NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National Bureau of Standards

Report of the

St National Conference

Weights and IVIeasures

1986
TM he National Bureau of Standards was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The M Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a

basis for the nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and

government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National

Engineering Laboratory, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

The National Measurement Laboratory

Provides the national system of physical and chemical measurement;

coordinates the system with measurement systems of other nations and

furnishes essentiaJ services leading to accurate and uniform physical and

chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, in- dustry, and commerce; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; conducts physical and chemical research; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Basic Standards^ Radiation Research Chemical Physics

Analytical Chemistry

The National Engineering Laboratory

Provides technology and technical services to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement

capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops

test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The

Laboratory consists of the following centers:

• Applied Mathematics

• Electronics and Electrical Engineering-^

• Manufacturing Engineering

• Building Technology

• Fire Research

• Chemical Engineering^

The Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

Conducts research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government

operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing

the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP

voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and

Technology

Computer Systems

Engineering

The Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Conducts research and provides measurements, data, standards, reference

materials, quantitative understanding and other technical information fundamental to the processing, structure, properties and performance of materials; addresses the scientific basis for new advanced materials technologies; plans

research around cross-country scientific themes such as nondestructive

evaluation and phase diagram development; oversees Bureau-wide technical programs in nuclear reactor radiation research and nondestructive evaluation; and broadly disseminates generic technical information resulting from

its programs. The Institute consists of the following Divisions:

Ceramics

Fracture and Deformation Polymers

Metallurgy Reactor Radiation

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address

Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303. 'Located at Boulder, CO, with some elements at Gaithersburg, MD.
Report of the

71st National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1986

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States^ Counties, and CitieSy and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Albuquerque, NMJuly 20-25, 1986

Report Editors: Albert D. Tholen

Carroll S. Brickenkamp

Ann P. Heffeman

United States Department of Commerce

f

^ \ Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

\ ^ National Bureau of Standards

^^vT^*^^ Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued September 1986

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 725. 267 pages (Sept. 1986) CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1986

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
ABSTRACT

The 71st Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures was held at the Marriott Hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico during

the week of July 20 through July 25, 1986. The theme of the meeting was

"Standardizing Standards - the Key to Equity."

This year's theme was chosen by Chairman George Mattimoe of Hawaii to

lead the weights and measures community to recognize that much of the work of the Conference is the establishment of standards for the conduct

and regulation of commerce throughout the country. Dr. Mattimoe

emphasized the adoption and application of these standards in state and

industry activities nationwide - thus "standardizing standards" - as the means

to progress toward the Conference goals of uniformity and equity.

Significant progress was made in the development and application of the standards that are represented by key Conference products including NBS

Handbooks 44, 130, 133, the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP), the National Training Program (NTP), and the regulation of motor fuels. Special meetings included those of the Task Force on Commodity

Requirements, the Task Force on Motor Fuels, the Task Force on

Information Systems, Metrologists' Workshops, the Associate Membership

Committee, the Scale Manufacturers Association, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, the state regional weights and measures

associations, NASDA Weights and Measures Division, and OIML Pilot Secretariat 20 (Prepackaged Products).

Reports by the standing and annual committees of the Conference comprise

the major portion of the publication, along with the addresses delivered by

Conference officials and other authorities from government and industry.

Key words: legal metrology; specifications and tolerances; training; type

evaluation; uniform laws and regulations; and weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766. Note: Opinions expressed in non-NBS papers are those of the authors and

not necessarily those of the National Bureau of Standards. Non-NBS

speakers are solely responsible for the content and quality of their material.

2
CONTENTS

Abstract

Officers, Officials and Committees of the Conference

Past Chairmen of the Conference

State Representatives

Scheduled Events

Organization Chart

GENERAL SESSION

Agenda

Introduction of Dr. William P. Stephens

FRED A. GERK

Director

Division of Standards and Consumer Services

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

Presentation to the National Conference

on Weights and Measures WILLIAM P. STEPHENS

Secretary/Director

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

A Banner Year

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

Director, National Bureau of Standards

Standardizing Standards - The Key to Equity

GEORGE MATTIMOE

Conference Chairman

Administrator, Measurement Standards

Hawaii Department of Agriculture Honor Awards Presentations

Certificates of Appreciation

3
Page

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Executive Committee

Final Report 48

Appendix A - Operating Budget 1986-1987 67 Appendix B - Report of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements 70 Appendix C - Memorandum of Understanding 91

Appendix D - Report of the Task Force on

Information Systems 102

Appendix E - National Type Evaluation

Program 105

Committee on Laws and Regulations

Final Report 131

Appendix A - Net Weight Sales From Bulk 164

Appendix B - FTC Policy 165

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Final Report 167

Appendix A - Type Evaluation 209

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

Final Report 217 Appendix A - National Training Program

Registry 223

Appendix B - Request for Individual Certification 224

Committee on Liaison

Final Report 226

Appendix A - Survey for Legal Case

Reference Book 239

ANNUAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

Nominating Committee Report 241

Resolutions Committee Report 242

Auditing Committee Report 244

Treasurer's Report 245

MISCELLANEOUS

Appointments by Chairman 248

Report of State Laboratory Metrology Workshops 250

Registration List 251

4
OFFICERS, OFHCIALS, AND COMBlOTTEES OF THE CONFERENCE

Chairman:

Chairman Elect: Past Chairman:

Vice-chairmen:

Executive Committee:

Treasurer: Chaplain:

President:

Executive Secretary:

OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

(July 1985 to July 1986)

(Elected)

George Mattimoe, Hawaii*

Frank Nagele, Michigan*

Sam Hindsman, Arkansas*

Charles CarroU, Massachusetts

O. Ray Elliott, Oklahoma

Edward Skluzaeek, Minnesota

Edison Stephens, Utah

John Bartfai, New York

Charles Forester, Texas James Lyles, Virginia

James O'Connor, Iowa

Joseph Swanson, Alaska

Robert Walker, Indiana

Charles Gardner, Suffolk County, NY*

Martin Coile, Georgia

Ernest Ambler

National Bureau of Standards*

Albert Tholcn

National Bureau of Standards*

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeants-at-Arms:

Parliamentarian:

Assistant Treasurer: Representatives to OIML:

U.S. Advisory Committee:

Pilot Secretariat/20:

Lyman Holloway, Idaho Norman Ross, Nebraska

Kendriek Simila, Oregon

Fred Thomas, Pennsylvania

George Mattimoe, Hawaii

Richard Thompson, Maryland

* Ex-officio members of the Executive Committee

5
STANDING COMMITTEES

(Appointed)

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Thomas Geiler, Town of Barnstable, MA, Chairman

Charles Greene, New Mexico

Bruce Niebergall, North Dakota

Tom Scott, North Carolina

Philip Stagg, Louisiana

Technical Advisor: Joan Koenig, National Bureau of Standards

Laws and Regulations

Don Stagg, Alabama, Chairman

Trafford Brink, Vermont

Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Leo Letey, Colorado

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Technical Advisor: Carroll Brickenkamp, National Bureau of Standards

Liaison N. David Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

James Akey, Kansas Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. John McCutcheon, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, MPIS

Technical Advisor: Steve Hasko, National Bureau of Standards

Specifications and Tolerances

Fred Gerk, New Mexico, Chairman

Ross Andersen, New York

Kenneth Butcher, Maryland

Robert Probst, Wisconsin

Dave Watson, City of Forth Worth, TX

Technical Advisor: Otto Warnlof, National Bureau of Standards

6
ANNUAL COMBdlTTEES

(Appointed)

Nominating Committee

Sam Hindsman, Arkansas, Chairman

Charles Greene, New Mexico

Edward Heffron, Michigan

James Lyles, Virginia

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Joseph Swanson, xMaska

Richard Thompson, Maryland

Auditing Committee*

Ed Romano, Glenn County, CA

Fred Clem, City of Columbus, OH

Linda Mauer, Rhode Island Budget Review Committee

George Mattimoe, Hawaii, Chairman

Paul Engler, Los Angeles County, CA

Charles Gardner, Suffolk County, NY

Thomas Kelly, New Jersey

Richard Davis, James River-Dixie/Northern, Inc. Albert Tholen, National Bureau of Standards

Credentials Committee*

Arthur Hershbein, Dade County, FL, Chairman

Gilbert Allen, City of Spokane, WA

Eugene Keeley, Delaware

Resolutions Committee*

Charles CarroU, Massachusetts, Chairman

William Eldridge, Mississippi

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS

Earl Maxwell, District of Columbia

George McDonald, Minnesota

Edison Stephens, Utah

Fred Thomas, Pennsylvania

Technical Advisor: Richard Smith, National Bureau of Standards

7
ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing, Inc., Chairman

Walter Kupper, Mettler Instrument Corp., Vice-Chairman

Kenneth Appel, Colgate-Palmolive Co., Treasurer Richard Davis, James River-Dixie/Northern, Inc. Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. Anthony Ladd, A. J. Ladd Weighing 6c Packaging

Robert Nelson, General Mills, Inc. Ray Wells, Sensitive Measurement, Inc.

TASK FORCES AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation

John Elengo, Jr., Revere Corp., Chairman

Public Members

Ross Andersen, New York

Lacy DeGrange, Maryland

David Edgerly, National Bureau of Standards

John Lacy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P <Sc S Dennis Mahoney, U.S. Department of Agriculture, FGIS

Frank Nagele, Michigan

Henry Oppermann, National Bureau of Standards

Clifton Smith, California

James Truex, Ohio

Weighing Industry Sector John Elengo, Jr., Revere Corp., Chairman

Edward Bratle, National Cash Register

William Goodpaster, Cardinal Scale Co. Joe Gianinna, Grain Elevator and Processing Society

Richard Hurley, Fairbanks Weighing Div., Colt Industries Fred Katterheinrich, Hobart Corp.

Harry Lockery, Hottinger Baldwin Measurements

Peter Perino, Transducers, Inc. John MacDonald, Howe Richardson Scale Co. John Robinson, Association of American Railroads

Thomas Stabler, Toledo Scale Co. Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association

8
Measuring Industry Sector Richard Hockmuth, Petroleum Meter & Pump Co., Chairman

E. Michael Belue, Southwest Pump Co. Edward Bratle, National Cash Register

Charles Denny, William A. Wilson dc Sons

Alfred Evans, Veeder-Root Co. Robert Fonger, Bennett Pump Co. Walter Gerdom, Tokheim Corp.

Melvin Hankel, Liquid Controls

WiUiam Key, Tokheim Corp.

Larry Murray, Dresser Industries, Inc. Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc.

Task Force on Motor Fuels

N. David Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

Sidney Andrews, Retired, Florida Barbara Bloch, California David Karlish, Arkansas

Frank Nagele, Michigan

John O'Neill, Kansas Harwood Owings, Retired, Maryland

Curtis Williams, Georgia

Steve Hasko, National Bureau of Standards

Subcommittee on Commodity Standards

Don Stagg, Alabama, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Robert Belliveau, Retired, Procter and Gamble Co.,

Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. Bruce Litzenberg, Ohio

CarroU Brickenkamp, National Bureau of Standards

Task Force on Commodity Requirements

Richard Thompson, Maryland, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Mahlon Burnette, American Meat Institute Kenneth Butcher, Maryland

Paul Engler, Los Angeles County, CA

Edward Heffron, Michigan

Tom Klevay, MiUers' National Federation

John McCutcheon, U.S. Department of Agriculture, MPIS

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Howard Pippin, Food and Drug Administration

Stephen Pretanik, National Broiler Council

Carroll Brickenkamp, National Bureau of Standards

9
Legislative Liaison Committee

Don Stagg, Alabama, Chairman

Darrell Guensler, California N. David Smith, North Carolina

Joseph Swanson, Alaska

Task Force on Information Systems

Kendrick Simila, Oregon, Chairman

James Lyles, Virginia

Joseph Rothleder, California

Gerald Hanson, San Bernardino County, CA

Karl Newell, National Bureau of Standards

PAST CHAIRMEN OF THE CONFERENCE

CONFERENCE YEAR CHAIRMAN

43rd 1958 J. P. McBride

Director of Standards,

Massachusetts

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Los Angeles, California

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford

Inspector of Weights and Measures,

Jacksonville, Florida 4bth 1961 R. E. Meek

Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Board of Health, Indiana

47th 1962 Robert Williams

County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Nassau County, New

York

4Bth 1963 C, H. Stender

Deputy Commissioner, Department

of Agriculture, South Carolina

49th 1964 D. M. TurnbuU

Director, Division of Licenses and

Standards, Seattle, Washington

10
V. D. Campbell

Chief, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Ohio

J. F. True

State Sealer, Division of Weights

and Measures, State Board of

Agriculture, Kansas

J. E. Bowen

City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Newton, Massachusetts

C. C. Morgan

City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Gary, Indiana

S. H. Christie Deputy State Superintendent,

Division of Weights and Measures,

Department of Laws and Public

Safety, New Jersey

R. W. Searles Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Medina County, Ohio

M. Jennings

Director of Marketing, Department

of Agriculture, Tennessee

E. H. Black

Director of Weights and Measures, Ventura County, California

George L. Johnson

Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture, Kentucky

John H. Lewis

Chief, Weights and Measures

Section, Department of Agriculture,

Washington

Sydney D. Andrews

Director, Division of Standards,

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, Florida
61st 1976 Richard L. Thompson

Chief, Weights and Measures

Section, Division of Inspection and

Regulation, Department of

Agriculture, Maryland

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux

Chief, Weights and Measures

Section, Division of Inspection and

Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture, Colorado

63rd ., 1978 James F. Lyles

Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Section, Division of Product and

Industry Regulation, Department of Agriculture and Commerce,

Virginia

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila

Administrator, Weights and Mesures

Division, Department of Agriculture, Oregon

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent

Director, Department of Consumer

Affairs, Dallas, Teaxas

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik

Assistant Director of Standards,

, Division of Standards, Executive

Office of Consumer Affairs,

Massachusetts

67th 1982 Dr. Edward C. Heffron

Chief, Food and Dairy Division,

Michigan Department of Agriculture

68th 1983 Dr. Charles H. Greene

Chief, Administrative Services, New

Mexico Department of Agriculture

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman

Director, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, State of Arkansas

12
70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino

Assistant Director, Division of Measurement Standards, State of California

71st 1986 Dr. George E. Mattimoe

Administrator, Measurement

Standards Division, Department of Agriculture, Hawaii

STATE REPRESENTATIVES

The following is a list of designated State representatives who were present

and voting on the reports presented by the Conference standing and annual

committees.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE

Alabama Don E. Staefg John B. Rabb

Alaska Joseph L. Swanson None

Arizona None None

Arkansas Sam F. Hindsman None

California Darrell A. Guensler B. Bloch

Colorado Leo Letey None

Connecticut AUan M. Nelson W. Slamon

Delaware Eugene Keeley None

District of Columbia None None

Florida Wayne Ball Max Gray

Georgia Martin Coile None

Hawaii George E. Mattimoe None

Idaho Lane JoUiffe A. D. Hurd

Illinois Sidney A. Colbrook Steve Mc Guire

Indiana Robert W. Walker None

Iowa James O'Connor None

Kansas John L. O'Neill Donald Lynch

Kentucky None None

Louisiana None None

Maine Clayton F. Davis Bernard Austin

Maryland Richard L. Thompson Lacy H. DeGrange

Massachusetts Charles H. Carroll None

Michigan Edward C. Heffron Frank Nagele

Minnesota Edward Skluzacek George MacDonald

Mississippi William P. Eldridge None

13
Missouri Lester Barrows David James

Montana None None

Nebraska Steven A. Malone Michael L. Deisley

Nevada None XT _ None

New Hampshire Michael F. Grenier None

New Jersey Thomas W. Kelly Carl P. Conrad, Jr. New Mexico Fred A. Gerk Charles H. Greene

New York John J. Bartfai Ross Andersen

North Carolina JN. uaviQ omitn 1 nomas w. ocott North Dakota Bruce Niebergall None

Ohio James Truex None

Oklahoma 0. Ray Elliott Charles Carter Oregon Kendrick J. Simila George Shefcheck

Pennsylvania Fred A. Thomas Ronald R. Crust Puerto Rico Edmund Rosario None

Rhode Island i None None

South Carolina John Pugh None

South Dakota ^ James Melgaard None

1 ennessee xvoueri. ij. wiiiiams None

Texas Charles Forester Herb Eskew

Utah Edison J. Stephens Harvey J. Crook

Vermont Trafford F. Brink None

Virgin Islands None None

Virginia James F. Lyles G. W. Diggs, III Washington Sterling McFarlane Gilbert Allen West Virginia Jim Rardin Karl Angel

Wisconsin Robert Probst None

Wyoming Victor Gerber William Hovey

14

NCWM SCHEDULED EVENTS

71st ANNUAL MEETING

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY

8 a.m.--

9 a.m.-

10 a.m.-

11 a.m.-

Noon1 p.m.-l

2 p.m.-

3 p.m.-

4 p.m.-

5 p.m.-l

6 p.m..

7 p.m.-l

8 p.m.-j

9 p.m.-

STANDING COMMITTEES AGENDA REVIEWS

iixo

(0zo

in

ULA ITTE UJ

DUCATIOI OMMITTE AWS/REG

COMM

LIAISON lOMMITTE mo

IE

go

< UJ oo

NASDA

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

DIVISION TASK FORCE ON

INFORMATIONS SYSTEMS

ORIENTATION SESSION FOR MEMBERS

SPECIFICATION AND

TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

SESSION

INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON

PACKAGING AND

LABELING

OIML

PS/20 USNWG

LUNCH (OPEN)

LAWS AND

REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

SESSION

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

SESSION

LIAISON COMMITTEE

SESSION

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SESSION

LUNCH (OPEN)

GENERAL SESSION - CEREMONIAL -

OPENING CEREMONY

ADDRESSES HONOR AWARDS

PRESENTATION

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

TASK FORCE ON

COMMODITY

REQUIREMENTS

OPEN

CHAIRMAN'S

RECEPTION OPEN

16
WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

Si111 ^ X O UJ (J ii

Q O LU O

C/3 Z UJ ill00oi o

cc

01= -o

o

< < p

OCT ^ 000

REGIONAL

ASSOCIATION SESSIONS

1- z

EA <

DCUJ I cr X 1- 1- 1-

o: z 0 m

z 0 CO

LUNCH (OPEN)

VOTING SESSION* TVOTING PROCEDURE

2»EDUCATI0N COMMITTEE

3»EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

4«SPECIFICATI0NS AND

TOLERANCES COMMITTEE

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

RECEPTION

VOTING SESSION'

(CONTINUED)

5» NOMINATING COMMITTEE 6»LAWS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

7«LIAIS0N COMMITTEE

8»RES0LUTI0NS COMMITTEE

9»AUDITING COMMITTEE

10'TREASURER'S REPORT

•CLOSING CEREMONY

LUNCH (OPEN)

TASK FORCE ON MOTOR

FUELS

BREAKFAST MEETING

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS

STANDING

COMMITTEES- PLANNING

SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES —

PLANNING 1^

CONFERENCE

OUTING

ABBREVIATIONS KEY: NASDA = National Association of State Departments of Agriculture NCWM = National Conference on

Weights and Measures

'At the two voting sessions the

listed items will be voted in the

order shown; time availability will determine whether the Wednesday

voting session closes at, after, or before item 4.

17
NATIONAL CONFERENCE

ANNUAL COMMITTEES

TECH ADVISOR R SMITH NBS

AUDITING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: E ROMANO. CA (2) MEMBERS F CLEM. OH (3) L MAUER. Rl (1)

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: C CARROLL, MA

MEMBERS W. ELDRIDGE. MS

0 LYNCH. KS

E MAXWELL. DC

G. MACDONALO. MN

F THOMAS. PA

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN MEMBERS

A HERSHBEIN. FL (1) G ALLEN WA (2) E KEELEY. DE (3)

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN MEMBERS

S HINDSMAN. AR

C GREENE. NM

E HEFFRON. Ml

J LYLES. VA

K SIMILA. OR

J SWANSON AK

R THOMPSON MD

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: G MATTIMOE. HI* MEMBERS: P ENGLER, CA (21 C GARDNER. NY*

T KELLY NJ (1) R DAVIS. JAMES RIVER CORP (2) A THOLEN. NBS*

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

NTEP BOARD OF GOVERNORS

ELECTED OFFICERS CHAIRMAN*: CHAIRMAN

ELECT®: PAST - CHAIRMAN*:

G. MATTIMOE, HI

F. NAGELE. Ml

S. HINDSMAN. AR

TREASURER* C. GARDNER, NY

THREE YEAR J. LYLES, VA

J. SWANSON, AK ONE YEAR: J. BARTFAI. NV

R. WALKER. IN TWO YEAR: C. FORESTER. TX

J. 0 CONNOR. lA

C CARROLL. MA

R. ELLIOTT. OK

E SKLUZACEK Ml

REPRESENTATIVES

REPRESENTATIVES TO OIML: U S ADVISORY

COMMITTEE: G. MATTIMOE. HI

fl THOMPSON. MD

STANDING COMMITTEES

SPECIFICATIONS & TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: F GERK. NM (1) MEMBERS: R ANDERSEN. NY (4) K BUTCHER. MO (3)

fl PROBST. W) (2) D WATSON. TX (5) TECH ADVISOR: O WARNLOF. NBS

LAWS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN D STAGG. AL (1) MEMBERS T BRINK. VT (3) S COLBROOK. IL (5) L LETEY. CO (4) A NELSON. CT (2) TECH ADVISOR: C BRICKENKAMP. NBS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMODITY STANDARDS

CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS:

TECH ADVISOR

D STAGG. AL

P ADAMS. PA

R BELLIVEAU. PROCTER-GAMBLE

RET C KLOOS. BEATRICE

B LITZENBERG. OH

LIAISON COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: N 0 SMITH, NC (1) MEMBERS P ADAMS. PA (3) J AKEY, KS (5) C KLOOS, BEATRICE (2) J McCUTCHEON, USDA (4) TECH ADVISOR: S HASKO. NBS

TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

CHAIRMAN: N O SMITH. NC

MEMBERS: S ANDREWS, FL. RET

B BLOCH. CA

D KARLISH. AR

F NAGELE. Ml

J O'NEILL. KS H OWINGS. MD RET

C WILLIAMS. GA

TECH ADVISOR S HASKO NBS

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK SUBCOMMITTEE

P ADAMS PA

18
ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

hwsiocnt"'

A. THOL£N. NBS

SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES

D GUENSLER. OA

N D SMITH, NC

J SWANSON AK

CHAPLAIN; PARLIAMENTARIAN M COILE, GA

K SIMILA. OR

F THOMAS. PA

COORDINATORS

n SMITH. NBS

A HEFFERNAN. NBS

EDUCATION. ADMINISTRATION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN T GEILER. MA (3) MEMBERS C GREENE. NM (4) B NIEBERGALL. ND (1) T SCOTT. NC (5) P STAGG L>(2) TECH ADVISOR J KOENIG. NBS

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

LODGE. DUNBAR W KUPPER, METTLER

R DAVIS. JAMES RIVER C KLOOS, BEATRICE

A KROLL. A UVDD, LADD SYSTEMS

R NELSON GEN MILLS R WELLS SENSITIVE MEAS INC

TECH ADVISOR:

M BURNETTE. AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

K BUTCHER. MD

P ENGLER. CA

E HEFFRON. Ml T KLEVAY. MILLERS NATIONAL FEDERATION

J McCUTCHEON. USOA

A NELSON. CT

H PIPPIN. FDA

S PRETANIK. NATL BROILER COUNCIL

C. BRICKENKAMP NBS

TASK FORCE ON

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATONAL

TYPE EVALUATION

J. ELENGO. JR . REVERE CORP., CHAIRMAN

CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS:

TECH ADVISOR:

K SIMILA, OR

J LYLES. VA

J ROTHLEDER. CA

G. HANSON, CA

K NEWELL. NBS

PUBLIC MEMBERS:

R ANDERSEN, NY

L DEGRANGE. MD

D EDGERLY. NBS

J LACY USDA-P&S D MAHONEY. FGIS

F. NAGELE. Ml H OPPERMANN. NBS

C SMITH. CA

J TRUEX. OH

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

J ELENGO. JH . REVERE CORP

E BRATLE. NCR W GOODP.^STER. CARDINAL SCALE CO.

J GIANINNA GEARS

R HURLEY. FAIRBANKS

F KATTERHEINRICH. HOBART CORP

H LOCKERY HBM

J MACDONALD

STREETER RICHARDSON

J ROBINSON. AAR

T STABLER. TOLEDO SCALE CO

0 TONINI. SMA

MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

M BELUE. SOUTHWEST PUMP

E BRATLE. NCR

C DENNY. WM A WILSON & SONS

A EVANS VEEDER-ROOT

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

L MURRAY, DRESSER

INDUSTRIES INC R WHIPPLE, GILBARCO

19

GENERAL SESSION

21
GENERAL SESSION AGENDA

GEORGE MATTIMOE

Conference Chairman, Presiding

Call to Order

Presentation of Colors and National Anthem

Invocation and Pledge of AUegianee

REV. MARTIN T. COILE

Conference Chaplain

Director, Weights and Measures Laboratory

State of Georgia

Introduction of Dr. William P. Stephens

FRED GERK

Director, Division of Standards and Consumer Services

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

Welcoming Address

WILLIAM P. STEPHENS

Secretary/Director

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

Keynote Address

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

Director, National Bureau of Standards

Standardizing Standards - The Key to Equity

GEORGE MATTIMOE

Conference Chairman

Administrator, Measurement Standards

Hawaii Department of Agriculture

Honor Awards Presentation

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

22
INTRODUCTION OF DR. WILLIAM P. STEPHENS

Fred A. Gerk, Division Director

Standards and Consumer Services, NMDA

Tuesday, July 22, 1986

It is now my pleasure to introduce my bc»s for the last 14 1/2 years. He was born on a farm in eastern Tennessee. He earned both his B.S. and

M.S. degrees in Agricultural Economics from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville and his Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota.

In spite of this southern influence in his early years, he has become a successful westerner as well as a national leader in agriculture. He initially

joined the staff of New Mexico State University as an instructor and did teaching and research in the Department of Agricultural Economics and

Agricultural Business. He moved through the academic ranks from instructor

to a full professorship.

In 1966, Dr. Stephens was appointed Assistant Director of the Agricultural

Experiment Station making him administratively responsible for six experiment stations throughout New Mexico.

In January of 1972, he was appointed Director of the New Mexico

Department of Agriculture and has served in that capacity since then. On

March 31, 1978, he was sworn in as the first Secretary of Agriculture on

the Governors Executive Cabinet for the State of New Mexico. Thus, he

currently serves as Director/Secretary for the New Mexico Department of

Agriculture.

Dr. Stephens is a member and representative of 22 task forces, committees,

and commissions. He is past president of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), immediate past president of the Western Association of State Departments of Agriculture (WASDA), and

current president of the Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association; serves

in advisory capacity to many organizations and agencies; has been the

recipient of an Outstanding Service Award, New Mexico State University;

Award for Distinguished Service to Agriculture in 1976 from the New Mexico

Farm and Livestock Bureau; and honored in 1983 by the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association for past and continued support of the livestock industry

in New Mexico.

But, best of all, he believes in and is a strong supporter of weights and

measures. Dr. Stephens.

23
PRESENTATION TO THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Dr. William P. Stephens, Director/Secretary

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

Tuesday, July 22, 1986

It is indeed my pleasure to welcome the members and guests of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to Albuquerque for the 71st Annual Conference. I hope each of you either came early or plans to stay

after the Conference to enjoy the scenic southwest. Our tri-cultural heritage offers many attractions that I feel sure you will enjoy.

I know Conference literature packets have included material on New Mexico

and so I hope you will read this and take the opportunity to visit these

locations. Particularly, I hope you wiU come south and see Las Cruces and

the Mesilla Valley, home of the New Mexico Deparatment of Agriculture and

one of the finest vegetable growing areas in our state. It is also the home

of a product dear to New Mexicans and becoming well known throughout the

country. Of course, I mean chile. Chile is not beans and peppers but is a

dish of prestige on its own and so important to us that we have a society

that touts its lore and asks that you pledge allegiance to it. New Mexico agriculture is a billion-dollar-p-year industry. We consider

agriculture one of the top industries in this state along with tourism and the extractive industries. We have 14,000 farms in the state. Out of 78 million acres, over 90 percent is used for agricultural purposes. Cash receipts from

livestock account for about 65 percent of the total billion dollar and crops

35 percent. The top ten producers are beef cattle and calves, milk, hay,

wheat, cotton lint, chile, sorghum grain, greenhouse nursery products, corn, and pecans. We recently added wine production and pistachios to our commodity list. New Mexico agriculture is blessed with a year-round production schedule and

a diversified operation that has kept us basically strong economically during

the current difficult economic times in the nation. We consider

diversification very important and believe that this mix of vegetable

growing, hay, grain, and livestock production will help our farmers and

ranchers survive the tough times. I hope you will look for New Mexico

products and remember our chile, pecans, and beef when you eat out or look

for products to take home to your state.

I'm glad I finally had the opportunity to attend a National Conference on Weights and Measures because now I know why Fred Gerk and Charlie

Greene hold it in such high esteem, and why they have spent so much time

on Conference activities. There have been times during the last 10 to 15 years when I wondered if Fred and Charlie worked for me or the National

Conference. As you know, Charlie has served on several NCWM committees

and as Chairman of the Conference, and Fred chaired the Task Force on

Belt Conveyor Scales and is now serving as Chairman of the Specifications

and Tolerances Committee.

24
I make this comment with tongue in cheek because I know how important

the Conference is to the weighing and measuring industry, and I am and

always will be a strong supporter of the conference.

The New Mexico Department of Agriculture relies heavily on decisions reached by the Conference. I cite the alcohol fuel labeling guideline as a prime example of a decision developed by the Conference and adopted by

the New Mexico Department of Agriculture.

We look forward to the guidance and decisions reached by some of the

special groups currently in effect such as the Motor Fuel and Commodity

Requirements Task Forces. We are particularly pleased with the new training program developed by the Conference. This program should allow us to offer the comprehensive

training needed in the economical manner that is mandatory in today's

budget climate.

The New Mexico Department of Agriculture prides itself on the professional

conduct of our service and regulatory activities. The training program will add to that professionalism. You can count on New Mexico's continued

support of weights and measures nationally.

Again, welcome, and everyone have a great time—work hard, play hard, and

enjoy your stay in New Mexico.

25
A BANNER YEAR

Dr. Ernest Ambler

President, National Conference on Weights and Measures

Dr. Stevens, colleagues and friends of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures:

This has been a banner year for weights and measures in the United

States. This makes it, therefore, all the more a special pleasure for me

to attend another annual meeting, the 71st, and my fifth in succession,

George, I suddenly realized when you movingly referred to your year, how

lucky I am to have an "ex officio" position and not an elected one. New Mexico is a most fitting state in which to hold this meeting. Not

only is the state an excellent host, but New Mexico has contributed in special ways to the progress of the Conference.

As chairman of the Conference in 1982, Dr. Charles Greene submitted a

request for a grant from the National Bureau of Standards for seed money

to fund the development of a national training program. He shepherded

that program in its beginnings, laying the groundwork for its current accomplishments. Of special note is the observation that Charles is working on this program again as a member of the Committee on Education,

Administration and Consumer Affairs. Another major accomplishment of the conference was the adoption of the new scales code. Mr. Fred Gerk has been been a major player in that

effort during the years of its development.

We appreciate your leadership and h€ird work on behalf of us all. Last year, I talked to you about the importance of returning to your

jurisdictions and implementing the decisions of the Conference at all levels within your state, county, city, industry, and business. My message was that only then would our efforts "Payoff at the Grassroots". I highlighted three areas as examples of the possible payoff if we all followed

through on this challenge. They were: o that every state laboratory be certified and that it provide a

full range of services to its weights and measures program

and to its local industry; o that every state adopt and apply the latest changes in the uniform regulations. Handbook 44, and Handbook 133; and

o that every state inspector be fully qualified based on stan- dards adopted by this Conference.

26
Today, I am adding two more areas to these three: o that every state participate in the National Type Evaluation

Program; and

o that all weights and measures officials in the United States become members of the National Conference.

I am going to review our accomplishments; in doing this, I will: o comment on the accomplishments made in recent times; o describe the goals still to be made if we are to attain the

results required for the health and vigor of the weights and measures system in the future; and

o highlight special achievements in attainment of the grassroots

payoffs for which we are striving. These I am labeling as "banner" achievements.

I am proud to be a member of the National Conference and very much

enjoy being your president. You, who work hard on behalf of the Conference, believe as I do that the results are well worth the effort invested. We have witnessed significant growth in membership and in the involvement of members on the conference committees during the past few

years. I believe that this increased activity has produced needed results. Adding more members is a goal to strive for to ensure that we are representing- the broadest base of interests in addressing the issues. To this end, I am going to announce and make the first presentation later today

of the "President's Award".

As I said last year, the state laboratories program is now well documented. The program policies, procedures, and standards are completed

and published. Therefore, the program is on solid ground.

The recognition and use of these laboratories is broadening. The integrity of state regulatory programs is steadily increasing. The place of these

laboratories in the support of their local industry is emerging to the level of recognition envisioned by those who designed the program 20 years

ago. A new state laboratory has been built and dedicated.

Another state laboratory has been relocated to a better facility. Plans for several other laboratories are on the drafting board. Members

of NBS have been involved, as they should be, in the development of these plans and their evolution into the completed product. All of this confirms the importance of the state laboratories in the commerce of the

states.

27
A major new publication is undergoing the customary technical review at the Bureau, the State Metrologists' Handbook. This publication will be the source of good laboratory procedures, good measurement procedures, and

standard operating procedures for many years to come. It is very impressive and will be the basis for attaining and maintaining a high level of

professional operation cmd service uniformly in all the states. A new initiative is being developed by the Bureau in cooperation with a few state and industry laboratories. We call the project "Automated

Advanced Metrology". Our goal is to transfer NBS procedures for mass

calibration to the state and private laboratories through advanced software

and equipment. If all goes as we expect, these laboratories will be able

to provide mass calibrations at an advanced level. The project consists of three phases:

The first phase is the development of a "package" of equipment

and procedures.

The second phase is a "round robin" to test the "package".

The third phase completes the "package" by adding additional software and check standards. The first phase of the project has been completed. A "package" has been

put together. It consists of equipment and a system to automatically

read and input into a computer the air temperature, pressure, and relative humidity.

Equipment in the "package" includes a balance, NBS-calibrated thermometers, hygrometer, and barometer, together with a computer and a "soaking" chamber designed to keep the weights used in the measurements at the same temperature as the balance chamber.

Software is also built in to guide the lab personnel through the measure- ment sequence, perform the data analysis, and print out a calibration

report. This "package" has been assembled into two special containers for shipment; together they weigh about 300 pounds.

The second phase of the project is now under way. The Bureau is working with the state laboratories in California, Hawcui, Nevada, Utah,Colorado, and New York, and the corporate laboratories of the 3M Company

and Monsanto, and the Sandia Laboratories here in Albuquerque. These

laboratories will participate in a "round robin" using the package I have

described.

This experiment will provide experience in the use of an automated

measurement system, providing insight into the potential of this approach

for improving measurements, and increasing measurement capability of a

laboratory without specialized training of personnel.

28
If this phase of the experiment is successful, the next phase will develop

the ability of these laboratories to recalibrate mass standards from 1 kg

to 1 mg in their own laboratories.

I am very enthusiastic about this effort to increase the capabilities of your laboratories for supporting your regulatory programs and for providing

service to your local industry.

It has been a banner year for the state laboratory program. The level of competence of the metrologists continues to increase, facilities are being

upgraded, and new measurement technology is being introduced.

Worthy of special recognition is the new state laboratory in North Carolina, dedicated in Raleigh during the past year. It is handsome on the

outside and first class inside. I congratulate David Smith and his staff

for this achievement.

Now, I want to turn to the work of this Conference in the development

of uniform laws and regulations. The Conference can be proud of the

effort embodied in NBS Handbook 130, which attests to your hard work.

However, we need to remind ourselves that development of these stan- dards by the Conference is only the first step in the process. Many

members return home after the annual meeting and immediately start the process of putting the changes into laws and regulations. This is how the system is expected to operate.

Recently, the Conference adopted additions in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law that provide the basis for automatic adoption of changes in certain regulations, thereby making the job easier for the states in updating their regulations. The uniform laws and regulations are the key

to national uniformity. I encourage every state that has not adopted them

to do so as soon as possible.

In reviewing the record of adoption of these standards in the states, I was surprised to find out that many states have not adopted many of these standards, or have adopted only portions of the standards. To take an example, most state programs include regulation of commodities. Forty-four states have adopted most of the provisions recom- mended in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation. (See Figure

1.) But our industries must operate nationwide. To the extent that all of the states have the same requirements, the marketplace is fairer and more viable. Why don't the other seven states put this important regulation on the books? Especially since it is directly related to the Federal

regulation in the same area.

It is also true that 43 states have many of the method of sale require- ments on the books. However, 23 states have not adopted any of the nonfood sections of the uniform regulation. (See Figure 2.) Again, this lack of uniformity in regulation poses difficulties to the conduct of commerce nationwide. Why haven't all of the states adopted the Uniform

Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities in its entirety?

29
Figure 1

METHOD OF SALE

COmODITIES

STATUS OF ADOPTION

Figure 2

30
Even more surprising is the fact that only 16 states have any require- ments in open dating and unit pricing. The records confirm their adoption

by this body. If state and local officials voted for those regulations here,

why haven't they had them adopted in their states? If these regulations

contain features unacceptable by the states, why aren't requests for changes being proposed to the Committee on Laws and Regulations?

These uniform laws and regulations are intended to provide a uniform

nationwide marketplace. To the extent that they are not adopted by every state, our system of weights and measures is not national and is not uniform, and that makes it more difficult to achieve the efficiency

and productivity we so desperately need in our ecomomy.

We have uniformity in the planning forum - the National Conference - but we lack complete uniformity in the adoption of weights and measures

regulations at the state level. Another example of follow-up at the state level is the degree of adoption

of NBS Handbook 133. (See Figure 3.) The Handbook has been adopted by

19 states; 15 additional states are in the process of adopting it. This is encouraging. Thirty-four states are putting in place the action of this body. Why haven't the other 16 states taken similar steps? I am told that some jurisdictions still have old Handbook 67 on the books in spite of the fact that Handbook 67 is outdated and unacceptable in its treat- ment of statistics. NBS has refused to endorse the use of Handbook 67

for several years. NBS Handbook 133 is the National Conference and industry standard now.

It should be the regulatory standard in every state.

So, you can see, even though we have made a lot of progress in the areas of uniform laws and regulations, much remains to be done. Let us give it that extra push. This brings me to one of my favorite programs; the National Type

Evaluation Program (NTEP). I am told that the program is used by most

of the states. However, only 16 states have adopted the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation or changed their statutes to recognize NTEP. (See

Figure 4.) I really would prefer that the states explicitly recognize NTEP

through changes in their statutes. Then, the states and the industry

would have the confidence in the program we are all seeking, and it would become much more powerful to the United States in the international marketplace.

31
HANDBOOK 133

STATUS OF ADOPTION

Figure 3

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

Figure 4

32
As a matter of record, the NTEP evaluation process resulted in the issu- ance of 87 certificates of conformance in 1985 and seems to be proceeding at about the same pace in 1986. That is great, but there is still a

lot of work to be done to bring NTEP fully up to speed. I have already

mentioned the importance of the official participation of all of the states

in the program. At the present time, NTEP has four testing or "participating" laboratories. They are, in addition to the NBS, California, Ohio, and the Federal

Grain Inspection Service of the USDA. We are working to assist other

state laboratories become qualified. We are also examining the possibility of recognizing manufacturer's facilities to augment the state laboratories,

especially to avoid investing in expensive and specialized testing equip- ment.

Full implementation will take time. The development of the process, the recognition of additional laboratories, and the training of personnel must

be done carefully so that NTEP maintains its integrity.

I want to recognize the participating laboratories and complement them

for their dedication and high quality results. California was the pioneer

state. Our relationship with Ez Delfino and his staff is continuing now

with the new State Director, Darrell Guensler. They helped us all in testing the NTEP concept and bringing it to fruition. In 1985 they evalu- ated nearly 50% of the the devices under NTEP. Ohio responded quickly

to establish its capability and it is now able to work with industry in the

Midwest. The Federal Grain Inspection Service provides the testing

capability for those devices unique to the grain industry.

The National Training Program is now producing the finished product. Four modules have been published and put to use. Three more modules

are nearing publication.

Those published are: Mechanical retail computing scales Electronic retail computing scales Package checking

Electronic weighing and measuring systems.

Those to be published soon are: Vehicle and axle-load scales Meat beams and monorail scales

33
Livestock and animal scales Retail motor fuel devices

The rate of use of these modules is rapidly increasing. As they are used

in the states, their acceptance and popularity takes hold. Recognizing

that the first module has only recently been distributed, the numbers of

individuals trained using these modules has been impressive.

Twenty states have used these modules in their training programs. Fourteen states have trained 434 officials in the electronics module alone. So

far, 547 offici€ils have received training using the first three modules

published.

I am told that "veteran" officials as well as new officials are high in their praise of the quality of the modules and of the value of the training

they have received. The industries that have examined the modules are

also high in their praise.

All individuals taking training in a module and peissing the final examination receive "continuing education units". In addition to the awarding of continuing education units, the National Conference has established a

certification program for use by states to officially recognize those on

their staffs who have successfully completed classroom and field training

in the modules.

Nineteen states have enlisted in the NCWM certification Program. (See

Figure 5.) Every state should consider participation. The certificates awarded to individual state officials are signed by the State Director and

the Conference Executive Secretary.

r 1 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

PARTICIPATING STATES

Figure 5

34
The Conference office is busy issuing the certificates to individuals who

have been certified under this joint state-NCWM program. I also encour- age the associate members to use these modules. They contain much

information which will be of value to your employees.

My congratulations to all of you who have participated in the development of these modules; especially to the members of the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs. They continue to devote many hours to the development of the program and the careful review of the work of the contractors drafts. The last subject I am going to address is the health of the National

Conference and the degree of support it receives from the weights and

measures community. The membership of this Conference is its life blood. The participation of the members in the work of the committees

is impressive. The active, the associate, and the advisory members are

intimately involved. However, the true nature of the representation of weights and measures

interests needs to be explored. The associate membership constitutes 67%

of the members. My hat is off to them for recognizing the importance

of the Conference to them and their employers.

Less than 32% of the members are weights and measures officials - only

432. This is out of a total of an estimated 3000 officials in the country.

I have to ask the question: Why aren't many more of the state, local, and city officials members of the Conference? They should aU be using

Handbook 44, Handbook 133, and should be interested in the training they can get through the new training modules.

In fact, I am told that only 18% of those who have had the training

under the modules are members of the Conference. What can we do to

enroll the other 82% as members?

The Executive Committee asked the Executive Secretary to send membership materials to each State Director to encourage each one to promote

the Conference. This was done, but the response was hardly noticeable. Perhaps the Conference is considered a meeting place for the leadership,

or that grassroots officials have nothing to add. I challenge that assumption. The health of weights and measures in the United States will be

directly improved to the extent that we enlist all participants in the system as members of this Conference.

The National Conference of Weights and Measures is, and should be,

recognized as a professional association. It should become to the weights

and measures professionals what the American Medical Association is to doctors or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is to

electrical engineers.

35
A few more facts: - The median active membership per state is 3, - Half of the active membership is from only 8 states.

- Twelve states have only one member each.

I leave you with these observations. I think this is a serious matter. I urge your leadership to explore this situation and take effective steps to widen the membership.

I am establishing a "Presidents Award" to be presented each year at the Annual Meeting to recognize jurisdictions that have achieved specified

goals in Conference membership.

The top level of recognition will be those states with 100% of their weights £ind measures officials as members of the Conference. Those

states will be awarded a banner, using their state colors, and identifying

them for this achievement.

Some states have 100% of their state officials as members, but their county and local jurisdictions do not have full membership. These states

will be recognized for their achievement by the presentation of a certifi- cate. As I noted earlier, some of the state jurisdictions have achieved 100%

membership. They will be recognized by the presentation of certificates attesting to this fact. Til be formally making these awards later. We have achieved much, and we are enjoying a "banner year". Let us keep going. Please give some attention to those areas I have singled out

for greater effort; namely: o law and regulation promulgation at home;

o adoption of NBS Handbook 133; o participation in the National Type Evaluation Program;

o use of the training modules and participation in the state-Conference certification program; and

o enrollment of state, county, and local officials in the National Conference.

36
I want to repeat that it is a pleasure to be with you again. Albuquerque, our host city, is both old and new. Dating from 1706, it reminds us of the early development of this continent leading up to the founding of our nation. Its vibrant and progressive newness adds a feeling of bright- ness and promise for our work here this week emd in the year ahead.

These characteristics are similar to those of the National Conference. We

are rich in history and have contributed much to the greatest marketplace

in the world. Today we are a vibrant and effective body. We need to be more active promoters of our work throughout the states and their local

jurisdictions. We still need to bring all of those who have an interest in the marketplace into this body.

Experiencing this rich history evidenced by Albuquerque will remind us of our potential. As we travel home, I hope that this experience will inspire us to new achievements in the year to come. Thank you, and good

wishes in the coming year. As I said in my address, it is important that we create an image of this Conference that encourages the "grassroots" weights and measures officials to seek membership. The President's Award is intended to promote

that image. At the time we were planning this presentation, two states qualified for the banner - all of their state and local weights and measures officials are Conference members.

Mr. Sam Hindsman of Arkansas, will you please join me at the podium?

Sam, congratulations on Arkansas being the first state to qualify for the

President's Banner Award. Thank you for your leadership and notable support of this Conference.

Mr. Steve Malone of Nebraska, will you join me at the podium?

Steve, congratulations on Nebraska being the second state to qualify for the President's Award. Your state includes local jurisdiction membership.

Thank you for your leadership and support.

37
For states having multiple jurisdictions, getting full membership is more

difficult. Because of that, I am awarding a "Certificate" to any state with fuU membership at the state level. Mr. John O'Neil of Kansas, will you join me at the podium?

John, I am pleased to present this certificate recognizing that all of the

state officials of Kansas are members of this Conference.

Mr. Fred Gerk of New Mexico, as a result of having your staff registered

and in attendance at this meeting, all of the State of New Mexico officials are now members. This means that New Mexico qualifies for a Banner Award. We will have one made for you and ready for presentation at the 72nd Annual Meeting. Congratulations.

38
STANDARDIZING STANDARDS - THE KEY TO EQUITY

Dr. George E. Mattimoe

Chairman, National Conference on Weights and Measures My friends, as I appear before you today as chairman of this National

Conference, let me assure you that it is with considerable feeling, including a sense of frustration, and a sense of melancholy at having had my chance

at the "brass ring," and the realization that now it's all behind me. The mere fact that it is no longer something to which to aspire tends to be a

bit unsettling, particularly since I have been advised that I'm now a legitimate candidate for membership in "the over-the-hill-gang," by Charley

Greene. However, for the opportunity, which afforded me one of the most

meaningful years of my professional life, I thank you all, very much.

There are those of you without whom little would have been accomplished.

Certainly the staff of OWM are numbered among these, for who among you

can pick up a telephone and say, "Weights and Measures" as sensuously as Karen Barkley? For that matter, who can adm.onish you for being tardy in the submission of supporting travel documents as Ann Heffernan, while at the same time

making you feel that you are the most important person on earth? And she does this while planning for not just the next, but the next three National

Conferences.

And there is Carroll. What would we do without Dr. Brickenkamp, for whom

no accolade is adequate?

And Otto, for whom no description exists—but for whom I have the highest

regard. Perhaps more than any other individual, Otto Warnlof has

contributed continuously, over the years, to the advancement of measurement knowledge, and the application of that knowledge to the everyday enforcement of weights and measures. There are few who would

question his contributions to the real world of legal metrology, or the major

enhancements he has shepherded into being, through H-44. Otto, I'm proud

to have had the privilege to work with you, over what in retrospect, seems

like so many years, and indeed, has been. I'm even more proud to consider you a friend. And my automated pen pal, Karl Newell, who is the only person I know who

will tolerate my ineptitude on a computer, and of whom you'll hear more

later. And Dick Smith, who has to be recognized as the Instructor's Instructor, has probably indoctrinated more weights and measures officials in the fine art of measuring, via OWM documents, than most of us know. Dick, you and I have fought a lot of battles together, and I'd like you to know that, in my

opinion, we won more than we lost, even if the issue itself on occasion was

lost.

39
And Henry Oppermann has forever reminded me, and I mean this in the most complimentary sense, of the "mouse that roared." Long before E.F. Hutton, when Henry spoke, you did well to listen. Steve Hasko is the personification of those Burma-Shave signs that used to be so evident along the side of the highways. You know the ones I mean;

there were six or seven signs uniformly spaced some distance apart in a row

that, bit by bit or sign by sign, invariably conveyed some profound

statement, the effect of which was to cause you to wait with anticipation, even longingly to search out, the next bit of profound information. Steve,

ni miss working with you, and I still think that irradiating the transmission

take-off gear that drives the taximeter was a good way to prevent

fraudulent tampering.

And Joan Koenig, always the lady, even under the most trying

circumstances, has to be acknowledged for her patience with, and guidance

of the Committee on Education, Administration and Consumer Affairs. And,

as newsletter editor.

If by chance I have missed identifying someone in the Office of Weights and

Measures, with whom I've had the pleasure of working, forgive me, it was an

unintended and thoughtless oversight, for which I apologize.

