not be possible to return primary 

indicating elements or primary recording elements to any value other than 

zero. 

Yes No N/A 

48.6. During the reset operation, it shall not be possible to indicate a value other 

than the latest measurement, or “zeros” when the zeroing operation has been 

completed.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements – General 

Indicating elements must be appropriately designed and adequate in amount. Specifically, a device must 

have sufficient display capacity to indicate the quantities and total prices, if it applies in the normal 

encountered specific application. Electronic devices shall either have sufficient display capacity to 

indicate the normal quantities and money values or automatically stop the delivery before exceeding the 

display capacity of either the quantity or total price. This consideration may apply when evaluating a 

system that may be used in either a truck stop or an automobile service station.

48.7. An electronic digital indicating element shall either:

48.7.1. Have adequate display capacity for the application, OR Yes No N/A 

48.7.2. Automatically stop the delivery before exceeding the maximum Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C2 

quantity or maximum total price that can be indicated.

Code Reference: G-S.7. Lettering 

48.8. All required markings and instructions shall be distinct and easily readable 

and shall be of such character that they will not tend to become obliterated 

or illegible.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.4. and S.1.3.4. Values Defined

48.9. Values shall be adequately defined by a sufficient number of figures, words, 

or combinations to include a zero display for all displayed digits to the right 

of the decimal mark and at least one to the left.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and Representation and S.2.4.4. Agreement Between 

Indications 

Basic operating requirements for devices are that:

• All digital values of like value in a system shall agree.

• Digital values shall round off to the nearest digital division that can be indicated or recorded.

• When a digital zero display is provided, the zero indication shall consist of at least one digit to the 

left and all digits to the right of the decimal point.

For those systems consisting of a console and dispensers and equipped with pre-set quantity, the 

dispenser must deliver at least the pre-set quantity; it cannot deliver less. For example, if the console 

sends only the money equivalent of the pre-set quantity to the dispenser, the dispenser shall deliver at 

least the pre-set quantity. It may not stop at the first quantity amount that will result in mathematical 

agreement with the money value equivalent of the pre-set quantity if the quantity indication is less than 

the pre-set quantity. Similarly, if a money value is pre-set, the dispenser is not properly designed if it 

always stops at the lowest quantity value that provides mathematical agreement with the pre-set money 

value.

Tests for agreement of digital values shall be performed in the post pay, prepay money, pre-set quantity 

modes, and power loss. Agreement should be checked at several unit prices including the maximum 

unit price and with the dispenser operating at its maximum flow rate.

48.10. Digital quantity indications must agree. Yes No N/A 

48.11. Manual quantity entries in invoice billing systems must be identified as 

such.

Yes No N/A

48.12. When delivery from a computing device is based upon a pre-set quantity, the 

quantity indicated on the dispenser and any auxiliary device must be equal to 

or greater than the pre-set quantity at the conclusion of the transaction.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.5. Money Values, Mathematical Agreement 

48.13. All total sale money value indications in a computing system are primary 

indications and must agree.

Yes No N/A 

48.14. Any recorded money-value and any digital money-value indication on a 

computing –type measuring device used in retail trade shall be in 

mathematical agreement with its associated quantity representation or 

indication to the nearest 1 cent of money value (e.g., within each element, 

the values indicated or recorded must meet the formula). 

Yes No N/A 

48.15. The printed ticket and dispenser money values shall be in mathematical 

agreement to the nearest cent.

Yes No N/A

48.16. The quantity, unit price, and total price indications on the console shall be in Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C3 

mathematical agreement with the dispenser and printed ticket.

48.17. The following applies when a quantity value indicated or recorded by an 

auxiliary element such as a console, ticket printer, or remote customer 

display, is a derived or computed value based on data received from a retail 

vehicle fuel dispenser.

48.17.1. The quantity values indicated or recorded on a console, electronic 

cash register, or other auxiliary indicating or recording element 

may differ, however:

48.17.1.1. All indicated or recorded total money values for an 

individual sale shall agree, AND

Yes No N/A 

48.17.1.2. The indicated or recorded quantity, unit price, and 

total sales price values shall be in mathematical 

agreement.

[Quantity x Unit price = Total sales price] to the closest 

cent.

Examples: $4.5549 rounds to $4.55

$4.5551 rounds to $4.56

$4.5550 rounds to either $4.55 or $4.56

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.2.5.1. Auxiliary Elements 

Money value divisions on auxiliary elements such as remote consoles and printers shall be the same as 

on the primary element. Any recorded money value and any digital money value indication on a primary 

indicator must agree mathematically with its associated quantity representation or indication.

Formula: Unit Price x Indicated quantity = Total Sale

48.18. Check mathematical agreement of all primary indications (e.g., dispenser, 

console, printer) under the following conditions:

48.18.1. At various flow rates, including maximum and minimum. Yes No N/A 

48.18.2. Closing and reopening the nozzle outlet valve several times during 

delivery. Check mathematical agreement each time flow is halted.

Yes No N/A 

48.18.3. At several unit prices including the low prices and the maximum 

pricing capability of the computer and when operating at the 

maximum flow rate.

Yes No N/A 

48.18.4. Turn the dispenser off during delivery with nozzle outlet valve 

open.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements/General 

Discount Pricing

NIST Handbook 44 requires that, when a product or grade is offered for sale at more than one unit price 

through a computing device, the selection of the unit price shall be made prior to delivery using controls 

on the device or other customer-activated controls.

Should the customer elect to use another method of payment following completion of delivery, the 

console may be used to recalculate the total price – provided the dispenser complies with all applicable 

NIST Handbook 44 requirements. For example, the customer selects the credit card unit price on the 

dispenser and dispenses product at that unit price. However, the customer discovers that he forgot his 

credit card and decides to pay cash. In this case, the console might be used to calculate the total price at 

the cash unit price. In keeping with the intent of National Conference on Weights and Measures action 

in 1989 to require dispensers to calculate at all unit prices for which a product is offered for sale, it is 

anticipated that the console would be required to recalculate the new total price using the formula 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C4 

(quantity x unit price = total price). A receipt providing the total quantity, unit price, total computed 

price, and product identity shall be available through a built-in or separate recording element for all 

transactions conducted with point-of-sale systems or devices activated by debit cards, credit cards, 

and/or cash (Code Reference S.2.6. Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems) as the transaction 

was completed. The recorded and displayed total quantity on the receipt and dispenser, respectively, 

shall agree.

Selectable Unit Price Capability

Selectable unit price capability is a design feature that permits the customer to select the unit price for a 

particular transaction at the time of sale. A dispenser may then allow the unit price for a delivery to be 

selected from two or more unit prices.

If the customer selects the unit price at the dispenser (e.g., cash or credit price), the selection may be 

made at any time prior to the start of product flow. The dispenser operating “control” may be activated 

when the selection is made. A system shall not permit a change to the unit price during delivery of 

product.

Note: The term "control" generically refers to the handle, flapper, start button, on/off switch, or other 

mechanism used to activate or deactivate the dispenser.

Code Reference: S.2.5.2. Display of Quantity and Total Price

After a transaction is completed, the unit price displayed at the dispenser may be changed to a base unit 

price. However, the quantity and total price must be displayed on the face of the dispenser for at least 

five minutes or until the next transaction is initiated. Any display of quantity, unit price, and total price 

that does not mathematically agree occurs between transactions. This is permitted (in response to 

demands of device users) because the displayed values between "transactions" are not "significant" 

relative to the actual delivery process (transaction). 

The displayed unit price may revert to the base unit price immediately after the completion of a 

transaction, defined as the time the delivery has been terminated and payment has been settled. The 

payment may be automatic if the delivery is to a pre-paid amount. If the sale is prepaid, the delivery is 

considered terminated after the "control" is in the off position or after the nozzle has been returned to the 

designed hanging position. This will allow the customer adequate time to observe that the prepaid 

amount has been reached. If the delivery stops short or overruns a prepaid amount, settling the payment 

means that money is either refunded or collected from the customer and the transaction is "cashed out" 

by the console operator. 

In the case of invoice billing systems, such as card-lock or key-lock systems which compute the total 

sale price, it is considered not appropriate for the displayed unit price to revert to the base unit price 

immediately following a transaction. Because a receipt for the transaction may not be available, the 

customer must be allowed an adequate period of time following the delivery to record the transaction 

information. The transaction unit price must be displayed for at least 30 seconds, and the total price and 

the quantity must be displayed for at least five minutes following the completion of the delivery or the 

start of the next transaction. The delivery is considered complete after the "control" is off or the nozzle 

has been returned to its designed hanging position.

Code Reference: S.2.4.1. Unit Price and S.2.4.3. Selection of Unit Price

48.19. The selected unit price must be made clearly evident on the dispenser. Yes No N/A 

48.20. A dispenser may be equipped with means for selecting more than one unit 

price, provided that the selected unit price cannot be changed after the initial 

flow begins.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C5 

Code Reference: S.2.5.2. Display of Quantity and Total Price

48.21. The selected unit price displayed at the dispenser prior to the delivery of 

product must be continuously displayed at the conclusion of the delivery, 

after automatic termination by the dispenser or after manual termination by 

the customer using the controls at the device, until the start of the next 

transaction by whichever occurs first:

48.21.1. Customer initiation of the delivery using the controls at the device, 

OR

Yes No N/A 

48.21.2. "Authorization/Approval" by the console operator. Yes No N/A 

48.22. When a delivery is completed, the total price and quantity for that 

transaction shall be displayed on the face of the dispenser for at least 5 

minutes or until the next transaction is initiated by using controls on the 

device or other user-activated (e.g., customer-activated) controls.

Yes No N/A

48.23. In a system where a base unit price is automatically displayed on the 

dispenser after the completion of a transaction (e.g., product is dispensed 

and payment is settled), the dispenser may display the values for quantity, 

unit price, and total price that do not result in a mathematically correct 

equation. That is provided when the total price value displayed is divided by 

the quantity value displayed, the result is a unit price that is "posted" for a 

particular kind of transaction.

Yes No N/A

Credit Card - or Debit Card – Activated Retail Vehicle Fuel Dispenser

On card-activated retail vehicle fuel dispensers, the customer authorizes the dispenser by inserting the 

card or swiping the card through a slot. On credit card transactions, the customer is typically billed 

through the same methods as have been used for credit transactions handled through a station attendant. 

On debit card transactions, payment is made directly from the purchaser's account by electronic funds 

transfer.

48.24. A receipt must be available to the customer at the completion of the 

transaction. The issuance of the receipt may be initiated at the option of the 

customer.

Yes No N/A 

48.25. The customer receipt must contain the following information:

48.25.1. The identity (codes may be used) of the product purchased, the 

quantity purchased, the unit price, and the total price.

Yes No N/A 

48.26. Cash Value Card - A cash value card that is initially encoded with the 

purchase price, authorizing a customer to purchase products up to the current 

cash value of the card. The value of the card is decreased in amounts equal 

to individual transactions.

Means shall be provided to the customer to determine the initial cash value 

of the card and the remaining cash value prior to and after each transaction.

Yes No N/A 

48.27. Invoice Billing - Invoice billing is a process in which customers are billed 

for one or more transactions at the end of a billing period.

48.27.1. The date, quantity, unit price, and total price shall be recorded and 

shall agree with the indications on the dispenser.

Yes No N/A 

48.27.2. All displayed transaction information must be shown for at least 

30 seconds after completing a delivery or starting the next 

transaction. The delivery is considered complete after the 

"control" is off or after the nozzle has been returned to its designed 

hanging position.

Yes No N/A 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C6 

Code Reference: S.1.3.1. Primary Elements / Units

48.28. A hydrogen gas-measuring device shall indicate, and record if the device is 

equipped to record, its deliveries in kilograms or decimal multiples or 

submultiples of the kilogram.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.3.2. Numerical Value of Quantity-Divisions and S.1.3.3. Maximum Value 

of Quantity-Value Divisions

48.29. The value of the scale division for the indicating and recording element must 

be in values of 1, 2, or 5 and uniform throughout the series. The maximum 

value of the quantity-value division shall not be greater than 0.5 % of the 

minimum measured quantity.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.1.4. Value of Smallest Unit

48.30. The value of the quantity division shall not exceed the equivalent of 

0.001 kg on devices with a marked maximum flow rate of 30 kg/min or less.

Yes No N/A 

48.31. The value of the quantity division shall not exceed the equivalent of 0.01 kg 

on devices with a marked maximum flow rate greater than 30 kg/min.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.2.7.; Indication of Delivery and S.3.5. Pressurizing the Discharge Hose

48.32. Retail devices shall automatically show their initial zero condition and 

amount delivered up to the nominal capacity of the device. The 

measurement, indication of delivered quantity, and the indication of total 

sales price shall be inhibited until the fueling position reaches conditions 

necessary to ensure the delivery starts at zero.

Yes No N/A 

Test Method:

1. Remove nozzle from dispenser and connect to test cylinder. Test cylinder initial pressure should not 

be greater than 2.5 MPa (360 psig) and should not be less than 2 MPa (290 psi) to simulate an actual 

delivery.

2. Turn nozzle valve from "OFF" to "FILL" position.

3. Empty discharge hose.

4. Turn nozzle valve to "OFF" position

5. Activate dispenser.

48.1. Dispenser indications shall not advance. Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.2.3. Provisions for Power Loss and S.2.3.1. Transaction Information

Even if power fails during a delivery, it is still necessary to correctly complete all transactions in 

progress at the time of the power failure. Quantity and total sales price information shall be recallable 

for at least 15 minutes after the power failure. The information may be recalled at the dispenser or at the 

console if the console indications are accessible to the customer. Operator information, such as fuel and 

money value totals, shall be retained in memory during a power failure. The operator information is not 

required to be recallable during the power failure, but shall be recallable after power is restored. Test to 

determine if the indications are accurate when the delivery is continued after a power failure.

Note: For remote controllers (e.g., cash register, console, etc.) which have the capability to retain 

information pertaining to a transaction (e.g., stacked completed sales). If the information cannot be 

recalled at the dispenser following a power outage, means (e.g., uninterruptible power supply or other 

means) must be provided to enable the transaction information to be recalled and verified for at least 15 

minutes following a power outage.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C7 

Code Reference: S.2.3.2. User Information

48.2. The quantity and total sales price shall be recallable for 15 minutes after the 

power failure.

Yes No N/A

48.3. The quantity and total sales price values shall be correct if the power fails 

between deliveries.

Yes No N/A

48.4. The quantity and total sales price values shall be correct if the delivery is 

continued after a power failure.

Yes No N/A

48.5. The operator's information shall be retained in memory during a power 

failure.

Yes No N/A

48.6. Remote controllers which stack completed sales must have a means to 

enable the transaction information to be recalled and verified for at least 

15 minutes.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.2.1. Return to Zero

The primary indicating and recording elements of a retail device shall readily return to a definite zero 

indication. Key-lock and other self-operated devices must have a zero-return indicating element, but 

they are not required to have the recording element return to zero. These devices may be equipped with 

cumulative recording elements. The primary indicating and recording elements shall not go beyond 

their correct zero position. 

48.7. Does the device have a primary recording element? Yes No N/A 

48.8. The indicating and recording elements of a retail device shall be readily 

returnable to a definite zero indication.

Yes No N/A 

48.9. Key-lock and self-operated devices shall have an indicating element that 

return to zero.

Yes No N/A 

48.10. Does the device have:

48.10.1. A cumulative indicating element? Yes No N/A 

48.10.2. A cumulative recording element? Yes No N/A 

48.11. Primary indicating and recording elements shall not go beyond their correct 

zero position.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.2.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity

A computing or money-operated device shall have a means on the face of the device for displaying the 

unit price at which it is set to compute or deliver and for posting the product identity. When a product is 

offered for sale at more than one unit price from a device, 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. The unit price shall be 

expressed as a decimal value in dollars. 

Code Reference: S.2.4.1. Unit Price, S.2.4.2. Product Identity and S.2.4.3. Selection of Unit Price

48.12. Means shall be provided to display the unit price on each face of the device. Yes No N/A

48.13. Means shall be provided to post on each side of the device the identity of the 

dispensed product.

Yes No N/A 

48.14. When a product is offered for sale at more than one unit price from a device, 

then all of the unit prices at which that product is offered for sale:

48.14.1. Shall be displayed prior to the delivery of the product, OR Yes No N/A 

48.14.2. Shall be capable of being displayed on the dispenser using controls 

available to the customer.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C8 

48.14.3. A system shall not permit a change to the unit price during 

delivery of product.

Yes No N/A 

Note: It is not necessary to simultaneously display all of the unit prices, 

provided the dispenser complies with NIST Handbook 44 section S.2.4.1.

a. The unit prices for each product and price level may be:

b. Displayed simultaneously for all products,

c. Displayed simultaneously for each product separately, OR

d. 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.

48.15. The unit price shall be expressed in dollars and decimals of dollars using a 

dollar sign. A common fraction shall not appear in the unit price, (e.g., 

$4.29 not $429/100).

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.2.5.2. Display of Quantity and Total Price

48.16. When a delivery is completed on a computing device, the total price and 

quantity for that transaction shall be displayed on the face of the dispenser 

for at least 5 minutes or until the next transaction is initiated by using 

controls on the device or other customer-activated controls.

Yes No N/A 

Note: The displayed unit price may revert to a base unit price immediately after 

the completion of a transaction, defined as the time the delivery has been 

terminated and payment has been settled. Any display of quantity, unit price, 

and total price that does not mathematically agree occurs between transactions 

and is permitted (in response to demands of device users) because the displayed 

values between "transactions" are not "significant" relative to the actual delivery 

process (transaction.)

49. Computing

Code Reference: S.2.5. Money-Value Computations

A hydrogen gas dispenser used to fuel vehicles shall be capable of computing total sale prices for all unit 

prices and for all deliveries within the range of measurement or computing capacity.

49.1. A retail computing device shall compute total sale prices for all quantities 

and unit prices within the range of its quantity and computing capacities.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.2.4.4. Agreement between Indications

48.17. All quantity, unit price, and total price indications shall agree. Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.2.5.1. Auxiliary Elements

48.18. All indicated money value divisions and quantity value divisions on 

auxiliary elements shall be identical with those of the primary element.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C9 

50. Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems, and Printed Receipt

A printed receipt shall be available through a built-in or separate recording element for transactions 

conducted with point-of-sale systems or devices activated by debit cards, credit cards, and/or cash. The 

printed receipt shall contain the following information for products delivered by the dispenser.

Code Reference: S.2.6. Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems

50.1. A printed receipt shall be available for devices activated by debit cards, 

credit cards, and/or cash. The printed receipt:

50.1.1. Shall contain the total mass of the delivery; Yes No N/A 

50.1.2. Shall contain the unit price; Yes No N/A

50.1.3. Shall contain the total computed price; and, Yes No N/A 

50.1.4. Shall contain the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, 

or code number.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.6. Printer

50.2. Printed information must agree with the indications on the dispenser.

50.2.1. Printed values shall be clearly defined. Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.6.1. Printed Receipt

50.3. Any delivered, printed quantity: 

50.3.1. Shall include an identification number, and; Yes No N/A 

50.3.2. Shall include the time and date, and; Yes No N/A 

50.3.3. Shall include the name of the seller. Yes No N/A

51. Design of Measuring Elements and Measuring Systems

Code Reference: S.3.1. Maximum and Minimum Flow-Rates

51.1. The ratio of the maximum to minimum flow-rates for devices measuring 

gases shall be 10:1 or greater.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.3.2. Adjustment Means

51.2. Means shall be provided to change the ratio between the indicated quantity 

and the quantity of gas measured by the assembly.

51.2.1. A bypass on the measuring assembly shall not be used for these 

means.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.3.2.1. Discontinuous Adjustment Means

51.3. When the adjusting means changes the ratio between the indicated quantity 

and the quantity of measured gas in a discontinuous manner, the consecutive 

values of the ratio shall not differ by more than 0.1 %.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.3.3. Provision for Sealing

Measuring elements shall be designed with adequate provisions to prevent changes from being made to 

the measuring element or the flow rate control (if the flow rate control affects the accuracy of deliveries) 

without evidence of the change being made. These provisions can be an approved means of security 

(e.g., data change audit trail) or physically applying a security seal which must be broken before 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C10

adjustments can be made. When applicable, the adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for the 

purposes of affixing a security seal.

51.4. A measuring element shall have provisions for either:

51.4.1. Applying a physical security seal, OR Yes No N/A 

51.4.2. An approved means of security (e.g., data change audit trail) so 

that no changes may be made to its adjustable components.

Yes No N/A 

51.5. Any adjustable element controlling the delivery rate shall provide for sealing 

or other approved means of security (e.g., data audit trail) if the flow rate 

affects the accuracy of deliveries.

Yes No N/A 

51.6. When applicable, the adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for the 

purposes of affixing a security seal.

Yes No N/A 

51.7. Audit trails shall use the format set forth in the Common and General Code 

Criteria section of this checklist (Code Reference G-S.8. LMD-23) and in 

Appendix A, Philosophy for Sealing.

Yes No N/A 

51.8. Retail vehicle fuel dispensers with remote configuration capabilities shall be 

sealed according to Table S.3.3. of NIST HB 44 Section 3.39. Hydrogen 

Gas-Measuring Devices – Tentative Code and according to Appendix A, 

Philosophy for Sealing.

Yes No N/A 

51.9. An automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density 

due to changes in temperature, pressure, and composition, shall be 

incorporated in any hydrogen gas-measuring system that is affected by 

changes in the density of the product being measured.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.3.6. Zero-Set-Back Interlock, Retail Vehicle Fuel Devices

The zero-set-back interlock on a dispenser is critical to prevent fraudulent practices. A retail vehicle 

fuel device shall have an effective automatic interlock such that once the dispenser shuts off, it cannot be 

restarted without resetting the indicating element to zero. This requirement also applies to the recording 

element if one is present. The dispenser shall be designed so that the starting lever must be in the shutoff position and the interlock engaged before the discharge nozzle can be returned to its designed 

hanging position. If a single pump supplies more than one dispenser, then each dispenser shall have an 

automatic control valve that prevents product from being delivered by a dispenser until its indications 

have been set to zero.

51.10. After the device is turned off by moving the lever that stops the flow, a 

subsequent delivery shall be prevented until the indicators (and recording 

element if present) have returned to their correct zero positions.

Yes No N/A

51.11. The starting lever shall be in shut off position and zero-set-back interlock 

engaged before the nozzle can be returned to its designed hanging position. 

That is any position where the tip of the nozzle is placed in its designed 

receptacle and the lock can be inserted.

Yes No N/A 

51.12. If more than one dispenser is connected to a single source, an automatic 

control valve shall prevent fuel from being delivered until the indicating 

elements have been returned to their correct zero position and engaged.

Yes No N/A 

51.13. The use of the interlock shall be effective under all conditions when any 

control on the console, except a system emergency shut-off, is operating and 

after any momentary power failure.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C11

52. Discharge Lines and Valves

Code Reference: S.4.1. Diversion of Measured Product

52.1. No means shall be provided by which any measured product can be diverted 

from the measuring device.

Yes No N/A

Code Reference: S.4.2. Directional Flow Valves

52.2. Valves intended to prevent the reversal of flow shall be automatic in

operation.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.4.3. Other Valves

52.3. Check valves and closing mechanisms that are not used to define the 

measured quantity shall have relief valves (if necessary) to dissipate any 

abnormally high pressure that may arise in the measuring assembly.

Yes No N/A 

53. Markings

Code Reference: S.5. Marking Requirements

53.1. A measuring system shall be conspicuously, legibly, and indelibly marked 

with:

53.1.1. Pattern approval mark (e.g., type approval number); Yes No N/A

53.1.2. Name and address of the manufacturer or his trademark and, 

required by the weights and measures authority, the manufacturer's 

identification mark in addition to the trademark;

Yes No N/A 

53.1.3. Model designation or product name selected by the manufacturer; Yes No N/A

53.1.4. Non-repetitive serial number; Yes No N/A 

53.1.5. Accuracy class of the meter as specified by the manufacturer 

consistent with Table T.2. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for 

Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices;

Yes No N/A

53.1.6. Maximum and minimum flow rates in kilograms per unit of time; Yes No N/A 

53.1.7. Maximum working pressure; Yes No N/A

53.1.8. Applicable temperature range if other than – 10 °C to + 50 °C; Yes No N/A 

53.1.9. Minimum measured quantity (MMQ.); Yes No N/A

53.1.10. Product limitations (such as fuel quality) if applicable. Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.5.1. Location of Marking Information; Retail Vehicle

Fuel Dispensers

53.2. The marking information required in the General Code, Paragraph GS.1. Identification shall appear as follows:

53.2.1. Within 60 cm (24 in) to 150 cm (60 in) from the base of the 

dispenser,

Yes No N/A 

53.2.2. Either internally and/or externally provided the information is 

permanent and easily read and accessible, AND

Yes No N/A 

53.2.3. On a portion of the device that cannot be readily removed or 

interchanged (e.g., not on a service access panel).

Yes No N/A 

Note: The use of a dispenser key or tool to access internal marking information 

is permitted for retail hydrogen-measuring devices.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C12

54. Totalizers

Code Reference: S.7. Totalizers for Retail Vehicle Fuel Dispensers

54.1. Vehicle fuel dispensers shall be equipped with a non-resettable totalizer for 

the quantity delivered through each separate measuring device.

