of

*' NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 734

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

Report of the

72nd National Conference

on

Weights and Measures

1987
TM he National Bureau of Standards 1 was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The 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 to assure international competitiveness and leadership of U.S.

industry, science arid technology. NBS work involves development and transfer of measurements, standards and related science and technology, in support of continually improving U.S. productivity, product quality and reliability, innovation and underlying science and engineering. 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 essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical and

chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community,

industry, and commerce; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; conducts physical and chemical research; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; provides

calibration services; and manages the National Standard Reference Data

System. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Basic Standards2 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 Engineering2 Manufacturing Engineering

Building Technology

Fire Research Chemical Engineering3

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 divisions:

Information Systems Engineering Systems and Software Technology Computer Security System and Network

Architecture Advanced Systems

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-cutting 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 Deformation3 Polymers

Metallurgy Reactor Radiation

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

Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

JSome divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.

'Located at Boulder, CO, with some elements at Gaithersburg, MD
Report of the

72nd National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1987

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Little Rock, AR July 19-24, 1987

Report Editors: Albert D. Tholen

Carroll S. Brickenkamp

Ann P. Heffernan

United States Department of Commerce

Clarence J. Brown, Acting Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued September 1987

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 734, 327 pages (Sept. 1987) CODEN-.XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1987

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

The 72nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures was held at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas during the week of

July 19 through 24, 1987. The theme of the meeting was "Consumer Involvement

Fosters More Efficient Weights and Measures Enforcement."

Chairman Frank Nagele of Michigan set this year's theme to encourage weights

and measures officials to inform and educate the consuming public in order to make them more aware of commercial weighing and measurement in their daily

lives. Triggering public awareness will multiply the effectiveness of weights

and measures enforcement by putting self-help resources and information on

local government enforcement contact points into the hands of the average

shopper.

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 newly recommended "Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law" and "Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel." New policy and procedures were

adopted for checking products subject to moisture loss. Special meetings included those of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements,

the Task Force on Prevention of Fraud, the Task Force on Information Systems,

Metrologists' Workshops, the Associate Membership Committee, the Retired

Officials Committee, the Scale Manufacturers' Association, the Industry Committee

on Packaging and Labeling, the state regional weights and measures associations,

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 this publication, along with the addresses delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from government and industry.

Key words: legal metrology; specifications and tolerances; training; type evaluation; uniform laws and regulations; and weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766. Note: Opinions expressed in non-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

Page

Abstract 2 Past Chairmen of the Conference 6 Officers, Officials, and Committees of the

Conference 7 State Representatives 12 Scheduled Events 14 Organization Chart 16 GENERAL SESSION

Agenda 20 NET WEIGHT - A CONTINUING DELEMMA 21 DR. KENNETH GILLES

Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection Services

U. S. Department of Agriculture

TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE 26 DR. ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

Director, National Bureau of Standards

CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT FOSTERS MORE EFFICIENT

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ENFORCEMENT 32 FRANK NAGELE

Conference Chairman

Weights and Measures Specialist State of Michigan

Honor Award Presentations 37 Certificates of Appreciation 38 President's Awards 40

3
Page

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Executive Committee

Final Report 42 Appendix A - Proposed Revised Policy, International 70 Organization of Legal Metrology, NCWM Participation

Appendix B - Agenda, Issues Roundtable 74 Appendix C - Draft Operating Budget 76 Appendix D - OIML Update 80 Appendix E - Report of the Task Force on Commodity 83 Requirements

Appendix F - National Type Evaluation Program, 91 Policy and Procedures

Appendix G - Meeting Summary, Technical Committee on National 109 Type Evaluation, Weighing Industry Sector

Committee on Laws and Regulations

Final Report 115 Appendix A - Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law and 144 Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel

Appendix B - Recommended Test Method for Packages 148

of Flour

Appendix C - A Basic Motor Fuels Testing Laboratory 158

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Final Report 174 Appendix A - Report of the Technical Committee on National 233 Type Evaluation - Weighing Industry Sector

Appendix B - Report of the Technical Committee on National 243 Type Evaluation - Measuring Industry Sector

Appendix C - Draft Electric Watt-Hour Meters Code 248

Appendix D - Draft Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring 254

Devices Code

Committee on Education, Administration, and 265 Consumer Affairs

Final Report

Appendix A - NTP Registry Summary of Activity 273 Appendix B - NTP Criteria for Instructors 275 Appendix C - Education Survey Results 277

Committee on Liaison

Final Report 281 Appendix A - Letter from USDA, Food Safety and Inspection 297 Service

4
Page

ANNUAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

Nominating Committee Report 298 Resolutions Committee Report 299 Auditing Committee Report 301 Treasurer's Report 302 MISCELLANEOUS

Report of State Laboratory Metrology Workshops 304 Registration List 306

5
PAST CHAIRMEN OF THE CONFERENCE

CONFERENCE YEAR CHAIRMAN

43rd 1958 J. P. McBride, MA

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller, CA

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford, FL

46th 1961 R. E. Meek, IN 47th 1962 Robert Williams, NY

48th 1963 C. H. Stender, SC

49th 1964 D. M. Turnbull, WA

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA

Dora lybo u. Morgan, ijn 54th 1969 S. H. Christie,NJ

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL

61st 1976 Richard L. Thompson, MD

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR

70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI
OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND COMMITTEES OF THE CONFERENCE

OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

July 1986 to July 1987 ELECTED

Chairman:

Chairman Elect: Past Chairman:

Vice-Chairmen:

Frank Nagele, Michigan*

Darrell Guensler, California*

George Mattimoe, Hawaii*

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Fred Gerk, New Mexico

Don Stagg, Alabama

Robert Walker, Indiana

Executive Committee:

Treasurer:

Chaplain:

President:

Bruce Niebergall, North Dakota

James O'Connor, Iowa

James Lyles, Virginia

Joseph Swanson, Alaska

John Bartfai, New York

Louis Draghetti, Agawam, MA

Charles Gardner, Suffolk

County, NY*

Martin Coile, Georgia

Ernest Ambler, Director*

National Bureau of Standards

Executive Secretary:

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeants-at-Arms:

Parliamentarian:

Assistant Treasurer:

Representatives to OIML:

Pilot Secretariat 20: Pilot Secretariat 7/RS 4:

Michael Hile, Arkansas

Catherine Pittman, Tennessee James Melgaard, South Dakota

Gerald Hanson, San Bernardino

County, CA

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Ross Andersen, New York

Ex-offieio members of the Executive Committee

7
STANDING COMMITTEES

(Appointed)

Laws and Regulations

Allan Nelson, Connecticut, Chairman

Trafford Brink, Vermont

Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Kendrick Simila, Oregon

N. David Smith, North Carolina

Technical Advisor: Carroll Brickenkamp, NBS

Specifications and Tolerances

Fred Gerk, New Mexico, Chairman

Ross Andersen, New York

Kenneth Butcher, Maryland

David Watson, Texas

James Truex, Ohio

Technical Advisor: Henry Oppermann, NBS

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA, Chairman

Charles Greene, New Mexico

Steve Malone, Nebraska

Thomas Scott, North Carolina

Philip Stagg, Louisiana

Technical Advisor: Joan Koenig, NBS

Liaison

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA, Chairman

James Akey, Kansas

Paul Engler, Los Angeles County, CA

Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson Foods

John McCutcheon, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Technical Advisor: Karl Newell, NBS

8
ANNUAL COMMITTEES

(Appointed)

Nominating Committee

George Mattimoe, Hawaii, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Edward Heffron, Michigan

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Richard Thompson, Maryland

Auditing Committee*

Ed Romano, Glen County, CA, Chairman

Fred Clem, Ohio

James Rardin, West Virginia

Budget Review Committee

Frank Nagele, Michigan, Chiarman

Paul Engler, Los Angeles County, CA

Charles Gardner, Sufffolk County, NY

Richard Davis, James River-Dixie Northern Corporation

Robert Walker, Indiana

Albert Tholen, National Bureau of Standards

Credentials Committee*

Gilbert Allen, City of Spokane, WA, Chairman

Eugene Keeley, Delaware

James Vanderwielen, Tippecanoe County, IN Resolutions Committee*

William Eldridge, Mississippi, Chairman

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts

O. Ray Elliott, Oklahoma

Maxwell Gray, Florida

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS

George MacDonald, Minnesota

Stephen Meloy, Montana

Technical Advisor: Richard Smith, National Bureau of Standards

9
ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

Walter Kupper, Mettler Instrument, Chairman

Kenneth Appell, Colgate-Palmolive, Vice-Chairman

Richard Davis, James River-Dixie Northern, Inc. Treasurer Max Casanova, Ramsey Engineering

Anthony Ladd, A.J. Ladd Weighing & Packaging

Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing, Inc. Robert Nelson, General Mills, Inc.

J. Edward Thompson, Kraft, Inc. Thomas Topalis, The Quaker Oats Co. Raymond Wells, Sensitive Measurements, 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

John Lacy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P&S

Dennis Mahoney, U.S. Department of Agriculture, FGIS

Henry Oppermann, National Bureau of Standards

Clifton Smith, California

James Truex, Ohio

Otto Warnlof, National Bureau of Standards

Simone Yaniv, National Bureau of Standards

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

John MacDonald, Streeter Richardson

Peter Perino, Transducers, Inc. John Robinson, Association of American Railroads

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

10
Measuring Industry Sector Richard Hockmuth, Petroleum Meter & Pump Co., Chairman

Michael Belue, Southwest Pump

Edward Bratle, National Cash Register

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

Melvin Hankel, Liquid Controls

William Key, Tokheim Corp.

Larry Murray, Dresser Industries, Inc. Willem Roelofsen III, Koppens Automatic

Douglas Smith, William M. Wilson's Sons, Inc. Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc. Task Force on Motor Fuels

N. David Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

Sydney Andrews, Florida, Retired

Barbara Bloch, California

David Karlish, Arkansas

John O'Neill, Kansas

Harwood Owings, Maryland, Retired

Curtis Williams, Georgia

Technical Advisor: Carroll Brickenkamp, NBS

Task Force on Commodity Requirements

Richard Thompson, Maryland, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Robert Bruce, Canada

Kenneth Butcher, Maryland

Paul Engler, Los Angeles County, CA

Edward Heffron, Michigan

Tom Klevay, Millers' National Federation

John McCutcheon, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Howard Pippin, Food and Drug Administration

Stephen Pretanik, National Broiler Council

George Wilson, American Meat Institute

Technical Advisor: Carroll Brickenkamp, NBS

Task Force on Prevention of Fraud

Steven Malone, Nebraska, Chairman

Ross Andersen, New York

Peter Perino, Transducers, Inc. Kathleen Thuner, California

Richard Tucker, Tokheim Corp.

Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc. Technical Advisor: Joan Koenig, NBS

11
Task Force on Information Systems

Kendrick Simila, Oregon, Chairman

Robert Bruce, Canada

James Lyles, Virginia

Joseph Rothleder, California

Gerald Hanson, California

Technical Advisor: Karl Newell, NBS

STATE REPRESENTATIVES

The following designated State representatives were present and voted on reports

presented by the Conference standing and annual committees:

STATE REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE

Alabama John Rabb None

Alaska Aves Thompson None

Arizona Raymond Helmick None

Arkansas Sam Hindsman James Hile

California Darrell Guensler Barbara Bloch

Colorado David Wallace None

Connecticut Allan Nelson Raymond Kalentkowski

Delaware Eugene Keeley None

District of Columbia None None

Florida Maxwell Gray Jack Jeffries

Georgia Martin Coile Curtis Williams

Hawaii None None

Idaho Lane Jolliffe Tom Schafer

Illinois Sid Colbrook Steve McGuire

Indiana Robert Walker None

Iowa James O'Connor Jerry Bane Kansas Archie Hurst DeVern Phillips

Kentucky Carl Dills None

Louisiana Melvin Lyons None

Maine Clayton Davis None

Maryland Lacy DeGrange Kenneth Butcher

Massachusetts Charles Carroll None

Michigan Edward Heffron Frank Nagele

Minnesota Edward Skluzacek George MacDonald

Mississippi None None

12
STATE REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE

Missouri Lester Barrows David James

Montana None None

Nebraska Steven Malone Michael Diesley

Nevada None None

New Hampshire Michael Grenier None

\J a xxi Torcoi? c W uclicy 1 1 1 U 1 1 lit i> rvcliy K^ail 1 all, O I • New Mexico Fred Gerk Charles Greene

New York John Bartfai Delores Davis

North Carolina N. David Smith Thomas Scott North Dakota Bruce Niebergall None

Ohio .T q mo c Tr* hoy RpDl iino ULC T,it7onhortr bl L i ClIUCl g Oklahoma 0. Ray Elliott Charles Carter

Oregon Kendrick Simila George Shefcheck

Pennsylvania G. Edward Carpenter None

Puerto Rico Samual Nieves None

Rhode Island James Allen Lynda Maurer

South Carolina Carol Fulmer John Pugh

South Dakota Jim Melgaard Leonard Bies Tennessee Robert Williams None

Texas Ed Price Herb Eskew

Utah Robert Smoot Edison Stephens

Vermont Trafford Brink None

Virgin Islands Louis Penn None

Virginia James Lyles G. W. Diggs

Washington Sterling McFarlane James Cammel

West Virginia James Rardin Karl Angel

Wisconsin Donald Soberg None

Wyoming Victor Gerber William Hovey

13
SCHEDULED EVENTS

8 a.m. SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY

ORIENTATION SESSION FOR MEMBERS

9 a.m.-

10 a.m.

11 a.mNoon1 p.m.-|

2 p.m.-

3 p.m.-

4 p.m.

5 p.m.

6 p.m.

7 p.m.

8 p.m.-|

9 p.m.

SPECIFICATION AND

TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

SESSION

ICPL/ OIML

PS20 USNWG

LUNCH (OPEN)

STANDING COMMITTEES AGENDA REVIEWS

UJ LU i|o|

XOuJo

COzo

fZUJ S£

DUCATION OMMITTEE AWS/REGU

COMMIl

LIAISON

COMMITTEE

UJ o

IE<2

525 < LU M <

NASDA WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIVISION

LAWS AND

REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

SESSION

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

SESSION

ouj y in

LIAISON COMMITTEE

SESSION

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SESSION

LUNCH (OPEN)

GENERAL SESSION - CEREMONIAL -

OPENING CEREMONY

ADDRESSES HONOR AWARDS

PRESENTATION

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

TASK FORCES

OS

O uj

tr

z

Qco S UJ 2 i— DC CO 2fc

OPEN

CHAIRMAN'S

RECEPTION OPEN

14
72nd ANNUAL MEETING

WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

8 a.m.

9 a.m.

-10 a.m.

-11 a.m. — Noon

—1 p.m.

-2 p.m.

•3 p.m.

—4 p.m.

—5 p>.m.

6 p.m.

7 p.m.

-8 p.m.

-9 p.m.

MOISTURE

LOSS, FLOUR

REGIONAL ASSOCIATION SESSIONS

LUNCH (OPEN)

VOTING SESSION* VOTING PROCEDURE

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES COMMITTEE

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

RECEPTION

VOTING SESSION-

(CONTINUED) NOMINATING COMMITTEE LAWS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

LIAISON COMMITTEE

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

AUDITING COMMITTEE

TREASURER'S REPORT

CLOSING CEREMONY

BREAKFAST MEETING

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS

STANDING COMMITTEES,

SPECIAL COMMITTEES, AND

TASK FORCESPLANNING 1^

LUNCH (OPEN)

STANDING COMMITTEES

WRAP-UP

CONFERENCE

OUTING

ABBREVIATIONS KEY: NASDA = National Association of State Departments of Agriculture ICPL « Industry Committee on

Packaging and

Labeling OIML = International Organization of Legal Metrology USNWG = United States National Working Group

*At the two voting sessions the

listed items will be voted in the order shown.

15
72nd NATIONAL CONFERENCE

AUDITING COMMITTEE

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

J. RAROIN. WV (3)

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: W ELORIDGE. MS (1) MEMBERS: C CARROLL, MA (2) O.R. ELLIOTT. OK (3) M. GRAY. FL (3) 0. LYNCH. KS (1) G MacOONALO. MN (2) S. MELOY, MT (3)

SPECIFICATIONS & TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: F. GERK, NM (1) MEMBERS: R. ANDERSEN, NY (3) K. BUTCHER. MD (2) 0. WATSON, TX (4) J TRUEX. OH (5) TECH ADVISOR: H. OPPERMANN, NBS

NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES

REFER TO YEARS REMAINING TO SERVE ON COMMITTEES

OIML - INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY

REVISED: MARCH 1987

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS:

G. ALLEN. WA (1)

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

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

E. HEFFRON. Ml

D. LYNCH, KS

A. NELSON, CT

K. SIMILA. OR

R. THOMPSON. MD

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: F. NAGELE. Ml9 MEMBERS: P. ENGLER. CA (1) C. GARDNER, NYe

R. DAVIS. JAMES RIVER CORP (1) R. WALKER. IN (2) A. THOLEN, NBS9

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

CHAIRMAN9 CHAIRMAN-ELECT9: PAST-CHAIRMAN9 : TREASURER9: ONE YEAR TWO YEAR

ELECTED OFFICERS

F. NAGELE, Ml

G. MATTIMOE, HI

L. DRAGHETTI, MA

P ADAMS. PA

F GERK, NM

D. STAGG, AL

R. WALKER, IN

R. THOMPSON, MD

R. ANDERSEN. NY

STANDING COMMITTEES

LAWS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: A NELSON, CT (1) MEMBERS: T BRINK. VT (2) S. COLBROOK. IL (4) K. SIMILA, OR (3) N. DAVID SMITH, NC (5) TECH ADVISOR: C. BRCKENKAMP, NBS

LIAISON COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: P. ADAMS. PA (2) MEMBERS: AKEY, KS (4) R ENGLER. CA (5) C KLOOS. BEATRICE (1) McCUTCHEON, USDA (3) TECH ADVISOR: K NEWELL, NBS

TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

CHAIRMAN: N.D SMITH. NC

MEMBERS: S. ANDREWS, FL. RET. B BLOCH, CA

D. KARLISH, AR

J. O'NEILL, KS

H. OWINGS, MD, RET

C. WILLIAMS. GA

TECH ADVISOR: C. BRICKENKAMR NBS

CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS:

TECH ADVISOR:

K SIMILA. OR

R BRUCE, CANADA

J. LYLES, VA

J. ROTHLEDER. CA

G HANSON. CA

WEIGHTS & MEASURES WEEK

SUBCOMMITTEE

16
ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES

CHAPLAIN

PARLIAMENTARIAN: M CCHLE. OA

J MELQAARO SO

F THOMAS. PA

COORDINATORS

SMITH NBS

HEFFERNAN. NBS

EDUCATION. ADMINISTRATION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: T GEILER, MA (Z) MEMBERS C QREENE. NM (3) S MALONE, NE (5)

T. SCOTT. NC (4)

P. 3TAGG. LA (1) TECH ADVISOR J WJENK3 NBS

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

R DAVIS JAMES

RIVER-OIXIE/NORTHERN. INC M CASANOVA. RAMSEY

ENGINEERING

A. LADD A.J. LAOO WEIGHING

& PACKAGING

H LODGE. DUNBAR

MANUFACTURING

R NELSON. GENERAL MILLS.

INC.

CHAIRMAN R THOMPSON MD MEMBERS P ADAMS. PA R BRUCE. CANADA

K. BUTCHER. MD

P ENGLER. CA

E. HEFFRON. Ml T KLEVAY, MILLERS NATIONAL FEDERATION

J. McCUTCHEON, USDA

A. NELSON. CT

H. PIPPIN. FDA

S PRETANIK. NATL BROILER COUNCIL

G. WILSON. AMERICAN

MEAT INSTITUTE TECH ADVISOR: C BRICKENKAMP. NBS

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATONAL

TYPE EVALUATION

ELENGO. JR REVERE CORP CHAIRMAN

PUBLIC MEMBERS

A ANDERSEN. NY

L. DEGRANGE, MD

O. WARNLOf. NBS

J. LACY. USOA-P&S

D. MAHONEY. FGIS

H. OPPERMANN. NBS

C. SMITH. CA

J. TRUEX. OH

S. YANIV. NBS

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

J ELENGO. JR., REVERE CORP

E. BRATLE, NCR W GOOOPASTER. CARDINAL

SCALE CO

J. GIANINNA. GEAPS

R. HURLEY. FAIRBANKS

F KATTERHEINRICH. HOBART CORP

H. LOCKERY, HBM

J. MACOONALD, STREETER RICHARDSON

P. PERJNO TRANSDUCERS. INC

J. ROBINSON, AAR

T STABLER, TOLEDO SCALE CO

D TONINI. SMA

MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

CHAIRMAN

M. BELUE. SOUTHWEST PUMP

E. BRATLE. NCR

A. EVANS, VEEDER-ROCT

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

L MURRAY. DRESSER

INDUSTRIES INC.

R. ROELOFSEN. KOPENS

AUTOMATIC

D. SMITH. WM. M WILSON & SONS

R. WHIPPLE, GILBARCO

TASK FORCE ON

PREVENTION OF FRAUD

CHAIRMAN S MALONE. NE

MEMBERS: R ANDERSEN. NY

P PERINO. TRANSDUCERS INC

K. THUNER. CA

R TUCKER, TOKHEIM CORP

R. WHIPPLE. GILBARCO.

INC TECH ADVISOR J KOENIG. NBS

17

GENERAL SESSION

19
GENERAL SESSION AGENDA

FRANK NAGELE

Conference Chairman, Presiding

CALL TO ORDER

PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND NATIONAL ANTHEM

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REV. MARTIN T. COILE

Conference Chaplain

Director, Weights and Measures Laboratory

State of Georgia

NET WEIGHT - A CONTINUING DILEMMA

KENNETH GILLES

Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection Services

U. S. Department of Agriculture

TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

Director, National Bureau of Standards

CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT FOSTERS

MORE EFFICIENT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ENFORCEMENT

FRANK NAGELE

Conference Chairman

Weights and Measures Specialist State of Michigan

HONOR AWARD PRESENTATIONS

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

20
NET WEIGHT - A CONTINUING DILEMMA

DR. KENNETH GILLES

Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Marketing and Inspection Services

I welcome this invitation to represent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

and I want to thank the Liaison Committee for sponsoring this address. I also welcome the opportunity to participate in your discussion of the timely issues

relating to the administration and technology of weights and measures. We at USDA are well aware of the importance of these issues. We are aware, too, of the importance of a major objective of the National Conference, as stated

in your program - to foster understanding and cooperation among weights and

measures officials and industrial, business, and consumer interests. USDA is committed to such an objective, and I would like to discuss net weight compliance

from that perspective. For those of you who may not be fully aware of USDA's regulatory role in net weight compliance, it might be useful to provide some background. As an Assistant Secretary at USDA, I head up the Department's Marketing and Inspection

Services, which include four agencies with a particular involvement and interest

in weights and measures issues. These are the Food Safety and Inspection

Service, Federal Grain Inspection Service, Packers and Stockyards Administration

and Agricultural Marketing Service.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) administers the Federal Meat

and Poultry Inspection Program to assure safety, wholesomeness, and truthful

labeling of these products. The commitment of FSIS to public protection extends

throughout the food distribution chain, and includes the administering of fair and enforceable net weight regulations for meat and poultry products. The

Federal Grain Inspection Service is responsible for the inspection and weighing

of grain and commodities, the supervision of official, private, and state grain

inspection agencies, and the maintenance of U.S. grade standards for grain and

grain products. The Packers and Stockyards Administration is designed to maintain integrity in the marketing of livestock, poultry, and meat, and is responsible for enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act, an antitrust, fair trade practice, and payment protection law. And, finally, the Agricultural

Marketing Service administers marketing regulatory programs, develops quality

grade standards, and provides voluntary grading services for meat, poultry,

eggs, dairy products, fruits and vegetables, cotton, tobacco, and livestock. The

Agency also purchases food for USDA food assistance programs and is responsible for federal-state marketing improvement programs.

USDA's responsibility for net weight inspection of meat and poultry was extended

and reinforced by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and the Wholesome Poultry

Products Act of 1968, both administered by the FSIS. Congressional intent

21
General Session

was to protect the public from, among other things, improperly labeled and

packaged meat and poultry. Regulations allowed for reasonable variations from

the labeled net weight that are due to (1) moisture loss or gain occurring despite

good distribution practices, and (2) unavoidable deviations occurring despite

good manufacturing practices.

USDA is committed to uniform procedures for net weight at the federal, state, and local levels. I should point out that, under the laws I mentioned, the states may not impose any marking or labeling requirements on federally inspected

products in addition to or different from those made under the Federal Meat

and Poultry Inspection Acts. With respect to state-inspected products, the states must impose inspection requirements that are at least equal to federal

requirements.

As many of you know, the Department's net weight policy efforts for meat and

poultry, which date back several years, have run into opposition from various

quarters. A major reason is that some state or local jurisdictions did not provide

for reasonable variation in net weight caused by moisture loss or gain during

good distribution practices. A local California order in 1972 to remove the

federally inspected Rath Packing Company's bacon from stores for shortweighing was overturned by a Federal District court, but that court also held that USDA's

regulations were so vague as to be void. What followed was a lengthy period

of proposal development, public hearings, court appeals, and petitions, and I would like to review them briefly.

USDA developed a proposal in 1973 that would more precisely define the weight

variations allowed at the plant and at the time of retail sale, with free liquid

in containers remaining part of the net weight. Five public hearings were held

around the country, but the proposal was not widely supported.

California appealed the District Court decision on the Rath Packing Company

all the way to the Supreme Court, but the decision that federal law preempted

state law was upheld. Then the states petitioned USDA, the Food and Drug

Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission that undefined shortages in weight for moisture loss were not enforceable by either federal or state officials, and that existing regulations were unfair to consumers who do not receive full measure as presented on the package.

The USDA response was a new proposal in 1978 to provide information on the

usable weight of the meat and poultry contents in the package. Among the

changes proposed were the adoption of weight definitions, a new definition of

reasonable variation, a mandatory net weight quality control program, and a tightened inspection sampling procedure. Two thirds of those who commented

on that proposal opposed it. In the development of another proposal in 1980, USDA sought additional data

from such sources as the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the Consumer

Federation of America, and the General Accounting Office. The new proposal

would ensure accurate information about the contents of containers, and provide

specific net weight standards that state and local authorities could enforce at the retail level. It would replace reasonable variations due to loss or gain of

22
General Session

in good manufacturing practices, with maximum allowable variations which appear

to be reasonable when determined by specific procedures.

The proposal also provided sampling procedures for enforcement purposes that

reflected consultations with the National Bureau of Standards on appropriate,

statistically sound sampling theory. Again, comments on the proposal showed

significant opposition to it on the grounds that the changes could have adverse

economic impacts on industry that would outweigh benefits to the public. USDA

has not formally withdrawn the proposal, nor has any further action been taken on it, but the Department is working with a task force organized by the Conference to study the issues further.

If the work of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements is successful, and I sincerely hope that it is, we should be able to put forth changes in our net weight regulations that should go a long way toward providing the framework

in which federal, state, and local jurisdictions, and industry can work together

for an efficient and equitable system. We are especially interested in strengthening federal-state cooperation and in exploring the ways in which we can more

effectively use concurrent jurisdiction rather than having to rely, on occasion, on federal preemption.

I should add that federal preemption has not led us to any workable system of solving problems such as the one I have already mentioned - defining more

precisely the term "reasonable variations." On the other hand, the concept of "concurrent jurisdiction," to which we subscribe, appears to offer much more

promise. Our work with your Task Force on Commodity Requirements, along

with the preparation of Memoranda of Understanding on certain issues, are

steps in the right direction. For example, the recommendation of your task

force to adopt the three-percent gray area approach as National Conference

policy in checking packages of flour, is one in which we concur. We are pleased

to note that the task force will continue to study the matter to ensure that

the three-percent gray area is neither too large nor too small, and that the

moisture content values, as determined by the manufacturers and the weights

and measures laboratories, are reliable.

Also, we concur on the task force proposal for determining moisture loss in meat and poultry products that would rely on "used dry tare," wherein the

state inspector removes the wrapping of the product and lets it dry out before

weighing it. We also agree on the need to continue field testing "used dry

tare" to determine its equivalency to "unused dry tare," and we look forward

to further concurrent actions in other areas. Moving on to the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), that agency would

also like to see a uniform, national program on grain moisture determination.

In the interest of achieving national uniformity, FGIS adopted many of the

specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for commercial weighing and measuring devices published in Handbook 44. In fact, the agency's

revised regulations on weights and measures, which became final just last year, were based largely on Handbook 44. FGIS did not adopt the handbook's moisture meter code because it did not meet the existing need for official moisture determinations, but the agency is continuing to work with the Office of Weights

and Measures of NBS to arrive at uniform requirements.

23
General Session

I should add that, because technical requirements for commercial weighing and

measuring devices are important to FSIS as well, that agency has also indicated

it would adopt Handbook 44, although it would have to be done through an amendment to the regulations. FSIS does not really have a formal, explicit

tool to determine the efficacy of scales, and there is a need for one.

FGIS, in conjunction with the National Bureau of Standards and the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, added a new code to Handbook 44 covering

technical requirements for automatic grain bulk weighing scales. Last year

alone, the agency conducted 82 scale tests on 41 railroad track scales used for the official weighing of grain. Along with other agencies and the National Bureau of Standards, FGIS participated in the rewriting of the scale code of Handbook 44, and the development of a new tolerance structure that is closer

to the internationally recognized tolerances of the International Organization

of Legal Metrology (OIML).

The Packers and Stockyards Administration (P & S) works hard at maintaining

cooperative relationships and, in fact, has agreements with 45 state weights

and measures offices. As you know, weights and measures offices are under a statutory requirement to test scales, and P & S requires proof that they are being maintained properly. P & S relies on state weights and measures officials to test scales that are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act. Some of the monitoring is done by private testing companies. I should mention, too, that P & S works with the National Conference Education Committee on the

development of training modules for the National Training Program, and last year conducted 16 formal regional training sessions for state weights and measures

officials. One of the responsibilities of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is verifying the accuracy of weights received at dairy plants from dairy farmers.

The amount of milk marketed by each producer must be determined for each

shipment based on measurement by a measuring device approved by appropriate

weights and measures officials. Such measurement can only be accomplished at the farm of the producer before that producer's milk is commingled with milk

from other producers in a bulk milk tank. The pounds of milk pooled as regulated producer milk must be verifiable back to the pounds shipped to market

by each producer. AMS will accept weights determined by any approved measuring and weighing device, as long as such weights are verifiable by the agency. Most producers market their milk based on weights determined by farm tank

measurements. If farm tanks are properly installed and calibration is maintained,

they are capable of yielding accurate results. If individual farm tank calibration

is abandoned and milk measurements for individual farms are determined by a meter on farm pickup trucks, such milk will be treated as producer milk only

if such measurements are verifiable.

Returning to another FSIS matter for a moment, some of you may recall that

last year Washington State enforcement officials notified poultry processors and retailers that it will take action against sellers of products that include

gravy packets with raw poultry but do not prominently label the inclusion of the gravy packet and provide separate net weight declarations for both the

poultry and the gravy. The USDA position is that the manufacturer must show

the total net weight of all the edible components and may, although this is not

a requirement, show the weights of individual components. USDA agrees with

24
General Session

the state that the labeling of such products must clearly show that the consumer

is paying not only for a meat or poultry product, but also for a packet or container of another component. The wording must be in print no smaller

than one third the size of the largest letter in the rest of the product name,

and of such color that it will not be overlooked. The issue is before the Liaison Committee, which is taking a survey of state and local officials to determine if there have been complaints or other indications of concern on this matter. As

I understand it, the committee will study results of the survey to decide if it wants to recommend that the Conference petition USDA for a regulatory change.

I would like to mention, also, that we were petitioned by the Conference to permit net weight declarations beyond two decimal places. Our regulations

stipulate that on random weight packages of less than four pounds but over one pound, the net weight statement shall be expressed in terms of pounds and

decimal fractions of the pound carried out to not more than two decimal places.

We are now proposing regulations to allow net weight declarations beyond two

decimal places.

And, finally, I would like to mention our response to a request from the Liaison

Committee that FSIS adopt Handbook 133 as the statistical basis for determining

the accuracy of net content labeling of federally inspected meat and poultry

products. In order for the agency to change its statistical approach to net content control procedures in the plants, it would have to change its regulations.

We believe the material in Handbook 133 could easily form the basis for a statis- tical approach to be followed in any regulation we would write; however, we

don't want to change the regulations until the Task Force on Commodity Requirements has finished its work. In the meantime, if states use the statistical procedures in Handbook 133 appropriately, and find products that are not in compliance, then USDA will take the position that the states have used a reason- able statistical approach.

That concludes my remarks and, again, I want to thank you for this opportunity

to address the Conference.

25
General Session

TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

DR. ERNEST AMBLER

Director, National Bureau of Standards

I am pleased to be with you again at this, our 72nd annual meeting. This year

is of special significance. We are celebrating the bicentennial of the Constitution of the United States. On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was adopted.

Perhaps you had an opportunity to see the video tape I was asked to make for CBS on the relationship of weights and measures to the Constitution. This

presentation has been televised twice in prime time, and is giving our activities some well-deserved publicity. As you know, the NBS has played a central role for over 85 years in the evolution and application of measurement science in this country. TTiat role, including

the weights and measures program, must be continually reviewed and adjusted

to keep us at the "cutting edge" of measurement technology. In fact, the weights

and measures program dates from 1836 when Ferdinand Hassler set out "to form an establishment which had never even been attempted in this country. "1 That establishment was the Office of Weights and Measures.

I want to call your attention to another fact of history which is very significant to all of us in this hall today. Did you know that the State of Arkansas and

the Office of Weights and Measures are the same age? Arkansas became a state in 1836. The Office of Weights and Measures was established within the

Coast Survey of the Treasury Department in 1836. Both of these events more than 150 years ago, together with the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, suggest that we review some of the history and philosophy of weights and measures which still prevails today.

That philosophy involves two key elements:

The first element is the concept of "states' rights." Amendment 10 to the

Constitution further clarified this concept and stated, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The second element of the philosophy is the concept of federal/state cooperation in the form of federal support of the states - federal support

that is, in the case of weights and measures, technical, not regulatory.

1 Measures for Progress, A History of the National Bureau of Standards,

Appendix A, Page 523

26
General Session

The combination of the federalism and states rights concepts as applied to commerce has worked with considerable success. The technical role of the

Office of Weights and Measures complements the regulatory role of the states, effectively maintaining the basis for a commerce that grows larger, as well as technically and legally more complex, every year. The attention paid to commerce and weights and measures in the deliberations

surrounding the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution indicates there were problems in commerce which the authors of those documents were intent on correcting. As you know, the subject of weights and measures was studied,

and many recommendations were made, by prominent Americans, including George

Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams. However, to this day,

the regulation of weights and measures has remained, for the most part, the

responsibility of state and local governments.

An act was passed by the Congress in 1799 that "from time to time, and particularly on the first Mondays in January and July in each year, the surveyor

shall examine and try the weights, measures, and other instruments, used in ascertaining the duties on imports." However, since no standards had been

adopted, the act was not put into operation.

In 1832, the Treasury finally adopted standards; the yard of 36 inches, the

avoirdupois pound of 7000 grains, and the bushel of 2,150.42 cubic inches.

This set the stage for the construction of sets of weights and measures as standards to be delivered to the governor of each state. In almost every case, the state legislatures adopted these standards soon after they were delivered.

By 1850, practically all of the states admitted to the union had been supplied

with complete sets of weights and measures. As additional states were admitted,

they were also supplied with sets of standards. The last two states to be supplied standards were Alaska and Hawaii. All states were issued a new generation

of standards and balances, under the state standards program established in the

1960's. This provision was made within a period of 15 years -quite an improvement over the first program, which extended over a period of 125 years. Although the provision of physical standards was essential to establish the

measurement basis for uniformity in commerce, the laws and regulations of the

states had been established by each state independent of any other state. Commerce was plagued by this lack of uniformity in regulation. In recognition

of this problem, Dr. Stratton, the first director of the National Bureau of Stan- dards invited the "various state custodians, inspectors, and sealers of weights

and measures to meet with the officials of the NBS" in 1905. Out of that meeting emerged the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Over the years, this Conference has been the forum for the discussion of weights and measures

need's in the states and industry, and the coordinating body for addressing

those needs in the form of "uniform" laws and regulations, device codes, commodity packaging and labeling standards, and the testing and evaluation methods

for the standards developed.

Until recently, measurement technology used in the marketplace was based on mechanical devices, which did not change much over time. However, this situ- ation has changed rapidly in the past ten years. The application of electronics

27
General Session

to weighing and measuring devices has changed the technology involved in making

commercial transactions. Inspectors are confronted with load cells, scanners, computers, and checkout "systems." Now, more than in the days of mechanical

devices, the performance of devices is affected by environmental factors of temperature, humidity, and electronic interference. The state officials have

felt strongly the necessity to be trained and equipped to deal with the new

technology.

The Conference and the National Bureau of Standards have been confronted

with a major challenge, how to cope with these technical changes. As you

will recall, we shifted gears and tackled the problems head-on. We have worked

together more closely than ever. We have brought more and more talented

people into the work of the Conference to find new methods and procedures. I took steps to increase the resources of the Office of Weights and Measures,

including the awarding of a grant to this Conference to develop a national

training program.

This Conference can take great pride in its accomplishments; accomplishments

which, in the area of weights and measures and fair play in the marketplace, are clear to everyone. But they go beyond that, in setting a model for how industry

and different branches of government can work together for the common good;

something we shall have to learn to do in all areas of technology to enhance

economic development and international competitiveness. Many of us have begun

working with states on these problems and Senator Ernest Hollings has introduced

a bill that would formalize that. Let me go back again to the beginning of the history of the Office of Weights

and Measures. Perhaps the role model for our achievements in these recent years

is Dr. Ferdinand Hassler. He set the stage for weights and measures as the

first superintendent of the office. Dr. Stratton called him

"not only the first and foremost man in the scientific work of our country

at that time, but one of the leading metrologists of his day." 2 Dr. Stratton went on to say,

"I doubt if there were more than half a dozen people in the world at that time who possessed the scientific knowledge and the deftness necessary

to undertake his work. His greatest gift to America was his reverence

for sound thinking, integrity, and accuracy, which have endured."

Hassler left us a legacy, which the staff of the Bureau of Standards, including

the Office of Weights and Measures, and (I believe) the members of this Conference try to duplicate: sound thinking, integrity, and accuracy. These have

been, and must continue to be, our goals. In the past few years we have all worked together effectively applying sound thinking, integrity, and accuracy.

Out of that collaboration, and the combination of federalism and states rights,we

have strengthened ongoing programs and developed major new programs in the

past ten years at a rate that, I believe, has been remarkable.

2 Measures for Progress, A History of the National Bureau of Standards,

Appendix A, page 525.

28
General Session

A brief review of those accomplishments attests to that soundness of thought,

integrity, and accuracy to which we subscribe.

Activities that have been strengthened include the National Conference itself.

In the past ten years we have worked together and:

adopted a constitution and bylaws;

reorganized as a membership association, which has provided funds to support expanded committee activities; formalized policies and programs with a series of 14 Conference publications, ranging from two membership directories (one for weights and

measures officials and one for associate members) to a comprehensive manual

of policies and guidelines;

established a series of task forces and special committees to study and

develop plans to deal with complex issues, such as type evaluation of devices, moisture loss in commodities, and motor fuel quality;

expanded the involvement of the associate members in the work of these

task forces and special committees; and

established a computerized weights and measures bulletin board to keep

the membership current on recent activities and issues.

In the state laboratory program, we have worked to build the integrity of the

commercial measurement system by:

replacing a general certification system with a formalized program, which

specifies those areas for which a state laboratory qualifies;

documenting the program with the printing of three new publications:

NBS Handbook 143 "State Laboratory Program Handbook",

NBS Handbook 145 "Handbook for the Quality Assurance of Metrological

Measurements", and

NBS Special Publication 686 "State Laboratory Program Description

and Directory"; and

29
General Session

establishing five regional measurement assurance programs administered by

the states, including the management of round robins within each region

and between the regions and the NBS.