Oh yes, and then there is the Chief, and in this regard V6 like to go back

in time to my first National Conference which I attended as a

representative of industry. Bill Bussey was then Chief and, incidentally, very big on travelogues. He was followed by the "golden boy," Mac Jensen,

who unquestionably forged this Conference into a meaningful entity. Mac

was followed by Tom Stabler who had a number of problems plague him in his nearly two year-tenure, not the least of which was an unsuccessful attempt to recover a Russell Balance which had errantly been dropped

overboard into Pusan Harbor, Korea. Tom was succeeded by Harold Wollin,

who is a contemporary to most of us here and is rightfully held in high esteem. And then we got Al. Most of you, here, appreciate the

leadership, the expansive thinking, the humor, the dry, dry wit of the "The

Fearless One".

It is customary, at this point in time, for the outgoing chairman to take

credit for all that has happened during his tenure. Well Vm not going to do

that for all too many obvious reasons. Not the least of which is that, as a body united, we accomplish things together, or we seldom accomplish them

at all. You are all a party to what has or hasn't been done during this past

year, and aside from recalling a few salient factOTS about these developments there is little more that needs he said. Granted that the first computer link between the chairman and the Office

of Weights and Measures was established and soon thereafter broadened to include Michigan, home of our next chairman, and then San Bernadino,

California.

40
However, the exclusivity of this group soon dissipated with establishment of the electronic bulletin board which so many of you have hooked into from

time to time and sampled its capabilities. The major part of this new

bulletin board, in my opinion, will be the National Conference on Weights

and Measures "Item File", by committee, which will consist of all items

under consideration by the committee, including the description of the issue,

who raised it, what has been done about it at the various committee

meetings, and by the four regional associations. In short, one will be able

to determine the history and current status of every issue contemplated for Conference consideration both before and after the Interim Meetings without

waiting for the committee reports. Individuals are invited to add their comments to those in the file for consideration by committee members and

ultimately the Conference as a whole, assuming committee concurrence. This should speed up the input process, increase the amount of work that can be

handled by the respective committees particularly at the Interims, and assure

those who are unable to attend these meetings of "their day in court." To me this is one of the more important items or activities to grow out of the

initial efforts to establish a meaningful computer network. And we have it now in place without any diminution in the currently established due process

safeguards.

The Legislative Liaison Committee has completed a first effort to prepare "The National Conference on Weights and Measures Story" in a planned and

professional manner. This effort reflects the growing stature of the Conference including its recognition by other agencies and jurisdictions.

Telling this story of the most efficient of Federal/state cooperative effort relates the role, of one to the other, and of both to the public, the industry

and the legislative bodies, and in part was conceived to alert or advise

particularly our Congress, of our existing capabilities. This represents, yet

another "tool" for our use in getting attention and telling our story. My

special thanks go out to the committee and its chairman, Don Stagg, for

their effort in so timely completing this project.

When first I considered a theme for this year's Conference I thought, "oh my", what difference does it make? Then I thought about all the

discussion, planning, thought, and just plain work that went into the processing of each action that ultimately becomes a consensus standard of

this Conference and concluded that, "uniformity is to equity what standards

are to uniformity". Then with a little literary larceny, I lifted the theme

for this year's Conference from one of Dr. Allen Astin's many profound

presentations.

One must ask: "To what avail is all this undertaking, if, for reasons of one's

liking or disliking, his jurisdiction would or would not adopt a Conference

consensus standard?" There had to be a more meaningful criterion than

"like or dislike," and this thought process begat the theme, "Standardizing

Standards-The Key To Equity".

Three short weeks ago, our Nation experienced a very great resurgence of

patriotic involvement as we rededicated the Statue of Liberty. Present at that dedication ceremony was a recent emigrant from Southeast Asia, a young lady. Hue Cao, who read her dissertation on what the Statue of

41
Liberty meant to her. There were the usual detractors, the bad mouths who

were offended for reasons, real or imagined, that gave them an opportunity

to complain about the majority doing something—about the majority

becoming involved. Their clouded perception would have barred the involvement of one of the "taU ships" because it had an unsavory history

under different national registry, and because they determined in their own

minds that we already had too many emigrants - that allowing more to enter this country would only aggravate our unemployment situation. Interestingly enough I have been unable to confirm the presence of one

single American aborigine among these minority detractors. I couldn't help but think about how these newcomers to our shores are frequently faulted

for doing exactly what our forbearers did when they came to America. They

speak funny, take risks, make decisions, and above all they become involved. They work long and they work hard, they fly in the face of convention, and

they dare to do things. In short, they exhibit more of the old American

pioneering spirit than do many of us more comfortable Americans.

Fm not sure that the Conference represents an exact parallel, but there is certainly room for some soul searching. There is really no other reason to be here, than to become involved. These comments don't apply to those

thirty or so of you who are forever involved in all that the Conference

does, but if you've found yourself voting on a subject that you perhaps felt you didn't fully understand, then that's an indication that you should consider

becoming more involved. This is not someone else's Conference, it's yours. And if you want it to continue that way, involvement is excellent insurance.

During the year, it was my pleasure to attend each of the regional

association meetings except that of the new Central Region. What I saw,

heard, and participated in was truly encouraging. I really believe that the

regional associations have exhibited a renewed degree of interest and concern over their role in the national picture of Conference involvement.

And, that is as it should be, for leadership at the regional level is but a

step away from leadership at the national. In this respect I feel that the

national health is good because that of the regionals is good.

There is another issue that is some what indelicate, but which is vital to all of our considerations, and that is the economics of any proposal. There is no

question but that we must always take economics into consideration;

however, it must be balanced against equity. It is my opinion that to conclude that correct measurement in a given area should not be pursued

because it would be too expensive to require changing equipment over a

period of time iU becomes this organization. It is true that our function is not to stifle or impede industrial development. The free market should in no way be inhibited or constrained by actions or inactions of this Conference, taken under the guise of necessary regulatory requirements. It

is inconsistent with the Conference motto that "Equity Shall Prevail." On

occasion the "cost" of correct measurement has been presented as an argument against adopting a proposal, when the "identified cost" was in reality a surmised inconvenience to the regulator. On a priority

consideration list, relating to the advisability of adopting or not adopting a

given proposal, using a scale of one to ten, the inconvenience to the

regulator should be considered as a zero.

42
The National Type Evaluation Program is a well established concept, one in which every segment of our industries has been aware for many years and

indeed, one in which most have even participated. I'm encouraged that, as an industry, most of the old-line gasoline pump and petroleum-products

equipment manufacturers now participate in NTEP and, indeed, have nearly

swamped Henry with their requests for Certificates of Conformance. I consider this a real plus - major constituents of industry working to provide

national uniformity.

Every officer, every chairperson and member of the numerous standing,

annual and technical committees, and the task forces, every one of you has

demonstrated your support of the goals of this Conference, and your

dedication to correct measurement, and I thank you. To Shirley, my wife, who has suffered perhaps even more that Al, Dave, and

all the rest of the Bureau staff during my term as Conference chairman, my

warmest "aloha". And to Dr. Ernest Ambler, a very special thanks for his unwavering support

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, Without question, the

relationship that he has established between the Bureau—his office in particular—and the Conference is very special, and certainly one without

which we would be hard pressed to have achieved the successes that we

have. And thank you. Dr. Stanley Warshaw. Not alone for your many pearls of wisdom, but for your advice and encouraging counsel, and particularly for the manner in which it was given. Stan you make life interesting as well

as humorously meaningful. Consistent with your last computer epistle to me

wherein you advised of Horace's utterance, which I should like to paraphrase

as my last comment, "Regulation Without Necessity Will Fall of Its Own

Bureaucratic Weight".

Thank you all.

43
HONOR AWARDS PRESENTATIONS

Dr. Ernest Ambler, President of the Conference, presented Honor Awards

to members of the Conference who, by attending the 71st Annual Meeting

this year, reached one of the attendance categories for which recognition

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

William H. Braun

Carl P. Conrad

John J. Elengo, Jr. Fred A. Gerk

Edward C. Heffron W. Terry James

Chip Kloos

Frank A. Kosits

Wesley R. Mossberg

Frank Nagele

Henry V. Oppermann

Tom Scott Edward P. Skluzacek

Albert D. Tholen

James H. Akey

Andrew B. Moody, Jr. Patrick E. Nichols

Raymond R. Wells

20 YEARS

Walter F. Gerdom, Jr. Tokheim Corporation

Charles W. Moore Madison County, Indiana

Procter and Gamble Company

State of New Jersey Revere Corporation of America

State of New Mexico

State of Michigan

C£u>dinal Scale Mfg. Company

Beatrice/Hunt Wesson Foods

Retired, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Los Angeles County, CA

State of Michigan

National Bureau of Standards

State of North Carolina

State of Minnesota

National Bureau of Standards

State of Kansas

City of Richmond, Virginia

Alameda County, California

Sensitive Measurement, Inc.

44
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION

Dr. George Mattimoe, Conference Chairman, presented Certificates of Appreciation to members of the Standing Committees who had completed

their tenure on each committee, and one member who is retiring.

Fred A. Gerk

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Robert Probst, Retiring

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Don E. Stagg

Committee on Laws and Regulations

N. David Smith

Committee on Liaison Bruce R. Niebergall

Commiteee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs John Bartfai Executive Committee

Robert Walker

Executive Committee

Frank Nagele

Executive Committee

45

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

47
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

George E. Mattimoe, Chairman

Administrator of Measurement Standards

State of Hawaii

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

100 INTRODUCTION

The Executive Committee submitted its Final Report to the 71st Annual

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

Report consisted of the Interim Report offered in the "NCWM Program and

Committee Reports" as amended by Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual Meeting.

This Report was presented in two parts: Part I is the report as the NCWM

Executive Committee; Part II is the report of the Executive Committee

operating as the NTEP Board of Governors. Items are grouped into the following series for ease of reference:

Table A identifies aU of the items contained in the Report by Reference Key

Number, Item Title, and Page Number.

Voting items are identified in bold face type as well as a suffix "V" (i.e., 101-4 V). Withdrawn items are identified by a suffix "W". Items without a

suffix are informational.

ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

MEMBERSHIP

OPERATIONS

PROGRAM

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

101 Series 102 Series 103 Series 104 Series

PROGRAM 105 Series

48
Executive Committee

The Report contains four appendices which are related to specific Reference

Key Numbers as follows: A. Operating Budget Item 103-3

B. Task Force on Commodity Requirements

Report Item 104-4 C. Memorandum of Understanding Item 104-4 D. Task Force on Information Systems

I Report Item 104-5

E. NTEP Policy and Procedures Item 105-2 Following Table A, each item is described in detail in numerical sequence

of the Reference Key Number.

Throughout the report, recommended changes to NCWM or NBS publications are shown as follows: wording to be deleted is shown itned ©at; wording to be added is underlined; sections being changed are indented and printed in bold face type.

ORDER OF PRESENTATION

Formal action (vote) of the NCWM was requested on the three following

voting items:

101-2A Special Recognition and Awards - Waiver of Registration Fee

This item was adopted (State Representatives 43 Yes, 0 No: Delegates

74 Yes, 0 No).

101-28 Special Recognition and Awards - Special Recognition

This item was adopted (State Representatives 45 Yes, 0 No; Delegates

73 Yes, 0 No). 101-4 Nominating Committee

This item was adopted (State Representatives 45 Yes, 0 No: Delegates

72 Yes, 1 No). Item 105-2 was withdrawn in its entirety (See discussion under Item 105-2

for details).

After the individual voting items were acted upon, the report was adopted in

its entirety by the membership.

49
Executive Committee

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No. PART I ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

101-1 Policy and Guidelines 51 101-2A V Special Ree^^ition and Awards

Wal¥er of Registration Fee 51 101-2B V Special Recognition and Awards

Special Recognition 52 101-3 Voting—Consequences 52 101-4 V Hominating Committee 53 MEMBERSHIP

102-1 Recognition of Associate Members 54 102-2 Membership Options 54

102-3 Promotional Activities 56 OPERATIONS

103-1 Appointments, Resignations, Assignments 56 103-2 Finance, Financial Report 57 103-3 Budget Development 57 103-4 NCWM Forms 58 103-5 NCWM Publications 58 103-6 Report of the Nominating Committee 59 PROGRAM

104-1 Planning for Annual Meetings 59 104-2 Central Weights and Measures Association 60 104-3 National Training Program 60 104-4 Task Force on Commodity Requirements 60 104-5 Task Force on Information Systems 61 104-6 Legislative Liaison Committee 61 104-7 Report on OIML 61 104-8 Office of Weights and Measures 61 104-9 Review of Documents (Handbook 44) 61

50
Executive Committee

Table A, continued

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No. PART II NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM (Board of Governors)

105-1 Organization 62 105-2 W Policy and Procedures 62 105-3 Redundant Testing 65 106-4 NTEP Logo—Promotion of Use 65 105-5 Index of Device Evaluations 65 105-6 Adoption of the Uniform Regulation for 65 National Type Evaluation 65 105-7 Laboratory Authorization 65 105-8 NTEP Brochure 66 105-9 Load Cell Intercomparison 66

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order by Reference Key Number)

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

PART I ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

101-1 POLICY AND GUIDELINES

A draft of NCWM Publication 3, "National Conference on Weights and Measures - Policies and Guidelines", is being reviewed. The draft contains

all of the material selected by the appropriate NCWM Committees from the

published proceedings of Annual Meetings from 1971 through 1985. The

results of the review will be incorporated into the final document which is scheduled for publication in 1986. 101-2A V SPECIAL RECOGNITION AND AWARDS - Waiver of

Registration Fee.

(This item was adopted) At the present time, the Constitution, Article III, recognizes individuals "who

have retired from Federal, State, county, or city weights and measures employment" as Advisory Members. Many of these Advisory Members look forward to attending the Annual Meeting where their attendance contributes

to the collective good health and achievement of the Conference. In recognition of the contributions made by these individuals, the waiving of the

51
Executive Committee

payment of the registration fee by them is recommended. It is recom- mended that the following new section be added to the Bylaws, Article II - Fees, Membership Records on page 8: SECTION 5 - WAIVER OF REGISTRATION FEE

Advisory Members who have retired from Federal, State, county, or

city weights and measures employment and have been Active Memt>ers

of the NCWM for ten or more years shall not be subject to the payment of the Registration Fee for attendance at the Annual Meeting.

101-2B V SPECIAL RECOGNITION AND AWARDS - Special Recognition.

(This item was adopted)

During the past year, the Chairman presented a plaque, inscribed with appropriate wording, to each of three retiring weights and measures officials in recognition of their special service to the National Conference on Weights

and Measures over many years. Each presentation was made at public cere- monies of the recipients' peers, and was well received. The three individuals recognized were Bill Sullivan (Seattle, Washington), Sydney Andrews

(Florida), and Stan Darsey (Florida).

Based on this experience, the Chairman recommended that the Executive

Committee consider the establishment of a policy regarding the recognition

of members at the time of retirement or career change from weights and measures to an unrelated field. The following policy is recommended for adoption:

Active and Associate Members having ten or more years of membership

in the NCWM, and who have rendered special service to the NCWM,

may, at the time of their retirement from active weights and measures employment, be selected by the Executive Committee to receive an

inscribed plaque attesting to that special service. The plaque will be

presented by the Chairman or designee at the appropriate time and

place.

Recommendations for this award may be made by (1) any member of

the Conference, or (2) the Regional Associations through their Chair- men. Recommendations should be in writing and addressed to the Executive Committee.

101-3 VOTING—CONSEQUENCES

Some difficulty was encountered during the voting session at the 70th Annual Meeting on Item 302-13 of the Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances. The item was initially defeated, presumably as a result of the

lack of understanding of the consequences of defeat. After the consequences were explained to the membership, the item passed.

A recommendation was made that some wording should be added to the

discussion of potentially critical items in the S&T report such as a concise

explanation, with example(s) if necessary, of the consequence of passing or defeating the items.

52
Executive Committee

The Executive Committee discussed this problem and the recommended

solution. A review of the voting during the past several Annual Meetings

led the Executive Committee to observe that: - the voting has been extremely free of problems of this type, and

- the incident related to Item 302-13 was, in fact, very unusual. The Executive Committee concluded that the leadership will be able to deal with this type of problem, if it arises again, under Robert's or the NCWM

Rules of Order. Therefore, no change in rules is recommended.

101-4 V NOMINATING COMMITTEE

(This item was adopted)

The Nominating Committee is composed of seven (7) members "consisting of the most recent active past chairman as Committee Chairman and six (6) active members" (Constitution, Article IV, Section 2B). Recent Chairmen have followed a precedent established several years ago of appointing all past active NCWM Chairmen to the Nominating Committee.

As a result, six or seven of the members of the Committee each year have

been past chairmen. None of the active past chairmen have been from the Northeastern Region.

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association, believing that the membership of the Nominating Committee should include representation from

all four Regions, made a recommendation for consideration by the Executive

Committee to change the Constitution and Bylaws to read: "The Chairman shall appoint a Nominating Committee consisting of the most recent past chairman as Committee Chairman and four (4) active members, one from each of the four regions."

The merit of the recommendation is recognized; however, it was desirable to maintain the membership of the Committee at seven. The following re- wording to Article IV - B.l. Nominations and Elections, on page 4 is recommended:

The Chairman shall appoint a Nominating Committee consisting of the

moat recent active past chairman as Committee Chairman and six (6) active members, to include at least one (1) member representing each

of the four Regions. The Nominating Committee shall submit one name for each elective office and present its recommendations as a

slate in its report to the Conference.

53
Executive Committee

MEMBERSHIP

1U2-1 RECOGNITION OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

A Directory of Associate Members, arranged alphabetically by company name

and by individual's name, was printed and distributed to members as "Directory of Associate Membership 1986, NBSIR 86-3374", NCWM PubUcation #9

in April 1986. The Executive Committee will continue to promote the involvement of the Associate Membership in the work of the NCWM and to explore opportunities to broaden that role. 102-2 MEMBERSHIP OPTIONS

Promoting Membership of State and Local Officials Of the approximately 3000 weights and measures officials nationwide, over

2800 are listed in the latest Directory. Of that number, only about 450 are

actually members of the NCWM.

The Executive Secretary reported that he had sent 50 copies of the Membership Brochure to each State Director for use in promoting

membership. He reported that three states (Arkansas, Nebraska, and

Missouri) have since returned membership applications and a check to cover

the $35 membership fee for everyone on the state staff. In those cases, the State Director knows that his entire staff wiU receive all the handbooks and

NCWM correspondence, which is expected to lead to a better and more

uniformly trained and aware staff. Other than this significant addition to the membership roles, most new members have been from the private

sector. The present composition of the Conference includes 595 active and 952

associate members. Recent growth has been primarily in the associate

membership. If the estimate of 3000 officials nationwide is correct, then

less that 20% of them are members.

Dr. Ambler, in addressing the 70th annual meeting last year, emphasized the importance of getting the results of the NCWM to the "grassroots." Three

states were able to follow through on the President's recommendation and

enlisted all of the officials in their states as members of the NCWM. This

year, Dr. Ambler is expanding on that theme by recommending that similar

efforts be made to attract all weights and measures officials to join the

NCWM. Membership of all of a jurisdiction's officials ensures that they will receive all of the products of the NCWM. This will greatly increase the

likelihood that the work of the NCWM will reach the "grassroots" and that the regulation of weights and measures nationwide will be uniform.

54
Executive Committee

The President's Award

As an incentive to other jurisdictions to follow the example set by the first three states, Dr. Ambler has established the "President's Award". The award

will be presented annually at the Annual Meeting to recognize jurisdictions "that have achieved specified goals in Conference membership". There are two levels of recognition under this award:

1. Banner. The top award will be a banner presented to any state in which all of the weights and measures officials (state and local

jurisdictions) are members of the Conference. The banner will be

accompanied with a certificate for a state to post in the office. The

banner will be brought to the Annual Meeting each year to be

displayed at the front of the general session room. A ribbon will be

added each succeeding year that a state qualifies for this award.

(Arkansas and Nebraska qualify for this award.)

2. Certificate. A certificate will be presented to any state in which

all of the weights and measures officials on the state staff are members of the Conference. That state will become eligible for award of a banner when all of the members of its local jurisdictions

become Conference members. (Missouri qualifies for this award.)

Promoting Use of Publications

An objective of the NCWM is to get the latest handbooks and related materials into the hands of every weights and measures official in the United

States. The Committee recommends that the states investigate the possibility of following the example of the three states identified above. Some

states can justify expenditure of funds on the basis that "membership" provides the publications and related materials needed to perform the regulatory function uniformly and following the most current legal and technical

methods.

The Committee continued to review current policy and explore alternatives

to attaining this objective. One alternative is to establish a basic membership fee plus add-ons for selected packages of documents. Other professional

organizations operate in this manner, especially if they are made up of members with varying interests. A "Basic Membership" for a fee of $10.00 which would provide the Weights and Measures Directory, Newsletter, Tech Memos, all meeting

announcements, programs, and NCWM proceedings.

A "Professional Package, Commodities" for an additional fee of $15.00

which would provide the benefits of the "Basic Membership" plus all commodity-related handbooks (HB 130, HB 133, HB 133-Field).

55
Executive Committee

A "Professional Package, Devices" for an additional fee of $15.00

which would provide the benefits of the "Basic Membership" plus all device-related handbooks (HB 44, HB 112, HB 130). A "Professional Package, Combined" for a fee of $35.00 which would

provide all the benefits of the three packages.

The Executive Committee will continue to study this issue and solicits comments from the membership.

102-3 PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

1. The Newsletter was mailed to everyone on the NCWM mailing

list, rather than only to members. The back page of the Newsletter was a membership blank. There was no noticeable

increase in membership resulting from this mass mailing. Future copies of the Newsletter will be mailed only to members.

2. A supply of the NCWM membership brochures (with membership

application form) was provided to each State Director for use

in promoting membership in the Conference. The results of

this action are reported in Item 102-2.

3. A supply of tie tacs/lapel pins and ties was bought and offered

for sale at the 70th Annual Meeting in July 1985 as weU as at other meetings. Sale of these items has been good; tie tacs have been reordered.OPERATIONS

103-1 APPOINTMENTS, RESIGNATIONS, ASSIGNMENTS

The Chairman reported on all organizational actions taken and appointments

made for the current year. The following additional actions were taken during the week of the Interim

Meeting.

Chaplain

The Chairman appointed Mr. Martin T. Coile as the Chaplain of the NCWM

to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Mr. Francis W. Daniels,

Wayne County, Indiana. Mr. Coile is the Director, Weights and Measures

Laboratory, State of Georgia.

Vice Chairman

The Executive Committee appointed Mr. Edison J. Stephens to fill the va- cancy created by the resignation of Mr. Charles D. Tandy, Alaska. Mr. Stephens is Deputy Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, State of Utah.

56
Executive Committee

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee appointed Mr. James M. O'Connor to fill the vacancy on the Executive Committee created by the election of Mr. Frank

Nagele, Michigan, as the Chairman-Elect of the NCWM. Mr. O'Connor is Supervisor, Weights and Measures, State of Iowa.

103-2 FINANCE, FINANCIAL REPORT

The Treasurer presented the financial report through December 31, 1985. The total income and disbursements for this period are within the amounts

budgeted. See the Treasurer's Report on page 245.

1U3-3 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT

The Executive Secretary reported on the proposed budget for the fiscal year

July 1, 1986, through June 30, 1987. The Budget Review Committee re- viewed the draft budget and made several comments. In addressing these comments, the Executive Committee made the following changes which are contained in the proposed budget (Appendix A). Account 1.1. Registration Fees The estimated registration of 340 for the 71st Annual Meeting to be held in Albuquerque, NM was questioned because it is higher than the registration at the 69th (338) and the 70th (314) Annual Meetings in Boston and Washington,

D.C., respectively. The Executive Committee decided to retain the original

estimate of 340 but is prepared to modify the Budget if the registration is lower than the estimated 340. The Annual Meeting is at the beginning of the

Fiscal Year and modifications can be made before significant disbursements

are incurred. Account 1.3. Training Modules

The arithmetic was corrected to change the total estimated receipts from

sale of Inspectors Manuals from $5,650 to $6,650, and the total estimated

income account from $7,000 to $8,000. Account 1.6. Special Events The last sentence of the paragraph was changed to correct the reference

from Account 13.0 to Account 10.0. Total Budgeted Income

The Total Budgeted Income figure was changed from $94,100 to $95,100 to correct for the error noted above. The Total Budgeted Disbursements figure was changed from $94,100 to $95,100 to present a balanced budget. The

following changes were made to Disbursement Accounts to reach a balanced

budget.

57
Executive Committee

Aceount 4.0. Committee Operations

Reduce estimated expense of the Education Committee from $9,000 to $7,500. Delete the estimated expense of the Task Force on Motor Fuels

because their work will have been completed.

103-4 NCWM FORMS

Several new standardized NCWM forms have been developed. Those now

being used in the administration of the NCWM are: #1 Cover Sheet for Contract

#2 Amendment/Modification of Contract

#3 Committee Ballot #4 Policy and Guidelines Format

#5 Available for assignment to a new form

#6 National Training Program (NTP) Request for Waiver of Copyright

#7a NTP Letter of Agreement (with state)

#7b NTP Letter of Agreement (with other jurisdiction)

#8 NTP Annual Report

#9 National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Certificate of Conformance

#10 Purchase Order/Contract (small)

#11 NTP Request for Individual Certification

NCWM PUBLICATIONS

In the listing below, an asterisk identifies those publications for which

changes are being proposed in the Executive Committee Report. Numbers in parentheses refer to the Reference Key Numbers of the report where the proposed changes are described.

#1 NCWM Constitution and Bylaws.* (101-2A, 101-4)

#2 Weights and Measures Directory 1986 Edition. #3 NCWM Policy and Guidelines.* (101-2B)

#4 NTEP Policy and Procedures.* (105-1)

#5 NTEP Index of Evaluations.* (105-3)

#6 NTEP Program Brochure.* (105-6)

#7 Weights and Measures Week Guide 1986 Edition. #8 NTEP and Its Relationship to the W&M Law, HB44, and the New Scales Code

#9 Directory - Associate Members.* (102-1)

#10 Meeting and Publication Planning, SOP, and Schedule. (Under

development)

#11 National Training Program.

58
Executive Committee

103-6 REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Mr. Sam Hindsman, Chairman of the Nominating Committee presented the Committee report to the Executive Committee. See Report of the Nominating

Committee.

PROGRAM

104-1 PLANNING FOR ANNUAL MEETINGS

72nd Annual Meeting, July 19 - 24, 1987

A contract has been signed with the Excelsior Hotel in downtown Little Rock, Arkansas for the annual meeting of July 19-24, 1987. Address: Three Statehouse Plaza

Little Rock, AR 72201

Telephone; (501) 375-5000 Telex # 752270

Out-of-state Toll Free Number is 1-800-527-1745

Parking; Parking in the connected parking building is complimentary for hotel guests.

Room Rates; $66.00 single or double, plus 7% tax. Check-in

time is 3:00 p.m.; check-out time is 12:00 noon. The hotel is first class, contains 420 rooms, and sits atop the new

Statehouse Convention Center. It has its own conference facilities which

will accommodate our meeting. The hotel is connected to a building containing a 642-car parking garage, the Excelsior Health Club, and numerous

retail shops. There are five food and beverage facilities in the hotel. Adjacent to the lobby is a group of retail stores including a gift shop, a ladies boutique, a beauty/barber shop, and a car rental agency. The hotel provides complimentary shuttle service to and from the airport

which is only 15 minutes from the hotel. 73rd Annual Meeting, July 17 - 22, 1988

The 73rd Annual Meeting is planned for Grand Rapids at the Amway Grand

Plaza Hotel (a AAA 5-Diamond and Mobile 4-Star facility). The hotel is in the center of the city, on the Grand River, across from the Gerald Ford

Presidential Museum. Grand Rapids is in the center of a vacation area

including Holland, Michigan. Lake Michigan is within an easy driving dis- tance. 74th Annual Meeting, 1989

Seattle has been proposed as the site of the 74th Annual Meeting in 1989. The Executive Secretary has visited the city and reviewed several hotels. He

reported that most of the hotels visited can accommodate the NCWM

comfortably and are conveniently located in downtown Seattle within

walking distance of the waterfront, shopping, and restaurants.

59
Executive Committee

Future Meetings, Candidate Locations

Proposals have been received to host the National Conference Annual Meeting in the following locations: Columbus, Ohio; Albany, New York; and

Hawaii. No decisions have been made regarding these offers.

104-2 CENTRAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

The Constitution and Bylaws to govern the Central Weights and Measures

Association was agreed to by the officers of the Northwest Weights and

Measures Association (NWWMA) at its Interim Meeting in October 1985. The

Central Weights and Measures Association was officially organized and

assumed the assets and the liabilities of the Northwestern Weights and

Measures Association at the meeting held in June 1986.

104-3 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs reported

to the Executive Committee on the status of the National Training Program,

including the financial status of the NBS grant to the NCWM, plans for extension of the grant, status of module development, plans for distribution of the completed modules and module revisions, and the relationship of the

Certification Plan and Program Evaluation to the development of modules.

The Executive Committee requested the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs to prepare a plan for funding the development of the training program until its completion, for submission to the

Executive Committee prior to the Annual Meeting. See the Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs for details.

104-4 TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

i At the January 1986 Interim Meeting, Chairman Richard Thompson

L (Maryland) reported on the progress of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements. The Executive Committee was requested to and did approve (1) the concept of the approach taken by the Task Force and, (2) the conduct

of a pilot test of that concept by several states. Approximately 20 jurisdictions, both state and local, have volunteered to participate in the Pilot Study. A draft of the procedures has been mailed

to all 50 state directors and the local weights and measures jurisdictions that have volunteered, because any state having meat, poultry, or flour packaging plants within its boundaries may be called upon to visit a packaging plant.

A meeting of the Task Force members and pilot state volunteers was held on July 22 at the Annual Meeting. The pilot study will begin on August 15, 1986, and continue until November 15, 1986. See Appendix B for the details of the Report of the Task Force.

60
Executive Committee

104-5 TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. Newell recently joined the staff of the Office of Weights and Measures

and assumed the role of technical advisor to this Task Force from Mrs. Joan

Koenig thus freeing her to devote more time to the development of the

training modules and to the Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs. OWM purchased a new computer to function as a "Bulletin Board" for members' use. It is accessible to any one at the present time (301

869-1665). When fully operational, it will be limited in access to members

of the NCWM. The BuUetin Board contains information about weights and measures activities including: - Identification of W<kM publications and how to obtain copies;

- "Often asked" questions with answers;

- NCWM and Regional Association Officers, committee memberships;

- Working files of the standing committees

- Selected position papers, studies, and issues descriptions. See Appendix D for details of this Report.

104-6 LEGISLATIVE LIAISON COMMITTEE

Mr. Don Stagg reported on the status of the Legislative Liaison Committee

including the objectives and work plan of the group. He distributed a draft NCWM brochure for review and comments.

104-7 REPORT ON OIML

Mr. David Edgerly, NBS, reported on the status and activities of the Inter- national Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). See the Report of the Committee on Liaison for details.

104-8 OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Mr. Albert Tholen reported on the status of the program of the Office of Weights and Measures. See the Report of the Committee on Liaison for

details.

104-9 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS (HANDBOOK 44) At the January 1986 Interim Meeting, comments regarding NBS Handbook 44 were discussed.

61
Executive Committee

The possibility of making Handbook 44 easier to use by the field inspector

and, at the same time, clearly identifying those requirements that 6ire appli- cable under NTEP evaluation and not expected to be applied by the state and local jurisdictions was discussed. Comments were recieved that some

states which accept NTEP Certificates of Conformance need to identify those tests that field insptjctors do not normally conduct. Mr. Joe Swanson volunteered to explore alternatives to making the Handbook

easier to use and for separately identifying those sections which require

NTEP evaluation only. The Chairman accepted Mr. Swanson's offer and

asked him to proceed, involving the Committee on Specifications and Toler- ances when appropriate, with the objective of having a draft for review by

the Executive Committee at the 71st Annual Meeting. At the Annual Meeting, The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

recommended, and the Conference adopted a proposal to reorganize the Handbook. See Item 360-4 of the S<3cT Report for details. No further plans have been made for reorganization of the Handbook until:

1. the NTEP Handbook is published; and

2. the device-related modules of the National Training Program are

published.

PART n NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM (Board of Governors)

105-1 ORGANIZATION

The Chairman reassigned the Technical Committee on NTEP from the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances to the Executive Committee

(Board of Governors). This change does not require a vote by the membership because it is within the powers of the Chairman to assign (and reassign) committees and task forces. 105-2 W NTEP, POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Action at the Annual Meeting, July 1986

The NTEP has been operating using the procedures approved by the NCWM

at the previous Annual Meetings. Evaluation of small-capacity scales for conformance to the requirements of the new scales code including the influ- ence factors has progressed smoothly. Evaluation of large-capacity scales introduces difficulties which have not yet been resolved. Item 105-2 of the Interim Report dealt primarily with proposals for evaluation of large capacity scales. At the Annual Meeting, Item 105-2, including

its sub-items, was withdrawn as a voting item. This was done in order to provide the opportunity for the NCWM membership to study all of the recommendations and comments received before asking for them to vote.

62
Executive Committee

The information available will be packaged and sent to the membership prior

to the Interim Meeting in January 1987, at which time, the recommendations

to be made to the membership for consideration at the 72nd Annual Meeting

in July 1987 will be formulated. In the meantime, the National Type Evaluation Program will test large capacity scales using:

1. The "ad hoc" provisions of NCWM Publication #4, "National Type

Evaluation Program, Policy and Procedures, 1984" as revised July 18, 1985, and

2. The report of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation dated June 25-26, 1986. Items 105-2A through 105-2H, although withdrawn as action items from the report presented to the membership, are reproduced in this final report for reference in preparation for the January, 1987 Interim Meeting when all of these subjects will be discussed. Action at the Interim Meeting, January, 1986

The Executive Committee acted on many recommendations regarding clarifi- cation and expansion of the NTEP Policy and Procedures. The recommended

changes were made to an annotated version of NCWM Publication 4, "NTEP

Policy and Procedures" contained in Appendix E*, so that they can be read

and reviewed in the context of the entire publication. The changes include

rearrangement of sections, addition of new sections, and editing. The

non-editorial changes are referenced below; however, the reader should read

the actual language proposed by referring to Appendix E.

In Appendix E, the proposed changes are identified by efessiflg thfeugh lan- guage to be deleted, and by underlining the language to be added. The

general nature of the proposed changes is stated in parentheses at the beginning of affected Sections or paragraphs as foUows:

(Section X rewritten as Section P to clarify ) 105-2A W DEFINITIONS (SECTION A)

This section was moved from Section C to Section A in order to acquaint

the reader with the terminology used throughout the publication before reading the policies and procedures. Paragraph 4 is changed to include the National Bureau of Standards and Federal laboratories under the definition. This was an oversight in the original publication.

Appendix E was withdrawn for consideration by the membership at the

71st Annual Meeting. However, it is retained as part of this Report

for the record and for use in preparation for the January 1987 Interim

Meeting when aU of the subjects will be discussed.

63
Executive Committee

105-2B W TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS (SECTION B)

This section was formerly Section A. It has been expanded by identifying

two steps of the process, which were originally omitted.

105-2C W ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM (SECTION C)

This section is new and explains the roles of the Board of Governors, the

NTEP Advisory Committee, the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation, and the National Bureau of Standards. 105-2D W REQUEST FOR TYPE EVALUATION (SECTION D)

This section is new and describes the procedure to be followed when applying for a type evaluation.

105-2E W STEPS IN THE TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS (SECTION E)

This section was formerly Section B. It has been significantly expanded to

clarify the decision process to be followed in deciding if a request is valid under NTEP, and the functions and options of Participating Laboratories.

The underlying policy is to use all information and facilities available to the

Participating Laboratories in order to minimize the cost of evaluation, in- eluding capital investment and operating expenses. Paragraph 1 is new and defines the classes of, and basic conditions under

which, devices will be accepted for evaluation.

Paragraphs 3 and 4.a. are largely new and elaborate on the considerations

that will enter into the decision on the choice of testing facilities. Most of the material in former Section H.3. is incorporated in these paragraphs.

105-2F W EXTENT OF EVALUATION (SECTION F)

Paragraph 1 contains new material addressing conditions that the

Participating Laboratory may consider, thereby reducing the scope of the

testing necessary to complete a full evaluation. Conditions include: device

size, configuration, application, immunity to the effect of selected influence

factors, prior evaluation of main components/elements, and evidence of approval by other recognized jurisdictions.

105-2G W KINDS OF TYPE EVALUATION (SECTION G)

Paragraphs 1 through 5 are edited. Paragraph 6 is reworked to describe the process to be followed for the development and approval of new test criteria and procedures.

105-2H W CHOICE OF TESTING LABORATORY

Former Section H.3. "Choice of Testing Laboratory" is deleted. The material is transferred to new Sections E.3. and E.4. (See Reference Key Item

105-2E.)

64
Executive Committee

105-3 REDUNDANT TESTING

Some states conduct extensive testing of devices previously evaluated under

NTEP and for which Certificates of Conformance have been issued. This

testing adds additional cost for the states and the industry. The Board

understands that the states use the tests as a means to familiarize their

officials with the features of the new devices. It was suggested that video

tapes could be developed to provide the training needed. The Executive

Committee will explore this subject further.

105-4 NTEP LOGO - PROMOTION OF USE

Plans were discussed for promoting the use of the NTEP Logo. The Executive Committee encourages the use of the logo on approved main elements

as well as on assembled devices.

105-5 INDEX OF DEVICE EVALUATIONS

Plans were discussed for updating and distributing changes and additions to NCWM Publication #5, "National Type Evaluation Program - Index of Device

Evaluations". Copies in the 8-1/2" by 11" format will be sent routinely to State Directors and on request to others.

105-6 ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM REGULATION FOR NATIONAL

TYPE EVALUATION

Based on the records of the NCWM office, eighteen (18) states and one (1) city are officially recognizing and using the NTEP. They are: Uniform Regulation adopted and in effect in four (4) states (California,

Connecticut, North Carolina, Ohio) and one (1) City (Kansas City, KS; Uniform Regulation in the process of adoption in four (4) states (Alabama, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico);

Provisions of the Uniform Regulation are being applied under state administrative procedures In ten (10) States (Arkansas, Delaware,

Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, West Virginia).

105-7 LABORATORY AUTHORIZATION

California, Ohio, and the Federal Grain Inspection Service are authorized as NTEP Participating Laboratories. The NBS is working with Alabama and

New York toward authorization.

65
Executive Committee

105-8 NTEP BROCHURE

The work on the "NTEP Brochure" was suspended pending the outcome of the Interim Meeting in January 1987, at which time, significant changes will be considered in the testing procedures to be followed by the NTEP.

105-9 LOAD CELL INTERCOMPARISON

The status of the load cell intercomparison was explained by Mr. David

Edgerly, NBS, who described the potential relationships between the inter- comparison and NTEP. It is possible that the success of the intercomparison

will provide opportunities for support of the NTEP. Testing check lists and

protocols will have been used and testing equipment and skills refined. About sixty percent (60 %) of the tests have been completed and it is expected that the intercomparisons will be completed by the end of the calendar year.

G. Mattimoe, Hawaii, Chairman

F. Nagele, Michigan, Chairman-Elect

S. Hindsman, Past Chairman

J. Bartfai, New York

C. Forester, Texas

J. Lyles, Virginia

J. O'Connor, Iowa

J. Swanson, Alaska

R. Walker, Indiana C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Treasurer

A, Tholen, NBS, Executive Secretary

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Appendix A - Operating Budget

Appendix B - Task Force on Commodity Requirements Report

Appendix C - Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix D - Task Force on Information Systems Report

Appendix E - NTEP Policy and Procedures

66
Executive Committee

APPENDIX A

OPERATING BUDGET

(July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1987)

INCOME

ACCOUNT

NO.

NAME AMOUNT REMARKS

1.1 1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Registration Fees Membership Fees

Training Modules

$34,000 340 at $100= $34,000

$45,500 1300 at $35= $45,500

$8,000 Estimate based on sales as follows: Module Sales No. Inspectors Manuals Instructors Manuals

2 50 at $20 = $1,000 10 at $25 $250

5 ditto $1,000 ditto $250

8 ditto $1,000 ditto $250

10 100 at $20= $2,000 ditto $250

23 100 at $15= $1,500 ditto $250

27 10 at $15 = $ 150 5 at $20 = $100

$6,650 $1,350=

Interest

Promotional

Special Events

$8000

$1,600 Assumed average bal- ance of $20,000 at 8 %

interest.

All promotional items stocked will have been

sold in the previous fiscal year. Neither

income nor expense are in this proposed

budget pending discussion at the Jan. 1986

Interim meeting of the Executive Committee. $6,000

Special events are the non-meeting activities such as tours, lunches, dinners, etc. planned for the guests and members.

Fees are established for each event with the intention that they are self funding. The income account is the estimated

fees for these events. Account 10.0 is the estimated expense

of these events.

Total Budgeted Income $95,100

67
Executive Committee

DISBURSEMENTS

ACCOUNT

NO.

NAME AMOUNT REMARKS

2.0

3.0

Annual Meeting

Interim Meeting

$12,000 Receptions, refresh- ments, guest, printing, audio-visual, treasurer expenses.

5,100 ditto. Much of the support services for the interim meeting

are provided by the

NBS. Contractor

$1,500.

4.0 Committee Operations 24,500

Expenses consist mainly of committee members' air and surface

travel, room, and meal costs. Air constitutes approximately

l/3rd and meals, room, and incidentals 2/3rds of total. Of the

total, $20,000 is incurred for the Interim Meeting. Breakdown by

committee is: Executive^

Liaison

Education^

6,000

3,000

7,500

Laws <5c Regs.^

Specs. & Tols.^ Nominating^

3,000

3,000

2,000

NOTES:

^ Interim Meeting

^ Includes $3,000 for Interim Meeting and $6,000 for 3 special

committee meetings required for review of training modules.

5.0 Special Programs $20,500

Expenses consist mainly of committee members' air and surface

travel, room, and meal costs associated with special meetings.

Subcommittee on Commodity Standards

Task Force on Commodity Requirements

Technical Committee on NTEP

Task Force on Information Systems

OIML

Board of Governors, NTEP

1,500^

3,500^

7,000^

1,500^

3,500^

3,500^

NOTES:

One independent meeting (Other than during the week of an- other NCWM Meeting).

Three independent meetings. Four independent meetings; two each for weighing and measuring groups.

68
Executive Committee

Participate in one domestic meeting and two international meetings; the $3,500 budgeted item represented 50 % of the

total cost since cost is shared with the NBS. The NCWM

adopted a policy approving a budget of up to $7,000 per year

in support of OIML.

Two independent meetings. Anticipates requirement to meet

to resolve policy issues resulting from new technology or regulatory aspects of device evaluation.

6.0 Chairman/Chairman-Elect $7,500 Provides for attendance

at the four Regional

Association Annual

Meetings and one special meeting other than

those included in Accounts 4.0 and 5.0. 7.0 Membership Program $6,000 Includes costs associated

with purchase, printing

(certificate, mailer,

etc.) and part time

administrativeassistance

of $2,500.

8.0 Printing & Publications $3,000 Miscellaneous forms,

mailings, decals, stationary, and part time

administrativeassistance

of $1,500.

9.0 Administration $7,000 Equipment maintenance

and amortization; part

time administrative

support of $4,500; post

office box; etc. 10.0 Special Events $6,000 Income (see Income

Account 1.6) wiU be

planned to cover costs

incurred. 11.0

12.0

Promotional Items (see Income Account 1.5) Training Modules $3,500 Cost of printing copies

to satisfy demand, (see

Income Item 1.3)

Total Budgeted Costs $95,100

69
Executive Committee

APPENDIX B

REPORT OF THE

TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

TO THE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

R.L. Thompson, Chairman

Chief of Weights and Measures

State of Maryland

Executive Summary

The Task Force on Commodity Requirements proposes "Compliance Test Procedures for Products Subject to Moisture Loss". The model upon which

the procedures are based is as follows:LABELED

WEIGHT

Out of Compliance ion

In Compliance

less than the

labeled weight

!<

io;

•y .n

itt

iiiiji

greater than the

labeled weight

o When the average net weight for a lot being inspected is equal to or greater than the labeled weight, the inspected lot complies with the net weignr tecjQirements. o When the average net weight is less than the labeled weight and falls in the "out of compliance" area, no further information is needed to determine whether the inspected lot complies. The lot does not comply with

the net weight requirements. o When the average net weight is less than the labeled weight, but falls in the "gray area", further information must be gathered in order to make

a final decision on whether the lot complies. For flour, the Task Force proposes that the width of the gray area be 3%

of the labeled weight. Package lots averaging less than 97% of the labeled weight would automatically fail to comply. Further information would be

needed to decide on package lots whose average net weights ranged from

97% of the labeled weight up to (but less than) the labeled weight.

This is the chief distinction between a "gray area" concept and a tolerance.

If there were a tolerance of 3%, for example, package lots averaging

greater than 97% of the labeled weight would automatically comply. A

70
Executive Committee

"gray area" of 3%, however, will require additional information before compliance or noncompliance can be determined. It is expected that some lots

in the gray area will fail to comply based on additional information; other

lots will pass. For meat and poultry, using dry tare test methods, the Task Force proposes NO gray area. Whenever the average net weight of an inspected lot is less than the labeled weight, the lot is out of compliance.

For poultry from Federally-inspected plants when wet tare test methods are

followed, the Task Force proposes a 2% gray area after 24 hours from the pack date, with an additional 1/2% per day up to a maximum of 6%.

The Task Force is not yet prepared to propose what the width of the gray

area should be for meat from Federally-inspected plants when wet tare test methods are followed. Additional data will be collected as part of the pilot

study to delineate the gray area.

In addition, the Task Force has developed with USDA a Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix C) that provides a formal agreement specifying

what each party will do in the investigation of suspected short weight of packages of meat and poultry from Federally inspected plants.

The Task Force requests the Executive Committee to:

(1) endorse the concept upon which the compliance test procedures

are based;

(2) sponsor a pilot study in the coming calendar year to evaluate the

feasibility of the procedures for weights and measures enforcement programs. The Task Force has developed a detailed protocol to follow in the pilot

study for the investigation of short weight for flour and for meat and poultry from Federally inspected plants.

71
Executive Committee

Progress Report

On August 2, 1984, at the 69th Annual Meeting, Chairman Ezio Delfino appointed the Task Force on Commodity Requirements to address the issue of moisture ioss for flour, meat, and poultry. He appointed representatives

from each of the four regional weights and measures associations, representatives from three trade associations representing the flour, meat, and poultry packaging industries, a consumer advocate, and representatives from the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (meat and poultry), the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (flour), and the National Bureau of Standards. (The present

membership is listed at the end of this report.)

In his initial charge to the Task Force, Mr. Delfino asked that the Task

Force apply three criteria to its work. Any approach had to: o allow consumers of these products to make value comparisons;

o allow fair market competition; and

o be verifiable and enforceable. At its first meeting, the Task Force added two more criteria: o The approach should be fair to all retailers, large and small, o The approach should be applicable to other products subject to moisture

loss. The Task Force held its first meeting on November 28, 1984. Four more

meetings were held in 1985 (January 17-18, June 11-13, September 25-27,

and December 2-4). The eleven task force members have spent approximately 1500 hours in preparation, study, discussion, and negotiations on the

issue. At least triple that amount of time has been contributed by other weights and measures agency personnel, USDA, and business representatives.

Nothing achieved so far could have been accomplished without the wholehearted support of the entire weights and measures community involved in this work including Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies and regulated businesses. The Task Force wishes to thank everyone who has assisted

it so unstintingly.

The Task Force is aware that the policy of weights and measures officials is to require "net weight at retail"; m.ost of the consuming public probably

believes that every package contains at least the amount of product that is printed on the label. However, Federal and state laws and regulations

permit variations both above and below the label. In the Task Force report

printed in last year's NCWM Announcement Book and in the Report of the 70th National Conference on Weights and Measures 1985 (pages 59-70), the Task Force observed that there did not appear to be a large enough con- sumer outcry or constituency for the Task Force to propose a change to existing Federal or state regulations that permit variations in package net weights due to loss of moisture "during good distribution practices". This has meant that the Task Force has focused its attention on the design of test methods that would incorporate "reasonable variations for moisture loss" as

part of the weights and measures inspector's day-to-day protocol. The Task

Force announced its plan to formulate "Compliance Test Procedures for Products Subject to Moisture Loss". These procedures will assist an inspector to efficiently determine, no matter where in the field he or she is testing, whether packages subject to moisture loss comply with the laws and

72
Executive Committee

regulations. Following these procedures will occasionally require more than

a normal net weight test. The Task Force believes, however, that following these procedures will lead to a clear distinction between compliant and

noncompliant product—a conclusion not often achieved by existing weights

and measures field net weight tests of product subject to moisture loss. The Task Force is unanimously opposed to developing a tolerance to be applied to packaged products that lose moisture. Such an approach could mask

poor manufacturing and distribution practices, and enable unscrupulous packagers to put up packages with less than the labeled weight.

Today, an inspector who finds poultry from a Federally-inspected plant or packages of flour short weight is faced with the problem that any shortage

found could be claimed to be due to moisture loss. In effect, a "gray area"

could be said to cover the entire situation whenever short weight of any magnitude is found (Figure 1).