Yes No N/A

55. Minimum Measured Quantity

Code Reference: S.8. MMQ

55.1. The minimum measured quantity shall satisfy the conditions of use of the 

measuring system as follows:

55.1.1. An MMQ not exceeding 0.5 kg for measuring systems with 

maximum flow rate less than or equal to 4 kg/min, OR

Yes No N/A

55.1.2. An MMQ not exceeding 1.0 kg for measuring systems with 

maximum flow rate greater than 4 kg/min but not greater than 

12 kg/min.

Yes No N/A

56. Card-Activated Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices

Code Reference: G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud

There is great concern regarding the potential for accidental or intentional fraud when card-activated 

systems are used in service stations, especially because bank-card-activated systems give direct access to 

bank accounts. The following criteria and test procedures apply to card-activated retail vehicle fuel 

dispensers.

A card-activated system shall authorize the dispensing of product for not more than three minutes of the 

time between authorization and “control” on at the dispenser. It shall properly record transactions on the 

appropriate card account.

When a card-activated system is subjected to power loss of greater than 10 seconds, the dispenser shall 

de-authorize. Because systems may be installed with separate power lines to the console, card reader, 

and dispenser, the different parts of the system should be tested with power failures to evaluate the 

potential for accidental or intentional errors. The appropriate device response depends upon when the 

power loss occurs during the delivery sequence.

Note: The term "control" generically refers to the handle, flapper, start button, on/off switch, or other 

mechanism used to activate or deactivate the dispenser.

56.1. The dispenser must de-authorize in not more than three minutes if the pump 

"control" is not turned on.

Yes No N/A 

56.2. If the time limit to deactivate a dispenser is programmable, it shall not

accept an entry greater than three minutes.

Yes No N/A 

56.3. When a power loss greater than 10 seconds occurs after the pump "control" 

is on, the dispenser must de-authorize.

Yes No N/A 

56.4. When there is a loss of power, but the dispenser "control" is not on, the 

dispenser must de-authorize in not more than three minutes.

Yes No N/A 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C13

57. Test Methods for Card-Activated Retail Vehicle Fuel Dispensers

57.1. Authorize the dispenser and, with the pump "control" on, interrupt power to 

any part (or all) of the system. The pump should de-authorize immediately.

57.1.1. Authorize with a card and turn the "control" on. Power down 

briefly, then restore power. Try to dispense product: the dispenser 

must not dispense because the power failure should have deauthorized the dispenser.

Yes No N/A 

57.2. Authorize the dispenser using a card (leaving control off); wait more than 

three minutes, and try to start the dispenser. It should not start because the 

authorization should have timed out.

Yes No N/A 

57.2.1. Authorize with a card, but do not turn the "control" on. Power 

down for more than three minutes, and then restore power. Try to 

dispense product; the dispenser should have "timed-out" and not 

dispense.

Yes No N/A 

57.2.2. Authorize and dispense with card #1. Allow the system to time 

out and de-authorize (if it does). Do not turn off the "control." 

Authorize and dispense with card #2. The transactions shall be 

properly recorded for each card.

Yes No N/A 

57.2.3. Authorize with card #1. Turn the "control" on, then off. Authorize 

with card #2. Dispense product and complete the delivery. Check 

the printed receipt to verify that the delivery has been properly 

charged to card #2

Yes No N/A 

57.2.4. Turn the dispenser "control" on, and use a card to authorize the 

dispenser. Turn the "control" off. After a period of 15 seconds, 

turn the "control" on. Try to deliver product; the dispenser must 

not dispense.

Yes No N/A 

57.2.5. Authorize with card #1 (do not turn the "control" on) and interrupt 

power for at least 10 seconds. This should de-authorize the 

dispenser. Resupply power; turn the "control" on; try to dispense. 

The dispenser shall not deliver product.

Yes No N/A 

57.2.6. Authorize with card #1 (turn the "control" on) and interrupt power 

for at least 10 seconds. This should de-authorize the dispenser. 

Resupply power; turn the "control" on; try to dispense. The 

dispenser shall not deliver product.

Yes No N/A 

Note: This test is not required if the device under test complies with paragraph 10.1.

48.18.1. Authorize a dispenser with card #1, but do not turn the dispenser 

"control" on. Try to authorize the same dispenser with card #2; it 

should not be accepted until after the 3 minute time-out.

Yes No N/A 

57.3. Attempt to override or confuse the card system by varying the length of time 

the card is in the slot (e.g., vary the "swipe" times), and pushing all other 

keys on the keypad during each step of the authorization process.

Yes No N/A 

58. Cash Activated Hydrogen Gas-Measuring Devices

The following criteria and test procedures apply to cash-activated retail vehicle fuel dispensers. Tests 

using various denominations of bills accepted by the cash acceptor should be performed.

Certificates of Conformance will cover the use of the cash acceptor option at both attended and 

unattended stations. Cash Acceptors which are used at unattended locations must meet the marking 

requirements of paragraph G-UR.3.4 Responsibility, Money-Operated Devices shall be clearly and 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C14

conspicuously displayed on the device or immediately adjacent to the device information detailing the 

return of monies paid when the product cannot be obtained.

Even if power is interrupted during a delivery, it is still necessary to correctly complete all transactions

in progress at the time of the power interruption. In the event of a power loss, the information needed to 

complete any transaction in progress at the time of the power loss (such as the quantity and unit price, 

sales price, or amount of money already inserted into the cash acceptor) shall be determinable for at least 

15 minutes at the dispenser or at the console or journal printer if the console or journal printer is 

accessible to the customer.

All portions of the transaction must be accounted for in order to complete the transaction. This 

information includes the following: (1) the total amount of money that was inserted into the device prior 

to the power interruption, (2) the amount of product already dispensed (which should be available from 

the dispenser and which must comply with the requirements of S.2.3. Provision for Power Loss, (3) and 

any bill that has been inserted but has not yet been recognized by the cash acceptor.

Note: For bills that have not yet been drawn into the cash acceptor to the point that the bill is no longer 

visible, it is assumed that the information on the bill denomination can be obtained from visual 

examination.

Various methods may be used to recall specific portions of the transaction depending on how the basic 

system operates. For example, systems that can print a record of the amount fed into the machine as 

each bill is fed into the device maintain an ongoing record of bills recognized by the system. Other 

systems may not print a receipt until the end of the transaction, so the information is recalled on a 

journal printer accessible to the customer or can be recalled on the cash acceptor display.

Check to see what happens when the power is interrupted at different points of the transaction. Note 

what occurs at the points where power is interrupted, what information is provided to the customer on 

the receipt, audibly and visually in the form of instructions or error messages. Because systems may be 

installed with separate power lines to the console, card reader, and dispenser may be installed, tests 

should be run with power interruptions to different parts of the system to evaluate the potential for 

accidental or intentional errors. The appropriate device response depends upon when the power loss 

occurs during the delivery sequence.

Code Reference: S.2.3. Provisions for Power Loss

58.1. Systems with Battery Back-up or Uninterruptible Power Supply or 

Equivalent - Some systems are equipped with a battery back-up or an 

uninterruptible power supply (or equivalent) which allows a transaction to 

continue in the event of a power loss. For such systems, the transaction in 

progress at the time of a power interrupt must continue as if no power 

interruption had occurred (or comply with the requirements for systems not 

equipped with a battery back-up.) That is, all bills (including bills being fed 

into the device at the time of the power loss) must be correctly accounted 

for, and the quantity and total sale amounts must be mathematically correct.

Check these systems by interrupting power at several points in the 

transaction to ensure that all information (total price, quantity, mathematical 

agreement, and total dollar amount inserted by the customer) is accounted 

for correctly.

Yes No N/A

All Other Systems: 

To check the operation of systems not equipped with a battery backup, uninterruptible power supply, or 

equivalent, interrupt power as described below. As noted earlier, if separate power lines supply different 

components in the system, interrupt power to different parts of the system.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C15

58.2. When one or more bills has been accepted and registered by the device, but 

product has not yet been dispensed, at least one of the following criteria 

must be met to ensure that this information can be recalled in the event of a 

power interruption:

58.2.1. The denomination of the bill must be printed by the printer on the 

device as the device recognizes the bill. (The printed receipt must 

be available to the customer.)

Yes No N/A

58.2.2. The denomination of each bill must be printed by a journal or 

other printer accessible to the customer as each bill is recognized 

by the device.

Yes No N/A 

58.2.3. The running total display must be capable of being recalled for at 

least 15 minutes.

Yes No N/A

58.2.4. Means provided to enable the customer to retrieve the money 

inserted into the device (e.g., a button which can be used during a 

power interruption to eject the money inserted by the customer). 

Yes No N/A

58.2.5. Other means used to provide a visual or printed record of the total 

amount of money accepted by the device.

Yes No N/A 

58.3. There is a brief period of time during which a bill has been accepted by the 

cash acceptor but has not yet been recognized by the device. The following 

criteria must be met to ensure that this information can be recalled in the 

event of a power failure.

58.3.1. Means provided to enable the attendant or customer to retrieve the 

bill (for example, a button which can be used during a power 

interruption to eject the bill or if the cash acceptor box can be 

removed by the attendant and the bill retrieved.)

Yes No N/A 

Note: There may be a space of time in which a bill can be caught partially in and out of the cash 

acceptor during a power interruption. In such a case, if the denomination of the bill is visible to the 

customer and attendant, this is sufficient to provide information about the bill being fed into the device 

at the time of the power interruption. The cash acceptor must comply with the other applicable items 

noted above.

It is expected that the retail vehicle fuel dispenser will comply with paragraph S.2.3. Provision for 

Power Loss; and the information on the product already dispensed can be recalled through this portion 

of the system.

58.4. Power should be interrupted at different points in the transaction to 

determine that all transaction information can be recalled in the event of a 

power interruption including combinations of the following:

58.4.1. After one bill has been inserted. Yes No N/A 

58.4.2. After several bills have been inserted Yes No N/A 

58.4.3. While a bill is being inserted. Yes No N/A 

58.4.4. After a bill has been inserted but not yet recognized. Yes No N/A 

58.4.5. After a bill(s) has been inserted and recognized, but the on/off 

control is still in the "off" position.

Yes No N/A 

58.4.6. After a bill(s) has been inserted and recognized, the on/off control

is in the "on" position, but no product has been dispensed.

Yes No N/A 

58.4.7. After a bill(s) has been inserted and recognized, the on/off control

is in the "on" position, and product is being dispensed.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements, General
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C16

58.5. A running display showing the amount of money fed into the machine must 

be provided. It is not necessary for this information to be displayed once the 

customer initiates delivery.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: S.2.6. Record Representation, Point of Sale Systems

58.6. A printed receipt must be available to the customer from the device at the 

completion of the transaction. The issuance of the receipt may be initiated at 

the option of the customer.

Yes No N/A 

58.6.1. The customer receipt must contain the following information: Yes No N/A

58.6.2. The identity (codes may be used) of the product purchased, the 

quantity purchased, the unit price, and the total price.

58.6.3. Because the customer must be provided with the option of 

receiving a receipt, at unattended devices the system must not 

accept cash if sufficient paper is not available to complete the 

transaction.

Yes No N/A 

58.7. The cash acceptor must not initiate a cash transaction if either of the 

following conditions is true:

58.7.1. No paper is in the receipt printer of the cash acceptor. Yes No N/A 

58.7.2. Insufficient paper is available to complete a transaction Yes No N/A

Code Reference: G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features

2.1. Instructions must be marked on the device to inform the customer how to 

operate the cash acceptor.

Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud

58.8. Means must be provided for the customer to cancel the transaction at any 

point.

58.8.1. The customer has inserted cash, but has not yet dispensed product. 

If the customer cancels the transaction by pressing the cancel key 

(or equivalent key(s)) or by lowering the on/off control, the device 

must either:

58.8.1.1. Be equipped with means for the customer to retrieve 

the cash inserted from the device, AND

58.8.1.2. Automatically issue a printed receipt indicating the 

amount tendered and the amount returned, OR

Yes No N/A

58.8.1.3. Display instructions (such as "sale terminated, see 

attendant," "sale terminated, get receipt" or similar 

wording) for the customer to see the attendant, AND

58.8.1.4. Automatically issue a printed receipt showing the 

amount of cash inserted by the customer, a statement 

indicating that the sale was terminated, and 

instructions for the customer to see the attendant.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C17

58.8.2. The customer has inserted cash and has started dispensing product. 

If the customer cancels or discontinues the transaction by pressing 

the cancel key (or equivalent key(s)) or lowering the on/off control 

before reaching the total money inserted into the device, the device 

must:

58.8.2.1. Display instructions for the customer to obtain the 

receipt and to see the attendant.

Yes No N/A 

58.8.2.2. Automatically issue a printed receipt showing the 

amount of cash inserted, the amount dispensed, the 

balance due to the customer, a statement indicating 

that the sale was terminated, and instructions for the 

customer to see the attendant.

Yes No N/A 

Note: It is acceptable for different messages to be used. This depends upon whether the transaction is 

terminated by use of the cancel key, (e.g., "sale terminated, get receipt" or "sale terminated, see 

attendant") or by lowering the on/off “control” (e.g., "change due, see attendant").
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix C – Draft NTEP Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Gas – 

Measuring Devices

NTEP – C / C18

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP 2012 Interim Agenda

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix D – Draft NCWM Publication 14, Liquid Measuring Devices 2.16.

NTEP – C / D1 

Appendix D

Draft NCWM Publication 14, Liquid Measuring Devices 2.16.

Sealing - General

In addition to satisfying the physical security sealing requirement; the presence of a physical seal shall clearly 

indicate that the setup or configuration mode (any mode permitting access to any or all sealable parameters based 

upon the application of the Philosophy for Sealing in NCWM Publication 14) of the device cannot be accessed 

without additional actions (e.g., removal of a jumper, pressing a key or switch, etc.) only possible after the removal 

of the seal. 

If the use of a physical seal is the only approved method of sealing; it shall not be possible to apply the physical seal 

with the device in the setup or configuration mode (any mode permitting access to any or all sealable parameters 

based upon the application of the Philosophy for Sealing in NCWM Publication 14) unless the device has a clear 

indication that the device is in this mode. See the list of acceptable and unacceptable indications below.

Applicable for Devices Using a Physical Seal

Technologist: Remarks: 

Control Number: 

Date: 

Time: 

Temp.: (°C) 

RH (%): 

Mechanism Used to Enter Calibration / Configuration:

Jumper Yes No N/A

Push-button (memory 

switch)

Yes No N/A

Toggle/Slide Switch Yes No N/A

Other (describe in remarks) Yes No N/A

Meets Requirements Yes No N/A

Mechanism Effective Upon Exit of Calibration / Configuration in Approved Mode 

(when mechanism is properly set according to manufactures specifications)

Jumper Yes No N/A

Push-button (memory 

switch)

Yes No N/A

Toggle/Slide Switch Yes No N/A

Other (describe in remarks) Yes No N/A

Meets Requirements Yes No N/A

Note: Means of entering and exiting the calibration/configuration access mode shall be listed on the NTEP 

CC.

Indications Representing That the Device is Configured with the Setup or Configuration Mode Enabled 

(i.e., any mode permitting access to any or all sealable parameters)
NTEP 2012 Interim Agenda

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix D – Draft NCWM Publication 14, Liquid Measuring Devices 2.16.

NTEP – C / D2 

This list is not limiting or all-inclusive; other indications may be acceptable.

Acceptable Clear Indications Indications NOT Acceptably Clear

Unusable quantity indications

Example: C100.05E

C 100.05 gal

“not NIST Handbook 44” annunciator Any digit in the quantity differentiated by size, shape, or 

color

“CAL” Annunciator (single or mixed case) Quantities w/o units

Example:100.05

“Set-up” Annunciator (single or mixed case) Flashing Quantity Value

“Config” Annunciator (single or mixed case) Quantity with No Annunciators Displayed

Quantity All Annunciators Displayed
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix E – Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family

NTEP 

– C / E1

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Test B

To cover a range of the following products, test 

with one product having a low specific gravity and 

test with a second product having a high specific 

gravity. The Certificate of Conformance will cover 

all products in all product categories listed in the 

table under Test B within the specific gravity range 

tested.

• Test B does not apply to product categories of liquefied 

gases, compressed liquids, cryogenic liquids or heated 

products.

Note: Product categories under Test B were 

formerly referred to collectively as "Normal 

Liquids."

Test F

To cover a range of the following products, test with one 

product having a specified conductivity. The Certificate of 

Conformance will cover all products with conductivity equal 

to or above the conductivity of the tested liquid.

• Test F does not apply to product categories of potable 

water, non-potable water, tap water, water mixes of alcohols 

and glycols, fertilizers, suspension fertilizers, liquid feeds, 

clear liquid fertilizers, chemicals or crop chemicals A, B, C, 

or D.

• Test F does not apply to product categories of liquefied 

gases, or compressed liquids.

Test C

To cover a range of products within each product 

category, test with one product having a low viscosity 

and test with a second product having a high viscosity 

within each category. The Certificate of Conformance 

will cover all products in the product category within 

the viscosity range tested.

Test E

To cover a range of products within each 

product category, test with one product having 

a low kinematic viscosity and test with a 

second product having a high kinematic 

viscosity within each category. The Certificate 

of Conformance will cover all products in the 

product category within the kinematic viscosity 

range tested.1

Product Category:

Alcohols, Glycols and Water Mixes Thereof (Alc 

Gly)

Product Category:

Alcohols, Glycols and Water Mixes Thereof 

(Alc Gly)

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Typical

Products

Conductivity

(microsiemens/centimeter)

Product 

Category

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Butanol 0.81 Alc Gly Butanol Alc Gly Butanol 3.34 Butanol 3.34

Ethanol 0.79 Alc Gly Ethanol 0.0013 Alc Gly Ethanol 1.29 Ethanol 1.29

Ethylene

Glycol 1.19 Alc Gly Ethylene Glycol Alc Gly Ethylene Glycol 25.5 Ethylene Glycol 25.5 

Isobutyl 0.81 Alc Gly Isobutyl 0.02 Alc Gly Isobutyl 4.54 Isobutyl 4.54 

Isopropyl 0.79 Alc Gly Isopropyl 3.5 Alc Gly Isopropyl 2.78 Isopropyl 2.78

Methanol 0.80 Alc Gly Methanol 0.44 Alc Gly Methanol 0.64 Methanol 0.64 

Propylene Glycol 1.04 Alc Gly Propylene 

Glycol Alc Gly Propylene Glycol 54 Propylene Glycol 54 

Banvel 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A 6 Oil (#5, #6) FL&O

Test C

Product Category:

Crop Chemicals (Type A) (CC-A)

Test E

Product Category:

Compressed Liquids, Fuels and Refrigerants 

NH3 (Comp liq)

Herbicides 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Asphalt FL&O Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Paraquat 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Avgas FL&O Banvel 4 – 400 Anhydrous 

Ammonia 0.188 

 

1 Kinematic viscosity is measured in centistokes. Source for some of the viscosity value information is in the Industry Canada – Measurement Canada "Liquid Products Group, Bulletin V-16-E 

(rev.1), August 3, 1999."

 

2 The specific gravity of a liquid is the ratio of its density to that of water at standard conditions, usually 4 °C (or 40 °F) and 1 atmosphere. The density of water at standard conditions is 

approximately 1000 kg/m3 (or 998 kg/m3

). The specific gravity of a gas is the ratio of its density to that of air at standard conditions, usually 4 °C (or 40 °F) and 1 atmosphere.
NTEP 

– C / E2

Appendix C NTEP 2012 Final Report

– NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix E – Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Typical

Products

Conductivity

(microsiemens/centimeter)

Product 

Category

Test C

Product Category:

Crop Chemicals (Type A) (CC-A) continued

Test E

Product Category:

Compressed Liquids, Fuels and Refrigerants 

NH3 (Comp liq) continued

Prowl 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Biodiesel above 

B20 FL&O Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Round-up 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Bunker Oil FL&O Herbicides 4 – 400 Butane 0.19

Touchdown 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Cooking Oils FL&O Paraquat 4 – 400 Ethane

Treflan 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Corn Oil FL&O Prowl 4 – 400 Freon 11 0.313

Adjuvants 0.7 – 1.2 CC-B Crude Oil FL&O Round-up 4 – 400 Freon 12 0.359 

Fumigants 0.7 – 1.2 CC-B Diesel Fuel 3 FL&O Touchdown 4 – 400 Freon 22 1.99 

Fungicides 0.7 – 1.2 CC-B Fuel Oil

(#1, #2, #3, #4) 0 FL&O Treflan 4 – 400 Propane 0.098 

Insecticides 0.7 – 1.2 CC-B Gasoline 4 FL&O

Test C

Product Category:

Crop Chemicals (Type B) (CC-B)

Test E

Product Category:

Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade 

Liquid oils (FL&O)

Fungicides 1 – 1.2 CC-C Jet A FL&O Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Micronutrients 0.9 – 1.65 CC-D Jet A-1 FL&O Adjuvants 0.7 – 100 6 Oil (#5, #6) 66 – 13,000 

Hydrochloric Acid 1.1 Chem Jet B FL&O Fumigants 0.7 – 100 Asphalt 100 – 5000 

Phosphoric Acid 1.87 Chem JP4 FL&O Fungicides 0.7 – 100 Avgas 1.5 – 6 

Sulfuric Acid 1.83 Chem JP5 FL&O Insecticides 0.7 – 100 Biodiesel above 

B20 10.12 

3-10-30 0.9 – 1.65 Fert JP7 and JP8 FL&O

Test C

Product Category:

Crop Chemicals (Type C) (CC-C)

Bunker Oil 11,200 

4-4-27 0.9 – 1.65 Fert Kerosene FL&O Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Cooking Oils 9.93 

9-18-9 1.32 Fert Light Oil FL&O Fungicides 20 – 900 Corn Oil 4

10-34-0 1.39 Fert Lubricating Oils FL&O

Test C

Product Category:

Crop Chemicals (Type D) (CC-D)

Crude Oil 3 – 1783 

20%

Aqua-Ammonia 0.89 Fert Olive Oil FL&O Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Diesel Fuel3 10 

28%, 30% or 32% 1.28 – 1.32 Fert Peanut Oil FL&O Micronutrients 20 – 1000 Fuel Oil (#1, #2, 

#3, #4) 8 – 88 

 

3 Diesel fuel blends (biodiesel with up to 20% vegetable or animal fat/oil.)

4 Gasoline includes oxygenated fuel blends with up to 15% oxygenate. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix E – Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family

NTEP 

– C / E3

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Typical

Products

Conductivity

(microsiemens/centimeter)

Product 

Category

Test C

Product Category:

Chemicals (Chem)

Test E

Product Category:

Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade 

Liquid oils (FL&O) continued

Ammonia Nitrate 1.16 – 1.37 Fert SAE Grades FL&O Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Clear Liquid 

Fertilizer 1.17 – 1.44 Fert Soy Oil 0 FL&O Hydrochloric Acid 0.80 – 1. 0 Gasoline4 0.28 

Nitrogen Solution 1.17 – 1.44 Fert Spindle Oil FL&O Phosphoric Acid 161 Jet A 1.5 – 6 

N-P-K Solutions 1.2 – 1.4 Fert Sunflower Oil FL&O Sulfuric Acid 1.49 Jet A-1 1.36

Urea 1.89 Fert Vegetable Oil 0 FL&O

Test C

Product Category:

Compressed Liquids, Fuels and Refrigerants (Comp 

liq)

Jet B 1.5 – 6 

6 Oil (#5, #6) 0.9 FL&O Asphalt Heated Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) JP4 1.02 

Asphalt FL&O Bunker C Heated Anhydrous 

Ammonia 0.188 JP5 1.94 

Avgas FL&O Carbon TetraChloride Solv Cl Butane 0.19 JP7 and JP8 1.82 

Biodiesel

above B20 0.86 FL&O MethyleneChloride Solv Cl Ethane Kerosene 1.94 

Bunker Oil 0.99 FL&O PerchloroEthylene Solv Cl Freon 11 0.313 Light Oil 13.47 

Cooking Oils 0.92 FL&O TrichloroEthylene Solv Cl Freon 12 0.359 Lubricating Oils 20 – 1000 

Corn Oil 0.91 FL&O Acetates Solv Gen Freon 22 1.99 Olive Oil 116.8 

Crude Oil 0.79 – 0.97 FL&O Acetone .02 Solv Gen Propane 0.098 Peanut Oil 11 – 110 

Diesel Fuel3 0.84 FL&O Ethylacetate 0.00001 Solv Gen

Test C

Product Category:

Clear Liquid Fertilizers (Fert)

SAE Grades 192 – 3626 

Fuel Oil

(#1, #2, #3, #4) 0.9 FL&O Hexane 0 Solv Gen Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Soy Oil 90.6 

Gasoline4 0.72 FL&O MEK 0.1 Solv Gen 9-18-0 Spindle Oil

Jet A FL&O Toluene 0 Solv Gen 10-34-0 48 Sunflower Oil 90.1 

Jet A-1 0.76 FL&O Xylene 0 Solv Gen 20% AquaAmmonia 1.1 – 1.3 Vegetable Oil 133 

Jet B FL&O Deionized Water 28%, 30% or 

32% 31 – 110 

Test E

Product Category: 

Solvents General (Solv Gen)

JP4 0.76 FL&O Demineralized Water Ammonia 

Nitrate 11.22 Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

JP5 0.76 FL&O Clear Liquid 

Fertilizer 31 – 110 Acetates 0.44 

JP7 and JP8 0.76 FL&O Nitrogen 

Solution 31 – 110 Acetone 0.34 
NTEP 

– C / E4

Appendix C NTEP 2012 Final Report

– NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix E – Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Test D

To obtain coverage for a product category, test with one 

product in the product category. The Certificate of 

Conformance will cover all products in the category.