Perhaps our greatest accomplishments have been in the development of two new programs, the National Type Evaluation Program and the National Training

Program. Both of these new programs have resulted from sound thinking, and

by many of you working in concert with the Bureau to ensure the future integrity of the state regulatory programs. In the National Type Evaluation Program, we

were able to go from a concept in 1978 to an operational program in 1984. Major steps along this road included:

the establishment of a pilot program, through a contractual arrangement

between the NBS and the State of California;

the structuring of a national program based on the experience gained in the pilot program;

the development of uniform test criteria and procedures involving the

participation of state and industry representatives;

the establishment of a data base of NTEP activities and Certificates of Conformance issued, which is printed in an NCWM publication and kept

current on the NCWM bulletin board; and

special arrangements with the NBS Force Division to support the load cell evaluation activities of the program.

The progress made in the development of the National Training Program has

been outstanding. I am impressed with the numbers of modules published and

with the quality of each of these modules. It is gratifying to see the program

used throughout the country as the primary basis for training of state and

industry staffs. Significant has been the: publication of ten modules;

participation of 32 states in the certification plan of the National Training

Program; and

the training of over 1000 state officials in these modules including the

awarding of nearly 3000 continuing education units. On this the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, we can be proud of our part

in the progress to which we have contributed, and in facing the challenges to the maintenance and growth of the weights and measures system at the federal

and state levels.

30
General Session

We have carried on the traditions established by Dr. Hassler, traditions based

on sound thinking, integrity, and accuracy.

We have contributed our time and talents toward the goals defined by the founding fathers in the preamble of the Constitution, "to form a more perfect union,

establish justice, - - and promote the general welfare".

Congratulations on a job well done;

a job done with sound thinking, integrity, and accuracy;

a job contributing to the general welfare.

Thank you.

31
General Session

CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT FOSTERS MORE EFFICIENT

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ENFORCEMENT

FRANK NAGELE

Chairman, National Conference on Weights and Measures

Fellow members of the National Conference, honored guests: over the past 10 years, the Conference has seen some progress and some setbacks, some proud moments and some disappointments; however, overall we are moving

ahead and our future is bright.

A simple glance at the Conference's accomplishments shows the progress that

has been made in the last 10 years. In my judgement, the major accomplishments are: the National Training Program,

the new scales code, and

the National Type Evaluation Program.

These and the many other accomplishments of the Conference were not completed

in one year. The term of office of the Conference Chairman is one year. The successful

chairmen are those who plant seeds that grow and bloom into meaningful

programs. A review of several Reports of the National Conference reveal some program seeds that did not germinate and bloom.

The Report on the 31st National Conference recommended that every effort be

made to change from trading by dry measure to trading by weight. Some recent conference actions, for example on bark mulch and peat moss, are contrary to

this recommendation.

The Report on the 36th Conference recommended that novelty items of ice cream

and ices frozen on sticks and sold in package form shall have the quantity of contents declared in terms of avoirdupois net weight. This issue was revisited

by the Conference recently, as we know, and after 36 years this recommendation has still not been implemented.

32
General Session

Some seeds need to be planted:

1) We need a delivery system for the National Training Program material. We must develop a more efficient system to get the material from the Modules to the inspectors. I feel we should utilize video taping as an efficient and uniform system of instruction.

2) Every state should adopt the Uniform Regulation for National Type

Evaluation or pass a law that will give the National Type Evaluation

Program a legal basis.

3) A speaker's bureau should be established to communicate to regional

and state weights and measures associations and to industry groups

what the issues are at the national level.

4) We should change Weights and Measures Week from a one-week,

once-a-year observance to a full-time, 52-weeks-a-year awareness

campaign, to inform all citizens of the important function of weights

and measures in our daily lives. I do not mean we should drop Weights

and Measures Week, but we should increase our efforts to promote and

increase the knowledge of weights and measures throughout the year. This leads me to the theme of this Conference, "Consumer Involvement Fosters More Efficient Weights and Measures Enforcement."

In my judgment, the most difficult part of a weights and measures inspector's

job is determining if devices are being used correctly. Was tare taken for the

wrapping material? Was the correct unit price entered? Did the pump start on zero? Was the unit price set to the cash price for a cash sale?

I have a habit of observing weighing and measuring devices whenever and wher- ever I see them. Sometimes I see them on television news programs. If con- sumers could be made aware of some requirements for these devices, they could act as a large army of inspectors. I have asked many consumers about the use

of weighing and measuring devices and discovered that only a few know what

takes place at the time of weighing and measuring.

If consumers could only be taught for example, that the tare light should be

lit, for tare to be taken, or that "weight" must be net weight. Consumers

are involved in billions of transactions involving weights and measures. A

small nucleus of consumers who are knowledgeable in weights and measures

device use requirements could make our enforcement job more efficient. We

should get consumers involved and, to do this, we will have to spend a good

deal more time than we do now, one week a year. My children learned about being "consumers" somewhere in the 9th or 10th grade

of public school. I was impressed when they came home and told me what is required to be on the label of a prepackaged item. If consumer education could be expanded to include the use of weights and measures devices, we could make

great progress.

33
General Session

This year serving as your Conference Chairman has been a rewarding experience

for me. I attended the following conferences and meetings:

in October, the Southern W/M Association meeting, in Greensboro,

NC;

in November, an NTEP and Board of Governors meeting, in Alexandria,

VA, and the Scale Manufacturers Association meeting in Itasca, IL;

in December, a Task Force on Fraud meeting in Lansing, MI;

in January, the Interim Meetings in Gaithersburg, MD;

in April, the Indiana Association of Weights and Measures Officials

meeting in Warsaw, IN; in May, the Central Weights and Measures Association meeting in Schamburg, IL and the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association meeting in Hyannis, MA; and

in June, another NTEP meeting in Alexandria, VA.

In addition, I attended a Scale Manufacturers Association meeting in Florida

and a workshop on Net Weight of Bulk Food in Washington D.C. while I was

Chairman-elect. Darrell Guensler attended the Western Weights and Measures

Association meeting held in Colorado, and a Scale Manufacturers Association

meeting held in California during this current year. Sharing meeting assignments

based on location and travel costs has helped to reduce the expenses for the

chairman.

During the past conference year the following was accomplished:

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

I) Nine Modules were published.

II) State and local jurisdiction participation expanded.

A) 37 states plus Washington, D.C. and USDA Packers and Stockyards

participated in the National Registry Program.

B) 33 states plus Washington, D.C. participated in the National Certification Program.

C) 30 states participated in both of these programs.

D) 1475 participants have been awarded 3173 CEU'S.

E) 201 National Training Program Certificates have been awarded to 113 individuals in 13 states.

34
General Session

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

I) Handbook 44-T.N.8 - Environmental Factors.

A) Policy was established for determining which devices to examine for influence factors.

B) Load Cells

1) Policy, criteria, and test procedures were developed, including

issuing Provisional Certificates of Conformance. The NBS "Force Group" will now participate as the evaluation laboratory for load cells under NTEP.

2) Policy, criteria and test procedures were instituted, and a series of provisional Certificates of Conformance were issued. The

initial evaluation of load cells was completed so that full Certifi- cates of Conformance could be issued.

C) Acceptance of NTEP

1) NTEP has been adopted or de facto accepted in all but a few

states.

2) The first training seminar for the type evaluation of digital

scales has been conducted.

3) NTEP Board of Governors successfully dealt with its first appeal.

D) We are preparing for full implementation of the New Scale Code in January, 1988. FLOUR MOISTURE LOSS

I) A successful pilot study was conducted, with 18 jurisdictions participating

in testing over 650 lots of flour between August 1986 and April 1987.

II) A Round Robin was completed to ensure that reported moisture results are consistent between all participating laboratories. Ten flour millers, 11 states and Canada participated in the Round Robin.

INFORMATION SYSTEM

I) We established a computerized Weights and Measures Bulletin Board (WAMIS).

35
General Session

PREVENTION OF FRAUD

I) A task force was established and held an information-gathering meeting

and conducted a survey.

I have not listed the many issues dealt with and the accomplishments of the

standing committees. However, I do want to express my gratitude for the very

important accomplishments and hard work every member of each of the standing

committees has contributed.

In closing, I thank all those who have contributed to make this Conference the success that it is. Thank you.

36
General Session

HONOR AWARDS PRESENTATIONS

Dr. Ernest Ambler, President of the Conference, presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who, by attending the 72nd Annual Meeting this year, reached one of the attendance categories for which recognition is madeattendance at 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years.

10 YEARS

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

Ross Andersen, State of New York

Michael Belue, Southwest Pump Company

Harold Bradshaw, Clark County, Indiana

Herb Eskew, State of Texas Thomas Geiler, Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts

Wayne Handy, Johnson County, Indiana

Ann Heffernan, National Bureau of Standards

James O'Connor, State of Iowa

Henry Oppermann, National Bureau of Standards

Richard Pforr, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Edward Skluzacek, State of Minnesota

15 YEARS

William Goodpaster, Cardinal Scale Company

20 YEARS

John Chohamin, Middlesex County, New Jersey

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

37
General Session

CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION

Frank Nagele, Conference Chairman, presented Certificates of Appreciation to members of Standing Committees and Task Forces who had completed their tenure on the committees and task forces.

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Fred Gerk, State of New Mexico

Committee on Liaison

Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson Foods

Laws and Regulations

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Philip Stagg, State of Louisiana

Executive Committee

Bruce Niebergall, State of North Dakota

James O'Connor, State of Iowa

Joseph Swanson, State of Alaska

Parliamentarian

Kendrick Simila, State of Oregon

Associate Membership Committee

Walter Kupper, Mettler Instruments Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing

Legislative Liaison Committee

Don Stagg, State of Alabama, Chairman

Darrell Guensler, State of California

N. David Smith, State of North Carolina

Joseph Swanson, State of Alaska

38
General Session

Subcommittee on Commodity Standards

Don Stagg, State of Alabama, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, Pennsyvania

Robert Belliveau, Procter and Gamble

Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson

Bruce Litzenburg, Ohio

Task Force on Information Systems

Kendrick Simila, State of Oregon, Chairman

James Lyles, State of Virginia

Joseph Rothleder, State of California

Gerald Hanson, San Bernardino County, California

Robert Bruce, Canada

Task Force on Motor Fuels

N. David Smith, State of North Carolina, Chairman

Sydney Andrews, Retired, State of Florida

Barbara Bloch, State of California

David Karlish, State of Arkansas

John O'Neill, State of Kansas

Harwood Owings, State of Maryland

Curtis Williams, State of Georgia

Budget Review Committee

Frank Nagele, State of Michigan, Chairman

Paul Engler, Los Angeles County, California

Auditing Committee Ed Romano, Glenn County, California

Credentials Committee

Gilbert Allen, City of Spokane, Washington

Resolutions Committee

William Eldridge, State of Mississippi

39
General Session

PRESIDENT'S AWARD

This award is a banner presented to the State Director of each state having

100% of weights and measures officials as members of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures.

First Year Awards

State of Alaska

State of Delaware

State of Idaho

State of Kansas

State of New Mexico

State of South Dakota

Director, Aves Thompson

Director, Eugene Keeley

Director, Dale Hurd

Metrologist, James Akey

Director, Fred Gerk

Director, James Melgaard

Second Year Awards

This award is a streamer indicating 100% membership for the second year, State of Arkansas

State of Nebraska

Director, Sam Hindsman

Director, Steven Malone

40
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

41
Executive Committee

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Frank Nagele, Chairman

Weights and Measures Specialist

Michigan Department of Agriculture

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

100 INTRODUCTION

The Executive Committee submits its Final Report to the 72nd Annual Meeting

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

The Report consists of the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program

and Committee Reports" as amended by Addendum Sheets issued during the

Annual Meeting.

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

Part II - National Type Evaluation Program, Board of Governors business.

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

PART I ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY 101 Series

MEMBERSHIP 102 Series

OPERATIONS 103 Series

PROGRAM 104 Series

PART II ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY 110 Series

OPERATIONS 111 Series

PROGRAM 112 Series

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

Number, Item Title, and Page Number. Table B lists the appendices to the

Report. Table C contains the voting results. Voting items are identified in bold face type as well as by a suffix "V" (e.g.,

101-1 V). The voting items considered to have consensus support are grouped

into a "consent calendar," which is presented for vote as a single block; these

items are marked with a "VC".

42
Executive Committee

The item identified by a suffix "W" was on the agenda for the Interim Meeting

as a voting item but was withdrawn. The reason for withdrawing the item is stated in the report. Items without a suffix are informational. Following Table

C, each item is described in detail in numerical sequence of the Reference Key

Number.

Table A

INDEX TO REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No. PART I ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

101-1 VC Coordination with OIML 46 101-2 National Training Program, Funding 46 101-3A NCWM/NBS Publications 51 101-3B Procurement of Documents 51 101-3C NCWM Publication 3 52 101-4 Energy Allocation System 52 101-5A Issues Roundtable 52 101-5B W Submission of Agenda Items 53 101-6A Committee on Liaison, Role 53 101-6B VC Committee on Liaison, Role, Retirees 54 101-7 Audit Procedure 54 101-8 Enforcement of Polyethylene Standards 54 MEMBERSHIP

102- 1 Status and Trends 55 102-2 Promotional Activities 56 102-3 V Associate Members, Retirees, Waiving

Registration Fee 56 OPERATIONS , 103- 1 Organizational Reassignments 57 103-2 Task Force on Fraud 57 103-3 Appointments and Assignments 57 103-4 Treasurer's Report 59 103-5 Draft Operating Budget 59 103- 6 Draft Grant Budget 59 PROGRAM

104- 1 Critique of Past Meetings 59 104-2 Planning for 72nd Annual Meeting 59 104-3 Future Meetings 60 104-4 OIML Program Update 63 104-5 OWM Program Update 63

43
Executive Committee

Table A, continued

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

104-6A VC

104-6B

104-7

110-1

110-2

110-3

111-1

111-2

112-1

112-2 112-3

Task Force on Commodity Requirements, Flour

Task Force on Commodity Requirements,

Meat and Poultry

Task Force on Information Systems

PART II - BOARD OF GOVERNORS

ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

Policies and Procedures

Load Cell Testing (See 111-2)

Environmental Factors (See 111-2)

OPERATIONS

Technical Committee, Update (See 111-2)

Checklists and Test Procedures

PROGRAM

Status of Program Acceptance

Participating Laboratories

Evaluation Activities

6364

65

65

66

66

67

68

The Report contains five appendices which are related to specific Reference

Key Numbers as follows: Table B APPENDICES

Appendix Reference

Key No.

Title of Appendix Page

A 101-1

B 101-5A

C 103-5

D 104-4

Proposed Revised Policy, International

Organization of Legal Metrology, NCWM

Participation

Agenda, Issues Roundtable

Draft Operating Budget

OIML Update

7074

7680

44
Executive Committee

Table B (continued)

APPENDICES

Appendix Reference Title of Appendix Page

Key No.

E 104--6A Report of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements 83

P 110--1 National Type Evaluation Program,

Policy and Procedures 91 G 111--2 Meeting Summary, Technical Committee on

National Type Evaluation, Weighing Industry Sector 109

ORDER OF PRESENTATION

The Report was presented for vote as follows:

1. a vote was taken on the Consent Calendar;

2. a vote was taken on Item 102-3 V;

3. a vote was taken on the entire Report with editorial privileges to the Executive Secretary.

The results of the voting are shown in Table C. Table C

VOTING RESULTS

Reference

Key No. or Subject

House of State Representatives Yes No Yes

House of Delegates

No

Consent Calendar 47 0 75 0 102-3V 48 0 76 0 Report in its entirety

46 0 77 0

45
Executive Committee

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(In order by Reference Key Number)

Throughout the Report, recommended changes to NCWM or NBS publications are shown as follows: wording to be deleted is shown Hi*ed--ou4; wording to be

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

face type.

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

PART I ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

101-1 VC COORDINATION WITH OIML

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

Adoption of a new comprehensive policy, International Organization of Legal

Metrology (OIML), NCWM Participation (see Appendix A), is recommended to replace the three current policies. (The numbers below correspond to the numbering system in the draft NCWM Publication 3, "National Conference on Weights

and Measures Policy, Interpretations and Guidelines.)

1.5.1. International Organization of Legal Metrology, NCWM Review

of Recommendations (adopted by the Conference as part of the

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

1975, p. 218); 1.5.2. International Organization of Legal Metrology, NCWM Participation (adopted by the Conference as part of the National Measure- ment Policy and Coordination Committee Report; see Report of the 64th NCWM 1979, p. 160); and

1.5.3. International Organization of Legal Metrology, Review of Papers

(adopted by the Conference as part of the Committee on Liaison Report; see Report of the 60th NCWM 1975, p. 218).

The existing NCWM policies regarding the work of OIML are several years old and need revision in at least two areas — NCWM involvement in the work of the OIML committees, and the policy for NCWM review of OIML standards so that the NCWM can decide on acceptance, nonacceptance, or abstention.

101-2 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FUNDING

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

Consumer Affairs.

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

(MA), Chairman, Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs, 46
Executive Committee

made recommendations regarding the future funding of the National Training

Program. The letter offered seven suggestions for the future funding.

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

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

3. increase the Conference membership fee by $15.00 per member;

4. solicit funding from industry groups;

5. solicit funds from groups such as the National Science Foundation

and the Council of State Governments;

6. seek funding from Federal agencies; and/or

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

The Executive Committee agreed to consider all of the recommendations except

#3, increasing NCWM membership fees.

B. Status of the National Training Program.

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

of his comments is reported below.

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

July 1, 1987 was reviewed and approved.

Total Grant Funding to Date . The Grant funding summary since Feb. 1, 1983, the beginning of the NBS Grant, is shown in Table E. Seven modules have been completed and distributed. Five additional modules

are under development with the funding of $394,877.57 committed.

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

through the NBS Grant. The Committee expects an additional $50,000 for

a total unobligated grant funding of approximately $120,000. This will provide for the development of four additional modules, for a total of fourteen modules. The Education Committee will poll the weights and measures jurisdictions for guidance in determining which four modules

should have the highest priority for development.

Module Development Cost Analysis . An analysis of the costs of developing

the modules for the first seven modules is shown in Table F.

47
Executive Committee

Table D

GRANT BUDGET

July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988

Receipts

Payments on the Grant by NBS $65,000

Monies carried forward 3,000

Total Receipts $ 68,000

Disbursements

Contract 69-2 (1984)1 $ 6,000

Other contracts 45,500

Travel 1,000

Administrative 1,000

Printing 6,000

Miscellaneous 8,500

Total Disbursements $ 68,000

1 Contract with Landvater Associates for Module #4.

Table E GRANT FUNDING SUMMARY

As of 12/31/86

Total funding authorized $465,189.00 Net Expenditures to date 362,876.22

Unliquidated obligations 32,001.35

Expenditures plus obligations 394,877.57

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

Additional NBS funding requested 50,000.00

Projected balance of funds 120,311.43

48
Executive Committee

Table F COST PER MODULE

Contractor's cost for a single module: Highest

Lowest

Average

$ 37,295.69

19,000.00

27,237.00

Publication cost for a single module: Highest

Lowest

Average

$ 1,976.80 779.62

1,367.24

Miscellaneous Costs 2,000.00

Based on the analysis, the anticipated cost of developing a single module

is:

Module Sales Summary . The policy of the NCWM regarding the distribution of the modules is to provide one copy of each module to each state (one Inspector's Manual and one Instructor's Manual, including visuals) at no cost to the state. The original expectation was that the states would purchase multiple copies of the modules for use in their training programs. This expectation has

proven to be incorrect. The states are requesting permission to reproduce

copies themselves. Consequently, sales and income from sales are insignificant compared to the total costs of funding development of new modules. Sales to date are shown in Table G. Regarding future funding of the Program, the Education Committee accepts

the advice of the Executive Secretary that funding future module development through an increase in support from the Office of Weights and Measures is not a viable option at this time. If this remains true, the Executive

Committee recommends that the OWM support the National Training Program

in the following priority order:

1. assist the jurisdictions to use the existing modules by training

2. update the existing modules to incorporate changes in the various handbooks which are adopted by the NCWM, then

3. develop new modules.

Contract costs Publication costs Miscellaneous costs

$ 30,000

2,000

2,000

Total $ 34,000

trainers;

49
Executive Committee

Table G

SALES AND INCOME BY MODULE

Module

No.

Manuals Sold Income

Inspector Instructor

1 6 4 $ 360

2 17 8 1,020

5 5 2 290

8 7 4 490

10 14 9 890

20 4 2 260

27 92 49 2,016

Total Income $ 5,326

C. Executive Committee Position

The Executive Committee concluded that training by the OWM should increase,

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

modules on their own by developing qualified instructors. The Executive Secretary was asked to provide the Executive Committee with recommendations for future development of the training program for discussion at the 72nd Annual

Meeting.

The Executive Committee asked the Executive Secretary to prepare specialized

"packets of promotional materials" which Executive Committee members will use

in a pilot project in their states to:

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

dealers, and other related associations) in an effort to expand present

NCWM membership;

2. contact their budget offices to explore the possibility that the state fund continuation of module development or purchase of modules;

and

3. promote increased membership among state weights and measures

officials.

If the experimental phase is successful, the Executive Committee plans to recom- mend the same approach to all of the weights and measures jurisdictions. Additional memberships will provide a source of funding for NCWM activities,

including the National Training Program. While these means for funding are

50
Executive Committee

being explored, the Executive Committee emphasizes the need to get the existing

modules into use in state training programs, including developing qualified

instructors at the state level.

D. Current Funding Status There has been no significant improvement in the prospects for major funding

for continued development of additional modules beyond the end of the grant

funding.

During the review on the Treasurer's Report, the possibility of funding additional module development from the operating budget of the NCWM was discussed. It appeared that $10,000 to $15,000 could be budgeted for this purpose. A decision

in this regard will be made following the settlement for the expenses of the Annual Meeting.

The Executive Secretary was requested to prepare packets of promotional material

for use by the members of the Executive Committee in a pilot project in their

states. Packets have not been developed yet; the NCWM Brochure was revised

to represent recent organizational changes in the NCWM. Each state was provided 50 copies of the revised Brochure in June. Without a "packet of materials,"

and because of the lateness in the year that the Brochure was updated, the

pilot project did not get under way.

Regarding the second item of the pilot project, funding of module development

or purchase of modules, one state (New York) has purchased several thousand

dollars of modules.

Several more states have promoted increased membership in the NCWM; eight

states now qualify for the "Presidents Award" for states having 100% of their

weights and measures officials as members of the NCWM.

101-3A NCWM/NBS PUBLICATIONS

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

the 71st NCWM 1986, p. 58); (2) the status of NCWM adoption of NBS publications (see Report of the 70th NCWM 1985, p. 48); (3) the methods of distri- bution and sale; and (4) recommendations regarding formats and procedures for their updating. No recommendations were made to change current practices.

101-3B PROCUREMENT OF DOCUMENTS

Several jurisdictions have reported difficulties in timely procurement of documents

from the Government Printing Office. A letter was sent to each state to deter- mine its preference for procurement of NBS Handbook 44. Twenty-nine states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands responded with results

as listed below.

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

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

after publication.

51
Executive Committee

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

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

quantities).

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

responded) prefer to buy their handbooks from the NCWM, but not

in box-size quantities.

The Executive Secretary has not obtained the additional information needed to make decisions regarding the procurement of documents, but hopes to do so

prior to the January, 1988 Interim Meeting. The Executive Secretary will follow up by:

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

2. confirming that responding states are willing to procure specified

quantities of Handbook 44 from the NCWM.

The Executive Committee wants to avoid carrying an inventory of handbooks

which might not be purchased.

101-3C NCWM PUBLICATION 3 NCWM Publication 3, "National Conference on Weights and Measures Policy,

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

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

sections: (1) NCWM Management; (2) Laws, Regulations, and Commodity Control;

(3) Specifications, Tolerances, and Device Inspection; and (4) Education.

The Standing Committees have been asked to review the draft and recommend

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

101-4 ENERGY ALLOCATION SYSTEMS

The Western Weights and Measures Association recommended that the NCWM

establish a task force to study this issue and make appropriate recommendations. (See Report of the 71st NCWM 1986, p. 160.)

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association requested that the scope

of this issue be broadened to include the submetering of utilities. The Executive Committee decided not to establish a task force at thia time.

(See Item 103-1.)

101-5A ISSUES ROUNDTABLE

During the past two years, the Regional Associations have incorporated an "Issues Roundtable" into their meeting agenda. This part of their proceedings has

been very popular and valuable. The Interim Meeting agenda included an "Issues Roundtable" on Monday Morning, January 12. Five items were selected for the

52
Executive Committee

program to provide background and tutorial information for the attendees on some of the key issues being addressed by the Standing Committees. (See

Appendix B for the Issues Roundtable agenda and summaries of the five items

covered.)

101-5B W SUBMISSION OF AGENDA ITEMS

In the Interim Report, the Executive Committee recommended establishing a revised deadline date of November 1 for the submission of items for inclusion

in the agenda of the Interim Meeting. Item 1.1.1. of NCWM Publication 3 establishes a deadline 60 days prior to the

Interim Meeting (P&C 1977; Executive 1980; Executive 1981). That does not provide enough time to meet the printing deadlines and permit Conference members to receive the Interim Meeting agenda by December 20. Inadequate time

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

expenses for special printing services. Discussion at the Annual Meeting led

to the conclusion that a November 1 deadline appears to be unachievable at

this time because of industry and regional weights and measures 1987 meeting

schedules. The deadline therefore remains 60 days prior to the Interim Meetings.

This item is withdrawn as a voting item.

101-6A COMMITTEE OF LIAISON, ROLE, GENERAL

The Executive Committee requests that a past oversight be rectified by substituting the following wording, already approved by the membership at the

Annual Meeting in 1982, in Section 5E of the Bylaws for the wording that currently describes the role of the Committee on Liaison. No action is required

by the membership.

The Committee on Liaison annually presents a report for Conference action.

Its mission is divided into two categories as follows:

I. Liaison with Federal Agencies

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

etc.) contacts and relations on behalf of the Conference. This role involves explaining, advocating, and coordinating Conference positions,

recommendations, and needs before Federal Government agencies and

promoting uniformity among those agencies and with NCWM.

II. Liaison with Other Groups or Organizations and Agencies

This role involves public liaison with consumer groups, the NCWM

Associate membership, domestic and international standards organizations, industry, trade associations, and others.

The goals are to provide and solicit information, develop a spirit of cooperation, and promote uniformity with the activities of the NCWM.

53
Executive Committee

At the Interim Meeting, Chairman Adams reported to the Executive Committee

on the activities of the Committee on Liaison, including its plans regarding: (1) recognition of the 150th Anniversary (in 1988) of the issuance of the first state standards; (2) the 200th Anniversary (1987) of the Constitution of the United

States; and correspondence with various Federal Agencies. (See the Report of the Committee on Liaison for details.)

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

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

The relationship of retirees with the NCWM was discussed. As a result of the change to the Constitution and Bylaws last year, the Annual Meeting registration fee for retirees was waived. In addition, a formal retirees group was

established. The Committee on Liaison now coordinates with the Associate

membership. The Executive Committee recommends that the role of the Committee on Liaison be expanded to include the retirees by amending Section 5E

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

II. Liaison with other Groups or Organizations and Agencies

This role involves public liaison with consumer groups, the NCWM

Associate NCWM membership, the retiree membership, domestic and

international standards organizations, industry and trade associations,

and others.

The goals are to provide and solicit information, develop a spirit of

cooperation, and promote uniformity with the activities of the NCWM.

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

101-7 AUDIT PROCEDURE

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

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

members of the Auditing Committee do not always have accounting expertise nor continuing involvement with the finances of the NCWM. Alternative auditing

procedures will be explored by the Executive Secretary.

101-8 ENFORCEMENT OF POLYETHYLENE STANDARDS

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended that a task force

be established to examine the problems encountered with the enforcement of the standards for the sale of this product. (See Item 103-1 of this report and

Item 214-5 of the L&R Committee report.)

54
Executive Committee

MEMBERSHIP

102-1 STATUS AND TRENDS

The current status of NCWM membership, including trends in total membership

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

steady around 1300. (See Table H for membership by state and Table I for the

composition of the NCWM mailing list by category.)

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

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

and measures officials nationwide belong to the NCWM.

Table H

NCWM MEMBERSHIP BY STATE

Jurisdiction Members Jurisdiction Members

Alabama 16 Alaska 3 American Samoa 1 Arizona 8 Arkansas 21 California 96 Colorado 18 Connecticut 23 Delaware 7 Washington, DC 36 Florida 20 Georgia 21 Guam 1 Hawaii 3 Idaho 14 Illinois 56 Indiana 50 Iowa 10 Kansas 32 Kentucky 3 Louisiana 4 Maine 5 Maryland 39 Massachusetts 54 Michigan 22 Minnesota 30 Mississippi 7 Missouri 53 Montana 1 Nebraska 26 Nevada 1 New Hampshire 4 New Jersey 74 New Mexico 27 New York 72 North Carolina 25 North Dakota 2 Ohio 106 Oklahoma 19 Oregon 12 Pennsylvania 64 Puerto Rico 6 Rhode Island 2 South Carolina 4 South Dakota 13 Tennessee 11 Texas 46 Utah 4 Vermont 11 Virginia 33 Virgin Islands 1 Washington 19 West Virginia 9 Wisconsin 34 Wyoming 7 TOTAL 1313

55
Executive Committee

The Executive Committee decided on actions to address the need for funding

the National Training Program. (See Item 101-2.) If the basic goal of increasing the membership of the NCWM can be met, increased funds for the National

Training Program will become available.

Table I COMPOSITION OF NCWM MAILING LIST

Category

NCWM

Members

NonMembers Total

State County

City

241

158 126

862

672 436

1103

830

562

Subtotal 525 1970 2495 Federal

Industry

Retirees

31 749

8

18 2456

5

49 3205

13

Total 1313 4449 5762

102-2 PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

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

Secretary was encouraged to identify new promotional items for sale by the

NCWM, and to report his recommendations to the Executive Committee prior to the 72nd Annual Meeting.

102-3 V ASSOCIATE MEMBERS, RETIRED, WAIVING OF REGISTRATION

FEE

(This item was adopted)

The Executive Committee decided that Article II, Section 5, of the Bylaws should be changed to clarify its intent and to waive the payment of the registration

and membership fees for retired associate members to attend the Annual Meeting.

The following rewording of Section 5 is proposed:

SECTION 5 - WAIVER OF REGISTRATION AND MEMBERSHIP FEES.

Individuals who have retired after ten or more years of weights and measures employment in either the public or private sector, and having attended

56
Executive Committee

at least one Annual meeting, shall not be subject to the payment of the

registration and membership fees. Additionally, the Executive Committee recommends the adoption of the following as policy to be published in NCWM Publication #3 "National Conference on Weights and Measures Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines":

The spouses of retired members shall enjoy the same privileges as spouses

of Active Members.

103-1 ORGANIZATIONAL REASSIGNMENTS

The Chairman reassigned the Task Force on Information Systems from the Executive Committee to the Committee on Liaison.

The Executive Committee received requests to establish new task forces: Energy

Allocation Systems (Item 101-4) and Enforcement of Polyethylene Standards

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

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

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

completed their work, and that all should be continued. Consequently, no action was taken on the requests.

103-2 TASK FORCE ON FRAUD

The Chairman established the Task Force on Fraud with the following members: Steve Malone, NE, Chairman; Ross Andersen, NY; Pete Perino, Transducers,

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

Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc. The Task Force has been asked to: (1) identify devices that can be "easily"

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

Executive Committee and the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances for design requirements that would eliminate the potential for fraud in those devices

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

Committee.

103-3 APPOINTMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS

The Chairman reported on the following assignments made to the committees

and task forces. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Bruce Niebergall replaces Charles Forester who resigned.

Fred A. Gerk, New Mexico, replaces Joe Swanson, Alaska, who resigned.

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Ken Simila replaces Leo Letey who has retired.

57
Executive Committee

PARLIAMENTARIAN

James Melgaard, South Dakota replaces Ken Simila, Oregon, who

resigned to accept appointment to the Committee on Laws and Regulations. AUDITING COMMITTEE

James Rardin, West Virginia

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

Robert Walker, Indiana

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

James Vanderwielen, Tippecanoe County, Indiana

Sterling McFarlane, Seattle, Washington replaces Gilbert Allen, Spokane,

Washington, who retired.

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

O. Ray Elliott, Oklahoma

Max Gray, Florida

Stephen Meloy, Montana

TASK FORCE ON PREVENTION OF FRAUD

Stephen Malone, Nebraska, Chairman

Ross Andersen, New York

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

Richard Tucker, Tokheim Corporation

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

Willem Roelofsen, Koppens Automatic

Otto Warnlof and Simone L. Yaniv, National Bureau of Standards

TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

George Wilson, American Meat Institute, replaces

Mahlon Burnette. ASSISTANT TREASURER

Gerald Hanson, San Bernardino County, California replaces Fred Thomas,

Pennsylvania who resigned.

58
Executive Committee

SERGEANTS-AT-ARMS FOR 72nd NCWM

James Hile, Arizona

Cathryn Pittman, Tennessee

103-4 TREASURER'S REPORT

At the Interim Meeting, the Treasurer reported on the financial status of the

NCWM, including the income and expenses to date for the current fiscal year

and the overall asset position. He also described a planned realignment of accounts designed to provide the Executive Committee and the membership

with a clearer understanding of the use of the NCWM funds. At the Annual Meeting, the Treasurer reported on the financial status of the

NCWM as of the close of the fiscal year (June 30, 1987); see Treasurer's Report

for details.

103-5 DRAFT OPERATING BUDGET

At the Interim Meeting, details of the draft operating budget were reviewed.

After some modifications, the Executive Committee approved the draft as the

operating budget of the NCWM for the year beginning July 1, 1987. (See Appendix C for the budget and its explanation.) See Item 101-2, National Training

Program, Funding, regarding possible change in the Operating Budget to provide

for funding of training module development.

103-6 DRAFT GRANT BUDGET

See Item 101-2, National Training Program, Funding.

104-1 CRITIQUE OF PAST MEETINGS, SITE SELECTION

AND FORMAT

The Executive Committee decided that no changes should be made in regard to the planning and conduct of the Annual Meeting.

104-2 PLANNING FOR 72ND ANNUAL MEETING

At the Interim Meeting it was reported that a contract was signed with the

Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas for the Annual Meeting during the

week of July 20-24, 1987.

59
Executive Committee

Address: Excelsior Hotel

Three Statehouse Plaza

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Telephone: 501/375-5000

Rate: $66.00 single or double

Cut-off date: June 19, 1987

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

Statehouse Plaza in downtown Little Rock and overlooks the Arkansas River.

Situated above the Statehouse Center, the Excelsior provides weather-protected

complimentary parking for guests and complimentary limousine service to and

from the airport.

The Excelsior has an 18-story atrium crowned by a 40-foot chandelier providing an open but comfortable public area. The hotel has several restaurants providing

gourmet cuisine at La Petite Roche; imported ale at the English Pub; cocktails

at the Edgewater; relaxed dining at the Apple Blossom; and, high above the

city, music and dancing at the Pinnacle rooftop lounge.

A variety of activities are planned for guests and delegates. Among them are Sunday afternoon golf; tours of the Old Statehouse and Territorial Restoration

area; and an outing for all at Marlsgate Plantation — a real southern experience.

104-3 FUTURE MEETINGS

The 73rd Annual Meeting, July 1988

The Executive Committee decided to hold the 73rd Annual Meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan at the Amway Grand Hotel. No commitment has been

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

from the hotel. Hotel

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

attached 29-story glass tower overlooking the Grand River. There is 24-hour room service, concierge assistance, and nightly turn-down service. There are 12 restaurants and lounges throughout the hotel. It has been recognized for its excellence with the AAA 5-Diamond Award and the Mobil Four-Star Award.

The lobby and concourse levels of the hotel contain a dozen shops. The hotel

has a fitness center on its fourth floor with a workout room, a glass enclosed

swimming pool, two outdoor tennis courts, one racquetball court with gallery

viewing, a sauna, and a tanning booth.

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

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

60
Executive Committee

Location and Transportation

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

Eight major carriers, including American, Northwest, Piedmont, United, and

USAir provide more than 100 arrivals daily with direct service to more than 50

cities. The hotel operates shuttles between the hotel and the airport.

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

hotel has its own 750-car parking lot. The 74th Annual Meeting, July 1989

The Executive Committee selected Seattle, Washington as the site of the 74th

Annual Meeting the latest sequence of meeting sites has been Boston, Massachusetts, Washington, D. C, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Little Rock, Arkansas,

and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Executive Secretary visited several candidate

cities to be considered for future Annual Meetings, and has recommended Seattle,

Washington because of its west coast location, combination of attractive downtown

hotels, convenient shopping and entertainment, and moderate weather.

Local Tours and Attractions

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

from the immediate downtown are several distinct areas of interest. To the north, 90 seconds from downtown by monorail, is the Space Needle, a 600-foot high revolving restaurant. The Space Needle is within the grounds of the Seattle Center, a 74-acre urban park. The Center features the Food Circus

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

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

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

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

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

with lunch in one of the area's many restaurants. Between the Seattle Center and Pioneer Square stretches Seattle's waterfront

with import shops and good seafood restaurants. The newest attraction at the

waterfront is the Marine Aquarium which ranks as one of the best in the entire

country. Tours of the harbor by sightseeing boats originate at the waterfront.

Up the hill from the waterfront is one of the last remaining public markets in the country — the Pike Place Market. Locally grown produce and fresh seafood are sold in open stalls along with the works of local artists and craftsmen.

Visitors can arrange to have a fresh salmon or other seafood packed to accompany them home.

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

metropolitan district. Although the city's eating establishments offer a full spectrum of international cuisines, Seattle is best known for its seafood deli- cacies. Its unique waterfront location in the midst of some of the finest fishing 61
Executive Committee

and clamming in the world insure a daily fare that is almost invariably fresh. Seattle's large mixed oriental community is also well represented on the local dining scene, with restaurants featuring Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Korean,

and East Indian dishes.

Entertainment

In the performing arts, Seattle and the Puget Sound area support over 35 dance, 120 musical, and 45 theatre groups or companies. The First Chamber Dance

Company, consisting of seven soloists and principals from the American Ballet Theatre, City Center, Joffrey Ballet, New York City Ballet, and San Francisco

Ballet, offers performances year round, as does the Pacific Northwest Ballet. A Contemporary Theatre produces six plays a year, which are held from May

through October. Seattle also has a live professional children's theatre, the

Poncho Theatre, as well as plays direct from Broadway performed at the exquisite

oriental-style 5th Avenue Theatre and the Paramount Theatre. At the Annual Meeting, the Executive Secretary reported that he had received

proposals from two hotels (the Westin and the Sheraton) but has not been able

to negotiate an acceptable rate. Mr. Sterling McFarlane, Seattle, Washington,

offered his assistance to find acceptable rates in Seattle. Mr. Ray Helmick, Arizona, announced that the Governor of Arizona invited the

NCWM to hold its 1989 Annual Meeting in Arizona. The Executive Secretary

received telegrams inviting the NCWM to Arizona from the Governor, the Tourist Bureau, and the Mayor of Phoenix.

The Committee reviewed a video tape regarding a proposal to hold the Annual

Meeting in Palm Beach, Florida.

The Executive Committee prefers to stay with the Seattle location and requested

that it be pursued further. The 75th Annual Meeting, July 1990

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

Annual Meeting. The Executive Secretary reported on the status of planning

for this Annual Meeting. Only one hotel, the Albany Hilton appears to meet

the needs of the NCWM, is very interested in signing the NCWM.

Traditionally, the NCWM has returned to Washington, D. C. every fifth year, hence 1990 would be the next year for a Washington, D. C. meeting. The continued use of Washington, D. C. tends to deter selection of other east coast

jurisdictions as hosts of the Annual Meeting. The Committee decided to break

with the precedent of returning to Washington, D.C. every fifth year because

of the increasing cost of holding a major meeting there, plus the desire to provide additional opportunities for the east coast jurisdictions to host the Annual

Meeting.