< . •,„i,

, .•iirti'lialw LAobLc

^lliiiliiiil WEIGHT

''x!WHji?Hi!Hr!!|i!Hiiw!w In Compliance

Greater than the labeled weight

Figure 1

In contrast, the Task Force proposes a model to make the probable area of

uncertainty, called the "gray area", as small as possible, yet realistic (Fig- ure 2).

Out of Compliance

less than the

labeled weight

LABELED

WEIGHT

In Compliance

greater than the

labeled weight

Figure 2 The width of the gray area and the additional information that may be

needed in order to determine whether packages are in compliance have been

the subject of the last four meetings of the Task Force.

73
Executive Committee

Two physically different situations exist: flour; and meat and poultry. o Moisture in flour packaged in paper bags is lost into the atmosphere. It evaporates into the air. o Moisture in meat and poultry, although some small amount is lost by

evaporation, is principally lost by weepage into the packaging materials

or as free-flowing liquid.

Although the proposed compliance testing model looks similar for both types

of moisture loss, the Task Force has found it helpful to separate its work

into these two categories.

Flour

See list of references at the end of this report. AU referenced material can be obtained upon request.

The Task Force analyzed data from several sources that indicate that a weight loss (due to moisture loss) as large as 6% could be experienced by consumer sizes of packaged flour in northern states during winter months.

Figure 3 shows a computer-generated model, developed from an actual moisture loss study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

that shows a "worst case" example of flour packed at 14% moisture content

drying to almost 8% in moisture content. (A moisture loss of 1% translates

directly into a weight loss of 1%.) There is some indication that it might

take as much as 6 months from the time of pack to lose that much moisture. Other information shows that, following norm«il distribution channels,

flour on retail shelves could easily be from one week to 8 months old. The Task Force requested weights and measures agencies to collect data on

flour at retail, wholesale, and packaging plant locations. Sixteen states and 7 counties (from as far north as Connecticut and Wisconsin) participated in that data collection, mainly in the months from February through May. The

Task Force requested that all testing follow NBS Handbook 133, Category B

sampling procedures, and that the participants report average package errors (deviations from the package labeled net weight), lot code information, location of test, and a laboratory determination of the moisture content. The

date of packaging and moisture content at the time of packaging were obtained by weights and measures officials and the Millers' National Federation. This information determined the age of the flour and the amount of moisture lost between the time of pack and the time of test. Data on a total of 1359 lots were collected between December 1984 and

August 1985. Moisture content at the time of test was available for about

550 of these lots. The maximum moisture loss observed in this set of data was 3.9%. For those brands for which moisture content values at the time

of test and at the time of pack were both available, it was determined that the flour packages were overfilled (above the labeled quantity) by about 3%

at the time of pack. The Task Force had hoped that trends that field inspectors could use in enforcement would be evident in the data. For example, knowing the age of the flour might have provided guidance in predicting probable moisture loss, or knowing the average package error

74
Executive Committee

Figures : Flour Moisture

Minneapolis. MN Various Starts

Model Predictions © M0=14.0%

13.0 -

12.0 -

10.0 —^

OCT DEC FEB iPfl JUN AUG OCT DEC FE3 APfl JLW

SEP NOV JJL>^ KAfl KAY JUL SEP NOV JAN KAP HAY i Month

75
Executive Committee

might have provided information to predict moisture loss. The surest method

of determining moisture loss is, however, to measure the moisture content

at the time of test and subtract that moisture content from the moisture

content at the time of pack. For example, if the moisture content at time

of test is 11%, and the moisture content at time of pack is 13.5%, the moisture loss is 2.5%. The moisture content of the flour at the time of

pack could be fairly well assessed by brand from the Task Force data. Although trends could be observed in the Task Force data, they were not

substantial enough to be useful in any enforcement activity. Analysis of the data showed no correlation between the moisture content and the average

package error, some correlation between moisture loss and the average package errors, only very weak correlation between the age of the flour (as measured from the time of pack to the date of the net weight test) and

average package error, some correlation between the age of the flour and

the amount of moisture lost (but not enough correlation to use the data to

predict), and weak correlation between the amount of moisture lost and and

the moisture content at the time of test. Relationships between package

error, moisture content, moisture loss, and age of the flour were also explored for individual brands of flour, the time of the year in which the data were collected, and the geographical location in which the tests were made.

Despite the large amount of data collected and analyzed, precise correlations or conclusions could not be drawn. (Data and graphs available on

request.)

What the Task Force did find useful for field inspection is the overall analysis of package lot test results in terms of the size of the average package

errors as a percentage of the labeled weight. This is presented in Table 1 and in Figure 4. Results of Flour Survey

Labeled Weight

Greater than the Less than the Labeled Weight

Labeled weight

-3% -2% -1% III

99% 95% 85% 55% Approximate percentage of lots that would have complied

Figure 4

76
Executive Committee

Table 1

o

O) o

to —

c ^

Q

asO ^

E ^

>

3

CO

o

O) o

ro —

2 I

Q.

o

3

S i2 g r

O) O £ o — £

•S w 0, w S S S

s I 1 -

0,

«/> S 2 c a> ^ Si. 8 I i 2

0) > >

Q. re

E ^

ro ^ »^ i2 ^ ^ *iK WO

77
Executive Committee

Even though a moisture loss of as much as 6% appears to be possible (and a

variation of 4% was put forth by FDA in a 1980 Federal Register proposal

and supported by the milling industry), the Task Force wants to maintain the status-quo of about 3% in overpack. Therefore, the Task Force has concluded that the maximum width of the gray area should be no more than 3%

for flour.

FLOUR

Less than 97% of the labeled weight Out of Compliance

LABELED WEIGHT

Greater than the labeled weight

In Compliance

Figure 5 How to interpret and use the "gray area" concept will now be discussed. The Gray Area for Flour For 2-lb packages of flour, a 3% gray area represents 0.06 lb; for 5-lb packages, the gray area is 0.15 lb. An outline of the proposed test protocol

is as follows. (The specific test protocol to be followed in the pilot study

will be developed in detail at the next Task Force meeting.)

A weights and measures official might test flour at a retail, wholesale, or packaging plant establishment. It is assumed that he will ordinarily take a sample of the packages available for inspection, and test the net contents

using Handbook 133, Category B procedures. If the official finds the aver- age net weight of the flour equal to or more than the labeled net weight

(and no individual packages short weight by more than the MAV), the lot

will be reported as complying with the net contents regulations. If the official finds, for example, the average net weight of 2-lb packages to be less than 1.94 lb, the lot will be reported as out of compliance with the regulations. Whatever legal remedy is ordinary will be pursued. If the official

finds, for example, the average net weight of 2-lb packages to be between

1.94 and less than 2 lb, one or more of the steps below may be followed:

0 The inspector may determine from the lot code when the flour was

packaged. (The inspector will use information that explains what part

of the lot codes of different flour manufacturers gives the pack date. This information is to be supplied by the Task Force in cooperation with

the Millers' National Federation.) Some jurisdictions may choose to consult Figure 3 and directly compare th« weight loss observed for the

flour under test with this worst case example. For example, if the

inspector finds the flour less than one month old and 2% short weight

(1.96 lb), it is not likely, looking at all the possibilities in Figure 3, that the flour could have dried out that much in so short a time. In this case, the jurisdiction would be warranted to take appropriate action

against short weight product.

78
Executive Committee

o The inspector may put a hold order on the lot inspected and obtain a sample of the flour, returning it to the state laboratory for a moisture

content analysis. The Task Force will supply the average moisture content at time of pack for various styles and kinds of flour. For example, ordinary white flour is normally packaged at 13.5% to 14% in moisture content. As was mentioned earlier, any shortage in net weight

translates directly into possible moisture loss. If flour is packed at 14%

and at that time weighs 2 lb, the flour will weigh 1.98 lb (-1%) if it dries to 13% in moisture content. If, for example, the flour tested is 3% short weight, and the laboratory finds the moisture content to be

12.5%, at most 1.5% of the short weight can be attributed to moisture

loss; the remaining short weight must be due to insufficient product

having been put into the package at the packaging plant. A fixed

figure will be supplied by the Task Force, in cooperation with the Millers' National Federation, to be used by the enforcement agency to calculate back to the weight at time of packaging. Alternatively, the enforcement agency may use the company contact names to be supplied

by the Millers' National Federation to the Task Force to obtain the moisture content at the time of pack for any particular lot code.

o The jurisdiction may choose to inspect at the plfiint. (No variations due

to loss of moisture are applied to in-plant product because distribution has not begun.) Only about 100 plants package "family flour"; therefore,

in-plant inspection is not unreasonable. Inspection at the plant allows an

inspector to consider the appropriateness of the quantity control program

and the weighing equipment in use at that establishment.

The Task Force must stress that the 3% gray area is not a tolerance. If 3%

were a tolerance, any package lot would automatically comply even if the average weight were short by as much as 3%. The "gray area" is that area

in which further information is needed to make a decision as to whether the packages under test are really in compliance or are not. As examples of other information, if the inspector is testing at a wholesale or warehouse

location, or follows up retail testing at these locations, it is evident from

Table 1 that very rarely would any variations due to moisture loss larger

than 1% be necessary. In addition, Table 1 indicates that shortages of 0 to 1% are likely for about 30% of all lots that a jurisdiction would test; short- ages of 1 to 2% can be expected in only about 10% of all lots; and short- ages of 2 to 3% in perhaps less than 5% of all lots. This additional information can be used by a jurisdiction in deciding how much extra effort

to expend to determine whether any given lot complies with net content

requirements.

Meat and Poultry

^ Although a very smaU amount of moisture is lost by evaporation into the air (except for air-dried sausages, for example), most of the moisture lost by

meat and poultry occurs as free-flowing liquid or is absorbed by the packaging materials.

79
Executive Committee

All members of the Task Force agree that if dry tare is used to determine

whether packages of meat or poultry comply with net weight requirements, no gray area would be involved. (See Figure 6.) Any inspected lot of packages whose average net weight is found to be less than the labeled weight using dry tare (or by drying out wet tare materials) would automatically be out of compliance.

For meat & poultry:

NO gray area with DRY TARE

Labeled Weight

Less than the labeled weight

4

Greater than the labeled weight

Out of Compliance In Compliance

Figure 6 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has jurisdiction over meat and

poultry put up in Federally-inspected plants. USDA has agreed with the Task Force that there should be no gray area using dry tare and Category A

sampling plans from NBS Handbook 133 when testing product from USDAinspected plants. (See Figure 7.) This premise is further explained and

incorporated in a Memorandum of Understanding developed by USDA and the Task Force that is presented later. (See Appendix C.)

For meat & poultry from USDA plants

NO gray area with DRY TARE and Category A

sampling plans from H—133

Labeled Weight

a

Less than the labeled weight

4

Greater than the labeled weight

Out of Compliance In Compliance

(2) (1) Figure 7

80
Executive Committee

The Task Force agreed that dry tare is a convenient and efficient way to

test packages for net weight compliance. The use of wet tare (where only the solid portion is considered net weight; free-flowing liquid is tare), however, permits a jurisdiction to investigate whether good manufacturing and

good distribution practices are being followed. The Task Force, therefore, has sought to determine how large a gray area is reasonable for those juris- dictions that use wet tare tests on meat and poultry originating from Federally inspected plants. (See Figure 8.) For meat & poultry using WET TARE

Labeled Weight

ii

Less than the labeled weight

4

Out of Compliance

Greater than the labeled weight

In Compliance

Figure 8 Wet Tare and Poultry Data on poultry were provided to the Task Force and collected by Task

Force members. A large study on poultry was separately carried out by the

state of California. The California Study collected net weight, expiration

date, and package error information on all types of poultry, from USDA

inspected plants and store-packaged, for 2100 packages across the state. The

Task Force collected data on actual moisture loss on consumer-sized packages of chicken kept under ordinary supermarket storage conditions. Additional data were collected in California and by Task Force members, tracing

moisture loss through the distribution channels from a USDA inspected plant

to retail. Although the results have not yet been completely analyzed, some

preliminary conclusions can be drawn.

A substantial amount of moisture is lost from poultry during distribution because the poultry manufacturing process includes chilling in water. Poultry absorbs moisture during this chilling; under Federal regulations it is permitted to gain up to 8% added weight (added moisture). (See Figures 9 and 10

for two extremes from the Task Force study.) For ease of use in the field, the Task Force believes that one number defining the gray area for poultry

(wet tare) should be provided to encompass all cuts and styles of poultry

packages from Federally-inspected plants. From the data so far available, the Task Force believes that 2% after 24 hours from the time of pack may

be a reasonable figure to define the width of the gray area, with 1/2% per day added thereafter up to a maximum of 6%, disregarding the pull or expiration date thereafter. Looking at Figure 9, 2% may not seem large

enough for the beginning amount for a product such as chicken breasts. Additional data collected by Maryland and California Weights and Measures,

however, indicate that 2/3 or more of the moisture lost in 24 hours actually

is absorbed by the packaging material in the first hour from the time the

81
Executive Committee
Executive Committee

Figure 10

83
Executive Committee

poultry is placed in the package. The weights and measures members of the Task Force believe that this is part of the manufacturing process, not part

of distribution. Thus, a starting figure smaller than the moisture loss in 24 hours was selected to represent "reasonable" loss during distribution. The

gray area can be described as shown in Figure 11. Gray Area for POULTRY / WET TARE

from a Federal Plant

Less than the labeled weight

Out of Compliance

Labeled Weight

Greater than the

labeled weight

In Compliance

1/2 X per day Figure 11

Wet Tare and Meat

In August 1985, weights and measures officials collected a very small

amount of data on meat coming from Federally-inspected plants. The data

did not indicate that a gray area was needed for any of the tested products

(hot dogs, lunch meat, sausage, beef, and veal). The Task Force was subsequently provided data on some selected cuts of fresh meat kept under nor- mal supermarket display conditions. The latter data do not represent

products packaged and labeled at a Federally-inspected establishment and

therefore cannot be used in arriving at a figure to represent the gray area. Therefore, data from a pilot study (if the Executive Committee agrees to sponsor one) will be used to «irrive at reasonable figures for the gray area

(if any are needed) for meat packaged and labeled at a Federally-inspected

plant.

Gray Area lor MEAT / WET TARE

from a Federal Plant

(PILOT STUDY ONLY)

LABELED WEIGHT

Gray Area

iiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliijiSiSiiiiii^^

iiiijiiiiiiiiliiiijlPiiiijiiiH^^^^

'I

' Less than the labeled weight

In Compliance

Greater than the labeled weight

Figure 12

84
Executive Committee

During the pilot study, however, all package lots of meat from Federallyinspected plants, whose averages are less than the label using wet tare

tests, wiU have to be investigated as if they were in the gray area. As was the case for flour, the gray area for meat from Federally-inspected

plants, using wet tare tests, is not a tolerance. It is a specified shortage

that alerts the testing official to seek additional information before making

a final determination as to compliance or noncompliance. The Memorandum

of Understanding with USDA (to be discussed later) describes the protocol

that should be followed to gather some of this additional information.

The Role of the Packager

In each of the compliance testing models being developed for flour and for meat and poultry from Federally-inspected plants, the burden of proof re- mains on the packager as to whether the product legitimately has undergone

moisture loss. It remains the packager's prerogative to code-date his products (not all do) and to release that coded information to enforcement officials. The Task Force will obtain and disseminate this information for most

packagers of these products, through the assistance of the trade associations represented on the Task Force. In fact, the success of this enforcement

approach may weU depend on whether this information is widely available. The meat and poultry industries are also prepared to supply samples of their dry tare, updated as necessary (and/or average tare weights verifiable by

Federal inspectors), to be used by those jurisdictions that use dry tare test- ing in their net weight checks. In addition, contact names at the plant

level will be made available for follow up investigations.

It cannot be stressed enough that the gray area is an area for further

study. Many packagers can profit from the advice and assistance of regulatory officials concerning appropriate weighing equipment or quality control measures to avoid short weight package lots. Memorandum of Understanding

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been developed by USDA in concert with the Task Force (see Appendix C.) A formal agreement between USDA and a weights and measures jurisdiction, the MOU delineates the roles and responsibilities of each agency and stresses their concurrent

jurisdiction over meat and poultry packaged at a Federally-inspected plant.

The MOU spells out the protocol to follow and the assistance that USDA

can provide when a weights and measures official wants to gather further information at the plant level. If short weight is found (either by using the

dry tare/H-133 procedures in the field or by in-plant follow-ups when wet

tare methods are used), USDA will not appear as a friend of the packager in any court action. The weights and measures agency will be able to rely on

its concurrent jurisdiction with USDA in this area and will be able to pro- ceed on its own without the Federal Government appearing to oppose them.

Finding short weight at the time of pack is not likely, however, to result in product recall, a costly effort more suitable for safety and health problems.

USDA will try to resolve the problem in the plant so that short weight is not likely to recur.

85
Executive Committee

As evidence of USDA's strong desire to cooperate, the MOU has written into

it: o that weights and measures officials will be consulted regarding the weighing equipment, o that records of the servicing of the weighing equipment will be maintained, and

o that tare information will be verified by USDA to the extent necessary

so that weights and measures officials may have some confidence in the

printed tare weights supplied on bulk shipments of packaged poultry and some meats. The MOU points out that data concerning a particular lot code may only

rarely be available to USDA. However, the trade association representatives on the Task Force maintain that the plant quality control records will be

made available to weights and measures officials by all their members on a

request basis. The MOU is perceived as a good mechanism to achieve reciprocity between

weights and measures jurisdictions in the area of net weight control. A

jurisdiction can be confident that if it must call upon another agency in a

neighboring state to do in-plant investigations, the same test methods will be used. Further Work

The Task Force believes it necessary to conduct a pilot study to determine

whether the concept of a gray area is feasible as part of weights and measures enforcement programs. If the Executive Committee agrees with this recommendation, the Task Force will flesh out the standard operating procedures to be followed during a pilot study in compliance testing flour, or meat and poultry from Federally-inspected plants. As a result of the data

to be collected in the pilot study, the Task Force must arrive at final values to define the gray area for wet tare tests of meat packed at Federally-inspected plants.

The weights and measures representatives on the Task Force also wish to pursue the issue of moisture loss for bulk ice-packed poultry sent to retail- ers for repackaging into consumer-sized packages.

Some major questions have yet to be answered:

o How will any approach taken with meat, poultry, or flour affect other

packaged goods that may lose moisture?

The Task Force believes that the burden of proof will have to re- main on the packager or trade association to provide data and infor- mation supporting any request for a definition of the gray area.

86
Executive Committee

o How will any approach for packages produced in a USDA inspected plant affect store-packed meat and poultry?

The level of compliance remains as high in jurisdictions using wet

tare as in jurisdictions using dry tare. How has dry tare from Federally inspected plants affected the competitiveness of retailers required to deliver net weight on a wet

tare basis? The weights and measures members of the Task Force believe that

it is reasonable to expect full net weight while product is under the control of the packager. Therefore, store-packed meat and poultry

is expected to be full net weight, as is product when checked at any

packaging plant. o Exactly when does "distribution" begin?

Some Task Force members claim distribution starts when the product goes into the package. What about product that is retained for some period of time before the label goes on? Some Task Force members claim distribution starts when the label goes onto the package. What about product that is retained under

the control of the packager for some period before being shipped?

Weights and measures Task Force members claim that distribution starts when the product leaves the packaging plant. What about

product warehoused by the packager, as compared with product

transferred to a retailer and warehoused under the same conditions

for the same period of time?

o How much effort will be required to put the "gray area" approach into effect in the weights and measures enforcement community?

The Task Force believes that this approach will lead to enforcement

officieds testing flour, meat, and poultry packages that they have

previously avoided because of the ambiguities in dealing with short weight found at retail. pact study

Tne Task Force proposes to answer this last question by conducting a pilot

study. The pilot study will require greater effort on the part of participating jurisdictions than is envisioned under routine enforcement procedures to be eventually designed:

The pilot study will collect basic data on meat and meat products

from Federally-inspected plants.

A program to verify tare data cannot be established "overnight" at

all Federally-inspected plants.

87
Executive Committee

The question of which of three different types of "dry tare" is optimum will be investigated in the pilot study: actual samples of dry

tare, dry tare data from the plant, or reconstructed (cleaned and

dried) dry tare. The pilot study will collect additional moisture content information on flour that may only infrequently be collected during routine

inspection. Lot code information (knowing the date of pack) is key to making

the gray area concept workable. Some of this information will be

collected and distributed at the same time that the pilot study is conducted. This may result in more work on the part of pilot study

participants to get this information in a timely manner for compli- ance or enforcement actions. The Task Force will seek volunteer jurisdictions to follow the protocols to be provided and report back to the Task Force and the Executive Committee

their successes and problems in net weight package control for flour and

meat and poultry from Federally inspected plants. The Task Force members

believe that they can complete development of these protocols by the Annual Meeting (July 1986) and begin the pilot study in the fall. An interim

report should be available by the Interim Meetings of 1987. Recommendations to the Executive Committee

The Task Force requests that the Executive Committee endorse the concept

of the "Compliance Test Procedures for Products Subject to Moisture Loss** being developed. Furthermore, the Task Force requests that the Executive

Committee establish the pilot project to validate the feasibility of the con- cept in actual weights and measures enforcement activities.

88
Executive Committee

TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Richard L. Thompson, Chairman

Chief of Weights and Measures

Maryland Department of Agriculture Ms. Peggy Adams

Chief Sealer/Director

Bucks Co. Department of Consumer Protection

representing the consumers' interests Dr. Mahlon A. Burnette

Public Affairs Consultant

representing American Meat Institute Mr. Kenneth Butcher

Maryland Weights and Measures

representing Southern W<5cM Association Mr. Paul B. Engler

Director, Los Angeles Weights and Measures

representing Western W<5cM Association

Dr. Edward Heffron

Chief, Food Division Michigan Department of Agriculture

representing Northwestern (Central) W<5cM Association Mr. Tom Klevay

Vice President

Millers' National Federation

Mr. John McCutcheon

Asst. Deputy for Meat and Poultry Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Mr. Allan Nelson

Chief, Weights and Measures

Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection

representing Northeastern W&M Association Mr. Howard Pippin

Director, Division of Regulatory Guidance

Bureau of Foods, U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Mr. Stephen Pretanik

National Broiler Council

representing the poultry industry

Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp

National Bureau of Standards

89
Executive Committee

References

Flour C.A. Anker et»al., "A Study of the Net Weight Changes and Moisture Content of Wheat Flour at Various Relative Humidities", Cereal Chemistry, Vol. XIX, No. 1, January 1942

J.C. Warren, Division of Food Technology, FDA, "Quantity of Contents Compendium: Storage Study on Flour, Mixes and Cereals" R.D. Benson, "Prediction of Moisture Loss in Bagged Flour", 10 June 1985

Task Force on Commodity Requirements, "Flour Survey Progress Report,

December 2, 1985"

"First Report on the Task Force on Commodity Requirements", provided by

the state of California, November 25, 1985

Meat and Poultry

"Initial Report to CAWMO Subcommittee Regarding Net Weight Errors on Fresh Poultry Packages in California", updated November 25, 1985

D. Blackshear, Testimony to U.S. Department of Agriculture on 1977 net weight proposal

K. May, "Weight Loss of 'Dry' Packed and Chill Packed Chicken"

R. Hixon, Moisture loss data on poultry and fresh meats stored under normal

supermarket conditions, Safeway

Task Force on Commodity Requirements, Preliminary Report on Moisture

Loss from Poultry and Fresh Meat, December, 1985. Task Force on Commodity Requirements, Report on Moisture Loss from

Poultry from a Federally Inspected Plant, March, 1986.

90
Executive Committee

APPENDIX C

MODEL AGREEMENT BETWEEN A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

for the determination of net contents of

federally inspected meat and poultry products

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Between the FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

And the STATE OF

Or

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF

The Food Safety and Inspection Service and the State or Local Government

of hereby jointly agree to the following terms and conditions with

respect to the enforcement of certain provisions of the Federal Meat

Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act and State and local laws regulating net content labeling of meat and poultry products.

L PURPOSE

To permit full implementation of concurrent jurisdiction, as provided

by law, by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and State and local weights and measures agencies engaged in regulatory

functions concerning the declared net content of federally inspected

meat and poultry products. To maximize the exchange of net content information between FSIS and State and local agencies for the determination of label accuracy on federally inspected meat and

poultry products. To encourage the use of quality control programs

by establishments operating under Federal inspection, and to encourage

the use of quality control documentation by State and local agencies

in their regulatory programs.

91
Executive Committee

n. STATUTES RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT

Nothing in this agreement shall lessen the responsibilities of the Food

Safety and Inspection Service under the Federal Meat Inspection Act

or the Poultry Products Inspection Act, nor of the State and local agencies operating under their respective statutes. A. The Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture is primarily responsible for enforcing the Federal

Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Food Safety and

Inspection Service has inspectors stationed full time in large

meat and poultry establishments while one inspector on patrol

assignment will be responsible for daily visits to several smaller

establishments. In addition, FSIS has compliance personnel that conduct activities primarily outside of the establishment. The

sections of the Code of Federal Regulations that concern net content compliance are 9 CFR 317.2(h)(2) for meat and 9 CFR

381.121(c)(6) for poultry. FSIS net content inspection is accomplished by the FSIS inspector in the establishment through

observing the establishment's process control and by verifying the product's net contents by selecting and measuring samples

from lots of labeled product. Federally approved quality

/ control programs are establishment operated control procedures

for tare determination, sample selection, sample measuring,

recordkeeping, taking action when a production process goes out

of control, and taking action against noncomplying product.

The FSIS inspector monitors the application of the quality control program, evaluates records, and conducts verification sampling and measuring to determine continued Federal

acceptance of the establishment's quality control program and

the accuracy of its net content labeling on the establishment's

product.

B. State and local agencies have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and

the Poultry Products Inspection Act regarding net content

labeling of federally inspected meat and poultry products within

their geographic area, that are outside federally inspected

establishments. Also, State and local agencies may impose on

such establishments recordkeeping, access, and other

requirements within the scope of section 202 of the Federal

Meat Inspection Act and section 11(b) of the Poultry Products

Inspection Act. (See 21 U.S.C. 467 et^ se^ and 678). The

State and local agencies conduct unannounced evaluations at

sites other than at federally inspected establishments, of declared net contents on all products including federally

inspected meat and poultry products. The actions available to the State and local agencies vary depending upon their respective laws. However, typically. State and local agencies

may take one or more of the following actions whenever

noncompliant products are found: (1) Require noncompliant

products to be removed from the market; (2) Relabel to the

correct content; (3) Prepare documentation of findings and give

92
Executive Committee

it to the owner and/or producer of the product; (4) Contact

FSIS if it is federally inspected product; and (5) Pursue

regulatory action through the administrative or judicial system.

(Cite appropriate State and or local law(s) or regulations if desired).

nL SUBSTANCE OF AGREEMENTt A. The Food Safety and Inspection Service will:

1. Instruct all its processed food inspectors in the procedures that will be used when cooperating with the

State or local officials who are reviewing the records or control procedures, and in assisting State or local

officials in identifying the establishment personnel

responsible for reviewing establishment-maintained records

within the framework of this Memorandum of Understanding.

2. Inform the State and local officials who are reviewing

the records of the procedures if the establishment is operating under a federally approved Total or Partial Quality Control Program.

3. Assist State and local officials by making its records of the evaluation of tare weights and net contents of meat

and poultry products at any federally inspected

establishment available to State and local officials for those lots that they identify as well as any scale

records. With respect to any establishment operating

under a federally approved Quality Control Program, such

records will include: the date of the evaluation, the product evaluated, the code markings if any, the label used, the individual product contents in the sample, the range of measurements, the sample average, scale

records, and the inspector's signature.

4. Maintain a system for evaluating the verifying tare weights and will make its records available to State and

local officials.

5. Be responsible for monitoring the accuracy and suitability of scales in federally inspected establishments used to

establish the net content of federally inspected meat and

poultry products. FSIS will require the scales to be

maintained in accordance with the requirements set forth

in the current edition of the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44.

6. Maintain its role as exclusive authority for net content

of packages at federally inspected establishments while

cooperating with the State and local authorities.

93
7. Review the records and its decisions in the event of a disagreement by State and local officials over net contents of federally inspected meat and poultry

products. The FSIS personnel to settle such

disagreements will be the Regional Director of the region

in which the federally inspected establishment is located. The Inspector-in-charge at the plant will be responsible

for arranging an appeal to the Regional Director. In the event agreement is not reached in the regional meeting,

the disagreement can be appealed to the Administrator,

FSIS.

8. Define specific sampling procedures for determining the compliance of a lot of meat or poultry products; at sites other than official meat and poultry establishments.

These are defined as Category A Sampling Procedures in the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 133, Second

Edition.

9. Agree to support the action of the State or local official

if the actions are in agreement with the procedures in this Memorandum of Understanding, including the procedure in Annex A.

States and local agencies will:

1. Instruct its officials to use only those statistical methods

defined by FSIS for determining the compliance of a FSIS

inspected and passed production lot, but examined at the

site other than the official establishment. These are defined as Category A Sampling Procedures in the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 133, Second

Edition.

2. Instruct its officials to take action on lots of products

outside of the Federal establishment only if in agreement

with the contents of this Memorandum of Understanding,

including the procedure in Annex A.

3. Instruct its officials when using dry tare and when a lot of a product is out of compliance to proceed with

whatever action is appropriate. (However, the weights

and measures agency is encouraged to contact the FSIS

Inspector-in-charge at the producing establishment to determine if additional information is available.) When

using the wet tare procedure and the product (lot) value

is within the "no decision area" as defined in Annex A,

additional information is required. This information is to be obtained by contacting the FSIS Inspector-in-charge at the producing establishment. If the product (lot) value is less than the "no decision area" as defined in Annex A,

the State or local official is instructed to proceed with

whatever action is appropriate.

94
Executive Committee

4. Instruct its officials to contact the FSIS

Inspector-in-charge prior to entering the establishment to determine what information is available at that establishment, e.g., additional lot information, scale programs, total or partial quality control programs, etc. A current FSIS Directory of official establishments is maintained at the FSIS regional offices: Western Regional Office

620 Central Avenue, Bldg. 2C

Alameda, CA 94501

(415) 273-7402

Southwestern Regional Office

1100 Commerce Street

Dallas, TX 75242

(214) 767-9116

North Central Regional Office

607 E. Second Street Des Moines, lA 50309

(515) 284-4042

Southeastern Regional Office

1718 Peachtree Street, N.W.

Atlanta, GA 30309

(404) 881-3911

Northeastern Regional Office 1421 Cherry St., 7th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

(215) 597-4217

5. Instruct its officials in the event that they wish to visit the establishment to provide to the FSIS Inspector-in-charge in writing a statement of the purpose of the visit, the

identifications of lots of products that include the sampling,

tare, and compliance procedures used for the lots that they

believe to be suspect due to low net contents; in addition to providing the plant management with the same information.

6. Provide independent authority for its officials to enter a

federally inspected establishment in order to review records of

net contents of federally inspected products, to examine scales and service records for accuracy and suitability as defined by

the current edition of National Bureau of Standards Handbook

44, and to discuss results of their review, examinations, and

recommendations with FSIS inspection personnel.

7. Instruct its officials to determine what tare and net content

records are needed from FSIS Records for the suspect lots. These FSIS records may be copied, distributed, and removed

from the establishment.

95
Executive Committee

8. Instruct its officials to ask to review establishment-maintained

net content records and to recognize that the information on

the establishment operation and the specifics of the approved

Total or Partial Quality Control Program are proprietary

information and are not for copying, distribution, or removal

from the site without permission of the Producer's establishment manager. An establishment that is not operating

under an approved net content Quality Control Program is not

required to share their net content records with FSIS personnel.

Such information may be reviewed, copied, distributed, and

removed from the plant site only with the permission of the

producer's establishment manager.

9. In those situations where the State or local official and FSIS

Inspector-in-charge disagree on what action to take, agree to

direct the disagreement in writing to the FSIS Regional director

in whose region the establishment is located. In the event agreement is not reached in the regional meeting, the disagreement can be appealed to the Administrator, FSIS by the

State or local official. IV. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

Food Safety and Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

14th and Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250

State of

orLocal Government of

V. LIAISON OFFICERS;

Deputy Administrator

Meat and Poultry Inspection Technical Services

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Director

Weights and Measures

VI. PERIOD OF AGREEMENT; This Agreement, when accepted by both parties, covers an indefinite period of time and may be modified by mutual consent of both

parties or terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written

notice to the other party.

APPROVED AND ACCEPTED

FOR THE

FOOD SAFETY AND

INSPECTION SERVICE

APPROVED AND ACCEPTED

FOR THE

STATE OF

OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF

96
Executive Committee

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

ANNEX A

to the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

DEFINITION AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE LOT COMPLIANCE

97
Executive Committee

SAMPLING PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE LOT COMPLIANCE

The following conditions specify what procedures State and local officials are

to use in determining net content compliance of products for meat and

poultry Federal regulations:

1. General Requirements

For the purpose of this document a lot is defined two ways. One covers sampling in the official USDA establishment that produces the product and the other covers sampling at sites other than in the official USDA establishment: o In official Establishments. Lot means one type and

style of product, produced during a period not to exceed

one production shift and bearing the same net content statement; except that random weight packages may have

differing net weight statements. o Sites other than official establishments. Lot means one

type and style of product produced by one plant and

bearing identical labeling (including the same net content statement) and available for inspection at one place at one time; except that random weight packages may have

differing net content statements. The first decision the official will have to make is which tare system will be used. The two systems are dry tare and wet

tare. The decision on which tare to use is based on the State and local agency's policies, the difficulty of using each system

at the particular sampling site, and any other factors that the

official may consider important at the time.

n. Dry Tare There are two ways that the official can obtain dry tare estimates for the sample calculations when the sample is being

evaluated at sites other than the official establishment that produced the product or lot. Either the tare values can be

supplied to the inspector or the official must calculate the

value: Use of information that is made available to the State or local

official: o When the tare weight of the packaging material is declared on/or included with the package, it may be used

to determine net weight by deducting the declared tare from the gross weight.

This method requires FSIS inspection activity to assure accurate labeling for tare declaration as well as net weight declaration. Tare should be reported (in pounds)

98
Executive Committee

to three decimal places or always rounded up to two

decimal places. For example 0.023 lb will be rounded to 0.03 lb. o When representative tare materials are available, they may

be used to counterbalance the scale to deduct from the

gross weight.

Direct measurement by the State or local official of used tare

materials: o Product packaged in impervious material. The packaging

material may be wiped dry and weighed or counterbalanced on the scale. Each sample net weight

may be determined by the tare for the individual sample

or a random selection of a specified number of tare weights may be taken to determined the average tare weight to be deducted from each gross weight to

establish the net weight. o Product in absorptive material. The packaging material

may be dried to determine tare weight. Procedures used

in the method for products packaged in impervious

materials also are used here. The statistical procedure to be used with the dry tare system

is the one defined as Category A Sampling Procedures in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 133, Second Edition. Also Table 2-12 (from the USDA Manual) from the same

handbook is to be used for determining lower limits for individual package values.

If the product (lot) passes the test, no further action needs to be taken. If the product fails the test, then the State or local

official may follow any customary compliance action. However, FSIS recommends that the official first contact the FSIS Inspector-in-charge at the producing establishment to determine if any additional material or information is available.

Wet Tare System

Definition of Wet Tare that is to be used when a compliance test

is to be conducted at sites other than inplant: o Net content is determined by weighing the solid portion

of the product. Free liquid in a package is considered a

part of tare.

99
Executive Committee

WET TARE

Declared

no

decIs o

. 3 .;

-\ . . n

(3)

+

Figure 1 Diagram of the Wet Tare System Results

The wet tare system results are depicted in Figure 1. Compliance is determined by the following states:

1. Product (Lot) passes if sample average is equal to or greater

than declared weight.^

2. Product (Lot) fails if sample average is less than declared

weight minus "No Decision Area."

3. "No Decision Area" requires additional information before

product (Lot) can be failed. This information is to be obtained

by contacting the Food Safety aiid Inspection service

Inspector-In-Charge in the plant that produced the product as defined in Section IIIB of this Memorandum of Understanding.

^If individual weight is less than the values in Table 2-12, Handbook 133 (from USDA manual), then the product (lot) fails regardless of the sample

average.

100
Executive Committee

Table 2-12. U.S. Departaent of Agriculture, Meat and Poultry,

Groups and Lower Liaita for indlTidual packagea

Definition of Group (numbers are labeled weight in ounces)

Group

Naee Homogeneous

,

Fluid wnen rilled

All Other

Products

Lower Limit for Individual Weights

A less than 3 10 % of labeled weight

1 3-16 7.1 I.I Ko 0.25 oz 8/32 oz

1/16 oz

2/10 oz

2/8 oz

1/1 oz

2 over 16 3-7 11.2 g 0.50 oz

16/32 oz

8/1 6 oz

5/10 oz

1/8 oz

2/1 oz

3 over 7 to 18 28.3 g

1 oz

4 over 18 to 160 12.5 g 1.50 oz

1 16/32 oz

1 8/16 oz

1 5/10 oz

1 1/8 oz

1 2/1 oz

5 1 over 160 2 oz

1/1 lb

101
Executive Committee

APPENDIX D

REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The Task Force met in Sacramento, California for a one-day meeting on

April 17, 1986, and also on Sunday afternoon prior to the 71st annual

meeting of the NCWM. As a consequence of the April meeting, the Task

Force focused its activities in two areas. One activity was to pursue development of a weights and measures

"electronic bulletin board". It was felt that this project could, if successful,

provide both short- and long-term benefits to the Conference membership.

Short term benefits would include:

a. an immediate demonstration of practical, computer-based

communications between the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) and the jurisdictions;

b. providing an enhanced system for rapid transmission of messages between the Conference leadership and OWM

irrespective of time zones, office hours kept, etc.; and

c. an opportunity for jurisdictions to both send and receive timely

information concerning weights and measures subjects of general or specific interest. Long-term benefits of the bulletin board could include:

a. a means of rapidly sharing significant field inspection data

among interested jurisdictions both regionally or nationally;

b. an expanded capability of the Conference membership to communicate with the Office of Weights and Measures in all subject areas ranging from the Laboratory Auditing Program to handbook updates, training schedules, and useful software

programs; and

c. a time-saving method for communicating, reviewing, and signing off on NCWM committee draft reports, documents, or other

Conference business. The Task Force is pleased to report that through the efforts of our OWM

staff advisor, Karl Newell, and the Office of Weights and Measures, the

weights and measures "electronic bulletin board" project was successful. The

"board" is on line. This "board," called WAMIS (Weights And Measures

Information System), is accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by

telephone from any member's jurisdiction or member's home equipped with a computer and modem. Use of this system is currently not restricted. It is expected that passwords will later be necessary to access or down-load

102
Executive Committee

certain information. This system is primarily designed for use by members

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. A full description of the WAMIS "bulletin board" system will be available in August 1986. The second project of the Task Force, as identified at the April, 1986,

meeting, was to develop a model format for the exchange between

jurisdictions in electronic form of inspection record data pertaining to standard pack packaged products. The Task Force has since concluded this project was premature and has, instead, chosen to approach the needs of the

jurisdictions in computerization from several different directions. A primary

tool of the Task Force in its redirected effort to assist the jurisdictions will be use of the WAMIS electronic bulletin board. To facilitate use of WAMIS by Conference members, all members should read and become familiar with the WAMIS USERS GUIDE. If your

jurisdiction has (or has access to) a computer and modem with appropriate

communications software, please inform Karl Newell of the NBS-OWM staff. Then, with the appropriate WAMIS telephone number and your presently

self-selected password, you can dial up and log on as a "board" user. The

bulletin service, messaging and communications (including conferencing)

capabilities of the system, are currently "up" and available to all users. As member jurisdictions gain familiarity with the WAMIS "board", new uses

will emerge. The Task Force specifically encourages members to submit, in whatever format is convenient to them, data on results of inspections of noncomplying lots of standard pack packaged products encountered in their

jurisdictions. This information will assist other jurisdictions seeking to

identify problem areas they may wish to look into, and will also assist the Task Force as it seeks to recommend useful minimum standards for the exchange of inspection data electronically.

Other areas of activity for the Task Force on Information Systems during

the coming year include:

a. developing listings in WAMIS of current weights and measures

software applications programs in use by various jurisdictions.

Such listings might include categorization by type (laboratory

area, device inspection, package inspection, etc.), computer

language and operating system, file storage requirements,

reporting capabilities, etc.;

b. studying possible changes in the way the WAMIS is accessed so that members who are geographically remote do not have to consistently bear the highest charges (telephone tolls) to connect with the system based in Gaithersburg, Maryland; and

103
Executive Committee

c. studying the security needs of WAMIS as its popularity and use

increases. This includes the possible need for a verifiable,

NCWM-based password system and related measures to minimize

the likelihood of unauthorized access to the board and the

information on it. The Task Force thanks the Conference members who have assisted with the work undertaken so far and seeks the continuing interest, input and support

from all those who desire to use computers effectively as tools in weights

and measures work.

K. J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman

J. F. Lyles, Virginia

J. Rothleder, California G. W. Hanson, San Bernadino County, California R. Bruce, Canada

K. G. Newell, NBS, Staff Advisor

104
Executive Committee

APPENDIX E

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

Policy and Procedures

Adopted at the 69th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Revised at the 70th Annual Meeting.

Revised at the 71st Annual Meeting.

Notes:

This revision is proposed by the Executive Committee, sitting as the Board of Governors at the January 1986 Interim Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. It includes rearrangement of contents and revised and new lan- guage to clarify and/or extend policy and procedures based on

the recommendations of the Technical Committees, the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, and other comments made to the Executive Committee.

Rearrangements of Sections are explained in parentheses at the beginning of the rearranged Sections. Material to be deleted is efessed-thpeagh

Material to be added is underlined.

105
Executive Committee

CONTENTS

A. Definitions

B. The Type Evaluation Process

C. Administration of the Program

D. Request for Evaluation

E. Steps in the Type Evaluation Process

F. Extent of Evaluation

G. Kinds of Type Evaluation H. What Constitutes a Different Type

I. What Constitutes a Modified Type

T Considerations Preceding Evaluation

K. Applicants for Evaluation

L. Period of Validity of Approval M. Results of Evaluation

N. Certificate of Conformance

0. Letter of Nonconformance

P. Appeal Process

Q. Distribution of Outputs of Evaluation R. References to NTEP Activities(added at the 70th Annual Meeting)

106
Executive Committee

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

A.Gr DEFINITIONS

(Section C was moved to the beginning and relabeled as Section A to define terms used prior to their use in the text; the text was edited to clarify definitions)

1. "NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM"

A program of cooperation between the National Bureau of Standards, the National Conference on Weights and Measures, the states, and

the private sector for determining, on a uniform basis, conformance

of a type of device with the relevant provisions of: National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, "Specifications,

Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing

and Measuring Devices";

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-1, "Specifications

and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard

Weights and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NBS Class F)"; National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-2, "Specifications

and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard

Weights and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Measuring Flasks"; or National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-3, "Specifications

and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard

Weights and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards".

2. "TYPE EVALUATION"

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

of device by a Participating Laboratory under the National Type

Evaluation Program.

3. "TYPE"

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

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

specific type may vary in its measurement ranges, size, performance, and operating characteristics as specified in the Certificate of Conformance.

107
Executive Committee

4. "PARTICIPATING LABORATORY"

The National Bureau of Standards, or a Federal or a State Measure- ment Laboratory tha% has been certified by the National Bureau of

Standards, in accordance with its program for the Certification of Capability of State Measurement Laboratories, to conduct a type

evaluation under the National Type Evaluation Program.

5. "CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE"

A document issued by the National Bureau of Standards based on

testing in by Participating Laboratories, said document constituting

evidence of conformance of a type with the requirements of National Bureau of Standards Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2, or 105-3.

6. "DIRECTOR"

The Director means the of the Department of

B.At TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS

(Section A relabeled Section B)

The "type evaluation process" follows a sequence of major steps:

- Request for type evaluation

- Decision to accept or reject the request to conduct evaluation

- Assignment of Participating Laboratory

- Decision on extent of evaluation necessary

- Conduct of the type evaluation

- Evaluation of the type evaluation results

- Preparation of the type evaluation report

- Decision on conformance or nonconformance

- Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance or letter of non- conformance

108
Executive Committee

C. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM

(A new Section C is added to define organizational responsibilities)

The National Type Evaluation Program is operated by the following or- ganizations.

1. Board of Governors. The Executive Committee operates as the NTEP Board of Governors

and is responsible for the operation of the program including the establishment of policy and procedures, and the resolution of technical issues (see Bylaws, Article V, Section EY.

2. NTEP Advisory Committee.

The NTEP Advisory Committee is composed of Associate Members

of the NCWM appointed by the NCWM Chairman to represent the

interests of industry in advising the Board of Governors (see Bylaws,

Article V, Section 5).

3. Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation.

The Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation includes the NTEP Advisory Committee plus Active Members of the NCWM appointed by the NCWM Chairman and is responsible for the development of test criteria and procedures for use by the Participating

Laboratories in the evaluation process.

4. The National Bureau of Standards. The NBS Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) provides;

a. technical and administrative support to the National Type

Evaluation Program, (see NBS SP 250 Appendix, November

1985, page 37); and

b. the Secretariat for the National Conference on Weights

and Measures (see NBS SP 250, 1982 Edition, Chapter X.H.K

In these roles, the OWM;

G. administers the Program including the receipt, review, and

recording of the requests for evaluations;

d. assigns the responsibility for evaluations to Participating

Laboratory and maintains records to provide knowledge of the progress of the evaluations;

e. evaluates the qualifications of potential Participating Laboatories and issues Certificate of Authorization to those complying (see NBS Handbook 143, Part n for criteria);

109
Executive Committee

f. functions as a Participating Laboratory;

g. reviews Reports of Tests prepared by Participating Lat>oratories and makes decisions regarding compliance of the tested devices with NBS Handbook 44, and issues the Certificates

of Conformance or Letters of Nonconformance; and

h. maintains records of Certificates of Conformance issued and updates composite record annually, D. REQUEST FOR TYPE EVALUATION

(A new Section D is added to describe procedure for requesting type evaluation)

To obtain a type evaluation;

1. address a letter requesting the evaluation and authorizing the bill- ing of all costs to National Type Evaluation Program

c/o National Conference on Weights and Measures,

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

2. attach the appropriate Application Form (see draft NBS Handbook

144), giving the requested description of the device, including its operating characteristics and instructions, its intended application,

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

3. following acknowledgement of request by OWM, ship the device

intact and ready for evaluation to the assigned testing location (if special installation arrangements are required, they must be made

by the requestor prior to the time of evaluation).

The Certificate of Conformance provides the evidence to be used by the

Director for permission to sell those devices that have been manufactured

to replicate the approved devices. Applicants for evaluation are, therefore, implying that the instruments later sold will be manufactured

to replicate the approved device. The applicant must be, therefore, the manufacturer himself or a representative properly authorized by him for purposes of evaluation requests.

Examples of potential applicant for evaluation are:

1. the manufacturer, including assemblers of systems comprised of

subsystems produced by various manufacturers

2. manufacturer's sales representatives

110
Executive Committee

E.Bt steps in the "bEGAb METR9beG¥ eeNTRSL SYSTEM°*TYPE

EVALUATION PROCESS

(Section B was relabeled Section E and expanded to provide more detailed

policy regarding pre-evaluation decisions)

The type evaluation process is the first step of regulatory involvement in the legal metrology control system.

1. Classes Accepted and Conditions for Evaluation.

Devices intended for use as Class I, II, III, or IIIL will be accepted

for type evaluation providing;

a. test criteria and procedures are contained in NBS Handbook

144 (see special provisions for exceptions); and

b. facilities are available to conduct the evaluation, (see options available to Participating Laboratoriei?7

2. Initiation of Evaluation Process. GemmeniyT The type evaluation process is initiated when a manufacturer with an established manufacturing process submits

production line instruments for type evaluation. Similarly, an importer submits the device he plans to import for evaluation (see

Section D). A manufacturer will normally submit a prototype device for evaluation before establishing an assembly line. (In some instances, a manufacturer may confer even earlier in the design stages, making

use of drawings, schematics, etc.) It is not anticipated that a production unit will be tested under NTEP unless the manufacturer

submits such a unit. (Production units are also subject to initial and

periodic inspection by state and local officials.)

3. Manufacturers Options.

(This paragraph was moved from former Section J.3. "Choice of Testing Laboratory)

Normally, the manufacturer may select the testing Participating

Laboratory preferred. Usually, the choice is based on location. Cooperation between the manufacturer and NTEP will be advantageous. NTEP will try to honor the request. If another Participating Laboratory could conduct the evaluation sooner, the manufacturer will be

given the opportunity to change the request. NTEP has the final authority to assign the testing Participating Laboratory.

*See "An SMA Reeemmendatien #ef a tegai Metfeiegy eentfoi System-^

NBS-Speeifti-PHbHeatien- 8 1) Sy-pages- 6 4-8 ?T111
Executive Committee

4» Participating Laboratories - Options.

(This paragraph was expanded to describe NTEP policy regarding

options available to Participating Laboratories)

It is anticipated that the type evaluation process normally will be

conducted in-a«^h©i4zed Participating Laboratories.

a. NTEP Policy to Minimize Program Cost A policy of the NTEP is to minimize the cost of the Program

to all parties. In some circumstances, testing in other

laboratories might be warranted as long as the testing is under the supervision of the representative(s) of an authofffied Participating Laboratory. Laboratory facilities that the

Participating Laboratories may consider using to augment their own capability include those belonging to:

(1) device manufacturers;

(2) independent testing organizations; and

(3) other Federal or state government agencies.

b. Pre-evaluation Considerations.