• Test D does not apply to product categories of pure 

alcohols, pure glycol, pure water, solvents chlorinated, 

solvents general, fuels, lubricants, industrial and food grade 

liquid oils.

• Test D does not apply to product categories of liquefied 

gases, compressed liquids or heated products.

Test C

Product Category:

Clear Liquid Fertilizers (Fert) continued

Test E

Product Category:

Solvents General (Solv Gen) continued

Kerosene 0.75 FL&O

Typical

Products

Conductivity

(microsiemens/centimeter)

Product 

Category

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Light Oil 0.86 FL&O

Water Mixes of 

Alcohols and 

Glycols

Alc Gly N-P-K Solution Ethylacetate 1.36 

Lubricating Oils 0.80 – 0.90 FL&O Banvel CC-A Urea 1 Hexane 0.34 

Olive Oil 0.92 FL&O Herbicides CC-A 

Test C

Product Category:

Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade Liquid 

Oils (FL&O)

MEK 0.45 

Peanut Oil 0.9 – 1.0 FL&O Paraquat CC-A Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Toluene 0.62 

SAE Grades 0.9 FL&O Prowl CC-A 6 Oil (#5, #6) 66 – 13,000 Xylene 0.86

Soy Oil 0.93 FL&O Round-up CC-A Asphalt 100 – 5000 

Test A

The following products must be individually 

tested and noted on the Certificate of 

Conformance.

Spindle Oil FL&O Touchdown CC-A Avgas 1.5 – 6 Typical

Products

Product

Category

Sunflower Oil 0.93 FL&O Treflan CC-A Biodiesel above 

B20 10.12 Banvel CC-A 

Vegetable Oil 0.92 FL&O Adjuvants CC-B Bunker Oil 11,200 Herbicides CC-A 

Liquid Molasses 1.25 Liq Feed Fumigants CC-B Cooking Oils 9.93 Paraquat CC-A

Molasses Plus 

Phos Acid and/or 

Urea (TreaChle)

1.1 – 1.3 Liq Feed Fungicides CC-B Corn Oil 4 Prowl CC-A 

Carbon TetraChloride 1.6 Solv Cl Insecticides CC-B Crude Oil 3-1783 Round-up CC-A 

MethyleneChloride 1.34 Solv Cl Fungicides CC-C Diesel Fuel3 10 Touchdown CC-A 

Perchloro-Ethylene 1.6 Solv Cl Micronutrients CC-D Fuel Oil (#1, #2, 

#3, #4) 8 to 88 Treflan CC-A 

Trichloro-Ethylene 1.47 Solv Cl Hydrochloric 

Acid 395000 Chem Gasoline4 0.28 Adjuvants CC-B 

Acetates 0.93 Solv Gen Phosphoric Acid 56600 Chem Jet A 1.5 – 6 Fumigants CC-B
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix E – Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family

NTEP 

– C / E5

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Typical

Products

Conductivity

(microsiemens/centimeter)

Product 

Category

Test C

Product Category:

Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade Liquid 

Oils (FL&O) continued

Typical

Products

Product

Category

Acetone 0.8 Solv Gen Sulfuric Acid 209000 Chem Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Fungicides CC-C 

Ethylacetate 0.96 Solv Gen 9-18-0 Fert Jet A-1 1.36 Insecticides CC-B 

Hexane 0.66 Solv Gen 10-34-0 Fert Jet B 1.5 – 6 Fungicides CC-C 

MEK 0.81 Solv Gen 20% AquaAmmonia Fert JP4 1.02 Micronutrients CC-D 

Toluene 0.87 Solv Gen 28%, 30% or 

32% Fert JP5 1.94 Hydrochloric Acid Chem

Xylene 0.89 Solv Gen Ammonia 

Nitrate Fert JP7 and JP8 1.82 Phosphoric Acid Chem

Beverages 1.0 Water Clear Liquid 

Fertilizer Fert Kerosene 1.94 Sulfuric Acid Chem

Deionized 1.0 Water Nitrogen 

Solution Fert Light Oil 13.47 NH3 Comp Liq

Demineralized 1.0 Water N-P-K Solutions Fert Lubricating Oils 20 – 1000 20% AquaAmmonia Fert

Juices 1.0 Water Urea 5000 Fert Olive Oil 116.8 28%, 30% or 

32% Fert

Milk 1.0 Water Liquid Molasses 300 Liq Feed Peanut Oil 11 – 110 9-18-0 Fert

Nonpotable 1.0 Water

Molasses Plus 

Phos Acid 

and/or Urea 

(TreaChle)

Liq Feed SAE Grades 192 – 3626 10-34-0 Fert

Potable 1.0 Water 3-10-30 Sus Fert Spindle Oil Ammonia 

Nitrate Fert

Tap Water 1.0 Water 4-4-27 Sus Fert Soy Oil 90.6 Clear Liquid 

Fertilizer Fert

Test D

To obtain coverage for each of the following 

product categories, test with one product in each 

product category. The Certificate of Conformance 

will cover the products in the product category in 

which a product was tested.

Beverages Water Sunflower Oil 90.1 Nitrogen 

Solution Fert

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category Juices Water Vegetable Oil 133 N-P-K Solutions Fert

Compressed 

Natural Gas 

(CNG)

0.6 – 0.8 

(1=Air) Comp gas Nonpotable 725 Water Urea Fert

Anhydrous 

Ammonia 0.61 Comp liq Potable 725 Water Bicep Flow

Butane 0.595 Comp liq Tap Water 725 Water Broadstrike Flow

 

5 This data point is suspected to be lower than that of normal tap water supplied for residential consumption.
NTEP 

– C / E6

Appendix C NTEP 2012 Final Report

– NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix E – Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Test C

Product Category: 

Flowables (Flow)

Typical

Products

Product

Category

Ethane Comp liq Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Doubleplay Flow

Freon 11 1.49 Comp liq Bicep 20 – 900 Dual Flow

Freon 12 1.33 Comp liq Broadstrike 20 – 900 Guardsman Flow

Freon 22 1.37 Comp liq Doubleplay 20 – 900 Harness Flow

Propane 0.504 Comp liq Dual 20 – 900 Marksman Flow

Liquefied Natural 

Gas Cryo LNG Guardsman 20 – 900 Topnotch Flow

Liquefied Oxygen 0.66 Cryo LNG Harness 20 – 900 Asphalt Heated

Nitrogen 0.31 Cryo LNG Marksman 20 – 900 Bunker C Heated

Asphalt Heated Topnotch 20 – 900 Liquid Molasses Liq Feed

Bunker C 1.1 Heated

Test C

Product Category:

Heated (Heated)

Molasses plus 

Phos Acid 

and/or Urea 

(TreaChle)

Liq Feed

Test A

The following products must be individually tested 

and noted on the Certificate of Conformance.

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Carbon TetraChloride Solv Cl

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product

Category Asphalt 100 – 5000 MethyleneChloride Solv Cl

Compressed 

Hydrogen Gas (H 

or H2)

0.07 

(1=Air) CompH2 Bunker C 11,200 PerchloroEthylene Solv Cl

Test C

Product Category:

Liquid Feed (Liq Feed)

TrichloroEthylene Solv Cl

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) 3-10-30 Sus Fert

Liquid Molasses 8640 4-4-27 Sus Fert

Molasses Plus 

Phos Acid 

and/or Urea 

(TreaChle)

2882 

Compressed 

Hydrogen Gas 

(H or H2)

Comp H2

Test C

Product Category:

Solvents Chlorinated (Solv Cl)

Test D

To obtain coverage for a product category, test 

with one product in the product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover all 

products in the category.

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Product

Category

Carbon TetraChloride 0.99 Liquefied 

Natural Gas Cryo LNG

Liquefied 

Oxygen Cryo LNG
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix E – Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family

NTEP – C / E7

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Test C

Product Category:

Solvents Chlorinated (Solv Cl) continued

Typical

Products

Product

Category

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity

1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Nitrogen Cry LNG

Methylene-

Chloride 0.46 Beverages Water

Perchloro-

Ethylene 1 Deionized Water

Trichloro-

Ethylene 0.6 Demineralized Water

Test C

Product Category: 

Solvents General (Solv Gen)

Juices Water

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity

1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP) Milk Water

Acetates 0.44 Nonpotable Water

Acetone 0.34 Potable Water

Ethylacetate 1.36 Tap Water Water

Hexane 0.34 

MEK 0.45

Toluene 0.62 

Xylene 0.86 

Test C

Product Category:

Suspension Fertilizers (Sus Fert)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity

1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

3-10-30 100 – 1000

4-4-27 20 – 215 

Test D

To obtain coverage for a product category, test with one 

product in the product category. The Certificate of 

Conformance will cover all products in the category.

Product Category:

Water (Water)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity

1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Beverages 1.0 

Deionized 1.0 

Demineralized 1.0 

Juices 1.0

Milk 1.0

Nonpotable 1.0

Potable 1.0
NTEP 

– C / E8

Appendix C NTEP 2012 Final Report

– NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary

Appendix E – Liquid Measuring Devices Product Family

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Test D

Product Category:

Water (Water) continued

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Tap Water 1.0 

Test A

The following products must be individually tested 

and noted on the Certificate of Conformance.

Product Category:

Cryogenic Liquids and Liquefied Natural Gas 

(Cryo LNG)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Liquefied 

Natural Gas

Liquefied 

Oxygen 0.038 

Nitrogen 1.07 

Test A

The following products must be individually tested 

and noted on the Certificate of Conformance.

Product Category:

Compressed Hydrogen Gas (Comp H2)

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) Centipoise (cP)

Compressed 

Hydrogen Gas 

(H or H2)

0.0097 

Product Category Table – Category Abbreviations

Abbreviation Product Category Abbreviation Product Category

Alc Gly Alcohols, Glycols and Water Mixes Thereof Fert Fertilizers

CC-A Crop Chemicals (Type A) FL&O Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade Liquid Oils

CC-B Crop Chemicals (Type B) Flow Flowables

CC-C Crop Chemicals (Type C) Heated Heated Products

CC-D Crop Chemicals (Type D) Liq Feed Liquid Feeds

Chem Chemicals Solv Chl Solvents Chlorinated

Comp gas Compressed Gases Solv Gen Solvents General

Comp H2 Compressed Hydrogen Gas Sus Fert Suspension Fertilizers

Comp liq Compressed Liquids (Fuels and Refrigerants, NH3) Water Water

Cryo LNG Cryogenic Liquids and Liquefied Natural Gas

Note: The Typical Products listed in this table are not limiting or all-inclusive; there may be other products and product trade names, which fall into a product family. Water and a product such as

stoddard solvent or mineral spirits may be used as test products in the fuels, lubricants, industrial, and food- grade liquid oils product family.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D1 

Appendix D 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Software Sector Meeting Summary

March 15 - 16, 2011

Annapolis, Maryland

INTRODUCTION

The charge of the NTETC Software Sector (herein after referred to as “Sector”) is important in providing 

appropriate type evaluation criteria for software-based weighing or measuring device based on specifications, 

tolerances and technical requirements of NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices Section 1.10. General Code, Section 2 for weighing devices, 

Section 3 for liquid and vapor measuring devices, and Section 5 for taximeters, grain analyzers, and multiple 

dimension measuring devices. The Software Sector’s recommendations are presented to the National Type 

Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee each January for approval and inclusion in NCWM Publication 14,

Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures for national type evaluation.

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties.

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Note: It is policy to use metric units of measurement in publications; however, recommendations received by 

NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this publication 

as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Content NTEP - D Page

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... D1

CARRY-OVER ITEMS........................................................................................................................................... D2

1. Software Identification/Markings......................................................................................................... D2

2. Identification of Certified Software .................................................................................................... D11

3. Software Protection/Security .............................................................................................................. D14

4. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration....................................................................................... D16

5. NTEP Application for Software and Software-based Devices ........................................................... D19

6. Training of Field Inspectors................................................................................................................ D20

NEW ITEMS........................................................................................................................................................... D23

7. Remote or Distributed Metrologically Significant Functionality........................................................ D23

8. Next Meeting ...................................................................................................................................... D24

9. Report on 2011 Interim Meeting......................................................................................................... D24

10. Report on International Weights and Measures Activity.................................................................... D24

ATTENDANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... D25
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D2 

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

BIML International Bureau of Legal Metrology OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

CC Certificate of Conformance PDC Professional Development Committee

GMMs Grain Moisture Meters S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures

SMA Scale Manufactures Assocation

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program WELMEC European Cooperation in Legal 

Metrology

NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

CARRY-OVER ITEMS

1. Software Identification/Markings 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: 

Since its inception the Sector has wrestled with the issue of software identification and marking requirements. For 

more background information on this item, see the 2010 NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary and the 

2011 NCWM Annual Report S&T Committee Agenda Item 310-2. 

On the first day of discussion, the Sector agreed that the revisions to G-S.1. Identification and G-S.1.1. Location of 

Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, Software-Based Devices as they were presented in the 2010 

NCWM Publication 15 and as Informational Items in NCWM Publication 16 still required some clarification in 

certain areas. There seems to be confusion regarding requirements for purely mechanical devices now, and there is 

no indication of the preference for hard-marking when the option to mark or display is allowed.

Feedback received from NCWM membership seems to indicate a preference to not delineate between device types 

(at least where marking requirements are concerned). This was taken into account as the sector reviewed the current 

and previously proposed language.

In general, the Sector agreed that for the purposes of marking there was no reason to distinguish between different

types of software (i.e., a software on a CD that is to be installed on a computer, or software embedded in a chip 

within a built-for-purpose device).

The following draft revision of the language in G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. was crafted to try to address some of these 

concerns, and as a basis for further discussion: 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D3 

NIST Handbook 44

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights, and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect, and software-based devices covered in G-S.1.1. Location of 

Marking Information*, shall be clearly and permanently marked as per G-S.1.1. for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20XX] 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(1) The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms 

may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The 

abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial 

capitals, all capitals, or all lowercase. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001) 

(c) a nonrepetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and 

not-built-for-purpose software-based software devices; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(Amended 2003) 

(1) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies 

the number as the required serial number. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and 

abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, 

SN, Ser. No., and S. No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(d) when metrologically significant software is employed, the current software version or revision 

identifier, which shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself for not-built-forpurpose, software-based electronic devices; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 20XX)

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, 

begin with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(e) an National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Certificate of Conformance (CC) number or a 

corresponding CC Addendum Number for devices that have a CC. The CC Number or a 

corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced by the terms “NTEP CC,” “CC,” or 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D4 

“Approval.” These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The 

abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and, 2006, and 201X) 

*added by S&T Committee based on SMA comments, and not in original NTETC Software Sector submission

The clause regarding making the software version / revision inseparably linked to the software may or may not be 

included in current recommendations. Feedback will be obtained from the Scale Manufactures Association (SMA) 

in April.

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-For-Purpose all Software-Based Devices. – For 

not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, either: 

(a) The required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) shall be permanently marked or 

continuously displayed on the device; or 

(b) The required information in G-S.1. Identification shall be available via the user interface. The 

Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be: 

(1) permanently marked on the device; 

(2) continuously displayed; or 

(3) accessible through one or, at most, two levels of access. an easily recognized menu and, if 

necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu and submenu identification include, but are not 

limited to, “Help,” “System Identification,” “G-S.1. Identification,” or “Weights and Measures 

Identification.” 

(i) For menu based systems, “Metrology,” “System Identification,” or “Help.” 

(ii) For systems using icons, a metrology symbol “(M)”, “(SI),” or a help symbol (“?,” “i,” or 

an “i" within a magnifying glass). 

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed on the CC, 

including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was evaluated. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006 and 20XX) 

For several years now, the Software Sector has been recommending updates to G-S.1. to eliminate the use of the 

undefined term “not-built-for-purpose”, and to add a requirement for marking software version/revision for ALL 

devices using metrologically significant software (currently built-for-purpose devices are excluded from this 

requirement). However, the Sector tried to fit it in by generalizing other areas of the Code (meaning G-S.1.1.) to 

apply to all software-based devices.

At the 2010 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, provided a history of how this issue 

evolved. He noted that there were multiple attempts to address software in not-built-for purpose devices. The 

NTETC Software Sector has attempted to further simplify the identification requirements that apply to softwarebased systems and has made multiple suggestions that were not accepted. The Sector has taken a step back and is 

trying to get the point across that the marking requirements are not for the manufacturer, but to assist the inspector in 

the inspection process and in assessing whether or not a specific device, including software, is covered under an 

NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC). The Sector realizes that ideally this information is not going to be
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D5 

physically marked on the device and is looking for alternatives in which this information can be provided 

electronically to inspectors in an easily accessible manner. It will likely be provided on the device’s display screen, 

and there is limited space for this information to be displayed. The Sector is looking for input on the general 

direction it should take in developing or updating NIST Handbook 44 requirements. If the direction seems 

reasonable, the Sector will further develop the idea; if not, the Sector will consider an alternative direction.

Comments in response to that question posed to the Conference indicated that the Sector was on the right track; but 

the language needed additional work. Limiting the options for locating required marking information seemed to be 

a well-received idea.

Further discussion regarding “easily recognizable” was addressed previously with an initial list of menu 

options/icons that would act as the “defining” set of acceptable menu selections/icons for finding the CC number of 

the device. The idea was to limit the options to a finite set, thus assuring evaluators and field inspectors had at least 

a reasonable limit to the possible ways to obtain this information. There was good feedback and discussion from 

other groups and was considered during the 2011 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, and the Sector did modify the

document to eliminate some options that were deemed problematic, etc. Originally the plan was to put this into 

NIST Handbook 44 but further discussion at the 2011 NTETC Software Sector Meeting led to the consensus that the 

existing language is sufficient, and using such a list as guidance for the evaluating laboratories (e.g., NCWM 

Publication 14) would be the proper approach. Hence, the list of menu text/icons as updated to reflect the comments 

received can be re-circulated, but is now the opinion of the sector that this list is best targeted at NCWM 

Publication 14. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D6 

Table 1 – NTETC Software Sector Proposed Menu Text/Icons

Permitted Menu Text 

Examples

Permitted Icon 

Shape Examples

Essential Characteristics

Information

Info

Top level menu text or icon

• Icon text is a lower case “i” with block serifs

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a circular border

• Activation of this menu text/icon may invoke a second level 

menu text/icon that recalls metrology information.

Help

?

Top level menu text or icon

• Icon text is a question mark

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a circular border

• Activation of this menu text/icon may invoke a second level 

menu text/icon that recalls metrology information.

Metrology

Metrological 

Information

Top or second level menu text or icon

• Icon text is an upper case “M”

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a rectangle or rounded rectangle border. Note (2011 

mtg): using a rectangle is problematic because it matches a symbol 

used in Europe. A circle would be preferred. Green M may also be 

an issue due to it being used as a metrology mark in EU.

• If present, the activation of this menu text/icon must recall at a 

minimum the NTEP CC number.

SI

S.I.

System Information

System Info

Top or second level menu text or icon

• Icon text is upper case “SI”

• Text color may be light or dark but must contrast with the 

background color

• Icon may have a rectangle or rounded rectangle border

• If present, the activation of this menu item/icon must recall at a 

minimum the NTEP CC number. 

• The SI is problematic since it is also used to identify the 

International System of Units.

NTEP Data

N.T.E.P. Certificate

This one is debatable – what if the certificate is revoked? Does 

NTEP grant holders of CCs the right to display the logo on the 

device, or just in documentation?

Acceptable examples of where the text or icon may be displayed:

1. The “M” icon is available on the home screen. Activation of the icon displays a new screen containing the 

CC number and some additional metrology information including the software version/revision number(s).

2. The “SI” icon is available on the home screen. Touch screen activation of the icon displays a pop-up 

containing the CC number. Releasing the icon erases the pop-up.

3. The main screen contains the “i” icon (information). Activating this icon displays a screen of other icons 

including the “M” icon. Activating the “M” icon displays the NTEP CC.

M

MSI
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D7 

4. The main menu includes a “Help” selection which in turn contains a “Metrology” selection. Activation of 

the Metrology selection displays a pop-up screen containing all global metrological approvals, including 

the NTEP CC number. The user manually dismisses the pop-up screen by pressing the [X] button.

The main menu includes an “Info” selection which in turn contains a “SI” selection. Activation of the SI selection 

displays a pop-up screen containing all global metrological approvals, including the NTEP CC number. The user 

manually dismisses the pop-up screen by pressing the [OK] button.

Comments from NTETC Weighing Sector Comments:

The NTETC Weighing Sector reviewed the initial list of menu text and icons and provided the following comments: 

• Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, Inc., indicated that the green M is an EU metrology mark and for that reason 

should not be considered an acceptable icon. 

• There was general consensus amongst NTETC Weighing Sector members that the SI should not be 

considered acceptable since it is also used to identify the International System of Units. 

Comments from NTETC Measuring Sector Comments:

The NTETC Measuring Sector had no additional technical guidance to offer to the S&T Committee on this issue. 

However, based on comments from sector members present, the NTETC Measuring Sector expressed general 

support for trying to refine the marking requirements and limit the number of options for marking keys that enable 

the inspector to view the required marking information.

Potential additions to the list of acceptable options would be an icon or menu option showing “W/M”, “W&M”, or 

“Menu” for a top level menu text option.

NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Comments: 

The NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector found the wording of G-S.1.1. confusing. It seemed to say that the markings 

spelled out in G-S.1. were to be EITHER permanently marked or continuously displayed on the device OR the 

Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be either: permanently marked or continuously displayed, or 

accessible through menu or icon. To some, this implied that the software version identifier did NOT have to be 

displayed. Others believed that the “OR” phrase meant that only the CC had three options for marking (permanent, 

continuously displayed, or accessible via menu or icon), and that the software/firmware version/revision number 

must be either permanently marked or continuously displayed. 

Regardless of how the wording is interpreted, the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector agreed that it was not practical to 

permanently mark or continuously display the software/firmware version/revision identifier for Grain Moisture 

Meters (GMMs). The Sector recommends that G-S.1.1.(b) be amended to include accessing the software version or 

revision identifier by menu or icon. At present all NTEP GMMs are built-for-purpose. They all have permanently 

marked CC numbers. Software version/revision identifiers, however, are accessible by menu or icon. GMM 

displays are of limited size. Some existing devices don’t have room to display the software version/revision 

identifier on every “screen”. Hard marking of that identifier is not practical, because it precludes updating software 

without also replacing the hard-marked label. 

SMA Comments: 

The SMA supports the requirement to access a version number for software based devices. The SMA looks forward 

to the NTETC Software Sector's definition of the term “software-based device”. 

SMA opposed the definition we provided previously. From the 2009 NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary 

and 2010 NCWM Publication 15 Item 310-2:

Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use metrological 

software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D8 

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P), aka built-for-purpose. A device or element with software 

used in a fixed hardware and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any 

interface without breaking a security seal or other approved means for providing security, and 

will be called a “P,” or

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U), aka not-built-for-purpose. A 

personal computer or other device and/or element with PC components with programmable or 

loadable metrological software, and will be called “U.” A “U” is assumed if the conditions for 

embedded software devices are not met.

Software-based devices – See Electronic devices, software-based.

The Sector’s previous efforts to incorporate these concepts into the text of G-S.1. seemed to result in confusion and 

concern over unintended side effects of the changes proposed and, hence, met with resistance. This led the Sector to 

consider a new approach. Rather than modify a broadly applicable section of general code language to address 

software concerns, the idea of inserting specific concerns as new clauses seemed much less likely to cause 

unintended changes (side effects).

This topic was again discussed on the second day of the meeting, resulting in the following proposed new language 

for G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. that contains modifications that are less invasive and more specific to the intent of the 

Sector:

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights, and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(1) The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms 

may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The 

abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial 

capitals, all capitals, or all lowercase. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001) 

(c) a nonrepetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and 

not-built-for-purpose software-based software devices; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(Amended 2003) 

(1) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies 

the number as the required serial number. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and 

abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, 

SN, Ser. No., and S. No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D9 

(d) when metrologically significant software is employed, the current software version or revision 

identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic devices; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 201X)

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, 

begin with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be accessible via the display in lieu of being 

permanently marked. Instructions for displaying the version or revision identifier shall be 

described in the CC. As an exception, permanently marking the version or revision identifier 

shall be acceptable under the following conditions:

(i) the user interface does not have any control capability to activate the indication of the 

version or revision identifier on the display, or the display does not technically allow the 

version or revision identifier to be shown (analog indicating device or electromechanical 

counter) or

(ii) the device does not have an interface to communicate the version or revision identifier or

(iii) after the production of the device a change of the software is not possible, or only possible 

if the hardware or a hardware component is changed.

(e) an NTEP CC number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number for devices that have a CC. 

(1) The CC Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced by the terms 

“NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an 

abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.) 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 201X) 

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-For-Purpose all Software-Based Devices. – For 

not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, either: 

(a) The required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) shall be permanently marked or 

continuously displayed on the device; or 

(b) The CC Number shall be: 

(1) permanently marked on the device; 

(2) continuously displayed; or 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D10

(3) accessible through one or, at most, two levels of access. an easily recognized menu and, if 

necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu and submenu identification include, but are not 

limited to, “Help,” “System Identification,” “G-S.1. Identification,” or “Weights and Measures 

Identification.” 

(i) For menu based systems, “Metrology,” “System Identification,” or “Help.” 