62
Executive Committee

Beyond 1990 The NCWM has received invitations from the following jurisdictions to host the

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

(Columbus).

104-4 OIML PROGRAM UPDATE

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

interests of the NCWM. Although reporting on the overall OIML program, he

emphasized those activities of most interest to the NCWM. An outline of Mr. Edgerly's presentation is contained in Appendix D as the "OIML Pilot and Reporting Secretariats of Possible Interest to NCWM." The Summary is annotated

to indicate Mr. Edgerly's recommendations for NCWM member representation.

In may, 1987, Mr. Sam Chappell replaced Mr. Edgerly as manager of the OIML

Program at NBS.

104-5 OWM PROGRAM UPDATE

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

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

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

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

At the Interim Meeting, Chairman Richard Thompson reported on the progress

of the Task Force and proposed actions by the NCWM regarding compliance

testing of packaged flour. As part of the Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations, the Conference will be asked to adopt specific procedures delineated for flour during

the Pilot Study and incorporate them in NBS Handbook 133. (See Item 230-2

of the L&R Committee Report.) In addition, the Task Force recommended, and

the Executive Committee approved, two actions:

1. Continue the Pilot Study from December 1986 to February 1987 to cover the season that was not in the original study in order to assure that the three-percent gray area is neither too large nor too small.

2. Conduct a round robin during this same time to ensure that the mois- ture content values, as determined by manufacturers and weights and measures laboratories, are reliable.

63
Executive Committee

Subsequent to the Interim Meetings, the Task Force met in Gaithersburg, MD

on May 20 and 21, 1987. The report of that meeting is contained in Appendix

E. In essence, the meeting led to:

1. confirmation of the recommendations related to flour (Item 104-6A

VC, Executive Committee, and Item 230-2 V, Committee on Laws and

Regulations);

2. preliminary recommendations regarding processed meat; and

3. focus of the work of the Task Force on poultry. At the Annual Meeting, Dr. Heffron conducted a briefing on the subject on Wednesday morning.

The Task Force and the Executive Committee recommend the following for National Conference on Weights and Measures action:

Adopt the three percent gray area approach as NCWM policy for weights

and measures officials to use in checking packages of flour.

104-6B TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS,

MEAT AND POULTRY

At the Interim Meeting, Chairman Richard Thompson reported on the progress

of the Task Force regarding meat and poultry.

Tentative agreement within the Task Force was reached on the following:

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

made of chicken or meat, should be treated as a distinct category

from raw "fresh" products, such as whole chicken, cut-up, breast

"nuggets," etc.

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

these products.

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

1. The Task Force must determine whether used dry tare is equivalent

to unused dry tare for field test purposes.

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

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

3. The Task Force must determine whether the procedures for determining dry tare by the packager follow the rounding recommendations given in the proposed USDA Memorandum of Agreement.

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

participants to change their approach slightly and continue to take data following

the guidance listed below:

64
Executive Committee

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

dry tare will be requested on every lot tested under the pilot study.

Therefore, results on fewer lots will be requested from each participating jurisdiction.

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

of the National Broiler Council and American Meat Institute (AMI)

to determine the procedures currently used to obtain a dry tare average value in the plant.

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

and Measures to determine the range of and average dry tare at the

plant and, following a prescribed procedure, how closely the used

dry tare values can match the unused dry tare.

4. Since fresh meats with net weights applied at Federally-inspected

plants are available only in a few test markets, AMI will determine

whether their members want to supply data on these products. Otherwise, the pilot study participants will be requested to focus on: Fresh Category

o whole cut-up chickens

o sausage (fresh chubbs)

Prepared Category

o franks and bologna made from poultry or meat. New summary sheets, provided for meat and poultry, incorporate the data

requested for both wet tare and dry tare tests. See Appendix E for a report of the May 20 meeting.

104-7 TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS

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

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

PART II NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM (Board of Governors)

ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

110-1 POLICY AND PROCEDURES

NCWM Publication #4, "NTEP Policies and Procedures" (planned to be incorporated into the NCWM Publication #14), has been reviewed by the Executive

65
Executive Committee

Committee (letter ballot) and revised editorially and for clarity of presentation. Appendix F is a copy of the current version.

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

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

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

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

Significant proposed changes in policy and procedures were contained in the

Executive Committee Interim Report for the 71st Annual Meeting (Item 105-2).

The Executive Committee withdrew this item in its entirety, referring the pro- posed changes to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances and to the

NTEP Technical Committee.

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

the Executive Committee. Major changes were made in formatting and sections were rearranged to present the policy in a more understandable sequence.

Additionally, editing was done to reduce ambiguities and to improve clarity.

The Executive Committee believes that all changes were editorial in nature to improve the format, clarity, and use. This item is therefore presented as an information item with no proposal for adoption.

111-2 CHECKLISTS AND TEST PROCEDURES

The Executive Committee (Board of Governors) and the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) met in joint session. (The equivalent S&T Items

are shown in parentheses and the details of each are contained in the S&T

Committee report.) Mr. Oppermann reported on the following items:

110-2 LOAD CELL TESTING (S&T Items 320-10, 320-19, 320-27)

110-3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (S&T Items 320-27, 320-8) 111- 1 TECHNICAL COMMnTEES UPDATE (S&T Item 320-27) 111-2 CHECKLISTS AND TEST PROCEDURES (S&T Item 320-27)

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

The Executive Committee recommends adoption of the items as reported by the

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

See Appendix G for a summary of a June 24 meeting of the Technical Committee

on National Type Evaluation, Weighing Industry Sector, with the Board of Governors. PROGRAM

112-1 STATUS OF PROGRAM ACCEPTANCE

The implementation of the NTEP and the subsequent acceptance of the program

by the states was reviewed. The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) com66
Executive Committee

municated its concern about a seeming lack of urgency in some jurisdictions

with respect to adoption of NTEP. They requested that the Executive Committee

encourage adoption.

Most states participate in the NTEP program by accepting the Certificates of Conformance as evidence that the device meets the requirements of NBS Handbook

44.

In some cases, states which have type evaluation requirements on their books

have taken legislative and/or administrative action to participate in NTEP. A

few jurisdictions still have requirements to do their own testing and do not

participate fully in NTEP. Illinois and New York report that they are actively

moving toward full recognition of NTEP Certificates of Conformance. New

Jersey and Massachusetts report that they are faced with other considerations

before full participation. The Executive Committee asked the Executive Secretary

to work with the remaining states that are not full participants to determine

what steps are necessary to accommodate their requirements.

The Scale Manufacturers Association wrote to the State Directors to encourage

their full acceptance of the NTEP. The Conference Chairman will send a letter

to each State director endorsing the recommendations of the Scale Manufacturers

Association.

112-2 PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES

The Executive Secretary reported on the authorized Participating Laboratories

and their evaluation capabilities and activities. In addition to the NBS, California, Ohio, and the Federal Grain Inspection Service are Participating Laboratories. NBS, California, and Ohio have operating environmental chambers for testing scales under 2000 pounds capacity. The NBS has limited capability for testing load cells. California is arranging with the Navy Department for facilities to test load cells. NBS is working with New York so that it can become a Participating Laboratory.

A training seminar was held at the National Bureau of Standards on May 18-

22, 1987. The instructor was Henry Oppermann, NBS. Attendees were: New York - William Fishman and Ross Andersen;

Federal Grain Inspection Service - Dennis Mahoney and John Manis;

Alabama - John Rabb

Maryland - Ken Butcher

National Bureau of Standards - Karl Newell

The subjects included in the Seminar were: (1) type evaluation of digital scales;

(2) the permanence test procedures; (3) the influence factors test procedures;

(4) test procedures for vehicle scales; (5) the type evaluation checklist for electronic cash registers.

67
Executive Committee

112-3 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

The Executive Secretary reported on the evaluation activities, including the

testing completed by each participating laboratory and Certificates of Conform- ance issued. Tables J and K summarize the report.

Table J CERTIFICATES OF CONFORMANCE ISSUED

Year Issued Number

Issued

Full Certificates

1985 75 1986 80 (1985 Criteria) 43 (1986 Criteria) 371 Provisional Certificates

1986 (Load Cells) 9

25 Certificates were issued based on

testing for conformance to the

requirements of the Influence Factors.

68
Executive Committee

Table K

EVALUATIONS CONDUCTED BY JURISDICTION

Evaluations In In 1986 using

performed 1985 by 1985 1986

criteria criteria

California 28 20 101 Ohio 2 4 3 Kansas 5 (for NBS)

FGIS 2 1 NBS (Full) 43 13 241 NBS (Provisional) 9 Total 75 43 46

Only NBS and California had an environmental chamber.

F. Nagele, Michigan, Chairman

D. Guensler, California, Chairman-Elect

L. Draghetti, Town of Agawam, MA

J. Lyles, Virginia

G. Mattimoe, Hawaii, Past Chairman

B. Niebergall, North Dakota

J. O'Connor, Iowa

J. Swanson, Alaska

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Treasurer

A. Tholen, NBS, Executive Secretary

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

69
Executive Committee

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED REVISED POLICY

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY, NCWM PARTICIPATION

1.5.1. International Organization of Legal Metrology

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

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

PART I - GENERAL

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

Measures (NCWM) to participate in U.S. activities related to the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML).

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

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

through adoption of international weights and measures practices. C. The NCWM is the principal organization through which the

recommendations of the OIML can be introduced into state weights

and measures laws and regulations in the United States.

D. The Executive Committee will review the OIML Working Program

and decide which Pilot and Reporting Secretariats are of interest to the NCWM, and will promote participation of its members

on the various U.S. National Working Groups (USNWG) overseeing

these Secretariats.

PART II NCWM REVIEW OF OIML RECOMMENDATIONS AND DOCUMENTS

A. The NCWM Chairman and Executive Secretary shall jointly receive

and coordinate invitations or requests for NCWM participation

in OIML activities.

B. Members selected for participation as NCWM representatives to USNWG or as delegates to meetings of the OIML should be

70
Executive Committee

qualified to represent the NCWM to ensure close coordination

of the work and scope of the NCWM committees and of the OIML organizations.

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

1. Requests will normally be referred to the appropriate

NCWM Committee, in which case the Committee will recom- mend to the NCWM Chairman by letter an NCWM member

believed to be fully qualified. The NCWM Chairman may

exercise the right to make the selection without reference

to a Committee if the subject matter is not covered by

the standing committee.

2. The NCWM Chairman, in consultation with the Executive

Secretary, shall make the final NCWM selection and forward

the name of the nominee to the NBS Office of Standards

Management.

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

in that he or she may be the first NCWM member having knowledge of the recommendations being developed. As the NCWM

representative, the member:

1. shall keep the sponsoring standing committee current on

the progress of the OIML activity;

2. shall promote the policies of the NCWM and seek guidance

if a question arises regarding the policy and/or position

of the NCWM; such issues shall be reviewed within the

Committee structure of the NCWM.

PART III DEVELOPMENT OF NCWM POSITIONS

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

Recommendations and Documents, leading to and including the

development of official NCWM positions on these papers and

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

B. Recommendations and documents will be reviewed to determine

if the draft material is equivalent to existing NCWM codes,

uniform laws and regulations.

C. The NCWM Chairman and Executive Secretary shall jointly receive and coordinate requests for review of draft OIML International

Recommendations and Documents which are to come before the

International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) and the International Conference as follows:

71
Executive Committee

1. The requests will be referred to the appropriate NCWM

Committee for review and development of recommended

NCWM position for submission to the Executive Committee. (The Executive Committee may decide to solicit comments from other members of the NCWM through use of

the mail ballot.)

2. The Executive Committee will review the comments received

and will formulate a recommended NCWM position on the

OIML draft.

3. An affirmative position shall be taken if the reviewers agree

that the OIML draft is sufficiently beneficial and one of

the following circumstances is met (otherwise, a negative

position shall be taken):

a. The proposed OIML requirements are considered to be equivalent to existing or proposed NCWM codes,

and uniform regulations and/or laws;

b. Conflicts with existing or proposed NCWM codes,

uniform regulations, and/or laws can be resolved

without difficulty or losing equivalence; or

c. No NCWM codes or uniform regulations exist and

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

4. The NCWM will consider abstaining if the draft is considered

to be outside the scope of the NCWM interests or if a NCWM position on the draft cannot be achieved.

PART IV ADOPTION OF OIML RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Any OIML recommendation under consideration for adoption

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

NCWM requirements may be less stringent and/or different from

OIML requirements as long as they do not present a technical

obstacle to the marketing of equipment in the United States.)

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

for adoption by the NCWM provided that:

1. it was not opposed by the NCWM;

2. a need exists;

3. the OIML recommendation satisfies the need; and

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

72
Executive Committee

PART V - FUNDING

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

amount of funding will be determined within the context of overall NCWM activities and will likely vary from year to year.

B. The representatives will be encouraged to arrange funding, for their participation, either in full or partially, by their employer.

73
Executive Committee

APPENDIX B AGENDA, ISSUES ROUNDTABLE

Monday, January 12, 1987

This session will provide background or introductory material on selected topics.

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

aspects of more complex issues before specific committees deliberate on related proposals during the week. The background information to be presented is intended to prepare attendees to participate in the week's meetings with a

fuller understanding of the issues in questions.

APPLICATION OF NTEP TO STATE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

Albert D. Tholen, Executive Secretary

National Conference on Weights and Measures

(Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, NBS)

The following topics will be discussed:

- Evolution of NTEP

Need, NBS/NCWM Actions

- Status Adoption/recognition by states

- Accomplishments

Participating laboratories, evaluations completed

- Benefits

Economy, field inspection

- Issues Remove obstacles to adoption/recognition,

improve procedures to deal with innovation

TESTING PROCEDURES FOR LOADING-RACK METERS

Henry V. Oppermann, Technical Advisor

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(Office of Weights and Measures, NBS)

Several Specifications and Tolerances agenda items are related to this issue

and will be explained. These include the following: (1) whether or not corrections for the change in product temperature should be included in the test

74
Executive Committee

procedure; (2) whether a separate tolerance for temperature probes should be

included in Handbook 44; (3) the use of remote temperature probes; (4) the

tolerances proposed by the S&T Committee in 1986; and (5) the variability in test results based upon prover design and product vaporization.

MASS FLOW METERS

Brian Hoover

Product Market Manager

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

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

The changes proposed for Handbook 44 to recognize these devices will be re- viewed.

TESTING FLOUR AND HOW TO DEAL WITH MOISTURE LOSS

Richard L. Thompson, Chief

Weights and Measures Section

Maryland Department of Agriculture

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

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

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

Committee. Details of the test method will be described, including:

- Potential moisture loss and the loss actually found

- "Gray area" vs. "tolerance"

- Equipment and personnel administration

- Traceability at the plant, laboratory, and in the field CHECKING POLYETHYLENE SHEETING

Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Technical Advisor

Laws and Regulations Committee

(Office of Weights and Measures, NBS)

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

recently, many jurisdictions were reluctant to check the product because it was believed that the field inspector had to have a dead-weight-dial micrometer. A review of the steps involved in testing polyethylene sheeting and

film will be presented, including:

- Checking the label declaration for consistency

- Checking the net weight

- Checking the thickness

75
Executive Committee

APPENDIX C

DRAFT OPERATING BUDGET

(July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988)

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

operating year July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988. The entries in column (f) are the amounts budgeted for the current operating

year July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987; these numbers are provided as a basis for comparison between the two years.INCOME

Account Budget Amount Prior Year

Budget

Number Name Subaccount Account Footnotes

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

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

1.2 Membership Fees 45,500 2 45,500

1.3 Training Modules 3,500 3 8,000

1.4 Interest 2,000 4 1,600

1.5 Promotion 1,000 5 0 1.6 Special Events 5,000 6 6,000

1.9 Miscellaneous 200 7 0 Total $87,200 8 $95,100

76
Executive Committee

EXPENSES

Account Budget Amount Prior Year

Budget

Number Name Subaccount Account Footnotes

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

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

3.0 Interim Meeting 4,000 10 5,100

4.0 Committee Meetings 19,400 11 24,500

4.1 Executive $6,000

4.2 Education 4,900

4.3 Laws and Regs 2,500

4.4 Liaison 2,000

4.5 Specs <5c Tol 2,500

4.9 Miscellaneous 1,500

5.0 Special Meetings 20,500 12 20,500

5.1 TF on Comm Req 3,500

5.2 TF on Info Sys 3,500

5.3 TF on Fraud 5,500

5.4 OIML 4,000

5.5 NTEP Tech Cte 3,000

5.9 Miscellaneous 1,000

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

7.0 Membership Program 5,000 14 6,000

8.0 Printing/Pubs 3,500 15 3,000

9.0 Administration 6,500 16 7,000 10.0 Special Events 5,000 17 6,000 11.0 Promotion 800 18 0 12.0 Training Modules 4,000 19 3,500

Total Disbursements $87,200 20 $95,100

Footnotes (Income).

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

300. The estimate is based on 300 registrations at $ 100.00 each = $30,000.

2. Account 1.2. No change from previous year. Estimate is based on

1300 members at $ 35.00 each = $ 45,500.

3. Account 1.3. Module sales have not reached expectations. States

are reproducing the modules rather than purchasing them from the

NCWM; therefore, this budget item has been reduced.

77
Executive Committee

4. Account 1.4. A slight increase based on the expectation that the

average bank balance will be larger.

5. Account 1.5. The sales (and inventory) of ties, tie-tacks, etc. is down. Sales in the prior year were approximately $ 1,700.00.

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

elective activities of the guest program and the social activities of the membership at the Annual Meeting.

7. Account 1.9. This is a miscellaneous account.

8. Total Income. There is a significant reduction in the budgeted

income due primarily to a reduction in the estimate of registrations

at the Annual Meeting and a reduced expectation in the sale of training

modules. Footnotes (Expenses),

9. Account 2.0. A reduction to reflect experience.

10. Account 3.0. A reduction to reflect experience.

11. Account 4.0. A reduction to reflect experience.

12. Account 5.0. No change.

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

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

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

of NCWM publications (other than the training modules) and for other incidentals, such as the NCWM stationery, and for part-time

typing assistance. A small increase reflects added printing activity.

16. Account 9.0. These are the expenses for the procurement of supplies for general operations including the post office box, membership

dues of the Conference Coordinator in the Society of meeting planners,

magazine subscription, etc. Included in the budgeted amount is $2,000 for the purchase of a second IBM-compatible or clone computer and

printer to broaden the capability of the Bulletin Board operation.

Note: the NCWM currently owns two computers, a Compucorp system

(used for the preparation of camera-ready copy for Handbooks, and

publications, as well as for correspondence) and an IBM (purchased

for the use of the Chairman for preparation of official correspondence

and communications with the NCWM office). Both computers have

dedicated printers. A third computer and printer belong to the OWM

and are dedicated full time to the operation of the Bulletin Board.

17. Account 10.0. Offset by Income Account 1.6.

78
Executive Committee

18. Account 11.0 . The cost of purchase of promotional items such as

ties, tie-tacks, etc.

19. Account 12.0 . The cost of printing, assembling and mailing training

modules.

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

of economies planned in the operation of the meetings under Accounts

2.0, 3.0, and 4.0.

79
Executive Committee

APPENDIX D

OIML UPDATE

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

Recommend that NCWM Rep

Pilot and Reporting be member of US

Secretariats National Working Group

Terminology

Revision of the OIML

Vocabulary (RSI)

General Legal Metrology X

Control of measuring

instruments by sampling

(RS5)

General requirements for electronically equipped

measuring instruments

(RS6)

Measurement of Length,

Area, Angle

Dynamic Measurement of Liquid

Volume

Laboratory volume

measures (RS3)

PS5D Dynamic Measurement of Liquid X

Volume

Requirements for metering

systems (RSI)

Cryogenic meters (RS2)

Electronic devices applied

to flow (RS6) Provers and verification

devices (RS7)

PS1

PS2

PS4

PS5S

80
Executive Committee

Pilot and Reporting

Secretariats

Recommend that NCWM Rep

be member of US

National Working Group

Measurement of Mass X

PS8

PS10

PS12

PS18

PS20

PS22

PS31

Electronic weighing

instruments (RS2)

Verification weighing

instruments (RS3)

Non-automatic weighing

instruments (RS4)

Automatic weighing

instruments (RS5)

In-service EPOs (RS7)

Load cells (RS8)

Weights X

Weights used in trade

and industry (RS5)

Precision weights (RS6)

Measuring Instruments for Vehicles

Taximeters (RS3)

Measurement of Temperature

and Heat

Heat meters (RS8)

Measurement of the

Characteristics of Food Products

Grain moisture meters (RSI) X

Prepackaged Products X

General packaging

problems (RSI)

Verification of net contents

declarations (RS2)

Principles of Metrological Control

Teaching of Metrology

81
Executive Committee

2.

11-15 May

1-5 June

1987 OIML Meetings of Possible Interest to NCWM

Scheduled

Seminar on Calibration of Large Volume Liquid

Measuring Installations

PS7/RS4 Non-automatic Weighing

Instruments

Aries, France

Braunschweig,

FRG

15-19 June PS20 Prepackaged Products Falkenberg,

Sweden

Provisional

April/May PS5D/RS6 Electronic Flow

Devices

October/

November

PS7/RS5 Automatic Weighing

Instruments

82
Executive Committee

APPENDIX E REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

The Task Force on Commodity Requirements met in Gaithersburg, MD on May 20 and 21, 1987. Flour

1. The Gray Area

The Pilot Study for flour had been extended into the fall and winter months

of 1986-87 in order to validate the gray area approach and the specific test methods developed by the Task Force. The Task Force wishes to thank those

jurisdictions that provided specific assistance in this regard, namely: Connecticut,

Colorado, California (including several counties), Canada, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania (including Bucks County), Ohio, North

Carolina, New Mexico, and Virginia.

The results are summarized in Figure 1. As expected, the percentage of lots that were found in the gray area rose as the winter progressed (because flour

will dry out in the winter months), and then began to drop off again in the

spring (flour will pick up some moisture as the humidity rises).

Figure 1 Flour Pilot Study Results

Aug (41) Sep (152) Oci (211) Nov (100) Jan (50) Feb (66) Month (Total Number of Lots Tested in Month)

Data on lots falling into the gray area were incomplete in September and October. Compliance of lots was figured on whether all such lots passed (min % failed) or all lots failed (max % failed) 83
Executive Committee

Although the percentage of lots that failed in the winter months, even when

moisture loss was accounted for, also rose, the actual number of lots that failed was small (from 2 to 12 each month from November on). The total number of

lots tested in March and April was so small that the confidence interval is very large (predictive value is very poor), therefore the results for these months

are not shown in Figure 1. The overall failure rate for 639 lots tested between August 1986 and April 1987 ranged from 9.86 to 11.74%1. Thirty-five percent of the 639 lots were in the

gray area. See Figure 2. As a result of the Pilot Study, the Task Force is confident that the gray area approach works.

Figure 2 Flour Pilot Study - Results from August 1986 to April 1987

Data on lots falling into the gray area were incomplete in September and October. Compliance of lots was figured on whether all such lots passed (min % failed) or all lots failed (max % failed)

2. Laboratory Intercomparisons

The American Association of Cereal Chemists is conducting an intercomparison

of laboratory oven results. Eleven state weights and measures labs, 10 millers'

labs, and Canada Weights and Measures have agreed to participate. The Millers' National Federation is underwriting the cost of the intercomparison. Two sets of samples had been sent to participants by the end of June 1987. The objective of the intercomparison is to make certain that all laboratories can determine

flour moisture contents on identical samples within the interlaboratory precision of the oven-dry method.

1 Data on lots falling into the gray area were incomplete in September

and October. Compliance of lots was based on whether all lots passed ("min %

failed") or all lots failed ("max % failed").

84
Executive Committee

Poultry

1. Used Dry Tare The State of Maryland Weights and Measures conducted tests to determine how

close "used dry tare" was to unused dry tare. Data on the range and average

weight of a large sample of several styles of unused dry tare packages were

collected at two poultry plants. Weights obtained using the used dry tare pro- cedures given in the Pilot Study protocol on equivalent (but not identical) pac- kages were recorded by several inspectors in the field. Those data indicate

that in most instances that used dry tare differs from unused dry tare by 0.001

lb to 0.005 lb. In those jurisdictions that use dry tare to check packages put up in the retail

store, because of the reluctance to accept unverified printed tare values on

poultry shipping containers, the used dry tare procedure appears to provide the most acceptable tare values for pre-packed poultry coming from a Federallyinspected plant.

2. Moisture Loss Data on 95 lots of fresh poultry from Federally-inspected plants (consumer

packages labeled at the plant) were collected during the Pilot Study from August

1986 to April 1987. Participating jurisdictions were: Oregon; Nebraska; Ohio;

New Mexico; Bucks County, Pennsylvania; Maryland, Michigan; and Connecticut.

Again, the Task Force wishes to thank the participants for their extremely

important contributions of time and effort. Both wet tare (free liquid is part of tare) and used dry tare (the tare is dried

out) data were collected on every lot. The difference between the net weight

using dry tare and the net weight using wet tare was defined as the moisture

loss. Expressed as a percentage of the average labeled weight, moisture loss was plotted against the elapsed time from the time of pack to the time of

test. Moisture loss as a function of elapsed time of all the poultry lots for which elapsed time was available is shown in Figure 3. Although moisture loss as high as 12% was found in the Pilot Study, the figure

shows the moisture loss only for those lots for which the elapsed time (from

time of pack to time of test) was also known.

The following observations were made from the data and task force discussions:

1. The used dry tare method given in the Pilot Study protocol for jurisdictions

using dry tare was a workable method for field use.

2. A rejection rate of over 20% was experienced for lots tested using used

dry tare.

3. There was no correlation between elapsed time and moisture lost.

4. Based on surveys of their member companies conducted by the American

Meat Institute and the National Broiler Council, it is apparent that procedures for tare determination by plants vary greatly:

85
Executive Committee

(a) Many of the procedures used to determine what tare to print on the

shipping container or to provide to the retailer do not conform to (nor are they equivalent to) the USDA-State Memorandum of Understanding rounding procedures.

(b) Many of the procedures do not account for the range in tare weights

of packaging materials.

(c) There may be a lack of understanding of what to include as tare when providing a retailer with a tare weight on prepackaged consumer packages.

5. In the Pilot Study, it was very difficult to get the date of pack information on the lots that were tested. Other net weight information on the specific

lot in question was also very difficult to obtain.

6. There were indications that some moisture is lost at the time of pack.

This was seen in work done by California and Maryland weights and measures officials. Their measurements in the plant indicated a difference

between the weight of the poultry at the time it was placed in the package

and the weight after it was further processed and shipped from the plant.

First, the Task Force stresses that the situation with poultry packages is some- what different from flour. With flour, the weights and measures agency (in

cooperation with the flour mill) can determine the amount of moisture loss and

weight loss. If the flour lot is found in the gray area, additional information can be obtained to determine lot compliance or noncompliance.

Jurisdictions using wet tare for poultry from Federally-inspected plants must

do one of two things if a poultry lot is found in the gray area:

1. Dry out the tare and find out if the net weight is adequate using

used dry tare, or

2. apply the gray area as a tolerance.

Contacting the plant to gather additional data, although commendable in principle

and which the Task Force continues to recommend, has two flaws:

1. Poultry is extremely perishable, hence any lot's disposition must be

determined almost immediately.

2. Those jurisdictions that have been able to obtain information concerning a particular lot in question have not been convinced that

the retail lot being checked is really in compliance. For example,

product from one hourly net weight check that averages less than

the label may go to a single retail location and indeed be short weight.

Wet tare jurisdictions, however, do not agree that used dry tare is exactly

correct. Moreover, these jurisdictions contend that excessive free flowing liquid

in the package is a good indication of poor manufacturing or distribution practices. They contend that moisture loss need only be given for good distribution practice. After the poultry is placed in a package, wrapped, and dry tare sub86
Executive Committee

tracted, the packages continue moving on an assembly line and undergo subsequent processing (blast chilling, storage before palletizing). Moisture loss is not a permitted variation during manufacturing, only during distribution. Therefore, the amount of moisture absorbed by the tare materials during the processing and manufacturing operations should be considered part of the tare. Therefore, the responsibilities and roles the individual representatives on the

Task Force will now consider are as follows:

o USDA will investigate overseeing in-plant data collection to determine

a fixed figure (preliminary information from California shows this may range from 1/2 to 2 1/2%) to be added to the dry tare to accommodate the moisture lost in the plant. This will provide the necessary control to more accurately measure tare at the point when the packages

enter distribution. There are only about 200 poultry plants under

USDA inspection, and the fixed figure need only be determined and

monitored whenever the composition of tare materials (mainly the

absorbent pad) changes.

o Jurisdictions using wet tare will investigate accepting a fixed gray

area to accommodate the moisture loss during distribution. (As a

first approximation for what this might be, the Task Force applied

the failure rate obtained with used dry tare —about 20%—to the wet

tare data. If a moisture loss of 4% were chosen, 20% of the lots tested using wet tare would fail. (See Figure 3.) If 1 1/2% of the

4% moisture loss were determined to occur in the plant, a gray area

of 2 1/2% would result.)

o The poultry industry will investigate the acceptability of determining

the moisture loss at the plant before distribution (defined as when

the product is placed on a truck), and the acceptability of a fixed

gray area in wet tare jurisdictions. This approach would (a) provide

consistent weights and measures test results on any package lot, whether the jurisdiction uses wet tare or dry tare in its testing

procedures; and (b) remove competitive inequities caused by different packaging line and processing designs inside the plant.

If the Task Force proposal were accepted by all parties, the weights and measures procedures would be as follows: "Dry Tare" jurisdictions would use "used dry tare" and Category A sampling

plans from Handbook 133 and as described in the Memorandum of Understanding (published in the 1986 NCWM Annual Report).

"Wet Tare" jurisdictions would use wet tare and a fixed gray area (yet to be determined, but of the order of 1 1/2 to 3%). They would contact

plant and USDA personnel as detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding

for additional information to determine disposition on a case-by-case basis.

87
Executive Committee
Executive Committee

Processed Meat

The Task Force collected data on 120 lots of franks (both poultry and meat in origin), bologna, and sausage.

1. Bacon

Bacon was excluded from the pilot study because it was agreed that there should be no free-flowing liquid in packages of bacon, and that used dry tare would

be equivalent to wet tare for these packages.

2. Ham

Hams, including water-added hams, were excluded because the net weights are,

in the main, applied at the retail store.

3. Sausage

Figure 4 shows the moisture loss (net weight using used dry tare minus net weight using wet tare) plotted against elapsed time (date of test minus date of pack) for sausage. Although a few packages exhibited significant moisture

loss, moisture loss for 75% of the lots tested was less than 1/4% for a 1 lb package. This is of the order of magnitude of the scale division on the inspector's scale (0.002 lb). Therefore, the Task Force proposes no moisture loss is needed for these products, only a careful cleaning/wiping of the tare materials. Used tare is acceptable. Drying is not necessary; wiping is.

4. Bologna (Luncheon Meats)

Figure 5 shows the moisture loss plotted against elapsed time (see sausage for further explanation of these terms) for bologna. Again, greater than 75% of the lots exhibited a moisture loss of less than 1/2% up to nearly two months

in distribution. As in the case for sausage, the Task Force proposes that no

moisture loss is needed for these products, only a careful wiping/cleaning of the tare materials. Used tare is acceptable. Drying is not necessary.

5. Franks/Hot Dogs

Although the formulation of many franks and hot dogs is identical to bologna,

Figure 6 shows a consistent loss of moisture as a function of elapsed time.

This may be due to the shape of the franks and the mechanical loading that

these packages undergo in shipping and distribution.

The Task Force proposes a 1% moisture loss allowance for franks for every 15 days, with a maximum of 2%. This allowance only applies in jurisdictions using

wet tare. If free-flowing liquid is included as product (i.e., used dry tare), no

moisture loss allowance is to be given.

89
Executive Committee

2 rFigure 4 Moisture Loss for Sausage

10 20 30 40 Elapsed Time (Days from Time of Pack)

Figure 5 Moisture Loss for Bologna

10 20 30 40 50 Elapsed Time (Days from Time of Pack)

90
Executive Committee

APPENDIX F NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

Policy and Procedures

CONTENTS

Section Page

A. Definitions 92

B. Administration of the Program 93 C. The Type Evaluation Process 94

D. Request for Evaluation 94

E. Steps in the Type Evaluation Process 95

F. Extent of Evaluation 97 G. Kinds of Type Evaluation 98 H. Evaluation of New Technology 99

I. What Constitutes a Different Type 100

J. Considerations Preceding Evaluation 101

K. Period of Validity of Approval 101

L. Results of Evaluation 102 M. Certificate of Conformance 103

N. Report of Deficiencies 104

O. Appeal Process 106

P. Distribution of Outputs of Evaluation 106

Q. References to NTEP Activities 106 (added at the 70th Annual Meeting)

91
Executive Committee

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

A. DEFINITIONS

1. "NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM"

A program of cooperation between the National Bureau of Standards, the

National Conference on Weights and Measures, the states, and the private sector for determining, on a uniform basis, conformance of a "type" (q.v.)

with the relevant provisions of: National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices";

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

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and

Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights

(NBS Class F)"; National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-2, "Specifications and

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and

Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Measuring

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

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and

Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type

Volumetric Field Standards".

2. "TYPE EVALUATION"

A process for the testing, examination, and/or evaluation of a "type" (q.v.)

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

Program.

3. "TYPE" A model or models of a particular measurement system, instrument, element, or a field standard that positively identifies the design. A specific type

may vary in its measurement ranges, size, performance, and operating

characteristics as specified in the "Certificate of Conformance" (q.v.).

4. "PARTICIPATING LABORATORY"

A Federal or a State Measurement Laboratory authorized by the National Bureau of Standards, in accordance with its program for the Certification

of Capability of State Measurement Laboratories, to conduct a type eval- uation under the National Type Evaluation Program. The National Bureau

of Standards is a Participating Laboratory.

92
Executive Committee

5. "CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE"

A document issued by the National Bureau of Standards based on testing

by a Participating Laboratory, said document constituting evidence of con- formance of a type with the requirements of this document and the National Bureau of Standards Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2, or 105-3. a ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM

The National Type Evaluation Program is operated by the following organizations.

1. BOARD OF GOVERNORS

The Executive Committee operates as the NTEP Board of Governors and is responsible for the operation of the program, including the establishment

of policy and procedures and the resolution of policy, technical and appeals

issues. (See Bylaws, Article V, Section 5.)

2. NTEP ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The NTEP Advisory Committee is composed of Associate Members of the

NCWM appointed by the NCWM Chairman to represent the interests of industry in advising the Board of Governors. (See Bylaws, Article V, Section

5.)

3. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

The Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation includes the NTEP

Advisory Committee plus Active Members of the NCWM appointed by the

NCWM Chairman. It is responsible for the development of test criteria

and procedures for use in the evaluation process by the Participating Laboratories.

4. THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

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

a. technical and administrative support to the National Type Evaluation Program (see NBS SP 250 Appendix, November 1985, page

37); and

b. the Secretariat for the National Conference on Weights and

Measures (see NBS SP 250, 1982 Edition, Chapter X.H.).

In these roles, the OWM:

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

recording of requests for evaluation;

b. assigns responsibility for evaluation to a Participating Laboratory and maintains records to provide knowledge of the progress

of evaluations;

93
Executive Committee

c. evaluates the qualifications of potential Participating Laboratories and issues Certificate of Authorization to those that comply

(see NBS Handbook 143, Part II for criteria);

d. functions as a Participating Laboratory;

e. reviews Reports of Test prepared by Participating Laboratories,

makes decisions regarding compliance of the tested types with

NBS Handbooks, and issues the Certificates of Conformance

or Reports of Test; and

f. maintains records of Certificates of Conformance and Reports

of Test that have been issued and updates the composite record

annually.

C. TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS

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

in Sections D and E): Request for type evaluation (usually by the manufacturer)

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

Assignment by NBS of Participating Laboratory

Decision by NBS on extent of evaluation necessary

Conduct of the type evaluation by the Participating Laboratory

Report of deficiencies, if any, by the Participating Laboratory to manufacturer, who must correct the deficiencies before the process can continue

Decision on conformance or nonconformance by the Participating

Laboratory; if non-conformance, the manufacturer must correct defi- ciencies before the process can continue

Evaluation of the type evaluation results by NBS

Preparation of the type evaluation report by NBS

Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance by NBS

D. REQUEST FOR TYPE EVALUATION

Examples of potential applicants for evaluation are:

1. the manufacturer, including assemblers of systems comprised of subsystems produced by various manufacturers; and

2. manufacturer's sales representatives

94
Executive Committee

To obtain a type evaluation, the applicant shall:

1. address a letter requesting the evaluation to: National Type Evaluation Program

c/o National Conference on Weights and Measures,

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

2. attach the appropriate Application Form (see Part II of this publication), describing the type (include drawings with dimensions and

specifications of large capacity scales), its operating characteristics

and instructions, intended application, model number, capacity, size, and shipping weight; and

3. authorize the billing of all associated costs incurred by the Participating Laboratory conducting the evaluation.

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

intact and ready for evaluation, to the assigned testing location. (If special installation arrangements are required, they must be made by

the requestor prior to the time of evaluation.)

The physical and metrological characteristics of copies of a type submitted for evaluation under NTEP are expected to be representative of production devices.

E. STEPS IN THE TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS

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

legal metrology control system.

1. CONDITIONS FOR EVALUATION

a. Test criteria and procedures are contained in Part III of this publication.

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

available to Participating Laboratories, paragraph 4 below.)

2. INITIATION OF EVALUATION PROCESS

In general, one or more copies of the type will be submitted with a request

for device evaluation. Submission of engineering specifications and operating

descriptions that characterize the type are required.

3. CHOICE OF PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES

The manufacturer may request a particular Participating Laboratory for the conduct of the evaluation, probably based on location. Cooperation

between the manufacturer and NTEP is considered to be advantageous.

NTEP will try to honor the request. If another Participating Laboratory

could conduct the evaluation sooner, the manufacturer will be given an

opportunity to withdraw his request, but NTEP has the final authority to assign the Participating Laboratory.

95
Executive Committee

4. PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES - OPTIONS

The type evaluation process normally will be conducted in Participating

Laboratories.

a. Minimizing Program Cost

A policy of the NTEP is to minimize the cost of the Program to all parties. In some circumstances, testing in laboratories other than

Participating Laboratories might be warranted, but only if the testing

is supervised by representative(s) of a Participating Laboratory.

Participating Laboratories may consider using other facilities to augment their own capability, including those belonging to:

(1) manufacturers;

(2) independent testing organizations; and

(3) Federal or state government agencies.

b. Considerations

NTEP should consider the following before proceeding with full evaluation:

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

the manufacturer as evidence of conformity of the type

to NBS Handbooks equivalent to that which would be pro- duced by a Participating Laboratory?

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

not dealt before, and/or does the Participating Laboratory

have the facilities or knowledge necessary to carry out

the required evaluations?

(3) In the absence of adequate test facilities in the Participating Laboratory, are manufacturer or third party test

facilities available to augment the facilities of the Partic- ipating Laboratory?

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

aspects of a given evaluation may be carried out at different sites for convenience, such as at the factory, in a laboratory,

and at a user location.

5. SAFEGUARDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

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

often become privy to proprietary information related to the device, manufacturing techniques, etc. These agencies are bound to protect this information and must carefully limit access to it, or to data developed during

the NTEP process, to properly authorized organizations or individuals,

96
Executive Committee

e.g., only the applicant or the manufacturer.

F. FULL OR PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Normally, the NTEP will conduct a complete evaluation of a type which, if the

type meets the requirements, will result in the issuance of a Full Certificate of Conformance. Under certain circumstances, the NTEP will issue a Provisional

Certificate of Conformance.