The Participating Laboratories should consider the following

before proceeding with an fuU evaluation;

(1) availability and credibility of test data provided by

the manufacturer as evidence of conformity of the type (or main elements/components) to Handbook 44; such test data must be equivalent to that which would

be produced by a Participating Laboratory; and/or

(2) availability of manufacturer or third party facilities

in the absence of needed facilities in, or to augment

facilities of, the Participating Laboratory.

(3) the type applies new technology with which NTEP

has not dealt before, and/or the Participating Laboratories lacks the facilities or knowledge necessary to carry

out some of the required evaluations.

(4) The type is not portable and must be assembled at a

user site in which case at least part of the evaluation must take place in situ. Different aspects of a given

evaluation can be carried out at different sites for convenience, such as at the factory, in a laboratory,

' and at a user location.

112
Executive Committee

c. Evaluation of Production Device.

If a production device is submitted to the NTEP for evaluation, the evaluation effort might be substantially less if the laboratory has had preliminary data about the performance of the device, especially if new technology or concepts are being

used.

5. Safeguarding Proprietory Information.

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

Laboratories) often becomes privy to proprietory information related

to the device, manufacturing techniques, etc. These agencies are bound to protect this information and must carefully limit access to

it, or to data concerning the type generated by these agencies, to properly authorized organizations or individuals, e.g., the applicant or the manufacturer only.

F. Br EXTENT OF EVALUATION

(Section D relabeled as Section F and expandpd to describe the conditions

for limiting the testing for full evaluation)

The extent of type evaluation includes Full and Provisional •» as follows.

1. FULL TYPE EVALUATION

In general, the type evaluation must be fegafded as full or complete

despite the Tact that any type is subject to a variety of conditions

that may justify limi ting the scope of the evaluation.

a. Conditions for Limiting Evaluation.

The Possible conditions for which the evaluation might be

limited yet result in a full ef approval afe-many-and include:

(1) restricted application of the type device;

( 2 ) size or configuration;

(3) evidence that performance of the type is not af- fected by certain factors;

(4) prior approval of main elements and/or components;

(5) requirements concerning installation, safeguarding,

maintenance, recalibration; and

(6) evidence of approval by an O.I.M.L. member country

whose program is recognized by the Board of Governors.

113
Executive Committee

b. Restricted Application.

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

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

c. Size or Configuration.

Types of capacity exceeding 2000 pounds fall into this cate- gory because of the inability to test the type as a single entity for conformance under the effects of influence lactors due its size. In such cases, NTEP will consider the successful evaluation of the main elements and components as a full type evaluation.

Certificates of Certification wlill be issued for type indicating and weighing elements and Reports of Test will be issued

for type load cells meeting the performance requirements of Handbook 44 (including the influence factors). The following

procedure will be followed:

(1) indicating elements will be evaluated in an environmental chamber with a load cell or load cell simulator

located outside the chamber;

(2) weighing elements will be tested with individual load cells mounted in a test rig equipped with a tem- perature chamber;

(3) when tested for influence factors, load cells may

be tested one of two ways (NTEP will not accept test results in which a load cell is used as a transfer stan- dard - dead weights must be used);

(a) if the load cell is to be used in a system as the only load cell, it must meet 0.7 of the applied tolerance;

(b) if the load cell is be used in multiple load

cell systems, two cells should be submitted and

both must meet the applied tolerance.

d. Not Affected by Certain Factors.

If evidence confirms that the performance of a type is not affected by selected or all influence factors, the NTEP will waive requirements to apply related tests.

(1) The following exemptions from testing are recognized by NTEPt

114
Executive Committee

(a) electrostatic discharge - the device will fail to function precluding weighing problems;

(b) spikes and bursts - not a Handbook 44 re- quirement;

(c) barometric pressure (other than hydraulic and

canister load cells)]"

(d) beam/lever scales; and

(e) all influence factors for types or their main

elements and components which will be used

only in locations where the operating environ- ments are controlled for temperature and humidity (providing that the humidity is maintained

below 85 %.

(2) The following testing will be limited;

(a) voltage tests will be conducted over a range

of voltages as currently conducted for AC and

DC.

e. Prior Approval of Elements/Components.

NTEP may waive the requirement to evaluate a type (of any

capacity), all of whose main elements and components have

been evaluated under NTEP and received Certificates of Conformance or Reports of Test in the case of load cells.

f. Approval by an OIML Member Country.

(See Section G.4.) NTEP may waive the requirement to eval- uate a type, or individual main elements or components,

which have been approved by an OIML member country whose

program has been accepted by the NTEP.

g. Permanance Test.

In those cases where a permanance field test is required

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

2. PROVISIONAL EVALUATION

Under some circumstances, a type may be approved for legal use before full evaluation has been completed. Such an approval is re- ferred to as provisional.

115
Executive Committee

In accepting GMtR^g el provisional approval, the manufacturer

shall agree ^-qttalificd in writing a^ that the Provisional approval will be granted with the understanding that further evaluation wiU take place before fuU

approval can be considered; and

b^ that existing copies of the type the manalaetui^ will be

modified or retro fit ed if required.

Use of the Provisional Evaluation will be minimized, and will be

subject to authorization by the Board of Governors. Provisionalevftiua^R approval may, for example, be granted after only partial or limited evaluation when an urgent need for use of the device exists, and the NTEP is temporarily unable to carry out a complete evaluation.

g.Et kinds of type evaluation

(Section E relabeled Section G)

The kinds of type evaluation diseussed in this seetien are distinguished

from each other primarily by the reason for the evaluation, and will m

tttfn eait l©f require att ef seteeted pertiens el the evaluation procedure

to be followed. They are; eaR-be-eategewaed-as-leiiewsT

1. INITIAL EVALUATION

Initial evaluation is one of a device not previously evaluated under

the NTEP. While this will often be a complete evaluation, previous

experience with the manufacturer or with similar types ©I inatpu

rnents may indicate that only a partiai ef a limited evaluation will suffice.

2. REEVALUATION

NTEP may, for good reason, decide to reevsiluate a type that it has

previously evaluated. Such a type may or may not have previously

been approved. Reevaluation of a type is considered only for cause; that is, when:

a. new regulations are issued or,

b. new, important information concerning the type or its evaluation becomes known.

Reevaluation may result in issuance of a certificate of conformance,

letter of non-conformance, an amendment of the previous certifi- cate, or withdrawal of the certificate.

116
Executive Committee

3. AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

A type with a currently valid certificate of conformance may be

evaluated in order to extend application of the type. Such an extension might, for example, be requested to recognize a change in the range of the measured quantity or lof the kind of commodities

that may be measured.

In most such cases, evaluation to determine the validity of the amendment wiU be sufficient; that is, the evaluation(s) will not go

through the entire check list, but will test through the entire range

of performance.

4. EVALUATION OF A TYPE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY

PRE-NTEP JURISDICTION

A type that has already been approved in one or more jurisdictions

may be submitted for evaluation under NTEP.

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

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

case, an NTEP Certificate of Conformance will be issued without

formal testing.

The NTEP may accept data obtained in or conclusions drawn from

prior evaluation. The NTEP may conclude that partiett ef limited evaluation will suffice to check for differences in the requirements of the testing ju- risdiction and NTEP.

Prior to an NTEP evaluation, the report of the previous evaluation

and regulations under which the prior evaluation was made will be

examined, and a decision will be made to what extent the former

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

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

and reputation for competence of the pre-NTEP jurisdiction.

5. EVALUATION OF A TYPE NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

Many devices in use have never undergone type evaluation either at the NBS or by a state. In such cases, request for evaluation under

NTEP is at the option of the manufacturer.

It is possible that some such devices would not meet the requirements of the NTEP; however the assumption is made that all devices

in use meet the requirements of Handbook 44 since they have undergone testing in ^he jwiadiction ©I the state(s) in which they are

installed. The NTEP has no authority to change the status quo in these instances, even if inequities appear to exist.

117
Executive Committee

6. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES

(This Section is modified significantly in order to clarify the procedures to be followed in the development of new test criteria and/or

procedures)

Type evaluation often deals with innovation and the application of new technology. It is anticipated, therefore, that the NTEP will encounter features to be tested for which no criteria or procedures

have been developed.

In such cases:

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

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

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

NTEP Technical Subcommittee either by letter ballot, regularly

scheduled meeting, or at a specially called meeting, depending

on the complexity or sensitivity of the material;

c. that material accepted by the Technical Committee will be

introduced into the normal NCWM process:

(1) if changes are required in NBS Handbook 44, through

the S <5c T Committee and subsequently submitted to the Executive Committee (Board of Governors), and to the NCWM membership for adoption of the changes in Handbook 44 and of the test criteria and procedures as

part of the NTEP Handbook on Criteria and Procedures.

(2) if no changes are required in NBS Handbook 44,

through the Executive Committee (Board of Governors),

and to the NCWM membership for adoption of the test

criteria and procedures as part of the NTEP Handbook

on Criteria and Procedures.

(3) Pending completion of the administrative process, TaT and/or (b), the NTEP will issue a provisional Certificate of Conformance (provided the device meets the requirements of the proposed criteria and/or test procedures).

It is conceivable that a new feature or technology incorporated in the device being evaluated might not meet current NTEP require- ments but is appropriate for its intended commercial use. In such a

case, the NTEP can WAIVE or ALTER what is current practice, and

issue a Provisional Certificate of Conformance pending adoption of the change(s) by the NCWM process.

118
Executive Committee

If there is an NTEP consensus on the recommended criteria and

procedures, AND the device meets the new requirements, the fol- low-up process is administrative. If no consensus can be reached on

the criteria or procedures, but the device meets the requirements as proposed by the NBS and Participating Laboratories, a provisional

approval will be issued. If more demanding criteria or procedures are subsequently proposed and adopted, the device will be tested under

these criteria or procedures.

The costs associated with the development, testing, and adoption of the new criteria and procedures will be absorbed by the NTEP

program.

H.Ft what constitutes a "DIFFERENT" TYPE?

(Section F relabeled Section H and edited to improve understanding)

When two types (of a single manufacturer) are very much alike, a decision must be made whether one or two separate evaluation processes must

be followed. Guidelines intended to help with such decisions follow.

1. SUPERFICIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEVICES

Different types produced by a particular manufacturer that are identical in design, materials and components used, and measurement

ranges, but that differ superficially in their enclosure, detailed size,

color, or location of non-metrological appointments (liashef function

lights, display location, buHen operational key locations, etc.) can

normally be regarded as being of the same type and covered by a

single evaluation.

2. COMPONENT VARIATIONS

Types produced by a particular manufacturer with nominally identical components or materials that have been procured from different

suppliers, can usually be regarded as the same type. They and will be covered by a single evaluation if the different components or materials are not expected ean be to affect the regulated metrological characteristics, reliability, or life of the devices.

If When substitution of such components or materials may affect the

characteristics, etc., separate evaluations may be required.

I. Gt what constitutes a "MODIFIED" TYPE

(Section G relabeled Section I) When a manufacturer makes changes related to an approved type, evaluation of the modification may be necessary. A type is considered

MODIFIED if change is made that alters some metrological or technical

characteristic.

119
Executive Committee

j.Ht considerations preceding evaluation

(Section H relabeled Section J) Certain considerations that are not part of the type evaluation process

itself and that must precede it are discussed in the following paragraphs.

1. REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCESS

Reasons for initiating evaluation are listed below.

a. new type

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

c. new application of an evaluated device

d. modification of an approved device

e. previous rejection or withdrawal of certificate of confor-

^ mance coupled with newly presented facts concerning the

device, improvements to the device, or a change in regulations.

2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTING OCCURENCE OF MODIFICATIONS

The manufacturer is responsible for reporting changes that might

require the attention of the NTEP; the decision to report must be

dictated by the significance of the modification. Admittedly, the manufacturer wiU have to cope with the consequences in the marketplace if he decides that the modification is not of any

significance and, in fact, it does prove to be significant. When

reporting a change, the manufacturer shall follow either (a) or (b) below:

a. Notification of Change.

The manufacturer notifies the NTEP that a change has been

made or is contemplated for an approved device. On the basis of the notification, the NTEP will decide whether to take no

further action, issue an approval of a modification, or issue a new approval. NTEP will inform the manufacturer accordingly.

b. Request for Acceptance of Modification.

The manufacturer may make judgments concerning the modification and request issuance of an approval of a modification

by citing the existing approval, detailing the changes, and

giving any data, analysis, and conclusions concerning the

technical or metrological consequences of the changes. Before

taking further action, the NTEP will review the request to confirm the manufacturer's judgment in deciding to request

approval of a modification as opposed to requesting a new

evaluation. 120
Executive Committee

(The following Section was eliminated and its language was incorporated in Section E.3.) dT-eHei€E-0F-TBSTtNG-tAB0RATeR¥

Nefmattyr ^he manalaetufef may seieet the tes^g tabefatefy pfe-

^M^dT—Usbiatty-the-ehetee-is-expeeted-^-be-based-en-leea^nr

NTEP wiH: ^y ^ hener the fequestr U anethep fcabefatefy eetrid eenduet the evaiaatien seenefy the manalaetufef witt be given the

eppertbiPttty te change the pe^best? NTEP has the ^ai autherity t© assign-the-testiftg-tabefateryT

When new teehnologics ape applied t© devices ep when the NTEP is #aeed with evaiaating eategepies ©# devices with which it has net

deait ppevieasiyT it may #ifld that it iaeks the facilities ©p knewiedge

neeessapy t© eappy ©at s©me ©# the pcqaiped evaiaatiensr fe saeh

casesf it wiii tapn #©p sapp©pt t© ©pgam2ati©ns that have the neeessapy—capabiliticsr Gpganiaatiens that may be ccnsidcpcd in these cases ape listed be1©wt N©t aH ©I these eategcpies ©p ©pganiaati©ns witt be avaitebie in evepy-ease-©p-#©p-evepy-type-©#-deviceT —©thcp-gevepnment-iab©pat©pies

- iab©pat©pies independent test ©pganiaati©ns ©p ©I anfvepsi

ties - facilities ©f a manalactapcp with apppcvai ©f the apptteantr

A type may asaaliy be evaiaated in the labcpatopy t© which the sabjeet

instpaments ape takenr When devices ©p systems apc net p©ptabie and

mast be assembled at a asep sitcy at least papt ©I the evalaaticn mast

take place in sitar Bi^epent aspects ©# a given evalaaticn can be eappied ©at at di^epent sites #©p cenvenieneeT saeh as at the faetcpyr a lab©patcpyj-and- a -asep-lecatienr

(The wording of the former "Section I. Applicants for Evaluation" was

transferred to Section D.) l.Jt period of validity of approval.

(Section J relabeled Section L)

Approval may cease to be valid when predetermined conditions are either met or not met (see Paragraph 1, below) or when approval is withdrawn

as the result of a specific determination by the NTEP (see paragraphs 2 and 3, below). The questions of when and why an approval may lose

validity is discussed in the following.

121
Executive Committee

1. MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Maintenance of approval depends on the performance of the device

in use and in the course of periodic field verifications. Maintenance

of approval may be made contingent on specific conditions; for example, minimum performance upon initial verification that devices

of the type must continue to meet.

2. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Approval may be withdrawn for various reasons. These include:

a. identification of deficiencies in the type not discovered

before approval;

b. changes in regulations to take account of more stringent needs;

c. advances in the state-of-the-art; or

d. new technologies.

Withdrawal of approval will, however, be a last resort action. The decision for withdrawal must be clearly established on the basis

of evidence assembled by the Program administrator (the Executive

Secretary). If the manufacturer agrees with the proposed withdrawal, notice of the action will be sent to each state Director.

3. FEEDBACK

The evaluation process under NTEP can generate only limited data. The data gathered during the initial and subsequent verifications of a

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

analyzed, often yield information not available from the type evaluation. Such feedback can be used as the basis for revising the conditions of approval when the situation so warrants. Depending on circumstances, the experience gained during verifications may justify later changes in the approval; in extreme cases, it might result in withdrawal of the Certificate of Conformance.

M.Kt results OF EVALUATION.

(Section K relabeled Section M)

The results of evaluation include both a report of objective findings and a

report of conclusions and recommendations made concerning approval.

These may be given in a single document or in two separate documents

as indicated below. Separate documents are especially appropriate when

evaluation and approval are the responsibilities of different officials (for

example, when testing of the device is carried out in a state laboratory

and approval is issued by NBS). These reports will be retained permanently by the NCWM.

122
Executive Committee

1. REPORT OF OBJECTIVE FINDINGS

The report will be a permanent, objective record of the evaluation process and its results, against which future evaluations can be

compared. It will identify the type, components and salient documents examined, personnel and laboratories that carried out the

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

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

and the time data were taken, or identify the repositories of such data and the values of measured metrological characteristics and the

associated uncertainties. These characteristics will include all those

subject to requirements in regulations and those that wiU form the

basis for the definition of the type. To the extent that findings are

not based on measurement, but on visual inspection, they will be as objective as possible in each instance.

2. REPORT OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM EVALUATION

The report giving conclusions and recommendations will be based on

the findings of the Participating %e9^g Laboratory and will provide

the basis for a decision regarding approval or non-approval.

The recommendation can, for example, be one of the following:

a. Certificate of Conformance

b. Provisional Certificate of Conformance

c. Rejection (unqualified); the main reasons for rejection should be given

d. Recommendation that the type be rejected, but that it be

approved in the future if specified modifications are made to the satisfaction of the Participating Laboratory , as may be

demonstrated by a partial reevaluation

e. Recommendation that the type be rejected, that the appli- cant be adequately informed about its deficiencies, and that the type be accepted for a complete reevaluation in the

future, provided the applicant declares that the deficiencies have been corrected.

3. DEFECTIVE EVALUATION

If a device has a significant area of non-compliance that was over- looked in a type evaluation under NTEP, costs of re-evaluation will be borne by the tes^iftg Participating Laboratory. Every effort will be made by the NTEP to afford the manufacturer in such cases with

adequate time to meet requirements including time to modify and/or

retrofit the devices in use.

123
Executive Committee

If a device for which a Certificate of Conformance was issued is later found (in use) to have a feature that was not operational or

present during the NTEP evaluation, the Certificate of Conformance

is subject to withdrawal whether or not the feature is believed to meet the requirements of Handbook 44. If the manufacturer

requests a re-evaluation with the new feature, and the device is approved, an amendment to the Certificate of Conformance will be

issued. If the device does not meet approval as a result of the new

feature, the Certificate of Conformance will be withdrawn.

Whether the device is approved or not, the manufacturer will be

responsible for reimbursing the NTEP for costs incurred in the

reevaluation.

N.fcr CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

(Section L relabeled Section N)

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

information:

1. APPLICATION OF THE TYPE

a. approved ranges

b. maximum capacity

c. reference conditions

d. normal conditions of use

e. approved subjects of measurement: physical quantities,

commodities, materials, objects, or phenomena that may be

measured

f. special restrictions on application

2. ACCURACY

a. accuracy class

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

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

constants

3. REQUIREMENT OF MANUFACTURER

- required name plate information and stamps, marks, and

seals affixed at the factory

124
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

GAITHERSBURG. MARYLAND 20899

Executive Committee

CERTIFICATE NO.

Page of

For Weighing and Measuring Devices

For:

Accuracy ClassSubmitted by:

Standard Features and Options

This device was evaluated under the NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

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

HANDBOOK 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices". Evaluation results and device characteristics necessary for inspection and use in commerce are on the following pages. For further information, contact the National Bureau of Standards, address above, or telephone (301) 921-2401.

Date:

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

NOTE: The National Bureau of Standards does not "approve", "recommended", or "endorse" any proprietary product or material, eitlier as a single item or as a class or

group. Results shall not be used in advertising or sales promotion to indicate explicit or Implicit endorsement of the product or material by the Bureau. (See NTEP Policies and Procedures). 125
Executive Committee

4. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE

a. installation requirements

b. legally required auxiliary equipment and its minimum characteristics

c. in the case of approval of auxiliary equipment, identification of the measuring instruments in conjunction with which it may

be legally used

d. Operating instructions

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The summary lists the characteristics, attributes, and conditions of the type that are subject to regulation.

O.M- LETTER OF NONCONFORMANCE

(Section M relabeled Section O)

A letter of nonconformance will include the following information

1. applicant, manufacturer, manufacturer's type for which application was made

2. applicable regulations

3. specific components, and salient documents examined

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

deficient as well as the corresponding acceptable values

5. other conditions not fulfilled ( when there are many reasons for

rejection, only the major reasons will be given)

When reasons for non-conformance are based on relatively small deficiencies or when deficiencies can be easily corrected, the letter may list changes that would make it acceptable and, perhaps, invite resubmission

of the request after these changes have been made.

P.N- APPEAL PROCESS.

(Section N relabeled Section P)

If at any stage in the evaluation process, especially that involving a

decision to NOT issue a Certificate of Conformance or to WITHDRAW a

previously issued Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer may

request review of the decision.

126
Executive Committee

The first level of review will be the NTEP Board of Governors. The Board

will, if requested by the manufacturer, review the case and either endorse

the decision or pass it to the NBS for review. (In their evaluation, the Board may request the advice of the Advisory Committee)

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

Certificates of Conformance. If the NBS confirms the recommendation of

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

the decision through the Federal Government process. Q.Bt DISTRIBUTION OF OUTPUTS OF EVALUATION.

(Section O relabeled Section Q)

In all cases, a Certificate of Conformance, a letter of nonconformance,

amendment to an existing certificate, or similar document reflecting the approval decision will be sent to the applicant at the earliest possible

time. NTEP will send to the applicant copies of, or excerpts from, the

reports of evaluation and of conclusions and recommendations.

The Certificate of Conformance will also be sent to aU the states and

major jurisdictions. An Annual Report will be published in the proceedings of the NCWM. The content of the report will also be published

providing the following information:

1. Number assigned to the Certificate of Conformance

2. Date Certificate of Conformance is issued

3. Company name

4. Model designation

5. Brief description of model

6. Capacity

RPt REFERENCES TO NTEP ACTIVITIES

(Section P relabeled Section R)

The use and effectiveness of the NTEP system depends on the extent to which knowledge of the operation of the system and the results of its evaluations are known and requested.

1. RESTRICTION

Recipients must avoid all inference that the Certificate of Confor- mance carries with it an endorsement or approval of the product by

the National Bureau of Standards.

127
Executive Committee

Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance by the National Bureau

of Standards "constitutes evidence of the conformance of a type

device with the requirements of NBS Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2,

and 105-3" only (see Paragraph C.5 of this document).

2. PERMISSIBLE USE OF STATEMENTS AND NTEP LOGO

a. The Manufacturer

The manufacturer may communicate to clients and the public

the fact that a Certificate of Conformance was issued for a

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

advised of this fact by the manufacturer.

(1) Statement

The following statement may be used in company corre- spondence, brochures, and professional, technical, and

trade publications:

"Certificate of Conformance (insert Certificate number) was issued under the National Type Appfevat

Evaluation Program of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures."

(2) Logo

The NTEP Logo (see below) may be:

(a) used in conjunction with the above statement

as well as in advertising materials for the device

for which the Certificate of Conformance was

issued; and

(b) affixed to any device manufactured as being

the same as the NTEP approved device. However,

sale and use of individual devices manufactured

are subject to acceptance testing by state and

local jurisdictions.

b. The states States participating in the NTEP (permitting the sale of devices in their states based on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance) and/or states operating NTEP testing Participating

Laboratories are encouraged to communicate their activities to

potential clients and the public. NTEP authorization means

that a laboratory is competent to perform standard tests of

specific weighting or measuring devices (see Section A. Definitions).

128
Executive Committee

A statement about the states participation and/or authorization and the NTEP logo may be used in correspondence, brochures, and test reports and data sheets (provided the tests or services are performed in accordance with the terms of its authorization).

(1) Statement

A state whose laboratory is authorized may use the following statement: "Authorized by the National Bureau of Standards under

the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) for test- ing — (identify device types covered by the Authorization Certificate)".

A state accepting a Certificate of Conformance may

use the following statement: "(Name of State) ~ permits the sale of weighing or measuring devices for use based on the issuance of the NTEP Certificate of Conformance".

(2) Logo

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

with the above statements as well as alone in materials

dealing with the NTEP.

Figure 2 - NTEP Logo

129
Executive Committee

c. Questions About Use of Statements or Logo

Any questions regarding the use of the statements or logo not

specifically covered above, or any questions concerning the propriety or acceptability of their use in a particular situation, should be brought to the attention of the NTEP Board of Governors through the NCWM Executive Secretary.

d. The NTEP Logo

Glossy black and white positives, and adhesive backed copies

of the logo, are available from the NCWM office.

130
Laws and Regulations Committee

REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Don Stagg, Chairman

Director, Weights and Measures Division State of Alabama

REFERENCE KEY

200 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Laws and Regulations submitted its report to the 71st National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report resulted from consideration of all communications received by the Committee as well as discussions at the Interim Meeting, January 21-25, 1986, and the Annual

Meeting July 20 and 21, 1986. Much of the report contains

recommendations to revise or amend National Bureau of Standards NBS

Handbook 130, 1986 Edition, "Uniform Laws and Regulations and NBS

Handbook 133, Second Edition, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged

Goods." Proposed revisions to these handbooks are shown in bold face print

by cpossing o«% what is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be added.

Eifitirely new sections to these handbooks are designated as such and shown

in bold face print. Items are grouped into the following series for ease of reference: HANDBOOK 130 210 Series Uniform Weights and Measures Law

Uniform Weigh master Law

Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration

of Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and Measuring

Devices

Uniform Open Dating Regulation

Uniform Regulation for National Type

Evaluation

HANDBOOK 133 OTHER ITEMS

211 Series 212 Series 213 Series 214 Series 215 Series

216 Series 217 Series 218 Series 230 Series 250 Series This year's report did not contain any items in the 215 through 218 series. Table A (next page) identifies all of the items contained in the Report by

Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number.

131
Laws and Regulations Committee

The titles of voting items are identified in bold face print as is the key

text upon which a vote is to be taken. AU other items listed are information items.

Before voting on July 24, 1986, the Committee grouped the less controversial voting items into a "consent calendar" which was voted upon as a block. These items are marked after the item number with a "VC", e.g. "210-2 VC" . Separate voting items are marked with a "V". Information

items are not marked.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

HANDBOOK 130

210-1 Proposed Uniform Motor Fuel Law and

Regulation

210-2 VC Handbook 130 Review

134

139

UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

211-1 211-2 VC

212

213-1

213-2 VC

213-3 VC

213-4 VC

213-5 213-6 VC

214-1 VC

Section 1.2. Weight/Net Weight Sales from Bulk

Section 20. Declaratioi^ of Unit

Price on Random Weight P9ckages

UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW

UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

Definition of

140

142

142

Proposed Section 2.9. "Petroleum Products"

Sections 3.1. and 4. Declaration of Identity/

Clearly Revealed

Sections 6.7.1., 6.7,2., 6.8.1.,

6.8.2.(e), 6.10.(d)/Random Pack Provisos

Section 6.11,3. Rounding

Section 10.3./Aerosol Paints

Section 11.23.(b)/Tint Base Paint

143

143 144 144

145

146

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF

COMMODITIES

Section 1.3. Butter, Oleomargarine, Margarine, ButterLike, and/or Margarine-Like Spreads 146

132
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A (Continued)

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference Title of Item Page

i\ey no*

214-2 VC Section 1.5.3. Clams, Mussels, and

Oysters 147 214-3 VC Section 1.7.1. Ice Cream/Reference

to Handbook 44 149 UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF

COMMODITIES

214-4 Y Section 1.7.2. Ice Cream and

rrozen liesseri noveiiies 1 ^ft (a) Method of Sale

(b) Test Method

214-5 VC Section 2.19. Gasoline-Alcohol Blends 153 214-6 V Proposed Section 2.20. Liqudfied

reiroieiun vias 1 rlAWUbUUK loo

230-1 Tables 2-8 and 2-9/MAV's for Individual Packages Labeled by Weight or Volume 155 230-2 VC Borax 156 230-3 FTC Policy Regarding H-133 160 OTHER ITEMS

250-1 Energy Allocation Systems 160 250-2 Task Force on Commodity Requirements 161 250-3 Polyethylene 161

In addition, the Report contains two appendices: Appendix A, related to Reference Key 211-1, begins on page 162 and Appendix B, related to Reference Key 230-3, begins on page 166. ORDER OF PRESENTATION

Separate votes of the NCWM were requested on two items, 214-4 (Ice Cream

and Frozen Dessert Novelties) and 214-6 (Liquefied Petroleum Gas). The

results of the voting on these items are summarized in Table B. In addition, the Committee split item 214-4 into two parts prior to the final

133
Laws and Regulations Committee

vote, (a) Method of Sale and (b) Test Method. Discussion of the voting on Item 214-4 is explained at the end of that item.

After its separate voting items were acted upon, the consent calendar was

presented and adopted. Then the report was adopted in its entirety by the

membership.

Table B VOTING RESULTS

Reference House of State House of Key No. Representatives Delegates

Yes No Yes No

214-4 (a) amendment 27 11 Failed 25 44

214-4 (a) original 12 27 Failed 46 23 214-4 (b) 39 2 Passed 43 25 214-6 27 12 Passed 47 21

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order of Reference Key Number)

HANDBOOK 130 210-1 PROPOSED UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL LAW AND REGULATION . (This is an information item) See also Item 507 in the Liaison Committee report.

The Task Force on Motor Fuels has drafted a Uniform Motor Fuel Law and

a Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation to accompany the law. The proposed law

will require registration and certification of the motor fuel as meeting

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The

regulation of motor fuel quality will require the establishment of a motor

fuel quality testing capability by the State. It is proposed that funds to

install and support such a testing capability be raised by establishing a fee per gallon on aU fuel marketed within a State. The fuel quality standards that are proposed by the Task Force to be

adopted by States are ASTM standards. The standard for gasoline and

gasoline-alcohol blends is ASTM PI 76 "Proposed Specification for Automotive

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel". While it might be possible to consider the

134
Laws and Regulations Committee

proposed law and regulation this July, the Task Force recommends a year's

delay by the NCWM to «illow ASTM to confirm new test procedures for oxygenated fuels and the ethanol industry to evaluate the impact of ASTM

P176.

It has also been recommended that the Proposed Uniform Motor Fuel

Inspection Law recognize gasoline-alcohol mixtures that have waivers from

the Environmental Protection Agency. The Committee will address the issue of exempting these products from the ASTM volatility standards at the next

Interim Meeting.

Section 3 of the Proposed Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel is identical to Section 2.19. in the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities. The latter is consent voting item 214-5. Whatever changes

are made to Section 2,19. by the Conference vote will be reflected in the next draft of the regulation to be studied by the Committee at the next

Interim Meeting.

The Committee therefore provides the following proposed law and regulation

for information. The Committee intends to recommend adoption of this proposal in July 1987, at the 72nd Annual Meeting.

PROPOSED

UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL INSPECTION LAW

SECTION 1. PURPOSE

It is desired that there should be uniformity among the requirements of the

several States. This Act provides for the establishment of quality

specifications for all liquid motor fuels, except aviation fuel and liquefied

petroleum gases.

SECTION 2. SCOPE

The Act establishes a sampling, testing, and enforcement program, provides

authority for fee collection, requires registration of motor fuels, and

empowers the State to promulgate regulations as needed to carry out the

provisions of the Act. It also provides for penalties.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS

As used in this Act:

3.1. MOTOR FUEL. — The term "motor fuel" means any liquid

product used for the generation of power in an internal combustion engine.

3.2. DIRECTOR. — The term "Director" means the _____ of the Department of .

135
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.3. PERSON. — The term "person" means both plural and singular, as the case demands, and includes individuals, partnerships,

corporations, companies, societies, and associations. SECTION 4. ADMINISTRATION, ADOPTION OF

STANDARDS, AND RULES

The provisions of the Act shall be administered by the Director or his authorized agent. For the purpose of administering and giving effect to the

provisions of this Act, the standards set forth in the Annual Book of ASTM

Standards and supplements thereto, and revisions thereof, are adopted except

as amended or modified by the Director. The Director is empowered to write rules and regulations on the advertising, posting of prices, labeling,

standards for, and identity of motor fuels and is authorized to establish a

testing laboratory.

SECTION 5. GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS

The Director shall have the authority to:

5.1. Enforce and administer all the provisions of this Act by

inspections, analyses, and other appropriate actions.

5.2. Have access during normal business hours to all places where

motor fuels are marketed for the purpose of examination,

inspection, taking of samples, and investigation. If such access

shall be refused by the owner or agent or other persons leasing the same, the Director or his agent may obtain an administrative

search warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.

5.3. Collect or cause to be collected, samples of motor fuels marketed in this State, and cause such samples to be tested or analyzed for compliance with the provisions of this Act.

5.4. Issue a stop-sale order for any motor fuel found not to be in compliance and remand said stop-sale order if the motor fuel is brought into full compliance with this Act.

5.5. Refuse, revoke, or suspend the registration of a motor fuel.

5.6. Delegate to authorized agents any of the responsibilities for the proper administration of this Act.

SECTION 6. REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF MOTOR FUELS

All motor fuel must be registered by the name, brand, or trademark under

which it will be sold. Such registration shall include:

(1) Name and address of person registering the motor fuel.

136
Laws and Regulations Committee

(2) Antiknock index or Cetane number, as appropriate, at which the motor fuel is to be marketed.

(3) Certification, declaration, or affidavit that each individual grade

or type of motor fuel shall conform to the provisions of this Act. SECTION 7. INSPECTION FEE

There shall be paid a fee of $ per gallon on all motor fuels marketed within this State for the purposes of administering and effectively

enforcing the provisions of this Act.

SECTION 8. UNLAWFUL ACTS

It shall be unlawful to:

(1) Market motor fuels in any manner that may deceive or tend to deceive the purchaser as to the nature, price, quantity and/or

quality of a motor fuel.

(2) Fail to register a motor fuel.

(3) Submit incorrect, misleading, or false information regarding the

registration of a motor fueL

(4) Hinder or obstruct the Director, or his authorized agent, in the performance of his duties.

(5) Market a motor fuel that is contrary to the provisions of this Act.

SECTION 9. PENALTIES

Any person who violates any provision of this Act or regulations promulgated

pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ , or imprisonment for not more than years, or both.

SECTION 10. INJUNCTION

The Director is authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction

for a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from

violating any provision of this Act.

137
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY PROVISION

If any word, phrase, provision, or portion of this Act shall be held in a

court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, the

unconstitutionality or invalidity shall apply only to such word, phrase,

provision, or portion, and for this purpose the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable.

SECTION 12. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING LAWS

All laws and parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of

this Act are repealed except as to offense committed, liabilities incurred,

and claims made thereunder prior to the effective date of this Act.

SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act shall become effective on , PROPOSED

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR MOTOR FUEL

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

1.1. SPARK-IGNITION MOTOR FUEL. — The term "Spark-ignition

motor fuel" means gasoline and its blends with oxygenates such

as alcohols and ethers.

1.2. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLEND. — For labeling purposes, the term

"gasoline-alcohol blend" means any spark-ignition motor fuel containing one percent or more by volume, of ethanol, methanol,

or any combination of ethanol and/or methanol.

SECTION 2. FUEL SPECIFICATIONS

2.1. Spark-ignition motor fuel shall meet ASTM "Proposed

Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel". In addition, the maximum oxygen content permitted is 3.7 percent

by weight.

2.2. Diesel fuel shall meet current ASTM D975, "Standard

Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils".

2.3. Kerosene shall meet current ASTM D3699, "Standard Specification

for Kerosine".

138
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 3. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLENDS

3.1. METHOD OF RETAIL SALE. - AU motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at retail containing at least one

percent by volume of ethanol, methanol, or a combination shall be identified as "with," "containing," (or similar wording)

"ethanol," "methanol," or "ethanol/m ethanol" on the dispenser

front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver's position, in a type one-half the size of the product identity but

in no case less than 1/2 inch in height, 1/16 inch stroke (width

of type).

3.2. DOCUMENTATION FOR PUMP LABELING PURPOSES. - The

retailer must be provided, at the time of delivery of the fuel on

an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation,

the presence and maximum amount of ethanol, methanol, or any

combination of ethanol/m ethanol (in terms of percent by volume)

contained in the fuel. This documentation is only for pump

labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender

to determine the total oxygen content of the motor fuel before

blending.

210-2 VC HANDBOOK 130 REVIEW

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A single subject index for the entire handbook has been prepared and will appear in the next edition of Handbook 130. Two requests to annotate Handbook 130 with references to Federal

requirements were reviewed by the Committee. (These annotations would

have appeared principally in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation.) Mr. James Lyles, Virginia Weights and Measures, provided an

older copy of his Handbook annotated with references to the Code of Federal Regulations as he envisioned it should appear. The Committee sees some merit in the work, but does not believe it is beneficial enough to the

majority of NCWM members as compared with the additional time and

effort required to research and check the references to the Code of Federal

Regulations for each annual publication. Therefore, the Committee

recommends against any changes to the Handbook format (except for adding a single subject index for the entire handbook) at this time. The Committee

welcomes any comment or opinion on this issue.

139
Laws and Regulations Committee

UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

211-1 SECTION 1.2. WEIGHT/NET WEIGHT SALES FROM BULK

(This is an information item)

Retail food stores are merchandising prepackaged commodities such as

candies, pet food, snack bars, and bouillon cubes from bulk displays. Some

retailers sell these products by gross weight. Section 1.2. of the Uniform

Weights and Measures Law reads in part: "The term 'weight' as used in connection with any commodity means net weight..." A copy of a letter to

the Chairman of the Conference and his response appear as Appendix A to

this report. The Committee applauds the Chairman's response to this request and affirms the need for strong enforcement action in this area, rather than any changes to existing laws or regulations.

A workshop was held on June 20, 1986, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C. to explore the issues and alternatives involved

in the sale of prepackaged goods from the bulk food sales areas of supermarkets. Representatives of the packaging, supermarket, and small grocery industries; scale and point-of-sale (POS) systems manufacturers; the

U.S. Food £md Drug Administration; weights and measures agencies, and the

National Bureau of Standards attended. No final recommendations came out

of this meeting; however, the participants expressed an interest in meeting

again after a written report of the June 20 meeting was made available

(expected September 1, 1986) and before the Interim Meetings of the NCWM

in Jcmuary 1987. The issues that were discussed were the following:

(1) Prepackaged commodities in bulk displays are being sold on a gross weight basis. Federal regulations covering packaged goods and every state Weights and Measures Law require any sale by weight to be "net weight" (not including

the weight of the wrapping materials). In some areas of the nation, many

items are being sold on a gross weight basis in the supermarket, for example, fresh fruit and vegetables in poly bags in the produce area. Perhaps because of the light weight of these bags, (that is, the minimum

size of the scale division on the ordinary supermarket checkout scale is large with respect to the weight of the poly bags), low priority is given to correcting this sales practice, and a lack of uniformity in enforcement of the net weight requirements results. Weights and measures officials have

found tare amounting to over 40 percent of the gross weight in prepackaged

items sold from bulk; the majority of cases seems to range from 3 to 12

percent. Officials see the need to "draw the line" in a sales practice that appears to have evolved from other practices that were not heavily

monitored and corrected at their inception.

(2) Retailers face technical and administrative problems in properly

deducting tare from the gross weight.

Automatic deduction of tare is preferable for large-scale retailers because

of its speed. No equipment (either stand-alone scale or POS) is available at the present time that can: (1) subtract a percentage of the gross weight to represent the tare weight; or (2) subtract a fixed tare for the bag and a

140
Laws and Regulations Committee

percentage tare for the wrapper on the prepackaged item. Two POS system

manufacturers said that new systems with percentage tare capability could be designed, but they could not definitively say whether retrofitting existing

systems wsis possible. They said that the ability to retrofit declined with the

age of the system. Supermarket representatives expressed concern that their in-store computer software would need modification above and beyond the

retrofitting or software redesign that might be done by the POS

manufacturers; their software is designed around current POS software.

Deduction of tare in the bulk food area using a scale other than the checkout scale can be done more easily than at checkout if a POS system is being used. A tare look-up table used in conjunction with the scale appears

to be the only currently used method that meets the net weight

requirements when packaged products are sold from bulk. (The procedure is to gross weigh the product, look up the tare, subtract it from the gross weight, and then determine a final net weight and total price.)

Each retailer will have to consider the cost of additional manpower (as the

weighing and marking of the purchase in the bulk food area might require), new equipment (purchasing scales or POS systems with percentage tare

capability), or retrofit of existing equipment as compared with the value of the market share contributed by the bulk marketing of prepacked

commodities. However, two supermarket chain representatives said that they

expected some growth in this type of sale (because of the customers'

perception of cleanliness of the product, for example).

(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 comparison with other products sold by net weight.

Bulk food sales advertising often includes claims of savings of, for example,

10 to 20% over a purchase of the same commodity in standard-pack form.

These advertising claims can be exaggerated and misleading if the comparisons referenced are between standard-pack commodities sold net weight and products sold from bulk on a gross weight basis. The possibility of advertising a net weight unit price, but actually weighing

at the checkout on a gross weight basis (and charging at a lower gross weight unit price) was discussed. For example, a sign could be posted with

the following:

"$1.50 per pound, net weight. We are not able to weigh this packaged

product on a net weight basis (that is, without the wrapper), and will therefore charge you $1.40 per pound including the wrapper weight at the checkout".

141
Laws and Regulations Committee

Everyone agreed that advertising claims and appropriate wording would have

to be chosen carefully if this is to be viable. However, those weights and measures officials present were generally opposed to this alternative based

on the difficulty of enforcement and lack of assurance that a consumer

would really understand explanatory signage.

211-2 VC SECnOH 20. DECLARATIONS OF UNIT PRICE ON

RANDOM WEIGHT PACKAGES

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended a revision to Section 20 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to recognize that a

declaration of total selling price, as well as the unit price, is required on random weight packages. The Committee agrees that this section of the

Uniform Weights and Measures Law should not confuse or confound other

requirements such as Section 11.2. RANDOM PACKAGES of the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation. The proposed revision to Section 20 is: In addition to the declaration required by Section 19 of this Act, any

package being one of a lot containing random weights of the same

commodity and bearing the telai a^liRg j^riee of the package shall bear on the outside of the E»ackagej^ at the time it is offered or exposed for sale at retail, a plain and conspicuous dedaration of the

price per single unit el weight pound or kilogram^ and the total selling

price of the package.

Packages subject to the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

must be labeled in inch-pound units of measure. Metric units may

also be declared on the principal display panel and may even appear

first. UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW

212 UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW

(This is an information item)

As part of its Long Range Plan, the Committee plans to review this law,

compare State requirements in this area on a section by section basis with

the NCWM recommendation, and revise or amend the law based on its analysis. A survey will be conducted by the Committee; each State Director will receive a questionnaire this summer.

142
Laws and Regulations Committee

UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

213-1 PROPOSED SECTION 2.9. DEFINITION OF ''PETROLEUM

PRODUCTS"

(This is an information item.)

The State of California has requested a clarification of what products are "petroleum products" and therefore subject to a reference temperature of 60 °F in the Uniform Packaging £md Labeling Regulation, Sections 6.5.(b), 6.6.(b), 7.4.(b), and 7.5.(b). Examples of products that have been questioned

include: brake fluid, copier machine dispersant, antifreeze, cleaning

solvents, sewing machine lubricant, camping fuel, alcohol, and synthetic motor oil. The Committee had planned to recommend the following

definition be added to the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation:

2.9. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.- Gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, or any product (whether or not such product is actually derived

from naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures known as "petroleum") commonly used in powering, lubricating, or oiling

engines or other devices. Therefore, sewing machine lubricant, some camping fuels (if kerosene, for example), and synthetic motor oil are "petroleum products." Brake fluid, copier machine

dispersant, antifreeze, cleaning solvents, and alcohol are not "petroleum products."

More information is needed to be able to specify which products should have

a reference temperature of 60 °F. It was noted, for example, that some

cleaning solvents are referenced to 68 °F when sold at retail to consumers;

but that the reference temperature is 60 ^F when the same product is sold

in 55-gallon drums. This item will be carried over to next year. 213-2 VC SECTIONS 3.1. AND 4. DECLARATION OF

IDENTITY/CLEARLT REVEALED

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

Virginia Weights and Measures recommended revision to Section 19.(a) of the

Uniform Weights and Measures Law (UWML) to eliminate the exemption of an identity statement from packages when the item "can easily be

identified through the wrapper or container". The Committee is of the

opinion that there is merit in retaining the language in Section 19.(a) of the

Uniform Law. Packages of fresh produce put up in a retail establishment are considered to be packages as long as a price is attached. If the exemption were eliminated, such packages instead of being marked, for example,

"12/89 cents" would have to be marked "12 lemons/89 cents". It was argued

that there could be a problem in deciding whether or not a commodity could

"easily be identified" (such as might occur in an ethnic specialty grocery or with an exotic produce item). In researching the issue, the Committee has

determined that Title 21, Section 101.100(b)(3) of the Code of Federal

Regulations specifically exempts the food identity statement from having to appear "...if the common or usual name of the food is clearly revealed by

143
Laws and Regulations Committee

its appearance." Since no specific problems of enforcement were brought to the attention of the Committee concerning this issue, the Committee

recommends no change to Section 19.(a) at this time. However, the

Committee recommends that Sections 3.1. and 4. of the Uniform Packaging

and Labeling Regulation be footnoted as follows: ^Section 19.(a) of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law, and

21 CFR 101.100(bX3) for non-meat and non-poultry foods, specifically

exempt packages from identity statements if the identity of the

commodity "can easily be identified through the wrapper or container."

213-3 VC SECTIONS 6.7.1., 6.7.2., 6.8.1., 6.8.2.(c), 6.10.(d)/RANDOM

PACK LABEL TO THREE DECIBfAL PLACES

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.)

Sections 6.7.1. and 6.8.1. (PRESCRIBED UNITS) of the Uniform Packaging

and Labeling Regulation provide exceptions that permit decimal fractions on random pack net weight declarations to be carried out to three decimal

places. It was suggested that this language is out of place and belongs under

Section 6.10. FRACTIONS. The Committee believes that the exceptions in Sections 6.7.1., 6.7.2., and 6.8.1. are correctly placed, but that the exceptions should be repeated in Section 6.8.2. and in Section 6.10. The

Committee recommends Section 6.8.2.(c) be amended as follows:

(c) weight of 1 kilogram or more; in kilograms and decimal

fractions to not more than two places, except that the quantity

declaration appearing on a random weight package may be

expressed in terms of kilograms and decimal fractions carried out to not more than three decimal places.

The Committee recommends Section 6.10.(d) be amended as foUows:

(d) Decimal fractions: A decimal fraction shall not be carried out

to more than two places except that the quantity declaration

appearing on a random package may be carried out to not more

than three decimal places.

213-4 VC SECTION 6.11.3. ROUNDING

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

Section 6.11.3. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation requires

that metric or inch-pound quantities be rounded down when converted to

their equivalent inch-pound or metric quantities. For example, 1.759 feet should be rounded down to 1.75 feet. With regard to metric rounding, the

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) recommend following "normal" rounding procedures. The FTC

recommendations appear as "Staff Interpretations", not as a regulation. The

FDA recommendations have not been finalized and may not go to rule making at all. Mr. Alan Whelihan, representing the Office of Metric

Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, made a presentation at the Interim

Meetings requesting uniformity among State and Federal recommendations in this area.

144
Laws and Regulations Committee

There is an obvious lack of uniformity between the FDA and FTC on this

issue. Mr. Howard Pippin, representing the FDA, explained that the primary

declaration on packages under FDA authority is always considered to be the

inch-pound declaration, even if it appears second on the net contents label or in parentheses. He explained to the Committee that the FDA

recommendation for rounding means that the metric net contents declaration

is always the one being rounded. Therefore, it could be argued that 17.6 oz

could only be rounded to 499 g (17.6 oz x 28.349523 g/oz = 498.95 g) even

if the metric quantity is selected by the packager to appear first. Mr. Earl Johnson, representing the FTC, reported that his agency's recommendations

for the use of "normal rounding" makes no distinction between rounding the inch-pound or the metric declaration. The second declaration on the label is assumed to have been rounded. Using the earlier example, if 500 g appears

first on the label, 17.6 oz is an acceptable declaration under FTC and NCWM

rounding recommendations.

The rationale for the original recommendation in Section 6.11.3. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation is to avoid any potential problem

of a packager labeling in metric units and rounding up to inch-pound units. Since the equipment used by weights and measures officials does not always

include metric weights, an official might use the inch-pound declaration

against which to check package net contents declarations even if it appears second on the label or in parentheses. If the inch-pound declaration was the rounded value and has been rounded up, the packager is held to a higher

labeled net contents than labeling the rounded-down figure.

The Committee also discussed this issue with members of the Industry

Committee on Packaging and Labeling and they agreed that the NCWM

recommendation on rounding has merit and should be retained. The

Committee recommends no change to Section 6.11.3. at this time.

213-5 SECTION 10.3./AEROSOL PAINTS

(This is an information item) Mr. Patrick Hurd, representing the National Paint and Coatings Association,

Inc., discussed with the Committee the association's desire to permit aerosol

paints to be labeled by fluid volume as well as net weight. As a result of these discussions, the association is withdrawing its request at this time

pending further data and information to be supplied to the Committee on

this issue.