(ii) For systems using icons, a metrology symbol “(M)”, “(SI),” or a help symbol (“?,” “i,” or 

an “i" within a magnifying glass). 

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed on the 

CC, including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was evaluated. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006, and 201X) 

Note: The striking of some of the text in G-S.1.(c) should NOT in the opinion of the sector result in an 

interpretation that it is a requirement to mark a serial number on standalone software. Standalone software has no 

moving or electronic parts and hence is already exempt from the requirement.

The new language in G-S.1.1. reflects that the Sector reached consensus on the following positions:

• The software version/revision should (with very few exceptions – see D-31 5.1.1) be accessible via the user

interface.

• The means by which the software version is accessed must be described in the CC.

In addition, it was asserted that the previously recommended changes to G-S.1.1.(b)(3) in fact are not really 

necessary; the current language of NIST Handbook 44 empowers the labs to enforce “easily recognizable” as they 

see fit. In fact, the previously generated “list” of icons and menu options could certainly be used by the examining 

lab as part of the approval process (e.g., in NCWM Publication 14). Of course, a manufacturer who is reviewing 

NIST Handbook 44 so as to develop an acceptable device may benefit from more explicit guidance. Where does 

such guidance belong? 

Comments related to the circulated list included a comment from the SMA suggesting that a definition is needed for 

a “software-based devices”. SMA opposed the definitions previously put forth by the Sector. It was suggested that 

perhaps the SMA would be more amenable to a definition that doesn’t differentiate between software types. 

Additional discussion on the topic of G-S.1. was related to the following concept, which may eventually result in 

additional recommendations to amend G-S.1.: 

The sector sees merit to requiring some “connection” between the software identifier (i.e., version/revision) and the 

software itself (as does International Organization of Legal Metrology [OIML], see D-31). The proposal being 

considered is to add a new subparagraph to G-S.1.(d) to read as follows (with the expectation that examples of 

acceptable means of implementing such a link would be included in NCWM Publication 14). 

“The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The 

version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated to 

the metrologically significant software.” 

Conclusion: 

The Sector wishes to obtain feedback on the newly recommended language for G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. since it does 

deviate somewhat from previous submissions. It is hoped that the various interested sectors, regions and 

associations will give this new proposal careful thought and submit their concerns to the NTETC Software Sector.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D11

The list of suggested icons/menus that should be considered finite options for manufacturers was updated to reflect 

comments received by the Sector. The Sector now believes this approach is adequate without a change to NIST 

Handbook 44; the NTEP laboratories would be able to enforce “easily recognizable” against this finite list. Hence, 

the Sector recommends the list be inserted into NCWM Publication 14. 

As to the requirement to have some “connection” between the software identifier and the software itself, the Sector

felt that this topic requires more work, so it will be split out into a separate item and put forth as a separate proposal.

Crafting a definition for “software based device” may be included as an item in a future agenda. Note the term “not 

built for purpose, software based device” is already used in NIST Handbook 44. 

2. Identification of Certified Software

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: 

This item originated as an attempt to answer the question “How does the field inspector know that the software 

running in the device is the same software evaluated and approved by the lab?” In previous meetings it was shown 

that the international community has addressed this issue (both European Cooperation in Legal Metrology 

(WELMEC) and OIML). 

From WELMEC 7.2:

Required Documentation: 

The documentation shall list the software identifications and describe how the software identification is created, 

how it is inextricably linked to the software itself, how it may be accessed for viewing and how it is structured 

in order to differentiate between version changes with and without requiring a type approval.

From OIML D-31:

The executable file “tt100_12.exe” is protected against modification by a checksum. The value of checksum as 

determined by algorithm XYZ is 1A2B3C. 

Previous discussions have included a listing of some additional examples of possible valid methods (not limiting):

• CRC (cyclical redundancy check)

• Checksum

• Inextricably Linked version no.

• Encryption

• Digital Signature

Is there some method to give the weights and measures inspector information that something has changed?

Yes, the Category III audit trail or other means of sealing.

How can the weights and measures inspector identify an NTEP Certified version? They can’t, without adding 

additional requirements like what is described here, in conjunction with including the identifier on the CC.

The Sector believes that we should work towards language that would include a requirement similar to the OIML 

requirement in NIST Handbook 44. It is also the opinion of the Sector that a specific method should not be defined; 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D12

rather the manufacturer should utilize a method and demonstrate the selected identification mechanism is suitable 

for the purpose. It is not clear from the discussion where such proposed language might belong.

OIML strongly recommends that metrological software be separated from non-metrological software for ease of 

identification and evaluation. 

From OIML:

Separation of software parts – All software modules (programmes, subroutines, objects etc.) that perform 

metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data domains form the 

metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or sub-assembly). The conformity 

requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked according to Section G-S-X.X.

If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically significant as a 

whole.

(Segregation of parameters is currently allowed - see table of sealable parameters)

Initial draft proposed language: (G-S.1.1.?)

NIST Handbook 44 (This has been written into G-S.1.(d)(3), Identification of Certified Software:

Software-based electronic devices shall be designed such that the metrologically significant software is clearly 

identified by the version or revision number. The identification, and this identification of the software shall be 

inextricably directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The version or revision number may consist 

of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated to the metrologically significant software.

NCWM Publication 14: 

Identification of Certified Software:

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the need for 

further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on devices without 

breaking a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules (programs, 

subroutines, objects etc.) that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically 

significant data domains form the metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or 

sub-assembly). If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically 

significant as a whole. The conformity requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked 

according to Section G-S-X.X.

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is directly and 

inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision identifier is comprised 

of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents the metrological significant 

software and which does not.

From OIML D-31:

Legally relevant software of a measuring instrument/electronic device/sub-assembly shall be clearly identified 

with the software version or another token. The identification may consist of more than one part but at least one 

part shall be dedicated to the legal purpose.

The identification shall be inextricably linked to the software itself and shall be presented or printed on 

command or displayed during operation or at start up for a measuring instrument that can be turned off and on 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D13

again. If a sub-assembly/electronic device has neither display nor printer, the identification shall be sent via a 

communication interface in order to be displayed/printed on another sub-assembly/electronic device.

The first sentence of the first paragraph above is already addressed in NIST Handbook 44’s marking requirements.

In 2010, the Sector crafted a draft recommendation for the following change to NIST Handbook 44, General Code: 

G-S.1.(d) to add a new subsection (3):

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic

devices; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003) (Amended 20XX) 

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006)

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006)

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. 

The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall 

be dedicated to the metrologically significant software.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X] 

(Added 20XX)

There was some additional discussion on this item regarding where this new requirement was best located. It was 

suggested that the first sentence of G-S.1.d.(3) could be added as a clause to the base paragraph G-S.1.(d) text, e.g., 

“ the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based devices, which shall 

be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself;” .

It also was suggested that the second sentence in G-S.1.d.(3) might be more suitable for NCWM Publication 14, as it 

describes more ‘how’ than ‘what’ the requirement entails.

In addition, the Sector considered the following information to be added to NCWM Publication 14 as 

explanation/examples: 

• The current software identifier must be displayable/printable on command during operation (or made 

evident by other means deemed acceptable by G-S.1.). 

• At a minimum, the software identifier must include a version/revision indication (1.02.09, rev 3.0 a, etc.). 

It could also consist of/contain checksum, etc (crc32, for example).

• The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated 

to the metrologically significant software.

Other questions that are still outstanding: 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D14

5. If we allow hard-marking of the software identifier (the Sector has wavered on this in the past), does the 

above wording then imply that some mechanical means is required (i.e., physical seal) to “inseparably link” 

the identifier to the software? 

6. If a device is capable of doing so, does it still have to be able to display, print or communicate the identifier 

somehow, even if it is hard-marked?

Conclusion: 

The item needs additional discussion and development by the Sector. It is hoped that the Sector will obtain some 

feedback regarding NCWM Publication 14 recommendations from the SMA in April, and other sectors, regions and

interested parties.

3. Software Protection/Security

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: 

The Sector agreed that NIST Handbook 44 already has audit trail and physical seal, but these may need to be 

enhanced.

From the WELMEC Document:

Protection against accidental or unintentional changes

Metrologically significant software and measurement data shall be protected against accidental or unintentional 

changes.

Specifying Notes:

Possible reasons for accidental changes and faults are: unpredictable physical influences, effects caused by user 

functions and residual defects of the software even though state of the art of development techniques have been 

applied. 

This requirement includes consideration of:

a) Physical influences: Stored measurement data shall be protected against corruption or deletion when a 

fault occurs or, alternatively, the fault shall be detectable.

b) User functions: Confirmation shall be demanded before deleting or changing data.

c) Software defects: Appropriate measures shall be taken to protect data from unintentional changes that 

could occur through incorrect program design or programming errors (e.g., plausibility checks). 

Required Documentation:

The documentation should show the measures that have been taken to protect the software and data against 

unintentional changes.

Example of an Acceptable Solution:

• The accidental modification of software and measurement data may be checked by calculating a checksum 

over the relevant parts, comparing it with the nominal value and stopping if anything has been modified.

• Measurement data are not deleted without prior authorization ( e.g., a dialogue statement or window asking 

for confirmation of deletion). 

• For fault detection see also Extension I.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D15

The sector continued to develop a proposed checklist for NCWM Publication 14. The numbering will still need to 

be added. This is based roughly on R 76-2 checklist and discussion at October 2007 NTETC Software Sector 

Meeting. 

The information requested by this checklist is currently voluntary; however, it is recommended that applicants 

comply with these requests or provide specific information as to why they may not be able to comply. Based on this 

information, the checklist may be amended to better fit with NTEP's need for information and the applicant's ability 

to comply. 

The California, Maryland, and Ohio laboratories agreed to use this checklist on one of the next devices they have in 

the lab and report back to the Sector on what the problems may be. In February 2011, the North Carolina laboratory

was also given a copy of the checklist to try.

1. Devices with Embedded Software TYPE P (aka built-for-purpose)

1.1. Declaration of the manufacturer that the software is used in a fixed 

hardware and software environment. AND

Yes No N/A

1.2. Cannot be modified or uploaded by any means after securing/verification. Yes No N/A

Note: It is acceptable to break the "seal" and load new software, audit trail is 

also a sufficient seal.

1.3. The software documentation contains:

1.3.1. Description of all functions, designating those that are 

considered metrologically significant.

Yes No N/A

1.3.2. Description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention). Yes No N/A

1.3.3. Software Identification. Yes No N/A

1.3.4. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A

1.4. The software identification is:

1.4.1. Clearly assigned to the metrologically significant software and 

functions.

Yes No N/A

1.4.2. Provided by the device as documented. Yes No N/A

2. Personal Computers, Instruments with PC Components, and Other Instruments, Devices, Modules, and 

Elements with Programmable or Loadable Metrologically Significant Software TYPE U (aka not builtfor-purpose)

2.1. The metrologically significant software is:

2.1.1. Documented with all relevant (see below for list of documents) 

information.

Yes No N/A

2.1.2. Protected against accidental or intentional changes. Yes No N/A

2.2. Evidence of intervention (such as, changes, uploads, circumvention) is 

available until the next verification/inspection (e.g., physical seal, 

Checksum, CRC, audit trail, etc. means of security).

Yes No N/A

3. Software with Closed Shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs possible for the user)

3.1. Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g., function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short 

descriptions.

Yes No N/A

3.2. Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands.

Yes No N/A
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D16

4. Operating System and / or Program(s) Accessible for the User

4.1. Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the 

machine code of the metrologically significant software (program 

module(s) subject to legal control Weights and Measures jurisdiction and 

type-specific parameters).

Yes No N/A

4.2. Check whether the metrologically significant software will detect and act 

upon any unauthorized alteration of the metrologically significant 

software using simple software tools (e.g., text editor).

Yes No N/A

5. Software Interface(s)

5.1. Verify the manufacturer has documented:

5.1.1. The program modules of the metrologically significant software 

are defined and separated.

Yes No N/A

5.1.2. The protective software interface itself is part of the 

metrologically significant software. 

Yes No N/A

5.1.3. The functions of the metrologically significant software that can 

be accessed via the protective software interface.

Yes No N/A

5.1.4. The parameters that may be exchanged via the protective 

software interface are defined.

Yes No N/A

5.1.5. The description of the functions and parameters are conclusive 

and complete.

Yes No N/A

5.1.6. There are software interface instructions for the third party 

(external) application programmer.

Yes No N/A

The laboratories were polled to obtain any feedback on the use of the checklist. 

The Maryland laboratory attempted to use this checklist a few times. Mr. Payne, Maryland Department of 

Agriculture, had some difficulty obtaining answers from the manufacturers because the individual(s) interacting 

with Mr. Payne did not always have the required information on hand. More experience in using the checklist will 

help determine what needs to be revised.

It was suggested that the checklist could be sent to manufacturers for their feedback as well, with the stipulation that 

it a completely voluntary exercise and purely informational at this point. The laboratories will coordinate with 

willing manufacturers to obtain feedback.

Conclusion: 

Work is ongoing on this item with the intent that it eventually will be incorporated as a checklist in NCWM 

Publication 14; again the laboratories are requested to try utilizing this checklist for any evaluations on softwarebased electronic devices.

4. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: 

After the software is completed, what do the manufacturers use to secure their software? At the 2010 NTETC 

Software Sector Meeting, significant discussion on the approach taken by OIML were reviewed by the Sector.

1. Verify that the update process is documented (OK)
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D17

2. For traced updates, installed software is authenticated and checked for integrity 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the authenticity of the loaded software (i.e., that it originates 

from the owner of the type approval certificate). This can be accomplished (e.g. by cryptographic means like 

signing). The signature is checked during loading. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument shall 

discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the integrity of the loaded software (i.e., that it was not

inadmissibly changed before loading). This can be accomplished, for example, by adding a checksum or hash 

code of the loaded software and verifying it during the loading procedure. If the loaded software fails this test, 

the instrument shall discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative.

Examples are not limiting or exclusive.

3. Verify that the sealing requirements are met

What sealing requirements are we talking about? 

This item is only addressing the software update, it can be either verified or traced. It is possible that there are 

two different security means, one for protecting software updates (software log) and one for protecting the other 

metrological parameters (Category I, II, or III method of sealing).

Some examples provided by the sector members include but are not limited to:

• Physical Seal, software log

• Category III method of sealing can contain both means of security

4. Verify that if the upgrade process fails, the device is inoperable or the original software is restored

Can this be made mandatory? 

The manufacturer shall ensure by appropriate technical means (e.g., an audit trail) that traced updates of 

metrologically significant software are adequately traceable within the instrument for subsequent verification 

and surveillance or inspection. This requirement enables inspection authorities, which are responsible for the 

metrological surveillance of legally controlled instruments, to back-trace traced updates of metrologically 

significant software over an adequate period of time (that depends on national legislation). The statement in 

italics will need to be reworded to comply with U.S. weights and measures requirements. 

The Sector agreed that the two definitions below for were acceptable.

Verified Update

A Verified Update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user.

Traced Update

A Traced Update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or audit trail.

The Sector discussed how to best move this item forward, and there was also some discussion as to whether new 

language for the General Code was required. The following new text was proposed:

G-S.9. Metrologically Significant Software Updates. - The updating of metrologically significant 

software shall be considered a sealable event. Metrologically significant software that does not conform 

to the approved type is not allowed for use. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D18

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, indicated that the current requirements in G-S.8. already make the statement that 

any changes that affect metrological function are sealable, hence, software updates may be covered and the proposed 

G-S.9. unnecessary. Mr. Lucas, Ohio Department of Agriculture, suggested the Sector go ahead and submit the 

proposed G-S.9. to the committee and request a clarification/interpretation of G-S.8. 

At the 2009 meeting, the Sector opined that the explicit language proposed for G-S.9. is clearer than any implied 

requirement in G-S.8. The Sector would like a clarification/interpretation of G-S.8. as it relates to software updates 

from the S&T Committee (with their response preferably to be included in NCWM Publication 16). The Sector will 

also continue to develop the proposed text (and flow chart) targeted for inclusion in NCWM Publication 14. 

The Sector reviewed the proposal and reconsidered allowing a separate “update log”. It was decided that this would

probably generate confusion and is not likely to be adopted by manufacturers anyway. Hence, the previously 

proposed text was modified to require a Category III audit trail for “traced updates”: 

For a Traced Update, an event logger is required. The logger shall be capable of storing a minimum of 

the 10 most recent updates. An entry shall be generated for each software update. 

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is acceptable required for the software update logger Traced Update. In this 

case the existing requirement of 1000 entries supersedes the 10 entry requirement. If software update is 

the only loggable event, then the Category 3 audit trail can be limited to only 10 entries. A software 

update log entry representing a software update shall include the following: the software identification of the 

newly installed version.

• An event counter;

• the date and time of the change; and 

• the event type/parameter ID, which indicates a software update event (if not using a dedicated 

update log);

• the new value of the parameter, which is the software identification of the newly installed version. 

A Category III device may include the software update events in the Category III audit log in lieu of a 

separate software update log; the existing requirement for 1,000 entries supersedes the requirement for 

10 entries. 

In 2010, the general consensus of the Sector after considering feedback from external interested parties is that a new 

G-S.9. with explicit requirements is not necessary (nor likely to be adopted by the Conference) and that this 

requirement belongs in NCWM Publication 14 lists of sealable parameters rather than in NIST Handbook 44; i.e., 

The updating of metrologically significant software shall be considered a sealable event. 

Additional work is to be done to further develop the proposed text toward inclusion in NCWM Publication 14. 

Since the 2010 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, the NTETEC Grain Analyzer Sector remitted the following: 

At its August 2009 NTETEC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, the sector questioned the need for a 

definition of “Traced Update”. The Traced Update was initially intended to cover cases in Europe where 

the National Body controls a network of devices and wants to update all the devices simultaneously from a 

central location. Denmark and France do this with NIR Grain Analyzers. Even though individual states 

may still require that a device updated via a “Traced Update” must be “returned to service” by a registered 

serviceperson before it can be used, the sector may want to consider adopting “Traced Update” 

requirements for all Category 3 Grain Analyzers. The device is still subject to later inspection by state 

weights and measures personnel. By designing to the requirements for “Traced Update,” states might be 

encouraged to allow devices updated to those requirements to be returned to service without requiring a 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D19

visit by a registered serviceperson. No formal comments or recommendations were made by the NTETC 

Grain Analyzer Sector.

The NTETC Software Sector concurred that these definitions should be included in NCWM Publication 14 in the 

section where they are used (since NCWM Publication 14 does not have a separate section devoted strictly to 

definitions).

It’s possible that the Philosophy of Sealing section of NCWM Publication 14 may already address the above if the 

definitions of Verified and Traced Updates (and the statement below) were to be added. The contrary argument was 

that it may be better to be explicit:

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is required for a Traced Update. A log entry representing a traced 

software update shall include the software identification of the newly installed version.

Conclusion: 

It seemed sensible to recommend consolidating the definitions with the above statement and placing them into

NCWM Publication 14. The Sector recommends the following:

Verified Update

A Verified Update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user.

Traced Update

A Traced Update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or Category 3 audit trail. The 

audit trail entry shall include the software identification of the newly installed version.

The updating of metrologically significant software shall be considered a sealable event. The software 

that checks for authenticity and integrity for a Traced Update, as well as the software responsible for 

generating and viewing the audit trail, is metrologically significant.

5. NTEP Application for Software and Software-based Devices

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: 

The purpose of initiating this item was to identify issues, requirements, and processes for type approving type 

U device applications. It was suggested that it may be useful to the labs to devise a separate submission form for

software for Type U devices. What gets submitted? What requirements and mechanisms for submission should be 

available? Validation in the lab – all required subsystems shall be included to be able to simulate the system as 

installed.

Mr. Roach, California Division of Measurement Standards, stated that if the software package being evaluated 

supports platforms/subsystems from multiple manufacturers, testing should be done using at least two 

platforms/subsystems. (Clarification at 2011 NTETC Software Sector Meeting – this has never been required for 

type approval, except for retail motor fuel distribution systems.) Scale laboratories and scale manufacturers 

indicated that this is not usually done for scale evaluations.

Since the NTEP Committee passed the related item at NCWM Annual Meeting, the Sector will continue to work on 

this. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, indicated that the Sector can move in this direction, but felt that it was 

somewhat premature to develop this thoroughly in 2010. At the point where the Sector has developed checklist 

requirements, then it could move to perhaps add a subsection to current NTEP applications for applicable software. 

Refer to D 31.6.1. It was also agreed that there seems to be no reason for limiting the scope of this item to software-
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D20

only applications and, hence, all software/software-based devices could benefit from an enhanced application 

process. The description of this agenda item was modified as shown in the marked up heading.

At the 2010 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, it was decided that this item would be revisited at the 2011 meeting, 

and it will be decided whether to begin further development of this item at that time.

Comments given at the meeting indicate that current practice does not require anything different for 

software/software based devices compared to any other type approval. It was also noted that for international 

applications, OIML D 31.6.5. states, “The approval applicant is responsible for the provision of all the required 

equipment and components.” This would likely also be the policy of NTEP.

Since the checklist is still being tried out by some of the laboratories, the Sector is not quite ready to develop this 

fully. Some documentation that eventually might be required by applicants could include (from WELMEC doc. 

7-2 Issue 4):

• A description of the software functions that are metrologically significant, meaning of the data, etc.

• A description of the accuracy of the measuring algorithms (e.g., price calculation and rounding algorithms).

• A description of the user interface, menus, and dialogs.

• The software identification (e.g., version, revision, etc.) and how to view it.

• An overview of the system hardware, e.g., topology block diagram, type of computer(s), type of network, 

etc., if not described in the operating manual.

• An overview of the security aspects of the operating system (e.g., protection, user accounts, privileges, 

etc.). 

• The operating manual.

Conclusion: 

These documentation requirements will be considered as input for requirements that will eventually appear in

NCWM Publication 14 and the application paperwork. Further work by the Sector to develop NCWM Publication 

14 requirements is needed, after more input from the labs is gathered.

6. Training of Field Inspectors 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector

Background/Discussion: 

During discussions at the 2009 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, the Sector concluded that a new agenda item 

should be initiated specific to the training of field inspectors in relation to evaluating/validating software-based 

devices.

California has an Examination Procedure Outline (EPO) that begins to address this. It was suggested that the Sector

could use California Handbook 112 as a pattern template for how it could read.

Items to be addressed:

• Certificate of Conformance

• Terminology (as related to software) beyond what is in NIST Handbook 44.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D21

• Reference materials / information sources

• Safety

System Verification Tests

NOTE: Item numbers 1 through 5 apply to both weighing and measuring devices. Numbers 6 and 7 are specific to 

weighing devices; while numbers 9 and 10 apply to measuring devices.

1. Identification. The identification (ID) tag may be on the back room computer server and could be viewed 

on an identification screen on the computer monitor. The ID information may be displayed on a menu or 

identification screen. Though currently discouraged, some systems may be designed so the system must be 

shut down and reset to view the ID information. G-S.1. (1.10.) 

1.1. Manufacturer.

1.2. Model designation.

2. Provisions for sealing. G-S.8. [1.10.]; S.1.11. [2.20.]; S.2.2. [3.30.] 

2.1. Verify sealing category of device (refer to Certificate of Approval for that system).

2.2. Verify compliance with certificate.

3. Units of measure.

3.1. A computer and printer interfaced to a digital indicator shall print all metrological values, intended to 

be the same, identically. G-S.5.2.2.(a); G-S.5.1. [1.10.] 

3.2. The unit of measure, such as lb, kg, oz, gal, qts, liters, or whatever is used, must agree.

4. Operational controls, indications and features (buttons and switches). Verify that application criteria and 

performance criteria are met (refer to Certificate of Approval).

4.1. Any indication, operation, function or condition must not be represented in a manner that interferes 

with the interpretation of the indicated or printed values.

5. Indications and displays.

5.1. Attempt to print a ticket. The recorded information must be accurate or the software must not process 

and print a ticket with erroneous data interpreted as a measured amount.

Weighing Devices

6. Motion detection.

6.1. For railway track, livestock, and vehicle scales apply or remove a test load of at least 15d while 

simultaneously operating a print button, push-button tare or push-button zero. A good way to do this is to 

try to print a ticket while pulling the weight truck or another vehicle onto the scale. Recorded values shall 

not differ from the static display by more than 3d. Perform the test at 10 %, 50 % and 100 % of the 

maximum applied test load. S.2.5.1.(a) [2.20.]; EPO NO. 2-3, 2.4

6.2. For all other scales, apply or remove at least 5d. Printed weight values must agree with the static 

weight within 1d and must exactly agree with other indications. S.2.5.4.(b) [2.20.]; EPO NO. 2-3, 2.4
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D22

7. Behind zero indication.

7.1 Apply a load in excess of the automatic zero setting mechanism (AZSM) and zero the scale. S.2.1.3. 

[2.20.]; EPO NO. 2-3, 2.4, 2.5.2

Example: On a vehicle scale have someone stand on the scale, then zero them off (AZSM is 3d). Remove 

the weight (person) and note the behind zero display (usually a minus weight value) or error condition.

7.2. Attempt to print a ticket. With a behind zero condition, (manually or mechanically operated) a 

negative number must not be printed as a positive value.

8. Over capacity.

8.1. Manually enter a gross weight if permissible or apply a test load in excess of 105 % of the scale’s 

capacity. S.1.7. [2.20.]; S.1.12., UR.3.9. [2.20.] 