1. FULL CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

a. Various conditions may justify limiting the scope of the evaluation but still result in the issuance of a Full Certificate of Conformance. These conditions include:

(1) restricted application of the type, and

(2) requirements concerning installation, safeguarding, maintenance, and/or recalibration. These conditions may

be inclusive or exclusive, as in "...for use in measuring

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

b. Permanence Test

In those cases where a permanence field test is required under NTEP,

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

2. PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Under some circumstances, a Certificate of Conformance may be issued

without a full evaluation. Such a Certificate of Conformance is referred

to as Provisional.

In accepting a Provisional Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer

shall agree in writing that:

a. the Provisional Certificate of Conformance is granted only with

the understanding that further evaluation will take place before

a Full Certificate of Conformance can be issued; and

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

A Provisional Certificate of Conformance will be issued infrequently, and

only after authorization by the Board of Governors. A Provisional Certificate of Conformance may, for example, be issued after partial or limited evaluation if there is an urgent need for use of the

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

97
Executive Committee

G. VARIATIONS IN TYPE EVALUATION

Variations in the type evaluation process result from considerations of the

history of the type.

1. INITIAL EVALUATION

An Initial Evaluation is conducted on a type not previously submitted to the NTEP. In most cases, the Initial Evaluation will comprise full testing

of the type. However, previous experience with the manufacturer and/or

with similar types may suggest that some tests can be waived.

2. REEVALUATION

NTEP may decide to reevaluate a type that it has previously evaluated,

whether or not a Certificate of Conformance was issued. Reevaluation of

a type must be justified. Some considerations are listed below.

a. Devices manufactured after the effective date of any new nonretroactive regulations must meet the new requirements; devices

manufactured prior to the effective date of such regulations must meet retroactive requirements only.

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

Reevaluation may result in reconfirmation of the Certificate of Conformance, amendment to the Certificate of Conformance, or withdrawal of the Certificate of Conformance.

3. EXPANSION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

A type with a valid Certificate of Conformance may be reevaluated in order to consider additional features, such as the range of the measured

quantity, or the kinds of commodities that may be measured.

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

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

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

range of performance.

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

JURISDICTION

A type already approved in one or more jurisdictions may be submitted

for evaluation under NTEP.

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

that the type meets all requirements of NTEP, in which case a Certificate

of Conformance will be issued without formal testing.

The NTEP may accept data obtained in or conclusions drawn from prior

evaluation.

98
Executive Committee

The NTEP may conclude that limited evaluation will suffice to check for differences in the requirements of the testing jurisdiction and NTEP.

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

evaluation and regulations under which the prior evaluation was made and

will determine the extent to which the former evaluation can be accepted.

This decision may be based in part on the similarity of requirements in the two cases and on the policies and reputation for competence of the

pre-NTEP jurisdiction.

5. EVALUATION OF A TYPE IN USE BUT NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

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

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

under NTEP or, if the device is to be installed in a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction may require that the type be evaluated.

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

it is assumed that all types in use meet the requirements of Handbook 44 since they have undergone testing in the state(s) in which they are installed. The NTEP has no authority to change the status quo in these instances.

However, for the continued sales of these types, they must be evaluated

and a Certificate of Conformance issued. H. EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

Type evaluation must deal with innovation and the application of new technology. It is anticipated that the NTEP will encounter features for which test criteria or procedures have no yet been developed.

In such cases:

1. the necessary criteria and/or procedures will be developed, ad hoc, by the NBS and participating laboratory representatives as expeditiously as possible;

2. these criteria and/or procedures will be submitted to the NTEP Technical Subcommittee, either by letter ballot, regularly scheduled meeting, or at a specially called meeting, depending on the complexity or sensitivity of the material; and

3. material accepted by the Technical Committee will be introduced into the normal NCWM process.

4. Pending completion of the normal NCWM administrative process, the

NTEP will issue a Provisional Certificate of Conformance, provided

the device meets the requirements of the proposed criteria and/or

test procedures.

99
Executive Committee

Normal NCWM administrative process follows the steps described below.

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

and/or procedures will be submitted through the Executive Committee (Board of Governors) and the NCWM membership in sequence.

Adopted test criteria and procedures will appear as part of this Handbook.

2. Any changes required in NBS Handbook 44 will be submitted through

the S&T Committee, the Executive Committee (Board of Governors),

and the NCWM membership in sequence. Adopted changes will appear

in NBS Handbook 44. As before, test criteria and procedures will appear as part of this Handbook.

A new feature or technology incorporated in the type being evaluated may not meet current NTEP requirements, but is nonetheless appropriate for its intended

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

and issue a Provisional Certificate of Conformance pending adoption of the

change(s) by the NCWM process.

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

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

type meets the requirements as proposed by the NBS and Participating Laboratories, a Provisional Certificate of Conformance will be issued. If more demanding criteria or procedures are subsequently proposed and adopted, the type

will be tested under these criteria or procedures.

I. WHAT CONSTITUTES A "DIFFERENT" TYPE?

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

must be made whether one or two separate evaluation processes must be followed. The following guidelines apply.

1. SUPERFICIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEVICES

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

measurement ranges, but that differ superficially in their enclosures, details,

size, color, or location of non-metrological appointments (function lights,

display location, operational key locations, etc.) can normally be covered

by a single evaluation.

2. COMPONENT VARIATIONS

Types produced by the same manufacturer with nominally identical components or materials procured from different suppliers can usually be

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

if the different components or materials are not likely to affect the regu- lated metrological characteristics, reliability, or life of the types.

If changes in components or materials are likely to affect the performance

or operational characteristics of a device, separate evaluations may be

100
Executive Committee

required. A type is considered MODIFIED if a change alters a metrological

or technical characteristic.

J. CONSIDERATIONS PRECEDING EVALUATION

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

1. 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 eval- uated by NTEP;

c. new application of an evaluated type;

d. modification of an approved type; or

e. previous rejection or withdrawal of Certificate of Conformance

coupled with newly presented facts concerning the type, improvements to the type, or a change in regulations.

2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTING OCCURRENCE OF MODIFICATIONS

When a manufacturer makes changes related to an approved type,

evaluation of the modification may be necessary. The manufacturer is responsible for reporting changes that might

require the attention of the NTEP; the decision to report is dictated

by the significance of the modification.

a. Notification of Change.

The manufacturer notifies the NTEP that a change has been

made or is contemplated for an approved device. The manufacturer may make judgments concerning the modification and request

issuance of an approval of a modification by citing the existing

Certificate of Conformance, detailing the changes and giving

any data, analysis, and conclusions concerning the technical or metrological consequences of the changes.

b. NTEP Options

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

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

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

will inform the manufacturer accordingly.

K. PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

The Certificate of Conformance remains valid unless withdrawn as the result of 101
Executive Committee

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

1. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Approval may be withdrawn for deficiencies in the type. Withdrawal will, however, be an action of last resort. The decision to withdraw must be clearly established on the basis of evidence provided to the Board of Governors. A manufacturer has the option

of appealing the withdrawal before notice of the action is sent to the State directors.

2. FEEDBACK

The evaluation process under NTEP can generate only limited data. The

data gathered during the initial and subsequent verifications of a larger

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

often yield information not available from the type evaluation. Such feedback can be used as the basis for revising the conditions of approval when the

situation so warrants. Depending on circumstances, the experience gained during verifications may

justify later changes in the Certificate of Conformance; in extreme cases,

it might result in a reevaluation of the type.

L. RESULTS OF EVALUATION

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

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

Separate documents are especially appropriate when evaluation and a Certifi- cate of Conformance are the responsibilities of different officials (for example,

when testing of the type is carried out in a state laboratory and a Certificate

of Conformance is issued by NBS). These reports will be retained permanently

by the NCWM.

1. REPORT OF OBJECTIVE FINDINGS

The report will be a permanent, objective record of the evaluation process and its results, with which future evaluations can be compared. It will identify the type, components and salient documents examined, personnel

and laboratories that carried out the evaluation, and any special procedures,

standards, and equipment used in the process. It will contain important

data, ambient conditions, and the time data were taken, or identify the

repositories of such data and the values of measured metrological characteristics and the associated uncertainties.

These characteristics will include all those subject to requirements in regulations and those that will form the basis for the definition of the

type. To the extent that findings are based not on measurement, but on

visual inspection, they will in each instance be as objective as possible.

102
Executive Committee

2. REPORT OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING

FROM EVALUATION

The report giving conclusions and recommendations will be based on the

findings of the Participating Laboratory and will provide the basis for a decision by NBS regarding issuance of a Certificate of Conformance.

Examples of the recommendation can include the following:

a. Certificate of Conformance,

b. Provisional Certificate of Conformance,

c. unqualified rejection (the main reasons for rejection should be

given),

d. qualified rejection (recommendation that the type be rejected,

but that it be approved in the future if specified modifications

are made to the satisfaction of the Participating Laboratory, as may be demonstrated by a partial reevaluation), or

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

be adequately informed about its deficiencies, and that the type

be accepted for a complete reevaluation in the future, provided

the applicant declares that the deficiencies have been corrected.

3. DEFICIENT EVALUATION

If a significant area of non-compliance was overlooked by a Participating

Laboratory in evaluating a type, costs of re-evaluation will be borne by

the Participating Laboratory. In such cases every effort will be made to provide the manufacturer with adequate time to meet the requirements,

including time to modify and/or retrofit the devices in use.

If a type for which a Certificate of Conformance was issued is found in use to have a feature that was not operational or present during the evaluation, costs of re-evaluation will be borne by the manufacturer. If the

manufacturer requests a re-evaluation with the new feature, and the type

is approved, an amendment to the Certificate of Conformance will be issued.

If the type does not meet approval as a result of the new feature, the

Certificate of Conformance will be withdrawn.

M. CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

The Certificate of Conformance (see below) may include the following information:

1. APPLICATION OF THE TYPE

a. approved ranges

b. maximum capacity

c. reference conditions

d. normal conditions of use

103
Executive Committee

2. ACCURACY

a. accuracy class

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

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

constants

3. REQUIREMENT OF MANUFACTURER

required name plate information and stamps, marks, and seals affixed at the factory

4. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE

a. installation requirements

b. legally required auxiliary equipment and its minimum characteristics

c. in the case of approval of auxiliary equipment, identification of the measuring instruments in conjunction with which it may be

legally used

d. operating instructions

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The summary lists the characteristics, attributes, and conditions of the

type that are subject to regulation.

N. REPORT OF DEFICIENCIES

A report of deficiencies will include the following information:

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

2. applicable regulations;

3. specific components and salient documents examined;

4. characteristics and the values of their parameters found to be deficient, as well as the corresponding acceptable values; and

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

only the major reasons will be given).

When reasons for non-conformance are based on relatively small deficiencies or when deficiencies can be easily corrected, the report may list changes that

would make it acceptable.

104
Executive Committee

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 20899 CERTIFICATE NO

Page of

For Weighing and Measuring Devices

For:

Accuracy Class:.

Submitted 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 Weighing and Measuring Devices".

Evaluation results and device characteristics necessary for inspection and use in commerce are on the following pages. For further information, contact the National Bureau of Standards, address above, or telephone (301) 975-4004.

Date:

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

NOTE: The National Bureau of Standards does not "approve", "recommend", or "endorse" any proprietary product or material, either as a single item or as a class or group. Results shall not be used in advertising or sales promotion to indicate explicit or implicit endorsement of the product or material by the Bureau. (See NTEP Policies and Procedures). 105
Executive Committee

O. APPEALS PROCESS

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

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

Certificate of Conformance, a manufacturer may appeal to the NTEP Board of Governors. A state or other party may also appeal a decision of the NTEP,

including the issuance of a Certificate of Conformance.

Upon request, the NTEP Board of Governors will review the case and issue its decision, which may result in withdrawal of a Certificate of Conformance. In

its evaluation, the Board may request the advice of the Advisory Committee.

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

of Conformance. If the NBS confirms the recommendation of the NTEP and

the appellant disagrees at this stage, he may appeal the decision through the

Federal Government process to the Federal Trade Commission.

P. DISTRIBUTION OF OUTPUTS OF EVALUATION

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

existing certificate, or a similar document reflecting the approval decision will always be sent to the applicant at the earliest possible time. NTEP will send

to the applicant copies of, or excerpts from, the reports of evaluation and of conclusions and recommendations.

The Certificate of Conformance will be sent to all the states and major jurisdictions. NCWM Publication #5 will be updated annually to incorporate all Certificates of Conformance issued during the previous calendar year. The Publication includes the information listed below. (The publication is on the Weights

and Measures Information System (WAMIS) Bulletin Board, updated monthly on

the first of each month.)

1. Number assigned to the Certificate of Conformance

2. Date Certificate of Conformance was issued

3. Company name

4. Model designation

5. Brief description of model

6. Capacity, flow rate, or size

Q. REFERENCES TO NTEP

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

knowledge of its operation and the results of its evaluations are known and

requested.

106
Executive Committee

1. RESTRICTION

Recipients must avoid any implication that the Certificate of Conformance

carries with it an endorsement or approval of the product by the National Bureau of Standards. Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance by the National Bureau of Standards only "constitutes evidence of the conformance of a type with

the requirements of this publication and NBS Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2,

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

2. PERMISSIBLE USE OF STATEMENTS AND NTEP LOGO

a. The Manufacturer

The manufacturer may communicate to clients and the public the

fact that a Certificate of Conformance was issued for a type. State

officials will automatically receive copies of all Certificates of Con- formance issued and need not be advised of this fact by the manufacturer.

(1) Statement

The following statement may be used in company correspondence, brochures, and professional, technical, and trade publications;

"Certificate of Conformance (insert Certificate number) was

issued under the National Type Evaluation Program of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures."

(2) Logo

The NTEP logo (see next page) may be:

(a) used in conjunction with the above statement as well

as in advertising materials for the device for which

the Certificate of Conformance was issued; and

(b) affixed to any device manufactured as being the same

as the NTEP approved device. However, sale and use

of individual devices manufactured are subject to acceptance testing by state and local jurisdictions.

b. The States

States participating in the NTEP (permitting the sale of devices in their states based on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance) and/or

states operating NTEP Participating Laboratories are encouraged to communicate their activities to potential clients and the public.

NTEP authorization means that a laboratory is competent to perform

standard tests of specific weighing or measuring devices.

107
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 testing —(identify device types covered by the Authorization Certificate)."

A state accepting Certificates of Conformance may use the fol- lowing 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.

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.

Figure 2 - NTEP Logo

108
Executive Committee

APPENDIX G

MEETING SUMMARY

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

June 24, 1987

I. Range of Load Cell Capacities Covered by a Certificate of Conformance

Appendix A to the 1987 Final Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee provides guidelines concerning load cells to be submitted for test to demonstrate compliance with the influence factors requirements. It was concluded

that an additional guideline is needed to clearly indicate that for NTEP, the

tested load cell capacity is to be approximately mid-range in the typical 10:1 ratio of the range of load cell capacities covered by a Certificate of Conformance.

Judgement must still be used in selecting the appropriate capacities and the number of load cells to be tested based on capacities, number of scale divisions being tested, and availability of test facilities, among other factors. The objective is to prevent testing load cells at the extremes of the range in an effort to cover a 10:1 range of capacities.

II. Manufacturer Access to Test Equipment

Testing for compliance of load cells with the influence factors requirements is practical only in a laboratory, hence a manufacturer must be able to test production cells on a regular basis. It was concluded that a manufacturer must have

regular access to appropriate equipment to verify that the manufactured load

cells are in compliance with applicable specifications. The equipment does not have to be within the manufacturer's plant, but may be in a private laboratory

or in an NTEP laboratory. If it can be shown through test data that control on dimensions of a load cell is sufficient to control the performance of the

cell, then the test equipment need only monitor the dimensions of the load

cell, as may pertain to hydraulic load cells. Having reached consensus that each manufacturer must have access to test equipment for all cells tested under NTEP and covered by a Certificate of Conformance, the committee discussed the following related questions:

1. Given access to test equipment, how does one assure that load cells are tested on a regular basis?

109
Executive Committee

2. How frequently should a manufacturer test production load cells to verify

compliance with the influence factors requirements?

3. Who determines if the manufacturer's test program is adequate and sufficient to verify compliance of production load cells with the requirements?

4. Since electronic scales of all capacities are subject to the same considerations as load cells, is it logical to conclude that production scales should be tested periodically to verify compliance with the influence factors re- quirements?

It was mentioned that the adequacy of a test program would be determined in discussions between a manufacturer and NTEP (participating laboratories). This would require that an enforcement agency judge what is adequate equipment

and a sufficient test program, but the enforcement agency may not have the

expertise to do so. There is also a concern that government would be placed

in the position of evaluating a manufacturer's quality control program, which

may not be an appropriate role. The consensus appeared to be that the manufacturer should have the right to decide what constitutes adequate controls on manufacturing, but that it is the responsibility of weights and measures officials to verify that load cells and, ultimately, the final assembled scales meet the

requirements of Handbook 44. As part of this issue is the verification that devices installed in the field comply

with the original type and that the load cells in a scale have been tested and

are being used within their prescribed performance parameters. Some of the load cell parameters must be checked in the field to verify that the scale and

its major components are correct. For example:

1. the scale or the load cells used in large-capacity scales must have been

tested for influence factors and received a Certificate of Conformance;

2. the load cells must be the correct accuracy class for the application, and

the number of scale divisions for the scale must be consistent with the

Certificate of Conformance for the original scale or its major components;

3. the equipment must be properly marked with the accuracy class and number

of divisions;

4. the scale division must be such that the scale operates at a value not

less than Vmj n for the load cell (for example, for a multiple-load cell vehicle scale, the value of the scale division divided by the number of load cells in the scale must be greater than or equal to Vmi n for the

load cells); and

5. the scale must perform within the tolerances for the specified application.

One difficulty in verifying that a correct load cell is being used in a scale is that only those load cells tested separately for compliance with the influence

factors are required to be marked with prescribed information. The load cell

in a small capacity scale may not be marked, so the scale may have to be disas- sembled to identify its load cell.

110
Executive Committee

The importance of field verification should be emphasized. The influence factors requirements in the U.S. market are implemented on three primary steps for weights and measures enforcement:

1. adoption of the influence factors requirements in Handbook 44;

2. establishment of a type evaluation process to test new types of scales

and load cells for compliance with the influence factors, and to all other

appropriate requirements; and

3. development and implementation of a verification process to assure that

load cells used in scales and the scales installed in the field comply with

the influence factors requirements.

Without an effective verification process (step 3), the first two steps are almost meaningless. An effective verification process is critical to assuring fair competition in the marketplace.

The Technical Committee was unable in the time available to develop a complete

and unified solution to the issue of verifying the compliance of production load

cells and scales with the influence factors requirements or the issue of verifying

that field devices are consistent with the original type. These issues are ul- timately policy issues (based upon technical information) and referred to the

NTEP Board of Governors or resolution.

III. Test of a Load Cell to Partial Capacity

The question is whether or not a Certificate of Conformance can be issued for

a load cell or a family of load cells based upon the test of a load cell to only

a part of its capacity, which might occur if test equipment is not capable of testing a load cell to full capacity.

The consensus of the Committee is that a full Certificate of Conformance cannot be issued for a family of load cells or even a single load cell if it cannot be

tested to capacity over the specified temperature range. Note to Committee Members:

During the period when NTEP lacks facilities to test load cells, NTEP may

(and intends to) issue provisional Certificates of Conformance for a family of load cells if it concludes that the data submitted are verifiable and justify

issuing a provisional certificate. A full Certificate of Conformance may be issued for a particular model cell tested to partial capacity for use up to the maximum

applied test load, but that full certificate would not apply to the rated capacity

of the load cell. These guidelines are in addition to the NTEP policy of issuing

full Certificates of Conformance for load cells based upon a review of test

111
Executive Committee

data (to capacity), an evaluation of test facilities, and witnessing some tests to verify load cell performance. Load cells receiving provisional Certificates of Conformance are subject to retest once NTEP has facilities to test load cells to capacity.

IV Load Cell Test Procedures and Data Analysis

Several aspects of test procedures and data analysis were discussed. The conclusions are stated below.

1. Load cells are to be exercised at each test temperature before test data

as collected.

2. It is not necessary to test a load cell over its minimum utilization range

(^min times n). The test of a load cell to its rated capacity is the worst

case condition. If a load cell is used over only a part of its range, its performance will improve.

3. It is recommended that class III L load cells be tested at least near the

following test loads: 500 v, 1000 v, 4000 v, near 75 percent of capacity,

and near capacity. The upper limit currently specified in the test of a load cell will be deleted.

4. A return-to-zero test may be used in place of a creep test to evaluate

the time dependence (creep) characteristics of a load cell. The return to zero test will be based upon IR60 section 15.3, but 60 minutes will be

used instead of 30 minutes. The first reading is to be taken 20 seconds

after the load is removed.

5. The times specified in the load cell test procedures for loading or unloading

test weights are to be treated in the following manner: The time to load or unload test weights and read the indicator shall be as short as possible and shall not exceed the time specified in the table. The reading may be taken as soon as it is stable.

6. A high resolution indicator is recommended when testing class III L load

cells so that the repeatability at the return to zero for a test run can be

better analyzed.

7. The data analysis for load cells will continue to be normalized around 75 percent of capacity for the initial ascending-load tests at room temperature.

8. The tolerances for the repeatability error stated in the tables in the NTEP

procedures are incorrect and will be changed. The tables are based upon

the absolute value of acceptance tolerance, but Handbook 44 specifies

that the repeatability tolerance is based upon the absolute value of maintenance tolerance. This has the effect of doubling the tolerances currently

stated in the tables.

9. The tolerance specified in Handbook 44 for class III L load cells is unacceptably large due to an oversight. The Technical Committee recommends

that Handbook 44 be changed in 1988 to correct the oversight. The recom112
Executive Committee

mended creep test tolerance for class III L load cells is twice that for class III load cells. The smaller tolerances will be used immediately in data analysis.

10. Note to Committee members: As a result of the discussion of IR60 at the

meeting on June 25, NTEP will require that all data values for individual runs at various temperatures be within the error band to be acceptable.

Average values for runs at a specified temperature will still be used for interpolation or extrapolation.

V. Marking of Load Cells Because NTEP has specified different tolerances for load cells depending upon

whether the load cells are to be used in single-(S) or multiple-(M) cell applications, the number of divisions for which the load cell may be used will vary

with the application. Additionally, the same type load cell may be used in both class III and III L scales. The load cell will probably have a different

number of scale divisions for the different accuracy classes. Consequently, the Technical Committee recommends that the Specifications and Tolerances Committee

amend its final report to require that load cells also be marked with an S or M in conjunction with the accuracy class and number of scale divisions for each application in which the load cell may be used.

VI Testing Wheel-Load Weighers

The method of testing wheel-load weighers for compliance with the influence

factors requirements was briefly discussed. The conclusion was that a test stand using a load cell as a reference standard may be used to test wheel-load

weighers because of the large tolerance applicable to them. However, the considerations listed below must be satisfied.

1. A load cell used as the force standard will be calibrated by dead-weights.

2. The force standard load cell will be recalibrated at specified intervals.

3. The stability of the force standard load cell will be demonstrated by inter- comparing it, over its full test range, with one or more other load cell force standards. Control data will be maintained on these intercomparisons.

4. The temperature sensitivity of the load-conducting system consisting of the load cell force standard, the readout instrument, and connecting cables

will be determined and test data will be corrected accordingly.

5. The creep characteristics of the force standard load cells at the test temperatures will also be determined and test data will be corrected accordingly.

Guidelines for the frequency of calibrations and load cell intercomparison along

with test procedures will be documented. The NBS will draft a recommendation

for review.

113
Executive Committee

VII Additional Board of Governors' Issue

In the June 5, 1987 letter, Mr. Peter Perino, Transducers, Inc., suggests that

improved control of production load cells can be improved by requiring that the manufacturer certify that all parts produced as the stated model number will meet the required specifications. The Board of Governors will review the proposal

to determine if NTEP should require manufacturers to provide such a statement. NTEP Policy and Procedures, Section I, Applicants for Evaluation, states that

devices will be manufactured to replicate the device that has been evaluated.

Requiring the manufacturer to certify that production units will conform to evaluated types emphasizes a point that is critical for fair competition. It is conceivable that manufacturers would provide such a certification statement if asked regardless of the level of quality control on production. The significance

and benefit of requesting a certification statement should be explored.

114
Laws and Regulations Committee

REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Allan M. Nelson, Chairman

Chief, Weights and Measures

State of Connecticut

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

200 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Laws and Regulations submits its Final Report to the 72nd

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

The report consists of the Interim Report printed in the NCWM "Program and

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

Meeting.

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

HANDBOOK 130 210 Series

Uniform Weights and Measures Law 211 Series

Uniform Weighmaster Law 212 Series

Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation 213 Series

Uniform Regulation for the Method

of Sale of Commodities 214 Series

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation 215 Series

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary

Registration of Servicepersons

and Service Agencies for Commercial

Weighing and Measuring Devices 216 Series

Uniform Open Dating Regulation 217 Series

Uniform Regulation for National

Type Evaluation 218 Series

HANDBOOK 133 230 Series

OTHER ITEMS 250 Series

This year's Report contains no items in the 215, 216, or 218 series. Table A on the following two pages identifies items contained in the Report by

Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. Table B lists the Appendices to the Report. Table C contains the results of voting.

115
Laws and Regulations Committee

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

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

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

in the Interim Agenda, but were withdrawn from the Committee's consideration.

The reasons for withdrawal are given in the text of the Report. The titles of voting items are identified in bold face print followed by a "V" after the item

number. In the Report, the key text upon which a vote is to be taken is also highlighted by bold face print. All other listed items are information items.

Before voting, the Committee grouped the less controversial voting items into a "consent calendar," which was voted on as a block. These items are marked

after the item with a "VC."

Table A

INDEX TO REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No. HANDBOOK 130 210-1 Proposed Uniform Motor Fuel Law and 119

Regulation

210-1A V Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law 121 210-1B V Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel 121 UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

211- 1 Proposed Section 1.10. Net Weight 122 211-2 V Section 22. Offenses and Penalties 123

212 UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW 125 UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

213-1 VC Proposed Section 2.9. Definition of 126 "Petroleum Products"

213-3 VC Section 10.9.2. Textiles 127 213-2 V Proposed Section 11.4. Small Packages of 128

Meat or Meat Products

213-4 W Labeling of Nonalcoholic Malt 129 Beverages

213- 5 Editorial Review of the Uniform 129 Regulation

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF

COMMODITIES

214-1 V Section 1.2. Bread 129 214-2 VC Section 1.7. Other Milk Products 131 214-3 VC Section 1.9. Pricing of Bulk Food 131 Commodities

116
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No. UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

214-4 Section 2.3.3. Quantity (of Fireplace and Stove 132 Wood/Wood Chips or like Products Used for Seasoning)

214-5 VC Section 2.12. Polyethylene Products 132 214-6 Proposed Section 2.15. Compressed or Liquefied 134 Gases in Cylinders

214-7 VC Section 2.17. Bark Mulch 136 214-8 Section 2.20. Liquefied Petroleum Gas 137 214-9 W Miscellaneous Items: Soups Sold by Volume, 139 Roofing

UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION

217-1 VC Section 3.4.4. Expression of Month and 139 Day

HANDBOOK 133 230-1 Sampling Plans and MAV's 140 230-2 V Section 1.9. Allowances for Variations Due to 141 Moisture Loss or Gain

Section 2.14. Moisture Allowance

Proposed Section 3.17. Flour

230-3 VC Section 5.4. Polyethylene Sheeting 142 OTHER ITEMS

250-1 Task Force on Commodity Requirements 143 250-2 Task Force on Motor Fuels 143

117
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table B APPENDICES

Appendix Reference Title of Appendix Page

Key No. A 210-1 Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law 144 and Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel B 210-2 Recommended Test Method for Packages 148

of Flour

C 250-2 A Basic Motor Fuels Testing Laboratory 158

ORDER OF PRESENTATION

The consent calendar was first presented and adopted. Separate votes of the

NCWM were requested on Items 210-1A, 210-1B, 211-2, 213-2, 214-1, and 230-2. The results of voting are summarized in Table C. The details of the voting on Item 210-1B are described at the end of that Item. Table C

VOTING RESULTS

Reference

Key No. or Subject

House of State RepresentativesHouse of Delegates Results

Yes No Yes No

Consent

calendar

46 0 68 0 Passed

210-1A 48 0 68 0 Passed

210-1B, To consider amendment

11 31 15 46 Failed

210-1B, To end

debate

45 1 67 3 Passed

210-1B, As pre- 46 sented by Committee

1 63 10 Passed

118
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table C (Continued)

VOTING RESULTS

Reference

Key No. or Subject

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates Results

Yes No Yes No

211-2 40 4 74 0 Passed

213-2 48 0 74 2 Passed

214-1 44 2 61 12 Passed

230-2 45 0 69 2 Passed

Report in its entirety

48 0 68 0 Passed

Much of the report contains recommendations to revise or amend National Bureau

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

or NBS Handbook 133, Second Edition, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged

Goods." Proposed revisions to the handbooks are shown in bold face print by

eres9-mg--ou-t what is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be added. Entirely new sections proposed for the handbooks are designated as such and shown in bold face print.

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in the order they appear in Table A)

HANDBOOK 130 210-1 PROPOSED UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL LAW AND REGULATION

(This introduction is an information item.)

(See also Item 250-2 on the Task Force on Motor Fuels)

During the 71st National Conference Interim Meeting of January 1986, the Task Force on Motor Fuels provided the Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee

with a draft of a Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law and a draft Uniform

Regulation for Motor Fuel. The Task Force recommended a year's delay in Conference action to allow:

(1) the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), upon whose

standards the drafts are based, to confirm new test methods for oxygenated fuels, and

119
Laws and Regulations Committee

(2) the ethanol industry to evaluate the impact of ASTM P176 "Proposed

Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel." The L&R Committee therefore published the proposed law and regulation as an information item in its report at the 71st Annual Meeting, July 1986. (See pages

135-139 of the Report of the 71st NCWM 1986.) The following discussion is based on that version, and the final Committee recommendation is printed in Appendix A. At the Interim Meeting in January 1987, it was reported to the L&R Committee

that ASTM P176 will be letter-balloted this spring by ASTM Subcommittee D02.A

on Gasoline. ASTM members generally agree that, if the negative votes on this ballot can be resolved at their June 1987 Meeting, further ballots by higher

levels within ASTM (Committee D02 and the Society) can be handled expeditiously.

Most of the oral discussion and written testimony provided at the Interim Meeting

centered on Section 2.1. of the Proposed Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel,

which would require gasoline and gasoline-alcohol blends to meet ASTM P176

"Proposed Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel." Although

ASTM P176 cites Clean Air Act waivers of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), it also states in paragraph 1.3 (of P176), "With regard to fuel properties, including volatility, this specification may be more or less restrictive than the EPA rules, regulations, and waivers."

In fact, EPA waives ASTM volatility limits for blends of unleaded gasoline and

ethanol at the present time. The agricultural industry, the ethanol industry,

gasoline-alcohol manufacturers, and marketers requested specific language in the Uniform Regulation to recognize the EPA volatility exemption. The Motor

Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) argued that volatility standards

should apply uniformly to all gasoline and gasoline-alcohol blends for the benefit of the motoring public. While the Committee is sympathetic to the concerns

of the MVMA, it cannot recommend adoption of a national standard in direct

conflict with EPA requirements. In January, the Committee therefore drafted

the following text to add to the end the first sentence in Section 2.1.: "except

that volatility standards for unleaded gasoline blends containing up to 10% ethanol

shall not be more restrictive than those adopted under the EPA Clean Air Act

waivers." This wording would alert states to the existence of the EPA waivers.

It would also permit those states that adopt the regulation to track the EPA

waivers as they change over time. For this reason, the Committee also recom- mends deleting the second sentence in Section 2.1. (concerning a maximum oxygen content of 3.7% by weight) because EPA waivers for gasoline-alcohol blends

beyond this amount have been withdrawn.

The following editorial corrections were also made to the regulation:

(1) A definition for "diesel fuel" was added.

(2) Section 2.3. on kerosene was deleted since such motor fuel would be

sold as diesel fuel, covered under Section 2.2. of the regulation.

120
Laws and Regulations Committee

(3) Section 3. of the regulation is identical to Section 2.19. of the Uniform

Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities. Changes were

to Sec. 2.19. at the 71st NCWM are reflected in Section 3.

210-1A V PROPOSED UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL INSPECTION LAW

(This item was adopted.)

The Committee recommends adoption of the Uniform Motor Fuel Law as printed on pages 144 through 146.

210-1 B V PROPOSED UNIFORM REGULATION FOR MOTOR FUEL

(This item was adopted; further information concerning the vote follows the text.) The Committee is pleased to report that ASTM standard P176 was favorably

balloted by Subcommittee D02.A at its June meeting, and that P176 will go

forward to full committee ballot (Committee D02) this fall. P176 will be as- signed an ASTM number when it goes to full membership ballot, but that is not expected until early spring of 1988. However, the Committee has heard

from several states that are anxiously awaiting NCWM recommendations in order

to begin legislative work. The Committee believes that ASTM P176 will eventually

be the proper standard for states to adopt, but because of the timing of the

NCWM vote as relative to the final ASTM vote, the proposed uniform regulation can reference only the "most recently adopted ASTM standard" (currently

ASTM D439). The explicit intent of the Committee is that this reference will be editorially changed in the next edition of H-130 following full ASTM adoption

of P176. This approach ensures that the regulation will, from the outset, incor- porate a fully adopted and recognized ASTM standard.

The Committee believes that a broader reference to the Clean Air Act needs to be made in the proposed regulation since EPA rule-making may take the form

of new rules and regulations promulgated by EPA (not just Clean Air Act

waivers). The Committee is also convinced that standards must be imposed on any base gasoline used in blending with ethanol. Therefore, for the above

reasons, the Committee recommends the following revision to the Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel, Section 2.1. as proposed at the Interim Meeting:

2.1. Spark-ignition motor fuel (as defined in this regulation) shall meet

ASTM- PWr--"Proposed - Speetfteation - lor - Atrtomothre - Spark-Ignition

Engine- Fvtei1^ the most recently adopted ASTM standardl for spark

ignition motor fuel, except that volatility standards for unleaded

gasoline blends containing up to 10% ethanol shall not be more restric- tive than those adopted under the rules, regulations, and Clean Air Act waivers of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-Glean-A-ir Aet-wa4vera provided that the gasoline used in the blend meets the

volatility specifications of ASTM for the area and season in which

the blend is sold.

1 This language will be revised editorially when ASTM P176 is adopted and

assigned an ASTM number.

121
Laws and Regulations Committee

With this revision, the Committee recommends the Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel printed on page 147. An amendment was offered from the floor to delete all text after "the most

recently adopted ASTM standard for spark ignition motor fuel." The motion to hear the amendment was defeated. Discussion resumed on the item as offered

by the Committee. After considerable discussion, a motion was made to end

the debate. The motion carried. Then the vote was taken on the item as presented by the Committee. The item was adopted.

UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

211-1 PROPOSED SECTION 1.10. NET WEIGHT

(This is an information item.)

Section 1.2. of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law defines "weight":

"The term 'weight' as used in connection with any commodity means net weight..."

The term "net weight" is not defined.

The State of North Carolina found the definitionl in Black's Law Dictionary2 not entirely satisfactory for a particular problem they faced. For retailers

selling wrapped candy from bulk displays, merely deducting the tare weight of the poly bag filled by the consumer does not satisfy the requirement to sell by

net weight: a deduction for the individual piece coverings must also be made.

The Committee deliberated on a draft definition as follows:

1.10. Net Weight. — The term "net weight" means the weight of a commodity or collection of commodities, excluding any material(s)

or substance(s) not considered to be part of the commodity,

including, but not limited to containers, bags, wrappers, packaging

materials, labels, individual piece coverings, decorative accompaniments, coupons, etc.

lNet Weight. The weight of an article or collection of articles, after

deducting from the gross weight the weight of the boxes, coverings, casks,

etc., containing the same. The weight of an animal dressed for sale, after

rejecting hide, offal, etc. 2Black, H. C, Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, West Publishing Co.,

St. Paul, MN, 1979.

122
Laws and Regulations Committee

This proposal was discussed within the context of several issues.

1. It is the intent of this proposed definition to include truck loads of commodities, not just packages ("containers").

2. It is not the intent to define the net weight of packaged goods as requiring

dry tare, ("...excluding... substance(s) not considered to be part of the commodity" could just as well be interpreted as excluding liquids not considered

part of the commodity at the time of sale.)

3. It is also the intent to permit more specific definitions as the occasion

warrants. ("...material(s)...not considered... part of the commodity" might

include dirt or "foreign material" in a commodity.)

Although it is inconvenient to go elsewhere to define net weight, the Committee

is not prepared to carrying this definition forward for Conference action without

serious review. The Committee does not want to create unnecessary problems.

Therefore, the Committee would like comments on:

(1) the relative need to include the definition of net weight in the law; and

(2) potential misinterpretations to which the draft definition above might

be subject.

211-2 V SECTION 22. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

(This item was adopted.)

Section 22. (a) of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law specifies that no person

shall use or have in possession for use in commerce any incorrect weight or measure. The Committee recommends that this subsection be expanded to prohibit

the sale of incorrect weights or measures. Enforcement problems occur when companies, upon occasion, have been found

routinely selling and installing incorrect devices. When the weights and measures

official finds such devices, the law allows citation only against the user, not

against the seller: the law prohibits the use of incorrect devices, but not their sale. The Committee members believe that businesses should be protected from

purchasing equipment that ought not to be offered for sale. Representatives

of scale manufacturers expressed some concern with the recommendation because

they have no control over the application of a scale (which could make the

scale "incorrect"). The Committee believes that the addition to the law would

be a useful tool against repeated intentional sales of incorrect devices, but (as always) it will require careful application of the law to avoid problems suggested

by the scale manufacturers. This recommendation would permit a jurisdiction

to take appropriate action against the seller of an incorrect device and would

strengthen type evaluation requirements in the law.

123
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) asked whether the recommendation

proposed by the Committee is legal. A careful review of the question posed by

the SMA leads the Committee to conclude that its recommendation is legally

sound based on the following rationale:

Section 12 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law sets out the powers and

duties of the director of the department of weights and measures of a state or other governmental unit. In particular, Section 12.9. authorizes the director to inspect and test weights and measures "offered or exposed for sale." Further,

under Section 13 of the Uniform Law, the director has certain special police

powers, including those which authorize the seizure, for use as evidence, of any incorrect or unapproved weight or measure "offered, or exposed for sale or

sold in violation of the provisions of this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant

thereto." (Section 13.3.). In addition, the director is authorized under Section

13.5. to "arrest ... any violator of this Act." The Uniform Weights and Measures Law specifies powers and duties and special

police powers of the director in Sections 12 and 13 as indicated above. NBS

Handbook 44 delineates requirements in the form of specifications and toler- ances that weighing and measuring devices must meet. However, the sale, or offer for sale, for use in commerce of incorrect weighing and measuring devices

is not specifically listed as a prohibited act in Section 22 "Offenses and Penalties"

in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law. Accordingly, the Committee recom- mends that Section 22 be expanded to prohibit the sale of incorrect weights or measures as a logical and appropriate step to improve the Uniform Law. In that connection, it should be noted that this addition to the "Offenses and

Penalties" section is similar to provisions in the laws of a number of states, including Maryland, West Virginia, Wisconsin, California, and Illinois. As a criminal statute, this would be strictly interpreted. A jurisdiction seeking to enforce this provision would have to show that the seller knowingly

sold or offered for sale for use in commerce an incorrect weight or measure. Under this addition to Section 22, a seller would not be responsible, for actions

taken by the purchaser or distributor, in which the seller did not participate

or have prior knowledge. Thus, the seller would not be liable:

(1) if a purchaser or distributor modified a scale obtained from a seller; or,

(2) if a scale were used in trade after the seller informed the purchaser that

the scale was not appropriate for that use.