145
Laws and Regulations Committee

213-6 VC SECTION 11.23,(b) / TINT BASE PAINT

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

Section 11.23.(b) of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation currently

permits tint base paints (paints to which colorant must be added prior to

sale) to be labeled in terms of the volume (a quart or gallon) that will be

delivered to the purchaser after addition of the colorant only if three

conditions are met:

1. "the system employed ensures that the purchaser always obtains a quart or a gallon,"

2. "a statement indicating that the tint base paint is not to be sold without the addition of colorant is presented on the principal

display panel,"

3. "the contents of the container, before the addition of colorant,

is stated in fluid ounces elsewhere on the label." The National Paint and Coatings Association, Inc., proposes the elimination

of the third requirement listed above, since tint base paints are not to be

sold without the addition of colorant and paint manufacturers guarantee that the quantity of final paint product is as stated on the label (e.g. one

gallon). Most paint manufacturers have numerous tint base formulations

requiring different labels for each tint base. By removing the requirement

for declaring the amount of tint base without colorant, manufacturers will be able to substantially reduce the number of labels necessary for their tint bases. The Committee members believe that the requirement for labeling the contents of the container before colorant should remain because:

1. paint manufacturers cannot completely guarantee that the paint

wiU not be sold without the addition of colorant, and

2. weights and measures enforcement officials could not test containers of tint-base paint until after colorant was added if the net contents declaration before color€mt addition were

eliminated.

Therefore, the Committee recommends no change to this section. UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

214-1 VC SECTION 1.3. BUTTER, OLEOMARGAEINE, MARGARINE,

BUTTER-UKE AND/OR BfARGARINE-UKE SPREADS

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar) At the 70th Annual Meeting, 1985, Section 1.3. of the Uniform Regulation

for the Method of Sale of Commodities was revised to include

"margarine-like spreads". "Margarine-like spreads" are defined as those

146
Laws and Regulations Committee

products that meet the Federal Standard of Identity for margarine and

oleomargarine except that they contain less than 80 percent fat. The National Association of Margarine Manufacturers has proposed amending

this section further by adding a 24-ounce package size in order to permit

the sale of a very popular size of spread package. The Committee is prepared to add this package size to the list of permitted sizes. The

American Butter Institute is not opposed to this addition. Also, both trade associations brought to the attention of the Committee the

different types of products on the market used as margarine €ind butter

substitutes. "Dairy spread" and "butter blend" (the latter composed of 10%

butter and 75% total fat) were two combinations that were discussed. The

Committee recommends language that will broaden the type of product

covered by Section 1.3. The proposed revision is as follows:

1.3. BUTTER, OLEOMARGARINE, MARGARINE, AND BUTTER-LIKE

AND/OR MARGARINE-UKE SPREADS. — ShaU be offered and

exposed for sale and sold by weight per subsection 1.3(a) or subsection 1.3(b).

(a) Inch-Pound Weights - 1/4 pound, 1/2 pound, 1 pound,

1 1/2 pounds, or a multiple of 1 pound.

(b) Metric Weights - 125 grams, 250 grams, 500 grams,

750 grams, or a multiple of 500 grams.

Butter-like and/or margarine-like spreads are those products that meet the Federal Standard of Identity for butter or margarine

and oleomargarine except that they contcdn less than 80 percent

fat and may contain other safe and suitttble ingredients.

214-2 YC PROPOSED SECTION 1.5.3. CLAMS, MUSSELS, AND

OYSTERS

(This item was carried over from the 70th Annual Meeting, 1985, in which it was item 205-2(b).)

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.)

In 1983, the Committee recommended guidelines for the method of sale of clams, mussels, and oysters. At the Interim Meeting for the 70th Annual

Meeting, 1985, the Committee began work on a section to be added to the

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities concerning the proper methods of sale for clams, mussels, and oysters. Preliminary studies by West Virginia Weights and Measures in 1983 reported finding free liquid as high as 60% by weight in samples taken. Virginia Weights and Measures

reported the amount of free liquid varying from 5 to 38% at retail. Data

collected recently by Maryland, Connecticut, and Illinois confirm these

findings.

147
Laws and Regulations Committee

At the July 1985 Annual Meeting, representatives from trade associations,

individual businesses, and the National Marine Fisheries Service

recommended delaying action because of their need to study whether all segments of business could meet the proposed 15% free liquid maximum for fresh oysters. There appeared to be no controversy with any other part of the recommended method of sale. The Committee agreed to carry over the

proposal until this year. At the 1986 Interim Meetings, the Shellfish Institute of North America

(SINA) informed the Committee about a study being funded by the National

Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. The study will take one year to collect the data but had not yet been started at the time of the Interim Meetings. Details on the SINA study were not provided to the Committee so that it could decide whether or not the data to be collected would be useful to the Conference. For example, the SINA spokesman was

not able to indicate whether information on the procedures used in manufacturing and processing would be collected, or whether there would be

a study of the amount of weep or free liquid that would develop depending

on the type of manufacturing practices that were followed. The Committee

was not able to find out if the study would follow the product through

distribution channels or would simulate distribution time under ideal storage

conditions. SINA again requested a delay in proposing a maximum free liquid amount

for fresh oysters until next year. No data were submitted by any group to

indicate that a 15% free liquid maximum could not be met. Ms. R. Creitz,

representing the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, provided, among other material, a copy of a study by staff of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that substantiates the need to follow the draining criteria in the Code of Federal

Regulations to exclude wash water from packaged oysters and, furthermore,

substantiates the need for the existing Florida restriction of free liquid to a maximum of 15%. The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference also is on

record as agreeing with the recommended 15% free liquid mfiiximum.

The Committee is persuaded that a serious problem exists in the method of

sale of fresh oysters by fluid volume. Last year, some industry

representatives recommended an alternative method of sale for fresh oysters out of the shell, that is, by drained weight. However, the Committee is unaware of any packager labeling the product this way. In order to permit

value comparison and permit a long standing trade custom of labeling

oysters by fluid volume, the Committee has decided to recommend fluid volume as the only permitted labeled quantity, and to recommend imposing a maximum amount of free liquid for fresh oysters, clams, and mussels sold by

fluid volume.

Data from investigations by Maryland Weights and Measures indicates that measuring the amount of free liquid as a percent by weight will give almost

the same results as measuring free liquid as a percent by volume. The

official method of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists is a

percent by weight test. Changing to weight would simplify the field test procedure. Maryland officials note that this is an easier measurement to make but does not eliminate having to open all the packages in a sample.

(See proposed Section 1.5.3.3. below).

148
Laws and Regulations Committee

TIm Committee proposes the following method of sale amendment to Section l.S^

1.5. MEAT, POULTRY, FISH, AND SEAFOOD.— Shall be sold by

weight, except that shellfish not included under Section 1.5.3., may be sold by weight, measure, and/or count.

in additioii, the Committee proposes the following new section be added:

1.5.3. CLAMS, MUSSELS, AND OYSTERS

1.5.3.1. Processed clams, mussels, or oysters on the half shen (fresh or frozen) shall be sold by net weight

excluding the weight of the sheU.

1.5.3.2. Canned (heat-processed) mussels, clams, or oysters

shall be sold by net weight. A maximum of 41 percent free liquid by weight is permitted for canned 03^ters.

1.5.3.3. Fresh oysters, clams, or mussels removed from the

shell and placed in a container shall be sold by fluid volume. A maximum of 15 percent free liquid by

weight is permitted.

1.5.3.4. Whole clams, oysters, or mussels in the sheU (fresh or frozen) shall be sold by weight (including the

weight of the shell, but not including the liquid or

ice packed with them), dry measure (eg., bt»hel),

and/or count. In addition, size designations may be

provided.

tl4-3 VC SECTION 1.7.1. ICE CREAM/REFERENCE TO HANDBOOK

44

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

Section 4.45. MEASURE-CONTAINERS in Handbook 44 applies to controlling the sizes of the prepackaged measure-containers used to determine the quantity of ice cream, ice milk, or sherbet. A reference to this section

should be added to Section 1.7.1. of the Uniform Regulation for the Method

of Sale of Commodities. A footnote to Section 1.7.1. is proposed as foOowst

^For prepackaged measure-containers, intended to be used only once, to determine in advance of sale the quantity of a commodity such as ice cream, ice milk, or sherbet on the basis of liquid measure, the size restricUons noted in Section 4.45. MEASURE-CONTAINERS of National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices"

apply. Handbook 44 requires capacities of such measure-containers to be a multiple of or a binary submultiple of a quart or liter, except

that any capacity less than 1/2 liquid pint or 1/4 liter is permitted.

149
Laws and Regulations Committee

214-4 Y PROPOSED SECTION 1.7.2. ICE CREAM AND FROZEN

DESSERT NOVELTIES

(A) METHOD OF SALE

(This item was defeated. See the end of the item for a discussion of the proposed amendment and the voting on the amendment and the item as proposed by the Committee.)

Products known as frozen dessert novelties such as prepackaged ice cream

sandwiches, chocolate-coated ice-milk cones roUed in nuts or cookie crumbs,

frozen coated sherbet, or yogurt pops are presently labeled with separate

declarations for the ice-cream or ice-cream-like portion (fluid volume) and

for the cookie and other coatings (count: "two cookies" - or declaration of presence: "plus chocolate coating") or are labeled by total fluid volume.

Last year, the Committee was informed that it was not possible to obtain

repeatable results when the ice cream was separated from the other

ingredients in order to determine the fluid volume of the ice cream portion.

A long-standing consumer usage and trade custom of selling ice cream by

fluid volume exists. Most States have regulations requiring ice cream to be

sold by fluid volume. When other ingredients, such as cookies or coatings, are closely associated with the ice cream in frozen dessert novelties,

questions arise regarding (1) proper labeling of the "other" ingredients, and

(2) how to test such products for compliance. Many weights and measures

officials are concerned about permitting the cookie portion of a frozen

novelty to be labeled by volume. Many officials would like to see a net weight rather than fluid volume declaration on such packages.

At the 70th Annual Meeting, July 1985, the Committee proposed a total

fluid volume method of sale and test procedure (see item 205-4 in the Annual Report). It was defeated. Subsequently, the Western and Southern

Weights and Measures Associations proposed that the Committee address this issue again, and in addition recommended total volume as the method of

sale. The Central Weights and Measures Association recommended requiring net weight, volume, and count. The Northeastern Weights and Measures

Association recommended net weight.

At the 1986 Interim Meetings, the Committee reviewed and discussed a very

small amount of data that had been collected by an individual ice cream

novelty manufacturer. These data, although not conclusive, indicated a

smaller variation in weight than in volume among individual packages in the same lot and between lots. The Committee also reviewed a film prepared and provided by California

Weights and Measures showing its version of a total fluid volume test. The

Committee judged this particular test method not suitable for field testing

use. Test equipment, loaned by the Eskimo Pie Company, of a design simpler

than California's, was used to test sample packages during the Committee's

meeting. One type of ice cream novelty, a chocolate-chip-cookie sandwich,

absorbed the test fluid. It was still to be determined (as of January 1986)

whether a suitable test fluid could be found that would not be absorbed by some cookies.

150
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Committee believes that there is a need to standardize the method of

sale of these commodities. There are significant shortcomings with a method of sale by volume including the potential absorption of test fluid by some cookies, and no acceptable total volume test method for all ice cream

sandwiches. A volume displacement test requires careful application of a

sensitive technique. Some regulatory officials are convinced that the test, unless run in a laboratory, will not stand up in litigation. (There is some

precedent in requiring net weight declarations when other declarations cannot be enforced (for example, aerosol packages must be labeled by net

weight).

The International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers estimates that it would cost $600 million to convert the industry to packaging by weight

through the purchase of checkweighers. The Committee does not believe that an investment in checkweighers is required in going to a net weight

declaration. The small amount of preliminary data that the Committee

reviewed during the Interim Meetings indicates that frozen desert novelties packagers may not always be meeting the volume declarations. This may be

due to the difficulty in checking the product. Additional data were

collected by Committee members before the 71st Annual Meeting to further compare net weight vs. volume declarations. Of 38 lots of product, 19 lots failed to comply with their net volume declarations. A majority of Committee members concluded that a significant problem exists with

packages not complying with their volume declarations, and that a net weight declaration would better inform the consumer. The Committee believes that the term "ice cream novelties" proposed in last year's report can be included in the definition of "frozen dessert novelties". The Committee recommends further clarifications of last year's report that frozen dessert novelties are those containing less than 8 fluid ounces and

that these products are prepackaged. Further, the Committee recommends

that the industry be given a one-year period to change from volume to net weight labeling. The Committee recommends the following new section be

added to the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities:

1.7.2. FROZEN DESSERT NOVELTIES.

1.7.2.1. DEFINITION.— Frozen dessert novelties are

individual-^rving-sized frozen food treats of

less than 8 fluid ounces and include bars on a

stick or stickless, sandwiches, cups, cones, sundaes, or pops, consisting in whole or in part of ice cream, ice milk, sherbet, ice,

frozen pudding, frozen yogurt, frozen juice or other frozen dessert.

1.7.2.2. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY.— Frozen

dessert novelties, packaged in advance of

sale, shall be kept, offered, exposed for sale, or sold by net weight. This requirement

shall take effect on January 1, 1988.

151
Laws and Regulations Committee

A motion to amend this item by substituting -'total volume" for "net weight" was made. The vote to hear the amendment passed. (House of State Representatives yes 31, no 0; House of Delegates yes 31, no 21.) The vote on the amendment itself, failed. The Conference then voted on the

original proposal (to require net weight); that failed. A proposal from the

floor to postpone this item indefinitely was then made. The Parliamentarian

explained that, if this motion carried, the Committee could not raise this issue again without a vote of the membership. This motion failed (House of State Representatives yes 7 no 29; House of Delegates yes 5, no 59). Since both the original Committee proposal and the amendments failed, the methods of sale of these products will continue to be those currently

practiced by the packaging industry, that is, to either (1) label the novelty

by total fluid volume or (2) label the ice-cream or ice-cream-like portion of the frozen dessert by fluid volume, augmented by a variety of declarations

for other foods combined with the ice-cream portion.

(B) TEST BftETHOD

The Committee saw merit in presenting the following item for a vote, even

though Item 214-4(A) failed; the original reasons for Item B as an interim

procedure gained in importance because the practice of volume declaration

will continue.

(This item was adopted.)

The Committee explained, prior to its presentation of Item 214-4(A) and (B) for a vote, that an official volume test method was needed to test frozen

dessert novelties. Although the Committee proposed a net weight method of

sale, an interim period of 18 months was also proposed for packagers to convert from volume to weight. During this interim period, a test method

for volume would have been needed.

The Committee proposes the addition of a volume-displacement test method

to NBS Handbook 133. The provisions of the method of test are: (1) the

product shall be maintained at 0 ^ or t>elow, and (2) ice water at 33 ^

or below may be used as a displacement fluid. The International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers reported at the

Annual Meeting that this set of conditions permits the testing of frozen

novelty products without the absorption of test fluid. A thin film of ice forms around the product when kept at 0 °F, preventing its melting in the

ice water. Ice water as the displacement fluid is a safer and

environmentally less caustic fluid than kerosene^.

••^See the Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 11th Edition, 16.220-16.221. This method is now a

"surplus method", but is still used in industry and state government

laboratories.

132
Laws and Regulations Committee

214-5 VC SECTION 2.19. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLENDS

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar) At the 69th and 70th Annual Meetings (1984 and 1985), the Conference

adopted and modified a section in the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities on the sale of gasoline-alcohol blends. It establishes requirements for informing consumers and retailers of the presence of alcohol in the gasoline, and explains where this information is to be

displayed on the motor fuel dispenser.

The American Petroleum Institute requested specific wording in Section

2.19.1. that would clarify that the labeling requirement is a minimum

standard and would not prohibit posting of additional alcohol or additive

information.

The Committee concludes that no change is needed in the recommended

regulation specifying that other voluntary labeling is permitted. In its 1984

Committee Report, the Committee's recommendation did "not preclude

additional voluntary labeling information and consumer education efforts as

to percentage amounts, meeting ASTM standards, etc". In its 1985 Report,

the Committee encouraged "declaration of the maximum amount of ethanol,

methanol, or combination...either voluntarily by gasoline marketers or by

regulation in those. ..states that have the capability to enforce such

requirements". However, the Committee has and continues to recommend

minimum dispenser labeling requirements.

The requirement for this information to be printed in letters one-half the

size of the product identity could create a space problem on a dispenser

with a product identity appearing in very large print. This and other

editorial changes are proposed to Section 2.19. as follows:

2.19.1. METHOD OF RETAH. SALE. — AU motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at retail containing at least one

percent by volume of ethanol, methanol, or a combination

shall be identified as "with", "containing" (or similar wording)

"ethanol", "methanol", or "ethanol/methanol" on the upper

fifty percent of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver's position, in a type at least wic half the stse 9^ the j^oduct identity, but w no ease less than one half inch in height, 1/16 inch stroke (width of type)

in contrasting colors.

2.19.2. DOCUMENTATION FOR P9MP DISPENSER LABELING

PURPOSES. — The retailer must be provided, at the time

of delivery of the fuel, on an invoice, biU of lading,

shipping paper, or other documentation, the presence and

maximum amount of ethanol, methanol, or any combination

of ethanol/methanol (in terms of percent by volume)

contained in the fueL This documentation is only for pump

dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any

potential blender to determine the total ox3^en content of

the motor fuel before blending.

153
Laws and Regulations Committee

214-6 V PROPOSED SECTION 2.20. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

(This item was adopted) At the 70th Annual Meeting, 1985, the Committee expressed its intention to recommend a new section be added to the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation that would require LP gas to be

sold on a temperature compensated basis. Several recommendations were made through the regional weights and measures associations that strengthened and clarified the Committee's original proposal.

The Committee met with the Specifications and Tolerances Committee as

well as industry representatives during the 1986 Interim Meetings to discuss

this issue. The National LP-Gas Association agreed that an exemption

should be applied either to small deliveries or to meters with a rated capacity of 20 gallons per minute or less. The Committee prefers

exempting a type of device rather than a size of delivery in order to achieve uniformity with what is being proposed by the Specifications and

Tolerances Committee. (See Item 332-1.)

Additional modifications to the Committee's proposal have been m.ade to reflect the method of sale for vapor as well as for liquid product. In this regard, the definition for the standard cubic foot of vapor (equivalent to temperature and altitude compensation for LPG liquid), taken from Section

3.33. LPG VAPOR-MEASURING DEVICES of NBS Handbook 44, was initially

proposed. However, at the Annual Meeting, industry representatives

indicated that atmospheric pressure corrections are not applied in every

state. Therefore, the Committee recommends a "metered cubic foot" corrected to 60 °F for vapor. The purpose of the Committee

recommendation is to move ahead with temperature compensation

requirements while providing industry an opportunity to make

recommendations concerning requirements for atmospheric pressure

corrections.

In addition, it should be pointed out that the Committee is strongly

committed to automatic temperature compensation rather than compensation

by invoice. The proposed new section is:. 2.20. UQUSFIED PETROLEUM GAS. - All liquefied petroleum

gases, including but not limited to propane, butane, and

mixtures thereof, shall be kept, offered, exposed for sale, or

sold by the pound, metered cubic foot^ of vapor (defined as one cubic foot at 60 ^) or the gallon (defined as 231

cubic inches at 60 ^). An metered sales by the gallon,

except those using meters with a maximum rated capacity

of 20 gallons per minute or less, shall be accomplished by

use of a meter and device that automatically compensates

for temperature.

^Sources: American National Standards Institute, Inc., "American National Standard for Gas Displacement Meters

(500 Cubic Feet per Hour Capacity and Under)", First Editicm, 1974, and National Bureau of Standards Handbook

44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices".

154
Laws and Regulations Committee

HANDBOOK 133

230-1 TABLES 2-8 AND 2-9 MAY'S FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PACKAGE

LABELED BY WEIGHT OR VOLUME

(This is an information item)

The State of New York recomended that the MAVs for packages labeled by

weight or volume be made smaller. They proposed that new tables of MAY'S be adopted that range from 1% of the labeled weight or volume for large packages (greater than 30 lb or 300 fl oz) down to 10% for smaU

packages (less than 0.10 lb or 1 fl oz) with a smooth curve fit in between

these values. Lower MAY's were proposed for the mid-range of package

sizes. No package data were provided to support this proposal.

The current MAY's were developed to define the limits of "reasonable

variation" in the Weights and Measures Law and were derived from actual data collected at retail and packaging locations. Data on several thousand

different packaged products were used to determine the MAY's in Handbook

133. Following discussion with the Subcommittee on Commodity Standards,

the Committee concluded that any proposal to modify the MAY's meets the following criteria:

1. The MAY'S must be evaluated within the context of the average requirement and the sampling plans they are intended to be used

with. The proposed MAY's must be compatible with the sampling

plans of Handbook 133. They cannot, for example, be compared

directly with the smaller "unreasonable minus errors" of Handbook 67. The Handbook 67 sampling plan permitted one

unreasonable minus error in a sample of 10 before the lot was

judged out of compliance; Handbook 133 (Category B) permits

no MAY'S in a sample of 10.

2. The data supporting recommendations for changing the MAY's

must:

(a) Be based on package data that also meet the average

requirement, and

(b) Include hard-to-pack as weU as easy-to-pack packages, and

standard pack as well as random pack.

Certain jurisdictions indicated they needed tighter (smaller) MAY's because

they do not use the average requirement in their package checking

programs. The Conference has long been on record as urging the use of the average requirement as the basis for package net contents compliance. The

use of MAY'S independently of any sampling plan as an compliance tool is not recognized by the Conference.

155
Laws and Regulations Committee

230-2 VC BORAX

This item was carried over from the 70th Annual Meeting, 1985, in which it was Item 205-8.

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar) At the 70th Annual Meeting, the Committee planned to recommend a new

section to the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities to permit consumer products composed predominantly of borax to be sold by

volume. In July 1985, the Federal Trade Commission indicated it could not support the Committee's recommendation for the labeling of borax by

volume. The Committee met again to resolve this issue. Consumer products consisting predominantly of borax are presently labeled by

weight. Many questions about these products and how to resolve the moisture loss problem associated with them were explored. U.S. Boraxes laundry products, "Borateem" bleach and "20 Mule Team Borax", are examples of consumer products composed primarily of "10 mole borax". The

"10 mole" refers to the amount of water naturally occurring in the borax

molecular structure. It can dehydrate naturally losing over 23% by weight.

If the company produced the dehydrated product artificially, the final product would not dissolve properly in the laundry. Packaging boreuc in impermeable packaging materials produces a caked product unsuitable for consumer use. Borax shows no decrease in volume due to moisture loss even after shipment.

A volumetric test procedure has been prepared to distinguish between short weight due to moisture loss or short filling at the point of pack. The

primary declaration will still be weight, but U.S. Borax has agreed to put a volume declaration on the package side or back panel as a supplemental

declaration. U.S. Borax has only two plants packaging their consumer borax products, one

located in Los Angeles County, California, and the other in Burlington, Iowa. The company is willing to open its doors and records to weights and measures officials to prove that they are delivering at or above the label declaration. They would welcome in-plant tests and evaluation of their records on a routine or complaint basis. Weights and measures agencies for Los Angeles and Iowa are both willing to cooperate in establishing a

standard operating procedure for in-plant inspections and reporting to other

jurisdictions.

The Committee recommends that the following test method be added to Handbook 133:

3.16. BORAX

This section describes a method for testing packaged

commodities in powdered or granular form eonsistinf

predominantly (more than 50 percent) of borax.

156
Laws and Regulations Committee

Such commodities are labeled by weight, but borax can lose more than 23 percent of its weight due to moisture loss. However, it does not lose volume upon moisture loss, and

this property makes possible a method of testing based on

volume. The method may be used either as a means of

verifying that the purchaser is receiving at least a declared

minimum volume of commodity or, as a means of audit

testing, to identify possible short-filling by weight at point of pack. Since the bulk density of these commodities can

vary at point of pack, further investigation would be

required to determine whether such short filling had

occurred.

3.16.1. Equipment o Equalrarm scale or balance having a

sensitivity of 0.002 lb. o Metal density cup having a capacity of 1 dry

pint (550.6 mL) (such as 0*Haus #104)^, with

the dimensions shown in Figure 3-13. o Metal density funnel with slide-gate and stand

(such as Cox #29)^, with the dimensions

shown in Figure 3-13. (Density cup and funnel available from

Seedburo Equipment Co., Chicago.^) o Rigid straightedge or ruler. o Pan (metal or plastic) suitable for containment of overflow of density cup.

3.16.2. Procedure

1. Follow the steps described in Section 3.6. If the lot does not comply by weight with the

sampling plan requirements (either the

average or indivdual package requirements),

select the lightest package uioting the actual net weight for this package) and continue.

2. Determine the tare weight of the density cup.

3. Place the density cup in the pan, and the

funnel on top of the density cup. Close the

funnel slide-gate.

^The use of trade or brand names does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the Department of Commerce over similar products commercially available from other manufacturers.

157
Laws and Regulations Committee

4. Pour sufficient commodity into the funnel so

that the density cup can be filled to

overflowing.

5. Quickly remove the slide-gate from the

funnel, allowing the commodity to flow into the density cup.

6. Carefully, without agitation of the density cup, remove the funnel and level off the

commodity with the ruler or straight edge.

Hold the ruler or straightedge at right angles

to the rim of the cup, and draw it back

carefully so as to leave an even surface.

7. Weigh the filled density cup (in pounds).

Subtract the tare weight of the cup from the

gross weight of the commodity plus cup to

obtain the net weight of commodity in the

cup.

3.16.3. Determination of Volume

1. Multiply the actual net weight (in pounds) as found for the package under test (step 1 in Section 3.16.2.) by 550.6.

2. Divide the answer obtained above by the

weight of the commodity in the density cup

(step 7 in Section 3.16.2.) The result is the net volume of commodity in the package in mL.

3. Compare the net volume of commodity in the package with the volume declared on the

package. The volume declaration will be

found at a location other than the principal

display paneL It will be in the following form

(1 mL = 1 cc);

Vol cc per NBS Handbook 133, Sec

3.16.

3.16.4. Action

If the net volume of commodity in the lightest

package is less than the declared volume on

the package, the lot is out of compliance and

enforcement action should be taken.

158
Laws and Regulations Committee

If the net volume of commodity in the li^test

package equals or exceeds the declared volume

on the package, the official may treat the lot as being in compliance on the basis of volume

and take no further action. Alternatively, the

official may tak<^ further steps to determine

whether the lot was in compliance with net weight requirements at point of pack or was

shortfilled by weight. To determine this, the

official could do one or more of the following:

1. Perform a laboratory moisture loss analysis^ that will ascertain what the weight of the

original borax product was when it was fully

hydrated.

2. Obtain additional data at the packing plant.

3. Investigate the problem on the lot in question

with the packager of the commodity.

Figure 3-13. Density cup and funneL

^Procedure available upon request from the Office of Weights and

Measures, National Bureau of Standards.

159
Laws and Regulations Committee

230-3 FTC POLICY REGARDING H-133

(This is an information item)

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a notice in the Federal Register

announcing that the procedures in H-133 "are not in conflict with existing

Federal Trade Commission requirements." Weights and measures officials should have confidence that these sampling and test methods are endorsed by

their Federal counterparts (see also the work of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements) and can be used with full assurance that there

will be no question about the integrity of a determination as to package net contents compliance. See Appendix B for the FTC notice of policy.

OTHER ITEMS

250-1 ENERGY ALLOCATION SYSTEMS

(This is an information item)

The Laws and Regulations Committee discussed the issue as it was described

to it by Seattle Weights and Measures through the Western Weights and Measures Association.

Property managers of buildings shared by several renters, leasers, etc., that do not have individual metering systems for heating or cooling, sometimes

allocate energy costs among the several residents. There are many ways

used to allocate these energy costs. The simplest method is to allocate costs proportional to the square footage leased by each tenant. Other

methods use various combinations of time, temperature, Btu measurements,

number of occupants, and other space allocation "systems". When

measurements of the energy use or consumption take place after (downstream

from) the meter supplied by the utility company, some would argue that these measurements fall within the scope of State and local weights and measures regulation.

It may be that basic standards of fairness need to be established under

existing landlord-tenant laws that: (1) clearly define minimum billing

requirements covering shared space energy use vs individueQ ap€irtment

heating; (2) provide that aU tenants pay for energy use on the same basis;

(3) use time-based systems verifying that heat is actually being delivered; and, (4) provide some kind of notification system to report problems of getting heat when the equipment is malfunctioning. Mr. J. Zimmer, inventor of one allocation system, described his firm's approach to the technical and legal issues. He said that most public

utilities contacted by his firm do not consider these devices or systems to be under regulation by utilities commissions. The final subdivision of

costs using his system is derived from a complex equation combining square

footage, number of occupants, amount of shared building space and

equipment, and time and temperature at valve openings or at a thermostat.

Accuracy of those elements amenable to measurement (e.g. time,

temperature) may affect the final allocated bill slightly or considerably,

depending on how the equation for "fair allocation", or the billing system, is set up.

160
Laws and Regulations Committee

For lack of hard data, the Committee is not able to arrive at a conclusions

at this time. The Committee refers the issue back to the Western Weights

and Measures Association.

250-2 TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

(This is an information item)

The Committee met jointly with the Executive Committee to review and

discuss the work and progress of the Task Force on Commodity

Requirements. See Appendices B and C in the Executive Committee

Report. The "gray area" approach proposed by the Task Force shows promise

of clarifying the moisture loss issue through administrative means.

Cooperative information and data exchange among USDA Meat and Poultry

Inspection, weights and measures jurisdictions, and industry may help to weed

out problems that are not (but are often claimed to be) moisture loss in manufacturing and distribution.

250-3 POLYETHYLENE

(This is an information item)

There continues to be a problem with the net contents declarations on

polyethylene sheeting. Several packagers have been found labeling the length

and width of the sheeting correctly but labeling the mil thickness as thicker

than the sheeting actually is. They have been covering up this deception by

labeling a net weight which is only correct for a much thinner product. If a weights and measures official tests the product by net weight without

checking to see whether the stated mil thickness could result in the stated

net weight, then he will never suspect that the product is actually short measure. (For example, a 10 ft by 100 ft by 4 mil sheet should weigh 19.1 pounds; packages have been found labeled 17.1 pounds.)

The Committee recommends that the official make sure that all the labeled

net contents statements of polyethylene sheeting are consistent with one

another. To determine the proper net weight, the inspector may: (1) calculate what the net weight should be for any declared length, width, and

thickness (See Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities,

Section 2.12.7. and use 0.92 for "D" for clear poly and 0.93 for black poly);

or, (2) consult a table (to be mailed to all State and major local weights

and measures directors) for what the net weight should be. Enforcement

action can be taken if all the labeled contents are not consistent. The

official does not need to make any mil thickness measurements on the

sheeting. D. Stagg, Alabama, Chairman

T. Brink, Vermont

S. Colbrook, Illinois L. Letey, Colorado

A. Nelson, Connecticut

C. S. Brickenkamp, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

161
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX

MASON CARBAUGH RAYMOND D. VAUCHAN

COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL TURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES

P. O. Box 1 163, Richmond, Virginia 23209 December 2, 1985

Dr. George E. Mattimoe, Chairman

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Post Office Box 22159

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Dear Dr. Mattimoe:

This Department has recently been discussing with the Retail

Food Industry the correct method of merchandising wrapped bulk

commodities. These commodities, which generally consist of

wrapped candies, pet food portions, snack bars, and condensed

flavored (bullion cubes), are being sold gross weight. While

individual wrappers may be insignificant, collectively the

wrappers (tare weight) may equal or exceed six percent per one

pound.

Several suggestions to the food industry as how to take

proper tare on wrapped bulk foods include:

1) manually .setting the scale for the tare weight;

2) through a look up code at the cash register;

3) automatic through the computer check out system;

4) a percentage tare; and

5) develop tare charts for each commodity to the

nearest 0.01 lb. by 1/4 lb. weight intervals.

I am told the difficulty in taking proper tare on wrapped

commodities lies with automatic checkout equipment systems, as well as the human factor. The problem is compounded since all

scales are not made in 1/4, 1/2, or 1 pound increments.

Mr. Lyles, Chief of our Weights and Measures Bureau, said

that you were present when this item was discussed at the

Southern Weights and Measures Association meeting in New Orleans,

Louisiana, during November 4-6, 1985,

162
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX A Dr. George E. Mattimoe

Page two December 2, 1985

Due to the problems associated with merchandising wrapped

bulk commodities/ I am requesting that you as Chairman of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) appoint a task

force consisting of scale, cash register, computer manufacturers

or vendors, and Weights and Measures Officials to recommend

equitable procedures for industry to follow to insure that

Weights and Measures Net Weight Laws are complied within the sale

of wrapped bulk commodities.

I hope recommendations and resolution of the issue can be

presented at the next National Conference on Weights and Measures

.

I hope this request receives your favorable consideration.

Let me know if you have questions, or if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Original S'Sned by

S. Mason Carbaugh

Commissioner

cc: Mr. Albert D. Tholen

Mr. Barry F. Scher

Mr. Billy W. Southall

Mr. James F. Lyles

SWMA Commissioners of Agriculture

163
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX A

January 8, 1986

Honorable S. Mason Carbaugh

Commissioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

P.O. Box 1163 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Dear Mr. Carbaugh: Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1985 concerning the method of sale of wrapped commodities being sold from bulk.

I am well aware that retail food stores have sometimes overlooked their

legal responsibility in this area, selling prepackaged commodities such

as candies, pet food, etc. on a gross weight rather than a net weight

basis. You cite instances in which the wrappers may constitute as much

as six percent of the gross weight. In fact, tare weights amounting to

U& percent of the gross weight have been measured (e.g., candy

cigarettes in boxes). The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) recommends, and every State, to my knowledge, has adopted requirements as expressed in Section 1.2. of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law (and published in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 130. "Uniform Laws and Regulations"). This section reads in part: "The term 'weight' as used

in connection with any commodity means net weight...." Retail food stores routinely comply with this requirement in their meat packaging

operations. Because marketing practices in bulk food sales have evolved from the sale of unwrapped commodites to wrapped, the retailers

have not adequately prepared themselves by purchasing suitable measuring and calculating equipment to permit easy or automatic computing of the tare weights for variable weight sales of prepackaged

commod it ies

Therefore, in my opinion, the problem is not weights and measures laws and regulations requiring sales by net weight, but it is retail sales agents having trouble finding ways to comply with the law. The

alternatives may include all those your letter mentions plus one: not

to sell such prewrapped goods from bulk because the retail store does

not have automatic or simple means to account for the tare weight.

164
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPEICIX A

However, I think your letter highlights the need to bring the retail

food aarketera and equipment aanufacturers together on this subject. The NCWM can sponsor such a meeting later this year. I think all weights and aeasures orflclals would be adamantly opposed to changing

law or policy requiring net weight. I think a meeting of retailers and equipment aanuracturers could begin by explaining the law to them and asking then to work out what they each can do to comply. If this approach Is acceptable to you, the National Bureau of Standards Office

or Weights and Measures will begin making plans to arrange such a eeting.

Sincerely,

George E. Mattlaoe, Chalman

National Conrerence on Weights and Measures

165
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix B

10264 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 57 / Tuesday. March 25. 1986 / Notices

i'EOERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Policy Regarding Checking The Net Contents of Packaged Goods

aocncy: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTtOfi: Notice of policy. summary: This notice announces the Federal Trade Commission's

determination that the procedures for checking the nert canlents of packaged

goods contained in the National Bureau

of Standards Handbook 133. Second

Edition issued October 1984 are not in

conflict with existing Federal Trade Commission Tequirements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Earl Johnson, Federal Trade

Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 20580. Telephone: (202) 376-2891. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

second edition of NBS Handbook 133 was published in October 1984. The

National Bureau of Standards stated

that this handbook had been prepared

as a procedural guide for compliance

testing of the n<?t contents statement on packaged -goods. Compliance testing of packaged goods is the process for determining whether the actual contents

of a package, as affected by the packaging and distribution process,

sufficiently' conform with the statemertt of ne^ oontents on the package. The NErtionifl Bureau of Standards

further €tated thai although the handbook has been developed primarfiy

for use by weights and measures

officials of the states, counties and

cities, it could also be useful to commercial and industrial

establifihnrerrt« involved in the packaging, distribution, and sale of commodities. The Federal Trade Commission wishes to enhance the

ufiHty of this handbook by this notice

stating that the procedures in NBS

Handbook 133, Second Edition are not in conflict with existing Federal Trade Commission requirements.

By direction of the Commission.

Emily H. Rock,

Secrt'tary. [FR Doc. 86-6445 filed 3-24-86; 8:45 am]

BILUNG COO€ 6750-01-*!

166
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Fred Gerk, Chairman

Director, Division of Standards and Consumer Services

State of New Mexico

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances submitted its Report to the

71st Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Report consisted of the Interim Report as offered in the "NCWM

Program and Committee Reports" as amended by Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual Meeting, and further amended from the floor during the voting session. Items are grouped into the following series for ease of reference:

Sec. 1.14. Gener€d 314 Series Sec. 2.20. Scales 320 Series Sec. 2.21. Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems 321 Series Sec. 2.22. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems

for Grain 322 Series Sec. 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices 330 Series Sec. 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters 331 Series Sec. 3.32. LPG-LMD 332 Series Sec. 3.33. LPG-VMD 333 Series Sec. 3.34. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring

Devices 334 Series

Sec. 5.54. Taximeters 354 Series Sec. 5.55. Timing Devices 355 Series

Sec. 5.56. Grain Moisture Meters 356 Series Other Items 360 Series Table A identifies all of the items contained in the Report by Reference

Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number.

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

(i.e., 320-4 V) or, if the voting item was a part of the consent calendar, by

a suffix "VC". Withdrawn items are identified by a suffix "W". Items

without a suffix are informational.

167
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

In addition the Report contains an appendix related to Reference Key

320-22.

Throughout the Report, recommended amendments to existing paragraphs of NCWM and NBS publications are shown as follows: wording to be deleted is shown itned thpeagh; wording to be added is underlined. New paragraphs

added are not underlined. All sections to be changed or added are indented

and printed in bold face type.

ORDER OF PRESENTATION

Prior to the submission of the Report and its component items for consideration, two items were withdrawn: 330-2 and 360-1. The Committee's final report was presented in the following order: Consent Calendar; and

Individual Voting Items. Table B summarizes the voting results for items voted on individually.

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

the Reference Key Number.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

314-1 VC

320-1 V

320-2 320-3 VC

320-4 V

320-5 V

320-6 V

320-7 VC

320-8 V

320-9

320-10 VC

320-11 VC

SECTION 1.14. GENERAL CODE

G.S.5.3.1. Value of Graduated Intervals or Increments/Dual Indications

SECTION 2.20. SCALES

5.1.1. Zero Indication

S.3. Design of Load-Receiving Elements

5.5.2. Accuracy Classes - Table 3/Class n Scales

RFI Testing Procedures

N.2. Verification (Testing) Standards

T.N.3.4. Tolerance Values/Crane and

Construction Materials Hopper Scales

Tolerances Applicable to In-Motion Weighing

Devices

T.N.5.2. Repeatability/Shift or Section Tests

T.N.6.1.(b) Sensitivity T.N.8.1.4. Operating Temperature

UR.1.1. General/Table 7a Typical Class or Type

of Device for Weighing Applications

173

173

174

175

175

177

177

178

179

180

181

181

168
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (continued)

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

320-12

320-13 VC

320-14

320-15 VC

320-16 VC

320-17 VC

320-18 VC

320-19 V

320-20 VC

320-21

320-22 V

New User Requirements

Point-of-Sale S3^tems

Hand-Held Scales

Prescription Scales

Weighment

T.1.6.1. Jewelers* Scales, with a Capacity

of One-Half Ounce or Less

S.4.2. Adjustable Components

T.N.8.2. Humidity

Variable Division-Value (Multi-Range) Scales

Report of the Railroad Advisory Committee

Report of the NTETC - Weighing Industry Sector BELT CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

182

183

184

184

185

185

185

186

186

186

187

321-1 VC Rate of Flow Indicator and/or Recorder

321-2 VC N.2. Conditions of Tests 321-3 VC N.3.2. Material Tests (f) 321-4 VC N.3.3. (a) Chain Test

321-5 VC UR.3.2. (c) Scale Alignment

SECTION 2.22. AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING

SYSTEMS FOR GRAIN

187

187

188

188

189

322-1 VC For Systems Used to Weigh Out

322-2 VC For Digital Indications

322-3 VC Time Dependence

322-4 VC Repeatability

322-5 V Extending the Application of this Code

SECTION 3.30. LIQUID-MEASURING

DEVICES

330-1 V S.1.1.2, Units

330-2 W S.1.4.3./UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity 330-3 Blending Type Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

330-4 VC Elapsed-Time Tests

330-5 Temperature Compensating Devices and Systems

on Wholesale Meters

330-6 Revision of all codes dealing with Liquid-Measuring

Devices

330-7 V Report of the NTETC - Measuring Industry Sector SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE-TANK

METERS

189

189

190

190

190

191

193

193

193

194

197

198

331-1 VC Conflict Between Design Specifications 199

169
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (continued)

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item

SECTION 3.32. LPG-LMD

332-1 V Temperature Compensation

332-2 V A. AppUcation

332-3 VC S.2.7.1. Zero-Set-Back-4nterlock

332-4 Computing Type Devices

SECTION 3.33. LPG-VMD

333-1 VC AppUcation

SECTION 3.34. CRYOGENIC LIQUIDMEASURING DEVICES

200

200

201

201

202

334-1 V On-Board Weighing Systems

SECTION 5.54. TAXIMETERS

354-1 V S.1.3. Visibility of Indications

354-2 VC UR.2. Position and Illumination of Taximet^

SECTION 5.55. TIMING DEVICES

202

203

204

355-1 VC T.1.1. Tolerances for Laundry Driers and Car-wash

Timers

SECTION 5.56. GRAIN MOISTURE

METERS

356-1 V S.1.6.2. Design of Direct Reading Grain

Moisture Meters/Operating Range

356-2 V N.1.2. Minimum Test OTHER ITEMS

360-1 W Small Utilities Meters

360-2 NBS H-105-1, 2, and 3 360-3 VC Review of Nonretroactive Requirements

360-4 Editorial Changes to Handbook 44 360-5 Grain Test Scales

204

205

206

206

206

206

207 207

170
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table B

VOTING RESULTS

Reference

rvey JNo. House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Yes No Yes No

L/Onseni iiems 4o U 71 AU 00 1 r aiieo 91ill. to ion_A T M Q 4U QO

Q0 OOfi-A N 1 fi 1 7

< O ( r aiieu 91 oon_4. M 1 fi 9 16 0o O^U—

45 1 OD 9 uZu—

46 0 DO o 320-8 45 1 68 1 320-19 43 1 54 0 320-22 43 1 58 0 322-5 45 0 57 3 330-1 43 1 64 0 330-7 32 11 40 24 332-1 23 18 Failed 35 28

171
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table B VOTING RESULTS

(Continued)

Reference

Key No. House of State Representatives

House of

Delegates

Yes No Yes No

332-2 43 2 60 1 334-1 44 0 60 3

354-1 44 2 63 5

356-1 Amend #1 17 19 Failed 16 34

356-1 Orig. 17 21 FaUed 39 19

Report 43 1 66 0

Reconsider Report 32 1 54 3

356-1 Amend #2 40 0 S5 0

Report 40 0 S6 0

356-2 38 1 53 a

172

II
specifications and Tolerances Committee

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order by Reference Key Number)

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

Section 1.14. General Code

314-1 VC G.S.5.3.1. VALUE OF GRADUATED INTERVALS OR

INCREMENTS/DUAL INDICATIONS

(This item was adopted)

G.S.5.3.1. has required some scales to provide a dual indication where one of the indications was a common base for others. For example, a scale capable of indicating in pennyweights, carats, grams, drams apothecary, and

troy ounces, would provide the following comparisons using the unit "gram"

as a common base:

1 carat = 0.2 gram

1 pennyweight = 1.555 grams

1 dram apothecaries = 3.888 grams

1 ounce troy = 31.103 grams

Applying the principles of the number of scale divisions and the minimum

load under the new Scales Code is all that is necessary in determining the appropriateness of a particular design; therefore, the constraint of indicating

comparable values is no longer necessary. This is also true with other types

of measuring devices and should apply to all codes. Therefore it was recommended this paragraph be amended to read:

G.S.5.3.1. DUAL iNDieATIGNS ON DEVICES THAT INDICATE OR

RECORD W MORE THAN ONE UNIT.- On equtpment devices

designed to indicate or record in both ttch-peund and me^ie units; comparable values shall be indicated or recorded in each mode ei

operatioR (eig^; 10 lb S 1^99 OrOl ^b—6 OkOl gal SO mLy 1^0 yd 0^1 mh more than one unit of measurement, the values indicated or and

recorded shall be identified with the an appropriate unit word,

symbol, or abbreviation. (Nonretroactive and enforceable as of

January 1, 1978.)

Section 2.20. Scales

320-1 V S.1.1. ZERO INDICATION

(This item was defeated) Because of the versatility offered by the use of electronics, the zero

balance condition of a scale can be controlled by means other than the

indication of zero. Weighing errors caused by an out-of-balance scale

condition can be significantly reduced by employing new techniques.

173
specifications and Tolerances Committee

There are at least two reasons not to drop the "zero" indication as a

requirement:

1. hesitancy of weights and measures officials in breaking with

tradition; and,

2. the limited value to customers in direct sale applications.

However, the operation of this system is seriously constrained if the scale is required to indicate the customary "0.00" without any benefit in maintaining

"0". Recognizing the value of an indication of a balance condition, such an

indication could take the form of a small indicator light labeled "scale ready". Therefore, it was recommended that S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating

Elements be amended by adding the following:

S.1.1.1. DIGITAL INDICATING ELEMENTS.- A dif^tal zero

indication shall represent a balance condition that is within plus or minus one~half the value of the scale division. An auxiliary or supplemental "center of zero" indicator shall define a zero balance

condition to + 1/4 of a scale division or less. On point-of-^e

ems, zero-balance condition may be indicated by other than a

value, provided that effective automatic means are provided to

Inhibit a weighing operation when the scale is in an out-of-balance

condition.

320-2 S.3. DESIGN OF LOAD-RECEIVING ELEMENTS

Platforms on vehicle scales were reportedly becoming distorted after use when weighing loads less than scale capacity. It was recommended that a

specification paragraph be added requiring scale platforms to be so constructed that they would not suffer permanent deflection or distortion in use. This is already required by General Code paragraph G-S.3. Permanence.

Scale platforms on vehicle scales were reportedly becoming damaged when a

large amount of test weights on "dollies" or test carts with small wheels and

short axles were used to conduct section tests. It was further reported that the conduct of a section test by moving these types of weights across the center of the scale as required by Scales Code paragraph N. 1.3.4. does not simulate the application of the load when weighing vehicles. This problem is recognized, but the shift test as specified in N.1.3.4. has

been a part of H-44 for over 20 years, and corner or load bearing tests had

been eliminated at the request of scale manufacturers because vehicle scales were not loaded on individual corners in their normal use. The Committee has received and accepted an offer from the S.M.A. to form

a task force with the Committee to develop design criteria for appropriate

test standards for vehicle scales. Comments from other members of the Conference are requested.

174
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-3 VC S.5.2. ACCURACY CLASSES - TABLE 3/CLASS U

SCALES

(This item was adopted)

The maximum number of scale divisions for a Class n Scale is specified as 50 000. This value was based on OIML IR 3, 5 years ago. Since then, IR 3 has been amended by changing that value to 100 000. Because there is a need in the U.S. for Class II balances with more than

50 000 divisions, and international uniformity is highly desirable, amendment

of Table 3 - Accuracy Classes is recommended as follows: For Class n scales, change the maximum number of divisions allowable

from 50 000 to 100 000. 320-4 Y RFI TESTING PROCEDURES

Several comments and suggestions concerning this subject were received

including the following: Field tests improperly conducted by weights and measures

officials have resulted in costly destruction of scale component

parts.

It is not appropriate to conduct RFI tests at a location where

the background RFI has not been quantified. RFI tests should only be conducted in the laboratory during a type evaluation. RFI tests should only be conducted in the field and only after the presence of RFI has been verified. The tests conducted

should replicate the RFI that is determined as being present.

When a device is subjected to RFI/EMI tests, the allowable response should be quantified.

The significance of these comments was examined. The availability and use

of hand-held communicators is believed to be extensive. Type evaluation

laboratories have been conducting RFI laboratory tests during type evaluation on all equipment submitted for at least four years. Based on this experience, it is evident that a minimum amount of "shielding" should be

required on all electronic equipment, consistent with the SMA recommended

field test procedures and equipment as published in 1977 and adopted by the 63rd NCWM in 1978.

It is recognized that this minimum "shielding" may not be sufficient in certain field installations therefore, field tests should be conducted

consistent with the equipment and environment found at the installation, but

only if the presence of any EMI or RFI is verified. There is a need to

specify the appropriate allowable response on weighing equipment when

subjected to these tests.

175
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The following Scales Code amendments were recommended and offered in three parts: N. 1.6.1.; N. 1.6.2.; and T.N.9. Add a new note paragraph as N.1.6. with two sub-paragraphs to read:

(This part was defeated)

N.1.6. RFI Susceptibility Tests.

N.1.6.1. Type Evaluation. - An RFI test shall be conducted

during a type evaluation as folloivs: At a distance not nearer than 1 meter to the equipment under

test, and with the scale in a no-load condition and at any test

load, operate the foUowing equipment by alt^nately activating

and deactivating the transmitter key under the specified

conditions.