8.2. Attempt to print a weight ticket. A system must not print a ticket if the manually entered weight or load 

exceeds 105 % of the scale capacity.

Measuring Devices

9. Motion detection.

9.1. Initiate flow through the measuring element. Attempt to print a ticket while the product is flowing 

through the measuring chamber. The device must not print while the indication is not stable. 

S.2.4.1. (3.30.) 

10. Over capacity.

10.1. Attempt to print a ticket in excess of the indicated capacity. A system must not print a ticket if the 

device is manually or mechanically operated in excess of the indicated value.

NOTE: Be aware of error codes on the indicator which may be interrupted as measured values.

This item is in the early stages; work will continue on the item working toward materials to aid in the training of 

field inspectors. It was indicated that working in conjunction with the Professional Development Committee (PDC) 

to develop training materials, etc. would be a logical path of progress once we have developed the information 

content to include.

At the 2011 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, it was suggested that this topic should be tabled for the time being, 

until items 1 to 4 in the Summary are better defined. This will also depend on the needs of and feedback from field 

inspectors, since the goal is to empower them to be better able to handle inspection of software-based devices.

Conclusion:

This item will be tabled until the next meeting. The Sector chair will liaise with the PDC to garner input for focus 

areas related to inspecting software-based devices where additional materials would be most beneficial to the needs 

of field inspectors.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D23

NEW ITEMS

7. Remote or Distributed Metrologically Significant Functionality

Source: 

California NTEP Laboratory

Background/Discussion: 

A database on a remote server contains metrological data for a commercial transaction. The server storage 

containing the database is leased and access is granted for analysis manipulation, viewing, and/or printing the 

transaction data.

Previously the Sector has discussed situations where data that is used as part of a transaction (e.g., tare values) are 

being retrieved from a remote server, but examples can be given that extends the boundaries. Is it acceptable to 

allow situations where data printed on the transaction report is not locally available or cannot be reproduced without 

server access? What about situations where actual metrologically significant software routines are executed on a 

remote server? Does this relate to what the WELMEC working group on software terms “Data Transmission”?

The following questions were raised during the initial discussion of this item to clarify the issue:

Questions:

• What happens if communication fails? 

• How will printing be performed at the local site? 

• Is it possible to print at the local site under those circumstances?

Answers:

• The printer was at the local site, but all of the information sent to the printer came from the remote site. It 

wasn’t known if/how printing would work in case of communications failure.

The opinion was that the particular situation described wouldn’t be a violation of NIST Handbook 44, so long as the 

first indication of final quantity is local.

It was stated that the only way to seal a system like this is via a Category 3 audit trail. Type approval should verify 

the accuracy and integrity of the communication between the remote component(s) and the local component(s). The 

factor that concerns the field inspectors the most is that the metrological calculations are being performed remotely. 

The field inspector can ask which factors are used in the metrological calculations and verify the output.

OIML D 31.5.2.3 is relevant to this discussion:

“5.2.3 Storage of data, transmission via communication systems. If measurement values are used at 

another place than the place of measurement or at a later time than the time of measurement they possibly 

have to leave the measuring instrument (electronic device, subassembly) and be stored or transmitted in an 

insecure environment before they are used for legal purposes.”

Also relevant is WELMEC 7.2 Issue 5: 7.2 Specific Software Requirements for Data Transmission.

Of course these references shouldn’t be assumed to be taken verbatim for NCWM purposes, but they can be used for 

guidance in the sort of questions that should be asked, during type approval and with the checklist used by the labs, 

as well as potentially by field inspectors.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D24

Conclusion:No action. This must be resolved by the state jurisdiction.

8. Next Meeting 

Background: 

The Sector is on a yearly schedule for NTETC Software Sector Meetings. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, will 

determine when the next meeting is possible. The normal rotation would have the meeting in Columbus in 2012.

Background/Discussion: 

none

Conclusion: 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, will arrange with the cooperation of the State of Ohio to host the next 

meeting in Columbus in 2012, probably in mid-March.

9. Report on 2011 Interim Meeting

There was one item on NCWM S&T Committee Agenda for the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting related to work done 

by the Sector. 2011 NCWM Publication 15, S&T Item 310-2 relates to the Sector’s 2011 Agenda Item 1 (Marking 

Requirements). After some discussion, mostly supportive but tentative, the Chair had the impression that the bulk of 

the feedback seemed to indicate that the goals of the proposal are worthwhile but the language is still not satisfactory 

or sufficiently clear to some.

Report from NIST and other attendees of NCWM Interim Meeting:

The recommendation on Identification of Software was for it to remain Informational. SMA was the most reluctant 

to adopt the differentiation in types of software. Their feedback is based upon the idea that all types of software 

should have the same marking options.

10. Report on International Weights and Measures Activity

Highlights of interest to the NTETC Software Sector:

• CIML meeting in Orlando, Florida 

• MAA updates

• Steve Patoray appointed International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) Director last September; took 

the position in January.

• New draft WELMEC 7.2 circulated in February of this year for comment.

• Workshop on Operating Systems in Legal Metrology hosted by PTB December 2010

• The second OIML document, for verification, was to be generated, but Germany doesn’t seem to be 

working on it. The United States and Canada have the opportunity to drive this development.

• PTB held a workshop in Berlin in December regarding OS’s and legal metrology.

• The director of BIML has and the president of International Committee of Legal Metrology will be 

changing personnel.

• OIML D11 will be having a meeting in June.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D25

• MAA Updates: There was a special vote to determine whether to accept manufacturers’ test data. This 

was voted down.

• There’s a new WELMEC 7-2 v.5 draft including mainly editing changes but also new information 

regarding operating systems.

ATTENDANCE

Dennis Beattie

Measurement Canada

400 St. Mary Avenue

Winnipeg, MB R3C 4K5

Canada

(204) 983-8910

dennis.beattie@ic.gc.ca

Doug Bliss

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

(614) 438-4307

doug.bliss@mt.com

Mike Frailer

Maryland Weights and Measures

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 841-5790

fraileml@mda.state.md.us

Andy Gell

Foss North America

8091 Wallace Road

Eden Prairie, MN 55344

(952) 974-9892

agell@fossnorthamerica.com

Teri Gulke

Liquid Controls, LLC

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044

(847) 283-8346

tgulke@idexcorp.com

Jody Hirst

Itron, Inc.

1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646

(864) 942-2245

jody.hirst@itron.com

Norman Ingram

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road

Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

(916) 229-3016

ningram@cdfa.ca.gov

Mike Kelley

Ohio Department of Agriculture

8995 East Main Street

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

(614) 728-6290

mkelley@agri.ohio.gov

Paul A. Lewis, Sr.

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

230 West Coleman Street

Rice Lake, WI 54868

(715) 434-5322

plewis@ricelake.com

Rick Lydon

Sick, Inc.

800 Technology Center Drive

Suite 6

Stoughton, MA 02072

(781) 302-2552

richard.lydon@sick.com

Mike McGhee

Itron, Inc.

1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646

(864) 223-1212

michael.mcghee@itron.com

Ed Payne

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 841-5790

payneea@mda.state.md.us
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix D – NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - D26

Jim Pettinato

FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.

1602 Wagner Avenue

Erie, PA 16510

(814) 898-5250

jim.pettinato@fmcti.com

Dan Reiswig

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road

Sacramento, CA 95828

(916) 229-3023

dreiswig@cdfa.ca.gov

Chris Scott

Gilbarco, Inc.

7300 W Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27420

(336) 547-5227

chris.scott@gilbarco.com

Scott Szurek

Emerson Process Management

301 South 1st Avenue

Marshalltown, IA 50158

(641) 754-3425

scott.szurek@emerson.com

Ambler Thompson

NIST Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive

MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 21701

(301) 975-2333

ambler@nist.gov

James Truex

National Conference on Weights and Measures

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH 43062

(740) 919-4350

jim.truex@ncwm.net

John Wind

Bizerba USA, Inc.

5200 Anthony Road

Sandston, VA 23150

(804) 221-9699

john.wind@bizerba.com
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E1 

Appendix E 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)

Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

August 30 - September 1, 2011

Sacramento, California

INTRODUCTION

The charge of the NTETC Weighing Sector (herein after referred to as “Sector”) is to provide appropriate type 

evaluation criteria based on specifications, tolerances, and technical requirements of NIST Handbook 44, 

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, Sections 

1.10. General Code, 2.20. Scales, 2.22. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems, and 2.24. Automatic Weighing 

Systems.. The Sector’s recommendations are presented to the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) 

Committee each January for approval and inclusion in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists, and 

Test Procedures, for national type evaluation.

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T)

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties.

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Note: It is policy to use metric units of measurement in publications; however, recommendations received by 

NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this publication 

as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Content NTEP - E Page

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... E1

CARRY-OVER ITEMS........................................................................................................................................... E3

1. Recommended Changes to NCWM Publication 14 .............................................................................. E3

1.a. Item 310-1: NIST Handbook 44 G-S.8. Provisions for Sealing Adjustable Components......... E3

1.b. Item 320-1: NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code - T.N.4.5.1. Creep and Creep Recovery 

Requirements for Class III Scales with n > 4000 divisions. ....................................................... E4

1.c. Item 320-2: NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code – T.N.4.7. Amend Creep Recovery Tolerances 

for Class III L Load Cells........................................................................................................... E5

2. DES Section 42. Zero-Load and Tare Adjustment – Monorail Scales Rounding of Intermediate

Values in an Equation ........................................................................................................................... E6

3. Acceptable Symbols/Abbreviations to Display the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number via a 

Device’s User Interface......................................................................................................................... E7

NEW ITEMS............................................................................................................................................................. E8

4. DES Section 63.4. Out-of-Level Tests (if applicable)........................................................................... E8

5. DES Section 31. Multi-Interval Scales................................................................................................ E11
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E2 

6. DES Section 70. - Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to 

Weigh In-Motion................................................................................................................................. E13

7. DES Section 57. Device Tolerances.................................................................................................... E15

8. DES Appendix C - Acceptable Abbreviations for Short Ton and Long Ton...................................... E16

9. DES Technical Policy Section D - Substitution of Load Cells in Scales............................................ E17

ADDITIONAL ITEMS (NOT INCLUDED ON DRAFT AGENDA) ................................................................ E18

10. Incorrect Section References and Some Editorial Corrections Needed to NCWM Publication 14..... E18

11. Sealing/Capabilities of Smart Junction Boxes .................................................................................... E19

NEXT SECTOR MEETING ................................................................................................................................. E19

ATTENDANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... E20

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

ABWS Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures

AREMA American Railway Engineering 

Maintenance-of-Way Association NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

CC Certificate of Conformance NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee

DES Digital Electronic Scales OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

IZSM Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism OWM Office of Weights and Measures

LMD Liquid Measuring Device R Recommendation

MC Measurement Canada S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee

MRA Mutual Recognition Agreement SMA Scale Manufacturers Association
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E3 

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

CARRY-OVER ITEMS

1. Recommended Changes to NCWM Publication 14

Source: 

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, has provided the Sector with specific recommendations for incorporating 

test procedures and checklist language based upon actions of the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Sector is 

asked to briefly discuss each item and, if appropriate, provide general input on the technical aspects of the issues.

1.a. Item 310-1: NIST Handbook 44 G-S.8. Provisions for Sealing Adjustable Components

Source:

2010 NTETC Weighing Sector

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2010 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting, the Sector: 

1. reviewed the sealing procedures in NCWM Publication 14 Scales type evaluation checklist and procedures; 

2. compared them with similar type evaluation criteria in NCWM Publication 14 for Liquid Measuring 

Device (LMD); and 

3. reviewed applicable NIST Handbook 44 sealing requirements in the General, Scales, and LMD codes. 

Prior to the 2010 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting, a small work group was formed to develop more detailed 

procedures for determining compliance of the methods for sealing and requested the Sector consider its 

recommendations for NCWM Publication 14, Digital Electronic Scales (DES) Section 10. The Sector reviewed the 

recommendations and agreed with the revised proposal to amend NCWM Publication 14 Scale Section 10 and 

recommended it be forwarded to the S&T Committee and the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) for 

consideration prior to the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting. The Sector also agreed to forward the amended language 

for NCWM Publication 14 to the S&T Committee with a recommendation that the S&T item be Withdrawn from 

the Committee’s agenda. 

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed to add the following two paragraphs into the Report of 

the 96th NCWM to make clear its interpretation of G-S.8.: 

• The current language in paragraph G-S.8. states: “A device shall be designed with provision(s) for 

applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means of providing security (e.g., 

data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that detrimentally affects the 

metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism.”

• Thus, for parameters protected by physical means of security, once a physical security seal is applied to the 

device, it should not be possible to make a metrological change to those parameters without breaking that 

seal. Likewise, for parameters protected by electronic means of security, it should not be possible to make 

a metrological change to those parameters without that change being reflected in the audit trail. Since this 

philosophy addresses provisions for protecting access to any metrological adjustment, the philosophy 

should be applied consistently to all electronic device types.

During the 2011 Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) Annual Meeting, Mr. Andersen, 

retired member, stated that he believed that the language that was added to NCWM Publication 14 is different than 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E4 

what was proposed for vote. The language added to NCWM Publication 14 allows a device with physical means of 

sealing to be sealed in the calibration or configuration mode if it provides a clear indication that it’s in that mode. If 

it was the intent of NTEP to accept an indicator light to depict when a device is in the calibration or configuration 

mode, he recommended that the S&T Committee sanction that in their interpretation. Since NTEP policy must 

conform with NIST Handbook 44, it seems necessary to ensure the code also permits the indicator light. Thus, that 

must be included in the interpretation of the committee.

As a result of Mr. Andersen’s comments, the 2011 S&T Committee asked that the Sector review its most current 

interpretation of NIST Handbook 44, G-S.8., which was approved by NCWM for inclusion into the Report of the 

96th NCWM at its July 2011 Annual Meeting, and verify that the Sector’s 2010 recommended changes to NCWM 

Publication 14 are consistent with the Committee’s interpretation.

Conclusion: 

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, provided an update to the Sector on the discussions that took place relative 

to this item during the 2011 NEWMA Annual Meeting and the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Sector was then 

asked to review the language that was added to NCWM Publication 14 DES type evaluation checklists and test 

procedures to confirm that existing language is aligned with the Committee’s interpretation of G-S.8. The Sector

compared the language that was added to the 2011 S&T Committee Final Report to that which had been added to 

NCWM Publication 14 and concluded there were no conflicts, and that the language added to NCWM Publication 

14 didn’t need amending. The Sector agreed to recommend the following changes to NCWM Publication 14, DES

Section 10 including the table and Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS).

The current language in NIST Handbook 44 paragraph G-S.8. states: “A device shall be designed 

with provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means 

of providing security (e.g., data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any 

change that detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any 

electronic mechanism.”

Thus, for parameters protected by physical means of security, once a physical security seal is applied 

to the device, it should not be possible to make a metrological change to those parameters without 

breaking that seal. Likewise, for parameters protected by electronic means of security, it should not 

be possible to make a metrological change to those parameters without that change being reflected in 

the audit trail. Since this philosophy addresses provisions for protecting access to any metrological

adjustment, the philosophy should be applied consistently to all electronic device types.

NCWM Publication 14: DES Section 10. Table

Indications Representing That the Device is Configured with the Setup or Configuration Mode 

Enabled (e.g., any mode permitting access to any or all sealable parameters). 

This list is not limiting or all inclusive and other indications may be acceptable.

Acceptable Clear Indications Indications NOT Acceptably Clear

• Unusable Weight Indications (e.g. C100.05E) • C 100.05 lb

• “Not NIST Handbook 44” Annunciator • Any Digit in the Weight Differentiated by Size, 

Shape or Color

• “CAL” Annunciator (single or mixed case) • Weights Without Units (e.g., 100.05)

• “Set-up” Annunciator (single or mixed case) • Flashing Weight Value

• “Config” Annunciator (single or mixed case) • Weight With No Annunciators Displayed

• Weight All Annunciators Displayed

1.b. Item 320-1: NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code - T.N.4.5.1. Creep and Creep Recovery Requirements 

for Class III Scales with n > 4000 divisions.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E5 

Source:

2010 NTETC Weighing Sector, 2011 Interim Report of the S&T Committee: ncwm.net/content/annual-archive

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2011 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Conference considered a proposal from the NTETC Weighing Sector to 

reduce the inconsistency between full load time dependence (creep) requirements in T.N.4.5.1. and return to zero 

requirements in T.N.4.3. Zero Load Return: Non-automatic Weighing Instruments (creep recovery). 

During the 2011 NCWM Interim meeting Open Hearings, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, Inc., speaking on behalf of 

the SMA supported this item. However, later, during the S&T Committee deliberations, Mr. Flocken stated that 

after researching the item, including a discussion he had with another scale manufacturer, it was concluded that the 

proposal is not needed since the ultimate determination of compliance is the four-hour test (specified in 

subparagraph (b) of T.N.4.5.1.) regardless of the current 0.5 e or proposed 0.83 e determinations in the referenced 

paragraph. The S&T Committee withdrew this item based on this new information provided at the Interim Meeting.

Conclusion:

The Sector took no action, nor discussed this item, after being advised by Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, 

that the item had previously been Withdrawn by the S&T Committee. 

1.c. Item 320-2: NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code – T.N.4.7. Amend Creep Recovery Tolerances for Class 

III L Load Cells

Source:

2010 NTETC Weighing Sector

Background / Discussion:

See the Final Report of the 2011 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-2 for the adopted language and 

additional background information on the item to amend NIST Handbook 44, 2.20. Scales Code paragraph T.N.4.7. 

Creep Recovery Tolerances for Class III L Load Cells. 

Conclusion:

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, provided the Sector with suggested recommendations for amending test 

procedures in NCWM Publication 14 based upon actions of the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Sector

reviewed the amended test procedures and agreed to recommend the amended procedures:

NCWM Publication 14: Load Cells Section L. II.

L. Procedures 

II. Determination of Creep and Creep Recovery, Test Procedure and Permissible Variations

9. Permissible Variations of Reading for Creep Recovery

a. The difference between the initial reading of the minimum load of the measuring range (Dmin) 

and the reading after returning to minimum load subsequent to the maximum load (Dmax) having 

been applied for 30 minutes shall not exceed:

1. 0.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (0.5 v) for Class I, II, and IIII load cells.

2. 0.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (0.5 v) for Class III load cells with 

4000 or fewer divisions.

3. 0.83 times the value of the load cell verification interval (0.83 v) for Class III load cells 

with more than 4000 divisions.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E6 

4. 12.5 times the value of the load cell verification interval (12.5 v) for Class III L load cells.

2. DES Section 42. Zero-Load and Tare Adjustment – Monorail Scales Rounding of 

Intermediate Values in an Equation

Source: 

Mr. Cook, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM)

Background/Discussion:

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 42 Zero-Load and Tare Adjustment - Monorail Scales currently reflects 

language in NIST Handbook 44 regarding the setting of zero and tare value less than 5 % of the scale capacity to 

within 0.02 % of scale capacity according to NIST Handbook 44, 2.20. Scales Code paragraphs S.2.1.4 (Monorail 

Scales) and S.2.3.1. (Monorail Scales Equipped with Digital Indications). In other words, a 1000 lb × 1 lb monorail 

scale shall have the capability to set tare values up to 50 lb to within a resolution of 0.2 lb (1000 × 0.02 %). 

However, there are no procedures in Section 42 to verify that a correct zero-load balance or semiautomatic, 

keyboard entered, or stored tares are not rounded to the nearest value of d (1 lb) before the net weight is calculated. 

In the above example, a tare that is rounded before the net weight calculation introduces an extra 0.5 lb uncertainty 

in the net weight. This can be a problem if an average tare value of 7.6 lb for a series of trolleys is entered as tare. 

Objects (animal carcasses) will be consistently short weighed if the tare is rounded from 7.6 lb to 8 lb before the net 

weight is calculated. This may present economic harm to sellers or producers of livestock that are paid based on the 

weights from the monorail scale. Conversely, average tare weights that are rounded down to the nearest displayed 

scale division may present economic harm to the buyers, typically processors, that pay the producers based on the 

weights from the monorail scale.

Another question, is whether the net weights are determined using the digital indicator's internal or displayed 

resolution of the gross weight in the calculation of the net weight?

The following is additional background information supporting the correct rounding (and significant digits) of 

values in an equation:

NIST SP 811, Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), Mr. Barry N. Taylor and Mr. Ambler 

Thompson (2008)

B.7.2 Rounding Converted Numerical Values of Quantities

The use of the factors given in sections B.8 and B.9 to convert values of quantities was demonstrated in section B.3. 

In most cases, the product of the unconverted numerical value and the factor will be a numerical value with a 

number of digits that exceeds the number of significant digits (see section 7.9) of the unconverted numerical value. 

Proper conversion procedure requires rounding this converted numerical value to the number of significant digits 

that is consistent with the maximum possible rounding error of the unconverted numerical value.

Example: To express the value l = 36 ft in meters, use the factor 3.048 E−01 from section B.8 or section B.9 and 

write

l = 36 ft × 0.3048 m/ft = 10.9728 m = 11.0 m.

Rounding Guidelines Found on the Internet:

In any math problem, you should wait until the end to round; only the final answer should be rounded. Carry as 

many significant digits as you can throughout the problem.

Round Off Rule: Round only the final answer not the intermediate values that occur during the calculation. Carry at 

least twice as many decimal places as will be used in the final answer.

Do the math, then round the answer so that the number of significant figures is equal to the least number of 

significant figures found in any one measurement in the equation.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E7 

For additional background information relative to this item and actions taken by the NTETC Weighing Sector 

during its 2010 meeting go to: ncwm.net/content/weighing-archive

Conclusion: 

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, reviewed background information and explained the purpose of the

proposal using an example depicting how NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.2.3.1. Monorail Scales 

Equipped with Digital Indications would apply relative to a 1000 × 5 lb static monorail scale equipped with digital 

indications. The Sector was then asked whether they still agreed that test criteria needed to be developed for

possible future inclusion into NCWM Publication 14 considering that NCWM Publication 14 currently did not 

include such procedures and that a work group, which was supposed to form to develop test criteria for NCWM 

Publication 14 following the 2010 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting had never formed. The Sector considered the 

example given and agreed that test criteria needs to be developed to verify whether or not scales submitted for type 

evaluation comply with the tare requirements in NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.2.3.1. A few 

members of the Sector agreed to work on developing possible test criteria that could be added to NCWM 

Publication 14 to verify whether a device submitted for type evaluation complies. It was also agreed that the work 

group would seek input from Mr. Ainsworth, Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyard Administration, and Mr. 

Vande Berg, Vande Berg Scales, when developing the test criteria.

3. Acceptable Symbols/Abbreviations to Display the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number 

Via a Device’s User Interface

Sources: 

• 2009 NTETC Software Sector Agenda Item 3 and 2010 S&T Item 310-3 G-S.1. Identification. (Software)

• 2010 Final Report of the S&T Committee: ncwm.net/content/annual-archive

• 2010 Software Sector summary: ncwm.net/content/software-archive

• 2011 Software Sector summary: ncwm.net/content/software-docs

Background/Discussion: 

Local weights and measures inspectors need a means to determine whether equipment discovered in the field has 

been evaluated by NTEP. If so, the inspector needs to know at a minimum the CC number. From this starting point, 

other required information can be ascertained. NIST Handbook 44 currently includes three options for marking of 

the CC:

1. Permanent marking

2. Continuous display

3. Recall using a special operation

Additional background information relative to this item can be found in 2011 NCWM Publication 16 at: 

ncwm.net/content/annual-archive

During the 2010 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting, the Sector reviewed an initial list of menu text and icons 

developed by the NTETC Software Sector and provided comments to the NTETC Software Sector as requested.

At the 2011 NCWM Annual Meeting, NIST, OWM suggested that the S&T Committee consider changing the status 

of the item from Informational to Developing in order to provide the NTETC Software Sector additional time to 

more fully develop the item based on the following points:

1. The current proposal is not developed enough for consideration by the S&T Committee. Based on the 

diversity of comments heard on this issue, NIST, OWM believes the item is not close to a vote and that 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E8 

considerable work still needs to be done to develop the item before it could be considered for vote by 

NCWM. 

2. NIST, OWM interprets the current proposal to require software be marked with a non-repetitive serial 

number when in fact it is not the intent of the NTETC Software Sector to require such marking. Thus, it is 

believed that the language in the current proposal will need modification to resolve this issue.

3. The draft of the March 2011 NTETC Software Sector Summary reported that several NTETC Software 

Sector members envision G-S.1. being developed further to the extent that G-S.1.1. may not be needed. 

The S&T Committee agreed to change the status of this item to Developing because the item was lacking enough 

information for full consideration and a full proposal has yet to be developed.

Conclusion: 

The NTETC Weighing Sector agreed to take no additional action on this item pending further development of the 

item by the NTETC Software Sector.

NEW ITEMS

4. DES Section 63.4. Out-of-Level Tests (if applicable)

Source: 

Mr. Payne Jr., Maryland NTEP laboratory

Background/Discussion: 

Mr. Payne, Maryland Department of Agriculture, reports that the NTEP laboratories have to verify the sensitivity of 

the level indicator on a scale that’s been submitted for type evaluation under NTEP’s Mutual Recognition 

Agreement (MRA) with Measurement Canada (MC). An MRA is an agreement whereby the test data from 

evaluation in either an NTEP authorized laboratory or MC can be used by both countries in the issuance of their 

respective certifications. Since testing is already being performed by the NTEP laboratories on devices submitted 

under the MRA, Mr. Payne is recommending that testing the sensitivity of a level indicator be expanded to include 

all portable scales, so equipped, that are submitted to NTEP for evaluation. 