In cases such as those noted above, the Committee feels that the seller would

be protected from prosecution. Only sellers who knowingly violate the provision

would be subject to prosecution. The Committee therefore recommends the

following revision to Section 22: Any person who violates the following enumerated provisions or any provision of the Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, for which

a specific penalty has not been prescribed, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,

124
Laws and Regulations Committee

and upon a first conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 or more than $500, or by imprisonment for not more than three

months, or both. Upon a subsequent conviction thereof, he shall be

punished by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for up to one year, or both. No person shall:

(a) Use or have in possession for use in commerce any incorrect

weight or measure.

(b) Sell or offer for sale for use in commerce any incorrect weight

or measure.

(c) (fr) Remove any tag, seal, or mark from any weight or measure

without specific written authorization from the proper authority.

(d) (c) Hinder or obstruct any weights and measures official in the

performance of his duties.

UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW

212 UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW

(This is an information item.)

The Committee sent out a questionnaire to state directors concerning the status of adoption of the NCWM Uniform Weighmaster Law by each state and asked

for recommendations for necessary amendments to the law. Forty-eight responses (out of fifty-three) were received. The Committee thanks

all those who assisted in this data collection.

The Committee plans to present a full report of its survey at the 1988 Interim

Meeting, together with recommendations for Conference action.

Recommendations for revision that have been received to date include those

listed below.

1. Require all users of large capacity devices (not just weighing devices) to be licensed.

2. Require all weighing to be done by licensee (grocery stores, etc.).

3. Require those who "certify correct quantities" (for example, calibrate a vehicle tank) to be licensed.

4. Add civil penalties for minor infractions, rather than making every offense

a criminal offense.

5. Add appeal rights.

6. Better define when a public weighmaster is required.

125
Laws and Regulations Committee

7. Require that all bulk commodities intended for sale and loaded into a vehicle must be weighed by a licensed public weighmaster before delivery

and that the original weight certificate must be presented to the purchaser

at the time of delivery.

8. Require that a tare be determined for every weighment.

9. Eliminate requirements that a public weighmaster:

a. be or intend to become a U.S. citizen (Section 3); b. be a state resident (Section 3); c. be a minimum of 21 years of age (Section 3); and

d. take an oath (Section 9). 10. Eliminate requirements that:

a. the license have a rigid date of expiration (Section 8); and

b. the scale be inspected annually by a weights and measures officer

(Section 12).

11. Require the seal to be applied over the weighmaster's signature (Section 9). 12. Change "carbon" copy to "duplicate" copy (Section 14). Preliminary results show that more than 30% of the respondents do not have

weighmaster requirements. Only 20% of those who reported having requirements,

reported any suspensions or revocations of a license in the last 10 years, with

only 4 convictions. Perhaps of greater significance, the responses from 20% of the jurisdictions indicate inadequate staff to enforce a law that is perceived to be of low priority or only a revenue-generating requirement.

The Committee recommends that this item be carried over. UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

213-1 VC PROPOSED SECTION 2.9. DEFINITION OF "PETROLEUM PRODUCTS"

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

(This was a carry-over item and was Item 213-1 in the 71st NCWM.)

The Committee was asked to define packaged "petroleum products", which would

be subject to the reference temperature of 60 of in the Uniform Packaging

126
Laws and Regulations Committee

and Labeling Regulation, Section 6.5.(b), 6.6.(b), 7.4.(b), and 7.5.(b). Products

that have been questioned include: brake fluid, copier machine dispersant,

antifreeze, cleaning solvents, sewing machine lubricant, camping fuel, alcohol,

and synthetic motor oil. Certain companies noted that some cleaning solvents are referenced to 68 OF when sold at retail to consumers, but that the reference temperature is 60 of when the same product is sold in 55-gallon drums. The

State of California noted that some camping fuels were intended to power "pressurized" camping equipment, such as lights and stoves, should also be subject to the 60 OF reference temperature.

The Committee therefore recommends that the following definition be added to the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation:

2.9. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. - The term "petroleum products" shall be

construed to mean gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, or any product

(whether or not such a product is actually derived from naturally

occurring hydrocarbon mixtures known as "petroleum") commonly

used in powering, lubricating, or idling engines or other devices, or

is labeled as fuel to power camping stoves or lights. Therefore,

sewing machine lubricant, camping fuels, and synthetic motor oil are "petroleum products" for the purposes of this regulation. Brake fluid, copier machine dispersant, antifreeze, cleaning solvents, and alcohol are not "petroleum products."

213-3 VC SECTION 10.9.2. TEXTILES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

A consumer products firm that manufactures furniture in European standard

sizes also supplies packaged bed sheets for its beds. The dimensions of its mattresses differ from U.S. sizes customarily known as "twin," "double," etc. Since the dimensions of the mattresses for which the sheeting and blankets

have been designed are not equivalent to U.S. dimensions, it had been recom- mended to the Committee that a specific exemption for this type of product be

added.

The American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. and the International Sleep

Products Association requested retention of the NCWM recommended requirement

to provide the name designation for bed sheets and pillowcases that now exists

in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c). The Committee is convinced that the consumer

uses and needs these name designations ("twin", "king", etc.) in identifying

these products, that consumers do not bring the exact measurements of their mattresses with them when they shop for sheets, and that consumer confusion

would result if these name designations were not required wherever appropriate.

(Sheeting designed for mattress sizes different from ASTM standard sizes would

not need to bear such name designations.) The Committee also recommends

editorial changes to reverse the order of recommended units from "centimeters

or inches" to "inches or centimeters," and changing the examples to inches.

Therefore, the following revision to Section 10.9.2. is recommended:

127
Laws and Regulations Committee

(a) The quantity statement for fitted sheets and mattress covers shall state, in inches or centimeters er-inehes, the length and width of

the mattress for which the item is designed, and the size designation

of the mattress if the item is intended to fit a mattress identified

such as "twin," "double," "queen," "king," "California king," etc. (Ex^

ample: "Double Sheet for 54 inch x 75 inch 135 -centimeter--x—190 eentimeter mattress.")

(b) The quantity statement for flat sheets shall state, the -size -designation

of -the - mattress-for -whieh-the- sheet- is -designed,- -such- -asJttw-in-,J,-ttdeubief^^kingf^ete-.--The-quafrtity-st-at-efflent-also-shaH-state in inches or centimeters er-inehes, the length and width of the mattress for which the sheet is designed, followed in parentheses by a statement,

in inches or centimeters er-inehes, of the length and width of the

finished sheet. Hie quantity statement shall also state the size designation of the mattress for which the sheet is designed, such as "twin,"

"double," "queen," "king," " California King", if the item is so designed.

(Example: "Twin Flat Sheet for 39 inch x 75 inch 100-eentHneter-x

1:90 -centimeter mattress (66 inch x 96 inch finished size.")

(c) The quantity statement for pillowcases shall state the-size -designation-©£ -the -pi-How- -for- -whieh- 1he-©iUowease-is -designedj- -such -as ^euth^-"s tandard; n -and -"queen;11 -ete-.- -The -quantity- -statement also-shaH:

sta-te in inches or centimeters or-mehes, the length and width of

the pillow for which the pillowcase is designed, followed in parentheses

by a statement, in inches or centimeters er-inehes, of the length

and width of the finished pillowcase. The quantity statement for pillowcases shall also state the size designation of the pillow for which the pillowcase is designed, i.e., "youth," "standard," "queen,"

etc., if the item is so designated. Example: "Standard Pillowcase for 20 inch x 26 inch 50 -centimeter- x- -66- eenti-meter pillow (20 inch x

30 inch 5$ -centimeter-x—75- eenti-meter finished size).")

213-2 V PROPOSED SECTION 11.4. SMALL PACKAGES OF MEAT OR

MEAT PRODUCTS

(This item was adopted.)

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations for meat do not

require individually wrapped and labeled packages of less than 1/2 ounce to bear a net weight statement if the shipping container bears a net weight state- ment. 9CFR 317.2(9)(i) states: Individually wrapped and labeled packages of less than 1/2-ounce net weight

which are in a snipping container, need not bear a statement of net quantity of contents as specified in this paragraph (h) when the statement of net quantity of contents of the shipping container meets the requirements of

this paragraph (h):

128
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation only exempts confectionery

and foods not intended for sale at retail. It is recommended that the Regulation specifically acknowledge the exemption for meat packages of less than 1/2 ounce as well. The Committee therefore recommends that the following subsection be added to the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, and that all subsequent subsections in Section 11 be renumbered:

11.4. SMALL PACKAGES OF MEAT OR MEAT PRODUCTS. - Individually

wrapped and labeled packages of meat or meat products of less than 1/2-ounce net weight, which are in a shipping container,

need not bear a statement of the net quantity of contents when

the statement of the net quantity of contents on the shipping

container is in conformance with the labeling requirements of

this regulation.

213-4 W LABELING OF NONALCOHOLIC MALT BEVERAGES

This item was referred to the Liaison Committee for action. See Item 515 in their report.

213-5 EDITORIAL REVIEW OF THE UNIFORM REGULATION

(This is an information item.)

The State of Virginia had its packaging and labeling regulation reviewed by an expert in the use of the English language. Several recommendations for re- wording for clarity were made as a result of this review. Since Virginia's

packaging and labeling regulation is identical to the Uniform Packaging and

Labeling Regulation, Virginia Weights and Measures has passed the results of

this review along to the Committee. The Committee will study the recommendations during the coming year. Editorial revisions based on this review will be proposed next year. This item will be carried over. UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

214-1 V SECTION 1.2. BREAD

(This item was adopted.)

A 12-oz size for bread has been proposed to be added to Section 1.2. of the

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities. The reasons given

for this proposal are:

(1) because U.S. household size is declining, and the total number of meals consumed at home per week is declining, consumers want smaller portioned bread; and

129
Laws and Regulations Committee

(2) weights and measures jurisdictions have not enforced bread weight

restrictions on in-store bakeries producing unwrapped breads, leading

to an unfair competitive advantage for in-store bakeries that are allowed to respond to consumer needs for smaller portion bread sizes. At the Interim Meetings, two other suggestions were discussed:

(1) eliminating bread sizes altogether; or

(2) eliminating the terminology of "loaf" because specialty breads consisting of segments of much larger loaves are better termed "units,"

rather than "loaves."

The Committee heard strong opposition from several weights and measures jurisdictions to the suggestion of dropping all bread sizes. It was argued that bread

is a basic commodity, and the food shopper has strong expectations for standar- dized sizes in staples such as milk, butter, flour, and bread. On the other

hand, several weights and measures officials contended that the method of sale restrictions in their states were a result of direct requests of the bakery industry.

The Committee is committed to retaining the size restrictions because there is no jurisdiction with unit pricing requirements that extend to small stores, where

much bread is sold. When the Committee examined the suggestion of eliminating the term "loaf" and "twin or multiple loaf," it was faced with defining "bread." For example,

bread sticks are not ordinarily considered "bread." The Committee decided to include wording so that portions of loaves which are prepackaged as a "unit" are covered under this method of sale. The Committee reminds weights and measures officials that Section 1.2. pertains to both packaged and unpackaged bread ("..whether or not wrapped...").

The Committee recommends the following change to Section 1.2: 1.2. BREAD. - Each loaf and each unit of a twin or multiple loaf made or procured for sale, kept, offered, exposed for sale, or

sold, whether or not wrapped or sliced, and each portion of a

loaf that is prepackaged, shall have a weight per subsection

1.2. (a) or subsection 1.2.(b); provided, that the provisions of

this section shall not apply to biscuits, buns, or rolls of inch-

-pound sizes 4 ounces or less or of metric sizes 100 grams or

less, or to "stale bread" sold and expressly represented at the

time of sale as such, and when so sold, the wrappers shall be

deemed not to be packages for labeling purposes.

(a) Inch-Pound Weights. - 1/2 pound, 3/4 pound, 1 pound, 1-1/2

pounds, or a multiple of 1 pound.

(b) Metric Weights. - 250 grams, 375 grams, 500 grams, 750 grams, or a multiple of 500 grams.

130
Laws and Regulations Committee

214-2 VC SECTION 1.7. OTHER MILK PRODUCTS

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar)

Editorial corrections are proposed to clarify the meaning of this section. The

term "multipack" is not defined; the term "multi-unit package" as defined in Section 2.8. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, is recommended

to replace the term "multipack". In addition, the question arises from time to time of whether the proviso of 6 ounces or less applies to the total net weight

of the multi-unit package or only to the net weight of single servings in the multi-unit package. It is clear from study of past Conference reports that the

requirement is to apply to the single servings.

Therefore, the Committee recommends the following revision to this section:

1.7. OTHER MILK PRODUCTS. - Cottage cheese, cottage cheese products,

and other milk products that are solid, semi-solid, viscous, or a mixture

of solid and liquid, as defined in the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance of

the U.S. Public Health Service, as amended in 1965, shall be sold in terms of weight; provided, that cottage cheese, cottage cheese products, sour cream, and yogurt shall be packaged for retail sale only in weights per subsection 1.7(a) or subsection 1.7(b), and provided further, that

the total net weight of multi-unit packages need not comply with

subsections 1.7(a) or (b) if their individual units comply. fthHtmaek

or -single-

servings tneh-pound- -sizes- of-6-ounees- or-less- -shaH-be-sold only -in- -whole -ounee- 4neremettts-,- and- *hat- -metric- sizes-of-200- tjframs or-less- -sha44 -be- sold -only-in- -25-gram- inerements-r (a) Inch-Pound Weights - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 64, 80,

and 128 ounces avoirdupois.

(b) Metric Weights - 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250, 375, 500, 750 grams; 1, 2, and 4 kilograms.

214-3 VC SECTION 1.9. PRICING OF BULK FOOD COMMODITIES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

It has been recommended that this section be clarified so that display price

signs, window ads, and newspaper ads also be required to indicate the price in whole units and not in common or decimal fractions. The additional wording

would make unambiguous the Conference position adopted at the 60th and 61st Annual Meetings that advertising only a price per quarter pound, as is still practiced at many delicatessen counters, needs to be changed to advertising per whole pound. It is thought that the term "pricing" in this section has

been interpreted as merely requiring a device that computes per pound. The

Committee recommends the following revision:

1.9. ADVERTISING AND PRICING PRICE COMPUTING OF BULK FOOD

COMMODITIES. -

1.9.1. PRICE COMPUTING. - The price of b -Bulk food commodities or food commodities not in package form

and sold by weight shall be priced computed in terms

131
Laws and Regulations Committee

of whole units of weight( i.e., pounds, ounces, grams,

kilograms, etc.) and not in common or decimal fractions.

1.9.2. PRICE ADVERTISING. - The price of bulk food commodities or food commodities not in package form

and sold by weight shall be advertised or displayed

in terms of whole weight units of pounds or kilograms

only, not in common or decimal fractions or in ounces. A supplemental declaration in common or decimal

fractions, or in ounces in print no larger than the

whole unit price, is permitted.

214-4 SECTION 2.3.3. QUANTITY (OF FIREPLACE AND STOVE WOODWOOD CHIPS OR LIKE PRODUCTS USED FOR SEASONING)

(This is an information item.)

The Committee has been asked to include the proper method of sale of packaged

wood chips, such as hickory or mesquite, used for barbecue seasoning or flavoring

in Section 2.3.3. of the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities. Section 2.3.3. does not now cover wood chips; it only covers logs.

The Committee members agree that Section 2.3.3. needs editorial work. It now

covers fuel wood sold from bulk, single logs, and packaged logs. Several new

products, including pelletized wood chips used for stove fuel and wood shavings, were brought to the attention of the Committee. In addition to a method of

sale by weight or volume, the Committee will also address test methods and

appropriate units to be declared on the label. The Committee will carry this item over until next year.

214-5 VC SECTION 2.12. POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

See also Item 230-3 on polyethylene sheeting.

Different labeling requirements currently apply to sheeting and film depending

upon whether they are consumer or nonconsumer products. For consumer sheeting

and film, declaration of the area in square feet or square meters is required.

The area statement is not required for nonconsumer sheeting and film products. Because nonconsumer polyethylene products are commonly found in retail con- sumer outlets, the Committee recommends that an area declaration be required,

whether or not the sheeting or film is intended as a consumer product.

The Committee also recommends adding the requirement to label the thickness

in terms of mils (0.001 in) since this is the longstanding trade custom that

should be continued in order to avoid confusion on the part of the purchaser.

Finally, the Committee recommends requiring the declaration of the capacity of bags, since this is already contained in Section 10.8.2. of the Uniform Packaging

and Labeling Regulation. The proposed revision to Section 2.12. is as follows:

132
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.12. POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS. - 2.12.1. Consumer and nonconsumer products offered and ex- posed for sale at-ret*tt shall be sold in terms of as given in subsection 2.12.1.1. 2.12.1.1^ SHEETING AND FILM. -

(a) length and width

(b) area in square feet or square meters

(c) thickness in mils

(d) weight

2.12.2. Consumer products offered and exposed for sale at

retail shall be sold in terms as given in subsections

2.12.2.1., 2.12.2.2., and 2.12.2.3.

2.12.2. U FOOD WRAP. -

(a) length and width

(b) area in square feet or square meters

2.12.32.2. LAWN AND TRASH BAGS. -

(a) count

(b) dimensions

(c) thickness in mils

(d) capacityl

2.12.42.3. FOOD AND SANDWICH RAGS. -

(a) count

(b) dimensions

(c) capacityl The capacity statement does not apply to fold-over

sandwich bags.

2.12.3. Products not intended for to be offered or exposed

for sale at the retail consumer shall be offered

and- exposed--for—sale sold in terms of as given

in subsection 2.12.3.1.:

2.-t2-.-5-.-- SHEETING-AND-FH^Mt - length

wieth

(e)~ tlnckness

{dy—weight

lSee Section 10.8.2. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

133
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.12.&.31l. BAGS. -

(a) count

(b) dimensions

(c) thickness in mils

(d) weight

(e) capacityl

2.12.^4. DECLARATION OF WEIGHT. - The labeled state- ment of weight for polyethylene products under

sections 2.12.1.1^ 2.-1t2v&t, and 2.-t2v67 2.12.3.1. shall be not less than the weight calculated by

using the following formula:

W = T x A x 0.03613 x D, where

W = net weight in pounds

T = nominal thickness in inches

A = nominal length in inches times nominal

width2 in inches

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard Dl50 5-68

"Standard Method of Test for Density of

Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique"

(or latest issue)

0.03613 is a factor for converting g/cm3 to lb/in3.

214-6 PROPOSED SECTION 2.15. COMPRESSED OR LIQUEFIED GASES

IN CYLINDERS.

(This is an information item.)

The Thermophysics Group of the National Bureau of Standards has worked closely

with the Compressed Gas Association to produce a set of tables (published in NBS Technical Note 1079) that the bottled gas industry uses when declaring

the net contents of products such as acetylene, oxygen, argon, helium, etc. In order to get these tables uniformly recognized as the national standard, the

Compressed Gas Association has asked that these tables be referenced in NBS

Handbook 130, "Uniform Laws and Regulations," and in NBS Handbook 133,

"Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods." The NBS Office of Weights and

Measures also receives frequent requests for information on testing gas cylinders

safely and with respect to accuracy of labeling. OWM generally references State of California procedures for use in the testing of gas cylinders.

1 See Section 10.8.2. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

2The nominal width for bags in this calculation is twice the labeled width.

134
Laws and Regulations Committee

Section 2.15. addresses only LP Gas cylinders. It is proposed to expand the language in the section to include all compressed or liquefied gases in cylinders,

including products such as liquefied petroleum gases, acetylene, oxygen, argon, nitrogen, helium, and hydrogen. The proposal has been patterned after California's requirements.

Several related issues were discussed at the Interim Meeting. California Weights

and Measures recommended rerducing the current allowable difference

between the actual tare weight and the stamped tare weight of cylinders (section

2.15.) to 1/4%, and to apply this to all cylinders of compressed gases. The Committee believes that the allowable difference should be retained at 1% because

the U.S. Department of Transportation uses that level. It also needs to be

clarified that this proposal is intended to apply only to refillable cylinders, and

specifically exempts disposable cylinders. California Weights and Measures also recommended that Gas be sold only by weight because, as a mixture of substances, it cannot be tested by weight and converted to volume. Industry representatives pointed out that filling by volume is the only feasible means for permanently

installed cylinders and very large cylinders. Therefore, the Committee recommends

at this time that LP Gas sales be permitted both by weight and volume.

The Committee is ready to recommend the substantial changes to Section 2.15. printed below, but feels that a complete test procedure must be incorporated

into Handbook 133 to permit safe testing of cylinders. The Compressed Gas

Association has volunteered to review the test procedures used in California,

to propose additional precautions and procedures to protect the less experienced

testing official, and to address the full range of product cylinder sizes. The

Committee intends to propose this revision plus testing procedures to be incorporated into H-133 next year. The Committee provides the following proposed

revision of Section 2.15. for information only:

2.15. COMPRESSED OR LIQUEFIED GASES IN REFILLABLE CYLINDERS

This Section does not apply to disposable cylinders of compressed or liquefied gases.

2.15.1. NET CONTENTS. - The net contents shall be expressed in terms

of cubic feet or cubic meters; pounds and ounces; or kilograms.

A standard cubic foot of gas is defined as a cubic foot at a tem- perature of 70 QF and a pressure of 14.696 psia (or metric equivalent) except for liquefied petroleum gas as stated in Section

2.20. 2.15.2. CYLINDER LABELING. - Whenever cylinders are used for the

sale of compressed or liquefied gases by weight, or are filled by weight and converted to volume, the following shall apply:

2.15.2.1. h HS D- -PETROLEUM—GAS- -G¥L4N-D£ft - -¥A-RE- -WHGtt-T-S- Wfrenev^r- -stamped- tare-weigtrt-s-ea -eyBnders- are-e mp-loyed

kv -the- -s-ft4e-e£ -4iqucf-i e d- petf eleu m- -ga-s-j -tfre -fk?-Hmv-mg- -s-fra4i appiy: The tare weight shall be legibly and permanently

stamped or stenciled on the cylinder. All tare weight

values shall be preceded by the letters "TW" or the words

"tare weight". The tare weight shall include the weight

oTthe cylinder (including paint), valve, and other permanent

135
Laws and Regulations Committee

attachments. The weight of a protective cap shall not be

included in tare or gross weights.

2-.-tfrv,4r(a) ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE. - The allowable difference

between the actual tare weight and the stamped (or

stenciled) tare weight for a new or used cylinder

shall be one percent of the actual tare weight. The

t-a-pe- -we4gh-t-s-haH--ifi-e4ttde- -t he- we4gfrfc-o€- 1 he-ey-lmd-erH-neiueiflg- pain fc)y- va-lv e- -and- -ot-frer- pef-manen^-at-t*ehmefrt-sr —The- w-e-igh-t- -of- -a- -orot-eet-ive- oap--sfraii -not- -be mohioeo-in- -t-ere- -or- -gross- -w etg-h tsr

&.-i£v3.(b) AVERAGE REQUIREMENT. - The tare weights of cylinders at a single place of business found to be in error predominantly in a direction favorable to the

seller and near the allowable difference limit shall be

considered to be not in conformance with these require- ments.

2.15.2.2. ACETYLENE GAS CYLINDER TARE WEIGHTS. - Acetone

in the cylinder shall be included as part of the tare weight.

2.15.2.3. ACETYLENE GAS CYLINDER VOLUMES. - The volumes

of acetylene shall be determined from the product

weight using approved tables such as those published

in NBS Handbook 133 or those developed using 70 QF

and 14.7 cu ft per pound at one atmosphere as conversion factors.

2.15.2.4. COMPRESSED GASES SUCH AS OXYGEN, ARGON,

NITROGEN, HELIUM, AND HYDROGEN. - The volumes

of compressed gases such as oxygen, argon, nitrogen,

helium, and hydrogen shall be determined using the

tables and procedures given in NBS Technical Note

1079, Tables of Industrial Gas Container Contents

and Density for Oxygen, Argon, Nitrogen, HeliumT

and Hydrogen supplemented by additional procedures

and tables in NBS Handbook 133.

214-7 VC SECTION 2.17. BARK MULCH

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar)

The Committee discussed broadening the scope of this section from bark mulch

only to all mulch. The present section requires that bark mulch be sold in terms

of volume measure. Many competing types of mulch, two examples being

"hardwood mulch" and "cypress mulch," are now labeled by weight. The consumer

is unable to make a value comparison between these similar, competing items and

bark mulch.

At the Interim Meeting, the National Bark Producers Association supported the

inclusion of all mulch in this section and recommended a definition to clarify

136
Laws and Regulations Committee

which products are to be considered as mulch and therefore subject to a volumetric declaration.

The Committee recommends the following revision to Section 2.17: 2.17. BARK MULCH

2.17.1. DEFINITION

2.17.1.1. MULCH. — Any product or material except peat or peat moss (see Section 2.4.) that is advertised, offered for sale, or sold

for primary use as a horticultural, above-ground dressing; for decoration, moisture control, weed control, erosion control, temperature

control, or other similar purposes.

2.17.2. QUANTITY. ~ All bark mulch shall be sold, offered, or exposed

for sale in terms of volume measure: in inch-pound units in terms of the

cubic yard or cubic foot; in metric units in terms of the cubic meter or

liter.

214-8 SECTION 2.20. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

(This is an information item.) At the 71st Annual Meeting, 1986, the Conference adopted a new section (2.20) to the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities requiring

that LP Gas be sold on a temperature-compensated basis. The original proposal

for the sale of LP Gas vapor would have required both temperature and altitude compensation (using the definition for the standard cubic foot of vapor taken

from Section 3.33. LPG VAPOR-MEASURING DEVICES of NBS Handbook 44).

However, at the 71st Annual Meeting, industry representatives indicated that at- mospheric pressure corrections are not applied in every state. The Committee

therefore recommended and the Conference adopted a "metered cubic foot"

standard corrected to 60 oF for vapor. The purpose of that Committee recommendation was to move ahead with temperature compensation requirements while providing industry an opportunity to make recommendations concerning require- ments for atmospheric pressure corrections. The National LP Gas Association

has conducted a survey on the practice and the need for altitude corrections,

and has reported the results of its findings to the Committee.

Only four states were identified as enforcing requirements to make altitude

adjustments (California, Hawaii, Idaho, and New Mexico).

Although the use of vapor meters for LP Gas sales is not widespread (mainly

in mobile home parks), the Committee believes that weights and measures officials should be reminded that paragraph UR.2.3. of Section 3.33. in Handbook 44 requires altitude correction in billing. To emphasize the relative importance of

137
Laws and Regulations Committee

this correction, Table 1 from NBS Handbook 117, "Examination of Vapor-Measuring

Devices for Liquefied Petroleum Gas," is reprinted below. This table shows that a change in elevation of as little as 500 feet may affect the resulting product

delivery by 2%, and that altitude corrections as large as 20% would be commonplace in many Western States. The Committee will not recommend additions to Handbook 130, but recommends

that weights and measures officials enforce existing requirements in H-44.

TABLE 1. Altitude corrections factors (customary) [8, 9]

Elevation

Altitude correction

factor

Barometric

pressure Productpressure

(11 in WC)

feet psi psi - 150 to 400 1.02 14.64 15.04 above 400 to 950 1.00 14.35 14.74 above 950 to 1550 0.98 14.05 14.45 above 1550 to 2100 .96 13.76 14.15 above 2100 to 2700 .94 13.46 13.86 above 2700 to 3300 .92 13.17 13.56 above 3300 to 3950 .90 12.87 13.27 above 3950 to 4550 .88 12.58 12.97 above 4550 to 5200 .86 12.28 12.68 above 5200 to 5a50 .84 11.99 12.38 above saso to 6500 .82 11.69 12.09 above 6500 to 7200 .80 11.40 11.79 above 7200 to 7900 .78 11.10 11.50 above 7900 to 8600 .76 10.81 11.20 above 8600 to 9350 .74 10.51 10.91 above 9350 to 10100 .72 10.22 10.61 above 10100 to 10850 .70 9.92 10.32 above 10850 to 11650 .68 9.63 10.03 above 11650 to 12450 .66 9.33 9.73 above 12450 to 13250 .64 9.04 9.44 above 13250 to 14100 .62 8.75 9.14 above 14100 to 14950 .60 8.45 8.85

138
Laws and Regulations Committee

214-9 W MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: SOUPS SOLD BY VOLUME, ROOFING

SHINGLES

(This is an information item.)

Two items were brought to the attention of the Committee, not as specific

proposals but as problems that need further clarification and exploration.

(1) Soup is often sold by volume in the salad bar or delicatessen area of super- markets. Problems cited were: the stores may not provide measure containers

for the soup; the purchaser may not be able to fill the container to brim-full even if a measure container is provided; and soup in the salad bar area may be

perceived as competing with canned soup that is sold by weight. The Committee

did not have time to explore this item in any depth but recommends that regional

weights and measures associations consider it, if they feel it has merit. The

Committee was of the initial opinion that hot, ready-to-eat soup sold by volume

in the delicatessen does not compete with canned or boxed soups sold in other

parts of the supermarket.

(2) Roofing shingles have labeled designations that lead purchasers to believe

that they are buying by weight, for example "90-pound shingles." It was asked

whether this designation refers to an actual weight, a weight per square, or whether "90-pound" reflects quality. Section 2.6.2.2. of the Uniform Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation prohibits the use of weight in the quantity statement or in supplementary quantity declarations. The Committee will communicate directly with the weights and measures official who brought this question to its attention. In the opinion of the Committee, this is an enforcement

problem, and does not dictate new or revised wording to NCWM recommendations.

UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION

217-1 VC SECTION 3.4.4. EXPRESSION OF MONTH AND DAY

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

When the month is indicated by the first three letters of the month in the

"sell by" date, Section 3.4.4. of the Uniform Open Dating Regulation requires

the day of the month expressed as a numeral to follow the month designation.

It has been suggested that the regulation permit the numeral indicating the

calendar day to precede the month when the month is designated by its first three letters. There would be no confusion on the part of the purchaser whether

the date were given as "Jan 20" or "20 Jan". Furthermore Section 4.3. of the Open

Dating Regulation requires that the day of the month, if used in the "best if used by" date, appear prior to the month, for example "30 Jan 81". The Committee recommends the following revision:

3.4.4. EXPRESSION OF MONTH AND DAY. - Except as provided for in Section 3.4.1., the date shall be designated by:_

(a) the first three letters of the month preceded or followed

by a numeral indicating the calendar day^or designated -by

139
Laws and Regulations Committee

(b) the month represented numerically followed by a numeral

designation of the calendar day.

The month and day designation shall be separated by a period,

slash, dash, or spacing. When a numeral designation of the

first nine days of the month is used, the number shall include a zero as the first digit; for example, 01 or 03. The Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) has placed this item on its agenda for action at its next annual meeting, so that both the NCWM and AFDO

make identical recommendations to states in regard to open dating regulations.

HANDBOOK 133 230-1 SAMPLING PLANS AND MAVs

(This is an information item.)

The State of New York proposed smaller MAVs and a change to the sampling

plans (both Categories A and B) to permit a larger number of short weight

packages in any sample to exceed the MAV. The reason given for this proposal

is that the MAVs in the present Handbook (Second Edition) are too large. Last year, at the 71st Annual Meeting, the Committee set forth two criteria

which the members felt were needed to evaluate proposals to modify the MAVs.

These are quoted below from last year's report.

1. The MAVs must be evaluated within the context of the average

requirement and the sampling plans they are intended to be used

with. The proposed MAVs 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 package in a sample of 10 to exceed

the MAV.

2. The data supporting recommendations for changing the MAVs must:

(a) be based on package data that also meet the average requirement;

and

(b) include hard-to-pack as well as easy-to-pack packages, and

standard pack as well as random pack.

Although this year's proposal from New York is framed within the sampling

plans in Handbook 133, no actual package lot data was submitted to support

the proposal. Therefore, the Committee is not recommending any action on this item, nor is it carrying the item over. Some Committee members expressed the

140
Laws and Regulations Committee

belief that the average requirement is such a powerful tool in package testing

that they cannot understand the need for tightening the MAV's. Easy-to-pack

products, such as sugar, may not need as large limits to reasonable variations

(MAV's) as hard-to-pack products, such as grapefruit, but the administrative ease of having one set of limits apply to all products far outweighs the benefits of setting tighter limits that apply only to a limited set of products.

230-2 V SECTION 1.9. ALLOWANCES FOR VARIATIONS DUE TO MOISTURE LOSS OR GAIN

SECTION 2.14. MOISTURE ALLOWANCE

PROPOSED SECTION 3.17. FLOUR

(This item was adopted)

Based on the work of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements (see Item 104-6A of the Executive Committee Report), the Executive Committee recom- mend that the NCWM (1) adopt a policy for weights and measures officials to use in checking packages of flour subject to moisture loss; and (2) incorporate

the specific procedures that were used during the Pilot Study conducted in the

fall of 1986 into Handbook 133. Appendix B is provided as a stand-alone document that will be modified slightly to fit the format of H-133.

The Committee recommends that Appendix B be added to Chapter 3, "Methods

of Test for Packages Labeled by Weight," as "Section 3.17. Flour". The following additional revisions are proposed:

Revise Section 1.9. ALLOWANCES FOR VARIATIONS DUE TO MOISTURE LOSS

OR GAIN, second paragraph page 1-11 as follows: On the basis of technical and regulatory information presently available, the handbook cannot provide definitive moisture allowances; however, it does

provide or one procedures- (for flour, see Section 3.17. ) for determining

compliance with those regulations that allow for quantity variations due

to moisture loss or gain. (The agencies responsible for such regulations

are listed in Table 1-1, page B-l.)

Revise Section 2.14. Moisture Allowance, by deleting the last sentence on page

2-29. Replace with:

See also the procedure given for flour in Section 3.17.

141
Laws and Regulations Committee

230-3 VC SECTION 5.43. POLYETHYLENE SHEETING

(This item was adopted as part of thee consent calendar.)

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

The relationship between the three dimensions (length, width and thickness)

and weight is given in Section 2.12.7. of the Uniform Regulation for the Method

of Sale of Commodities. It is: Weight (W) = Thickness (in) x area (in2) x density (g/cm3) x 0.03613

where 0.03613 is a factor to convert g/cm3 to lb/in3.

Weights and measures officials' first check of the label is usually for the consistency of the labeled declarations, making sure that the declared net weight

is the weight calculated by the formula given above. The question arises as to the density of polyethylene to use in this calculation. The nominal density of polyethylene sheeting and film is 0.92 g/cm3 for clear product or 0.93 g/cm3 for black product. These are the most common densities for of these products. The State of California uses a minimum value of 0.915 g/cm3 and Handbook 133 (page 5-12) recommends a minimum of 0.914 g/cm3.

At the Interim Meeting, several polyethylene film packagers showed letters and

product literature from their resin suppliers that indicated densities of 0.91 g/cm3, (or lower) for the resins used as the basic materials for the film. At

that meeting, the packagers did not state the density for the final polyethylene

film coming from their packaging lines. Later, data from a private laboratory was submitted to the Committee. Using the ASTM standard method, densities were determined for 15 different clear polyethylene products from four manufacturers; the lowest measured density was 0.9198 g/cm3.

The Committee has collected further data on 44 samples of sheeting and film

and finds that 0.92 g/cm3 is the correct minimum density for product marketed

at the present time. The Committee realizes that manufacturers may incorporate

lower density resins in sheeting and film in the future and stands ready to modify H-133 if necessary. The Committee believes that this issue is not significant and may cause confusion

among weights and measures officials, perhaps making them reluctant to check

this product. Every jurisdiction that has tested film finds weight shortages of

10 and 20%, not minor variations in weight that might be attributable to using

0.92 g/cm3 for a film that is actually 0.915 g/cm3 in density.

Therefore, the Committee continues to encourage weights and measures officials to test polyethylene products and use a density of 0.92 g/cm3 when calculating

product weight. The Committee recommends changing the minimum density value for sheeting and film in Handbook 133 to 0.92 g/cm3, on page 5-12, last line on

the page, as follows: Assume a minimum density (D) of 0.92 0.-9-M g/cm3.

142
Laws and Regulations Committee

OTHER ITEMS

250-1 TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

(This is an information item.) See Item 230-2 and Appendix B. Also see Item 104-6A of the Executive Committee Report.

250-2 TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

(This is an information item.) As part of the Liaison Committee Report at the 71st Annual Meeting (see Report

of the 71st NCWM 1986, p. 235), the Task Force on Motor Fuels announced

plans to provide specifications for a basic fuels testing laboratory. Appendix C

provides these specifications, including types of tests, equipment, number of personnel, building size, and estimated costs.

A. Nelson, Connecticut, Chairman

T. Brink, Vermont

S. Colbrook, Illinois K. Simila, Oregon

N. D. Smith, North Carolina

C. S. Brickenkamp, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

143
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX A

UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL INSPECTION LAW

SECTION 1. PURPOSE

There should be uniformity among the requirements for motor fuels of the several States. This Act provides for the establishment of quality specifications for all liquid motor fuels, except aviation fuel and liquefied petroleum gases. SECTION 2. SCOPE

The Act establishes a sampling, testing, and enforcement program, provides

authority for fee collection, requires registration of motor fuels, and empowers

the State to promulgate regulations as needed to carry out the provisions of the Act. It also provides for penalties.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS

As used in this Act:

3.1. MOTOR FUEL. — The term "motor fuel" means any liquid product used for the generation of power in an internal combustion engine, except aviation

fuel and liquefied petroleum gases.

3.2. DIRECTOR. — The term "Director" means the of the Department of

3.3. PERSON. — The term "person" means either plural or 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.

144
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 5. GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS

The Director shall have the authority to: 5.1. Enforce and administer all the provisions of this Act by inspections, analyses, and other appropriate actions.

5.2. Have access during normal business hours to all places where motor fuels are marketed for the purpose of examination, inspection, taking of samples,

and investigation. If such access shall be refused by the owner or agent

or other persons leasing the same, the Director or his agent may obtain

an administrative search warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.

5.3. Collect, or cause to be collected, samples of motor fuels marketed in this State, and cause such samples to be tested or analyzed for compliance

with the provisions of this Act.

5.4. Issue a stop-sale order for any motor fuel found not to be in compliance

and remand said stop-sale order if the motor fuel is brought into full compliance with this Act.

5.5. Refuse, revoke, or suspend the registration of a motor fuel.

5.6. Delegate to authorized agents any of the responsibilities for the proper

administration of this Act. SECTION 6. REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF MOTOR FUELS

All motor fuel must be registered by the name, brand, or trademark under which

it will be sold. Such registration shall include:

(1) Name and address of person registering the motor fuel.

(2) Antiknock index or Cetane number, as appropriate, at which the motor

fuel is to be marketed.

(3) Certification, declaration, or affidavit that each individual grade or type of motor fuel shall conform to the provisions of this Act.

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. PROHIBITED 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. 145
Laws and Regulations Committee

(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 perfor- mance 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 $ t or imprisonment for not more than

years, or both.

SECTION 10. INJUNCTION

The Director is authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any

provision of this Act. SECTION 11. SEPARABILITY 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. CITATION

This Act may be cited as "The Motor Fuel Inspection Act of SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act shall become effective on

146
Laws and Regulations Committee

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR MOTOR FUEL

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

1.1. SPARK-IGNITION MOTOR FUEL. — The term "Spark-ignition motor fuel" means gasoline and its blends with oxygenates such as alcohols and ethers.

1.2. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLEND. — For labeling purposes, the term "gasoline-

-alcohol blend" means any spark-ignition motor fuel containing one percent

or more by volume, of ethanol, methanol, or any combination of ethanol

and methanol.

1.3. DIESEL FUEL. — The term "diesel fuel" means any petroleum liquid suitable for the generation of power by combustion in compression ignition (diesel)

engines.

SECTION 2. FUEL SPECIFICATIONS

2.1. Spark-ignition motor fuel (as defined in this regulation) shall meet the most recently adopted ASTM standardl for spark-ignition motor fuel except that, volatility standards for unleaded gasoline blends containing up to 10%

ethanol shall not be more restrictive than those adopted under the rules,

regulations, and Clean Air Act waivers of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, and provided that the gasoline used in the blend meets the volatility

specifications of ASTM for the area and season in which the blend is sold.