Frequency Field Strength Modulation

27-mz. 5^tt hand-held Not to exceed 50 % Annplitude,

connunicator 3 V/m 1 kBz Sinenave

460-jMEIz 4^tt hand-held Not to exceed 50 % Anplitude,

camunicator 3 VAn 1 Idfe Sinenave

(This part was adopted)

N.1.6.2. Field Evaluation. - An RFI test shall be conducted at a given installation when the presence of RFI has been

verified and characterized if those conditions are considered

"usual and customary".

Renumber paragraphs N.1.6. and N.1.7. to N.1.7. and N.1.8. respectively.

Add a new paragraph T.N. 9. to read:

(This part was adopted)

T.N.9. RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE (RFI) AND OTHER

ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE SUSCEPTIBILITY. - The

difference t>etween the weight indication with the disturbance and

the weight indication without the disturbance, shall not exceed one

scale division (d) or the equipment shall:

(a) blank the indication, or

(b) provide an error message, or

(c) the indication shall be so completely unstable that it could not be interpreted, or transmitted into memory or to a recording element, as a correct measurement value. To clarify that T.N.9. also applies to unmarked devices, add a new paragraph

numbered T.4. to read the same as T.N.9.

176
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-5 V N.2. VERIFICATION (TESTING) STANDARDS

(This item was adopted)

The necessary accuracy of field standard test weights was not clear in those

situations when the tolerance applicable to a scale under test is less then

0.05% (1/2 000). The principle expressed in H-44, Sec. 1.11. Fundamental

Considerations, paragraph 3.2. is "the error in the standard should not be

greater than 25% of the smallest tolerance to be applied to the equipment

under test when the standard is used." With the tolerances now specified in the scales code, there are instances when Class F field standard test weights with an error at the tolerance limits specified in NBS H-105-1, cannot be used without correction because the error in the test weights will exceed the 25% of the smallest tolerance. It is recommended that; Section 1.11., paragraph 3.2. and scales code paragraph N.2. be changed

from 25% to 1/3. The following is offered for guidance in the use of field standard test weights. Class F weights can be used to test all Class III L and Class nn scales. Class F weights can be used to test all class HI scales with the following exception; if acceptance tolerance is to be applied

and the scale has 8330 divisions or more, the error in the weight cannot exceed 0.00833% (1/12 000). Class n scales must be tested with weights conforming to H-105-1 but the error limits must be those specified for OIML

Class Fl weights. When the value of the verification scale

division (e) of a Class II scale is 1 mg, the test loads must be

comprised of individual weights and not a group of weights.

Since Class Fl weights require special care and caution in use

it is recommended that sets of weights of this class be under

the supervision and care of the metrologist. When Class Fl

weights are used to evaluate a device in the field, the field official should be instructed in their use. 320-6 Y

T.N.3.4. TOLERANCE VALUES/CRANE AND CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS HOPPER SCALES

(This item was adopted)

Confusion exists regarding the acceptance and maintenance tolerance values

applicable to these devices. Paragraph T.N.3.4. specifies that the tolerances

are those in Table 6 which lists maintenance tolerances only. The reference

to acceptance tolerances is in paragraph T.N. 3. 2. Because paragraph

T.N. 3.2. is not referenced in paragraph T.N. 3. 4., it could be concluded

that there are no acceptance tolerances applicable to these devices.

177
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

To clarify this situation, amendment of the Code is recommended as

follows:Wherever Table 6 is referenced in the current code, and it is intended

that acceptance tolerances should also apply, delete the reference to Table 6 and replace it with reference to paragraphs T.M.3.1. and

T.N.3.2.

All crane and hopper scales shall be designed to meet accuracy Class III as

specified in Table 3. The tolerances to be applied require code amendment

as follows. Amend T.N.3.4. to read: T.N.3.4. CRANE AND eeNSTRUeUGN MATERIALS HOPPER

(OTHER THAN GRAIN HOPPER) SCALES. — The maintenance and

acceptance tolerances shall be as specified in TaUe 6 T.N.3.1. and

T.N.3.2. for Class III L, except that the tolerance for crane and

construction materials hopper scales shall not be but never less than

Id or 0.1 percent of the scale capacity, whichever is less. 320-7 VC TOLERANCES APPUCABLE TO IN-MOTION WEIGHING

DEVICES

(This item was adopted)

Several comments had been received with respect to T.N.3.6. dealing with

in-motion weighing. These include: (a) difficulty in understanding the application of the four sub-paragraphs; and (b) the greater tolerances for scales with a small number of divisions (like a monorail scale) when

compared to the previous code. Representatives of the USDA Packers and

Stockyards Administration have suggested that the tolerance application to in-motion tests on monorail scales should be changed back to that of the

previous code. Code amendment is recommended as follows: T.N.3.6. m-MOTION WEIGHING, OTHER THAN MONORAIL

SCALES.- Tolerances for a group of weighments appropriate to the

application must satisfy the following conditions: Add a new paragraph T.N. 3.7. to read: T.N.3.7. IN-MOTION WEIGHING, MONORAIL SCALES.- On an in-motion

test of 20 or more individual test loads, 10% of the individual test loads may be in error, each not to exceed two times the static tolerance applicable. The error on the total of the individual test loads shall not exceed + 0.2%.

178
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

3J0-8 V T.N.5.2. REPEATABILITY/SHIFT OR SECTION TESTS

(This item was adopted)

Shift or section tests are not "repeatability" requirements, but relate to T.N.4. Agreement of Indications. There are difficulties in interpreting the three paragraphs of the T.N.4. section which need to be clarified. These sections deal with three different designs of a scale or weighing

system.

The first is an installation that includes two or more indicating and/or

recording elements that are intended to be used independently of one

another. An example is a scale equipped with a digital indicator and a

printer that is intended to be used for normal weighing. It is also equipped

with a "standby" died and printer or type-registering weighbeam, which are intended to be used in the case of a power failure or other failure in the

electronic indicator. In this instance, it is intended that tolerances are to be applied to each combination of indicating and recording elements that are used in combination, and when not used in combination are to be applied

independently. Thus, whichever indicator is in use, the scale weighs within

tolerances. It is not intended that the indicators "agree" with each other at any test load. Thus, one paragraph must deal with this condition which will be T.N.4.1. and recommended to read: T.N.4.1. MXJLTIPLE INDICATING/RECORDING ELEMENTS. - In the ease of a seale or weighing system equipped with more than one

indicating element or indicating element and recording element

combination, where the indicators or indicator/recorder combination

are intended to be used independently of one another, tolerances

shall be applied independently to each indicator or indicator/recorder

combination.

The second design is a scale or weighing system that is equipped with

various means of indicating the weight of the same load, that are intended

or can be used in combination. For example, a dial equipped with "drop" or

"unit" weights, a weighbeam with counterpoise weights, a dial equipped with

tare bars, a batching system equipped with two or more weighbeams, or a weighbeam with a "weight-o-graph". The concern here is that, whatever means is used to indicate the load, the value obtained is within tolerance and the difference between the indications is not so significant. Thus

another paragraph must deal with this situation which will be T.N.4.2., and

recommended to read: T.N.4.2. SINGLE INDICATING/RECORDING ELEMENT. - In the case

of a scale or weighing system with a single indicating element or an

indicating/recording element combination and equipped with component

parts such as unit weights, weight>e&m and weights, or multiple

weighbeams that can be used in combination to indicate a weight, the

difference in the weight value indications of any load shall not be

greater than the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for that

load, and shall be within tolerance limits.

179
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Another design is a scale or weighing system equipped with two analog

indicators within the same element used to indicate the same load, usually one for the buyer and one for the seller. Examples are drum type

computing scales and circular dials equipped with graduations and an

indicator on both sides of the dial head. Since two different parties are observing a weight indication for the same load at the same time, there must be specified a maximum difference between these indications. Since

all analog indications for a given load are to be read to the closest graduation, the maximum difference to be allowed is +^ 1/2 d, with both

values within tolerance. Thus there is a need for the third paragraph

numbered T.N.4.3. and recommended to read: T.N.4.3. SINGLE INDICATING ELEMENT/MULTIPLE INDICATIONS. -

In the case of an analog indicating element equipped with two or more indicating means within the same element, the difference in the

weight indications for any load other than zero shall not be greater

than one-half the value of the scale division (d) and be within

tolerance limits. There are other combinations encountered. An example is a scale with two

digital indicators, one intended for the operator, and the other intended for the other party in the transaction. These indicators could also be equipped

with printers. The applicable requirement in this situation is General Code

paragraph G-S.5.2.2. (a) which requires that all digital values in a system

indicating the value of the same load agree with one another.

Another combination is an analog dial equipped with a printer. The

requirement applicable to the agreement between the analog value indicated

and the digital value recorded is also found in the General Code paragraph

G-S.5.2.2. (b) which requires a digital value (recorded) to coincide with its associated analog value (indicated) to the nearest scale division. To clarify the intent of the shift or section tests, it is recommended that

p£U'agraph T.N. 5. 2. be deleted and a new paragraph T.N.4.4. be added to read: T.N.4.4. SHIFT OR SECTION TESTS. - The range of the results obtained during the c<mduct of a shift test or a section test shall not exceed the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance applicable and

each test result shall be within applicable tolerances. 320-9 T.N.6.1.(b) SENSITIVITY

A concern was expressed that, with the new sensitivity requirement of Id at zero load and 2d at the maximum test load, a scale marked with an accuracy class and equipped with a balance indicator can have a sensitivity of 2d under maximum test load, while an unmarked device must have a

sensitivity of Id. A balance indicator can be equipped with separate means to adjust the

sensitivity. With this type of indicator, there is little change, if any, in the

sensitivity at zero load and at maximum test load. This is unlike a weighbeam in which there are many factors impacting on the sensitivity,

including the plumb and level conditions of the levers and steelyard rod, the

180
specifications and Tolerances Committee

range of the levers and weighbeams, and the condition of the pivots and

bearings, which do affect the sensitivity under a load. There also are balance indicators that do not have separate means to adjust the sensitivity; for example those with a reference mark or "indicator" that

is a part of, or an extension of the weighbeam, and a reference mark or indicator that is a part of or extension of the trig loop. These devices are subjected to the same variations in the sensitivity as a weighbeam. Thus

the Id maximum sensitivity value at no-load and 2d under maximum test load is a valid principle.

The maximum sensitivity value of a balance indicator that is designed with means to adjust the sensitivity will be about the same when the scale is under a no-load or a loaded condition. Thus, when a balance indicator is so equipped and required to comply with the Id requirement under a no-load

condition, there is no reason to believe that the sensitivity will deteriorate

under a load. Therefore, no amendment to the Code was recommended.

Concern was expressed that the sensitivity requirements may not be

appropriate, therefore this item will continue to be studied and included on

next year's agenda.

320-10 VC T.N.8.1.4. OPERATING TEMPERATURE

(This item was adopted)

Paragraph S.1.4.2. Values Displayed, Temperature Conditions was added to the Scales Code in 1979 as a nonretroactive paragraph and became effective

January 1, 1981. In the new Scales Code, it was included as a performance

requirement in T.N.8. Influence Factors as T.N.8.1.4. Operating

Temperature. Since the T.N.8. section only applies to devices marked with

class numbers, an omission occurs when unmarked devices are tested. To

correct this situation, it was recommended that a new paragraph be added

to read:T.5. OPERATING TEMPERATURE. - An indicating or recording

element shall not display or record any usable values until the

operating temperature necessary for accurate weighing and a stable sero balance condition has been attained. (Nonretroactive and

effective as of January 1, 1981)

320-11 VC UR.1.1. GENERAL/TABLE 7a TYPICAL CLASS OR TYPE

OF DEVICE FOR WEIGHING APPUCATIONS

(This item was adopted)

A need to recognize the use of Class in scales for retail weighing of precious metals and gems, (generally fabricated jewelry sold by jewelers to consumers, or used precious metals sold to jewelers by individuals) was

cited. Class ni devices equipped with a scale division value and number of

scale divisions that are appropriate can be used for the retail weighing of

precious metals and gems. Amendment of Table 7a was recommended as

follows:

181
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Change description for Class in devices to read:

All commercial weighing not otherwise specified, grain test scales,

retail precious metals and semi-precious gem weighing.

It was necessary to clarify that a user could use a scale of a higher accuracy class for a weighing application than indicated on this table. Addition of the following footnote to Table 7a was recommended:

Note: A scale with a higher accuracy class than that specified as

"typical" may be used. 320-12 NEW USER REQUIREMENTS

Several recommendations were received to add new User Requirements in recognition of certain practices that could develop under the new Scales Code. A discussion of and the recommendations for each follows. Increase Scale Division Values

A user could increase the value of the scale division after a device was

rejected for repairs. Since the tolerances are a function of the value of the

scale division, the effect of this action would be to increase the tolerances

to be applied, and in some instances the device would then be found to meet the code requirements.

If the scale in question is equipped with an analog indicator, such as a weighbeam or a dial, increasing the value of the scale division would require the replacement of the dial. If for example, a 1000 x 1 lb dial were

replaced with a 2000 x 2 lb dial the scale capacity would be increased

beyond its limit and the scale would not be acceptable. It is highly unlikely that a dial would be replaced. A weighbeam is more apt to be replaced,

but the same analogy applies.

Most digital indicators could be changed within the instrument by the movement of a "dip switch."

The replacement of the indicator is the choice of the device owner. If a change is made, the scale is subject to reevaluation on the suitability of the "new design"; if it meets all the requirements of the Code, it is acceptable.

Keyboard Adjustments

Concern was expressed about the use of a keyboard to "span" a scale, and

the method for sealing such a capability. Paragraph S.1.10. Provision For

Sealing Adjustable Components on Electronic Devices covers this situation. A

security seal must be "broken" before a scale can be adjusted with the use

of a keyboard.

Combination Railway Track and Vehicle Scales A suggestion was made that these scales be equipped with separate

indicators for each weighing application.

182
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

A combination railway track and vehicle scale must meet all the requirements of the code for each weighing application including the number

of scale divisions (n) and the value of the scale division (d). The best

possible solution is a device equipped with a digital indicator designed as a manual multi-range device. When a railroad car is weighed, the manual

switch is placed in the "rail car weighing mode" (for example, 400 000 lb x

100 lb). When a motor vehicle is weighed, the switch is placed in that "motor vehicle mode" (for example, 120 000 lb x 20 lb). 320-13 VC POINT-OF-SALE SYSTEMS

(This item was adopted)

Several comments and suggestions concerning these systems were received.

A discussion of and the recommendations for each follows. Tare

It was recommended that a new user requirement be added to require that these systems be equipped with a tare capability. Whenever such a system

is used to weigh commodities in a container, it must be provided with a tare capability. See the discussion and explanation provided in the Report

of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee to the 58th NCWM 1973 on pages 149-164. Also, Section 1.2 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law

specifically defines "weight" as meaning net weight. This has been the

position of the Conference since the introduction of this equipment. In all type evaluations conducted by OWM, this equipment has always been

required to be equipped with a tare capability. Thus no new user requirement is deemed necessary; the requirement needs to be enforced. Scanner Prices and Posted Prices

A request was received to confirm an interpretation that it is a weights and

measures responsibility to insure that the "scanned" price is the same as the "posted" price. This issue was discussed in the report of the S6cT Committee to the 58th Conference and in the L<3cR Report to the 70th NCWM. It is the position of the NCWM that the posted price must be the same as the "scanned" price under the Uniform Weights and Measures Law,

Section 15, Misrepresentation of Price. Enforcement action should be taken on any violation. Since the "scanner" price is often programmed or input

from a location other than the store where violations are found, it is recommended that any action be taken against the store for posting the

prices incorrectly. Because item marking practices vary significantly, a uniform test method of verifying agreement between scanned and posted

prices may not be applicable. Several different sampling methods have

been published. It is recommended that each be reviewed and one that suits the need of the particular jurisdiction be used.

183
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Definitions

It is recommended that the following definition be added to the Scales Code:

point-of-sale system. An assembly of elements including a weighing

element, an indicating element, and a recording element, (and may t>e equipped with a "scanner") used to complete a direct sales transaction.

320-14 HAND-HELD SCALES

A suggestion was received that the use of scales supported by hand should

be prohibited because of the inaccuracies that can result. This prohibition

is already covered by paragraph UR.2.2. which requires a hanging scale to be freely suspended from a fixed support when in use. 320-15 VC PRESCRIPTION SCALES

(This item was adopted)

The design of prescription scales has been typically 120 grams x 0.01 gram

with an acceptance and maintenance tolerance of ^ 0.1%. For several reasons this design does not meet the requirements of the new Scales Code. The principal reason is that a scale with a division value of 0.01 gram

is a Class II scale; however, the accuracy of Class II scales is far greater

than + 0.1%.

To recognize the use of this much needed design without unnecessarily

changing the needed performance requirements, an amendment to Table 3, Accuracy Classes, is recommended:

Add an additional footnote: **A scale marked "For prescription weighing only" may have a scale

division of not less than 0.01 gram.

In order to apply this exception, a Class in scale with a value of "d" equal

to 0.01 gram would have to be marked to clearly indicate it is for prescription use only as required by paragraph S.6.6. Marking/Scales Designed

for Special Applications. Field inspectors are not normally equipped with

the necessary apparatus and standards to determine the accuracy of the weights associated with a prescription scale. It is recommended that such a

device be tested in the field with the weights associated with the scale placed on the same pan on which they would normally be placed, and

standard weights applied to the pan normally used to weigh the load. This

would not be considered a ratio test, since a ratio test would require

standard weights on both pans; thus the ratio test tolerances would not

apply.

184
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-16 VC WEIGHMENT

(This item was adopted)

It is recommended that the code be amended by adding the following

definition: weighment. A single complete weighing operation.

320-17 VC T.1.6.1. JEWELERS' SCALES/ WITH A CAPACITY OF

ONE-HALF OUNCE OR LESS

(This item was adopted)

The following editorial change is necessary so that the performance

requirements applicable to these devices not marked with an accuracy class are consistent with those specified prior to 1986. Delete the heading:

"T.1.6.1. WITH A CAPACITY OF ONE-HALF OUNCE OR LESS".

Thus, the text paragraph of former T.1.6.1, will now be under the heading

T.1.6. Jewelers' Scales. 320-18 VC S.4.2. ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS

(This item was adopted)

This paragraph was discussed from two standpoints: (1) the heading of S.4.

is Weighing Elements and the referenced adjustable components include potentiometer and springs which may be a part of an indicating element;

and, (2) it is specified that adjustable components shall not be adjustable

from outside the scale. This paragraph is intended to apply to any or all adjustable components that affect the performance of a scale, whether they are a part of the weighing

element like a nose iron, or a part of the indicator, like a pendulum or a

potentiometer.

It is also appropriate for a "span" adjustment located within the housing of an electronic digital indicator to be adjusted from outside the scale provided

that a seal must be broken to do so. The following amendments were offered to clarify these issues. Add a new paragraph to read:

S.1.10. ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS. - An adjustable component such

as a pendulum, spring, or potentiometer shall be held securely in adjustment and, except for a zero load balance mechanism, shall be

located within the housing of the element.

Renumber present S.1.10. to S.1.11.

185
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Revise S.4.2. to read:

S.4.2. ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS. - An adjustable component such

as a nose iron penduluiR? spring or potentiometer shall t>e held

securely in adjustment and except ler the le¥^ adjustment and sere

load bcQanccj mechanisms shaH not he adjustable from the outside 9^

the scale. The position of a nose-iron on a scale of more than 2000-lb

capacity, as determined by the factory adjustment, shall be accurately,

clearly, and permanently defined.

320-19 V T.N.8.2. HUBflDITY

(This item was adopted)

Amendment of the code as follows was recommended so that the

requirements of this paragraph are consistent with International Standards: Change the specified relative humidity value of 9S% to 93%.

320-20 VC VARIABLE DIVISION-VALUE (MULThRANGE) SCALES

(This item was adopted)

The verification scale division "e" is not applicable to these devices; the

following addition to the code was recommended:

S.5.3. On a variable division-value (multi-range) scale the value of

"e" shall be equal to the value of "d". Change the definition of "variable division-value scale" as follows: A scale so designed that the value of the verification scale division

(e), in the same unit of weight, increases at certain load values within

the weighing range of the scale (eg., a load to 6 pounds in Os006-4b

320-21 REPORT OF THE RAILROAD ADVISORY COMMITTEE

During the interim meeting, a representative of the Railroad Advisory

Committee made a report on the data collected from a limited number of

tests conducted on coupled-in-motion railway track scales. It was reported

that this group was prepared to make recommendations to the NCWM but

they felt that other interested parties should have an opportunity to review

the data first. The Railroad Advisory Committee offered to serve as a

steering committee to pursue this issue and a request was made for participation from AREA 34, SMA, Western Coal Transportation Association,

National Coal Weighing Association, and any other scale users.

It is hoped that this invitation is accepted by representatives of other

organizations so that final recommendations made to the NCWM will be

from a broad segment of interested parties.

186
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The railroad industry was encouraged to prepare a report for consideration

by the S<5cT Committee at its next interim meeting.

320-22 V REPORT OF THE NTETC - WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

(This item was adopted)

This Technical Committee met on November 13 and 14, 1985, January 20,

1986, and January 22, 1986, Their recommendations were reviewed by the

Specifications and Tolerances Committee and are recommended for adoption

by the NCWM. The recommended additions and amendments to the draft Type Evaluation Handbook are listed in Appendix A. Section 2.21. Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems

321-1 VC S.1.5. RATE OF FLOW INDICATOR AND/OR RECORDER

(This item was adopted)

A conflict was reported between paragraph S.1.1. (which requires a rate of flow indicator or recorder) and paragraph S.1.5. (which requires a rate of flow indicator). To resolve this conflict, S.1.1. is recommended to read:

S.1.1. GENERAL. - A belt-conveyor scale shaU be equipped with a primary indicating element in the form of a master weight totalizer and shall also be equipped with a recording element, and a rate of flow indicator, or and recorder (which may be analog).* An auxiliary indicator shall not be considered part of the master weight totalizer. ^(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986)

This will eliminate the conflict and require a rate of flow indicator and

recorder on a nonretroactive basis. However, since General Code paragraph

G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations requires "all recorded values shaU be

printed digitally", it is recommended that an exception to this paragraph be

included, since analog rate of flow recorders are considered acceptable in this application.

321-2 VC N.2. CONDITIONS OF TESTS

(This item was adopted)

A comment was received that the last part of this paragraph needed

editorial change to provide more clarity. The following change is recommended:

Change the last two sentences to read: Each test shall t>e nel less than 1009 scale divisions and at least three revolutions the t^elt^ In addition, one of the following must

be-metr-whichever-is-applicaUe conducted for;

by- A-n9rmc^weighment7-which-need-not-exceed-1999-tens;

187
specifications and Tolerances Committee

a. not less than 1000 scale divisions.

b;; at least three revolutions of the belt, and

c. at least 10 minutes* operation, or for a normal weighment*

321-3 VC N.3.2. MATERIAL TESTS (f) (This item was adopted)

Paragraph (f) requires a minimum of three tests for each official verification. A suggestion was made that fewer tests should be considered

adequate because these tests are costly and time-consuming. At least three

such tests are essential in an initial verification, (i.e., the first test of the

equipment at a given installation). However, for subsequent verifications the

results of two tests combined with the information available from previous

tests could be adequate. It is on this basis that the following amendment is recommended:

Amend part (f) to read:

(f) On initial verification at least a minimum ol three individual tests

shall be conducted for eaeh official verlieatien. On subsequent

verifications, at least two individual tests shall be conducted. The

performance of the equipment scale is not to be determined by

averaging the results of the individual tests. The results of all of

these tests shall be within the tolerance limits. 321-4 VC N.3.3.(a) CHAIN TEST

A comment was received that the equation expressed in the last sentence of

this paragraph is incorrect. The Committee agrees and recommends that the

last sentence be revised to read: The toad is the aetuekt bett traveiy m terms e# leety divided by the

marked beit traveiy in terms el feety times the marked number of

weight"units—tetalisedr When the actual travel is greater or less than the "marked belt

travel" the value of test load shall be adjusted as follows: actual belt travel (ft) ^ weight units calculated = value of

marked belt travel (ft) for the marked belt travel test load

Example:

1002 ft X (100 lb/ft X 1000 ft) = 1.002 x 100 000 lb = 100 200 lb 1000 ft

(This item was adopted)

188
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

321-5 VC UR.3.2. (c) SCALE ALIGNMENT

(This item was adopted)

A comment was received that this paragraph refers to "wireline", which is not defined and that such alignment checks shall be "considered" as opposed

to "required." In response the Committee recommends the following

editorial change:

(c) Scale Alignment. - "Wireline" (0.02-inch-diameter piano wire or equivalent nylon line) alignment checks shall be conducted considered

when conveyor work is performed in the scale area or in accordance

with manufacturer's recommendation. A materials test is required

after any realignment.

Section 2.22. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems For Grain

Discussion and review of this code was held with representatives of the Federal Grain Inspection Service. As a result, it was determined that

revisions were necessary to make this code consistent with recent changes to

the Scales Code. Code revisions as follows are recommended:

322-1 VC FOR SYSTEMS USED TO WEIGH OUT

(This item was adopted)

Add a new paragraph N.1.2. for a decreasing-load test on such systems to

read:

N.1.2. DECREASING-LOAD TEST. - A decreasing-load test shall be

conducted on devices used to weigh out. Renumber current N.1.2. to N.1.3. Add a new tolerance paragraph for decreasing-load tests to read:

T.1.3. TO DECREASING-LOAD TESTS. - Basic tolerances shall be applied

to systems used to weigh out. 322-2 VC FOR DIGITAL INDICATIONS

(This item was adopted)

Add a new tolerance paragraph to read:

T.1.4. TO TESTS INVOLVING DIGITAL INDICATIONS OR

REPRESENTATIONS. - To the tolerances that would otherwise be

applied, there shall be added an amount equal to one-half the value

of the scale division. This does not apply to digital indications or recorded representations that have been corrected for rounding using

error weights.

189
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

322-3 VC TIME DEPENDENCE

(This item was adopted)

Add a new paragraph to this code identical to the Scales Code paragraph

T.N.4.4. Time Dependence on a nonretroactive basis. T.4. TIME DEPENDENCE. - At constant test conditions, the indication 20 seconds after the application of a load and the indication after one

hour shall not differ by more than the absolute value of the applicable

tolerance for the applied load. (Nonretroactive and enforceable as of

Jan. 1, 1987)

322-4 VC REPEATABILITY

(This item was adopted)

Add a new paragraph to this code identical to the Scales Code paragraph

T.N. 5.1. Repeatability/General.

T.5. REPEATABILITY - The results obtained by several weighings

of the same load under reasonably static test conditions, shall agree

within the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance for that load,

and shall be ?rithin applicable tolerances. 322-5 V EXTENDING THE APPUCATION OF THIS CODE

(This item was adopted)

A request was made last year to review this code and recommend necessary amendments so that it could be applied to all automatic bulk weighing

systems. In its Report to the 70th NCWM (1985), Item 304-3, the

Committee tentatively recommended several amendments and requested

comments so that it could make positive recommendations for action by the

71st NCWM. No further comments have been received.

This code should be amended to recognize all bulk weighing systems.

Recommended code amendments are as follows: Amend title by deleting the term "for grain".

Add the following paragraph:

T.2.1. FOR SYSTEBIS USED TO WEIGH CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS. - The minimum maintenance and acceptance tolerance

shall be 0.1 percent of the weighing capacity of the system, or the

value of the scale division, whichever is less. Delete the current T.3, and substitute the following tolerance paragraphs:

T.3. BASIC TOLERANCE VALUES.

T.3.1. ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCE. -The basic acceptance tolerance

shall be one-half the basic maintenance tolerance.

190
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T.3.2. FOR SYSTEMS USED TO WEIGH GRAIN. - The basic

maintenance tolerance shall be one pound per 1 000 pounds of t^ load (0.1 percent).

T.3.3. FOR All OTHER SYSTEMS. - The basic maintenance

tolerance shall be 2 pounds per 1 000 pounds of test load (0.2 percent).

Delete the current UR.l. and UR.3. and substitute the following user requirements:

UR.1. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS.

UR.1.1. FOR SYSTEMS USED TO WEIGH GRAIN.- The

number of sc€de divisions of a weighing system shall not be

less than 4 000 or greater than 10 000 for a S3rstem with a

capacity greater than 10 000 pounds, and not less than 2 000

or greater than 10 000 for a system with a capacity equal to

or less than 10 000 pounds. (Nonretroactive and enforceable

as of January 1, 1984.)

UR.1.2. FOR SYSTEMS USED TO WEIGH COMMODITIES

OTHER THAN GRAIN.- The number of scale divisions shall not be less than 500 or greater than 10 000. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1987)

UR.3. LOADING REQUIREMENTS.

UR.3.1. FOR SYSTEMS USED TO WEIGH GRAIN.- A system

shall not be used to weigh drafts less than 40 percent of the

weighing capacity of the system except for a final partial

draft. Loads shall not normally be retained on the weighing

element for a period longer than a normal weighing cycle.

UR.3.2. FOR SYSTEMS USED TO WEIGH COMMODITIES

OTHER TELAN GRAIN.- A system shall not be used to weigh

drafts less than 20 percent of the weighing capacity of the

S3^tem except for a final partial draft. Loads shall not normally be retained on the weighing element for a period

longer than a normal weighing cycle. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1987)

Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices

330-1 V S.1.1.2. UNITS

(This item was adopted)

Amendment of this paragraph was requested to allow devices to indicate in other than volumetric units. The request was made to recognize:

(a) devices that measure liquid commodities by other than volumetric means (specifically mass flow meters that indicate in units of

mass); and

191
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) devices that measure by volumetric means when a trade custom

exists for selling in other units (liquid feeds and fertilizers).

The code should be amended to recognize both cases. In the first case no problem arises with temperature considerations in the measurement process

since the measurement is "mass" that is independent of measurement

variations caused by product volumetric expansion or contraction.

In the second case, temperature is a concern. For example, if a trade custom was followed to weigh liquid molasses, and the product was heated

to expedite its flow in the delivery process, the measurement results would

not be affected. However, this is not true if the heated product was

measured volumetrically. In this instance, if a meter was used and the

delivery ticket issued presented quantity values in terms of weight, the

buyer might not be aware that the product was "measured" and not "weighed". The problem would be further compounded if the meter used was equipped with an automatic temperature compensator that compensated

on the basis of a 60 °F gallon and the product measured was other than a petroleum product that should be compensated on the basis of a 68

gallon. The unavailability of appropriate volume correction factors tables

is a further problem.

These problems should not constrain an equitable marketing process and code

amendments should be made in recognition of both measurement practices.

Amendments would be necessary in all the existing Liquid Measuring Devices

Codes except the Cryogenic Code (since provisions in that code already

exist). These amendments would be simplified if the NCWM accepted the revised LMD codes. Add a new paragraph:

S.1.1.2.2. FOR AGRI-CHEBflCAL UQUIDS. - A device used for the

measurement of agri-chemical products shall indicate and record its deliveries in terms of: (a) liters or gallons and decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof for liquid measure, or (b) kilograms

or pounds and decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof

for weight.

Amend S.1.1.3. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT PART (b) to read:

(b) one gallon or 10 pounds on wholesale devices.

Amend the title of S.2.6. to read: FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES ONLY, TEMPERATURE DETERIflNATION

EXCEPT FOR MASS FLOW DEVICES

192
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Amend paragraph T.2.3.2. to read:

T.2.3.2. USED FOR THE MEASUBEMENT OF AGRI-CHEBftlCAL

LIQUIDS. - The maintenance tolerance on normal and special tests

shall be 1% of the indicated v^me quantity. The acceptance

tolerance on a normal test shall be 0.5% of the indicated v^me

quantity and on special tests, 1% of the indicated v^me quantity. 330-2 W S.1.4.3. DISPLAY OF UNIT PRICE AND PRODUCT

IDEMTITY AND UR.3.2. UNIT PRICE AND PRODUCT

IDENTITY

This item, dealing with the definition of "face" and "side" of a device was

deleted from the report for further review. 330-3 BLENDING TYPE RETAIL MOTOR FUEL DISPENSERS

An item was reintroduced concerning the problem faced when a unit price

display is different than the unit price setting. A suggestion was made that the code be amended to require that the unit price indication be interlocked

with the unit price setting means on a blending motor fuel dispenser. As a result of these past discussions, the conclusion reached was that this

is an enforcement problem, not a design problem, and action should be

taken against the owner/operator of the equipment. If the unit price

displayed is not set so that it is clearly visible in the opening provided for the display, maintenance is obviously necessary. On a non-blending type device, the interlocking or the display of the unit price was not required, but was included in the design by the manufacturer

as a convenience to the user. However, it was too costly to provide this same convenience in the design of a blending type device.

When the displayed unit price is clear and different from that at which it is set, enforcement action should be taken. In the case where the displayed

unit price is not clear, maintenance is required. No code amendment is recommended.

330-4 VC ELAPSED-TIME TESTS

(This item was adopted)

A suggestion was received that all reference to elapsed-time tests should be

deleted from the code because: (1) none are being conducted; and (2) the

conditions that caused their inclusion have for the most part been

eliminated.

193
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

It is recommended that the Code be amended as follows: Delete LMD Code paragraphs N.4.3., N.4.3.I., N.4.d.2., and T.2.4.,

and delete the reference to elapsed-time tests in paragraphs T.2.1.1,,

T.2.I.2., and T.2.3.I., and delete the definition for elapsed-time tests. 330-5 TEMPERATURE COMPENSATING DEVICES AND SYSTEMS ON

WHOLESALE METERS

A suggestion was received to study the need for code amendment to recognize that the means used for temperature compensation at loading-rack meters is electronic (with temperature probes and microprocessors) as well as mechanical. It was suggested that data concerning the operation of this new equipment should be requested from weights and measures officials,

manufacturers, and users and submitted to OWM for review.

The subject was reviewed and discussed. Reference was made by the Committee to its report to the 68th NCWM (1983) Item 303-6 pages

257-258. The topics discussed included bottom loading, prover design, meter

tolerances, tolerances for temperature sensing means, tolerances for automatic temperature compensators, gross gallons, net gallons, marketing

practices, uniform standards, test methods, and equity.

A review and summary of those subjects impacting on the final decisions and

recommendations on this subject are recorded below.

Uniform Standards/Equity

Voluntary use of temperature compensation does not provide a uniform

standard nor equity. When the quantity of product is sold on a "gross" or "net" basis at the choice of the buyer or seller, it is not reasonable to assume that all parties in the transaction clearly understand the effect of

their decision. If weights and measures administration is to provide and

maintain uniform standards for the conduct of commerce, a uniform standard

should be established. In doing so, it must be recognized that the volume

of almost all liquids about which weights and measures are concerned, does

change with changes in temperature. This fact is especially important when

the measurement of the product takes place at one location and the delivery

at another location or at a different time, as is the case for packages, for example. This physical fact has been recognized in the Uniform Packaging

and Labeling Regulation which requires that the volume of a product be

expressed at a specified temperature. This is not the case in the sale of

bulk commodities, where there exists a choice of either "gross" or "net" is optional.

When the measurement and delivery occur at the same place and time, the

resultant change in volume caused by a change in temperature has less economic significance. When the temperature conditions in a given

marketing area are stable, the relative change in volume is quite small.

194
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Prover Design

Over the last several years it has become evident that differences in prover

design have caused problems in the test of loading-rack meters, especially

with bottom loading provers. Variations in the ambient temperature and the method of fill have resulted in differences in test results greater than the

repeatability of the meter under test. NBS H-105-3, should be revised to include; (1) a specific design for bottom

loading; (2) a requirement that the bottom-fill design of a prover should

duplicate as nearly as practical the used loading process; and (3) values in the Handbook and in its tables should be expressed in terms of hard values

for the inch-pound system and hard values for the metric system.

Tolerances for Temperature Sensing Means/Automatic Temperature Equipment

The subject of tolerances on temperature sensors was discussed at length. To

specify a tolerance on this equipment would require that "standard" thermometers be supplied and used by weights and measures officials. It was decided that this requirement, with its added burden of additional

testing time, was not the proper approach.

A tolerance on automatic temperature compensators (atc's) was also discussed. The data submitted by the Meter Manufacturers Technical

Committee presented at the Automatic Temperature Compensation Symposium

held at the National Bureau of Standards in 1979, the data obtained from

weights and measures officials, and the data in annual reports of weights

and measures jurisdictions (indicating rejection ratios of from 20% to 40%)

clearly indicated that some recognition had to be made of the additional uncertainties and errors in the measurement process caused by this equipment.

The best solution to this overall problem is to include these errors and

uncertainties in the tolerances applicable to the equipment under test. Test Methods

Variations in test methods used by industry and weights and measures

officials caused variations in test results. It was also stated that these

variations were significant enough to require the industry to occasionally

"set" the meter performance at a value considered to be incorrect by the maintenance personnel representing the owner/user of the meter. It was

also contended by the industry that weights and measures officials were not

taking into account the variations in the volume of the prover caused by the temperature of the prover itself. The industry involved was also concerned

with the variations in the methods used when calibrating provers.

It was considered that the goal of industry in establishing meter performance

may be slightly different than the goal of weights and measures officials, even though the goal of each was to attain the best measurement possible.

The resultant error and uncertainties in the calibration process, as well as the tolerances allowable on a prover were reviewed.

195
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

It must be recognized that two provers, similar in design, each calibrated by

acceptable methods, does not necessarily result in these two provers

providing exactly the same results. The Committee agreed to participate with the API Weights and Measures Committee in a joint effort for development of a uniform field test procedure and standard test report for loading-rack meters that meets the

needs of both industry and weights and measures officials. Conclusions

Tolerances on vehicle-tank, loading-rack, and other large-capacity meters

used to measure products other than LPG-Liquid, agri-chemical, cryogenics,

milk, and water should be revised and expressed in relative terms (% of volume delivered). This approach will recognize the variations in provers, prover calibration, and test methods, and the imperfection of temperature

sensing equipment and atc's. An advantage of expressing the tolerance in relative terms (%) is that provers could be graduated in terms of percentage or in tenths of a gallon

and the tolerance applicable would always coincide with a graduation. This

would eliminate the need to compute the tolerance in difficult to deal with

"cubic inches", which generally produces a tolerance value between

graduations requiring interpolation.

The following table lists the present and proposed tolerance values expressed

in both cubic inches and in percentages so that a comparison can be made.

Acceptance Tolerances Maintenance Tolerances

Indication Present Proposed Present Proposed

(gallons) cubic cubic gal- cubic cubic galinches % inches lons % inches % inches lons %

50 25.0 .216 23.1 .1 .2 50 .433 34.65 .15 .3 100 37.5 .162 46.2 .2 .2 75 .325 69.30 .3 .3 200 62.5 .135 92.4 .4 .2 125 .271 138.60 .6 .3 300 137.5 .119 231.0 1.0 .2 275 .238 346.50 1.5 .3 750 200.0 .115 346.5 1.5 .2 400 .231 519.75 2.25 .3 1000 262.5 .114 462.0 2.0 .2 525 .227 693.00 3.0 .3 1500 387.5 .112 693.0 3.0 .2 775 .224 1039.50 4.5 .3 A tolerance not included in the table is that applicable to special tests. The

present tolerance for special tests is specified as 1 cubic inch per indicated

gallon. Expressed in relative terms it is .433%. It seems that this value could reasonably be .5%, and simplify the entire process without any loss in equity.

196
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

In applying these tolerances, two important principles must be kept in mind;

(1) when equipment is adjusted, it should be adjusted as close to zero as

possible and (2) a device owner is not to take advantage of any tolerance by maintaining his equipment at or near the tolerance limits. Tolerances on LPG-Liquid Measuring Devices, Vehicle-tank, Loading Rack and

Other Large-Capacity Meters

With respect to tolerances on this equipment, a recommendation was

received that the tolerances should be the same on overregistration as on

underregistration. The present maintenance tolerances are specified as 4 cubic inches per indicated gaUon on underregistration and 2 cubic inches per

indicated gallon on overregistration. Expressed in relative terms this is 1.732% and 0.866% respectively, which is a range of 2.598%. If the

tolerances were to be expressed in relative terms as well and to be of equal value on overregistration as underregistration, a value of _+ 1.3%

would result. A compromise that would provide some advantages in case of tolerance

value determinations would be 1.0% overregistration and 1.5%

underregistration.

A comparison of the present acceptance tolerances would be 0.866% and

0.433% respectively, which is a range of 1.299%. On the same basis as the example above for maintenance tolerances, it would seem that the values 0.5% overregistration and 0.75% underregistration, would be appropriate and

equitable.

This approach would provide similar advantages for; (1) similar meters that measure other products and; (2) to prover design. The computation of

tolerances, except those on milk meters, would be in relative terms, thus

eliminating the use of cubic inches. Further Work

Recommendations expressed under this item are far reaching. Therefore it is recommended that enforcement officials and affected industry

representatives study the proposals expressed in this report during the coming year and collect field test data to determine the extent of the

effects the proposals would have. Final recommendations for code

amendments will be made at the next Interim Meeting in 1987. 330-6 REVISION OF ALL CODES DEALING WITH LIQUID-MEASURING

DEVICES

All the comments received on the draft revision to the LMD Codes were

reviewed. All comments were favorable with respect to the composition or format of the codes.

197
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Although it was initially indicated that the draft was not intended to change any existing requirements as applied to any or aU of the devices

covered, some comments indicated that recommendations for changes may

have gone beyond that limit. That is, some of the changes that were recommended would actually provide different requirements to a particular

device. Other comments recommended different wording for particular

paragraphs.

Some of these recommendations were worthy of further consideration and as a result, were dealt with separately as individual items included in this report.

Offering substantive changes in language or terminology to the draft for action by this year's Conference would be premature. Thus during the

ensuing year a revised draft will be circulated with a request for comments

prior to next year's Interim Meeting.

330-7 V REPORT OF THE NTETC - MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

(This item was adopted)

This Committee met on Thursday, January 23, 1986. The decisions that were reached were reviewed and are recommended for adoption by NCWM.

The recommendations for changes to the Type Evaluation Handbook are as

follows: Specific Criteria: Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers-Selectable Unit Price

Capability.

Amend part b. to read:

b. A console may be equipped with means for selecting two or more unit prices, provided that after the unit price for a particular sale has been selected and "authorized"/"approved" by the console

operator,

the selected unit price is made clearly evident on the dispenser,

and,

the unit price cannot again be changed by the operator on the

console prior to or during the delivery, and

the selected unit price displayed at the dispenser prior to the

delivery of product, is continually displayed at the conclusion of the delivery (operating mechanism moved to the "off" position) for a time period not less than 30 seconds, or the start of the next transaction by movement of the operating mechanism to the "on" position, or "Authorized"/"Approved" by the console

operator, whichever occurs first.

198
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Change the third paragraph of part a. to read:

In a system where a base unit price is automatically displayed on the

dispense after the completion of a transaction, the dispenser may

display the values for quantity, unit price, and total price that do

not result in a mathematically correct equation, provided that 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. Under Discount Pricing, delete paragraph c which reads: c A console shall be capable of switching back and forth repeatedly between the normal and discounted total prices.

Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters

331-1 VC CONFUCT BETWEEN DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

(This item was adopted)

Clarification was requested concerning an apparent conflict between

paragraph S.1.3.6. Travel of Indicator and paragraph S.1.2.3. Clear Interval Between Graduations.

Paragraph S.1.3.6. specifies that if the most sensitive element of a primary

indicating element utilizes an indicator and graduations (i.e., it is analog) the

relative movement of these parts for the smallest indicated value (minimum

graduated interval) cannot be less than 0.20 inch. Paragraph S.1.2.3. specifies that this clear interval cannot be less than 0.04

inch. Paragraph S. 1.2.2. Graduations/ Width further specifies that the width of a

graduation cannot be greater than the width of the clear interval between

graduations. Thus, if the worst case design allowed by S.1.2.2. and S.1.2.3. were to be a graduation width of 0.04 inch and the clear interval between

graduations were also 0.04 inch, the indicator would only travel 0.08 inch,

which is significantly less than 0.20 inch as required by paragraph S.1.3.6. There are similar requirements in the LMD Code applied to wholesale meters with the exception that the paragraph dealing with the travel of the

indicator specifies that the 0.20-inch travel is only required for an indication

of one gallon. In the LMD Code, there is no conflict since, if the value of the minimum graduated interval was less than one gallon, the 0.04-inch

graduation width and 0.04-inch clear interval would apply to graduations

having a value of less than one gallon. Prior to 1965, the Travel of Indicator requirement of 0.20 inch was worded

exactly the same for wholesale meters and for vehicle-tank meters; i.e., for a "one-gallon delivery." However, in 1965, this specification of 0.20 inch was changed in the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code from "one-gallon" to "the smallest indicated value."

199
specifications and Tolerances Committee

To correct this apparent conflict, it is necessary to amend the Code for Vehicle-Tank Meters in a manner that reflects the intent of this Code for the last 20 years, i.e., the relative movement for the indication of a volume

equal to the value of the minimum graduated interval should be at least 0.20 inch. Amendment to the Code is recommended as follows: Amend paragraph S.1.2.3. Clear Interval Between Graduations by

deleting the value "0.04 inch" and inserting the value "0.10 inch". As a result of this change, the worst case condition that could be developed

is a graduation width, clear interval width, and an indicator width each of

0.10 inch. Thus, the indicator would travel the required 0.20 inch for a

delivery equal to the minimum graduated interval.

If the width of the clear interval were increased, since the graduation width

is always dependent on the width of the clear interval (i.e., it cannot be

greater) and the indicator width is also dependent on the width of the clear

interval (it too cannot be greater), the travel would also be increased

proportionately and be in excess of 0.20 inch. A better design would seem to be a graduation and indicator width of 0.04

inch. Then, the resultant required clear interval width necessary for a 0.20 inch-travel would be 0.16 inch. Section 3.32. LPG Liquid-Measuring Devices

332-1 V TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

(This item was defeated)

A comment was received that a more equitable standard would result if all LPG liquid for sale in large amounts would be required to be sold on a

"net" (temperature compensated) basis. Code amendment as follows is recommended:

Amend paragraph S.2.6. to read:

S.2.6. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION. - A device All devices with a maximum discharge rate greater than 20 gallons per minute shall may be equipped with an adjustable automatic means for adjusting the indication and registration recorded recyesentations of

the measured volume of product to the volume at 60 "F. 332-2 V A. APPLICATION

(This item was adopted)

A recommendation was received that this part of the code be amended so

that it would also apply to meters used to measure anhydrous ammonia

(NH

3) and carbon dioxide (CO 2'*

200
specifications and Tolerances Committee

This code seems appropriate for NH3 but not for COo. Paragraph A-2 would seem to indicate that it could be applied to NH3 with the existing wording.

To make it clear, it is recommended that the title of the Code be changed

to read:UQXJEFIED PETROLEUM GAS AND ANHYDROUS AMMONIA

LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES.

Amend A-1 as follows: A«l. - This code applies to devices used for the measurement of

liquefied petroleum gas and anhydrous ammonia in the liquid state, whether such devices are installed in a permanent location or mounted

on a vehicle. Safety precautions in the handling and testing of these products should be

included in the NCWM training modules.

332-3 VC S.2.7.1. ZERO-SET-BACK INTERLOCK

(This item was adopted)

This paragraph has been the subject of discussion by the NCWM for the last several years. The principle expressed in this requirement is appropriate and

should be applied. Recognizing that many devices used for dispensing LPG

for motor fuel had been installed without this capability, it had been

recommended that each weights and measures jurisdiction communicate with

the industry and develop some sort of acceptable plan for the orderly

conversion of such equipment. Not much progress has been made, principally because the costs of this conversion are relatively high and the chances for by-passing the interlock are relatively small when filling L.PG tanks. It is recommeded to: Delete Paragraph S.2.7.1. Zero-Set-Back Interlock 332-4 COMPUTING TYPE DEVICES

In response to a suggestion made last year, this code as it applies to computing type devices, was amended to make it consistent with the vehicle-tank meters code and the LMD code as it applies to motor fuel dispensers.

The recommendation that this be done was adopted by the NCWM. An

editorial error resulted in paragraphs S.I.4.3., S.I.4.4., S.l. 4.4.1., S.l. 4.4.2., and S.1.4.4.3. being added to the code under S.1.4. For Retail Devices Only.

Unfortunately, in the LPG LMD Code, a vehicle tank meter is also a retail device and these paragraphs are only intended to apply to devices of the motor fuel dispenser type. This situation will be editorially corrected in the 1987 Handbook 44.

201
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Section 3.33 LPG-Vapor-Measuring Devices

333-1 VC A, APPUCATION

(This item was adopted)

A suggestion was received that application paragraph A.l. be amended to include vapor meters used for the measurement and delivery of natural and

manufactured gas. Change the title of this Code as follows: HYDROCARBON GAS LP6 YAPOR-MEASURING DEVICE (Amended 1986)

Amend A.l. as follows: A.I. ' This code applies to positive displacement devices used for the

measurement of liquified petroleum hydrocarbon gas in the vapor state such as propane, propylene, butanes, butylenes, ethane, methane, and

any other hydrocarbon gas/air mix. Section 3.34. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

334-1 V ON-BOARD WEIGHING SYSTEMS

(This item was adopted)

A comment was received that there are on-board weighing systems (a truck

equipped with load cells connected to a digital indicator) that could be used

for the measurement and delivery of cryogenics. It was further stated that these devices perform with smaller tolerances than the tolerances for meters

measuring cryogenics. It was recommended that this code be amended to provide for such a measurement system.