Mr. Payne requests that additional test criteria for testing the suitability of a level indicating means on a portable 

scale, equivalent to that used by MC be added to NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 63.4. MC’s current test 

criteria for verifying acceptable sensitivity on a scale’s level indicating means is as follows:

MC Test Requirements (2011):

MRA. LG-3.05 SUITABILITY OF THE LEVEL INDICATOR

Off Level: -X direction

REFERENCE

Sections 9, 10, 11, and 22 of the Non Automatic Weighing Devices Specifications

APPLICATION

This test is intended for complete portable or movable devices and weighing elements whose performance is 

affected when off level. Such devices must be equipped with a suitable level indicating means. This test is to 

ensure that the level indicating means is sensitive enough to accurately indicate the limit of inclination at which 

the device ceases to perform within tolerances.

SETTINGS

• The Automatic Zero Tracking may be activated. It must be set so that the weight value that can be tracked 

at once does not exceed 0.6 e.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E9 

• If the Initial Zero Setting Mechanism (IZSM) range of the device does not exceed 20 % of Max, the test 

will be performed with the IZSM set at the maximum of the range.

• If the IZSM range exceeds 20 % of Max, the test will be performed twice: the first test with the IZSM set 

to the lowest possible value; the second test with the IZSM set to the maximum of its range.

NOTE: In the case of a multi-range device, it is 20 % of Max of the lowest range; in the case of a multi-interval 

device, it is 20 % of max of the first range.

• The device must be leveled using the level indicating means, and adjusted to as close to zero error as 

possible.

• If the device has an "enhance" resolution feature, perform the test with that feature activated; or use the 

small weight method to determine errors before rounding.

• This test is performed at ambient temperature only.

PROCEDURE

1. Incline the DUT in one direction (arbitrary referred to as − x) up to the point of limit where the level 

indicating means still indicates a level condition or at least 2/1 000 (0.12 degree) whichever is greater.

LG-3.05 SUITABILITY OF THE LEVEL INDICATOR

Off Level: X direction 

Off Level: Y direction 

Off Level: − Y direction 

2. Set the device to zero if necessary; perform an increasing and decreasing load test. If necessary, use the 

small weight method to find errors before rounding. Record the results.

3. Record the angle with reference to the horizontal. 

4. Repeat the test described above for the other three inclinations (+ x, − y, + y). (See the following 

illustrations.) 

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The device meets the requirements if, at the limits of inclination in all four directions, it performs within 

applicable limits of error.

Conclusion:

Mr. Payne, Maryland Department of Agriculture, provided the Sector a copy of the MC test requirements used for 

determining the suitability of a level indicator on a portable scale, and proposed adding similar procedures to 

NCWM Publication 14. The Sector reviewed the information and agreed that it was appropriate to add test criteria, 

similar to that used by MC into NCWM Publication 14. The Sector also agreed to recommend that the procedures

be added to Section 63.4. Out-of-Level Tests. During its discussions, the work considered whether the test criteria 

should apply to scales designated Accuracy Class I and concluded that the test criteria should not apply to scales 

designated Accuracy Class I. 

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, noted that while attempting to insert the new draft test procedures into 

Section 63.4. (i.e., after the 2011 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting had concluded), it became evident to 

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, that Section 63.4 was not the most appropriate Section within the DES 

Section of NCWM Publication 14 to add the new procedures. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, and Mr. Flocken, 

Chair, were made aware and the decision was made, after consulting with all NTETC Weighing Sector members 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E10

present at the 2011 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting, to add the new procedures to Section 56 Level-Indicting 

Means – Portable Scales, subsection 56.4. and renumber the current subsection 56.4. to 56.5. The changes 

recommended by the Sector are: 

NCWM Publication 14: DES Section 56.4. 

56.3. The level-indicating means is rigidly mounted, easily read, protected from 

damage, and will not change its reference for level, and sufficiently 

sensitive.

Yes No N/A

56.4. The level-indicating means is sufficiently sensitive:

• Except for Scales Designated Accuracy Class I, if the scale is equipped 

with a level-indicating means, the level indicator must be tested to 

determine whether or not it’s sufficiently sensitive.

• Level Sensitivity Tests (if applicable)

• Test Conditions (both analog and digital indicating scales)

• This test is performed at ambient temperature only.

• The device must be leveled using the level indicating means, and 

adjusted to as close to zero error as possible.

Additional Test Conditions Applicable Only to Digital Indicating Scales:

• The AZT may be activated. It must be set so that the weight value 

that can be tracked at once does not exceed 0.5 e.

• If the IZSM range of the device does not exceed 20 % of Max, the test 

will be performed with the IZSM set at the maximum of the range.

• If the IZSM range exceeds 20 % of Max, the test will be performed 

twice: the first test with the IZSM set to the lowest possible value; the 

second test with the IZSM set to the maximum of its range.

NOTE: In the case of a multi-range device, it is 20% of Max of the 

lowest range; in the case of a multi-interval device, it is 20% of max of 

the first weighing segment.

• If the device has an “enhance/expanded” resolution feature, perform 

the test with that feature activated; or use the small weight method to 

determine errors before rounding.

Yes No N/A

56.4.1. Incline the DUT in one direction (arbitrary referred to as − x) 

up to the point of limit where the level indicating means still 

indicates a level condition or at least 2/1 000 (0.12 degree) 

whichever is greater.

56.4.2. Set the device to zero if necessary; perform an increasing and 

decreasing load test. If necessary, use the small weight method 

to find errors before rounding. Record the results.

56.4.3. Record the angle with reference to the horizontal.

56.4.4. Repeat the test described above for the other three inclinations 

(+ x, − y, + y) (See the following illustrations).

Position of the Bubble Indicator:

The image part with relationship ID rId9 was not found in the file. The image part with relationship ID rId9 was not found in the file. The image part with relationship ID rId9 was not found in the file. The image part with relationship ID rId9 was not found in the file.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E11

56.45.Wheel-load weighing and axle-load scales must weigh accurately when 

placed out-of-level by 5 %.*

Yes No N/A

5. DES Section 31. Multi-Interval Scales

Source: 

Mr. Davidson, Mettler-Toledo Inc.

Background/Discussion: 

Mr. Davidson, Mettler-Toledo, Inc., discovered a discrepancy in DES Section 31 relative to the maximum 

permissible tare value that can be taken on a multi-interval scale. There are two requirements in this section that 

seem to contradict each other in regards to the maximum allowed tare value. Those requirements are as follows:

• All tares must be taken in the minimum increment. Therefore, the maximum tare allowed is the maximum 

capacity of the smallest weighing segment.

• For multi-interval instruments, all tares, except for semi-automatic tare, must be taken in the minimum 

increment. Therefore, the maximum tare allowed is the maximum capacity of the smallest weighing range.

Mr. Davidson noted that the intent of the requirements is to limit the tare value of all tare types except semiautomatic tare (i.e., push-button tare) to the maximum capacity of the first weighing segment of the device. Thus, to 

correct the discrepancy, the following changes were suggested:

• All tares must be taken in the minimum increment. Therefore, the maximum tare allowed is the 

maximum capacity of the smallest weighing segment.

• For multi-interval instruments, all tares, except for semi-automatic tare, must be taken in the 

minimum increment. Therefore, the maximum tare allowed is the maximum capacity of the smallest 

weighing range. Except for semi-automatic tare, all tare values shall not exceed the maximum 

capacity of the first weighing segment (i.e., Max1). 

This proposed change would harmonize the NTEP requirement with that of International Organization of Legal 

Metrology (OIML) Recommendation (R) 76 and MC. The following pertinent clauses were copied from those 

documentary standards:

OIML R 76-1 Edition 2006 Section 4.7.1:

“For a multi-interval instrument, the preset tare value shall be rounded to the smallest verification scale interval, 

e1, of the instrument, and the maximum preset tare value shall not be greater than Max1." 

Measurement Canada Laboratory Manual Section 22.1.5:

"The maximum tare value that may be entered shall not exceed Max1." (Our understanding of the use of the 

word "entered" in their sentence is describing the entry of a numeric value which would not exceed Max1 and 

all other tares could be taken to the maximum capacity of the device.)

Conclusion:

The NTETC Weighing Sector reviewed NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 31 and agreed that the referenced 

requirements thought to be in conflict by the submitter did in fact contradict one another. Mr. Burtini, MC, pointed 

out, in deference to the submitter’s understanding of MC requirements, that MC’s type evaluation criteria would not 

permit a tare entry greater than the capacity of the first weighing segment (Max1) even if that tare were a semiautomatic tare. Considering this difference in U.S. versus MC type evaluation criteria relating to the taking of tare

on a multi-interval scale, it was noted that a scale passing MC’s test criteria would also pass U.S. criteria, but the 

opposite would not necessarily hold true. The Sector agreed to recommend the following changes: 

NCWM Publication 14: DES Section 31.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E12

The scale indication for a 10-pound load must be 10.00 lb, not 10.000 lb: once the scale has exceeded an 

internal weight indication of 9.99975 lb, it must round to the next higher weight indication. If 10.000 lb were to 

be indicated, a load perceived internally as 10.003 lb would result in the scale indicating in some manner that it 

is no longer sensing 10.000 lb ± 0.0025 lb, hence would then indicate 10.00 lb. This round-off problem is 

avoided by causing the scale to indicate 10.00 when sensing a load in excess of 9.9975 lb (based upon its 

internal resolution). The scale will continue to indicate 10.00 lb until its internal resolution senses a load in 

excess of 10.005 lb, whereupon the weight display will update to 10.01 lb. 

There are several considerations regarding the proper operation of tare on multi-interval scales.

• All tares must be taken in the minimum increment. Therefore, the maximum tare allowed is the 

maximum capacity of the smallest weighing segment.

• Except for semi-automatic tare, all tare values shall not exceed the maximum capacity of the first 

weighing segment (WS1).

• Whenever gross and tare weights fall in different weighing segments, (hence the scale divisions for the 

gross and tare weights differ), the net weight must be in mathematical agreement with the gross and tare 

weights that are indicated and recorded, (e.g., net = gross – tare.)

• Scales that display or record only net weight values (e.g., most computing scales) may semi automatically 

(pushbutton) take tare values to either the internal resolution or the displayed scale division.

• Manually entered keyboard, thumb-wheel, and digital tare values must be entered to the displayed scale 

division.

In applying these principles, it is acceptable to: 

• Round the indicated and printed tare values to the nearest appropriate net weight scale division. OR

• Display net weight values in scale divisions other than the scale division used in the display of gross 

weight, as when the gross and tare weights are in different ranges of the device. For example, a scale 

indicating in two-pound divisions in the lower range and five-pound divisions in the next higher range may 

result in net values ending in three or eight in the higher range. For example, a multi-interval scale may 

indicate and record tare weights in a lower weighing segment (WS) and net weights in the higher weighing 

segment as follows:

55 kg Gross Weight (WS2 d = 5kg) 10.05 lb Gross Weight (WS2 d = 0.05 lb) 

− 4 kg Tare Weight (WSR1 d = 2 kg) − 0.06 lb Tare Weight (WS1 d = 0.02 lb) 

_____ _______

= 51 kg The Mathematically Correct Net Weight = 9.99 lb The Mathematically Correct Net Weight

In every case, it is required to maintain the mathematically correct equation: net = gross – tare

For multi-interval instruments, all tares, except for semi-automatic tare, must be taken in the minimum 

increment. Therefore, the maximum tare allowed is the maximum capacity of the smallest weighing 

range.

Semi-automatic tare may be taken to the internal resolution of the scale and any indications or recorded 

representations of tare shall be rounded to the nearest verification scale division.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E13

6. DES Section 70. - Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to 

Weigh In-Motion 

Source: 

Mr. Luthy, Stock Equipment Company, Inc. 

Background/Discussion: 

Mr. Luthy, Stock Equipment Company, Inc., reports that they intend to offer for sale in the United States a 

commercial application weigh-in-motion railway track scale designed to accurately weigh railway track cars (i.e., 

within NIST Handbook 44 tolerances) using new technology that utilizes continuous rails (no “rail gaps”) on the 

approaches and weighing areas of the scale. They are currently unable to offer this device for sale in the U.S. in 

commercial applications because current NTEP type evaluation criteria and NIST Handbook 44 requirements are 

written in such a way that makes it impossible for devices incorporating this new technology to comply. For 

example, NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance requires 

clearance be provided around all live parts to the extent that no contacts may result. NCWM Publication 14, DES 

Section 70, Inspect the Scale, Item 4 Rail Gaps states that “the rail gaps should be set at 3

/8 inch.” The AAR Scale 

Handbook includes language that allows 1

/8 inch to 5/8 inch rail gaps. Mr. Luthy notes that there is no clearance, nor 

are there any rail gaps in a continuous rail. Thus, existing requirements are preventing the marketing and sale of 

equipment utilizing new technology in commercial applications despite the fact that the equipment complies with 

current accuracy requirements when installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 

Mr. Luthy, Stock Equipment Company, Inc., asked the Sector to review NIST Handbook 44 requirements and 

NCWM Publication 14 type evaluation criteria that apply to rail gap clearance relative to WIM railway track scale 

installations and consider amending those requirements to eliminate existing barriers that are hindering the use of 

new technology. Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, noted that other requirements may need to be addressed 

by the manufacturer of this equipment to enable this equipment to be submitted to NTEP and ultimately be installed 

and used in commercial applications. The Sector may want to consider reviewing other existing type evaluation 

criteria applicable to WIM Railway Track Scales and provide guidance to the submitter in other areas of concern. 

To address the issue of clearance, Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, offered the following proposed 

amendments/additions to NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph UR.2.4. and NCWM Publication 14 Section 70 

for NTETC Weighing Sector consideration, comments, and recommendations: 

NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code:

 

UR.2.4. Foundation, Supports, and Clearance. – The foundation and supports of any scale installed in a 

fixed location shall be such as to provide strength, rigidity, and permanence of all components, and 

clearance shall be provided around all live parts to the extent that no contacts may result when the load 

receiving element is empty, nor throughout the weighing range of the scale. *On vehicle and livestock 

scales, the clearance between the load receiving elements and the coping at the bottom edge of the platform

shall be greater than at the top edge of the platform.

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1973]

UR.2.4.1. General. – Except for railway track scales that incorporate a continuous rail design (no rail 

gaps), the foundation and supports of any scale installed in a fixed location shall be such as to 

provide strength, rigidity, and permanence of all components, and clearance shall be provided 

around all live parts to the extent that no contacts may result when the load receiving element is 

empty, nor throughout the weighing range of the scale. *On vehicle and livestock scales, the clearance 

between the load receiving elements and the coping at the bottom edge of the platform shall be greater 

than at the top edge of the platform.

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1973]

UR.2.4.2. Railway Track Scales That Incorporate a Continuous Rail Design. – Railway track scales 

that incorporate a continuous rail design (no rail gaps) shall be installed such that:
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E14

(a) Clearance shall be provided around all live parts to the extent that no other contacts with the 

live part of the scale may result when the weighing area element is empty, nor throughout the 

weighing range of the scale, 

(b) The rail that introduces the rail cars to the weighing area and that carries away the rail cars 

away from the weighing area shall be maintained according to the manufacturer’s 

recommendations, and

(c) The scale area shall be marked or identified with contrasting colors, or other suitable means 

shall be used to distinguish the weighing area from the area that carries rail cars away from 

the weighing area.

(Added 20XX)

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 70. 

Inspect the Scale

4. Rail Gaps:

Except for railway track scales that incorporate a continuous rail design (no rail gaps), the rail gaps 

should be set at 3/8 inch. AAR Scale Handbook says from 1/8 inch to 5/8 inch is allowable. A closed rail gap 

will have a significant effect on the weight while a large rail gap will take its toll on the rail, load cells, and 

grout.

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, summarized background information during which time Mr. Luthy, Stock 

Equipment Company, Inc., provided greater detail in explaining to the sector how the equipment is designed, many 

of the capabilities of the equipment, and some of the challenges that have been encountered trying to gain 

acceptance of the equipment into the U.S. marketplace. Mr. Luthy indicated that the system would pass current 

NIST Handbook 44 tolerances applicable to static railway track scales and uncoupled-in-motion railway track 

scales, but could not currently offer the Sector any test data to support this claim. Mr. Luthy acknowledged that a 

system had been installed at a railroad test facility operated by the Transportation Technology Center Inc., Pueblo, 

Colorado, but testing to verify (or confirm) accuracy had not yet been performed and would be conducted at some 

later date (yet to be determined). Mr. Luthy also indicated that some U.S. railroads have expressed great interest in 

purchasing and using this new technology. The most obvious hurdle preventing U.S. acceptance is that there are no 

rail gaps present in a typical installation of the system. NCWM Publication 14 specifically requires rail gaps and 

NIST Handbook 44 contains a provision which specifies clearance shall be maintained around all live parts to the 

extent that contacts do not occur. Since no rail gaps are present, it is not possible that clearance can be maintained 

around all live parts. Some additional concerns raised and discussed by the sector were as follows: 

• Mr. Beitzel, Systems Associates, Inc., questioned how a static section test could be performed on a 

weighbridge that incorporates six scale sections in only 12 feet of rail. He indicated that the device could 

not pass current design requirements of the American Railway Engineering Maintenance-of-Way 

Association (AREMA) and to do so, those requirements would have to be changed. He also questioned 

whether more stringent permanence testing should be developed and applied to this particular system. Mr. 

Beitzel agreed that railroad companies would like to see this equipment be made available, noting that they 

are less concerned about tolerances, which, he indicated, is contrary to the concerns of members of 

AREMA Committee 34. 

• Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, pointed out that a plan was being developed to address section testing. 

He stated that the NTEP Committee is willing to issue a provisional CC upon successful completion of the 

current evaluation procedures, providing the Sector can recommend the removal of the “rail gap” 

requirement (assuming testing would be completed before the NTETC Weighing Sector meeting). He then 

asked whether the Sector would be willing to make such a recommendation. Mr. Truex also agreed with 

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, that the equipment could not comply with NIST Handbook 44

Scales Code paragraph UR.2.4. Foundation, Supports, and Clearance because clearance is not provided 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E15

around all live parts of a railway track scale that has no rail gaps between the approach rails and the 

weighing/load-receiving element. 

• Noting that the NTEP process considers all components of an evaluation, Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, 

Inc., questioned whether the sector would want to develop an ad hoc discussion group to develop a list of 

concerns and a means of addressing them, including the concerns raised by Mr. Beitzel, Systems 

Associates, Inc.. 

Conclusion:

The NTETC Weighing Sector was not willing to delete references to the required gaps in the rail until it is proven 

that the new technology complies with the tolerances in NIST Handbook 44. Thus, the Sector recommended that 

the applicant move forward with performance testing to confirm that the new technology complies with the 

tolerances in NIST Handbook 44. The Sector agreed with a recommendation made by Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM, that 

data resulting from the performance testing needs to be submitted to the Sector prior to the time that the 

2012 NTETC Weighing Sector Agenda is developed or the item should not be included as a carry-over item on that

agenda. 

7. DES Section 57. Device Tolerances 

Source: 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

Background/Discussion: 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., has identified a possible error in the acceptance tolerance example of 

tolerance for separable elements in DES Section 57. Device Tolerances. Mr. Lewis states that the tolerance for 

separable indicators and weighing element for devices with more than 4000 graduations is currently listed as 1 e. In 

the example for Class III elements with more than 4000 divisions, the tolerance listed is 2.5 divisions; the truncated 

division should for “2 e” when error weights are not being used and the scale cannot be put into an expanded mode. 

If the tolerance is rounded down the allowable error would be 2 not 1 as shown highlighted in the following table.

Example:

Test Indication In Divisions Tolerance

0 – 500 0

501 – 2 000 0

2 001 – 4 000 1

4 001 – 10 000 12

Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM, noted that the referenced language and tables have been in NCWM Publication 14 since 

1994. Mr. Cook also noted that NIST Handbook 44 paragraph T.N.3.5. Separate Main Elements, Load Transmitting 

Elements, Indicating Elements, Etc. applies a 0.7 times the applicable tolerance for separable main elements and 

including elements. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., may be misinterpreting the language in NCWM 

Publication 14 by applying the full acceptance tolerances (1.0 factor) before truncating instead of applying the 0.7 

factor to the acceptance tolerance before truncating. To reduce the possibility of future misinterpretations of the 

language, Mr. Cook asked the Sector to review a proposal that he developed to amend DES Section 57. by including 

applicable NIST Handbook 44 code references, amending the table titled “Acceptance Tolerances” to include 

tolerance for both complete devices and main elements, and deleting the “Example” table.

Conclusion:

The NTETC Weighing Sector reviewed a proposal submitted by Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM, to replace the entire 

contents of DES Section 57 and replace it with amended language and a new table thought to be less confusing. The 

Sector agreed to recommend replacing the entire contents of NCWM Publication 14 Section 57 with that which was 

proposed by Mr. Cook. The recommended amended language and new table agreed upon by the Sector are the

following:
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E16

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 57. 

Code References: G-T. 1. (e), T.N.3.2., T.N.3.5., and Table 6.

The acceptance tolerances for complete scales are shown below and apply to complete devices and separable 

main elements during type evaluation.

It is strongly recommended that indicating elements submitted separately for evaluation have a test mode 

providing reading indications to 0.1 e to provide adequate resolution to apply the tolerance (expanded 

resolution). If the indicator provides indications to only the maximum number of divisions requested for 

the Certificate of Conformance, the tolerance will be truncated to the number of divisions that can be 

indicated. The following tolerances will be applied to class III (and III/III L) indicators. 

Example: 

Test Indication In Divisions Tolerance

0 – 500 0

501 – 2 000 0

2 001 – 4 000 1

4 001 – 10 000 12

8. DES Appendix C- Acceptable Abbreviations for Short Ton and Long Ton 

Source: 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

Background/Discussion: 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., is recommending adding “tn” as an acceptable abbreviation for a 

U.S. short ton to the current list of acceptable abbreviation of “Ton” or “TN.” Mr. Lewis is also recommending that 

“lt” be added to the list of acceptable abbreviations for a long ton. He added that the Canadian Lab Manual, Part 2, 

Section Appendix-2A in the table for abbreviations and symbols accepted in Canada, metric ton is abbreviated by 

“t” and ton (short ton) is abbreviated by “tn.” 

Acceptance Tolerances

(All values in this table are in scale divisions)

Tolerance in scale divisions

Complete Devices 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.5

Separable Main Elements1 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.75

Separable Indications w/o 

Expanded Resolution 0 0 1 1

Class Test Load

I 0 - 50 000 50 001 - 200 000 200 0001 +

II 0 - 5 000 5 001 - 20 000 20 0001 +

III 0 - 500 501 - 2 000 2 001 - 4 000 4 001 +

IIII 0 - 50 51 - 200 201 - 400 401 +

III L 0 - 500 501 - 1 000

(Add 1/2 d for each additional 500 d

or fraction thereof)

1 When main elements (indicating elements and weighing/load-receiving elements) are tested separately, the 

tolerance applied to all laboratory tests (influence factors and permanence tests) are 0.7 times the acceptance

tolerance for complete scales.
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E17

Conclusion:

Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, reviewed background information and reminded the Sector that to be 

considered an acceptable abbreviation (i.e., for use with equipment manufactured as of January 1, 2008), the 

abbreviation must be included in either NIST Handbook 44 Appendix C or NIST SP 811 in accordance with NIST 

Handbook 44 paragraph G S.5.6.1. Indicated and Recorded Representations of Units. Appropriate abbreviations. 

The NTETC Weighing Sector reviewed acceptable abbreviations for short ton, long ton, and metric ton included in 

Appendix C of NIST Handbook 44. Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM, pointed out that both short ton and metric ton are 

abbreviated the same in Appendix C of NIST Handbook 44 (i.e., the short ton is abbreviated on page C-6 as “t” and 

the metric ton is also abbreviated as “t” on page C-19). 

The Sector agreed to add “tn” to the table of Acceptable Abbreviations in Appendix C of NCWM Publication 14 as 

an acceptable abbreviation for short ton. Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, noted that the abbreviation “tn” 

does not exist in Appendix C of NIST Handbook 44 nor in NIST SP 811 and this change recommended by the 

sector, if approved, would add the abbreviation to only 1 portion of NCWM Publication 14 table, that is, to the 

portion titled Exceptions to General Tables of NIST Handbook 44. The Sector also agreed to delay taking any 

action on adding the abbreviation “lt” for long ton until the S&T Committee has had an opportunity to consider the

proposal from Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., to amend NIST Handbook 44 by adding the 

abbreviations “tn” for short ton and “lt” for long ton. NCWM Publication 14 Table of Acceptable Abbreviations 

incorporating the new abbreviation being recommended by the Sector is:

NCWM Publication 14 DES Appendix C (entire table not shown)

Device Application Term Acceptable NOT Acceptable

*Exceptions to 

General Tables of 

NIST Handbook 44

carat or carat troy – 200 mg ct

common jewelry industry 

abbreviation and is the 

only acceptable 

abbreviation in Canada

ct 

not permitted if used as 

the abbreviation for carat 

and count on a scale with 

an enable count feature

U.S. short ton Ton, or TN or tn

for belt-conveyor scales, 

the abbreviation "T" is 

acceptable

U.S. long ton LT

Grain grain, GRN, grn, GN

9. DES Technical Policy Section D - Substitution of Load Cells in Scales

Source: 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems Inc.