2.2. Diesel fuel shall meet current ASTM D975, "Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils." SECTION 3. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLENDS

3.1. METHOD OF RETAIL SALE. - All motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for

sale, or sold, at retail containing at least one percent by volume of ethanol,

methanol, or a combination shall be identified as "with" or "containing" (or similar wording) "ethanol," "methanol," or "ethanol/methanol" on the upper

fifty percent of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous

from the driver's position, in a type at least 1/2 inch in height, 1/16

inch stroke (width of type).

3.2. DOCUMENTATION FOR DISPENSER LABELING PURPOSES. ~ The retailer must be provided, at the time of delivery of the fuel, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, the presence and maximum

amount of ethanol, methanol, or any combination of ethanol/methanol (in terms of percent by volume) contained in the fuel. This documentation

is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the total oxygen content of the motor fuel before blending.

lThis language will be revised editorially when ASTM P176 is adopted and

assigned an ASTM number.

147
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX B

RECOMMENDED TEST METHOD FOR PACKAGES OF FLOUR

3.17. FLOUR

3.17.1. Background for Administrator and Inspector

The test procedure for flour is based on the concept of a "gray area"

that extends down from the labeled weight to 97% of the labeled weight.

It applies only to package lots checked at retail or wholesale, but not to those checked in the plant. The gray area does not represent a tolerance, nor do lots in the gray area automatically pass or automatically fail. If the average weight of a package lot is in the gray area, the moisture content at time of test and a time of pack must be determined in order

to judge whether the lot is in compliance.

3.17.1.1. Enforcement action, inside and outside the gray area The overall objective is to test packages as ordinarily as possible,

If package lots are short weight, but fall in the gray area, additional

information must be obtained in order to decide whether or not the

lots are in compliance. Ordinary enforcement action is to be taken

on packages found short weight and outside the gray area. For package lots found short weight, but inside the gray area, a decision must be made as to what to do with the packages while additional information is being collected. It is recommended that a hold or stop sale order be put on these packages until their final status can be determined. If the product cannot be held and subsequent

tests or information indicate that the lot is out of compliance, seek

the strongest legal remedy.

3.17.1.2. Which packages to consider as part of the lot being tested

When taking a sample from retail, an inspector will ordinarily record

lot codes but will not select the lot for test by sorting the packages

by lot code. The sample is selected from all packages of the same

brand, style, and size on the shelf or in the stock room. If short

weight is found and the results are in the gray area, a followup test

will now require sorting out the lot codes in order to ascertain the

moisture content at the time of pack (which varies from lot code to

lot code).

148
I Laws and Regulations Committee

3.17.1.3. Package Errors The discussion below is based on recording the package weights as "package errors" — how much and in what direction the actual package

weight differs from the labeled weight. Thus, if a package labeled 2 lb actually weighs 2.10 lb, it is assigned a package error of +0.10 lb. The same situation holds for average package weights. If the average

of 10 package weights is 1.994 lb, the average package error is (1.994

lb - 2.000 lb =) -0.006 lb.

3.17.1.4. Package lots have to meet the average requirement and the individual requirement

Using H-133 Category B sampling plansl for packages not subject to possible moisture loss, packages must meet two requirements:

(1) The average net weight of a sample of 10 or 30 packages must

equal or exceed the labeled net weight. Thus, the average

package error (for the 10 or 30 packages) must be zero or plus.

(2) No single package among the 10 or 30 packages in the sample

can be short weight by more than the MAV.

For flour, these two requirements become the upper boundary for the gray area. 97% of the labeled net weight defines the lower boundary of the gray area. (See Figure 3-13.)

Example: The Gray Area for 5 lb Flour Packages

Average package error

i

1 1

1 1

! I 1

Lot fails Out of Compliance gray area Lot passes

In Compliance

Figure 3-13. An example of the gray area. For example, for 5-lb packages of flour, 3% of the labeled weight is 0.15 lb. Therefore, if an average package error for a lot of 5 lb pac- kages is minus but between zero and -0.15 lb, the lot is in the gray area. The lot should not be passed or failed: more information

will be needed to decide its disposition.

If the official is following a Category B sampling plan, a package

that is short weight by more than the MAV may put the lot in the

lFor simplicity only, this background discussion presupposes a Category B sampling plan test. 149
Laws and Regulations Committee

gray area. The official will have to add the 3% gray area to the

MAV to find the limits of the gray area for an individual package.

Table 3-3 is provided to help the inspector determine whether or not the lot is in the gray area for all the common sizes of flour. This Table is under Section 3.17.3.7. 3.17.1.5. How many lots will be in the gray area The flour survey conducted by the NCWM Task Force on Commodity

Requirements, printed in the Report of the 71st National Conference

on Weights and Measures, 1986, page 70, is the source from which the

estimates are predicted. If all flour samples are drawn from retail, an estimated 5 or 6 out of 10 lots will have a minus average error and will be in the gray area. This will vary according to the time of year of testing. Probably only one out of 100 lots found at retail would be rejected outright because of being outside the gray area.

3.17.2. Field Equipment

Use Scales and Weights recommended in Section 3.1. (H-133) and glass

canning jars (1/2 pint or larger) and lids. 3.17.3. Procedure

3.17.3.1. Summary Sheet

A Flour Summary Sheet is provided at the end of 3.17. for use with

the standard pack report form, page A-l. The following information can be entered on the Flour Summary Sheet when setting up a test: Type of Item No. on

Information Examples Summary Sheet

Brands Name of brand Item 1

150
Laws and Regulations Committee

Type of Information Examples

Item No. on Summary Sheet

Type of flour all purpose

self rising Item 2 whole wheat, rye, graham, etc. DO NOT USE THIS TEST FOR

CORN MEAL OR MIXES

Labeled

weight (lb)

2 lb

5 lb 10 lb

Item 3

up to 100 lb Location of

test

R, W, P, L Item 4 R for retail, W for wholesale, P

for packager's storage area, or L for on-line at the packaging

plant.

3.17.3.2. Selection of Lots When an inspection lot composed of packages bearing different lot codes is found in the gray area, sort the inspection lot by lot code.

Redefine the inspection lot to be those packages bearing the same

lot code. Record the lot code in Item 5 on the Summary Sheet. The

lot code is the packer's own identifying marks, not the universal

product code (UPC). The size of the inspection lot, Item 6 on the

Summary Sheet and box 5 on the Standard Pack Report Form, page

A-l, is the number of packages with a single lot code available for inspection at one location.

When there is no lot code, note this on the summary sheet. Contact

the packager to determine if there is any identifying lot code information. (See Section 3.16.3.9. for how to contact the packager.)

3.17.3.3. Sample Size

Record the sample size in Item 7 on the Summary Sheet and in box

6 on the Standard Pack Report Form, page A-l.

3.17.3.4. Tare Open the number of packages indicated in the sampling plan to get an average tare weight of the bag or other packaging material. (These

packages can be in addition to the sample selected for net weight

determination, if you prefer.) Record the average tare weight in Item 8 on the Summary Sheet and in box 13 on the Standard Pack

Report Form.

151
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.17.3.5. What a Package Should Weigh

Add the average tare weight to the labeled net weight to get the

weight that the package is supposed to weigh, "nominal gross weight."

average tare weight + labeled weight = nominal gross weight

Record this value on the Standard Pack Report Form (page A-l, box

14).

3.17.3.6. Package Errors Use the package checking scale to compare the packages in the sample

with the nominal gross weight. A package that weighs more than

the nominal gross weight is overweight and has a "plus package error." A package that weighs less than this is underweight and has a "minus

package error." package error = package gross weight - nominal gross weight

Record these values on the Standard Pack Report Form (page A-l,

checkerboard area.)

3.17.3.7. The Average Requirement

The explanation below follows a Category B sampling plan. When

following a Category A plan, compute T before determining whether

the lot in question falls in the gray area. Compute the average error for the package lot under test. Sum all individual package errors and divide by the number of packages in the sample. Do not delete any individual package errors from the

calculation. Record the average error on the Standard Pack Report

Form in box 18, and in Item 9 on the Summary Sheet.

If the average error is zero or plus, the lot passes the average require- ment.

Consult Table 3-3 to find the limits of the gray area for the average

net weight. (According to the labeled weight in column 1, look up the

limits of the gray area in column 2.) Note that the gray area only

applies if testing is at retail or wholesale. If the test is being conducted at the packaging plant, there is no gray area.

If the average error is minus by more than 3% of the labeled weight

(assuming a category B test), the lot does not comply; it fails the

test. Reject the lot and take the usual enforcement action. (Circle "no" in Item 11 on the Summary Sheet.)

152
Laws and Regulations Committee

If the average error is minus, but by less than 3% of the labeled

weight, the lot is in the gray area. Go to that part of the procedure

headed "What to do when the lot is in the gray area," Section 3.17.3.9. (Circle "yes" in Item 11 on the Summary Sheet.) For example, if the average package error for a lot of 2 lb packages

is -0.05 lb, the lot is in the gray area (the average error is between

zero and -0.06 lb).

TABLE 3-3

Boundaries of the Gray Area for Different Sizes of Flour Packages

The retail or wholesale lot is in the gray area if: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

the

labeled weight

is

the

average package

error is minus and

between zero and

3% of label weight

and

any individual package

error is minus and

is between

the MAV and MAV + 3%

10 lb 20 lb 25 lb 50 lb 100 lb

-0.06 lb -0.15 lb -0.30 lb -0.60 lb -0.75 lb -1.50 lb -3.00 lb

-0.07 •0.14 0.22

0.31

•0.37 0.50

-2.00

-0.13 lb -0.29 lb -0.52 -0.91

-1.12 -2.00 lb -5.00 lb

lblb

lb

3.17.3.8. The individual package requirement

Compare the largest individual minus package error on the standard

pack report form with Table 3-3 (columns 3 and 4) to see if the lot

is in the gray area. The Flour Summary Sheet provides spaces for recording the largest minus package error (Item 10), and recording

whether or not the lot is in the gray area (Item 11). For example, if the package size is 2 lb, the MAV is 0.07 lb (column

of Table 3-3). For package sizes not listed there, see pages B-9 and

B-10, and pages 41 and 42 of the H-133 Field Manual.

The size of the gray area is 3% of the package net weight; for 2 lb this is 0.06 lb. Therefore, an individual short weight package with a

153
Laws and Regulations Committee

package error less than zero but not as much as 0.07 lb would not

fail the lot. If the package error is larger than -0.13 lb (-0.07 lb + -0.06 lb), the lot should be automatically rejected and enforcement

action taken. But if the largest individual minus package error is between -0.07 lb and -0.13 lb, the lot is in the gray area (Table 3-3 columns 3 and 4). 3.17.3.9. What to do when the lot is in the gray area The only way to determine whether flour found short weight at retail or wholesale is short because of underpacking or because of moisture

loss is to test for moisture content.

Fill a canning jar with flour from one packagel from the lot in question. Seal it with a canning lid, label it, and send it to the laboratory

to run a moisture test. The results will be provided in terms of percent moisture content (for example, 10.3%). Record this in Item

12 on the Summary Sheet.

Contact the packager2 to obtain from the contact person the moisture content value at the time of pack for the lot code in question. Record

this in Item 13 on the Summary Sheet. The moisture content at time of pack will normally be between 13.5 and 14.0% for all-purpose

and most types of whole-wheat, graham, etc., flours. Self-rising

flour will be about 0.7% lower in moisture content (between 12.8 and

13.3%). If there is no lot code, assume a moisture content of 13.75%

at the time of pack for all-purpose and all types of whole-wheat

flour; 13% for self-rising flour. Subtract the moisture content value at the time of test from the

moisture content at time of pack:

Moisture loss = moisture content - moisture content

at pack at time of test This is the amount of moisture lost by the flour during distribution.

Record the moisture loss in Item 14 on the Summary Sheet. For example, if the moisture content at time of pack was reported

to be 14% and the moisture content at time of test is 11%, the moisture

loss is 14% - 11%, or 3%. A moisture loss of 1% translates directly

iBoth packages opened for tare may be sampled for moisture determination,

if desired.

2Each State has been sent this information and the Milling Directory as further sources for packager contacts. Available from NBS, OWM or the Millers' National Federation (600 Maryland Ave., Suite 305 W., Washington, DC 20024;

Tele: (202)484-2200).

154
Laws and Regulations Committee

into a weight loss of 1%. If you are testing 2-lb packages of flour,

a 3% moisture loss is a weight loss of 2 lb x 0.03 or 0.06 lb. Calculate the weight loss for the lot under test by multiplying the per- centage moisture loss by 0.01 (to convert it to a fraction) and then

by the labeled weight (to convert it to pounds.) See Summary Sheet

for calculation. Record the weight loss in Item 15 on the Summary

Sheet. For example, if a moisture loss of 3% is found for a 2-lb lot of flour, this is a weight loss of 0.06 lb (2 lb x 3 x 0.01).

If the moisture loss (in item 15) is equal to or larger than the amount

of shortage found for the average error (in item 9), then the lot can be accepted. If the moisture loss is less than the average shortage,

then the lot should be rejected and further enforcement action taken. For example, assume the average package error for a 2 lb lot of packages is 0.05 lb. If a moisture loss of 3% is found, the weight

loss of 0.06 lb (2 lb x 0.03) is more than the amount of shortage

(0.05 lb), therefore the lot would be accepted. Record this in Item

16. Similarly, if there are any individual minus package errors that

exceed the MAV and place the lot into the gray area, add the amount

of weight lost due to moisture loss (Item 15) to the largest individual minus package error (recorded in Item 10). If the resulting package

error is still larger than the MAV (see Table 3-3, third column), the

lot should be rejected. If the resulting package error is smaller

than the MAV, the lot should be accepted. Record this in Item 17. For example, if the largest individual package error for a lot of 2-lb packages is -0.08 lb, this puts the lot into the gray area, even if the average package error is zero or plus. If a moisture loss of 3%

is found, the weight loss of 0.06 lb added to the individual package

error makes the package error -0.02 lb (-0.08 lb + 0.06 lb). The

MAV for 2 lb package lots is -0.07 lb, so this lot passes if the average

is zero or plus.

.17.4. Moisture Content Laboratory Test

3.17.4.1. Equipment

Forced-air (or equipment) laboratory convection oven

desiccator and drying agent

analytical balance

drying dishes with covers

calibrated thermometer

tongs or insulated gloves

155
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.17.4.2. Procedure

1. Set oven to 130 + or - 3 oC. Let temperature stabilize.

2. Weigh at least three empty drying dishes and covers for each

lot of flour being tested (that is, run a triplicate).

3. Weigh covered dishes with about 2 g flour in each one.

4. Uncover dishes, place them in the oven.

5. Start timing for one hour from the time the temperature returns

to 130 oC.

6. Cover the dishes, transfer them to a desiccator, and weigh after the dishes return to room temperature.

7. Compute the moisture content (96) = flour weight - flour weight

before drying after drying x 100

flour weight before drying

8. Average the results on three dishes for each lot.

156
Laws and Regulations Committee

FLOUR SUMMARY SHEET

Date Tested

1. Brand

2. Type of Flour

3. Labeled Weight (lb)

4. Location of Test (RWPL)

o • 5a. Location packed

Fin t a nor»l/oH

c

0

.

Lot size

7. Sample size

8. Tare weight (lb)

Q Average package error (lb) 10. Largest minus package error (lb) 11. Is lot in gray area? (see Table 3-3) Yes No

12. Moisture content at time of test (%)

13. Moisture content at time of pack (96) 14. Moisture loss (96) (= item 13. - item 12.) 15. Weight loss (lbs) (= item 14. x .01 x item 3.) 16. Is weight loss (15.) at least as large

as average package error (9.)? Yes No

157
3) Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX C

A BASIC MOTOR FUELS TESTING LABORATORY

Developed by the

Task Force on Motor Fuels

Introduction

During the 68th National Conference on Weights and Measures, delegates to the Conference voted to establish labeling guidelines for motor fuels containing

at least one percent alcohol. The delegates deemed this action necessary because

motor vehicle manufacturers were qualifying their warranties with respect to some gasoline-alcohol blends (oxygenated fuels), motorists were complaining to weights and measures officials about fuel quality and vehicle performance, and

ASTM was encountering delays regarding the development of quality standards

for oxygenated fuels. While many argued that weights and measures officials should not cross the line from quantity assurance programs to programs regulating

quality, the delegates were persuaded that the issue needed immediate attention. Need for Uniformity

State directors of the several motor fuels testing programs have long recognized

the need for a uniform approach to fuel inspection and regulation. With the

introduction of gasoline-alcohol blends and the rush to promulgate regulations

governing them, this need became even more apparent. Also, many states without an inspection program were being urged by citizens to do something about poor

fuel quality. However, states seeking information on fuels testing found that

such information was not readily available nor was there a single organization

capable of providing guidance from a regulatory perspective. In an attempt to

fill a regulatory and information void, the Chairman of the 69th National Conference on Weights and Measures appointed a Task Force on Motor Fuels. The

task force was given the mission of identifying information and resources that were available from standards development organizations, professional organizations, private companies, trade associations, and state fuels testing programs

which could be used by states and other organizations interested in developing

a fuels testing program.

A fuels testing program is of little value unless fuels are tested for compliance

with recognized standards. ASTM standards are universally recognized and designed to serve m6st of the current vehicle population. Membership in ASTM is highly recommended: it is an invaluable means of establishing contacts with

experts. Whether or not a state decides to fund membership in ASTM, every

158
Laws and Regulations Committee

state motor fuel laboratory should participate in the National Exchange Group,

a quality assurance round robin administered by ASTM Subcommitte D02.01 on Combustion Characteristics of Committee D02. State Operated or Contract

The value of a motor fuels testing program to a state's citizens can be enormous. However, a program is expensive, even if a state chooses to contract fuel testing to a private laboratory. The question is often asked: "Is there a point at which

it is cheaper for a state to operate its own fuels-testing laboratory?" The task force concluded that a program testing 6,000 samples per year (500 per month)

is the minimum level to justify building and equipping a fuels-testing laboratory. For programs expecting to test less than 6,000 samples, contracting the laboratory

analysis may prove to be more economical. However, consideration must be

given to the time required for a private laboratory to complete the analysis.

The value of any inspection program is diminished if laboratory turnaround

time is so great that the product under inspection is consumed before the results of an analysis are known.

There is no better way to understand the complexities of testing than to visit a state with an active program. Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,

North Carolina, and South Carolina all have active programs and are willing to host tours of their facilities. Interested parties are encouraged to make such

a visit. Minimum Program

This document outlines a minimal inspection program. Information is given on

facility needs, recommended ASTM test procedures, approximate cost for equipment, and the number of personnel required for staffing. Many questions and

details remain to be resolved.

The following individuals have served on task forces and are available to answer

questions and provide comprehensive information:

N. David Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

Sydney Andrews, Retired, Florida

Barbara Bloch, California

David Karlish, Arkansas

George Mattimoe, Hawaii

Frank Nagele, Michigan

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

Curtis Williams, Georgia

Steven Hasko, NBS, Technical Advisor

159
Laws and Regulations Committee

Laboratory Facility

A fuels testing laboratory requires a unique building, designed to accommodate

laboratory instruments ranging from very sophisticated atomic absorption

spectrophotometers to octane engines capable of producing severe vibrations.

In addition, extremely flammable liquids will be stored and tested throughout

the facility. Obviously, the facility design must minimize the chances of explosion

and fire, and also withstand the forces in the event of an explosion with the

aid of special pressure hatches and explosion panels. To minimize the exposure

to other personnel and facilities, a fuels testing laboratory should be in a separate building not connected to other structures. Special consideration should be given to the following:

1. Sufficient ventilation to ensure that workers are not unduly exposed to gasoline fumes or other toxic vapors.

2. Fume hoods and exhaust systems in laboratory areas.

3. Drain lines resistant to acid and petroleum products.

4. Traps to prevent petroleum products from entering the sewer system.

5. Special foundations for American Society for Testing and Materials and the Cooperative Fuel Research Committee (CFR) engines. It is recommended that sufficient foundations for future expansion be installed during initial construction.

6. Necessary safety equipment, such as fire blankets, fire extinguishers, eye

baths, etc.

7. Automatic fire extinguisher system for laboratory areas. The system's design

should recognize that some types of laboratory instruments can be damaged

by water or by dry chemical extinguishing systems.

8. An adequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system since many of the testing procedures, particularity octane testing, generate significant amounts of heat.

9. A properly designed and sized electrical system.

10. The laboratory's design must ensure that all fuels testing can be performed

in accordance with ASTM requirements. This consideration is especially

important for the CFR engines. Volume 05.04 of ASTM Annual Book of Standards contains valuable information regarding the design of a knock-testing laboratory.

11. Automatic hydrocarbon monitors to warn of critical accumulation of explosive vapors. Several fixed equipment items are necessary for the laboratory's operation,

including:

160
Laws and Regulations Committee

1. Air compressor and piping of sufficient size to supply the entire laboratory's

needs.

2. Vacuum system for the entire laboratory.

3. Gas and water piped to all areas of the laboratory.

4. Three 500-gallon tanks for storage of leftover fuels. (Larger tanks may be needed if they are also used to supplement the program's vehicle needs.)

The size of the laboratory will depend on the needs of the agency and the

s^ope of the fuels testing program. As previously mentioned, a fuels-testing

laboratory is unique, hence it may be very difficult to justify the conversion

of an existing structure. The following space listing is for a small laboratory

capable of testing 6,000 samples per year. Some space requirements, such as octane testing, may seem large, but it is strongly recommended that 2 additional engine foundations be installed during initial construction.

1. offices, toilet facilities, etc. (as required)

No space requirements are listed for offices, conference room, and personnel

requirements (toilets, break room, etc.) as this must be determined by the user based on program needs and local building codes.

2. octane room - designed for 4 engines (800 sq. ft.)

3. general lab (750 sq. ft.)

4. distillation lab (400 sq. ft.)

5. shipping and receiving (includes preparation area for empty sample containers) (400 sq. ft.)

6. flash point lab (200 sq. ft.)

7. shop area (225 sq. ft.)

8. storage for supplies (225 sq. ft.)

9. flammable storage (may be a separate building) (225 sq. ft.) Total square footage (exclusive of Item 1) — 3225 sq. ft. Including offices, toilet facilities, hallways, etc., the total building size may

well exceed 4000 square feet.

161
Laws and Regulations Committee

Tests and ASTM Test Procedures*

Spark Ignition Engine Fuel-D439/P176

1. Distillation D 86

2. Octane (Anti-knock Index)

Research D 2699

Motor D 2700

3. Reid Vapor Pressure D 323

4. Alcohol Content and Type (ASTM P 176 contains analytical procedures under

consideration)

5. Lead Content D 3237

6. Workmanship Section 6, P176

Diesel Fuel-D975

1. Flash Point D 93 is the preferred method but D 56 may be used in certain

circumstances.

2. Distillation D 86

3. API Gravity D 1298

4. Sulfur Content D 1266 (lamp), D 2622 (X-ray spectrograph), or D 4294 (X-ray

fluorescence)

5. Water and Sediment D 1796

NOTE: The API gravity and distillation results can be used to calculate the cetane index per ASTM D 976. Kerosene-D3699

1. Flash Point D 56

2. Distillation D 86

3. Sulfur Content D 1266 (lamp), D 2622 (X-ray spectrograph), or D 4294 (X-ray

fluorescence)

4. Color D 156

5. Water and Sediment D 1796 General Note: ASTM test methods listed here and/or test methods listed in ASTM standard specifications do not necessarily exclude other ASTM procedures

that are designed for the purpose and that give comparable accuracy.

162
Laws and Regulations Committee

Measurement Assurance and Quality Control

ASTM Subcommittee D02.01, Combustion Characteristics, of Committee D02 oper- ates a National Exchange Group (NEG). There are three subgroups of the NEG:

the Motor Fuel Exchange Group, the Diesel Fuel Exchange Group, and the Aviation Gasoline Exchange Group. Of three types of participation, only two will concern a state laboratory: a "member" laboratory receives monthly samples

and agrees to participate in special methods research; and, a "quarterly participant" receives two sets of samples every three months but is not bound to run special tests. The fee for members or for quarterly participants is currently

$150 per year. Values for the API Gravity (ASTM D287), Reid Vapor Pressure (ASTM D323),

Distillation (ASTM D86), lead content (ASTM D3237), and Hydrocarbon Type

(ASTM D1319) will be reported for all participants along with the research and

motor octane values for spark ignition fuel (D2699 and D2700 methods). API

Gravity (ASTM D287), Distillation (ASTM D86), Flash Point (ASTM D93), Aniline

Point (D611), Kinematic Viscosity (ASTM D445), and Sulfur Content (ASTM

D129) are reported with cetane values for diesel fuel. Operating as a member or quarterly participant in the NEG is the only means

at the national level for assessment of quality in the motor fuel laboratory.

(There are also regional groups operating under the NEG.) Since motor fuel and

diesel fuel samples are somewhat perishable, participation in the NEG is recom- mended for internal quality control and quality assessment. NBS Standard Ref- erence Materials (SRM) 1636a and 1637a (lead in reference fuels) and 1616 (sulfur

in kerosene) should be used to maintain internal quality control for these constituents. In 1987 these SRMs cost approximately $120 apiece.

Further information on these programs are available from:

ASTM - NEG Program Office of Standard Reference Materials

1916 Race Street Bldg 222, Room B-311

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

215-299-5400 301-975-6776

163
Laws and Regulations Committee

Laboratory Equipment and Supplies

Octane Testing

1 CFR Research Method Engine with automatic compression

ratio changer

1 CFR Motor Method Engine with automatic compression

ratio changer

1 Fuel blending system

Humidity controller for CFR engines (either mechanical

or ice tower)

Reference fuels (Iso Octane, N-Heptane, 80/20 blend,

Toluene)

Complete set of mechanic tools and other special

tools

Lift for removing cylinders from engines

Supplies, spare parts, etc. (see attached list)

Distillation Testing

2 Explosion proof refrigerators (18 cu. ft.)

1 Mercury barometer (will also be used for other

tests)

2 Mechanically refrigerated 4 unit distillation apparatus

Supplies, thermometers, distilling flasks,

graduated cylinders, spare parts, etc.

Cost

$80,000

80,000

4,000

2,000

3,600

5,000

2,000

24,150

$200,750

$ 5,000

250

30,000

Total $39,750

$22,500 each,

Total

Note: Because of greater accuracy, automatic distillation units, at should be considered.

RVP Testing

1 5 unit RVP bath $ 2,500

6 RVP bombs 4,200

6 RVP gauges 1,200

1 Mercury manometer for calibrating RVP gauges 700 164
Laws and Regulations Committee

1 Small explosion proof freezer

Supplies, thermometers, etc.

Sulfur Testing

1 X-ray fluorescence analyzer

Supplies, test cups, etc.

Cost

1,900 500 Total $11,000

$25,000

Total $27,500 Note: Low sulfur testing will require another instrument such as a lamp

method apparatus.

Alcohol Testing

1 Gas chromatograph

Supplies, compressed gases, etc.

$26,000

Total $27,800

Lead Testing

1 Atomic absorption apparatus

Supplies, flasks, accessories, etc.

Kerosene-Diesel Testing

2 Tag closed cup flash testers

2 Pensky-Martens flash testers

10 Hydrometers for API gravity

1 Saybolt chromometer (color test)

Supplies, spare parts, thermometers, etc.

$20,000

1,500

Total $21,500

3,000

5,000 200

1,500 800 Total $10,500 Note: To calculate cetane index, a separate diesel-kerosene distillation unit is desirable ($2,500)

165
Laws and Regulations Committee

Cost

Miscellaneous Items

100 Sample cases to transport samples (construction must be acceptable for transport via commercial carrier) $10,000 1200 Sample containers (either one qt. flint glass

(amber since some gasoline additives are light

sensitive) or metal containers with caps) 3,500

1 Oven for drying bottles 3,000

1 7.6 liter/hour water still 4,000

1 Copy machine 3,000

1 Analytical balance 2,000

Miscellaneous supplies 1,500

Books including ASTM Standards 500 Total $27,500

Office Equipment and Supplies

No listing is given since needs are determined by the program's scope. However,

the cost of items such as desks, filing cabinets, typewriters, forms, and

miscellaneous office supplies must be considered when planning an initial budget.

Summary

Octane Testing

Distillation Testing

RVP Testing

Sulfur Testing

Alcohol Testing

Lead Testing

Kerosene-Diesel Testing

Miscellaneous Items

Office Equipment and Supplies

Note: Prices based on 1986 information.

Personnel

Fuels testing must be done in strict conformance with ASTM testing procedures,

and competent laboratory personnel is a necessity. Octane testing in particular

requires individuals with highly specialized talents. These individuals must

$200,750

39,750

11,000

27,000

27,800

21,500

10,500

27,500

(as needed)

Total Start Up Needs $365,800

166
Laws and Regulations Committee

exhibit good judgement and exceptional laboratory skills, and posess the talents of a first class mechanic since all engine maintenance and repair is usually the

responsibility of the engine operator. Obviously, experienced octane engine

operators are difficult to find, and industry generally considers it takes 2 to 5 years to properly train an operator. Other laboratory tests are either not as

highly specialized or follow more closely those analytical procedures familiar to those with an educational background in the physical sciences. For a small laboratory, the following personnel are recommended:

- laboratory supervisor 1 - CFR engine operators 2 - chemist 1 - technicians 2 - clerk 1 Total 7 No allowances have been made for sample collection since the number of required

personnel depends on the size of the jurisdiction and the availability of other

personnel, such as weights and measures inspectors, to obtain samples.

Parts and Supplies for CFR Engines

Quantity Item Cost

Carbon blaster (Waukesha AA110900) $1,320.00

Cylinder overhaul stand assembly

complete (Waukesha 818-1) 1,615.00

Valve seat insert tool (Special made by

machinist) 100.00 Compressor, piston ring (Waukesha 0106965) 101.00 Expander, piston ring (Waukesha 106893) 170.00 Gauge, cylinder depth assembly (Waukesha

A109268-B) 275.00 Valve lifter (Waukesha 0106777) 102.25 Valve grinding tool with suction cup

(Waukesha 075644) 10.00 Gauge, cylinder height (Waukesha A 110546-A) 22.30 Handle, wrench (Waukesha 105450) 11.90 Wrench, crank gear nut (Waukesha 24088) 32.30

167
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

1 Valve seat grinding equipment complete with 3/8

and 7/16 pilots (115V) (Waukesha 106254-A) 934.00

1 Screw Driver, Allen (Waukesha A109802-A) 8.26

1 Pliers, piston pin retaining ring (Waukesha

109885) 12.20

1 Valve retainer block (Waukesha 106821) 26.40

1 Valve retainer block with cylinder overhaul

stand (Waukesha 106821-A) 32.10

1 Wrench, spark plug, 7/8 hex

(Waukesha 24088-S) 5.90

1 Tap, spark plug hole, 18 mm

(Waukesha 110904) 58.50

1 Tap, pickup hole, 7/8 - 18 (Waukesha 110905) 74.80

1 Piston pin remover (Waukesha 109023) 15.70

1 Wrench, spring loaded for TDC (Waukesha

AA24088-U) 65.00

1 Button die 11/16 - 24 for pickup connector

(Waukesha 110902) 116.00

1 Valve depressor assembly (Waukesha A110538) 32.60

1 Burette (Waukesha 109221) 215.00

1 Wrench, flywheel nut (Waukesha 24088-T) 37.00

1 Gauge, feeler (Waukesha 109284) 16.84

1 Remover, valve seat insert (Waukesha

0109405) 295.00

1 Piston ring groove cleaner (Waukesha 106950) 14.00

1 Tool, valve guide alignment

(Waukesha 110653) 13.60

1 Venturi, remover (Waukesha 111367) 6.69

1 Adapter, cylinder sleeve torque wrench

(Waukesha 56372) 44.50

168
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

0"-l" Micrometer (outside) with ratchet

stop and lock nut; carbide faces, graduation

.0001" (Starrett T436RLX-1) 50.05 l"-2" Micrometer (outside) with ratchet

stop and lock nut; carbide faces, graduation:

.0001" (Starrett T436RLX-2) 59.65 2"-3" Micrometer (outside) with ratchet

stop and lock nut; carbide faces, graduation

.0001" (Starrett T436RLX-3) 66.50 3"-4" Micrometer (outside) with ratchet

stop and lock nut; carbide faces, graduation:

.0001" (Starrett T436RLX-4) 72.25 2"-8" Micrometer (inside) graduation: .001" (Starrett 124AZ) 83.25 0"-6" Micrometer (depth gauge) with ratchet

stop and lock nut, in case graduation: .001" (Starrett 440Z-6RL) 94.45 Magnetic base indicator holder (Starrett

657AA) 60.70 0"-1.000" Dial Micrometer (dial gauge)

.001"; One rev.: .100"; dial reading 0-50-0 (Starrett 25-341J) 58.50 0"-1.000" Dial Micrometer (dial gauge)

graduation: .001"; One rev.: .100"; dial reading 0-100 (Starrett 25-441J) 58.50 Crankshaft Distortion, dial gauge 2-3/8" to 18" (Starrett 696Z) 200.00

set Set of (6) No. 579A, 579B, 579C, 579D, 579E,

579F in case (Starrett S579HZ) 82.30 Standard Amplifier, Range: + .006"; minimum

graduation: .0001" (Comtorgage CM2) 145.00 Size range: .344"-. 534", ground to nominal

at .3750" with 6" total in-reach

Comtorgage Expansion Plug) 172.00 Size range: .365"-. 510" (Comtorgage Reference

Ring) 64.50

169
-J Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

27 Ring, piston compression, straight (Waukesha

106222-A) 73.71

9 Ring, piston compression, chrome, straight,

top (Waukesha 106222-B) 47.70

9 Ring, piston, oil, straight (Waukesha 23505) 27.00

2 Cylinder, assembled with valve guides, valve

seat inserts, pipe plugs, valves, valve springs,

studs, tray, piston, piston pin and piston rings + valve rotator (Waukesha FA 109355) 4,660.00

4 Valve, intake (Waukesha 23436-A) 658.00

4 Valve, exhaust (Waukesha 106625) 210.00

4 Pin, intake valve (Waukesha 26800) .24

4 Insert, cylinder valve seat (Waukesha 105987-A) 91.20

2 Guide, intake valve (Waukesha 23109-B) 25.80

2 Guide, exhaust valve (Waukesha 23109-A) 20.60

20 Felt, valve stem (Waukesha B-4680) 39.00

1 Sleeve, cylinder assembly (Waukesha 830-3) 510.00

50 Plug, spark (Waukesha 111460) 170.00

1 Carrier, support and rocker arm assembly

(Waukesha 00110159) 570.00

4 Rod, push, assembly (Waukesha OB-5264) 142.00

6 Gasket, valve spring tray (Waukesha 106424) 2.70

20 Gasket, cylinder guide plate, lower (Waukesha

106721) 14.00

20 Gasket, cylinder guide plate, upper (Waukesha

B-2544) 14.00

6 Shim, cylinder worm shaft (Waukesha 105041) 4.20

2 Ignition trigger (Waukesha 111417T) 182.00

170
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

1 Valve, oil relief, assembly (Waukesha

A109538-A) 135.00

2 Pickup Detonation, assembly

(Waukesha W-109927) 1,625.00

2 Plunger, oil relief valve (Waukesha 106827) 16.52

2 Spring, oil relief valve (Waukesha B-9107-A) 15.02

2 Screw, oil relief valve adjusting (Waukesha 14.34 105593)

5 Gasket, oil relief valve (Waukesha 109561-A) 7.60

1 Screen, oil assembly (Waukesha 0109552) 97.60

10 Gasket, oil screen (Waukesha 109553) 5.80

1 Pump, oil assembly (Waukesha 0110150) 244.00

10 Gasket, oil pump body (Waukesha 109559-B) 29.10

10 Gasket, breather body (Waukesha B-1956-A) 6.20

5 0-ring (Waukesha 157497-M) 4.70

2 Cup, breather valve (Waukesha 110670) 21.60

30 Filter, spin-on (Waukesha 111346) 406.00

5 Gasket, condenser gauge (Waukesha 75552-A) 1.25

2 Glass, condenser gauge (Waukesha B-5094) 7.44

1 Tube, carburetor jet assembly (Waukesha

0-75985-B) 54.30

1 Tube, air bleed carburetor

(Waukesha 75983-B) 55.30

6 Gasket, bleed tube (Waukesha 109778) 2.58

12 Gasket, valve body (Waukesha 75982-A) 5.40

16 Gasket, fiber (Waukesha B-3207) 10.72

2 Glass (Waukesha 75974) 40.60

2 Glass, tank gauge (Waukesha B-5094) 7.44

171
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

16 Gasket, gauge assembly (Waukesha 75552-A) 4.00

16 Gasket, carburetor float (Waukesha 105061) 10.56

50 ft. 50 ft.Tygon tubing 3/8 D X 1/4 ID (Waukesha

441011) 152.00

1 Crankcase drawing (Waukesha L46841C) 7.80

12 Exhaust carbon blaster bags

(Waukesha 110901) 70.20

50 Gasket, pickup (waukesha 11342) 20.00

12 Gasket, carburetor, thick, two-bolt

(Waukesha 75748) 24.00

24 Gasket, carburetor, thick, four-bolt

(Waukesha 109346) 31.68

24 Gasket, exhaust manifold (Waukesha B 2557) 51.84

12 Gasket, carburetor, thin, four-bolt

(Waukesha 109345) 13.44

12 Gasket, coolant condenser body

(Waukesha 75690) 7.92 24 Gasket, water pipe (Waukesha B5096A) 12.24

12 Gasket, mixture heater housing (Waukesha

105991) 40.44

1 Heater, manifold, flanged, 110 volt (Waukesha H-106748-C) 321.00

16 Gasket, carburetor, valve body (Waukesha

75982-A) 7.20

12 Washer, carburetor horizontal fuel jet hole

(Waukesha B-3207) 8.04

12 Washer, carburetor tank gauge, lower

(Waukesha B-5052) 3.36

12 Washer, carburetor tank gauge, upper

(Waukesha B-5068) 3.60

12 Washer, coolant condenser gauge, lower

(Waukesha B-5052-A) 3.36 172
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

24 Gasket, removable spacer (Waukesha 110523) 41.28

1 Manifold, exhaust, hot (Waukesha 023242-A) 130.20

3 Thermometer, air intake (60 - 160 OF), 1/8"

pipe thread (Waukesha 0106317-A) 159.00

3 Thermometer, intake manifold (200 - 350 of),

gland type (Waukesha 0110351) 121.30

1 set Belt, induction motor to engine (50 + 60 cycle), set of 2, research

(Waukesha OB-5500) 55.40

1 set Belt, induction motor to engine (60 cycle),

set of 2, motor (Waukesha 027970) 64.40

1 Controller, temperature with interconnecting cables for use with console

panel (Waukesha AA111412) 1,203.00

1 Probe, thermistor (125 <>F) (Waukesha 110386) 210.00

2 Bead, glass (replacement 125 of) (Waukesha

110386A) 115.00

12 Gasket, thermistor probe (Waukesha BD-190) 6.48

1 Generator, signal, assembly, 120 volt (Waukesha 111605) 860.00

1 Meter, detonation for console panel

(Waukesha A 111263-B) 2,600.00

12 Filter bag carbon blaster (Waukesha 110958) 67.32

1 Pipe, water, assembly (Waukesha 0109131B) 66.40

1 Probe, thermistor (300 °F) (Waukesha

110389) 210.00

2 Bead, glass (Replacement 300 of) (Waukesha

110389A) 115.00

173
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Fred A. Gerk, Chairman

Director, Division of Standards and Consumer Services

State of New Mexico

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances submits its Final Report to the 72nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM).

The Report consists of the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program

and Committee Reports" as amended by Addendum Sheets issued during the

Annual Meeting.

Items are grouped into the following series for ease of reference

Sec. 1.14. General Code 310 Series Sec. 2.20. Scales 320 Series Sec. 2.21. Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems 321 Series See. 2.22. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems 322 Series Sec. 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices 330 Series Sec. 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters 331 Series Sec. 3.32. Liquified Petroleum Gas and

Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices 332 Series Sec. 5.51. Wire and Cordage Measuring Devices 351 Series Sec. 5.53. Odometers 353 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. Table B lists the appendices to the

Report. Table C contains the results of voting.