Any measurement system that can perform within the tolerances specified

for cryogenics is appropriate for that use. However, at first it was felt that since this measurement system is a scale it should be recognized in the

scales code. The problem is that the scales code only recognizes Class III scales as appropriate for commercial use. This does not seem equitable in

this instance since the tolerances on cryogenic meters are _+ 1 1/2%

acceptance and 2 1/2% maintenance.

This system should be recognized in the Cryogenics Code.

Amend A.l. to read: A.I. - This code applies to cryogenic liquid measuring devices used for the measurement of the eryegeme liquid oxygen, nitrogen, and argon, whether such devices are installed in a permanent location, or mounted

on a vehicle, or mounted on a portable tank.

202
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Add a new paragraph to read:

S.4. LEVEL CONDITION, ON-BOARD WEIGHING SYSTEMS.-

Provision shall be made for automaticcOly inhibitii^ the delivery of a

cryogenic liquid when the vehicle is out of level beyond the limit required for the performance to be within applicable tolerance. Renumber present S.4. to S.5. Change the definition of cryogenic liquid-measuring device to read: A system, including a mechanism or machine of (a) the meter or mass flow type, or (b) a weighing type of device mounted on a

vehicle, designed to measure and deliver cryogenic liquids in the

liquid state, by definite quantity whether installed in a permanent

location or mounted en a vehicle. Means may er may net be

provided to indicate automatically, for one of a series of unit prices,

the total money value of the liquid measured.

Section 5.54. Taximeters

354-1 V S.1.3. VISIBILITY OF INDICAIIONS

(This item was adopted)

A comment was received that there were readily available component

displays used for legends of 3.5 mm in height, whereas at the present time,

4 mm component displays were only available from one manufacturer. It was suggested that this paragraph be revised to accommodate these components.

Amendment of this paragraph is recommended:

S.1.3. VISIBILITY OF INDICATIONS. - Except when a taxtmete? is being eleared; The indications of the fare, and including extras, and

the mode of operation, such as "time" or "hired", shaU be eieariy

viMMe constantly displayed whenever the meter is in operation, at all times and at least 18 mm high lor the fare and 4 mm iHgh all

Addition of a new sub-paragraph is recommended:

S.1.3.1. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FIGURES, WORDS, AND SYMBOI i - The minimum height of the figures used to indicate the hiie

shall be 10 mm and for extras 8 mm. The minimum height of

the figures, words, or symbols used for other indications including those used to identify or define shall be 3.5 mm.

203
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

354-2 VC UR.2. POSITION AND ILLUMINATION OF TAXIMETERS

(This item was adopted)

It was recommended that this paragraph be amended as follows for clarity to specify that the indications referred to are those "of interest to the

passenger."

UR.2. POSITION AND ILLUMINATION OF TAXIMETER. - A

taximeter shall be so positioned and niuminated that its indications,

operational markings, and controls of passenger interest can be

conveniently read by a passenger seated in the back seat of the

vehicle.

Section 5.55. Timing Devices Code

355>1 VC T.1.1. TOLERANCES FOR LAUNDRY DRIERS AND

CAR-WASH TIMERS

(This item was adopted)

The method of operation of the timers in use today with these devices was

reviewed. Because of the design, it is necessary to recognize the possibility of a small amount of overregistration.

The heading of this paragraph seemed to limit the application of these tolerances to laundry driers and car-wash timers. Since these same timers

are used with other equipment such as vacuum cleaners, coin-operated

showers, and tire inflators, it was felt that this should be made clear in the

title. Code amendment as follows is recommended:

Amend T.1.1. to read:

T.1.1. FOR LAUNDRY DRIERS AND GAR-WASH «MER8 TIMING

DEVICES OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN T.1.2. AND

T.1.3. - The maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be:

a. on overregistration, no t^eranee five seconds for any time

interval of one minute or more; and

b. on underregistration, six seconds per indicated minute.

204
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Section S.56. Grain Moisture Meters Code

356-1 V S.1.6.2. DESIGN OF DIRECT READING GRAIN

MOISTURE METERS/OPERATING RANGE

(This item as amended was adopted)

An interpretation was requested of the phrase "clearly indicating" as it appears in this paragraph.

A draft tentative code first appeared in the report of the S<kT Committee

to the 66th NCWM 1981. The tentative code first appeared in H-44 1982 by

action of the 67th NCWM 1982. This requirement appeared in the first draft and in the tentative code. In 1981, the Task Force stated that the

draft code was intended to permit the use of most types of grain moisture meters presently in use. However, it went on to say that it strongly

recommended the improvement and use of automatic devices in order to reduce the potential for errors in the measurement process. By action of the 69th NCWM in 1984, the tentative code became

permanent. However, paragraph S.1.6.2. was made nonretroactive as of January 1, 1985. Thus on January 2, 1985, all new moisture meters were to comply with this requirement.

Since there are many devices in use that do not meet this requirement, and

the Committee is not convinced of the need for it, it is recommended to: Delete paragraph S.1.6.2. A motion to amend was defeated and the item was defeated. Thus, S.1.6.2. remains in H-44 unchanged. The Committee felt that this condition was not

in the best interest of the Conference and did not reflect the wishes of the Conference.

During the next day's meeting the Committee Chairman was granted time to explain the result. He then moved to have the Report of the Committee

reconsidered. This motion passed and a motion to reconsider this Item

(356-1) passed. A motion was then made and adopted to amend paragraph

S.1.6.2. as follows:

S.1.6.2. OPERAUNG RANGE. - Provision shall be made for clearly

indicating when the operating range of the moisture meter has been

exceeded (eg. an indicatiiy lirtit, not display a moisture value, or to

flash the displayed value). (Nonretroactive and enforceable as of

January 1. 1986 1990)

205
specifications and Tolerances Committee

356-2 V N.1.2. MINIMUM TEST

(This item was adopted)

To clarify the intent of this paragraph it is recommended that this paragraph

be deleted and replaced with the following: N.1.2. MINIMUM TEST. - A minimum test of a grain moisture meter

shall consist of tests:

(a) with samples of each grain or seed for which the device is used (need not exceed three), and

(b) with samples having at least two different moisture content

values within the operating range of the device.

Other Items

360-1 W SMALL UTILITIES METERS

This item was deleted from the interim report pending further deliberations. 360-2 NBS H-105-1, 2, AND 3 There is a need for each of these publications to be updated. A priority is assigned for revising H-105-3 dealing with metal volumetric provers because

of the problems with bottom loading. NBS in cooperation with industry

representatives will be conducting a study during 1986, so that recommendations can be made for prover design appropriate for use when

testing bottom loaders. The help extended by the API Committee in addressing this issue is appreciated.

Design and performance specifications for LPG liquid displacement provers have been developed and are available from OWM. These will be included in the revised H-105-3.

It is expected that a draft revision will be circulated for review in early 1987. 360-3 VC REVIEW OF NONRETROACTIVE REQUIREMENTS IN FORCE 10 YEARS OR LONGER

(This item was adopted)

Seven nonretroactive requirements that have been in effect for 10 or more

years were reviewed. The following paragraphs should be changed to retroactive status: LMD Code

S.2.2. Provision For Sealing (20 years)

VEHICLE TANK METERS CODE

S.2.2. Provision for Sealing (20 years)

206
specifications and Tolerances Committee

LPG LMD CODES

S.2.2. Provision for Sealing (20 years)

LPG VAPOR-MEASURING DEVICES CODE

S.1.1.2. Units. The last paragraph required that these devices indicate in cubic feet or cubic meters and was adopted in 1972 on a nonretroactive basis but to become retroactive on January 1, 1987. A proviso was included requiring

marketers to bring existing equipment into comf>liance at the rate of 15 percent every 2 years. Since there have been seven 2-year intervals, all of these devices should now be in compliance.

360-4 EDITORIAL CHANGES TO HANDBOOK 44 The following editorial changes to H-44 are recommended:

(a) Introduction presently numbered 1.10. will appear as the Introduction

without any numerical designation.

(b) Present Sections 1.11. FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, 1.12. UNITS AND SYSTEMS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, and 1.13. TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, will be included as annexes at the back of the publication without any numerical designation.

(c) Section 1. will contain the General Code numbered 1.10. GENERAL

CODE.

(d) The definitions of terms will remain at the end of each Code and

will be designated as D. Definition of Terms. In the Introduction, Part

4, System of Paragraph Designation, this reference will be included.

(e) All references to increments, graduations, etc. to be changed to scale divisions, 360-5 GRAIN TEST SCALES

The Scales Code was amended in 1979 by adding additional requirements

applicable to grain test scales. Paragraph T.3.5. was added setting forth tolerances on the same principle as those in the 1986 Scales Code. UR.1.2. was added to establish values for "d" and "n" for Class II and Class HI

scales, similar to what is presently in Table 3, Accuracy Classes. The two classes specified (Class II and III) and the related tolerances were

consistent with what was being considered applicable to all scales at that time. When the new scale tolerances and accuracy class designations were

adopted, the tables had been revised. Since the new tables were somewhat

less stringent for Class II and Class III scales, no reference was made in the

Scales Code applying to the few grain test scales produced and placed in service during that interval.

207
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

This was not an omission, but was intentional with the consideration that

all grain test scales, including those placed in service prior to 1986, should be designed and the tolerances to be applied should be those of the new

Scales Code for marked devices. This action was considered to be equitable

to all parties concerned.

F. Gerk, New Mexico, Chairman

R. Andersen, New York

K. Butcher, Maryland

R. Probst, Wisconsin

D. Watson, City of Forth Worth, TX

O. Warnlof, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

208
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendix A

(See Appendix A to Report of Committee on Specification and Tolerances,

Report of 70th National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1985, pages

131-143.)

Additions and Amendments to the Type Evaluation Handbook

1. Add a foreword or preamble to Test Procedures to include:

a. A general reference to International Electrotechnical

Commission (lEC) Test Methods.

b. "Good Laboratory Practices" are to be followed with respect to the supplemental measuring equipment used (e.g. thermometers,

hygrometers, timing device, etc.) and in the conduct of tests.

2. Amend Temperature Test as follows: Pre-Test Determinations

3.3. Except for zero-setting, not to be adjusted or readjusted at any time during the test.

3.4. AZSM operable if so equipped and appropriate for the intended

use of the device. If AZSM is selectable or variable, test at the minimum level (O.Od, 0.6d, Id, or 3d).

4.2. Moisture content of the test atmosphere must not exceed 50%

RH at test temperature.

Test

1. Place EUT in a climate chamber with the temperature at the mid-point of the temperature extremes and at a moisture content not greater than 50% RH, maintaining those conditions for three hours.

4. Increase temperature^ to maximum specified and after temperature has stabilized^ allow EUT to stabilize for at least three

hours.

6. Reduce temperature^ to minimum specified and after temperature has stabilized^ allow EUT to stabilize^ for at least three

hours.

8. Increase temperature^ to original teim)erature established in 1 above and after temperature has stabilized^ allow EUT to stabilize

for at least three hours.

at a rate not to exceed 2 (1 °C) per minute.

stabilization will be considered to have been achieved when the intended temperature has been maintained within +2 °F(1 °C) for a

period of 10 minutes.

209
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

3. Amend Humidity Test as follows: Under Purpose add the following: applicable to complete weighing

devices and digital indicators only (not load ceUs) Pre-Test Determinations

3.4. AZSM operable if so equipped and appropriate for the intended

use of the device. If AZSM is selectable or variable, test at the minimum level (O.Od, 0.6d, Id, or 3d). Test

1. Delete the word "reference" in the first line.

4. Increase temperature to maximum specified and increase

relative humidity to 93% (non-condensing).

5. Maintain conditions specified in 4 above for a period of four days with no load on the EUT.

6. Rezero if necessary and repeat steps 2, (5c 3 above.

7. Decrease temperature and relative humidity to values specified

in 1 above and repeat steps 2, & 3.

4. Amend RFI Susceptibility Test as follows:* Pre-Test Determinations

2. Signal Conditions:

2.1. When an indicating element is being evaluated it shall include the load transmitting component; i.e. a load cell.

2.2. The cable between the indicating element and the load transmitting component shall be installed per the submitter's

instructions or mutually agreed to upon installation.

2.3. The power supply cable to the EUT shall be according to the manufacturer's specifications or mutually agreed to upon installation.

3.4. AZSM operable if so equipped and appropriate for the intended use of the device. If AZSM is selectable or variable, test at the minimum level (O.Od, 0.6d, Id, or 3d).

7. Delete this part.

* This test is deleted as a result of the vote on Item 320-4, N.1.6.1.,

R.F.I. Susceptibility Tests that was defeated.

210
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5. Amend Permanence Test as follows: Pre-Test Determinations

5.1. 50% of maximum capacity, but need not exceed 500 pounds,

applied so that it is distributed uniformly over the load points of the

scale.

6. Add a test for load cells as specified in OIML IR #60 edited where

necessary to conform to H-44. Since a humidity test is not specified

in IR #60, request the USNWG for OIML PS7/RS8 to develop such a

test.

7. Add a test for barometric pressure as specified in OIML IR #60 and

applicable to load cells.

8. Add a tentative test for creep as specified in T.N.4.5. Time

Dependence as follows: Time Dependence Test

1. This test shall be conducted in a laboratory and is applicable to a complete scale.

2. At constant test conditions, the indication 20 seconds after the

application of the load and the indication after 1 hour shall not differ by more than the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load.

3. The test shall be conducted at the temperature extremes

specified for the EUT.

4. The load applied to a scale shall be between 90% and 100% of capacity for scales with capacities of 2000 pounds or less. For scales with capacities greater than 2000 pounds, the rule of 2000 pounds as applied to Influence Factor Testing applies; i.e. the load cell or load

cells shall be tested individually.

9. Under Weighing Systems, Scales and Weighing Elements Greater than

30 000-pound Capacity. A CC wiU apply to aU models having:

Add: (c) weighing elements in v;hich the span between sections

is not greater than 120% of the equipment evaluated. Change present (c) to (d). 10. Under Weighing Systems Scales and Weighing Elements of 30 000-pound Capacity or Less. -

211
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Add the following footnote:

^ If the range of capacities is quite narrow (e.g., 50 pounds,

100 pounds, 200 pounds, and 500 pounds) it may be that only a

device near mid-range capacity need be submitted. If the range

of capacities is extremely wide (e.g., 10 pounds to 10 000

pounds) it may be necessary that a device near mid-range

capacity also be submitted.

When more than one device is submitted it may not be necessary to submit each device to the entire test regimen; e.g. permanence,

influence factors, etc.

11. Add the following Test Procedure for Portable Axle-Load Weighers.

1. Position tests. Place 10 000 pounds (or the maximum test load that can be

safely applied - not to exceed scale capacity) on at least two

positions of each weighing element along the path of normal

wheel travel. The results must be within acceptance tolerance. Repeat these tests three times.

2. Individual weighing element test. Conduct three increasing load tests up to the capacity of the

device with the test load distributed. Conduct three decreasing

load tests. The results must be within acceptance tolerance.

3. Combination tests. Place 40 000 pounds (or the maximum test load that can be

safely applied - not to exceed scale capacity) distributed equally between the two weighing elements. Only one test is required. The results must be within acceptance tolerance.

4. Permanence test. The devices shall be placed in "normal" service for 20 to 30

days. The tests described in 1, 2, <k 3 above will then be

repeated. The results must be within acceptance tolerance.

12. Add the following criteria for accuracy class marking.

a. On all scales manufactured after January 1, 1986

b. On or adjacent to the information required by G-S.l. or on the face of the indicating element

c. The roman numerals such as II, III, IIIL, or IIII are required.

212
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

d. If these numerals are within a geometric design, this design

shall be either an ellipse » or within _two horizontal lines connected at each end with a half circle ( )

.

e. The word "class" is optional.

f. Since all vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and railway track scales, are considered to be Class in L, an indicator may be marked

in/IIIL. When an indicator so marked is tested in the field, the tolerance (whether in or niL) wiU be applied according to the

application.

13. Under G-S.6., delete paragraph 3 and insert the following:

3. The means used to indicate "motion" or a "stable" condition (these means are not required) can be combined

with another function, provided each is properly

identified.

14. In the Grain-Test Scale Section, amend part 8 to read: Grain Test Scales

8. For FGIS applications, the following requirements must be

satisfied.

(a) To calculate and display percent values, the verification scale division cannot exceed 0.01 g for loads up to 120 g and

0.5 g for loads in excess of 120 g through 1 000 g.

(b) The percent values shall be rounded and displayed to at

least 0.01 percent.

(c) To calculate and display test weight values, the

verification scale division cannot exceed 0.5 g.

(d) For official weighing, the FGIS has three categories of

electronic laboratory scales used as grain test scales: precision, moisture, and generM. The accuracy classes and

scale divisions used for these scale categories shall not exceed those given in the following table. Category Accuracy Class Scale Division

Precision n e 0.01 g

Moisture m d 0.1 g

General m d 0.5 g

Note: For Class III scales, e < d. List the models and capacities that satisfy the requirements

for each category.

213
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

15. Add a tentative Performance Test for Railway Track Scales as

follows: Performance Tests Railway Track Scales - Used To Weigh Statically

Performance tests are tests conducted to determine compliance with

the tolerances and, in the case of nonautomatic indicating scales, the

sensitivity requirements specified in NBS Handbook 44. The tests described here apply primarily to the weighing element. It is assumed

that the indicating element used during the test has already been

examined and found to comply with the requirements applicable to it. If the design and performance of the indicating element is being

determined during the same test, the applicable requirements for weighbeams, poises, dials, electronic digital indications, etc. must also be referenced.

Influence Factors

If tests are necessary to determine compliance with influence factors, individual main elements and components tests must be conducted

according to NTEP Policy. Test Standards

A minimum of 100 000 pounds of known test weights shall be used,

generally in increments of 10 000 pounds.

Sensitivity and Discrimination Tests Weighbeams:

The sensitivity test is conducted at zero load and at maximum

load. The sensitivity test is conducted by determining the

actual test weight value necessary to bring the beam from a

rest point at the center of the trig loop to a rest point at the

top and at the bottom of the trig loop. The maximum load at which the sensitivity test is conducted need not be comprised

of known test weights.

Digital Indications: Width of zero, zone of uncertainty, and automatic^ero-setting

mechanism (if so equipped) tests shall be conducted as specified

in other sections of this Handbook.

214
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Increasing Load and Section Tests

1. With the test car immediately adjacent to one end of the

scale, remove weights from car and place on end (closest

section) of scale. Observations shall be made at 30 000-, 40 000- and 50 000-pound test loads.-^ Additional observations

are then made with the 50 000-pound test load located as nearly as practicable over each section and midway between

sections of the scale. Remove test load from farthest section,

record any zero balance change, rebalance if necessary, and

repeat this test moving the weights in the opposite direction. When the weights have been returned to the near section, apply

additional loads, making observations in increments equal to the

value of each test weight (10 000 pounds) up to 100 000

pounds^. Repeat tests over each section, and midway between

sections in both directions. Strain Load Tests Place the test car (without test weights) on the scale so that the test load can be placed on one end section, and observe the weight to the smallest increment practical. Add test load to end section. If practical, repeat this test on other end section. Remove test load,

observing any balance change, then remove test car. Place test car on the platform so that the weights can be

incrementally loaded from the dolly which remains off the platform.

Observe weight to the smallest increment practicable. Load test car and observe weight indications in increments equal to each added test weight (10 000 pounds). At this maximum load, sensitivity and

discrimination tests should be conducted.

The results of aU observations shall be within acceptance tolerance. Permanence Test The permanence test shall be conducted after 20 and before 30 days,

after the successful completion of the initial performance test. It is recommended that the performance tests described above be repeated.

However, if the original test car is not available, the test may be

conducted with at least two composite test cars.

<\ The results of this test must be within acceptance tolerance.^ If the device does not meet these tolerance limits, the entire test regimen

must be repeated.

^ Do not exceed sectional capacity.

If the subsequent performance test cannot be completed, within 30 days because of the unavailibility of test cars, maintenance tolerance

will be applied.

215
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

16. Under "Computing scales with sales accumulation capability" change to read:

1. When an itemized receipt is not provided, the scale shall:

(a) indicate the "number" of items accumulated with any

display of accumulated subtotal or total prices.

(b) not indicate any weight values when there is a display of accumulated subtotal or total prices.

2. When an itemized receipt is provided, the scale:

(a) need not continuously display the "number" of items

accumulated,

(b) need not display the total "number" of items accumulated

in the total price,

(c) may display an item price of a non-weighed item, after

it has been entered into the accumulated total.

3. Non-weighed items may not be entered when there is a load on

the platform.

4. If the device can simultaneously accumulate transactions for more than one customer, operator identification must be

displayed and recorded if equipped to record.

216
Education Committee

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEB ON

EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Thomas F. Geiler, Chairman

Sealer of Weights and Measures Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

400 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submitted its Final Report to the 71st Annual Meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The Report consisted of the Interim Report offered in the "NCWM Program and Committee Reports" as amended by the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual Meeting.

The Report was adopted in its entirety by a hand vote of the membership.

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

Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. All items are informational and

required no formal action of the membership.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

401 REGIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

ACTIVITIES 4-2 402 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (NTP) 4-2 402-1 NTP Status Report 4-2 402-2 Future Funding 4-4 402-3 Review of Module 5 4-4 402-4 Waiver of Module Requirements 4-4 402-5 Status of NTP Registry 4-5 402-6 Certification Plan Implementation 4-5 402-7 Appointment of New Working Groups 4-5 402-8 Revision of Training Modules 4-6

217
Education Committee

In addition, the Report contains two appendices that are related to specific

Reference Key Numbers as follows: A. NTP Registry Summary of Activity Item 402-5

B. NTP Request for Individual Certification Item 402-6

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order of Reference Key Number)

401 REGIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTIVITIES

The Committee reviewed and discussed the following reports:

1. The Final Report of the Education and Consumer Affairs Committee to the 28th Annual Technical Conference of the Western Weights and Measures

Association (October 1985).

2. The Final Report of the Education Committee to the 40th Annual

Conference of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

(November 1985).

3. The Final Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs to the 14th Annual Conference of the Northeastern

Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) (May 1986).

The SWMA Education Committee recommended the development of an NCWM

training module on wheel-load weighers. It was noted by the Committee

that these devices are already on the NCWM's list of proposed modules.

Initiation of the module will be considered as funds become available. The Committee discussed the importance of directly involving regional

weights and measures associations in the development and evaluation of the National Training Program (NTP). The Committee encourages these groups

to provide it with feedback on both the modules and the operation of the NTP. Specific key issues concerning the NTP will be identified by the Committee for consideration by the Education Committees of the regional groups. NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (NTP)

402-1 NTP Status Report

Table B represents the status of all training modules published or under

development as of July 20, 1986.

218
Education Committee

Table B

TRAINING MXULE STAIXJS REK»T

MDdule

Nurber

12 3/4

810

13

19

Subject

Mechanical Oonputing Scales

Electronic CGnputing Scales

Bench/Counter and Mediunand Large-Capacity Scales

Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales

20

Monorail Scales

Livestock and Animal Scales

Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

Package Checking

Hopper Scales

Loading-Rack Meters

Vehicle-Tank Meters

Status

Project connpleted.

Project conpleted.

Hie working group draft

is being reviewed by the

Education Comnittee.

The module was field

tested by the state of

Virginia. The contractor is preparing the

final copy of this

module.

The contractor delivered

the final copy of this

module.

The module was field

tested by the state of

Ohio and reviewed by the

Packers and Stockyards

Administration.

Project conpleted.

Project conpleted.

The working group draft

is being reviewed by the

Federal Grain Inspection

Service.

Work on this module was postponed because of the

possibility of changes

in the test procedures

for these meters. Hie contractor is preparing the final copy of

this module.

219
Education Committee

Table B, continued

Module

Nimber

Subject Status

21 LPG Liquid Meters A field test draft of

the module is being

prepared by the contractor.

23 Weights and Measures Adhiin OM is rewriting portions of this draft

module.

27 Electronic Weighing and

Measuring Systems

Project completed.

Copies of NCWM Training Module No. 2, Retail Computing Scales —Electronic, were sent to the following to determine the reaction of industry to the training modules: Thomas L. Morrow, TEC America, Inc.; W. Terry

James, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co.; and Edward Bratle, NCR Corp.

The reaction of the reviewers was very positive. It was reported that the

module contained information of use to personnel concerned with product

design and production, field service, marketing, and sales. 402-2 Future Funding for the NTP

The Committee met with the NCWM Executive Committee during the interim

meetings and explored various possibilities for obtaining funding to support

the future development of the National Training Program. The Committee

subsequently submitted recommendations concerning future annual funding

sources to the Executive Committee for consideration.

402-3 Review of Module 5 This item was withdrawn because of the progress made on the development

of the Module.

The Committee discussed a proposal made by Carroll Brickenkamp to waive

certain requirements for Module 10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged

Goods, for past participants in H-133 Seminars sponsored by the NBS Office

of Weights and Measures. It was the feeling of the Committee that the OWM seminar has changed significantly over the years and has varied considerably in length; consequently, it would be a disservice to weights and measures officials for the Education Committee to discourage supervised

training in accordance with the current module. The Committee now permits participants in module field tests to obtain Continuing Education Units

(CEU's) without retaking a module after it has been published in final form.

The field test copy is, the Committee believes, the earliest version of a module that can be considered as a basis for granting CEU's.

402-4 Waiver of Module Requirements

220
Education Committee

The Committee also considered a suggestion that individuals who complete

modules on a self-study basis and pass supervised exams be given credit for the modules. The Committee decided that CEU's could not be granted

under those circumstances because NCWM modules are not designed to be

self-study courses - they are designed so that the course instructor plays an

important role in the learning process by sharing his/her experiences,

demonstrating correct procedures, and providing detail on specific

requirements of the jurisdiction. It was suggested that states that can not

afford to provide lodging for a group of individuals from all over the state who are taking a class lasting 3 or 4 days might consider sending an

instructor into the field to train groups of individuals on a regional basis. 402-5 Status of NTP Registry

A summary of the information contained in the National Training Program

Registry as of July 1, 1986 is provided in Appendix A. The Registry serves

as a permanent record of NCWM courses successfully completed and Continuing Education Units earned under the NTP.

402-6 Certification Plan Implementation

It was reported that as of July 20, 1986, 19 states and the District of Columbia had signed a Letter of Agreement with the NCWM and had been

accepted as participants in the NTP Certification Program: Alabama,

Alaska, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina,

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Utah, states that have not sent in a Letter of Agreement form are encouraged to do so. The forms are available from the NBS Office of Weights and Measures. The Committee discussed the type of information that should be submitted

by states requesting certification of their inspectors under the NTP. A form

designed to coUect the desired information was developed by the Committee

(see Attachment 2). Included on the form is a statement of the Committee's policy with regard to waiver of part of a module's requirements for

field training in the case of experienced inspectors who complete the other

portions of a module.

A total of 19 individuals (17 from Arkansas and 2 from Missouri) have been

certified under the National Training Program.

402-7 Appointment of Working Groups

The Committee decided not to appoint any new working groups until it was

assured that funding could be obtained to complete new projects.

221
Education Committee

402-8 Revision of Training Modules

The Education Committee has adopted the following plan for revising the

published training modules:

Format

Change pages will be prepared. The date of the revision (month

and year) will appear in the top right-hand corner of each page

of the revision. Preparation and Review of Changes

Change Pages will be prepared by OWM staff and reviewed by

the Education Committee prior to issuance. Revision Schedule

The existing modules will be revised on the following schedule: Module 27 - October 1986

Modules 1 <5c 2 - November 1986

Module 10 - March 1987

Module 8 - April 1987

Module 6 - May 1987

Distribution

One set of changes will be distributed to the state offices of weights and measures. It is the Committee's intention to send

copies of the change pages to all of the purchasers of the modules as long as it is economically feasible to do so. At some point, it may be necessary to charge a small fee to cover

the expenses of such distribution.

T. Geiler, Town of Barnstable, MA, Chairman

C. Greene, New Mexico

B. Niebergall, North Dakota

T. Scott, North Carolina

P. Stagg, Louisiana

J. Koenig, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

222
Education Committee

Appendix A

National Training Program Registry

Sinmary of Activity

(as of July 1, 1986)

Courses Listed :

1. Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring

Systems

2. Module 10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Gtoods

3. Module 1, Retail Conputing Scales - Mechanical

4. Module 2, Retail Conputing Scales - Electronic

5. OWVI 0201, Basic Metrology I 6. OW^I 0202, Basic Metrology II 7. CWVl 0203, Intermediate Metrology

No. of Individuals Trained Under the NTP: State or Module No. Other 1_ 10 27 Totals

AR 17 17 FL 1 30 31 HI 14 4 18 IN 48 48 KS 8 8 16 lA 1 1 MI 23 52 75 m 2 22 24 MT 8 8 NE 1 1 NJ 101 101 m 13 13 ND 12 12 CK 19 2 21

P<5cS 3 3 PA 58 58 SD 10 10 ur 14 14 VA 38 38 WI 63 63 m 3 3 Totals 18 118 439 575

223
Education Committee

NCWM Form No. 11 (1/86) Appendix B

REQUEST FOR INDIVIDUAL CERTIFICATION

Under the National Training Program

Part I . General

1. Name of Individual Recommended

for Certification:

2. No. and Title of NCWM Training Module:

Part II. Classroom Training

3. Date of Completion:

4. Score(s) on Final Exam:

5. Instructor:

Part III. Field Training

6. a. No. of Hours of Field Training:

b. In the case of individuals with previous field experience in

the area covered by the module for which certification is being

requested, the field training portion of a module may be shortened

or waived; however, a final evaluation of the individual's

performance in the field must be made by a qualified official and

a determination made that the individual meets all requirements of the module before the individual may be recommended for

certification. If field training was not conducted as described

in the module, justify below:

7. Field Training Supervisor/Evaluator

:

Part IV. Recommendation of State Certifying Officer

I attest that the individual named above has successfully

completed classroom and field training in accordance with the

module indicated, and I recommend that certification be granted

under the National Training Program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Signature of State Certifying Officer Date

Typed Name and Title of Certifying Officer

224
Education Committee

Instructions for Completing the Request for Certification Form

Item No.

1. - Fill in the name of the individual being recommended for

certification as it should appear on the certificate.

2. - Fill in the number and title of the NCWM training module for

which certification is being requested.

3. - Specify the date the individual completed the classroom

training portion of the module.

4. - Give the individual's score on the final exam. If the module's criteria for successful completion specify different

requirements for different parts of the exam, include the

individual's score on each part of the exam.

5. - Fill in the name of the individual who taught the classroom

portion of the module.

6a. - Give the estimated number of hours that the individual spent

in field training following completion of the classroom

portion of the training; include time spent under direct

supervision and indirect supervision.

6b. - Complete this section if any part of the field training

portion of the module was waived.

7. - Enter the name of the individual's supervisor during the

field training portion of the module or the name of the

official who conducted the final field evaluation of the individual being recommended for certification, as appropriate.

The completed form should be signed and dated by the State Certifying

Officer and then sent to: NCWM Executive Secretary, P.O. Box 3137,

Gai thersburg, MD 20878. The Executive Secretary will have a certificate prepared and signed by the NCWM Chairman. The certificate

will be sent to the State Certifying Officer for signature. The State

Certifying Officer will be responsible for distributing certificates to the individuals concerned.

225
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

N. David Smith, Chairman

Director, Standards Division North Carolina Department of Agriculture

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

500 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Liaison submitted its Final Report for consideration by

the National Conference on Weights and Measures. This report resulted from

consideration of all communications received by the Committee prior to and

during its Interim Meeting at the National Bureau of Standards, January 21 -

24, 1986 and discussions at the Annual Meeting.

Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page No. are identified in Table A.

All items were informational and required no formal action of the membership.

The report was adopted in its entirety by a hand vote of the membership.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Key Title of Item Page

Number

FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

501-1 Federal Grain Inspection Service 5-3 501-2 Aerosol Net Weight Labeling 5-4 501-3 Random Pack Quantity Statement to 0.001 lb 5-4 501-4 Credit Card Surcharge 5-4 501-5 Federal Role in Net Weight

Compliance 5-5 502 PUBLIC LIAISON 5-6 503 OIML ACTIVITIES 5-6

226
Liaison Committee

Table A, continued

Reference Key Title of Item Page

Number

504 OWM STATUS REPORT 5-8 505 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILED

TARE WEIGHTS 5-8 506 THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE

UNIFORMITY OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

STANDARDS IN THE UNITED STATES ' 5-9 507 TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS 5-10 508 LPG PROVING SYSTEMS 5-10 509 LIAISON WITH REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 5-11 510 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK 5-12 511 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LEGAL CASES 5-12

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order of Reference Key Number)

FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

501-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

The Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) reports the following activities

for 1985: The new test car routing plan resulted in all 14 master scales being tested and approved by the appropriate weights and measures jurisdictions.

The Los Angeles County Master Scale remains out of service and no indication has been given by Los Angeles County

officials on what action, if any, is being taken to return the

scale to service. FGIS conducted 82 scale tests on 41 railroad track scales used

for the official weighing of grain. In addition, 4 railroad-owned

track scales and 4 railroad track scales owned by other

industries were tested.

227
Liaison Committee

Two test car field calibrations for the grain industry, 4 for the

railroads, and 1 for other industry were conducted.

At the FGIS Master Scale Depot in Clearing, Illinois, 26 railroad-owned test cars were tested, and sixteen 2500-pound

test weights (Cargill) and four 3750-pound piggy-back weights

(Continental) were tolerance tested with the state of Indiana

providing certification. Considerable capital improvements were made to the Clearing

facility which indicates a commitment by FGIS to maintain the

facility.

A fourth test weight certification beam has been obtained from

the state of Wisconsin; there now are four weighbeams located

in strategic areas of the country (Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago,

Illinois; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Portland, Oregon).

A summation standard (50-pound test weights) has been put into service in the Chicago and Duluth - Superior areas. Mr. Richard R. Pforr, Acting Chief, Equipment Branch, Field Management

Division, also reported that FGIS is willing to participate in the NTEP

program for the testing of railroad track scales. However, such tests will require at least an 8-week notice. 501-2 AEROSOL NET WEIGHT LABELING

Because 1980 the National Conference on Weights and Measures has

petitioned FDA to change its labeling requirements for net contents from a volume or net weight measurement to a net weight only measurement. FDA

has responded that it has no objection to this change and is preparing a

notice of a proposed regulation for the Federal Register. Howard Pippin of the FDA reported that a draft of the proposal was in his office preparatory

to going to the Office of the Associate Commissioner for Regulatory

Affairs, FDA. There are a number of review steps within the Department

of Health and Human Services as well as the Office of Management and

Budget before the proposal can be published. Since these clearances are

outside of FDA, Howard Pippin was not able to give an estimate of when

the proposal could be published, but he did indicate that he did not expect

any controversy over the proposal.

501-3 RANDOM PACK QUANTITY STATEMENT TO 0.001 lb The National Conference on Weights and Measures has petitioned the FDA

and the USDA to permit the labeling of net weight statements to three decimal places, e.g., 0.001 lb, rather than the currently required two

decimal places. FDA replied that the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

requires that net weight declarations be to two decimal places. Because FDA products are regulated by this act, FDA would not be able to change

its policy without a change in this law.

228
Liaison Committee

The products that USDA regulates, meat and poultry products, are not covered by the same law. However, USDA does have regulations that would

have to be changed to permit three decimal place labeling. USDA has

indicated that it is willing to propose a change in its regulation, so long as the change permits firms to voluntarily declare their net weight statements

to either two or three decimal places. USDA will not require the change

Because this requirement would impose an unreasonable cost on many firms. John McCutcheon of USDA indicated that the Federal Register proposal

allowing two- or three-decimal place labeling should be published by

September 1986. 501-4 CREDIT CARD SURCHARGE

At the present time, there are no Federal requirements limiting credit surcharges, since the ban on such surcharges expired on February 27, 1984. Various bills are pending in Congress but neither the House nor Senate has

been able to agree on legislation to either extend the surcharge ban or sanction such surcharges.

According to Gerald Hurst of the Consumer Affairs Office of the Federal Reserve Board, some states are passing legislation concerning surcharges.

The Committee on Liaison and the Consumer Affairs Office of the Federal Reserve Board request that weights and measures officials advise them of any state or local legislation on motor fuel posting that relates to the

credit surcharge issue. At the present time, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York,

Oklahoma, and Texas have passed legislation banning credit card surcharges.

Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania have legislation

in the mill to ban credit card surcharges.

501-5 FEDERAL ROLE IN NET CONTENT COMPLIANCE

To obtain a better understanding of the net content compliance program

followed by Federal agencies, the Liaison Committee invited the Federal

Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

to present their programs to the Committee. In addition, the FDA also commented on its position towards Handbook 133. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was represented by Earl Johnson from

the Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection. Mr. Johnson indicated

that FTC will conduct studies in the net weight area when the staff has concerns about particular products. Those studies wiU use Handbook 133 as a basis for the sampling plans. When deemed appropriate, the FTC staff

will recommend policy statements to the Commission, but compliance is achieved in cooperation with the states. The FTC staff will recommend to a particular state that a problem be investigated since FTC does not have

any compliance staff. Mr. Johnson said the adoption of Handbook 133 would

only apply to the second edition because the FTC would have to evaluate

the impact of any changes to the Handbook before the Commission could

establish a position.

229
Liaison Committee

As noted in Item 230-3 of the Report of the Committee on Laws and

Regulations, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commented in the March

25, 1986 issue of the Federal Register that the procedures contained in NBS

Handbook 133, Second Edition are not in conflict with existing FTC

requirements.

The NMFS program was presented by Rita Creitz, Program Analyst of the

Inspection Services Branch. She indicated that the agency conducts a

voluntary inspection service on a fee basis. The services include vessel and

plant sanitation inspection, product evaluation, product specification and

label review, and laboratory analyses. These services are available to any

interested party, e.g., harvester, processor, food service distributer,

importer, or exporter. Any type of product from whole fish to reconstructed product can be inspected and certified for grade. The

analytical tests used are based on Association of Analytical Chemists

(AOAC) methods.

Most of the services are provided to institutional suppliers and the grades

assigned to the products are rarely seen by retail customers. Many large customers of fish products such as restaurants and hotels require their suppliers to be under the NMFS Inspection Program. The net content compliance requirement utilized by the Inspection Program is based on the average concept and states that the inspection sample average must be at

or above the declared label quantity. At present, they do not specify or

utilize industrial container limits such as the MAV^s in HI 3 3. However,

these will be considered in the future. Howard Pippin of FDA said that FDA has not adopted Handbook 133 as a

statistical basis for its compliance system. FDA intends to continue to use

its existing statistical sampling plan and will not object to others using

Handbook 133. The statistical sampling plan that FDA follows is such that any sample that passes either sampling plan A or B from Handbook 133 is virtually assured of passing the FDA's statistical sampling plan.

502 PUBLIC LIAISON

The Committee continues to support an effort to improve awareness and

understanding of weights and measures problems and issues by directing

weights and measures announcements and issues of concern to consumer

leaders, trade associations, and other agencies. A member of the Committee and the Executive Secretary of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures will continue to select the information and

publications and contact these groups.

230
Liaison Committee

503 OIML ACTIVITIES

David Edgerly, U.S. Member of the OIML International Committee of Legal

Metrology, reported active United States participation in OIML during 1985,

citing representation from various NCWM standing committees on U.S. Delegations to OIML meetings and seminars covering bulk weighing systems,

automatic weighing instruments, railway track weighing, test methods for weighing instruments, dynamic fluid measurement, and prepackaged products

(labeling requirements and requirements for determining accuracy of quantity

of contents declarations). He invited NCWM representation on U.S. Delegations to the following OIML meetings planned in 1986: PS20/RSl<k2 Prepackaged Products

August 25-29, Switzerland

PS7 Harmonized Test Methods

Weighing Instruments September 8-12, Finland

PS7/RS5 Automatic Weighing

September 15-19, UK

Mr. Edgerly pointed out that the process developed with the NCWM for providing representation in OIML activities of interest to the weights and measures community is still effective and emphasized the importance of continuing to involve the Conference. He briefed the Committees on the

status of the load cell intercomparison program and discussed the potential

impact of this program on NTEP. He also indicated that any proposed

changes to MAV's contained in NBS Handbook 133 would need to be reviewed

in developing U.S. positions for the OIML PS20 meeting scheduled for August

1986. (The Committee on Laws and Regulations is not making

recommendations to change H-133 this year.) He stated that his office would work with the NCWM and with representatives of other interest groups on the U.S. National Working Group for PS20, in achieving a unified position on this matter. NCWM has designated three representatives to the OIML Technical

Committee meetings on weighing instruments and prepackaged products. Fred

Gerk (NM) wiU participate on the U.S. delegation to PS7/RS5 meeting on automatic weighing instruments. Ken Butcher (MD) will participate in PS7/RS4 meeting on non-automatic weighing instruments. Dick Thompson

(MD) wiU participate in the PS20 meeting on prepackaged products.

231
Liaison Committee

OIML Net Content Proposal (SP2Q/SR1)

A preliminary evaluation of the net content compliance requirements

contained in the OIML proposed (SP20/SR2) compared to those contained in Handbook 133 has been made. The provisions in the OIML proposal include:

1. Smaller allowances (tolerable negative error-TNE) for individual containers

2. Larger sample sizes

3. Acceptance of a larger number of containers (2) below the TNE

4. Larger allowances for the sample average to be below the label declaration

The comparison of OIML to H133 indicated:

1. The probability of lot acceptance under the individual container

requirements (TNE) is less for medium sized containers (1 to 10 Pounds) with larger variability (standard deviation = 3% of label weight). SmaU (1 lb or less) and large (greater than 10 lbs) containers with large variability and all size containers with

small variability (standard deviation = 1% of label weight) have

the same or higher probabilities of lot acceptance than under

H133.

2. The probability of lot acceptance under the requirement for the sample mean is the same or higher than under H133.

3. USDA evaluated the method proposed by OIML and has determined that the method, if completely adopted as proposed,

could be a useful method for meat and poultry inspection.

From this preliminary comparison, the two plans (OIML and H133) appear to be similar, except for medium sized containers with large net content

variability.

The next meeting of SP20/SR2 will be held in St. Gallen, Switzerland in August to finalize the provisions of its proposal.

504 OWM STATUS REPORT

Al Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, reported on the status of the program of this office. The major change has been the addition of two new staff members in the office: Karl Neweli and Paul Krupenie.

232
Liaison Committee

Mr. Newell began his career at NBS in the weights and measures program.

In recent years he has been a manager of information systems programs,

including the Voluntary Standards Program. He is working in the area of weights and measures administration and will be working with the Executive

Secretary to improve the operations of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures through the use of computers. In regard to the latter, Mr. Newell has established computer links with the Chairman and

Chairman-Elect. Among his new assignments, Mr. Newell has been assigned

as the technical advisor to the Task Force on Information Systems.

Mr. Krupenie came from one of the NBS research laboratories. He is assuming the responsibilities for managing the State Laboratory Program

including conducting the metrology seminars and supporting the regional

measurement groups. As Mr. Krupenie works into his assignment, Mr. Oppermann will assume more responsibilty for managing the National Type

Evaluation Program including functioning as the technical advisor to the NTEP Technical Committee and the Board of Governors. The OWM Program is healthy and the new staff will enable us to strengthen

ongoing tasks and to begin work on new tasks. 505 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILED TARE WEIGHTS

The Liaison Committee's Final Report to the 70th National Conference on

Weights and Measures posed several questions to weights and measures

officials regarding the elimination of stenciled railway freightcar tare weights and the increased use of the rail industry's UMLER file. John J. Robinson of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) responded to several of the Committees questions as follows: As to the accessibility of the UMLER file, Mr. Robinson

reported that shippers and rail car owners can access UMLER

data files via on-line inquiry devices, microfiche, and computer

tape listings.

Unauthorized and fraudulent entries are precluded by pass-key

identification procedures.

The expense of participating in the UMLER file is borne by the

user, either through the cost of computer hardware or a monthly fee to obtain microfiche or computer tape listings. The

UMLER information is non-proprietary and is currently available

to any interested party.

While the UMLER file contains vast amounts of information,

shippers and rail car owners can only access selected UMLER

data fields.

233
Liaison Committee

Based on Mr. Robinson's report, it does not seem practical at this time to advocate a totally computerized system. In fact, users of rail car tare weights expressed to the Committee their reservation about the elimination

of stenciled tare weights. Even if a computerized file was practical and

acceptable, the committee fails to see how the problem with light-weighed

cars would be eliminated or even diminished.

The AAR reports that in 1985, 118,284 non-exempt cars were restenciled, or about 16% of the serviceable fleet of general service freight cars. In addition, 71,085 exempt cars, or about 8.4% of the fleet of specially

equipped cars were re weighed, including 24,461 covered hoppers. The

railroad industry continues to experience relatively flat economic conditions

and, thus, reports that a large number of cars remain in storage with no

effort being made to reweigh these cars. 506 THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIFORMITY OF

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES STANDARDS IN THE UNITED

STATES

The Committee was not successful in obtaining a weights and measures stamp to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of Weights and Measures by the joint resolution of Congress in 1836. One of the reasons was there was insufficient lead time for getting a stamp

for 1986. Many of the stamps for 1986 were already selected before a formal application was made. Another reason is that it is very difficult to get recognition of that type for a Government agency. Finally it was

agreed that the request should be made by the weights and measures community through the National Conference on Weights and Measures and

individually by the state and local jurisdictions, associate members, industry, trade associations, consumer groups, and all other friends of weights and measures and not by the National Bureau of Standards. The Committee urges that all NCWM members contact members of the

Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee to approve a commemorative stamp for 1988. The Chairman of that Committee is Belmont Faries, Citizen's Stamp

Advisory Committee, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20260-6352.

The Committee on Liaison requests that any design ideas for stamps be sent

to Peggy Adams, Chief Sealer, Bucks County Consumer Protection, Broad

and Union Streets, Doylestown, PA 18901. Because of the lead time needed to secure a commemorative stamp, the focus has been changed from the 150th Anniversary of OWM to the 150th

Anniversary of the uniformity of weights and measures standards. As a

result of the joint congressional resolution of 1836, the first standards were

delivered to the states in 1838 (hence the term - "1838 standards"). This is when our nation first began to achieve uniformity in weights and measures

standards and this is what should be observed rather than the establishment

of OWM. This brings into the limelight the entire weights and measures community rather than a single Government agency.

234
Liaison Committee

The promotional plan will remain basically the same as outlined in the 1985

Final Report to the National Conference on Weights and Measures; however,

the year of observance will be shifted to 1988, and the target of emphasis

will be 150 years of uniformity of weights and measures standards in the United States. 507 TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

The Task Force on Motor Fuels met on January 20 and 21 to finalize work

necessary to complete the Task Force's work. An open meeting was held on

the proposed Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law and Regulation. Numerous

firms and trade associations wrote in support of a specific vapor pressure exemption for ethanol-gasoline blends (gasohol). These groups are concerned

that the proposed regulation may be interpreted as applying the ASTM P 176

volatility standards to the blended fuel and not to the base gasoline as is specified in a Clean Air Act waiver issued by the EPA for ethanol-gasoline

blends. The Task Force concluded that such a specific exemption is not necessary since in Section 1.3 of PI 76 reference is clearly made to the Clean Air Act waivers of the EPA.

With the Task Force's work nearing completion, the proposed law and

regulation was transferred to the Committee on Laws and Regulations. The

Task Force is recommending that the proposals be placed on the agenda for the 1987 Interim Meetings for possible consideration by the 1987 NCWM.

The year's delay will allow ASTM to confirm new test procedures for oxygenated fuels and the ethanol industry to gauge the impact of ASTM

P 176.

In addition, the Task Force is developing the basics of a small (500 samples

per month) fuels testing laboratory. Items to be listed are types of tests, equipment, number of personnel, building size, and yearly operating budget.

Prior to the 1987 Interim Meeting, the Task Force will conclude its assignment with a written report detailing the issues for the creation of the Task Force and the basis for the proposed uniform law and regulations.

508 LPG PROVING SYSTEMS

In response to a letter written by N. David Smith, Liaison Committee

Chairman, Mr. James K. Walters, American Petroleum Institute, appeared

before the Committee to discuss Chapter 4 of API Manual of Petroleum

Measurement Standards.

235
Liaison Committee

The issue was that Chapter 4, "Proving Systems", did not recognize

vapor-equalization volumetric provers which are commonly used by weights

and measures jurisdictions, private meter repair firms, and LP-Gas dealers. These provers are used to test LP-Gas meters on vehicles that deliver LP-Gas to the consumer.

Mr. Walters stated that to his best information, it was a fault of omission

since those working on Chapter 4 were mostly involved in bulk or pipeline

metering, and vapor-equalization volumetric provers were not really suitable

for high volume deliveries. Mr. Walters said "This raised a bigger issue in how can we accomplish more

regular dialogue between weights and measures officials and the

measurement experts who are writing these standards." "Chapter 4 is currently under revision, so in the short term, we can communicate to the

working group that we need to consider the whole gamet in vapor return. We can do that because the timing is right." Mr. Walters stated that at the

appropriate time he would ask the Committee for experts from weights and measures to better describe exactly what is wanted from the working group

on Chapter 4. Two opportunities have been raised. One is to make API standards better serve weights and measures use. Typically API standards do not serve retail use. On a longer term we should improve communication to insure that this type of controversy does not occur in the future. It was suggested that Mr.