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section D – Substitution of Load Cells in Scales paragraph states that metrologically 

equivalent load cells from the same or a different manufacturer may be substituted into a scale provided that the load 

cell to be substituted have a capacity that is not less than 85 % of the capacity of the original cell. The current policy 

may exclude load cells from different manufacturers where the available capacities are not within 85 % to 100 %” of 

the capacity of the original cell. Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems Inc., states that in most load cell families, 

the next lower capacity cell may be less than 85 % of the next larger load cell (assuming that the capacity of the 

original cell is not included in the load cell family of the different manufacturer). In most cases, the percentage will 

be 80 %, 75 % or even 50 %. If you were to look at a family of load cell the next smaller load might be 83 % 

(300 lb to 250 lb), but in most cases the percentage is much less that the 85 % allowed.

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems Inc., recommended that the language in DES Section D paragraph six be 

amended to change the minimum capacity of the of load cell intended to be substituted in a scale from 85 % to the 

“next lowest load cell in that family.” Mr. Cook, NIST, OWM, agreed that the differences between adjacent 

capacities in a manufacturer’s load cell family are frequently lower than 85 %. The following example was copied 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E18

from a Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. load cell CC and demonstrates that the next lower capacity load cell is 

between 50 % and 75 % of the next higher capacity load cell. Mr. Cook explained that the intent of the original 

language is to help ensure the suitability of the replacement load cell, including parameters such as vmin. Mr. Cook 

suggested that any change to the technical policy be supported by evaluating examples where a suitable capacity 

load cell is not available (e.g., original cell is in SI units and the potential replacement cell is in customary units).

Conclusion:

The NTETC Weighing Sector discussed the item, during which time, the question was raised whether or not anyone 

could explain the reason why NTEP had elected to select 85 % as the limiting factor to be used in determining 

whether or not a load cell of lesser capacity is suitable for use as a substitute for a load cell of greater capacity. It 

was noted that the 85 % factor has existed in type evaluation criteria for a very long time. No one in attendance 

could provide a technical justification of why 85 % was selected opposed to some lesser value ( e.g., 75 %, 50 %), 

although some possible reasons were identified and discussed as follows:

• Use of the load cells in customary and SI applications

• The effect of shock loading and other loading characteristics

• Increased sensitivity due to influence factors and disturbances, etc.

After considering and discussing these various possibilities, the sector agreed that it was highly probable that a 

technical justification existed for selecting 85 %, opposed to some lesser value, and for this reason NCWM 

Publication 14 should not be changed. 

ADDITIONAL ITEMS (NOT INCLUDED ON DRAFT AGENDA)

10. Incorrect Section References and Some Editorial Corrections Needed to NCWM 

Publication 14 

Source:

Mr. Davidson, Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

Background/Discussion:

Mr. Davidson, Mettler-Toledo, Inc., indicated that he had discovered what appeared to be some conflicting section 

references and other minor editorial errors in NCWM Publication 14 that needed to be corrected as follows: 

1. The reference to DES Section 34.7.1. and both references to 34.7.4. are incorrect and should be changed to 

34.3.1. and 34.3.4. respectively.

2. Delete “0.5e” in the first sentence of 58.2 and replace it with “the applicable tolerance.” Also, replace the 

symbol “≤” with the symbol “>”in the formula “(n ≤ 4000)” on the form on page 83 where that formula 

appears in the last sentence under the form heading titled “For Single Range Scales:” 

Conclusion:

The Sector reviewed the language in each of the sections identified by Mr. Davidson, Mettler-Toledo, Inc., and 

agreed to recommend that each of the sections be corrected as suggested. The changes recommended by the Sector 

are:

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 34.3.3.

34.3.3. Individual indications for each load-receiving element - with summed 

indication. Each individual load-receiving element display must operate 

within the guidelines defined in section 34.73.1. or 34.73.4. If the 

instrument has the ability to operate in a "Sum Only" mode, the summed 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E19

display must operate within the guidelines in section 34.73.4. In this case, 

when the system is zeroed:

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 58.2.

58.2. The deviation on returning to zero as soon as the indication has stabilized, 

after the removal of any load which has remained on the instrument for 30 

minutes, shall not exceed 0.5 e. the applicable tolerance.

Yes No N/A

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 58. Time Dependence Test Form (entire form not shown)

For Single Range Scales:

Check that |ΔP|≤|MPE| for Class III L Devices

Check that |ΔP|≤ 0.5 e for Class II and IIII Devices

Check that |ΔP|≤ 0.5 e for Class III Devices (n ≤ 4 000 d)

Check that |ΔP|≤ 0.83 e for Class III Devices (n ≤ > 4 000 d)

11. Sealing/Capabilities of Smart Junction Boxes

Source: 

Mr. Payne, Maryland Department of Agriculture

Background/Discussion: 

Maryland Department of Agriculture requested the sector’s guidance on the proper means of sealing, and assistance 

in determining the capabilities of a “smart junction box,”(aka “smart “J” box”) which was about to be submitted to 

the Maryland Laboratory for NTEP certification. Although not confirmed, it was Mr. Payne’s belief (based on 

discussions with an equipment manufacturer) that the “smart junction box” provided a means of remotely accessing 

calibration and/or configuration adjustments once installed in a scale. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, pointed out that such adjustments can generally only be carried out through the 

indicator of a weighing system comprised of separable components (i.e., an indicator, weighing/load-receiving 

element, and load cells). NTEP evaluates each of these components separately, issuing a separate CC for each 

component once that component has passed type evaluation criteria. Notations made on the CC by the evaluator 

typically provide an indication of the compatibility and/or non-compatibility of a component with other separable 

components.

During the discussion, it was mentioned that several U.S. scale manufacturers, including some who were represented 

in the room, design and manufacture smart “J” boxes. Mr. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, Inc., noted that internationally, 

as many as seven different components of a scale are type evaluated using test criteria contained in OIML 

Recommendations. He questioned whether the Sector might want to further research the capabilities of “smart “J” 

boxes” and possibly consider developing type evaluation criteria to evaluate them as separate component of a 

weighing system. 

Conclusion:

The Sector agreed to form a small work group to study the capabilities of this equipment and determine whether or

not type evaluation criteria should be developed to evaluate them as a separate component. 

NEXT SECTOR MEETING

Two locations for the 2012 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting are being considered:

1. Annapolis, Maryland; or 

2. Ottawa, Canada

Additionally, the Sector considered August 28 - 29, 2012, being the most probable dates for the next meeting. 
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E20

ATTENDANCE

Adnan Alam

A&D Engineering, Inc.

1756 Automation Parkway

San Jose, CA 95131

(408) 518-5112

aalam@andonline.com

Steve Beitzel

Systems Associates, Inc.

1932 Industrial Drive

Libertyville, IL 60048

(847) 367-6650

sjbeitzel@systemsassoc.com

Luciano Burtini

Measurement Canada

2008 Matera Avenue

Kelowna, BCV1V1W9

(250) 862-6557

luciano.burtini@ic.gc.ca

Steven Cook

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD20899-2600

(301) 975-4003 

stevenc@nist.gov

Scott Davidson

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH43085

(614) 438-4387

scott.davidson@mt.com

Darrell Flocken

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH43085

(614)438-4393

darrell.flocken@mt.com

Rick Harshman

NIST, Weights and Measures Division

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600

Gaithersburg, MD20899-2600

(301) 975-8107

richard.harshman@nist.gov

Sam Jalahej

Totalcomp Scales and Components

13-01 Pollitt Drive

Fairlawn, NJ 07410

(201) 797-2718

sales@totalcomp.com

Ken Jones

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA95828

(916) 229-3052

kjones@cdfa.ca.gov

Tom Jones

Hobart Corporation

401 W. Market

Troy, OH 45374

(937) 332-2427

thomas.jones@hobartcorp.com

Takashi Kawazoe

New Brunswick International, Inc.

76 Veronica Avenue

Somerset, NJ08873

(732) 828-3633

TKService@nbidigi.com

Stephen Langford

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

203 East Daugherty Street

Webb City, MO64870

(417) 673-4631

slangford@cardet.com

Paul A. Lewis, Sr.

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

230 West Coleman Street

Rice Lake, WI54868-2404

(715) 234-9171 ext.5322

plewis@ricelake.com

Ed Luthy

Stock Equipment Co., Inc.

108 Wade Drive

Dover, OH44622

(440) 241-0194

ed.luthy@stockequipment.com

Joe Morrison

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

Weights and Measures

8995 East Main Street, Building 5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

(614) 728-6290

jmorrison@agri.ohio.gov
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E21

Edward Payne

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 841-5790

payneea@mda.state.md.us

John Roach

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 9582

(916) 229-3456

JRoach@cdfa.ca.gov

Samuel Sagarsee

Emery Winslow Scale Co.

4530 North 25th Street

Terre Haute, IN 47805

(812) 466-5265 ext.112

srsagarsee@winslowth.com

Louis Straub

Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

3056 Irwin Drive S.E.

Southport, NC 28461

(910) 253-3250

lstraub@fairbanks.com

James Truex

National Conference on Weights and Measures

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH 43062

(740) 919-4350

jim.truex@ncwm.net
NTEP 2012 Final Report

Appendix E – NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary

NTEP - E22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NTEP 2012 Interim Report

Appendix F – NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports

NTEP - F1 

Appendix F

NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports

NTEP General Statistics

General NTEP Statistics Last Year This Year Grand Total

10/01/10 - 6/30/11 10/01/11 - 6/30/12 10/1/00 - 6/33/12 

Total Applications Processed (40) 208 (21) 205 (143) 2957

Applications Completed 208 206 2832

New Certificates Issued 193 196 2547

Active NTEP Certificates on 3/31/2012 1877

( ) = Reactivations

Assignments to Labs per Year 10/1/10 - 9/30/11 10/1/11 - 6/30/12 10/1/00 -6/30/12

California (2) 19 20 (16) 401

Canada 8 6 (4) 42

GIPSA-DC 0 1 16

GIPSA-KC 9 8 85

Kansas 10 5 (9) 73

Maryland (9) 40 (9) 47 (37) 354

New York 1 0 (17) 161

NIST Force Group 8 5 (1) 87

North Carolina (2) 19 13 (4) 112

Ohio 47 (7) 38 (22) 779

NTEP Staff (1) 117 66 (9) 798

Applications Not Yet Assigned to a Lab 2 

( ) = Reassignments from another lab

Process Statistics 2011 - 2012 2000 - 2012

Average Time to Assign an Evaluation 5 Days 10 Days

Average Time to Complete an 

Evaluation 141 Days
NTEP 2012 Interim Report

Appendix F – NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports

NTEP - F2 

Report on Evaluations in Progress

Evaluations in Progress

0-3 

Months

3-6

Months

6-9

Months

9-12

Months

Over 1

Year Total

April 2009 58 29 27 17 36 167 

June 2009 48 27 17 12 29 133 

October 2009 41 33 18 12 33 137 

December 2009 45 30 22 12 28 137 

March 31, 2010 24 20 18 19 23 104 

June 30, 2010 37 12 11 13 24 97 

October 30, 2010 40 30 8 8 20 106 

December 31, 2010 39 25 22 5 20 111 

March 31, 2011 37 27 13 19 17 107 

June 30, 2011 47 20 7 7 21 102 

September 30, 2011 42 28 11 5 19 105 

December 31, 2011 37 19 23 5 17 101 

March 31, 2012 40 17 7 21 14 99 

June 30, 2012 41 21 10 6 20 98 

In Progress by Lab

0 - 3

Months

3 - 6

Months

6 - 9

Months

9 - 12

Months

Over 1 

Year Total

California 10 6 4 2 6 28 

Canada 1 2 0 0 0 3 

GIPSA-DC 0 0 1 0 0 1 

GIPSA-KC 5 0 0 0 0 5 

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Maryland 9 4 3 2 6 24

New York 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NIST Force Group 1 1 0 0 3 5 
NTEP 2012 Interim Report

Appendix F – NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports

NTEP - F3 

In Progress by Lab

0 - 3

Months

3 - 6

Months

6 - 9

Months

9 - 12

Months

Over 1 

Year Total

North Carolina 1 0 1 2 1 5 

Ohio 11 8 1 0 4 24

NTEP Staff 3 0 0 0 0 3 

Total Pending: 98

Report on Applications Received by Quarter

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

Oct. - Dec. Jan. - March April - June July - Sept.
NTEP 2012 Interim Report

Appendix F – NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports

NTEP - F4 

Applications

01 – 02 02 – 03 03 – 04 04 - 05 

05 – 06 06 – 07 07 – 08 08 – 09 09 – 10 10 - 11 

11 – 12 

Oct. – Dec. 81 59 59 58 47 55 56 76 71 58 59

Jan. – Mar. 99 62 55 62 74 63 54 105 42 69 75

Apr. – June 54 76 68 65 71 64 54 64 61 82 71

July – Sept. 38 59 44 70 48 64 63 61 56 65

Total 272 246 226 244 240 246 227 306 230 274 205

Average Per Quarter Overall: 63.7

Averae Per Quarter this FY: 68.3
Nominating Committee 2012 Final Report

NOM - 1 

Report of the

Nominating Committee

Mr. Tim Tyson, Committee Chair

Kansas Department of Agriculture

Weights and Measures Division

800 INTRODUCTION

The Nominating Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”) met during the 97th National Conference on 

Weights and Measures (NCWM) Interim Meeting, January 22 - 25, 2012, in New Orleans, Louisiana. At that time, 

the Committee nominated persons for the various available Board of Director positions for the 98th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures. The following report reflects the decisions of the NCWM membership.

Table A identifies the agenda items by reference key, title of an item, page number, and the appendices by appendix 

designations. 

Table A

Table of Contents

Reference Key Title of Item NOM Page

800 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

810 NOMINATIONS............................................................................................................................................... 2

810-1 V Officer Nominations.................................................................................................................... 2

Table C

Summary of Voting Results

Reference 

Key

Number

House of Senate Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

810-1 Voice Vote of Business Items Adopted

To Accept 

the Report Voice Vote Adopted
Nominating Committee 2012 Final Report

NOM - 2 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

810 NOMINATIONS

810-1 V Officer Nominations

(This item was adopted by unanimous vote of the 97th National Conference on Weights and Measures)

Source: 

Nominating Committee

Purpose: 

Election of NCWM officers

Item Under Consideration:

Chairman-Elect:

Mr. John Gaccione, Westchester County New York, Weights and Measures

Board of Directors Active Membership - Western:

Mr. Jerry Buendel, Washington State Department of Agriculture

Board of Directors At-Large:

Mr. Steve Giguere, Maine Department of Agriculture

Treasurer:

Mr. Mark Coyne, Brockton Weights and Measures

Background/Discussion: 

The Nominating Committee met during the 2012 Interim Meeting at the Hotel Monteleone, New Orleans, Louisiana, 

at which time the Nominating Committee nominated the persons listed above to be officers of the 98th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures. In the selection of nominees from the active and associate membership, 

consideration was given to professional experience, qualifications of individuals, conference attendance and 

participation, and other factors considered to be important. At the Annual Meeting held in Portland, Maine, the slate 

of officers were selected by the membership by unanimous vote.

Mr. Tim Tyson, Kansas | Committee Chair

Ms. Judy Cardin, Wisconsin | Member

Mr. Charles Carroll, Massachusetts | Member 

Mr. Thomas Geiler, Barnstable Weights and Measures | Member

Mr. Joe Gomez, New Mexico | Member

Mr. Maxwell Gray, Florida | Member

Mr. Randy Jennings, Tennessee | Member

Nominating Committee
Attendees – 2012 Final Report 

ATTEND - 1 

97th Annual Meeting Attendees

Sprague Ackley

Intermec

6001 36th Avenue W 

Everett, WA 98203

Phone: (425) 501-8995

E-mail: hsackley@cs.com

Brad Bachelder

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 287-3841

E-mail: bradford.bachelder@maine.gov

Cary Ainsworth

USDA, GIPSA

75 Spring Street

Suite 230

Atlanta, GA 30303-3309

Phone: (404) 562-5426

E-mail: l.cary.ainsworth@usda.gov

Jason Barber

Oregon Measurement Standards Division

635 Capitol Street NE

Salem, OR 97301

Phone: (503) 986-4767

E-mail: jbarber@oda.state.or.us

John Albert

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Boulevard

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: (573) 751-7062

E-mail: John.Albert@mda.mo.gov

Steve Beitzel

Systems Associates, Inc.

1932 Industrial Drive

Libertyville, IL 60048

Phone: (847) 367-6650

E-mail: sjbeitzel@systemsassoc.com

Mahesh Albuquerque

CDLE-Oil and Public Safety

633 17th Street

Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202

Phone: (303) 318-8502

E-mail: mahesh.albuquerque@state.co.us

Sam Bell

Echols Oil Company, Inc.

P.O. Box 1477

Greenville, SC 29602

Phone: (864) 233-6205

E-mail: info@scpma.com

S. Chris Anders

Zeltex, Inc.

130 Western Maryland Parkway

Hagerstown, MD 21740

Phone: (301) 791-7080

E-mail: canders@zeltex.com

Joe Benavides

Texas Department of Agriculture

1700 North Congress Avenue

Stephen F. Austin Building, 11th Floor

Austin, TX 78701

Phone: (512) 463-5706

E-mail: joe.benavides@texasagriculture.gov

Ross Andersen 

25 Moon Drive

Albany, NY 12205

Phone: (518) 869-7334

E-mail: rjandersen12@gmail.com

Gary Benjamin

NCR Corporation

2651 Satellite Boulevard NW

Duluth, GA 30096

Phone: (770) 623-7543

E-mail: gary.benjamin@ncr.com

Lanny Arnold

Kentucky Department of Agriculture

107 Corporate Drive

Frankfort, KY 40601

Phone: (502) 573-0282

E-mail: lanny.arnold@ky.gov

Stephen Benjamin

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

Phone: (919) 733-3313 

E-mail: steve.benjamin@ncagr.gov
Attendees – 2012 Final Report

ATTEND - 2 

Marla Benyshek

Phillips 66 Company

132 AL

Highway 60 & 123

Bartlessville, OK 74003-6670

Phone: (918) 661-4056

E-mail: marla.k.benyshek@p66.com

Tim Broemmer

Avery Weigh-Tronix

272 Botanical Ridge Drive

Wentzville, MO 63385

Phone: (913) 617-9176 

E-mail: tbroemmer@awtxglobal.com

Gorden Blain

Intertek Commodities

801 Travis Street

Suite 1500

Houston, TX 77002

Phone: (713) 407-3500

E-mail: gorden.blain@intertek.com

Conrad Brown

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 287-3841

E-mail: conrad.brown@maine.gov

Adam Bolain

Heinz North America

357 6th Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Phone: (724) 778-5640

E-mail: adam.bolain@us.hjheinz.com

Rex Brown

Petroleum Equipment Institute

P.O. Box 2380

Tulsa, OK 74101

Phone: (918) 236-3961

E-mail: jrbrown@pei.org

Mike Boone

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 287-3841

E-mail: michael.boone@maine.gov

Norm Brucker

Precision Measurement Standards, Inc.

1665 Bonaire Path West

Rosemount, MN 55068

Phone: (651) 423-3241

E-mail: sharnoma@frontiernet.net

Chris Bradley

Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Avenue

P.O. Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073

Phone: (609) 267-0922

E-mail: cparker@pemfab.com

Jerry Buendel

Washington State Department of Agriculture

1111 Washington Street

P.O. Box 42560

Olympia, WA 98504-2560

Phone: (360) 902-1856

E-mail: jbuendel@agr.wa.gov

David R. Bradley

ASTM International

100 Barr Harbor Drive

West Conshohocken, PA 19428

Phone: (610) 832-9681

E-mail: dbradley@astm.org

Tina Butcher

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive

MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Phone: (301) 975-2196

E-mail: tina.butcher@nist.gov

Nicholas Brechun

Colorado Department of Agriculture

3125 Wyandot Street

Denver, CO 80211

Phone: (303) 867-9232

E-mail: nick.brechun@ag.state.co.us

Jerry Butler

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

Phone: (919) 733-3313

E-mail: jerry.butler@ncagr.gov
Attendees – 2012 Final Report 

ATTEND - 3 

Jim Byers

San Diego County Department of Agriculture Weights 

and Measures

9325 Hazard Way

Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92123-1217

Phone: (858) 614-7726

E-mail: jim.byers@sdcounty.ca.gov

Erica Caruth

Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards

1-2 Century Drive

Trincity Industrial Estate, Macoya

Tunapuna 

Phone: (868) 662-8827

E-mail: erica.caruth@ttbs.org.tt

Jaime Cabot

Town of Barnstable

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

Phone: (508) 862-4612

E-mail: jaime.cabot@town.barnstable.ma.us

James Cassidy

City of Cambridge Weights and Measures Department

831 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02139

Phone: (617) 349-6133

E-mail: jcassidy@cambridgema.gov

David Calix

NCR Corporation

1510 North Walton Boulevard

Bentonville, AR 72712

Phone: (479) 372-8407

E-mail: david.calix@ncr.com

Paul Cecil

Micro Motion

7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

Phone: (303) 530-8437

E-mail: paul.cecil@emerson.com

Judy Cardin

Wisconsin Weights and Measures

2811 Agriculture Drive

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Phone: (608) 224-4945

E-mail: judy.cardin@wisconsin.gov

Tim Chesser

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

Phone: (501) 570-1159

E-mail: tim.chesser@aspb.ar.gov

Loretta Carey

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

5100 Paint Branch Parkway

College Park, MD 20740

Phone: (240) 402-1799

E-mail: loretta.carey@fda.hhs.gov

Alan Christian

USDA, GIPSA Packers and Stockyards Program

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Stop 3601

Washington, DC 20250-3641

Phone: (202) 720-7051

E-mail: alan.r.christian@usda.gov

Stacy Carlsen

Marin County Weights and Measures

1682 Novato Boulevard

Suite 150-A 

Novato, CA 94947-7021

Phone: (415) 499-6700

E-mail: scarlsen@co.marin.ca.us

Rick Cohen

Town of Barnstable

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

Phone: (508) 862-4669

E-mail: richard.cohen@town.barnstable.ma.us

Charles Carroll

Massachusetts Division of Standards

One Ashburton Place

Room 1115

Boston, MA 02108

Phone: (617) 727-3480

E-mail: Charles.Carroll@state.ma.us

Clark Cooney

Oregon Measurement Standsards Division

635 Capitol Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-2532

Phone: (503) 986-4677

E-mail: ccooney@oda.state.or.us
Attendees – 2012 Final Report

ATTEND - 4 

Rodney Cooper

Tuthill Transfer Systems

8825 Aviation Drive

Fort Wayne, IN 46809

Phone: (260) 755-7552

E-mail: rcooper@tuthill.com

Bill Deitz

Sam's Club

2101 Simple Savings Drive

Bentonville, AR 72712

Phone: (479) 277-7595

E-mail: bill.deitz@samsclub.com

Chuck Corr

Archer Daniels Midland Company

1251 Beaver Channel Parkway

Clinton, IA 52732

Phone: (563) 244-5208

E-mail: corr@adm.com

Rob DeRubeis

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

and Rural Development

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895

Phone: (517) 655-8202

E-mail: derubeisr@michigan.gov

Constantine Cotsoradis

Flint Hills Resources

4111 East 37th Street North

Wichita, KS 67220-3203

Phone: (316) 828-6133

E-mail: constantine.cotsoradis@fhr.com

Chuck Ehrlich

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive

MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4834

E-mail: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov

Mark Coyne

Brockton Weights and Measures

45 School Street

City Hall

Brockton, MA 02301-9927

Phone: (508) 580-7120

E-mail: mcoyne@cobma.us

John Eichberger

National Association of Convenience Stores

1600 Duke Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

Phone: (703) 518-4247

E-mail: jeichberger@nacsonline.com

Kevin Croker

Brockton Weights and Measures

45 School Street

City Hall

Brockton, MA 02301

Phone: (508) 580-7120

E-mail: kcroker@cobma.us

Bob Feezor

Scales Consulting and Testing

35 Stonington Place

Marietta, GA 30068

Phone: (770) 971-7454

E-mail: rkfeezor@bellsouth.net

Matthew Curran

Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services

3125 Conner Boulevard

Building 1 Mail Stop L1

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Phone: (850) 921-1570

E-mail: matthew.curran@freshfromflorida.com

Kevin Ferrick

API

1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 682-8233

E-mail: ferrick@api.org

Doug Deiman

Alaska Division of Measurement Standards/CVE

12050 Industry Way

Building O, Suite 6 

Anchorage, AK 99515

Phone: (907) 365-1222

E-mail: doug.deiman@alaska.gov

Cathy Fisher

Santa Barbara County Weights and Measures

263 Camino del Remedio

Santa Barbara, CA 93110

Phone: (805) 681-5600

E-mail: cfisher@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
Attendees – 2012 Final Report 

ATTEND - 5 

Dave Flannery

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 287-3841

E-mail: david.flannery@maine.gov

Edward Gentili

Town of Framingham

150 Concord Street

Framingham, MA 01702

Phone: (508) 532-5480

E-mail: erg@framinghamma.gov

Mark Flint

ADM

4666 Faries Parkway

Decatur, IL 62526

Phone: (217) 451-3104

E-mail: mark.flint@adm.com

Bill Geubelle

Phillips 66

1000 S Pine

Ponca City, OK 74602

Phone: (580) 767-3400

E-mail: bill.g.geubelle@p66.com

Darrell Flocken

Mettler-Toledo, LLC

1150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

Phone: (614) 438-4393

E-mail: darrell.flocken@mt.com

Steve Giguere

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 287-4456

E-mail: steve.giguere@maine.gov

Kurt E-mail: Floren

Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner

Weights and Measures

12300 Lower Azusa Road

Arcadia, CA 91006

Phone: (626) 575-5451

E-mail: kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov

Jason Glass

Kentucky Department of Agriculture

107 Corporate Drive

Frankfort, KY 40601

Phone: (502) 573-0282

E-mail: jason.glass@ky.gov

Kevin Friel

Town of Barnstable

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

Phone: (508) 862-4776

E-mail: kevin.friel@town.barnstable.ma.us

Thomas Glenn

Petroleum Quality Institute of America

40 Brunswick Avenue

Edison, NJ 08820

Phone: (732) 640-6797

E-mail: tglenn@pqiamerica.com

John Gaccione

Westchester County Weights and Measures

112 East Post Road

Room 419

White Plains, NY 10601

Phone: (914) 995-2164

E-mail: jpg4@westchestergov.com

Angela Godwin

County of Ventura

800 S Victoria Avenue, #1750

Ventura, CA 93009

Phone: (805) 654-2428

E-mail: angela.godwin@ventura.org

Win Gardner

ExxonMobil Corporation

3225 Gallows Road 

Room 6D0416

Fairfax, VA 22037

Phone: (703) 846-5400

E-mail: k.w.gardner@exxonmobil.com

Joe Gomez

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

P. O. Box 30005

MSC 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

Phone: (575) 646-1616

E-mail: jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu

Tom Geiler

Town of Barnstable

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

Phone: (508) 862-4670

E-mail: tom.geiler@town.barnstable.ma.us

Shawn Good

Rail Scale, Inc.