The items identified by a suffix "W" were on the Interim Meeting agenda for the Interim Meeting as voting items but were withdrawn for future reconsideration. The reasons for withdrawing these items are stated in the report. Items without a suffix are informational.

174
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Voting items are identified in bold face type as well as by a suffix "V" (i.e., 320-1 V).

Before voting, the Committee grouped items they believed to have concensus

support into a "consent calendar" that was offered for voting as a single item.

These items are identified with a suffix "VC". Following Table C, each item is described in detail in numerical sequence of

the Reference Key Number.

Table A

INDEX TO REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

SECTION 1.10. GENERAL CODE

310-1 W G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and 180 Representation

310-2 G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic 180 Adjustable Components

310-3 W G-S.5.1. Indicating Elements - General 182 310-4 W Definitions: Analog Type and Digital Type 183 310-5 Definition of Security Seal 183 310-6 Editorial Changes 183 SECTION 2.20. SCALES

320-1 V S.l.l. Zero Indication 183 320-2 W S.1.9. Prepackaging Scales 184 320-3 W S.l.ll. Provision for Sealing Adjustable 185 Components on Electronic Devices

320-4 V S.2.4.1. Level-Indicating Means: Class II 185 and III Scales with a Capacity Less than

2000 lb 320-5A V Marking Requirements for Indicating and 186 Weighing Elements

320-5B V Marking Requirements for Load Cells 187 320-6 S.6.7. Vehicle Scale Section Capacity 189

N.l.3.4. Vehicle Scale Shift Test 320-7 VC N.1.3. Shift Test 190 320-8 N.1.6. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI): 190 Scales Code

320-9 N.3. Recommended Minimum Test Weights 191 and Test Loads

320-10 W N.5. Influence Factors Test 191 320-11 VC T.l.ll. Tolerance Values - Grain Test 192 Scales

320-12 W Scales Code T.I.2., Table 5 192

175
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (continued)

INDEX TO REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

320-13 VC T.2.6. Sensitivity Requirement - Grain 192 Test Scales

320-14A V UR.1.1. Design Criteria and Tolerances for 193 Crane and Hopper Scales (Other than Grain

Hopper)

320-14B VC T.1.3. Tolerance Values for Crane Scales 194 320-15 VC T.N.3.6.2. In-Motion Weighing Other Than 194 Monorail Scales

320-16 VC T.l.l. and T.1.2. Tolerance Values - Range 195 of Errors for Shift or Section Tests

320-17 W T.N. 4. 5. Time Dependence Test 195 320-18 VC T.N.6. Sensitivity as Applicable to Vehicle, 196 Axle-Load, Livestock, and Animal Scales

320-19 VC T.N.8.2. Humidity 197 320-20 W UR.l. Selection Requirement 198 320-21 VC UR.1.1. Definition of Animal Scales 198 320-22 W UR.2. Installation Requirements 198 320-23 W UR.3.1. Recommended Minimum Load 198 320-24 V UR.3.7. Minimum Load on a Vehicle Scale 199 320-25 VC Definition of Decreasing-Load Test 199 320-26 Report of the Railroad Advisory Committee 199 320-27 VC Report of the Technical Committee on 200 National Type Evaluation - Weighing

Industry Sector

320-28 V S.l.2.1. Weight Units 201 SECTION 2.21. BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

321-1 VC T.4.3. Influence Factors - Radiated 202 Interference

321-2 VC UR.3.2. Maintenance 203 SECTION 2.22. AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS

322 VC Editorial Changes 204 SECTION 3.30. LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

330-1 Combined LMD Code 205 330-2 V Recognize Mass Units for Metering 205 330-3 W S.l. Design of Indicating Elements - 209 Provision for Sealing

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud

330-4 W S.l. 4. Design of Indicating and Recording 209 Elements for Retail Devices

176
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

INDEX TO REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

330- 5 W S. 1.4.3. Display of Unit Price and Product 209

Identity

330-6 W S. 1.4. 4. 2. Money Value Divisions, Digital 209

330--7 vc S.l.4.5. Agreement Between Indications 209

330-8 Wholesale Meters - Product Vaporization 210 and Test Procedure

330--9 vc S.2.7.4. Design of Measuring Elements, for 211 Wholesale Devices Only

330--10 w S.2.7.1. For Wholesale Devices Equipped with 211 Automatic Temperature Compensation

330-11 w S.2.7.3. Provision for Sealing Automatic 211 Temperature Compensators

330--12 w S.2.7.4. and UR.3.5. Location of the 211 Temperature Probe

330--13 V N.4.1. Normal Tests 211

330--14A V T.2.3. Tolerance Values on Wholesale 213 Devices

330--14B V T.2.3. 3. Tolerance for Automatic 214 Temperature-Compensating Systems

330--15 vc UR.1.1. Length of Discharge Hose 216

330--16 vc UR.2.1. Plumb and Level Condition 217

330--17 vc UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification 217 330 -18 vc UR.3.5. 2. Written Invoice 218

330--19 vc Definitions: Face and Side 218

330--20 Report of the Technical Committee on 219 National Type Evaluation - Measuring

Industry Sector SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE-TANK METERS

331 W Ticket Printers 220 SECTION 3.32. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS AND ANHYDROUS

AMMONIA LIQUID- MEASURING DEVICES

332 -1 W S.l.1.5. Money Values - Mathematical 220 Agreement

332 -2 w S. 1.5. 2. 2. Money-Value Divisions, Digital 220 332 -3 vc S.2.5. Thermometer Well 220

332 -4 w S.2.6. Automatic Temperature Compensation 221 332 -5 vc S.4.2. Discharge Rates 221 332 -6 vc UR.2.4. Temperature Compensation 221

177
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (continued)

INDEX TO REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

332-7 VC Weight Indications for Anhydrous Ammonia 222 332-8 V N.4.1. Normal Tests 224 SECTION 5.51. WIRE AND CORDAGE - MEASURING DEVICES

350 W Draft Combined Fabric-Measuring and Wire 225 and Cordage-Measuring Device Code

SECTION 5.53. ODOMETERS

353 VC N.l.3.3. Vehicle Lading 225

T.2. Tolerance Values

SECTION 5.56. GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

356-1 S.l.6.2. Operating Range 226 356-2 S.3. Accessory Equipment 228 356-3 W USDA Moisture Handbook 229 356-4 W Coordination of New Meter Calibrations 229 OTHER ITEMS

360-1 Energy Allocation Systems 229 360-2 Electric Watt-Hour Meter Code 230 360-3 Carbon Dioxide Liquid Measuring Code 230 360-4 OIML Activities 230

The Report contains four appendices which are related to specific Reference

Key Numbers as follows: Table B APPENDICES

Appendix Reference Title of Appendix Page

Key No.

A. 320-27 Report of the Technical Committee on National 233 Type Evaluation - Weighing Industry Sector

B. 330-20 Report of the Technical Committee on National 243 Type Evaluation - Measuring Industry Sector

178
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table B (Continued)

APPENDICES

Appendix Reference Title of Appendix Page

Key No.

C. 360-2 Draft Electric Watt-Hour Meters Code 248

D. 360-3 Draft Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring 254 Devices Code

ORDER OF PRESENTATION

The report was presented to the membership as follows.

1. The Consent Calendar was presented.

2. Two items, 320-24 and 330-2, were removed from the Consent Calendar on

request. These were added to those items to be voted on individually.

Table C

VOTING RESULTS

Reference

Key No. House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results

Yes No Yes No

Consent Calendar 50 0 75 0 Passed

320-1 V 41 5 49 25 Passed

320-4 V 19 27 42 23 Returned to Committee

320-5A V 47 1 77 1 Passed

320-5B V 34 8 58 10 Passed

320-14A V 47 0 72 0 Passed

320-24 Y 21 24 39 30 Returned to Committee

320-28 V 48 0 65 4 Passed

330-2 V 45 2 53 15 Passed

330-13 V 45 0 68 2 Passed

179
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table C

VOTING RESULTS

Reference

Key No. House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results

Yes No Yes No

330-14A V 30 7 49 22 Passed

330-14B V 40 3 60 8 Passed

332-8 V 47 0 68 0 Passed

The Report in its Entirety 49 0 73 1 Passed

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in the order they appear in Table A)

Much of the following material contains recommendations to revise or amend

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) Handbook 44, 1987 Edition, "Specifications,

Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices." Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by eres- s-mg-ou* what is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be added. Entirely new paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to the handbook are designated as such and shown in bold face print.

SECTION 1.10. GENERAL CODE

310-1 W G-S.5.2.2. DIGITAL INDICATION AND REPRESENTATION

A proposal was made to change G-S.5.2.2.(e) to prohibit the use of mixed

measurement units in the digital display of any device. Exemptions would have

been given to some devices in the specific device codes. The Committee decided not to change the General Code, but to change the Scales Code instead. (See Item 320-28.)

310-2 G-S. 8. PROVISION FOR SEALING ELECTRONIC ADJUSTABLE

COMPONENTS

The Committee received four proposals related to sealing electronic component,

addressing the following three items:

1. the potential for adjusting the accuracy of a device from a computer that may be in a location other than at the site of the measuring device;

180
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

2. the sealing of the operating features of a device selected at the time of

installation, in addition to sealing any adjustment affecting the accuracy

of the device; and

3. the sealing of an automatic temperature compensator that may be part of

a computerized system in loading rack facilities. The Committee agrees with the concept that access to switches or software

that affect the metrological characteristics of a device should be sealable. Metrological characteristics are those indications, features, or operations of a device that fall under the regulatory authority of weights and measures

enforcement. Handbook 44 already requires provisions for sealing the electronic and mechanical adjustments that affect the accuracy or performance of a device. Requirements that manufacturers provide for sealing all access to switches or software that might affect metrological characteristics have extensive ramifications, perhaps even redesign of equipment to comply.

Industry representatives have cautioned the Committee that such a requirement

is premature and could stifle new technology. Some devices have their operating

features controlled by computer software stored on floppy disks creating special

problems for sealing. The automatic temperature-compensation system in a wholesale metering device is required to have a provision for sealing, but if the compensation is performed in a computer, it may be impossible to seal access

to the software.

The objectives of sealing are to prevent:

1. the fraudulent use of a device by manipulating the metrological

characteristics; or

2. changing the operational features after installation or inspection to features that are either incorrect or not suitable for a particular application.

The facilitation of fraud pertains only if the operational features can be changed

without being obvious to the other party in the transaction. For example, a gallons-to-liters conversion switch that can be manipulated by a service station attendant might facilitate fraud. If the switch is located inside a dispenser,

the panels of which must be removed to gain access to the switch, does not

facilitate fraud because such an action would be apparent to the customer. Examples of the types of features that would be affected by a provision for sealing are:

1. the gallon-to-liters conversion switch on retail motor fuel dispensers when

the switch is located outside the dispenser;

2. the means for setting the values of pulses sent from a dispenser to a service station console for processing;

3. the selection of the operating range of the automatic zero-setting mechanism

for scales;

4. the selection of the value for a scale or meter quantity division;

181
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5. the update time for a weight display; and

6. the setting of the sensitivity of the motion detection capability.

The sealing requirement is not intended to restrict operator access to stored

data that must be maintained as part of normal operation, such as tare values,

unit prices, department totals, or cash/credit unit-price selection. The requirement

is not intended to restrict the selection of weight units by means of an external switch or key on a scale provided the weight unit in use is automatically and

clearly displayed.

Because of the ramifications of the proposed requirement and the difficulty in phrasing it precisely with respect to all possible applications, no action on this issue is planned for the 1987 NCWM. Instead, the Committee recommends that

the issue be addressed by the regional weights and measures associations with

the objective of adopting a requirement or requirements in 1988. Although the language is very broad, the Committee suggests that the following

be reviewed by the regional weights and measures associations as a starting

point for discussion.

Consider adding a new paragraph to the General Code to read: G-S.9. Provision for Sealing Metrological Characteristics. - A device shall be designed with provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be

broken, mutilated, or destroyed before any change can be made to any

electronic mechanism that affects the metrological characteristics of the device. (Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 19 .) Consider adding the following definition:

Metrological characteristics. Those indications, features, operations or device design that fall under the jurisdiction of weights and measures

regulation, such as motion detection parameters, the range of the automatic zero-setting mechanism, the selection of quantity-value divisions, and

the setting of pulse values.

The regional associations are requested to develop more precise language to narrow the scope of such a requirement. The practicality from a manufacturing

aspect and potential for inhibiting product design must also be considered.

310-3 W G-S.5.1. INDICATING ELEMENTS - GENERAL

The Committee was requested to study whether or not a test capability of digital

displays ("segment check") should be required on scales and metering devices.

This item was dropped because it was not sufficiently developed.

182
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

310-4 W DEFINITIONS: ANALOG TYPE AND DIGITAL TYPE

The Committee was requested to clarify the definitions for analog type and

digital type. The Committee concluded that the definitions were adequate and

that a direct communication from the Office of Weights and Measures to the

jurisdiction submitting the request would resolve the issue.

310-5 DEFINITION OF SECURITY SEAL

A request has been received to change the definition of security seal by deleting

the phrase "a pressure-sensitive seal sufficiently permanent to indicate its removal, or a similar device." This would have the effect of requiring a lead and

wire seal to be used as a security seal. During the Interim Meeting, support was expressed by both industry and weights

and measures officials for the continued use of the pressure-sensitive seal. Pressure-sensitive seals have been extremely useful and have performed well in a wide variety of applications. The Committee supports the use of both

pressure-sensitive and lead and wire seals. Consequently, no change is proposed

to the definition of security seal. 310-6 EDITORIAL CHANGES

The effective and nonretroactive statements will be editorially changed to achieve

uniformity in the next printing.

SECTION 2.20. SCALES

320-1 V S.l.l. ZERO INDICATION

(This item was adopted.) At the 1986 NCWM, the vote was split on the S&T Committee recommendation

to amend paragraph S.l.l. Zero Indication. Some confusion may have existed

regarding the proposal, and that there was a lack of understanding of the tech- nology used to automatically monitor the zero balance condition on a point-of-sale scale. The Committee has examined point-of-sale equipment utilizing automatic monitoring of zero balance. The Committee concluded that the system complies with

both S.l.l. Zero Balance and G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and Representation as these paragraphs are written. The system complies with S.l.l. because it provides an indication of "Scale Ready" when the scale is at zero balance within its sensitivity parameters to automatically monitor zero, and it provides an out- -of-balance indication on both sides of zero.

183
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.l.l. requires an indication of zero balance, but it does not specify continuous

indication of the digital zero balance condition. A continuous (dedicated) weight

display was needed formerly because the operator had to see the weight display to detect an out-of-zero balance condition. A dedicated weight display is no

longer mandated provided that:

1. there are adequate safeguards in an automatic zero monitoring system to maintain a zero balance condition; and

2. the system inhibits operation whenever an out-of-zero balance condition

is detected.

The point-of-sale system is judged to satisfy these requirements. Compliance

with G-S.5.2.2.(d) is achieved since display of the digital zero balance indication complies with the requirements. Consequently, no change to these paragraphs

is necessary to allow this technology to be used.

The Committee believes that the automatic monitoring of zero can be beneficial

in other applications, but that implementation of this technology must be controlled. The appropriateness of an automatic means to monitor zero balance

depends upon the checks and safeguards incorporated into the system. Since

the automatic monitoring of zero balance is permitted under the present wording

of S.l.l., the Committee proposes that S.l.l. be changed to limit its use. The

intent is to require that each new method of implementation be reviewed by

weights and measures officials before being placed into service. To limit the use of this technology to point-of-sale systems at this time, the

Committee recommends that S.l.l. be amended to read:

S.l.l. ZERO INDICATION. -

(a) Provision-shall -be- -made On a scale equipped with indicating or recording elements, provision shall be made to either indicate or record a zero-balance condition, and

(b) On an automatic-indicating scale or balance indicator provision shall be made to indicate or record an out-of-balance condition on both

sides of zero.

(c) On point-of-sale systems, a zero balance condition may be indicated

by other than a continuous digital zero indication, provided that an

effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing operation

when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition.

320-2 W S.1.9. PREPACKAGING SCALES

A proposal would have required prepackaging scales to take tare to 0.001 lb. This issue requires more development before it can be considered. Factors to be considered include:

1. the impact on scales now in use;

184
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

2. whether or not the tare value division would constitute a verification scale division and cause prepackaging scales to become Class II devices;

3. the ability of scales to store tare weights to the internal resolution of the scale in price look-up files;

4. the availability of existing prepack scales to take semiautomatic tare to the internal resolution of the scale; and

5. the benefit of such a requirement considering the variation of tare within

a lot of containers.

320-3 W S.l.ll. PROVISION FOR SEALING ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS

ON ELECTRONIC DEVICES.

This issue has been combined with Item 310-2.

320-4 V S.2.4.1. LEVEL-INDICATING MEANS: CLASS II AND III SCALES

WITH A CAPACITY LESS THAN 2000 LB

(This item failed in the House of State Representatives

and passed in the House of Delegates; therefore, it returns to the Committee)

Bubbles levels are the most common level-indicating means used on portable

scales. The bubble levels have not always been installed so that the level condition of the scale is accurately reflected. In some instances, the bubble level has been mounted on a bracket that is easily bent, or the bubble level is installed

in a location that does not facilitate its use when the scale is routinely moved.

Additionally, not all scales have adjustable legs to establish a level condition

in the event that the bench or counter is not level. Occasionally, shims have

to be used to level a scale, but they tend to shift and nullify the level condition of the scale. Consequently, the Committee recommends more specific requirements for the

level-indicating means, its location, and methods for adjusting the level of the

scale. The Committee recommends that a section heading S.2.4. LEVEL-INDICAT- ING MEANS be added, and that the current text of S.2.4. appear in a paragraph

S.2.4. 2. ALL OTHER PORTABLE SCALES. The Committee recommends that a new paragraph S.2.4.1. be added to read:

S.2.4.1. CLASS II AND III PORTABLE SCALES WITH A CAPACITY LESS

THAN 2000 LB. -

(a) If the weighing performance of a portable scale is changed by an amount greater than the appropriate acceptance tolerance when the

scale is moved from a level position and rebalanced in a position

that is out of level in an upright direction by five percent (approximately three degrees), the scale shall be equipped with a rigidly

mounted level - indicating means referenced to the base of the scale.

(b) The level-indicating means must show a displacement of at least two

185
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

millimeters when the scale is tilted five percent.

(c) The level-indicating means on scales with a capacity more than 500

pounds shall be readable without removing any scale parts.

(d) For all other scales, the level-indicating means shall be readable

without requiring a tool to remove any scale parts.

(e) Scales without wheels and with a capacity of 500 pounds or less shall have self-contained adjustable leveling means (e.g., adjustable

legs).

320-5A V MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDICATING AND WEIGHING

ELEMENTS

(This item was adopted.)

It is a common practice in the United States for manufacturers to produce

indicating elements that can interface with many different weighing elements

and, conversely, for weighing elements to be marketed independent of a particular

indicating element. Indicating and weighing elements may be evaluated separately

in type evaluation and each element may receive a separate Certificate of Conformance. Upon installation, a complete scale must be marked with an accuracy class as required by S.6.I., but this does not apply to the separate

indicating and weighing elements when they are not permanently attached to each other. To facilitate the proper interfacing of equipment and to inform service representatives and weights and measures officials of the accuracy class of separate

indicating and weighing elements, the Committee recommends that S.6.8. be

amended and a new paragraph S.6.9. be added to require that the accuracy

class and the maximum number of scale divisions be marked on indicating and

weighing elements that are not permanently attached to each other.

Weighing elements not permanently attached to an indicating element shall also be marked with the smallest scale division at which it may be used.

The Committee recommends that the following changes be made.

Amend S.6.8. to read:

S.6.8. WEIGHING ELEMENTS. - A weighing element not permanently attached

to an indicating element shall be clearly and permanently marked with the following:

(a) name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer;

(b) the manufacturer's designation that positively identifies the pattern

or design; and

(c) the nominal capacity;

(d) the accuracy class of I, II, III, III L, or IIII, as appropriate:*

186
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(e) the maximum number of scale divisions;*

(f) and the minimum verification scale division for which the device

complies with the applicable requirements. * (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

Add a new paragraph S.6.9. to read:

S.6.9. INDICATING ELEMENTS. - In addition to the G-S.l. Identification

requirement of the General Code, an indicating element not permanently

attached to a weighing element shall be clearly and permanently marked

with the accuracy class of I, II, III, III L, III/III L, or IIH, as appropriate

and the maximum number of scale divisions, n, for which the indicator

complies with the applicable requirements.

Indicating elements that qualify for use in both class III and III L applications may be marked III/III L and shall be marked with the maximum

number of scale divisions for which the device complies with the applicable

requirements.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

320-5B V MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOAD CELLS

(This item was adopted.) To determine the compliance of larger load-cell-based scales (capacities greater

than 2000 lb) with the influence factor requirements, the load cells are tested

separately under NTEP since the entire scale cannot be placed in an environmental chamber. The OIML International Recommendation (IR) 60 recommends that load cells be marked with specific information. The Technical

Committee on National Type Evaluation has recommended that load cells tested

separately for compliance with the influence factors should be marked in a manner similar to the requirements of IR 60. The IR 60 markings requirements track IR 3 class designations and tolerances.

Due to the differences between IR 3 "Metrological Regulations For Non-Automatic

Weighing Instruments" and Handbook 44 class designations and tolerances, it is recommended that cells tested separately under NTEP be marked Class I, II, III, III L, and IIII to correspond with the scale classifications under Handbook

44. This is not intended to prevent a lower accuracy cell from being used in a higher accuracy scale if the scale corrects the cell performance to meet the

requirements of the higher accuracy class. Similarly, a scale is not limited to the number of scale divisions for which the cell has been evaluated if the scale corrects the cell performance to meet the requirements imposed by a higher

number of scale divisions. Whenever a scale "upgrades" the load cell class or increases the number of scale divisions in a scale above the number of divisions for which the load cell was evaluated, the scale must undergo a complete type

evaluation.

187
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

In addition, it was concluded that load cells that are not evaluated separately

are not required to carry an accuracy class marking. It is intended that a manufacturer not be limited to using only the load cell type that was in the scale at the time of the evaluation. The manufacturer may use any load cell that is equivalent or "better" in terms of its metrological characteristics.

Since the same load cell may be evaluated for both Class III and III L scales

and for both single and multiple cell applications, the load cell may have a different maximum number of scale divisions for each application. It is recom- mended that load cells be marked with an "S" or "M" for single and multiple

cell applications, respectively, in conjunction with the maximum number of scale divisions for which the load cell may be used in each application to clearly

indicate maximum number of scale divisions for which the load cell may be used. The Committee recommends that a new paragraph S.6.10. LOAD CELLS be added

to require that specific information be marked on load cells that are tested

separately under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP), to read:

S.6.10. LOAD CELLS. - Load cells for which Certificates of Conformance

have been issued under the National Type Evaluation Program shall be

marked with the following:

(a) the accuracy class of I, II, III, III L, or IIII corresponding to the scale accuracy class for which its use is intended;

(b) the maximum number of scale divisions (stated in units of 1000) for which the accuracy class requirements are met;

(c) an nS" or "Mn for single or multiple cell applications, respectively,

in conjunction with the maximum number of scale divisions for each accuracy class and application in which the load cell may

be used;

(d) the direction of loading, if not obvious;

(e) special limits of working temperature, if other than 14 of to 104 OF (-10 oc to 40 oc); and

(f) the name and address of the manufacturer or his trademark, model

designation, minimum dead load, maximum capacity, safe load limit, and load cell verification interval (V,,^).

The required information may be given on a data plate attached to the load

cell or, alternatively, in an accompanying document. If the document is the source of the information, the serial number of the load cell shall be

marked on the load cell plate and also given in the document.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

188
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-6 S.6.7. VEHICLE SCALE SECTION CAPACITY

N.l.3.4. VEHICLE SCALE SHIFT TEST

Reports have been received that some vehicle scales have been rated at high

nominal and section capacities, but that the user has been told to limit loading

to legal highway load limits. In effect, some stated nominal and section capacities

may not reflect the actual amounts that can be accurately weighed on the scale. To unify the methods used to rate nominal and section capacities within the

weighing industry and promote accurate ratings, the Committee was asked to consider that:

1. the nominal capacity of a vehicle scale be a function of the stated sectional capacity and number of sections;

2. the sectional capacity be stated on the weighing element as well as on the indicating element;

3. section tests should be required at "mid-span" between sections as well as over each section;

4. a minimum test load based upon the section capacity should be specified for the mid-span section test; and

5. definitions should be provided for terminology related to this issue. An industry task force reviewed this request, then submitted a specific proposal.

It recommends that scales be marked with the nominal capacity, section capacity,

and a "mid-span" (between sections) capacity. The basis of this recommendation

is that the actual section capacity of a scale is greater than the mid-span capacity since the load-bearing points can take larger loads than the unsupported

mid-span areas. The Committee disagrees with this approach to rating nominal and section

capacities of vehicle scales. It is the Committee's view that there should be a

single section capacity for a scale. The section capacity should reflect the

maximum load that can be weighed accurately no matter where it is placed

on the scale platform over the typical area for conducting a section test. The

Committee believes that a scale must be within applicable tolerances when tested

to its section capacity with the load placed over each section and at "mid-span"

between sections.

The Scale Manufacturers Association has developed a proposal that addresses

all five items stated above. Weights and measures officials are encouraged to review the proposal and submit comments through their regional weights and measures associations to the Committee for consideration at the interim meeting

in 1988. Industry representatives are continuing discussions to develop a recommendation

to the NCWM on this issue. The S&T Committee encourages industry to establish consensus, but wishes to advise interested parties of its views. The Committee

believes that:

189
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

1. the stated nominal capacity of large capacity, multi-section scales should

be a function of the stated section capacity;

2. the stated section capacity and the "mid-span" capacity should be the same; and

3. a scale must be accurate when a test load equal to the section capacity is placed anywhere on the scale platform in a manner simulating a section

test, including at "mid-span" between sections. The scale must also be accurate when a load equal to nominal capacity of the scale is distributed over the entire scale platform.

The Scale Manufacturers Association is discussing appropriate equipment and

procedures for testing vehicle scales. If possible, the S&T Committee would

like a recommendation on test equipment before the 1987 Annual Meeting.

The Committee plans to recommend specific changes to the Scales Code in 1988

to address this issue. Until that time, the Committee recommends that scales

be tested as described above up to the nominal and section capacities of the

scale. Add a new paragraph at the bottom of page 3-15 to read: The Scale Manufacturers Association has developed a proposal that addresses

all five item stated above. Weights and measures officials are encouraged

to review the proposal and to submit comments through their regional

weights and measures associations to the Committee for consideration at the interim meeting in 1988.

320-7 VC N.1.3. SHIFT TEST

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) As paragraph N.1.3. is written, the shift test applies to hopper scales. Since

hopper scales are not generally subject to significant off-center loads, a shift test is not appropriate for hopper scales. Consequently, the Committee

recommends that hopper scales be excluded from the shift test by changing the heading of N.1.3. 7. to read:

N.1.3. 7. ALL OTHER SCALES EXCEPT CRANE SCALES, HANGING - SCALES, HOPPER SCALES, WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS, AND

PORTABLE AXLE-LOAD SCALES.

320-8 N.1.6. ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE (EMI): SCALES CODE

A recommendation was received that a task force be established to work with

the EMI experts at NBS Boulder to explore the possibility of establishing an acceptable and affordable NTEP laboratory test procedure to evaluate the

susceptibility of a device to EMI. The NBS Boulder staff is willing to assist in the development of test procedures; however, outside funding to support this project would facilitate the research.

190
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

NBS Boulder has provided a two-page summary on this issue. The key points are listed below.

1. EMI is a complex problem.

2. Different requirements may be needed for different devices; consequently,

there is a need to characterize the EMI environment for weighing and

measuring devices.

3. Different equipment and techniques are needed for different frequencies,

field-strength levels, and sizes of equipment.

4. The test of a single element is a necessary but not sufficient evaluation for a weighing or measuring system.

5. The ANSI standard C63.12, "Recommended Practice on Procedures for Control

of System Electromagnetic Capability," should be referenced for EMI

considerations.

The issue was discussed by the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation

for scales in November 1986, without a clear course of action being apparent.

Unless further recommendations are received, no further action is anticipated

due to the expense involved for both research and test equipment.

The EMI requirements of Handbook 44 are still applicable to devices installed

in the field. A field test for effects of EMI should be conducted by operating

equipment and other possible EMI sources that are normally present at the field installation. Hand-held transceivers (walkie-talkies) should not be brought

onto the premises of the device installation unless hand-held transceivers are normally used in the vicinity of the device. Even if transceivers are used on

the site, efforts should be made to perform the EMI tests using the transceivers

normally operated at the site.

320-9 N.3. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM TEST WEIGHTS AND TEST LOADS

A proposal was received to remove the word "recommended" from N.3. This

would have required private industry and enforcement officials to have the

amount of weight specified in N.3. The Committee considered the fact that

several states and service companies do not have the minimum amount of weight

recommended in this paragraph. It is the Committee's view that, based upon

economic and other factors, it is inappropriate at this time to mandate the

amount of test weights specified in this paragraph. The Committee encourages

comments on this item for future consideration.

320-10 W N.5. INFLUENCE FACTORS TEST

The Committee believes the table indicating the devices to be tested for specific

influence factors is more appropriately dealt with as part of the technical policy

in the type evaluation handbook. Consequently, see Item 320-27.

191
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-11 VC T.1.11. TOLERANCE VALUES - GRAIN TEST SCALES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

With the adoption of the new Scales Code, the previous Scales Code tolerances

for unmarked grain test scales were combined into Tables 3 and 6. To avoid

the possibility of incorrectly applying the tolerances stated in T.l.2.1. to these

scales, the Committee recommends that a new paragraph T.1.11. be added to read:

T.1.11. GRAIN TEST SCALES. - Class HI tolerances shall apply to unmarked

grain test scales with not more than 10,000 scale divisions. Class II toler- ances shall apply to unmarked grain test scales with more than 10,000

scale divisions. The maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as stated in T.N.3.1. and T.N.3.2.

Paragraphs T.l.l. and T.1.2. will be changed editorially to reflect the new

paragraph number of T.1.11. as follows:

T.l.l. GENERAL.- Except for equipment specified in paragraphs T.1.2. through TrK-Wr T.1.11., the ... . T.1.2. SCALES WITH LESS THAN 2000 SCALE DIVISIONS OR MORE THAN

5000 SCALE DIVISIONS.- Except for scales specified in paragraphs T.1.3. through TrK-Sr T.1.11.,

320-12 W SCALES CODE T.1.2., TABLE 5 A proposal was received to clarify the tolerances for unmarked devices by

expanding Table 5. The Committee concluded that it would be difficult to expand

Table 5 in a manner that would address the many different values of scale

divisions on devices to which Table 5 applies. Expanded tables may be beneficial to officials, but a simple and general revision of Table 5 was not apparent and

not pursued.

320-13 VC T.2.6. SENSITIVITY REQUIREMENT - GRAIN TEST SCALES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The Committee was asked to review the sensitivity requirements for grain test scales as stated in T.2.6. and T.N. 6. The sensitivity requirement for unmarked

grain test scales is more stringent than for marked grain test scales. It seems

logical that these requirements should be the same, so the Committee recommends

that T.2.6. be changed to read:

T.2.6. GRAIN TEST SCALES: t-d-er-8r0&-pereeirt-©€-the-sea4e-eapa«tty7

whichever—is-less-r The sensitivity shall be as stated in T.N.6.

192
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-14A V UR.1.1. DESIGN CRITERIA AND TOLERANCES FOR CRANE AND

HOPPER SCALES (OTHER THAN GRAIN HOPPER)

(This item was adopted.)

At the 71st NCWM, 1986, the S&T Committee stated that all crane and hopper

scales shall be designed to meet all criteria of Class III devices with the

exception that Class III L tolerances should apply. Design criteria of Class III are necessary because some hopper scales have scale divisions smaller than five pounds and have less than 2000 scale divisions. (See Table 3 for design limits of Class III L.) Paragraph T.N. 3. 4. was amended last year to allow Class III L

tolerances to apply to all hopper scales except grain hopper scales. (Class III tolerances and design criteria apply to grain hopper scales.)

A proposal was received to amend T.N. 3. 4. to express the tolerances in a manner

consistent with Class III and III L tolerances. The objective was to maintain

the principle and distinction of the accuracy classes. However, the proposal

deviated from the details of the tolerances for the accuracy classes, so the

Committee was not convinced that a change to T.N. 3. 4. was necessary or beneficial. For simplicity, the Committee believes that the requirements for only one ac- curacy class should apply to any one device. However, while hopper scales (other

than grain hopper scales) have had the same tolerances as other large-capacity

scales, the scales do not meet the specifications of Table 3 for the value of the verification scale division or the minimum number of scale divisions. The Committee recommends that crane and hopper (other than grain hopper)

scales be given an exemption to the Table 3 requirements for the value of the

verification scale division and the minimum number of scale divisions. The

minimum number of scale divisions is recommended to be 1000. If a crane or hopper scale application would have less than 1000 scale divisions, the scale

would have to be marked Class III and meet Class III requirements. This would

not be a problem because the tolerances for Class III and III L scales are the same up to 1000 divisions. The minimum value of the scale division is recom- mended to be 0.5 lb (0.2 kg), which is believed to be small enough to include

small capacity hoppers.

Consequently, the Committee recommends that the two entries for Class III L

scales in Table 3 be marked for a footnote and a footnote added to read: 3The value of a scale division for crane and hopper (other than grain

hopper) scales shall be not less than 0.5 lb (0.2 kg). The minimum number

of scale divisions shall be not less than 1000. The Committee also recommends that the entry for Class III L scales in Table

7a under UR.1.1. be amended to read:

III L Vehicle, axle-load, livestock, railway track, crane, and hopper

(other than grain hopper) scales.

193
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-14B VC T.1.3. TOLERANCE VALUES FOR CRANE SCALES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Crane scales are not referenced in the Tolerance Section T.l. for unmarked

devices; consequently, the tolerances specified in T.l. 2. apply. Before the revision of the Scales Code, the tolerances for crane scales were the same as for vehicle scales and other large-capacity scales. The tolerances for unmarked crane

scales should be the same as for other large-capacity scales, hence the Committee recommends that the heading of T.1.3. be amended to read:

T.1.3. VEHICLE, AXLE-LOAD, LIVESTOCK, RAILWAY TRACK (WEIGHING

STATICALLY), CRANE, AND HOPPER (OTHER THAN GRAIN

HOPPER SCALES)

320-15 VC T.N.3.6.2. IN-MOTION WEIGHING, OTHER THAN MONORAIL

SCALES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

A request has been received to clarify the application of these tolerance values and to allow a slightly different distribution of errors. The Committee agrees and recommends that T.N.3.6.2. be amended to read: T.N.3.6.2. For any «ngle--weighmefrt--wtt*»n--a group of weighments, the

weighment errors shall not exceed the limits given below;

Maintenance

Pereefrtage—o#- Statie* "Tolerance

Group Mu-tttpKe*

66 t

30 2

5 3

(a) No error may exceed three times the maintenance tolerance.

(b) No more than 5 percent of the errors may exceed twice the maintenance tolerance.

(e) No more than 35 percent of the errors may exceed the maintenance

tolerance.

194
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-16 VC T.l.l. AND T.1.2. TOLERANCE VALUES - RANGE OF ERRORS FOR SHIFT OR SECTION TESTS

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The Committee received a request to amend T.N. 4. 4. Agreement of Indications - Shift or Section Tests to limit this requirement to multiple-section scales (i.e., to exempt bench, counter, and floor scales). The basis for the request was that:

1. the intent of the requirement is to preclude a user's taking advantage of section errors to weigh vehicles to the benefit of the scale operator;

2. the "small" platform size and method of use of bench, counter, and floor scales are such that the scale user cannot realistically use shift errors to

his or her benefit; and

3. the requirement is an unnecessary tightening of the tolerances that will result in more scale maintenance and higher costs for scale adjustment.

The Committee believes the principle expressed in T.N. 4. 4. to limit the range

of errors in the shift and section tests is a good one and should be maintained.

One purpose of this requirement is to prevent a scale from having shift test errors at the extreme limits of the tolerance. The tolerance on the range of

shift errors would allow the scale accuracy to deteriorate somewhat without

the scale going out of tolerance. Although this is a more stringent requirement

than has been applied to bench, counter, and floor scales in the past, the

Committee believes it is an appropriate requirement for scales with an accuracy

class marking, and consequently does not recommend any change to T.N. 4. 4. However, the Committee did not intend for this requirement to apply to unmarked

bench, floor, and counter scales. To limit the application of this requirement

to unmarked multiple-section scales and all marked scales, the Committee

recommends that the references to T.N. 4. 4. in paragraphs T.l.l. and T.1.2. be

deleted. The reference to T.N. 4. 4. in paragraph T.1.3. would still apply to vehicle,

axle-load, livestock, and railway track scales (weighing statically), as it has in the past.

Under Item 320-11, modification was made to both T.l.l. and T.1.2. Those

changes are already in the two quoted paragraphs below. The Committee recom- mends that T.l.l. and T.1.2. be further amended to read:

T.l.l. GENERAL. - Except for equipment specified in paragraphs T.1.2. through Trt.-Hb T.l.ll., the maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as set forth in T.N.2., T.N.3., T.N.4.I., T.N.4.2., T.N.4.3., T.-N.-4-.47, T.N.5., and T.N.7.2., for Class III devices.

T.1.2. SCALES WITH LESS THAN 2000 SCALE DIVISIONS OR MORE THAN

5000 SCALE DIVISIONS. - Except for scales specified in paragraphs T.1.3. through TrK-dr T.l.ll., the maintenance and acceptance tolerance shall be

as shown in Table 5 (next page). Paragraphs T.N.2.5., T.N.4.I., T.N.4.2.,

T.N.4.3., T.-N^rfc, T.N.5., and T.N.7.2. also apply.

195
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-17 W T.N. 4. 5. TIME DEPENDENCE TEST

A proposal was received to exempt Class I and II scales from the time dependence

requirement. There was insufficient justification provided to the Committee

for this proposal.

320-18 VC T.N.6. SENSITIVITY AS APPLICABLE TO VEHICLE, AXLE-LOAD,

LIVESTOCK, AND ANIMAL SCALES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The Committee had received requests to amend T.N. 6. to change the sensitivity

requirement for livestock and animal scales back to the requirements that existed before the revision of the Scales Code. The USDA Packers and Stockyards

Administration (P&S) submitted data indicating that scales were being rejected

at zero load under the current requirement. The P&S believes these scales were performing satisfactorily and would have passed under the previous

requirements. Additionally, they believe that the higher sensitivity under load

facilitates accurate livestock weighing and can be achieved routinely, especially

when an auxiliary balance indicator is used. Although it was stated that the

sensitivity of a scale will usually change as a load is applied, and that there

are different types of balance indicators, there was significant support to return to the previous sensitivity requirements.

The Committee recommends that T.N. 6. be amended so that the sensitivity

requirement for both marked and unmarked vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and

animal scales be consistent with the requirement that existed before revision

of the Scales Code. The Committee recommends that T.N. 6. be amended to read: T.N. 6. SENSITIVITY. - This section is applicable to all nonautomatic

indicating scales marked I, II, III, III L or IIII. T.N.6.1. TEST LOAD. (a) The test load for sensitivity for nonautomatic-indicating vehicle,

axle-load, livestock, and animal scales shall be Id for scales

equipped with balance indicators, and 2d or 0.2 percent of the

scale capacity, whichever is less, for scales not equipped with

balance indicators.