Walters communicate with Steve Hasko regarding any questions that arise regarding the inclusion of vapor-equalization provers. He agreed, and felt that our technical needs be communicated to him. Further, since

membership on working groups is not restricted to API members, weights and

measures experts can properly be included when issues arise involving our

needs. An invitation was made for the Liaison Committee to take

advantage of Mr. Walter's offer. Mr. David Smith accepted the offer. Weights and measures representatives have provided input to the working

group for Chapter 4, "Proving Systems", and has been actively working with

this group through correspondence.

509 LIAISON WITH REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Representatives of all four regional weights and measures associations and

Richard Smith, Regional Coordinator, were present for a discussion on better use of the Liaison Committee by the regional associations. It was generally

agreed that communication between the regional associations and the standing committees was on a haphazard basis. Only within the last year

has any information been forwarded to the Liaison Committee from any of

the associations. Richard Smith stated that as Regional Coordinator he is working to provide

all regional committee reports to all national committees. One of the

problems is getting the information from the regional committees. Mr. Smith also felt that there were items discussed at regional association

meetings that should properly be submitted to the Liaison Committee and he

would make a personal effort to forward these items to the Liaison staff

advisor.

236
Liaison Committee

It was reported that issues sent in to OWM prior to the Interim Meeting were often addressed to the wrong committee and unless it obviously

belonged to another Committee it was usually buried in that committee's

agenda. It is hoped that these issues could be entered in the computor data

bases and that staff advisors could scan these issues at intervals to determine appropriate assignments of issues. A request was made that regional associations send committee reports to OWM within 30 days of the meetings. Lists of Officers and committee

members of the regionals were also requested to be sent within 30 days.

It was felt that there was no need for regional liaison committees but that Regional Committees and Chairpersons be made aware of types of issues that should be forweu'ded to the Liaison Committee.

510 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

Over 220 weights and measures officials from state and local jurisdictions

will coordinate weights and measures week activities March 1-7. Fairbanks

Scales, the Institute of Weights and Measures, and the Scale Manufacturers

Association will mail information to coordinators. The Weights and Measures Week Guide 1986, NCWM Publication #7, has been revised, published, and

mailed to aU coordinators.

All industries, trade associations, and weights and measures officials are urged to mail news articles, pictures, publications, and media reports to Peggy H. Adams, Chief Sealer/Director, Bucks County Consumer Protection

Weights and Measures, Broad and Union Streets, Doylestown, PA 18901. The

Committee recommends that officials use the Guide for public information

and awareness on a year-round basis. It has also been recommended that

the publication's name be changed to indicate it can be used throughout the

year. Plans are being made to include Weights and Measures Week activities in the 200th celebration of the Constitution of the United States in 1987 and the 150th Anniversary of the presentation of the first standards to the states in 1988. 511 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LEGAL CASES

The Committee will coordinate an effort to update the last weights and

measures case reference book listing court decisions through July 1952. Although state court decisions are now available through a computerized

service, Lexis/Nexis, there are unusual cases that are decided at the local

district or business court or at administrative hearings that do not reach the

higher court level and are not on record. Many of these cases develop

legal precedence that have a bearing on future litigation. There are also court decisions that are made that concern cases that are not necessarily

weights and measures cases but have an effect on them such as Federal

policy.

237
Liaison Committee

The Committee will send a survey questionaire (see Appendix A) to all jurisdictions in an attempt to find out what unusual decisions have been

made but are not a matter of record. Jurisdictions will be requested to continually update their information, which will result in a conference

updated publication of weights and measures legal cases that can be utilized by all jurisdictions.

N. D. Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

P. H. Adams, Bucks County, PA

J. H. Akey, Kansas

C.R. Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.

J. W. McCutcheon, USDA

S. Hasko, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

238
Liaison Committee

APPENDIX A

SURVEY FOR LEGAL CASE REFERENCE BOOK

TO: Weights and Measures Officials From: Liason Committee, NCWM

Re: Update of Legal Case Reference Book

The last Weights and Measures Legal Reference Book included decisions on

the state and Federal court level through July 1952. The Liason Committee

feels there is a need to update this book. It will be published as an

official NCWM Handbook.

The update should include the following cases concerning packaging and

labeling, net contents and devices, and weights and measures practices: A. Appropriate Federal and state decisions on weights and measures cases

in the U.S. Supreme Court, Federal District Court, State Supreme

Courts, State Courts of Appeal and State Courts of Record. Many of these decisions appear as part of the state and Federal Reports

publications, but we would like your input on cases that have affected your operations.

B. Decisions and policies on weights and measures cases at the District Court, Local Court or Administrative Hearing level. Most of these

decisions, policies, and strategies are not published in archival

collections but have an important bearing on a majority of weights

and measures cases. If you have anything to report in this category, we need a copy of the decision. C. Decisions and policies of Federal agencies involved with or affecting

weights and measures. Send Information to: Steve Hasko

National Conference on Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 3137

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

239
ANNUAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

240
Nominating Committee

REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Sam F. Hindsman, Chairman

Director, Arkansas Bureau of Standards

REFERENCE KEY

800

The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meetings at Gaithersburg on January 22, 1986 and nominated the listed persons to be

officers of the Conference. In the selection of nominees from the active

membership, consideration was given to professional experience, qualification of individuals, attendance Conference participation, regional representation, and other factors considered to be important.

Each of the persons named has been contacted and has agreed to serve if elected. CHAIRMAN-ELECT:

VICE-CHAIRMEN:

Darrell A. Guensler, California

Peggy H. Adams, Bucks County, PA

Fred A. Gerk, New Mexico

Don E. Stagg, Alabama

Robert W. Walker, Indiana

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

(3-year terms)

TREASURER:

CHAPLAIN:

Louis D. Draghetti, City of Agawam, MA

John J. Bartfai, New York

Charles Gardner, Jr., Suffolk County, NY

Martin Coile, Georgia

Respectfully submitted:

Sam F. Hindsman, Arkansas, Chairman

Edward C. Heffron, Michigan

Charles H. Greene, New Mexico

James F. Lyles, Virginia

Kendrick J. Simila, Oregon

Joseph L. Swanson, Alaska

Richard L. Thompson, Maryland

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

On motion of the Committee Chairman the report of the Nominating

Committee, voting key item 800, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference.

241
Resolutions Committee

REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

Charles H. Carroll, Chairman

Division of Measurement Standards

State of Massachusetts

REFERENCE KEY

700

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to those

who contributed their time and talents toward the arrangements for, the conduct of, and the success of this 71st Annual Meeting. Special votes

of thanks to:

(1) William P. Stevens, Secretary/Director, New Mexico

Department of Agriculture, for his welcoming address that brought interesting and useful comments that clearly

expressed his thoughts on the importance of weights and measures to the commerce of the States;

(2) Ernest Ambler, Director, National Bureau of Standards, for

his evaluation of the progress of the Conference, his challenge to adopt Conference results by the States, and

his incisive appraisal of the health of the National Confer- ence on Weights and Measures; special acknowledgement is made of the new "President's Award" established by Dr. Ambler to recognize those States in full support of the NCWM;

(3) officers and appointed officials of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures for their assistance and service

toward progress on national issues;

(4) committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and presenting their reports, to the

subcommittees and task forces for their discerning and

appropriate recommendations;

(5) governing officials of State and local jurisdictions for their advice, interest, and support in weights and measures

administration in the United States;

(6) representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and Conference work, to

the associate membership organization for its hosting

functions;

242
Resolutions Committee

(7) The staff of the Albuquerque Marriott Hotel for their assistance and courtesies, which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the delegates in their fine facilities;

(8) The National Bureau of Standards and the Office of Weights and Measures for their outstanding assistance in planning and conducting the work and program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures;

(9) The Office of Weights and Measures staff; Ann Heffernan

and Karen Barkley for expert and hospitable operation of

the administrative operations of the meeting;

(10) The New Mexico Division of Standards and Consumer

Services for their tireless and essential support to the Conference, its committees, and our guests throughout the meeting week.

(11) Sandia Laboratories for the excellent tour that was held Monday afternoon for State metrologists and other NCWM

delegates, and, specifically, Mr. Richard Heckman who

coordinated the total tour and other staff members, all of whom did outstanding jobs of explaining their activities.

C. Carroll, Massachusetts, Chairman

W. Eldridge, Mississippi D. Lynch, Kansas City, Kansas

G. MacDonald, Minnesota

E. Maxwell, District of Columbia (absent)

E. Stephens, Utah

F. Thomas, Pennsylvania

R. Smith, NBS, Technical Advisor

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

On motion of the Committee Chairman the report of the Resolutions

Committee, Reference Key Item 700, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference.

243
Auditing Committee

REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Ed Romano, Sealer Department of Weights and Measures

Glenn County

Willows, California

REFERENCE KEY

900

The Auditing Committee met on Tuesday afternoon, July 22, for the purpose of reviewing the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer,

Charles A. Gardner, Jr. The Committee finds these records to be in accordance with Conference procedure and correct.

E. Romano, Glenn County, CA Chairman

F. Clem, City of Columbus, OH

L. Maurer, Rhode Island,

^ R. Smith, NBS, Technical Advisor

AUDITING COMMITTEE

On motion of the Committee Chairman the report of the Auditing

Committee, Reference Key Item 900, was adopted by the Conference.

244
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER

Charles A. Gardner, Director

Weights and Measures Suffolk County, New York

REFERENCE KEY

1000

It is ray pleasure to report to you on the financial status of the Confer- ence Treasury as follows: CASH ON HAND - JUNE 30, 1985 $ 38, 519.

RECEIPTS

Account No. 1.1 Registration $^41 ,050.00

" " 1 .2 Membership 45,570.00

" "1.3 Publications 2,302.89

" "1.4 Interest 2,379.29

" "1.5 Novelties 3,440.87

" " 1 .9 Miscellaneous 1 ,124.00 TOTAL RECEIPTS $ 95,867.05

TOTAL CASH BALANCE AND RECEIPTS $134,386.19

DISBURSEMENTS

Account No. 2.0 Annual Meeting $14,733.57

ti II 3.0 Interim Meeting 17,425.12

ti II 5.0 Special Programs 18,470.37

11 II 6.0 Chairman's Expenses 9,150.31

tt II 7.0 Membership 5,817.80

n II 8.0 Printing & Publications 1 ,411 .46

It II 9.0 Administration 16,920.66

n n

1 1.0 Novelties 4,108.67

It II 12.0 Publications 5,282.43

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $ 93>320.39

Cash on Hand - June 30, 1986 Super N.O.W. Account - European American Bank

Hauppauge, New York 40,751.56

Checking Account Union Trust Co., Gaithersburg, MD 314.24 TOTAL ASSESTS $ 41,065.80

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS AND ASSETS $134,386.19

Charles A. Gardner, Treasurer

On motion of Mr. Gardner, the Report of the Conference Treasurer, Reference Key Item 1000, was adopted by the Conference.

245
TRBASUROI'S REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 70 (1985-86)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

GRANT ACCOUNT

CASH ON HAND - June 30, 1985 $ 2,817.9^

RECEIPTS 112,328.76

TOTAL CASH BALANCE AND RECEIPTS $115,1*16.70

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS AND CASH BALANCE

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 113,003.53

Cash Balance - June 30, 1986

Super N.O. W. Account - European American Bank

Hauppauge, New York $ 2.1*13.17

$115,1*16.70

Charles A. Gardner, Treasurer

On motion of Mr. Gardner, the report of the Conference Treasurer,

Reference Key Item 1000, was adopted by the Conference,

2A6
MISCELLANEOUS

247
Appointments

APPOINTMENTS BY CHAIRMAN

Chairman Frank Nagele announced the following appointments at the General

Session on Thursday, July 24, 1986: STANDING COMMITTEES

Chairmen and appointments are as follows: Executive Committee

Chairman: Frank Nagele, Michigan

John Bartfai, New York, appointed for a three-year term;

Louis Draghetti, Agawam, Massachusetts appointed for a three-year term. Laws and Regulations

Chairman: Allan Nelson, Connecticut

N. David Smith, North Carolina, appointed for a five-year term.

Specifications and Tolerances

Chairman: Fred Gerk, New Mexico, and one-year extension of term; James Truex, Ohio, appointed for a five-year term. Education Committee

Chairman: Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts

Steven A. Meilone, Nebraska, appointed for a five-year term.

Liaison Committee

Chairman: Peggy Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

Paul Engler, Los Angeles County, California, appointed for a five-year term. OTHER ACTIONS

The Subcommittee on Commodity Standards completed its work and has been disbanded with appreciation.

248
Appointments

Board of Governors, NTEP

Chairman-Elect Guensler assumed the Chairmanship of the Board of Governors of NTEP.

Nominating Committee

Chairman Nagele appointed the following members to the Nominating

Committee:

Regional Area Member

Western

Central

Northeast

Southern

George Mattimoe, Hawaii

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Edward Heffron, Michigan

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Richard Thompson, Maryland

Chairman Nagele will establish a new Task Force on the Prevention of Fraud in Weights and Measures Devices and Use of Devices. He has asked for volunteers for this Task Force and will announce its membership

as soon as it is formed.

Decisions regarding membership on other existing Task Forces and Committee members will be made as necessary. Frank Nagele, Chairman,

resigned from those on which he is a member.

Associate Membership Committee

Walter Kupper, Mettler, Chairman

Kenneth Appell, Colgate-Palmolive, Vice-Chairman

Richard Davis, James River/Dixie Northern, Treasurer Max Casanova, Ramsey Engineering co. Harvey Lodge, Dunbar

Anthony Ladd, A. J. Ladd Weighing 6c. Packaging Systems

Robert Nelson, General Mills

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

Ray Wells, Sensitive Measurements, Inc.

249
REPORT ON STATE METROLOGY WORKSHOPS

Paul H. Krupenie

National Bureau of Standards

Workshop sessions were held on Monday, July 21 and on Wednesday, July

23. The Monday session comprised a tour of the standards laboratory and

other facilities of the Sandia National Laboratory. The first stop of the

tour provided an orientation to the scope of Sandia's standards activities and a visit to the solar central receiver for electric power generation.

Their experiments point towards the future, even though the facility now

generates only a small amount of power. At Sandia's main laboratory, the small mass laboratory was of top interest to the metrologists. The shock mounting of the tables on which the

balances rested were met with mixed reactions. The metrologists were

intrigued by the use of a light bulb mounted near the balances to shorten

the warmup time before making measurements. Additional labs visited were those involving length, temperature, microwave, and time-and-frequency calibrations. Dick Schulmeister, metrologist for New Mexico, and

Dick Heckman of Sandia planned and coordinated the visit. On Wednesday, the session included regional metrology reports, discussions

of calibration of conveyor belt test chains, some problems with ther- mometer calibration, and results of experiments on provers at a Virginia

fuel tank farm.

250
REGISTRATION LIST

71ST NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

JULY 20-25, 1986

MARRIOTT HOTEL, ALBUQUERQUE, NM

Adams, Peggy H. Bucks County Cons. Prot. W & M Broad and Union Streets

Doylestown, PA 18901

215/348-7'*'l2 y

Akey, James H. Kansas Office of Weights & Meas.

P.O. Box 5516

Topeka, KS 66605

913/ 267-0278

Allen, Gilbert R. City of Spokane

North 5623 Fleming

Spokane. WA 99205

509/ 325-0880

Ambler, Ernest National Bureau of Standards

Admin. All 3^ Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2^*11

Andersen, Ross J. Bureau of Wts & Measures

Bldg. 7A State Campus

Albany, NY 12235

5l8/il57-3^'*9

Angell, Karl H. Jr. Department of Labor

1800 Washington St. Charleston, WV 25305

30i»/ 727- 5781 Appell, Kenneth C. Colgate-Palmolive

300 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022

212/310-2022

Austin, Bernard H. AFARR, State House Sta. #28

Augusta, ME OM333

207/289-38M1

Ball, Wayne

Bureau of Weights & Measures

Florida Dept. of Agriculture

and Consumer Service

3125 Conner Blvd., Bldg. 2 Tallahassee, FL 32301 90V 488-91 MO Barela, Ernest Division of Standards

and Consumer Services

NM Department of Agriculture

Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/898-3320

Barkley, Karen L. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Barnes, Roma

M02 Newby Lane Bloomfield, NM 87413

505/632-1437

Barnett, Tom

Fred Stein Laboratories, Inc.

121 North 4th

Atchison, KS 66002

913/367-3945

Bartfai, John J. Bureau of Weights & Measures

1220 Washington Ave., Bldg. 7A Albany, NY 12235

518/435-6330

Baumann, John S. New Brunswick International, Inc.

5 Greek Lane

Edison, NJ 08817

201/287-2288

251
Bell, Irving

The Coca-Cola Company

P.O. Drawer 173^

Atlanta, GA 30301 40M/676-2623

Belmont, Anthony F. Town of Greenwich

101 Field Pt. Rd.

Greenwich, CT O683O

203/622-771

3

Belue, F. Michael

Mechanical Engineering Dept.

Southwest Pump Company

P.O. Drawer 280

Bonham, TX 75^18

214/583-3134

Benincasa, Gerald A.

2 South Green St. Sonora, CA 95370

209/533-5691

Bigthumb, Melvin N. The Navajo Nation

Weights and Measures

Windowrock, AZ 86515

602/811-6719 ro 6718

Blackmon, Jesse J. City Hall

121 N. LaSalle

Chicago, IL 60602

312/744-3310

Blank, Denis

Weights and Measures Div. P.O. Box 34947

Lincoln, NE 68509

402/471-2341

Bleiler, Eugene

MI Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

517/373-IO6O

Bloch, Barbara J,

Division of Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Road

Sacramento, CA 95826

916/366-5119

Bognar, Roger B. American Paper Institute, Inc. 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016

212/340-0618

Bradley, Chet Route 2, Box 179 Heathsville, VA 22473

804/580-8714

Bradshaw, Harold

Weights & Measures Dept.

City County Bldg,Rm 314

Jeffersonville, IN 47130

812/283-4451 Ext. 620

Brahos, Dean Weights & Measures Dept.

7220 Hohman Ave. Hammond, IN 46324

219/853-6377

Bratle, E. A. NCR Corporation

1700 South Patterson Blvd.

Dayton, OH 45479

513/445-1306

Braun, William H. Proctor and Gamble

6100 Center Hill Road

Cincinnati, OH 45224

513/659-5233

Brickenkamp, Carroll S,

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

252
Brink, Tr afford F. Division of Weights & Measures

VT Dept. of Agriculture

116 State St. Montpelier, VT 05602

802/828-2436

Bruce, Robert C. Canadian Government

Consumer & Corporate Affairs

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

613/990-8606

Brumbaugh, Robert T. Systems Associates Inc. 205 Peterson Rd. Libertyville, IL 60048

31 2/367-6650

Brydon, Dawn M. Ice Cream Manufacturers Assoc.

888 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006

202/296-4250

Burger, Gerald R. Consumers Power Co. 1945 W. Parnall Rd. Jackson, MI 49201 517/788-2387

Burk, Stuart C. Weights and Measures Solano County (Retired)

70 Heliotrope

Vallejo, CA 94590

707/642-7849

Burnette, Mahlon A. American Meat Institute

631 Walker Rd. Great Falls, VA 22066

703/759-5984

Butcher, Kenneth S. Weights and Measures

MD Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401 301/841-5790

Butterbaugh, William H. National LP-Gas Association

1301 West 22nd Street

Oak Brook, IL 60521 312/986-4800

Calkins, Richard

Ricke Lake Bearing, Inc.

230 West Coleman St. Rice Lake, WI 54868

715/234-9171

Carles, Robert S. P.O. Box 32368

Charlotte, NC 28232

704/554-1 421 Carle ton, George E. Procter & Gamble Co. One Procter & Gamble Plaza

Cincinnati, OH 45202

513/983-2721

Carroll, Charles H. MA Division of Standards

McCormick Bldg. , Room 115 One Ashburton Place

Boston, MA 02108

617/727-3480

Casanova, Max C. Field Service

Ramsey Engineering Company

1853 W. County Rd. C St. Paul, MN 55113

612/633-5150

Casaus, Robert

NM Dept. of Agriculture

3509 Wolters NE Albuquerque, NM 87106

Cavender, Darrel

AK Dept. of Commerce

and Economic Development

P.O. Box 111686

Anchorage, AK 99511 907/345-7750

253
Chen, Jung

Center for Measurement Standards

Industrial Technology Res. Inst.

321 .SEC. 2. Kuang Fu Road

Hsinchu, Taiwan

Chohamin, John M. Middlesex County Dept of Weights and Measures

841 Georges Rd. North Brunswick, NJ 08902

201/745-3298

Claussen, Richard H. Porter County Weights and

Measures, Room 105 1401N Calumet, Courthouse Annex Valparaiso, IN 46383

219/464-8661 X214

Clem, Fred P. Office of Weights & Measures

50 W. Gay St. , Rm. 605 Columbus, OH 43215

61 4/222-7397

Coile, Martin T. Weights and Measures

GA Dept. of Agriculture

Atlanta Farmers Market

Forest Park, GA 30050

404/363-761

Colbrook, Sidney A. Bureau of Laboratories

IL Dept. of Agriculture

801 East Sangamon Ave. Springfield, IL 62706

217/782-3817

Collins, C. V. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Conrad, Carl P., Jr. Office of Weights & Measures

187 West Hanover St. Trenton, NJ 08625

609/292-4615

Coughlin, Paul F. Analogic Corp.

14 Electronics Ave. Danvers, MA 01923

617/777-4500

Cox, George M. Automatic Control Elec. Co. 5355 Dietrich

San Antonio, TX 78220

512/661-41 1

Coyne, Mark P. Rm B-12, City Hall

Brockton, MA 02401 617/580-1 100 Culberth, Lynn T. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Daniels, A. Ray

NCR Corporation

1700 S. Patterson Blvd.

Dayton, OH 45479

513/445-1310

Darby, James W. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Davis, Clayton F. AFARR, Div. of Regulations

State House Station 28 Augusta, ME 04333

207/289-3841

254
Davis, Delores D. Dept. of Agric. & Markets Bureau of Wts & Measures

Two Winners Circle

Albany, NY 12235

518/^457-3^52

Davis, Richard L. James River-Dixie/Northern Inc. Neenah Tech Ctr 1915 Marathon

Neenah, WI 5^4956 404/729-81

DeCheco, Thomas 0. Summit County Wts & Measures

522 E. Cuyahoga Falls Ave. Akron, OH 44310

21 6/923-9546

DeGrange, Lacy H. Weights and Measures

MD Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401 301/841-5790

Deisley, Mike L. Weights and Measures Div.

P. 0. Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509

402/ 474-31 74 Denny, Charles J. William M. Wilsons Sons Inc. P.O. Box 309 Lansdale, PA 19446

215/855-4631

DeSalvo, Barbara

Ohio Weights & Measures

8995 E. Main St. Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

61 4/866-6361

Diggs, G. W. VA Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 1163, Room 403 Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2476

Dox, William G. Monmouth County, NJ

40 Monument St. Freehold, NJ 07728

201/431-7362

Draghetti , Louis D

Weights and Measures

36 Main St. Agawam, MA 01001 413/786-0400, ext. 232,234

Eble, Karen S. Arco Chemical Co. 1500 Market St., CS-3301G

Philadelphia, PA 19101 215/557-3635

Edgerly, David E. Standards Management Program

National Bureau of Standards

Admin. A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3287

Eldridge, William P. Weights & Measures Div. MS Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 1609 Jackson, MS 39205

601/359-3025

Elengo, John J

Revere Corp. of America

P.O. Box 56 Wallingford, CT 06492

203/284-5102

Elliott, Ray

Okla. Dept. of Agriculture

2800 N, Lincoln

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405/521-3861

Ellis, Rutherford L. Jr. Universel Epsco, Inc. 1494 Ellsworth Ind. Dr., NW

P.O. Box 93544

Atlanta, GA 30318

404/351-2740

255
Engler, Paul B. Los Angeles County

3M00 La Madera Ave.

El Monte, CA 91732

818/575-5451

Eska, Alexander L. City Hall

Linden, NJ 07036

201/486-3800

Eskew, Herb

TX Dept. of Agriculture

1 19 Cumberland Rd. Austin, TX 78704

512/475-3720

Fagan, Nicholas J

.

Cardinal Scale Mfg. Co. 6334 Huntley Road

Columbus, OH 43229

614/846-5730

Feinland, Sy

Pitney Bowes Inc. 380 Main Ave. Norwalk, CT 06852

203/854-7007

Finnell, Claude M. County Weights & Measures Dept.

150 South 9th St. El Centro, CA 92243

619/339-431 4 Fisher, John E. 2221 Forster St.,Rm. G-28

Harrisburg, PA 17125

717/787-3862

Fonger, Robert L. Bennett Pump Company

P.O. Box 597 Muskegon, MI 49443

616/733-1302

Forester, Charles E. TX Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 12847

Austin, TX 7871 1 512/475-6577

Fraley, Ken Laboratory Div. Bureau of Standards

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405/521-3864 X370

Furber, George Richard

Shell Oil Co. Rm 2386-C

One Shell Plaza

Houston, TX 77069

71 3/241-4950

Gamba, Frank

Dept. of Weights & Measures

& Consumer Protection

Cumberland County

788 E . Commerce St. Bridgeton, NJ 08302

609/451-8000 X369

Gardner, Charles A. Weights & Measures

Suffolk County, NY County Center North Bldg. 340 Hauppauge, NY 11788

516/360-4621

Gardner, Charles H. Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Ave. Rancocas, NJ 08073

609/267-0922

Geiler, Thomas F. Town of Barnstable

367 Main St. Hyannis, MA 02601 617/775-1 120

256
Gerdom, Walter F. Jr. Tokheim Corp. P.O. Box 360 Fort Wayne, IN 46801 219/423-2552 Ext. 4316 Gerk, Fred A. Division of Standards

and Consumer Services

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Giannina, Joe

GEAPS

P.O. Box 1541 Corpus Christi, TX 78403

512/883-1162

Gilroy, Michael J. The Coca-Cola Company

P.O. Drawer 1734 Atlanta, GA 30301 404/676-3207

Gomez, Joe E. Div. of Standards

and Consumer Services

NM Dept. of Agriculture

Box 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/892-3545

Goodpaster, William V. Cardinal Scale Co. 1610 N. C St. Sacramento, CA 95814

916/441-0178

Gray, Max H. Bureau of Weights and Meas.

3125 Conner Blvd., Bldg. 2 Tallahassee, FL 32301 904/488-9140

Greene, Charles H

.

General Services

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3189 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-5340

Grenier, Michael F. NH Dept. of Agriculture

Caller Box 2042 Concord, NH 03301 603/271 -3700

Griffin, T. Scott

U.S. Borax Research Corp.

412 Crescent Way

Anaheim, CA 92667

214/774-2670

Guensler, Darrell A. Division of Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Rd. Sacramento, CA 95826

916/366-5119

Hadyka, Paul

USDA/FGIS

1400 Independence Ave., SW Room

0623

Washington, DC 20250

202/382-0262

Haker, Khalil D. BLH Electronics Inc.

75 Shawnut Industrial Park

Canton, MA 02021 617/821-2000

Hall, Brian

NM Dept. of Agriculture

757 Sunflower

Rio Rancho, NM 87124

Halverson, John C. USDA/FGIS

Bldg. 221 , Richards-Gebaur AFB

Grandview, MO 64030

8 16/ 3^8- 25 11

257
Handy, Wayne E. Johnson County W&M Johnson Cnty. Courthouse Annex

Franklin, IN ^61 31 31 7/738-5000

Hankel, Melvin C. Liquid Controls Corp.

Wacker Park

North Chicago, XL 6006M

312/689-2^400

Hannah, Ralph, J. City of Indianapolis

City/Cnty. Bldg. , Rm. 1760 Indianapolis, IN M620M

31 7/236-4272

Hanson, Gerald W. San Bernardino County

777 E. Rialto Ave. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

71 4/387-21 40 Hare, George C. Badger Meter, Inc.

P. 0. Box 23099

Milwaukee, WI 53223

41 4/355-0400

Hartley, Bruce

Nestle Foods

100 Bloomingdale Rd. White Plains, NY 914/682-6857

Hasko, Stephen

Office of Weights and Measures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Hausherr, Walter

Mettler Instrument Corp.

P.O. Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000

Haws, Tom H. The Pillsbury Co. 5317 Clinton Ave. , S Minneapolis, MN 55419

612/823-6042

Hayes, Ron

Div. of Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

314/751-4316

Heffernan, Ann P. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6I

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3677

Heffron, Edward C. Food Division

MI Dept. of Agriculture

Ottawa Bldg. N, 4th Floor

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

517/373-1060

Helmick, Ray

1638 E. Cinnabar Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85020

602/943-3837

Herman, Marilyn J. Herman & Associates

Ashland Development/South

Point Ethanol

2300 M St. , NW

Washington, DC 20037

202/775-1630

Hershbein, Arthur

Consumer Protection Div.

Dade County Florida

44 W. Flagler St., Suite 2303

Miami, FL 33130

305/579-4222

258
Hindsman, Sam F. 4608 W. 61 St St. Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1736

Hock, Lee Standard Oil Co. 4850 E. M9th St. Cleveland, OH 44125

216/271 -821

Hockmuth, Richard L. PMP Corporation

25 Security Dr. , FOB 422 Avon, CT 06001 203/677-9656

Hoi Iowa y, Lyman D. State of Idaho (Retired)

2405 Scarlet St. Boise, ID 83706

208/343-6520

Hood, Robert B. Lodec, Inc. Drawer D Lynwood, WA 98036

206/775-6471

Hooker, Ron

Div. of Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

31 4/496-3607

Hoover, Brian

Micro Motion Inc. 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301 303/530-8400

Hurless, Rick

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88OO3

505/646-1616

Hurley, Richard H. Fairbanks Weighing Division

711 East St. Johnsbury Rd. St. Johnsbury, VT 05819

802/748-51 1

James, David

Div. of Weights and Measuraes

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

31 4/751-5638

James, W. Terry

Cardinal Scale Mfg. Co. 203 E . Daugherty

Webb City, MO 64870

41 7/673-4631

Jensen, Randy

Micro Motion Inc. 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 8O3OI 303/530-8400

Johnson, Ted F. Sensortronics

677 Arrow Grand Circle

Covina, CA 91722

818/331-0502

Johnson, Wayne W. 235 Fairfield Ave.

W. Caldwell, NJ 07006

201/226-2100

Jolliffe, Lane

2270 Old Penitentiary Rd. Boise, ID 83712

203/334-2623

Jorowski, Gerry A. Consumer & Corp. Affiars

50 Victoria St. Place Du Portage, Phase I Ottawa/Hull

Quebec, KIA0C9

819/997-1177

259
Kalentkowski , Raymond S. State of Connecticut

24 Gladding Place

Kensington, CT 06037

203/828-8248

Katterheinr ich, Fred H. Hobart Corporation

Troy, OH 513/332-2037

Keeley, Eugene

Department of Agriculture

2320 DuPont Highway

Dover, DE 19901 302/736-4811

Kelly, Thomas W. 187 W. Hanover St. Trenton, NJ 08625

609/292-4615

Kilian, Elmer

Consumer Protection Bureau

Trade & Consumer Protection Div.

224 Main St., Box 231 Eagle, WI 53119

414/594-2168

Kirby, Thomas E. Retired State of GA

Rte. 3, Box 65c Jackson, GA 30233

Klevay, Tom

Millers National Federation

600 Maryland Ave., Suite 305

Washington, DC 20024

202/ 484-2200

Kloos, Chip

Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson

1645 W. Valencia

Fullerton, CA 92634

71 4/680-1098

Koenig, Joan A. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Kosits, Frank A. Retired Inspector Cuyahoga Cnty.

17500 Daleview

Lakewood, OH 44107

608/266-5642

Kroeger, Jim K. Ghaus Scale Corp.

29 Hanover Rd. Florham Park, NJ 07932

201/377-9000

Krupenie, Paul H. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Admin. A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3677

Kupper, Walter E. Mettler Instrument Corp. Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000

Kushnir, Dan Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Ave. Rancocas, NJ 08073

609/267-0922

LaBree, Ted

1702 Taylor St. Houston, TX 77007

71 3/861-8221

Lacy, John T. USDA P & S Admin.

14th & Independence, SW

Room 3414 S Washington, D.C. 20250

202/447-3140

260
Ladd, Anthony J. A. J. Ladd Weighing

and Packaging Systems

255 N. Portage Path, Suite 213

Akron, OH 216/836-4569

Land, Robert L. City of Anderson

1727 Edward Lane Anderson, IN 46012

317/646-9839

Latimer, Wayne A. MAPCO

1800 South Baltimore

Tulsa, OK 74119

918/599-3635

Leahy, David P. The Kroger Co.

2 Campbell Drive

Highland Heights, KY 41076

606/572-221

1

LeCaire, Robert A. Presto Products Inc. P.O. Box 2399

Appleton, WI 54913

414/739-9471

Letey, Leo Measurement Stds. Sec.

Dept. of Agriculture

3125 Wyandot

Denver, CO 80211 303/866-2845

Llanez, Pedro

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Lodge, Harvey M. Dunbar Mfg. Inc.

307 Broadway

Swanton, OH 43558

419/244-3021

Loyd, F. Joe Jr. Seaboard System Railroad

500 Water St., Room 1010 Jacksonville, FL 32202

904/731-2849

Lyles, James F. VA Weights and Measures

P.O . Box 1 163, Room 403 Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2476

Lynch, Donald L. City of Kansas City, Kansas

701 North 7th Street Kansas City, KS 66101 913/573-5085

Lyons, Robert L. Gerber Products Co. Fremont, MI 49412

616/928-2267

Malone, Steven A. Weights & Measures Div.

P. 0. Box 34757

Lincoln, NE 68509

402/471 -4292

Mann, John M. U.S. Borax

3075 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010

213/381-5311 X5459

Manning, Paul H. Room 204, City Hall

Boston, MA 02201

617/ 725-4540

Martin, Jimmy

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88OO3

505/646-1616

261
Marvel, Lynn

6101 W. Reno, Suite 800

Oklahoma City, OK 73127

405/ 495-6830

Massey, Vernon L. Shelby County Government

814 Jefferson

Memphis, TN 38105

901/528-3456

Matsil, Martin

NYC Dept. of Consumer Affairs

80 Lafayette St. New York, NY 10013

212/566-6983

Mattimoe, George E. Division of Measurement Standards

Department of Agriculture

725 Halo Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

808/548-7152

McCutcheon, John W. 14th & Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20250

202/447-3521

McFarlane, Sterling

Comp. Dept. of Licenses

and Consumer Affairs

600 4th Ave. , Room 102

Seattle, WA 98104

206/625-2717

McPherson, John R, Exxon Company

Northchase Blvd.

Houston, TX 713/874-5203

Melgaard, James Division of Fire Safety

and Regulation

118 West Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501 605/773-4311

Meloy, Stephen H. Bureau of Weights and Measures

1424 9th Ave. Helena. MT 59620

406/444-3164 or 31 66 Mendoza, Wilfred

NM Dept. of Agriculture

6500 Montgomery

Albuquerque, NM 87109

505/881-6186

Meyer, Mark

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Michell, Charles W. Shell Oil Co. TSP Room 1140

Houston, TX 77001

713/241-0455

Miller, Richard M. U.S. Borax

3075 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 503

Los Angeles, CA 90010

21 3/ 381-5311

Mirzai, Mohammed

Chesebrough-Pond's Inc. 828 Bridgeport Ave. Shelton, CT 06484

203/381-5542

Moore, Charles W. Madison County

12 West 7th. P.O. Box 84

Lapel, IN 46051 317/534-3328

Morrow. Thomas L. TEC America Inc. 19250 Van Ness Ave. Torrance, CA 90501 213/ 320-8900

262
Murray, L. E. Dresser Industries Inc. ]2U W. College Ave., P.O. Box 1859 Salisbury, MD 21301 301/546-6690

Mysogland, Albert M. Lake County Wts & Msrs

2293 N. Main

Crown Point, IN 46307

219/663-2896

Nagele, Frank

MI Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

517/373-1060

Nagy, Joseph V

.

City of South Bend, Indiana

703 W. Sample St. South Bend, IN 46621 219/284-9273

Nelson, Allan M. Weights and Measures

Dept. of Consumer Protection

165 Capitol Ave., Rm. 017

Hartford, CT O6IO6

203/566-5230

Nelson, Robert L. General Mills Inc. 9000 Plymouth Ave., North

Minneapolis, MN 55427

612/540-2727

Newell, Karl G. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6I

7

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3677

Nichols, Patrick E. 333 5th St. Oakland, CA 94607

415/874-6736

Niebergall, Bruce

ND Public Service Commission

Bismarck, ND 58505

701/224-2400

O'Connor, James M Weights and Measures Henry A. Wallace Bldg. Des Moines, lA 50319

515/281-5716

O'Neill, John L. 2016 West 37th, P.O. Box 5516

Topeka, KS 66605

913/267-4641

Ong, Philip

Center for Measurement Standards

Industrial Technology Res. Inst.

321 .SEC. 2. Kuang Fu Road

Hsinchu, Taiwan

Oppermann, Henry V. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6I

7

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Parent, Claude R.

7 Eastwood Drive

Orinda, CA 94563

415/376-5697

Paugstat, John F. NCR

P.O. Box 728 Cambridge, OH 43725

61 4/439-0571

Pearson, Bryant

Sealer of Weights & Measures

City of New Britain CT

27 W. Main St., City Hall New Britain, CT 06051 203/589-3417

263
Peralta, Johnny M. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Perino, Peter R. Transducers Inc. 14030 Bolsa Lane Cerritos, CA 90701 714/739-1991

Perry, Stephen C. Toledo Scale

P.O. Box 658

Worthington, OH 43O85

614/438-4548

Perry, W. H. Cardinal Scale

P.O. Box 151 Webb City, MO 64870

417/673-4631

Petersen, Robert J. American Natl. Metric Council

1010 Vermont Ave., NW #320

Washington, DC 20005

202/628-5757

Pforr, Richard R. USDA/FGIS

1400 Independence Ave. Room 0623

Washington, DC 20250

202/382-0262

Phillips, Michelle I. City of Indianapolis W&M City/Cnty. Bldg. , Rm. 176O Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/236-4272

Pic ton, Thomas

Conrail

Six Penn Center Plaza, Rm. 1634

Philadelphia, PA 19104

215/977-1617

Pierce, Douglas J. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Popham, Dennis J. Braden Enterprises/

Thayer Scale

8720 Cobblestone Dr. Tampa, FL 33615

813/ 885-3862

Pragar, Thomas

Weights and Measures

3845 Wm. P. Dooley By Pass Cincinnati, OH 45223

513/352-3135

Probst, Robert W. Weights & Measures

WI Dept. of Agriculture Trade

Consumer Protection

801 W. Badger Rd. , Box 8911 Madison, WI 53708

608/266-7241

Pugh, John V. SC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 11280

Columbia, SC 29211 803/758-2426

Pye, Cassandra W. Food Marketing Institute

1750 K St. , NW

Washington, DC 20006

202/452-8444

Rabb, John B. Weights and Measures Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3336

Montgomery, AL 36193

205/832-6766

I 264
Randall, D. Howard Jr. Esselte Meto, Inc.

39 Teed Drive

Randolph, MA 02368

61 7/986-6200

Rardin, Jim

Department of Labor

1800 Washington St. Charleston, WV 25305

304/3^8-7890

Ray, B. D. The Vince Hagan Co. P.O. Box 655141 Dallas, TX 75265-5141

214/330-4601

Reinfried, Robert A. Scale Manufacturers Association

152 Rollins Ave. Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Rhoads, Austin T. P.O. Box 0510

Fulton, MD 20759

301/953-9117

Ridolfi, Bruno A. Powderhorn Coal Company

P.O. Box 1430

Palisade, CO 81526

303/464-7951

Riel, Jack C. Canadian Grain Commission

800-303 Main Street

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3K1L4

204/949-2799

Riepma, Siert F. 1625 I St. , NW, Ste. 1024A

Washington, D.C. 20006

202/785-3232

Robertson, Dwight G. Southwestern Public Serv. Co. 6th and Tyler

Amarillo, TX 79170

806/378-2722

Robinson, Cordell L. Office of Weights and Measures

50 West Gay St., Room 605

Columbus, OH 43215 614/222-7397

Robinson, John J. Association of American RR

50 F St. NW

Washington, DC 20001 202/639-2204

Roelofsen, Willem A. J. Koppens Automac/Schlumberger

3601 Koppens Way

Chesapeake, VA 23323

304/487-0077

Romano, Ed

Department of Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 351 Willows, CA 95988

916/934-4651

Rosario, Edmundo

Department of Consumer Weight & Measure

Calle Hoare 722 Sauturce, Puerto Rico

809/724-5153

Rosenthal, Stuart A. NYC Dept. of Consumer Affairs

80 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10013

212/566-3042

Rosf elder, Terry

Sun Refining & Marketing

1801 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103

215/977-6502

265
Ross, Robert M. Selig, Thomas R. 218 West 6th Street BLH Electronics

Tulsa, OK 74102 75 Shawnut Rd. 918/599-4205 Canton, MA 02021

61 7/821-2000

Rothleder, Joseph

Div of Measurement Stds Sevier, William R

8500 Fruitridge Rd. Gibson County

Sacramento, CA 95826 Box 302

916/366-51 19 Somerville, IN 47683

812/795-2532

Samsing, Paul

Tropicana Petroleum Ltd. Shugart, Jerry

Brea, CA NM Dept. of Agriculture

71 4-992-0925 P.O. Box 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003

Schaffer, Dennis L. 505/646-1616

TEC America

19250 Van Ness Ave. Silvestro, Joseph

Torrance, CA 90501 Glou. Co. Wts. & Meas. Dept.

213/320-8900 County Building

49 Wood St. Schulmeister , Richard F. Woodbury, NJ 08096

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Simila, Kendrick J. Las Cruces, NM 88OO3 Weights and Measures Div.

505/646-1616 OR Dept. of Agriculture

635 Capitol St. , NE

Scott, Tom Salem, OR 97310-0110

Standards Division 503/373-3792

NC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 26056 Skluzacek, Edward P. Raleigh, NC 27611 Weights and Measures Div.

919/733-3313 2277 Highway 37 St. Paul, Minn. 55113

Segovia, Benjamin M. 612/341-7200 X7205

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Slamon, William J

Las Cruces, NM 88003 Dept. of Consumer Protection

505/646-1616 165 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT O6IO6

Seitz, Richard L. 203/566-5230

Veeder Root Co.

28 Sargeant St. Smith, Lee

Hartford, CT 06102 Micro Motion, Inc. 203/527-7201 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 803OI

303/530-8400

266
Smith. N. David

Standards Division

NC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 26056

Raleigh, NC 27611 919/733-3313

Smith, Richard N. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3677

Soberg, Donald J. Wisconsin Dept. of Ag

801 W. Badger Rd. P.O. Box 8911 Madison. WI 53708

608/266-7220

Stabler, Thomas M. Toledo Scale

P.O. Box 658

Worthing ton, OH 143085 614/438-451*8

Stadler, Adam C. Colgate Palmolive Co. 1806 Kansas Ave. Kansas City, KS 66105

913/371-3232

Staffeldt, George W. Weights and Measures

City Hall

Mishawaka, IN 46544

205/258-1622

Stagg, Don E. Weights and Measures Div.

P.O. Box 3336

Montgomery, AL 36193

Stein, Ruth A. Fred Stein Laboratories, Inc.

324 Santa Fe Atchison, KS 66002

913/367-3945

Stephens, Edison J. UT Dept. of Agriculture

350 N. Redwood Road

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

801/533-4109

Stup, James R. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88OO3

505/646-1616

Sutton, Shelda Ann

NM Dept. of Agriculture

6500 Montgomery NE, #313

Albuquerque, NM 87191 505/881-6186

Swanson, Joseph L. Dept. of Commerce

& Economic Development

P.O. Box 111686

Anchorage, AK 99511 907/345-7750

Taylor, Pat Institute for Wts. & Meas.

201 S. Grant Ave. Columbus, OH 43215

614/224-6237, Ext. 259 Tholen, Albert D. Office of Weights

and Measures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Thomas, Fred A. PA Bureau of Weights

and Measures

2301 N. Cameron St. Harrisburg, PA 17110

717/787-9089

267
Thompson, Earl A. (Hap)

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L St., NW Washington, DC 20005

202/ 682-8230

Thompson, J. Edward

Kraft, Inc.

1 Kraft Court

Glenview, IL 60025

312/998-2492

Thompson, Merrill S. Chadwell and Kayser

P.O. Box 8500

Bridgeton, IN M7836

317/548-2202

Thompson, Richard L. Weights and Measures

MD Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401 301/841-5790

Thuner, Kathleen A. Weights and Measures

County of San Diego

5555 Overland Ave., Bldg. 3 San Diego, CA 92123

714/565-5781

Tkachuk, W. K. Shell Oil Company

Two Shell Plaza, Room 1142

Houston, TX 77045

713/241-0502

Tommasi, Guy J. City of Middletown

City Hall

Middletown, CT 06457

203/347-4671 Ext. 215

Tonini, Daryl E. SMA

152 Rollins Ave. Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Topalis, Tom

The Quaker Oats Co. 617 W. Main St. Barrington, IL 60010

31 2/ 38 1-1 980

Truex, James C. OH Dept. of Agriculture

8995 East Main St. Reynoldsburg, OH 43O68

614/866-6361

Tsinajinnie, Barney

The Navajo Nation

Box 308

Window Rock, AZ 86515

602/871-6718

Tucker, Richard L. Tokleira

1600 Wabash Ave.

Ft. Wayne, IN 46801 219/ 423-2552

Ushijima, Yasuhiro

TEC America

19250 Van Ness Ave. Torrance, CA 90501 213/ 320-8900

Utton, Orion Jr. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Vadelund, Eric A. Standards Management Program

National Bureau of Standards

Admin. A 625 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3287

Vanderwielen, James A. Tippecanoe County Wts. & Meas.

20 N. Third

LaFayette, IN 47901 317/423-9229

268
Van Inwagen, Charles L. Shell Oil Company

1100 Milam, P.O. Box 3105

Houston, TX 77253-3105

713/241-1778

Vroom, William R. Box 3000

Somerville, NJ 201/231 -7125

Walker, Robert W. State Board of Health

1330 W. Michigan St. Indianapolis, IN 46206

317/1633-0350

Warnlof, Otto K. Office of Weights and Measures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Warp, Harold G. Warp Bros.

4647 W. Augusta Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60651 312/261-5200

Warshaw, Stanley I. Office of Product Stds. Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A603

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3751

Watson, David

City of Fort Worth Texas

1800 University Dr., RM 208

Fort Worth, TX 76107

817/870-7572

Weber, Richard H. 3M Company

1185 Wolters Blvd, Bldg. 544-1-02

Vaednais Heights, MN 55110

612/733-2674

Weick, Donald J. City of Topeka

215 E. 7th St. , Rm. 353 Topeka, KS 66603

913/295-3883

Wells, Raymond R. Sensitive Measurement Inc. P.O. Box 72 Pemberton, NJ O8O68

609/894-2292

West, Gary D. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Whipple, Richard L. Gilbarco, Inc.

3511 W. Market St., POB 22087

Greensboro, NC 27420

919/292-3011

Williams, Robert G. Div. of Marketing

P.O. Box 40627/Melrose Sta. Nashville, TN 37204

615/36O-OI6O

Wilson, William J

Weights and Measures

Clinton County

P.O. Box 172, 6 Elm St. Peru, NY 12972

518/643-8536

Wittenberger , Robert

MO Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

31 4/751-3440

Young, Arthur L. Attorney General Office

Consumer Protection Bureau

Weights & Measures Div.

Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

648/633-5647 or I663

269
Zielnicki, Walter

Amstar Corp.

1251 Ave. of the Americas

New York, NY 10020

212/489-9000

Zorlen, Harold G. Michagan Dept. of Ag. 1120 W. State Fair

Detroit, MI 48203

31 3/368-0280
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1, PUBLICATION OR 2. Performinj Orfan. Report No, 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA REPORT NO. SHEET (See instructions; NBS/SP-725 September 1986

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Report of the 71st National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1986

s. AuTHOR(S) Albert D. Tholen,

Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Ann P.Heffernan, Editors

t. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. set inttructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1. Type of Report & Period Covered Wtf^i^&urgrMD ^0899 Final

». SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City. Stole. ZIP)

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Nunber 26-27766

I I Document describes a computer pro(ram; SF-I8S, FlPS Software Summary, Is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less (actual summory of most significant Information. If document Includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention It here) These are the proceedings of the 71 st Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Albuquerque, New Mexico July 20 to July 25, 1986, and attended by state, county and

city weights and measures officials, and representatives of the Federal Government,

business, industry and consumer organizations. Reports by the several standing

and annual conmittees of the Conference comprise the major portion o* the publication.

Included also are papers presented by Conference officials and others. Major issues discussed at the Conference included the National Type Evaluation Program, the National Training Program, compliance test methods for products subject to moisture loss, an electronic bulletin board, new methods of sale, electromagnetic interference on weights

and measures devices.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons) Legal metrology; specifications and tolerances; training, type evaluation; unifonn

laws and regulation; weights and measures.

II. AVAILABILITY

fX] Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

fx] Order From Superintendwit of Documents. U.S. Government Printinj Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Sprlnffield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

267

•DC «043.P«0

<S-U.8. OOVERNMENT PRINTINO OFFICE: 1986 -«t91 "070 '^0170

Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad

range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying

standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Bureau's

technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical aaivities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and

technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide pro- gram coordinated by NBS under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-3%). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published quarterly for NBS by

the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Swteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 2(X)56. Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and perfor- mance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety

characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject

area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies. Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized re- quirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private

sector standardizing organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background

knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order the foUowing NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended. Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 1 1717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations). NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBS

for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID NBS

PERMIT No. G195