5303 N 800 E

Wilkinson, IN 46186

Phone: (317) 339-6486

E-mail: shawn@railscale.com
Attendees – 2012 Final Report

ATTEND - 6 

Larry Goodbar

Yamato Corporation

1775 S Murray Boulevard

Colorado Springs, CO 80916

Phone: (719) 457-3166

E-mail: goodbar@yamatocorp.com

Brett Gurney

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food

P. O. Box 146500

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500

Phone: (801) 538-7158

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

Steve Grabski

Walmart Stores, Inc.

508 SW 8th Street

M/S 0505

Bentonville, AR 72712

Phone: (479) 277-8005

E-mail: steven.grabski@wal-mart.com

Ivan Hankins

Iowa Department of Agriculture

Weights and Measures

2230 S. Ankeny Boulevard

Ankeny, IA 50023-9093

Phone: (515) 725-1492

E-mail: ivan.hankins@iowaagriculture.gov

Max Gray

Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services

3125 Conner Boulevard

Lab 2, Mailstop L2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Phone: (850) 921-1570

E-mail: maxwell.gray@freshfromflorida.com

Krister Hard af Segerstad

IKEA North America Services, LLC

420 Alan Wood Road

Conshohocken, PA 19428

Phone: (610) 834-0180

E-mail: krister.hardafsegerstad0@ikea.com

Frank Greene

Connecticut Dept of Consumer Protection

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Phone: (860) 713-6168

E-mail: frank.greene@ct.gov

Milton Hargrave

Virginia Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services

1100 Armory Drive, Apt 120

Franklin, VA 23851

Phone: (757) 562-6637

E-mail: milton.hargrave@vdacs.virginia.gov

LuAnne Groenjes

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street

Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: 402-434-4880

E-mail: luanne.groenjes@ncwm.net

John Harkins

Sunoco Logistics

4041 Market Street

Aston, PA 19014

Phone: (610) 833-3671

E-mail: jjharkins@sunocologistics.com

Chris Guay

Procter and Gamble Co.

One Procter and Gamble Plaza

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Phone: (513) 983-0530

E-mail: guay.cb@pg.com

Steven Harrington

Minnesota Weights and Measures Division

14305 South Cross Drive

Suite 150

Burnsville, MN 55306

Phone: (651) 215-5821

E-mail: steven.harrington@state.mn.us

Philip Guillemette

Flint Hills Resources, LP

4111 East 37th Street North

Wichita, KS 67220

Phone: (316) 828-8440

E-mail: philip.guillemette@fhr.com

Rick Harshman

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive

MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-8107

E-mail: richard.harshman@nist.gov
Attendees – 2012 Final Report 

ATTEND - 7 

Ryanne Hartman

Michigan Department of Agriculture and Ruaral

Development

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895-2451

Phone: (517) 655-8202

E-mail: hartmanr9@michigan.gov

Paul Hoar

AgriFuels LLC

73 Dayton Road

South Glastonbury, CT 06073

Phone: (860) 633-9811

E-mail: paulhoar@agrifuels.com

Ron Hayes

Missouri Department of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Boulevard

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: (573) 751-4316

E-mail: ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov

Mike Hoar

New World Pasta

85 Shannon Road

Harrisburg, PA 17112

Phone: (502) 396-1746

E-mail: mhoar@nwpasta.com

Scott Henry

Motorola Solutions, Inc.

1700 Belle Meade Court

Lawrenceville, GA 30043

Phone: (770) 338-3884

E-mail: scott.henry@motorolasolutions.com

Carol Hockert

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive

MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4004

E-mail: carol.hockert@nist.gov

Marilyn Herman

Herman and Associates

3730 Military Road NW

Washington, DC 20015

Phone: (202) 362-9520

E-mail: mherman697@aol.com

Jayne Hoover

American Italian Pasta Company

1251 NW Briarcliff Pkwy

Suite 500

Kansas City, MO 64116

Phone: (816) 502-6204

E-mail: jhoover@aipc.com

Maile Hermida

Hogan Lovells US, LLP

555 13th Steet, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: (202) 637-5428

E-mail: maile.hermida@hoganlovells.com

Jerome Horn

Chevron Global Downstream, LLC

100 Chevron Way

Room 61-4228

Richmond, CA 94802

Phone: (510) 242-1367

E-mail: jerryhorn@chevron.com

Tyler Hicks

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture

Food and Forestry

2800 N Lincoln Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Phone: (405) 522-5968

E-mail: tyler.hicks@ag.ok.gov

Bill Hornbach

Chevron Products Company

6001 Bollinger Canyon Road

San Ramon, CA 94583

Phone: (925) 842-3484

E-mail: billhornbach@chevron.com

Lindsay Hier

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street

Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (402) 434-4880

E-mail: lindsay.hier@ncwm.net

Fran Houston

Ohio Department of Agriculture

Division of Weights and Measures

8995 East Main Street

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

Phone: (614) 728-6290

E-mail: houston@agri.ohio.gov
Attendees – 2012 Final Report

ATTEND - 8 

Steve Howell

MARC-IV

101 East Main

Kearney, MO 64060

Phone: (816) 903-6272

E-mail: showell@marciv.com

Tom Jones

Hobart

401 W. Market Street

Troy, OH 45374

Phone: (937) 332-2427

E-mail: thomas.jones@hobartcorp.com

John Hughes

Rice Lake Weighin

230 W Coleman Street

Rice Lake, WI 54886

Phone: (507) 399-4629

E-mail: jhughes@ricelake.com

Zina Juroch

Pier 1 Imports

100 Pier 1 Place

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Phone: (817) 252-8348

E-mail: zmjuroch@pier1.com

Mike Jackelen

Berry Plastics

9965 Alabama Road

Bloomington, MN 55438

Phone: (612) 816-7182

E-mail: mikejackelen@berryplastics.com

Michael Kaldro

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 287-3841

E-mail: michael.kaldro@maine.gov

Rafael Jimenez

Association of American Railroad Transportation 

Technology Center

P.O. Box 11130

55500 D.O.T. Road

Pueblo, CO 81001

Phone: (719) 584-0691

E-mail: rafael_jimenez@ttci.aar.com

Dmitri Karimov

Liquid Controls

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044

Phone: (847) 283-8317

E-mail: dkarimov@idexcorp.com

Gordon Johnson

Gilbarco, Inc.

7300 West Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27410

Phone: (336) 547-5375

E-mail: gordon.johnson@gilbarco.com

Phil Katselnik

Dresser Wayne

3814 Jarrett Way

Austin, TX 78728

Phone: (512) 388-8763

E-mail: phil.katselnik@dresser.com

Raymond Johnson Jr.

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 30005

MSC 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

Phone: (575) 646-1616

E-mail: rjohnson@nmda.nmsu.edu

Michael Keilty

Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA

211 Pinewood Drive

Lyons, CO 80540

Phone: (303) 823-5796

E-mail: michael.keilty@us.endress.com

Alan Johnston

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9

Phone: (613) 952-0655

E-mail: alan.johnston@ic.gc.ca

Henry Kellogg

Compucom

2 Cromer Drive

Bella Vista, AR 72715

Phone: (479) 685-6862

E-mail: henry.kellogg@compucom.com

Cathie Johnston

Intertek Commodities

801 Travis

Suite 1500

Houston, TX 77002

Phone: (864) 884-3000

E-mail: cathie.johnston@intertek.com

Michael Kerr

Southern Company Services

207 West Mount Vernon Street

Somerset, KY 42501

Phone: (606) 305-2419

E-mail: mlkerr@southernco.com
Attendees – 2012 Final Report 

ATTEND - 9 

Doug Killingsworth

Georgia Department of Agriculture

19 M.L.K. Jr. Drive SW

Atlanta, GA 30334

Phone: (404) 656-3605

E-mail: william.killingsworth@agr.georgia.gov

Lisa Leondis

San Diego County Department of Agriculture Weights 

and Measures

5555 Overland Avenue, Ste 3101

San Diego, CA 92123

Phone: (858) 694-2741

E-mail: lisa.leondis@sdcounty.ca.gov

Doug Killingsworth

Georgia Department of Agriculture

19 MLK Jr. Drive

Room 321

Atlanta, GA 30334

Phone: (404) 656-3605

E-mail: william.killingsworth@agr.georgia.gov

Paul Lewis

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.

230 West Coleman Street

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404

Phone: (715) 434-5322

E-mail: plewis@ricelake.com

Ted Kingsbury

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9

Phone: (613) 941-8919

E-mail: kingsbury.ted@ic.gc.ca

Rich Lewis

Georgia Department of Agriculture

Agriculture Building

19 MLK Drive, Room 321

Atlanta, GA 30334

Phone: (404) 656-3605

E-mail: richard.lewis@agr.georgia.gov

Jason Kukachka

Thermo Fisher

501 90th Avenue

Coon Rapids, MN 55433

Phone: (763) 783-2566

E-mail: jason.kukachka@thermofisher.com

Russ Lewis

Marathon Petroleum Company LP

2901 Camelia Drive

Flatwoods, KY 41139

Phone: (606) 921-2009

E-mail: rplewis@marathonpetroleum.com

Stephen Langford

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.

203 East Daugherty Street

P.O. Box 151

Webb City, MO 64870

Phone: (417) 673-4631

E-mail: slangford@cardet.com

Tim Lloyd

Montana Weights and Measures Bureau

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0516

Phone: (406) 443-3289

E-mail: tlloyd@mt.gov

Andrew Lawrence

Tomax Corporation

224 South 200 West

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Phone: (801) 990-0909

E-mail: alawrence@tomax.com

Ed Luthy

Stock Equipment Co., Inc.

108 Wade Drive

Dover, OH 44622

Phone: (440) 241-0194

E-mail: ed.luthy@stockequipment.com

David Leckman

Badger Meter, Inc.

P.O. Box 245036

Milwaukee, WI 53223

Phone: (414) 371-7266

E-mail: dleckman@badgermeter.com

Andrew MacAllister

Daniel Measurement and Control, Inc.

11100 Brittmoore Park Drive

Houston, TX 77041

Phone: (713) 827-4334

E-mail: andrew.macallister@emerson.com

Jeffrey Leiter

ILMA

1707 L Street, NW, Suite 560

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 386-7670

E-mail: jll@leitercramer.com

Kristin Macey

California Division of Measurement Standards

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95828

Phone: (916) 229-3000

E-mail: kmacey@cdfa.ca.gov
Attendees – 2012 Final Report

ATTEND - 10

John Maurer

Valero Energy Corporation

One Valero Way

San Antonio, TX 78249-1616

Phone: (210) 345-2649

E-mail: john.maurer@valero.com

Paul Moyer

Nebraska Division of Weights and Measures

301 Centennial Mall South,Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Phone: (402) 471-6842

E-mail: paul.moyer@nebraska.gov

Dr. Willie May

NIST

100 Bureau Drive

MS 1000

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Phone: (301) 997-2300

E-mail: willie.may@nist.gov

Bob Murnane

Seraphin Test Measure, Co.

30 Indel Avenue

P.O. Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227

Phone: (609) 267-0922

E-mail: rmurnane@pemfab.com

Terence McBride

Memphis Weights and Measures

590 Washington Street

Memphis, TN 38105

Phone: (901) 528-2904

E-mail: terence.mcbride@memphistn.gov

Robert (Bob) Nelson

Shell Oil Products

1000 Main Street, Level 12

Houston, TX 77002

Phone: (713) 230-5143

E-mail: robert.e.nelson@shell.com

Tom McGee

PMP Corporation

P.O. Box 422

25 Security Drive

Avon, CT 06001-0422

Phone: (860) 677-9656

E-mail: tmcgee@pmp-corp.com

Dan Newcombe

Maine Department of Agriculture

333 Cony Road

Augusta, ME 04330

Phone: (207) 287-7587

E-mail: danny.newcombe@maine.gov

Jim McGetrick

BP Products

Mail Code J-8 

150 W. Warrenville Road

Naperville, IL 60563

Phone: (630) 487-1685

E-mail: james.mcgetrick@bp.com

Andre Noel

Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

1600 Alabama Highway #229

Tallassee, AL 36078

Phone: (334) 283-7298

E-mail: anoel@neptunetg.com

Bob McGrath

Boston ISD Weights and Measures

1010 Massachusetts Avenue

Boston, MA 02118

Phone: (617) 961-3376

E-mail: Robert.Mcgrath@CityofBoston.Gov

Neal Nover

WinWam Software

3000 Atrium Way, Suite 2203

Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-3910

Phone: (856) 273-6988

E-mail: NealNov@winwam.com

Paul Menard

Lexmark International

740 West New Circle Road

501C14/082-1 

Lexington, KY 40550

Phone: (859) 232-7379

E-mail: menard@lexmark.com

Pete O'Bryan

Foster Farms

P.O. Box 457

Livingston, CA 95334-9900

Phone: (209) 765-4978

E-mail: obryanp@fosterfarms.com

Charlie Mitchell

Total Petrochemicals and Refining USA, Inc.

P.O. Box 849

Port Arthur, TX 77641-0849

Phone: (409) 963-6885

E-mail: charlie.mitchell@total.com

Don Onwiler

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

1135 M Street, Suite 110

Lincoln, NE 68508

Phone: (402) 434-4871

E-mail: don.onwiler@ncwm.net
Attendees – 2012 Final Report 

ATTEND - 11

Henry Oppermann

Weights and Measures Consulting, LLC

1300 Peniston Street

New Orleans, LA 70115

Phone: (504) 896-9172

E-mail: wm-consulting@att.net

Marty Pound

Georgia Department of Agriculture

19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive SW

Atlanta, GA 31087

Phone: (404) 656-3605

E-mail: marvin.pound@agr.georgia.gov

Tim Osmer

New Hampshire Department of Agriculture 

Markets and Food

P.O. Box 2042

Concord, NH 03301

Phone: (603) 271-0894

E-mail: timothy.osmer@agr.nh.gov

Jamie Py

Maine Energy Marketers Association

25 Greenwood Road

Brunswick, ME 04011

Phone: (207) 729-5298

E-mail: jpy@maineenergymarketers.com

Ed Payne

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: (410) 841-5790

E-mail: payneea@mda.state.md.us

Julie Quinn

Minnesota Department of Commerce

14305 South Cross Drive

Suite 150

Burnsville, MN 55306

Phone: (651) 215-5821

E-mail: julie.quinn@state.mn.us

Keith Penn

Colonial Pipeline Company

5019 Dripping Spring Avenue

Baytown, TX 77523

Phone: (713) 703-5339

E-mail: kpenn@colpipe.com

Dave Rajala

Total Meter Services, Inc.

136 Queen Anne Drive

Hollidaysburg, PA 16648-9228

Phone: (814) 693-1055

E-mail: drajala@totalmeter.com

Dan Peterson

Yokogawa Corporation of American

2 Dart Road

Newnan, GA 30265

Phone: (770) 254-0404

E-mail: dan.peterson@us.yokogawa.com

Kenneth Ramsburg

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: (410) 841-5790

E-mail: RamsbuKR@mda.state.md.us

Hank Picken

Beaumont Products

1500 Beaumont Drive

Kennesaw, GA 30144

Phone: (770) 514-9000

E-mail: hpicker@beaumontproducts.com

Doug Rathbun

Illinois Department of Agriculture

801 Sangamon Avenue

P.O. Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Phone: (217) 785-8300

E-mail: doug.rathbun@illinois.gov

Kyle Pierson

Somerset County Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 3000

20 Grove Street

Somerville, NJ 08876

Phone: (908) 231-7125

E-mail: pierson@co.somerset.nj.us

Derek Regal

Tesoro Companies, Inc

19100 Ridgewood Parkway

San Antonio, TX 78259

Phone: (210) 626-7317

E-mail: derek.b.regal@tsocorp.com

Marshall Piper

Department of Agriculture

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Bob Reynolds

Downstream Alternatives, Inc.

4204 Coral Drive

South Bend, IN 46614

Phone: (574) 250-2811

E-mail: rreynoldsdai@att.net
Attendees – 2012 Final Report

ATTEND - 12

Rebecca Richardson

MARC IV Consulting

2005 Tin Cup Road

Mahomet, IL 61853

Phone: (217) 586-2860

E-mail: RRichardson@marciv.com

Louis Sakin

Towns of Hopkinton/Northbridge

1 Ford Lane

Framingham, MA 01701

Phone: (508) 620-1148

E-mail: louissakin@aol.com

Sandy Rintoul

Wilks Enterprise, Inc.

25 Van Zant Street

Ste 8F

Norwalk, CT 06855

Phone: (831) 338-7459

E-mail: srintoul@wilksir.com

Brett Saum

San Luis Obispo County Weights and Measures

2156 Sierra Way

Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-4556

Phone: (805) 781-5922

E-mail: bsaum@co.slo.ca.us

Bill Ripka

Thermo Fisher Scientific

501 90th Avenue NW

Minneapolis, MN 55433

Phone: (800) 445-3503

E-mail: bill.ripka@thermofisher.com

Dale Saunders

Virginia Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services

P.O. Box 1163

Richmond, VA 23218

Phone: (804) 786-2476

E-mail: dale.saunders@vdacs.virginia.gov

Mike Roach

VeriFone

4011 Barwood Ct

Tampa, FL 33624

Phone: (813) 205-0876

E-mail: mike_r4@verifone.com

Louis Sakin

Towns of Hopkinton/Northbridge

1 Ford Lane

Framingham, MA 01701

Phone: (508) 620-1148

E-mail: louissakin@aol.com

Lance Robertson

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9

Phone: (613) 952-0661

E-mail: lance.robertson@ic.gc.ca

Brett Saum

San Luis Obispo County Weights and Measures

2156 Sierra Way

Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-4556

Phone: (805) 781-5922

E-mail: bsaum@co.slo.ca.us

Doug Rudy

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Bureau 

of Weights and Meas

2301 North Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Phone: (717) 787-9089

E-mail: drudy@pa.gov

Dale Saunders

Virginia Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services

P.O. Box 1163

Richmond, VA 23218

Phone: (804) 786-2476

E-mail: dale.saunders@vdacs.virginia.gov

Dorothy Rurak

Sunoco Logistics

1 Fluor Daniel Drive

Sugar Land, TX 77478

Phone: (281) 637-2421

E-mail: drurak@sunocologistics.com

Richard Scali

Town of Barnstable

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

Phone: (508) 862-4778

E-mail: richard.scali@town.barnstable.ma.us

Frank Rusk

Coti Global Sensors

7010 Sedgewick Road

Indian Trails, NC 28079

Phone: (417) 392-0624

E-mail: frank@cotiglobal.com

Prentiss Searles

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 682-8227

E-mail: searlesp@api.org
Attendees – 2012 Final Report 

ATTEND - 13

David Sefcik

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-4868

E-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov

Richard Suiter

Richard Suiter Consulting

9819 Anchor Bend

McCordsville, IN 46055

Phone: (317) 336-9819

E-mail: Rsuiter700@aol.com

Edward Seidler

Town of Framingham

150 Concord Street

Framingham, MA 01702

Phone: (508) 532-5480

E-mail: ers@framinghamma.gov

Mike Swimm

Maine Department of Agriculture

28 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: (207) 540-3703

E-mail: michael.swimm@maine.gov

Joseph Silvestro

Gloucester Co. New Jersey

64 Forage Drive

Mickleton, NJ 08056

Phone: (856) 423-5360

E-mail: silver7777@comcast.net

Bill Tedder

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

1050 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050

Phone: (919) 733-3313

E-mail: lbtedder@intrstar.net

Shane Skelton

API

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 682-8172

E-mail: skeltons@api.org

Jennifer Thompson

Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce

P.O. Box 1609

Jackson, MS 39215-1609

Phone: (601) 359-1144

E-mail: jennifer@mdac.state.ms.us

John Stokes

South Carolina Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 11280

Columbia, SC 29211

Phone: (803) 737-9690

E-mail: jstokes@scda.sd.gov

Bill Timmons

City of Medford

85 George Phone: Hassett Drive

Medford, MA 02155

Phone: (781) 393-2463

E-mail: mwtimmons@medford.org

Brad Stotler

NATSO, Representing America's Truck Stop Operators

1737 King Street

Suite 200

Alexandria, VA 22314

Phone: (202) 309-0400

E-mail: bstotler@natso.com

Jim Truex

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.

88 Carryback Drive

Pataskala, OH 43062

Phone: (740) 919-4350

E-mail: jim.truex@ncwm.net

Lou Straub

Fairbanks Scales, Inc.

3056 Irwin Drive S.E-mail: 

Southport, NC 28461

Phone: (910) 253-3250

E-mail: lstraub@fairbanks.com

Rich Tucker

RL Tucker Consulting, LLC

605 Bittersweet Lane

Ossian, IN 46777

Phone: (260) 622-4243

E-mail: rtucker83@comcast.net

Bill Studzinski

General Motors - Powertrain Division

823 Joslyn Rd

Mailcode: 483-730-472

Pontiac, MI 48340

Phone: (248) 255-7785

E-mail: william.studzinski@gm.com

Tim Tyson

Kansas Department of Agriculture

Weights and Measures Division

P.O. Box 19282

Forbes Field Building 282

Topeka, KS 66619-0282

Phone: (785) 862-2415

E-mail: tim.tyson@kda.ks.gov
Attendees – 2012 Final Report

ATTEND - 14

Rob Underwood

Petroleum Marketers Association of America

1901 N Fort Myer Drive, Suite 500

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: (703) 351-8000

E-mail: runderwood@pmaa.org

Lisa Weddig

National Fisheries Institute

7918 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 700

McLean, VA 22102

Phone: (703) 752-8886

E-mail: lweddig@nfi.org

Rob Upright

Vishay Transducers

42 Countryside Road

North Grafton, MA 01536

Phone: (508) 615-1185

E-mail: rob.upright@vishaypg.com

Tim White

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

and Rural Development

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895-2451

Phone: (517) 655-8202

E-mail: whitet@michigan.gov

Craig VanBuren

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

and Rural Development

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895-2451

Phone: (517) 655-8202

E-mail: vanburenc9@michigan.gov

Juana Williams

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive

MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-3989

E-mail: juana.williams@nist.gov

Walter Vetter

Master Meter, Inc.

101 Regency Parkway

Mansfield, TX 76063

Phone: (817) 842-8165

E-mail: wvetter@mastermeter.com

Curt Williams

CP Williams Energy Consulting, LLC

95 Roundtree Court

Stockbridge, GA 30281

Phone: (770) 957-6992

E-mail: curtispwilliams@aol.com

Gilles Vinet

Measurement Canada

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9

Phone: (613) 941-8918

E-mail: gilles.vinet@ic.gc.ca

Michelle Wilson

Arizona Department of Weights and Measures

4425 West Olive Avenue, Suite 134

Glendale, AZ 85302

Phone: (602) 771-4933

E-mail: mwilson@azdwm.gov

Jay Visco

Vishay Precision Group

275 Warren Street

Waltham, MA 02453

Phone: (781) 330-9362

E-mail: Jay.Visco@vishaypg.com

William Woebkenberg

Mercedes-Benz Research and Development NA

3953 Research Park Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Phone: (734) 997-2030

E-mail: william.woebkenberg@daimler.com

Jack Walsh

Town of Ashland

101 Main Street--Town Hall

Ashland, MA 01721

Phone: (774) 279-2559

E-mail: JackBWalsh@verizon.net

Scott Zaremba

Zarco 66

1548 East 23rd, Suite C 

Lawrence, KS 66046-5117

Phone: (785) 843-6086

E-mail: scott@zarco66.com

Lisa Warfield

NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

Phone: (301) 975-3308

E-mail: lisa.warfield@nist.gov

Jane Zulkiewicz

Town of Barnstable

200 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

Phone: (505) 862-4773

E-mail: jane.zulkiewicz@town.barnstable.ma.us