(b) A-test -load- eqiri valcnt-fce For all other nonautomatic-indicating

scales, the test load for sensitivity shall be Id at zero and 2d

at maximum test load. T.N.6.2. MINIMUM CHANGE OF INDICATIONS. The addition or removal

oT the test load for sensitivity shall cause a minimum permanent change

as follows:

(a) for a scale with trig loop, but without a balance indicator, the position

of the weighbeam shall change from the center to the outer limit of

the trig loop;

196
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) for a scale with balance indicator, the position of the indicator shall change one division on the graduated scale, the width of the central

target area, or the applicable value as shown below, whichever is greater:

Scale of Class I or II: 0.04 inch (1 mm),

Scale of Class II or IIH with a maximum capacity of 70 pounds (30

kg) or less: 0.08 inch (2 mm),

Scale of Class III, III L, or IIII with a maximum capacity or more

than 70 pounds (30 kg): 0.20 inch (5 mm);

(c) for a scale without a trig loop or balance indicator, the position of

rest of the weighbeam or lever system shall change from the horizontal or midway between limiting stops to either limit of motion.

320-19 VC T.N.8.2. HUMIDITY

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The Committee was asked to review this requirement with respect to appropriateness, scope, cost, and benefit. There are persuasive arguments for retaining,

modifying, or deleting the requirement. The Committee considered extensive

information and comments. Some of the main points are reported below.

1. Humidity can affect the performance of electronics and load cells.

2. The humidity test reflects the principle of accelerated testing for environmental influence, which is a well-recognized and accepted principle.

3. It is generally accepted that test conditions are not real-world environments,

either natural or induced.

4. Failures under severe test conditions may differ from these that occur under normal conditions of use.

5. All load cells must be tested for the humidity requirement because

hermetically-sealed construction does not assure a hermetically-sealed load

cell.

6. The humidity test is not uniformly applied in OIML member countries.

Some countries perform the test on scales as prescribed, others do not perform the test at all; some test only load cells; and some run a durability-type of humidity test on load cells. The Committee concluded that the humidity test does not reflect "real-world"

conditions; that the requirement is not appropriate for the entire spectrum of

scale designs and applications; and that there is a lack of evidence of measure- ment problems to support the need for the requirement.

The Committee recommends that the paragraph T.N.8.2. Humidity be deleted.

197
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-20 W UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENT

The Committee received a proposal intended to prevent the values of a scale

division from being changed to correct for an out-of-tolerance condition. The

Committee concluded that it would be virtually impossible to determine that

the scale division was changed solely for this reason. If a scale division is appropriate for an application, its use cannot be prevented. Additional

justification and clarification is needed before a change to Handbook 44 can be

considered.

320-21 VC DR. 1.1. DEFINITION OF ANIMAL SCALE

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Animal scales are intended to be Class III devices, but are now defined as lives- tock scales designed for weighing single heads of livestock. In Table 7a, under

DR. 1.1., livestock scales are listed as Class III L devices, implying that animal

scales are Class III L. This, in turn, requires animal scales to have scale divi- sions equal to or greater than five pounds (Table 3), which is inappropriate for the application. To indicate clearly that animal scales are Class III devices, the Committee

recommends that both the definition and Table 7a be changed. The Committee

recommends that the definition of animal scale be amended to read: animal scale. A Hves-toek scale designed for weighing single heads of

livestock.

The Committee recommends that animal scales be listed under Class III devices

in Table 7a so it will read:

III All commercial weighing, not otherwise specified, grain test scales,

retail precious metals and semi-precious gem weighing, and animal

scales.

320-22 W UR.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS

A request to add a user requirement to the Scales Code indicating that it is illegal to sell an incorrect device was considered by the Committee. The

Committee concluded that this was an issue falling under the purview of the

L&R Committee. (See L5cR Item 211-2.)

320-23 W UR.3.1. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM LOAD

The proposal to delete the word "recommended" from UR.3.1. was not adequately

developed to be considered.

198
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-24 V UR.3.7. MINIMUM LOAD ON A VEHICLE SCALE

(This item failed in the House of State Representatives and passed

in the House of Delegates; therefore, it returns to the Committee.)

Two regional weights and measures associations have recommended that UR.3.7. be amended to apply to net loads as well as gross loads. The basis for U.R.3.7.

is that the load weighed on a scale should be sufficiently large that the

resolution of the scale (rounded to the nearest scale division) does not result

in an excessively large error as a percentage of the weighed load. This principle

is even more important when determining net loads because the rounding to the nearest scale division occurs for both the gross and tare weight.

The Committee supports this principle, as it has in the past, and recommends

that UR.3.7. be amended to read: UR.3.7. MINIMUM LOAD ON A VEHICLE SCALE. - A vehicle scale shall not be used for weighing a net load smaller than 1000 pounds.

320-25 VC DEFINITION OF DECREASING-LOAD TEST

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Paragraphs N. 1.2.1. and N.l.2.2. provide specific instructions for the minimum

test loads to be used as part of the decreasing-load test. Some of the

instructions conflict with the definition of decreasing-load test. The Committee

recommends that the last sentence of the definition be deleted:

decreasing-load test. A speeia-l- supplementary test for automatic-indicating

scales only, during which the performance of the scale is tested as the

load is reduced. In- -th-is--t«s4f -an -observation- is- -ma^e—with—a—t«*t-4«ad

equa4-fco-enc half- of- the- ffta-x-hmuflfr appli ed- -t-est- 4eafh

320-26 REPORT OF THE RAILROAD ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Railroad Advisory Committee has performed coupled-in-motion tests on

several railway track scales, and is analyzing the effects on the data of the

profile of approach and exit tracks. A preliminary report of the Railroad Advisory Committee was presented at the Interim Meeting, and copies of the test data were given to the S&T Committee. By mutual agreement, the Railroad

Advisory Committee will continue the data analysis and provide a final report

and recommendations for consideration by the S&T Committee before the 1988 Interim Meeting.

199
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-27 VC REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL

TYPE EVALUATION - WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation - Weighing Industry Sector met on June 25-26, 1986, November 5-6, 1986, and June 24, 1987. The priority

issues were to develop the program and procedures to test load cells for the

influence factors in Handbook 44. Additionally, the technical committee es- tablished a table indicating which devices are to be tested for specific influence factors based upon which devices are susceptible to the influence factors. The

technical committee also reviewed the type evaluation test procedure for railroad track scales, discussed the EMI and humidity issues, recommended marking re- quirements for load cells, and is currently reviewing an updated draft of the

type evaluation checklist for digital scales. The recommendations of the technical committee regarding the NTEP operation

of testing load cells have been implemented.

The S&T Committee recommends that the following proposals of the Weighing

Industry Sector, as detailed in Appendix A, be adopted by the NCWM for in- clusion in the type evaluation handbook.

1. Incorporate the table of "Devices to be Tested for Influence Factors" as technical policy. (The table will be modified if necessary to reflect NCWM action on the humidity requirement.)

2. Incorporate as technical policy the following items under the heading

of "NTEP Load Cell Testing," that is: a. load cells to be submitted for test,

b. multiple load cell system tolerance, and

c. barometric pressure tests.

3. Incorporate the "NTEP Load Cell Test Procedures" as part of the

criteria and test procedures of the type evaluation handbook.

4. Remove the tentative status of the test procedures for railroad track scales (used to weigh statically) adopted at the 1986 NCWM, but

change the reference to "composite test cars" under the permanence

test to "self-propelled test cars" to be consistent with the terminology

of the Association of American Railroads and to properly identify

the type of test car to be used.

NTEP Load Cell Test Procedures

The error values for the repeatability error stated in the table for Class III L

load cells in Appendix A of the Interim Report have been corrected to be consis- tent with T.N. 5.; the error values were based upon the absolute value of accep- tance tolerance, but T.N. 5. specifies that the tolerance for the creep test be

based on the absolute value of maintenance tolerance. The Technical Committee

concluded that the tolerance values specified for Class III L load cells in T.N.4.5. for the creep test are unacceptably large. They recommend that T.N.4.5. be

200
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

amended in 1988 to reduce the tolerance. The Technical Committee therefore

recommends that smaller tolerances be used immediately to analyze load cell data submitted to NTEP. The recommendations of the Technical Committee have been accepted, but the

suggested tolerance has been modified to be, in essence, 0.05 percent of the

number of scale divisions for which the load cells meets the applicable require- ments of Handbook 44. The Specifications and Tolerances Committee plans to recommend in 1988 that the tolerance for the creep test be one-half the accep- tance tolerance for the capacity load applied to Class III L load cells. The

table of tolerance values for Class III L load cells has been updated accordingly. The Committee recommends that the smaller tolerances be used immediately

for the evaluation of test data for Class III L load cells. Additionally, the Technical Committee recommends that observing the return to zero after loading a cell to capacity for 60 minutes could be used as an alterna- tive to the creep test specified in Appendix A. Consequently, step 4 in the

creep test procedure has been modified to indicate that either of the two test procedures may be used.

320-28 V S.l.2.1. WEIGHT UNITS

(This item was adopted.)

A digital electronic scale presenting weight values in a combination of units of pounds, ounces, and common fractions of an ounce, has been introduced into

commercial measurement. Although pounds, ounces, and common fractions of an ounce are used in analog scales, the Committee feels that the digital

representation in different weight units is unnecessary and confusing. The

analog scale is permitted because most consumers are familiar with the scale,

and the combination of the dial face and indicator provide an additional reference that aids understanding. The only application with a perceived need for digital

indication of pounds and ounces is for postal scales. In this application, fractions of an ounce are represented as decimal fractions, not as common fractions.

The Committee concluded that the simultaneous use of both pounds and decimal ounces is appropriate in postal scale applications, but not other applications.

The term "postal scale" is interpreted in the broad sense to include digital

computing scales used to determine shipping rates for the U.S. Postal Service

(USPS) and private delivery companies. There is some support in the Committee

to limit this exemption to scales used exclusively by the USPS and scales

combining USPS rate-computing with those of private delivery companies. This would limit scales used exclusively to compute rates for private delivery companies

to indications in a single unit of weight (e.g., decimal pounds). The justification for this limitation is the belief that the break points in shipping rates for private

companies are based on whole pound increments. Comments are requested on

this point.

The Committee recommends that digital weight indications be limited to a single

weight unit for all applications other than postal scales, and that digital

representations of common fractions be prohibited. Selection of different weight

units from an external key or switch would still be permitted.

201
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The effective date of this requirement is proposed to be January 1, 1989. This

will provide the manufacturer of the first scale mentioned above to modify its design to meet the new requirement. This requirement would apply to commercial

devices and would not affect those used in noncommercial applications.

The Committee recommends adding a definition for postal scale to clearly indicate which scales may have digital indication of both pounds and ounces. Additionally, a definition of weight classifier is recommended to describe the design and

operation of those scales that round weight indications up to the next scale

division, rather than rounding the weight to the nearest scale division. Be- cause weight classifiers round weight values up to the next scale division, weight classifiers must be marked with a statement that limits their application to determining shipping rates. This marking is required under S.6.6. Weight classifiers normally compute shipping rates; have relatively large scale divisions; and, consequently, declare a verification scale division, e, that is smaller than

the displayed scale division. Digital postal scales that indicate in pounds and ounces must be marked consistent with S.6.6. Postal Scales that indicate in a

single weight unit and that round weight values to the nearest scale division are not required to be marked with the special application statement required by

S.6.6. for weight classifiers. Consequently, the Committee recommends adding a new paragraph S. 1.2.1. to the Scales Code to read:

S. 1.2.1. WEIGHT UNITS. - Except for postal scales, a digital-indicating scale shall indicate weight values using only a single unit of measure. Weight

values shall be presented in a decimal format with the value of the scale

division expressed as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. (Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1989.)

The Committee recommends the addition of the following definitions:

postal scale. A scale (usually a computing scale) designed for use to deter- mine shipping weight or delivery charges for letters or parcels delivered

by the U.S. Postal Service or private shipping companies. A weight classifier may be used as a postal scale. weight classifier. A digital scale that rounds weight values up to the next scale division. These scales usually have a verification scale division,

e, that is smaller than the displayed scale division.

SECTION 2.21. BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

321-1 VC T.4.3. INFLUENCE FACTORS - RADIATED INTERFERENCE

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) As reported in Item 320-8, EMI is a complicated issue. A field test should be

performed using only that equipment normally on the site of the scale installation. Hand-held transceivers should not be brought onto the scale site for an EMI

test unless similar transceivers are normally used in that vicinity. Since T.4.3. 202
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

specifies that hand-held communicators be used for the EMI test, the Committee

believes that T.4.3. should be deleted. The field test of the EMI effects would

still be covered by G-UR.1.2. Environment. Consequently, the EMI test should

be conducted at the test site by operating equipment that is normally used near the scale. The Committee recommends that T.4.3. be deleted.

321-2 VC UR.3.2. MAINTENANCE

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The Committee received a request to reconsider the number of materials tests

to be conducted as part of an official test of a belt-conveyor scale. The

Committee concluded that it did not have sufficient information at this time to recommend a change in the number of materials tests to be performed.

Related to this issue, paragraph UR.3.2. was discussed: when may a belt-conveyor

scale be adjusted based on the results of a simulated test? Currently, a belt-con- veyor scale is not to be adjusted based on a simulated load test unless the

error is greater than 0.4 percent. The restriction is intended to discourage

frequent adjustment to a belt-conveyor scale to "correct" small errors indicated by the simulated load test. Frequent adjustments may result in a loss of the

original materials test calibration value. According to several comments, it is too restrictive to prohibit scale adjustment for errors up to 0.4 percent. The concept of prohibiting frequent adjust- ments to avoid "correcting" for what may be normal variations in belt-conveyor

scale performance was endorsed, but it was suggested that the limit should be

lowered to 0.25 percent. Considering the volume of material that passes over

a belt-conveyor scale, permitting an error of 0.4 percent on the simulated test before adjustment results in unacceptably large measurement errors. The Committee concurs with these comments and recommends that UR.3.2. be

amended by changing the number 0.4 percent to 0.25 percent. The Committee

recommends that UR.3.2.(b) be amended to read:

(b) Simulated load tests shall be conducted at periodic intervals between

official tests to provide reasonable assurance that the device is performing correctly. The action to be taken as a result of simulated

load test is as follows:

if the error is less than 0.-4 0.25 percent, no adjustment is to be made;

if the error is 0.-4 0.25 percent, up to and including 0.6 percent,

adjustment may be made if the certifying authority is notified;

if the error is greater than 0.6 percent, up to and including 0.75 percent, adjustments shall be made by a competent service person and the certifying authority notified. After such an adjustment,

if the results of a subsequent test require adjustment in the same direction, an official test shall be conducted; and

203
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

if the error is greater than 0.75 percent, an official test is required.

SECTION 2.22. AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS

322 VC EDITORIAL CHANGES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

1. At the 1986 NCWM, the Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems Code was changed

to apply to all automatic bulk-weighing systems. Unfortunately, the reference

to grain in the application paragraph A.l. was not deleted. Paragraph

A.l. will be editorially changed for the 1988 edition of Handbook 44 to read: A.l. GENERAL. - This code applies to automatic bulk-weighing systems

for- -grain; that is, a weighing system adapted to the automatic weighing

of grain a commodity in successive drafts of predetermined amounts,

automatically recording the no-load and loaded weight values and

accumulating the net weight of each draft.

2. At the 1985 NCWM, paragraph S.1.2. was changed as part of a rewrite of the code. The value of a scale division was restricted to be one of several specific values. This change should have been nonretroactive. Hence, S.1.2. will be editorially changed to be: Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.

3. Paragraph N.l.l. addresses the minimum amount of test weights to be

used to test automatic bulk-weighing scales. Because many of the test weights for automatic bulk-weighing systems are built into the facility, it is not practical to apply the minimum test weight requirement to all of these scales on a retroactive basis. Hence, the minimum test weight consideration of this paragraph is to be applied to those scales installed after January 1, 1984. Additionally, the term "buildup test" is intended to refer- ence a combination of substitution and strain load tests. The Committee recommends that N.l.l. be replaced with the revised N.l.l. and N.1.2. shown below, and that the current N.1.2. and N.1.3. be renumbered

as N.1.3. and N.I.4., respectively.

N.l.l. TEST WEIGHTS. - The increasing-load test shall be conducted

using test weights equal to at least 10 percent of the capacity of

the system:

(a) on automatic grain bulk-weighing systems installed after January

1, 1984, and

(b) on other automatic bulk-weighing systems installed after January

1, 1986.

204
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

N.1.2. INCREASING-LOAD TEST. - An increasing-load test consisting

of substitution and strain-load tests shall be conducted up to the

used capacity of the weighing system.

Add the definition:

strain-load test. The test of a scale beginning with the scale under

load and applying known test weights to determine the accuracy of

the scale over a portion of the weighing range of the scale. The

scale errors for a strain-load test are the errors observed for the

known test-weight loads only. The tolerances to be applied are based

upon the known test-weight load used for each error that is determined.

SECTION 3.30. LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

330-1 COMBINED LMD CODE

The Committee received comments on the draft Combined LMD Code. Based

upon these comments, the Committee concluded that another draft of the

Combined LMD Code is necessary before it is presented to the NCWM for adoption. A new draft based on the last edited draft is expected by the next Annual Meeting of the NCWM. All comments for the new draft are to be

submitted to OWM by June 1, 1987. The Committee plans to present the

Combined LMD Code for adoption at the 73rd Annual Meeting (1988). (Copies

of the current draft are available from OWM.)

330-2 V RECOGNIZE MASS UNITS FOR METERING

(This item was adopted.)

Mass flow meters are used to measure commodities in a variety of applications.

It has been proposed that the use of mass flow meters be recognized in Handbook

44. New technologies should be accepted if they meet the required accuracy

and specifications for a given application. The Committee is recommending

changes to the LMD Code for wholesale meters and to the LPG and Anhydrous

Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to recognize mass flow meters. As experience is gained, the Committee may recommend that mass flow meters be

allowed for other applications.

Two areas must be addressed to recognize mass flow meters.

1. Changes must be made to the code (HB-44) to recognize mass units. In addition, some states may have to change their laws or regulations to permit mass measurement of some commodities in liquid form.

2. Test procedures are necessary so weights and measures officials can

adequately test a mass flow metering device to determine compliance with

Handbook 44.

205
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Since air has a significant (approximately 0.1 percent) buoyant effect when

weighing commodities with densities of 1 g/cm3, a decision must be made whether

or not to correct for that buoyant effect. When a flow meter determines mass

for a commercial transaction, the quantity indication should logically be consistent with the results of weighing on a scale, hence the mass shall be indicated as the (uncorrected) apparent mass versus 8.0 g/cm3 . (See "Units and Systems,

Section 3.2.)

The changes to Handbook 44 are relatively simple, changing references to units

to allow pounds and changing "volume" to "quantity". The tolerances for mass

flow meters are expressed in percent and are based upon existing tolerances

for a particular size of test draft. The S&T Committee is recommending, in Item 330-14A, a change to the LMD Code to increase the tolerances for wholesale meters. If the tolerance change is accepted, the larger tolerances will also apply to mass flow meters. Some states may have to review their laws and regulations to determine if some liquid commodities may be sold only by weight. For example, some states may require that gasoline and fuel oil be sold by liquid measure. Enforcement

officials should be aware that weight is unaffected by temperature. Hence, the weighed quantity delivered to a customer will not vary from summer to winter,

in contrast to the variations when using volume meters that do not compensate

for temperature. The Committee believes that the sale of liquids by weight

(subject to state laws and regulations) is appropriate.

Mass flow meters may be tested either by weighing the product measured by

the meter or by measuring the product volumetrically, determining the specific

gravity and temperature, and converting the volume to apparent mass versus

8.0 g/cm3 . To weigh the product, a receiving container is required, along with

a scale with adequate capacity and resolution. The container may range from

a 50-gallon drum to a tank truck, depending on the maximum flow rate of the meter. The accuracy of the scale must be determined since it is the primary

limitation on the accuracy of the test of mass flow meters. A meter can be

adjusted to agree with the results obtained from a particular scale, but the

overall accuracy of the test process may have a "large" uncertainty.

Test to be Run

It is recommended that a mass flow meter be tested at three flow rates; capacity,

one-half capacity, and minimum flow rate. At least two tests (three are preferred) should be run at each flow rate. All results must be within tolerance. Selection of a Scale and Size of the Test Draft

A scale must be tested at least twice before it is used as a transfer standard.

The scale should be tested to the maximum load to be applied during the test of the meter. The scale errors should be recorded so thay corrections for scale errors can be made when testing the meter. Particular attention should

be given to loads near the empty and loaded weights of the test container.

Shift or section tests should be performed. The smaller the range in the shift errors, the less the shift errors will affect the test results. The container

should always be placed in the same position on the scale so that the combination

206
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

of shift test errors will not vary during the meter test. The test results on

the scale must be repeatable.

The size of the scale division relative to the net load has a significant effect on the accuracy to which a meter can be tested. It will also affect the size

of the test draft required to evaluate the meter. To keep the "rounding error" (caused by reading a scale to the nearest scale division) to an acceptably small level for a single weighing, the value of the scale division should not exceed

one-tenth of the tolerance applied to the device. The rounding error occurs in both the gross and tare weights, so it could represent as much as two-tenths

of the tolerance. Either a high-resolution scale is needed, error weights should be used, or a larger test draft selected. A combination of these approaches

may be used. For example, suppose a large-capacity (7000 lb/min) meter is to be tested using

a vehicle scale with a 20-lb scale division as a transfer standard. Error weights

should be used to increase readability to the nearest 5 lb for the gross and

tare weights. Each weight value is +2.5 lb (reading to the nearest 5 lb), but

since there are two weighings, gross and tare, the potential rounding error is

5 lb. The present acceptance tolerance for a wholesale loading-rack meter is approximately 0.11 percent. To limit the rounding error for each weighing to one-tenth of the tolerance, the test draft must be

2.5 lb x 10 = 23,000 lb (.0011)

It is necessary to limit the total error in the transfer standard to less than

one-third of the tolerance of the device under test. Consequently, it is necessary

to thoroughly test the vehicle scale used as a transfer standard, verify that its results repeat very well, and correct for any errors determined during the scale

test. This takes considerable time and care under field conditions. For devices

with larger tolerances, the requirements for the test are not as severe. A

description of the test procedure is given below to advise officials of the

testing necessary for mass flow meters.

Test Procedure for Field Testing Mass Flow Meters Using a Vehicle Scale as a Transfer Standard

1. Use error weights to test the scale to the nearest 5 lb.

2. Test each section of the scale to the maximum load to be applied over the section.

3. Distribute the test load over the portion of scale used to weigh the vehicles. Distribute the load in a manner that approximates the load distribution of the empty and loaded vehicles. Record the scale errors.

4. Position each truck, empty and loaded, in the same place on the vehicle

scale. Use error weights to improve readability.

5. Make corrections to the vehicle weights based upon the distributed load test results.

6. Run several tests at different flow rates. 207
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee recommends the following changes to the LMD Code to recognize mass units for wholesale devices:

S.l.1.2. UNITS. - A liquid-measuring device shall indicate, and record if the device is equipped to record, its delivery in terms of gallons, quarts, pints,

pounds, or binary-submultiples or decimal subdivisions of the gallon or pound. The mass shall be expressed as apparent mass versus a density oT

8.0 g/cm3.

S.l.5.1. TRAVEL OF INDICATOR. - A wholesale device shall be readily

operable to deliver accurately any quantity from 50 gallons or 500 pounds

to the capacity of the device. If the most sensitive element of the indicating system utilizes an indicator and graduations, the relative movement

of these parts corresponding to a delivery of 1 gallon or 10 pounds shall be not less than 0.20 inch. N.3.5. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES. - Test drafts should be equal to at

least the amount delivered by the device in one minute at its maximum

discharge rate, and shall in no case be less than 50 gallons or 500 pounds. The Committee recommends adding a new paragraph to read:

S.2.9. FOR MASS FLOW METERS ONLY. - An automatic means to determine

and correct for changes in product density shall be incorporated in any mass flow metering system that is affected by changes in the density of the

product being measured.

Add the tolerances for mass flow meters to Table 3 under T.2.3. as shown below. TABLE 3 -MAINTENANCE AND ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES ON WHOLESALE

DEVICES, AND MASS FLOW METERS, EXCEPT THOSE DEVICES

USED FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF AGRI-CHEMICAL LIQUIDS

Indication

On normal tests Maintenance

tolerance

Acceptance

tolerance

On special tests Maintenance

and acceptance

tolerance

For Mass Flow Meters

pounds 0.3% of 0.2% of 0.5% of indicated indicated indicated

quantity quantity quantity

(The values in the table have been updated based upon the adoption of item

330-14A.)

208
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Add the following definition: mass flow meter. - A device that measures the mass of a product flowing

through the system. The mass measurement may be determined directly

from the effects of mass on the sensing unit or may be inferred by measuring the properties of the product, such as the volume, density, temperature, or pressure, and displaying the quantity in mass units.

330-3 W S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING ELEMENTS - PROVISION FOR SE- ALING G-S.2. FACILITATION OF FRAUD

This item has been combined with Item 310-2.

330-4 W S.l. 4. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS FOR

RETAIL DEVICES

The proposal to require customer displays at service station consoles needs

further development and more support before being considered. The impact of such a requirement is significant and the benefit of such a requirement must

be considered.

330-5 W S.l. 4. 3. DISPLAY OF UNIT PRICE AND PRODUCT IDENTITY

The request to specify how and where unit price and product information may

appear on a dispenser needs more development before it can be considered.

330-6 W S.l. 4. 4. 2. MONEY VALUE DIVISIONS, DIGITAL

The request to require quantity indications of 0.001 gallons or 0 o 005 liters, its impact, and benefits needs more development before it can be considered.

330-7 VC S.l. 4. 5. AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDICATIONS

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

This paragraph was adopted in 1985, but the wording extends this requirement

beyond the original intent. The purpose was to recognize that when a console

receives only the sales price information from a dispenser and divides by the

unit price, the computed quantity may deviate slightly from the digital quantity

displayed on the dispenser. If a printed receipt is issued to a customer, the

printed receipt must be mathematically correct with respect to quantity, unit

price, and sales price. (See Report of the 70th NCWM 1985, pp. 124-125.) As S.l. 4. 5. is currently written, all console indications and recorded values must be mathematically correct on a retroactive basis. This was not the original intent. The General Code paragraph G-S.5.5. was amended in 1973 so that a service station console did not have to be in mathematical agreement, provided

it was an auxiliary indication; i.e., the indications are for the operator's use

209
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

only. (See Report of the 58th NCWM 1973, p. 164.) This allowed the operator

to write a credit card receipt from the console, typically recording the quantity

to 0.1 gallon, without leaving the kiosk to check the quantity on the dispenser.

If the console issues a printed receipt to be given to the customer, the console

is no longer an auxiliary device, hence the recorded value must be in mathematical agreement.

There was significant support for the position that all consoles (auxiliary

elements) interfaced with dispensers must have indications that are in mathematical agreement, although on a nonretroactive basis. Consequently,

the Committee recommends that S.l.4.5. be amended by adding the words:

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

330-8 WHOLESALE METERS - PRODUCT VAPORIZATION AND TEST

PROCEDURE

The Office of Weights and Measures has consulted the American Petroleum

Institute (API) and worked with several oil companies to investigate the problem

of vaporization of gasoline during the test of a meter. Test results indicate

that the design of a prover is a primary factor determining the amount of gasoline vaporized during a test. Different designs for the bottom loading inlet were equally effective in reducing the amount of gasoline vaporized.

The Office of Weights and Measures will continue to work with API, oil companies, and weights and measures officials to develop a final recommendation.

OWM is considering a performance specification to limit the amount of gasoline

that can be vaporized during a test rather than specify a specific prover design.

The final recommendation will result in a change to NBS Handbook 105-3. The API has a task force for developing a test procedure for testing loading-rack meters. The objective is to establish a detailed procedure that may be used by

both industry and enforcement officials when testing loading-rack meters. The

draft procedure is explicit and addresses aspects of the standard and test procedure not contained in the present Examination Procedure Outline for Loading-Rack Meters (NBS Handbook 112, EPO No. 25). The draft procedure

includes corrections to the prover capacity and the change in product volume

due to temperature. A check of the temperature probe is part of the procedure.

Data sheets and reference tables are included.

The draft test procedure is being considered as a new EPO. The inspection

and test criteria from the present EPO will have to be incorporated into the

test procedure. (Copies of the current API draft are available from OWM for review.)

210
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-9 VC S.2.7.4. DESIGN OF MEASURING ELEMENTS, FOR WHOLESALE

DEVICES ONLY

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

A proposal has been made to allow the use of electronic and liquid-in-glass

thermometers in addition to mercury-in-glass thermometers by deleting the

reference to the mercury-in-glass thermometer in S.2.7.4. It was also suggested

that S.2.7.4. be combined with S.2.6., but this cannot be done because of the

nonretroactive status of S.2.6. Consequently, the Committee recommends that S.2.7.4. be changed to read: S.2.7.4. THERMOMETER WELL WITH AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE

COMPENSATION. - Means- sha-H- -be- t>r©vi"ded- for-msert-in^-for- test-purposes^ a mercury i n-glass -thermometer For test purposes, means shall be provided

to determine the temperature of the liquid either:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately adjacent to the meter.

330-10 W S.2.7.1. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC

TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

See Item 330-18.

330-11 W S. 2.7.3. PROVISION FOR SEALING AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE

COMPENSATORS

This issue has been combined with Item 310-2.

330-12 W S.2.7.4. AND UR.3.5. LOCATION OF THE TEMPERATURE PROBE

This issue is addressed in Item 330-14.

330-13 V N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS

(This item was adopted.)

The Committee has been asked to rewrite paragraphs N.4.1. and N.4.1. 1. to clarify that:

(1) the first test to be performed on a meter equipped with an automatic

temperature-compensating (ATC) system is in the "as found" condition; and

(2) tests run at normal flow with and without the ATC system are normal tests.

211
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

A comment was received stating that the tolerances for a normal test are too

stringent for a metering system equipped with a mechanical ATC system, hence

the special test tolerances should apply. The Committee believes that, when an ATC system is provided, it reflects a normal operating condition of the metering

system; therefore, normal test tolerances should apply. However, the Committee

believes that the tolerances for wholesale meters should be increased to recognize

variables that limit the repeatability of testing meters over time using different provers. The proposed increase in meter tolerances (see Item 330-14) should

resolve the difficulty of metering systems utilizing mechanical ATCs to meet

the tolerances for normal tests.

If a metering system is equipped with a means of indicating or recording both

the gross (uncompensated) and net (temperature compensated) volumes, only one test is required to test the system with and without the ATC. Examples of these installations are computerized ATC Systems recording both the compensated

and uncompensated volumes, and a meter with two registers, one compensated

and the other uncompensated. In the case of a single register and a mechanical

ATC, it is necessary to run the first full flow test with the ATC operating,

then run a second full flow test with the ATC deactivated. Both of these are normal tests and must be within the applicable tolerances.

The Committee recommends that paragraphs N.4.1. and N.4.1.1. be rewritten to read:

N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS. - The "normal" test of a device shall be made at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated under the conditions

of installation. If- a—wholesale device is- equipped *with—an automatic—tempera- ture- compensator,- -this- -test- -should- -be -eendueted--with -the- temperature

compensator~^§eactivated?

N.4.1.1. AUTOMATIG-TEMPERATURE-COMPENSATION-0N WHOLESALE

DEVICES EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE-COMPENSATING SYSTEMS. - If- -a On wholesale devices is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator compensating systems, the compensator normal tests shall be conducted tested;

(a) by comparing the compensated volume indicated or recorded by

t*te-^evieer -with--*he-eompefisa4oit K*oiH*eeted-a to the actual delivered volume corrected to 60 QF; and

(b) with the temperature compensating system deactivated, comparing

the uncompensated volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume.

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system operating in the "as found" condition

On devices that indicate or record both the compensated and uncompensated

volume for each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be performed as a

single test.

212
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-14A V T.2.3. TOLERANCE VALUES ON WHOLESALE DEVICES

(This item was adopted.)

Industry representatives and enforcement officials have reported a lack of agreement between meter test results when different provers have been used to test the same meter. The Office of Weights and Measures has worked with

several oil companies and found that the quantity of gasoline vaporized during

a meter test may vary greatly from one prover to another. In some cases, this difference could represents more than one gallon of gasoline on a 1500-gallon

test. In those tests, the amount of gasoline that vaporized varied from day to day, probably due to temperature variations and other factors.

In 1986, the SdcT Committee suggested new tolerances for metering devices. For wholesale devices, the suggested acceptance and maintenance tolerances

would be larger when test drafts are greater than 59 and 130 gallons,

respectively. The Committee believes that larger tolerances for wholesale meters should be adopted this year, with the others to be addressed in 1988. Although

the larger tolerances may be viewed as permitting more "errors" in the

measurement system, the increase in tolerances actually reflects a realization

of the limitations of repeating measurements over time using different provers. Variables affecting meter test results include the uncertainty in prover

calibrations, day to day variations in meter accuracy, variation in the vaporization

of gasoline, and the accuracy of the temperature measurement. Based upon

repeated measurements using the same prover or prover design, oil companies

may wish to limit meter errors to a range smaller than the meter tolerances.

The larger tolerances will reduce the potential for disagreement in test results when different provers are used.

The Committee recommends that Table 3, under T.2.3.I., be deleted and that

T.2.3.1. be changed to read:

T.2.3. WHOLESALE DEVICES AND MASS FLOW METERS

T.2.3.1. EXCEPT THOSE USED FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF AGRICHEMICAL LIQUIDS. -Maintenance tolerances and acceptance tolerances shaU be as -shown- An- ^Fatoe- -3r: On normal tests Acceptance tolerance

Maintenance tolerance

0.2%

0.3%

On special tests Acceptance and maintenance

tolerance 0.5%

213
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

If this change is adopted, the tolerances for mass flow meters would increase

to the values stated above and the change to Table 3 proposed in Item 330-2

would no longer apply.

330-14B V T.2.3. TOLERANCE FOR AUTOMATIC

TEMPERATURE-COMPENSATING SYSTEMS

(This item was adopted.)

The Committee has received a proposal to establish a tolerance on the

temperature probe of electronic temperature-compensating systems. Although

there is a significant amount of support for this proposal, the Committee is reluctant to establish a tolerance for a component of a measuring system. The

Committee supports the establishment of a tolerance on the performance of the temperature-compensating system that, in effect, recognizes that an error may

be present in the temperature probe. This tolerance would set a limit on the

difference in meter errors when tested with and without the

temperature-compensating system. (See Item 330-13.) The results of tests with

and without the temperature-compensating system would still have to be within the applicable acceptance and maintenance tolerances but, in addition, the meter

errors could not differ by more than 0.2 percent of the test draft, which is proposed as the tolerance.

The advantages of a performance approach to the accuracy of the

temperature-compensating system are that:

1. it tests the entire temperature-compensating system;

2. in some cases compliance can be determined from the data obtained from

the meter test, so no additional testing is required;

3. it eliminates the need to establish a separate tolerance for a component (i.e., the temperature probe) in the measuring system;

4. the location of the temperature probe does not have to be specified since

the performance determines the suitability of the system; and

5. it is not necessary to require a thermometer well adjacent to the

temperature probe to determine its accuracy.

If the difference between the meter errors for the tests with and without the

temperature-compensating system exceeds the tolerance, the metering system

should be rejected. It is the user's responsibility to determine whether or not

the error is in the temperature probe or some other part of the system and

correct it. (See G-UR.4.1. and G-UR.4.2.) To illustrate the application of this tolerance for loading-rack meters, consider a system that provides the net and gross gallons for each delivery. If the system

has a mechanical automatic temperature compensation system, two tests have to be run: one with and one without the temperature compensator activated.

214
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Example

Product: #2 fuel oil API Gravity: 35.5 Test Data

1. Flow rate (GPM) 600

2. Registered gross meter volume (gal) 798.7

3. Registered or recorded net meter volume (gal) 796

4. Product temperature at meter (oF)

67

5. Table 6B* correction factor

(item 4) 0.9967

6. Prover reading (gal) 799.0

7. Product temperature in prover (oF)

67

8. Table 6B* correction

factor (item 4) 0.9967

9. Correction factor for prover temperature

1.00013

10. Gross volume in prover (gal)

(item 6 x item 9) 799.1

11. Gross meter error (gal)

(item 2 - item 10) -0.4

12. Net volume in prover (gal)

(item 8 x item 10) 796.5

13. Net meter error (gal)

(item 3 - item 12) -0.5

*API Standard 2540 (ASTM Standard D1250)

The difference between the gross and net meter error is 0.1 gallon. The

tolerance is 0.2 percent of the test draft of approximately 800 gallons or 1.6 gallon. The automatic temperature-compensating system would pass. The tolerance of 0.2 percent is an indirect tolerance on the temperature probe,

but checks the entire automatic temperature-compensating system. The

temperature probe error permitted by this tolerance depends upon the coefficient of expansion for each product. If the entire error is assumed to be in the

temperature probe, the temperature error permitted by this tolerance can be

computed.

Based upon a 1000-gallon test draft and using approximate values for coefficients of expansion, the temperature probe errors for a tolerance of 0.2 percent of the test draft is:

215
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Product

Permitted Probe

Error in oF

Gasoline 3.4 #2 Fuel Oil 4.0 The temperature errors permitted by a performance tolerance are slightly larger

than suggested in the original proposal to the Committee since results will generally do not repeat exactly in consecutive tests, so a slightly larger tol- erance is reasonable.

The Committee recommends that a performance tolerance for automatic

temperature-compensating systems be added for wholesale meters. The Committee

recommends that a new paragraph T.2.3.3. be added to read: T.2.3.3. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATING SYSTEMS. - The

difference between the meter error for results determined with and without

the automatic temperature-compensating system activated shall not exceed

0.2 percent of the test draft. The results of each test shall be within

the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

330-15 VC UR.1.1. LENGTH OF DISCHARGE HOSE

Dispensers used to fill trucks are permitted to have two delivery outlets provided

that flow cannot readily be diverted (UR.2.4.). Paragraph UR.1.1. specifies that the discharge hose shall not exceed 18 feet when measured from the dispenser

housing to the inlet of the discharge nozzle. The "satellite" delivery outlet at

a truck dispenser will probably violate UR.1.1. if the piping is included as part

of the discharge hose. Similarly, some marinas place dispensers on the shore and

have piping from the dispenser to the remote location of the delivery hose.

The major problem anticipated in such installations now in use is "computer

jump" due to expansion of the pipe between the dispenser and the delivery

hose. One jurisdiction with numerous installations of the type described above

reports no unusual problems with "computer jump." If "computer jump" occurs, then the installation must be modified to correct the problem. To recognize dispensers currently in use at truck stops and marinas, the

Committee recommends the following:

Amend UR.1.1. to read: UR.1.1. LENGTH OF DISCHARGE HOSE. - The length of the discharge

hose on a retail motor fuel device shall not exceed 18 feet, measured

from the -outside- -of- -the- housing-of-the-device its housing or outlet of the

discharge line to the inlet of the discharge nozzle, unless it can be

demonstrated that a longer hose is essential to permit deliveries to be

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar)

216

!
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

made to receiving vehicles or vessels. (On a hose that may be coiled or otherwise retained or connected inside the housing, the measurement shall be made with the hose fully extended.) Unnecessarily remote location of a device shall not be accepted as justification for an abnormally long hose. Add the following two definitions:

Discharge line. A rigid pipe connected to the outlet of a measuring device. Discharge hose. A flexible hose connected to the discharge outlet of a measuring device or its discharge line.

330-16 VC UR.2.1. PLUMB AND LEVEL CONDITION

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

This requirement was apparently directed to gravity-fill dispensers. According to device manufacturers, a plumb and level condition is not crucial to the accuracy

of devices currently in use. It is important, however, that a device be secured

to a foundation to avoid adverse effects on its performance.

The Committee recommends that the present paragraph, UR.2.1. Plumb and Level Condition, be deleted and replaced with a new paragraph to read: UR.2.1. INSTALLATION. - A device shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and the installation shall be sufficiently secure and rigid to maintain this condition.

330-17 VC UR.2.5. PRODUCT STORAGE IDENTIFICATION

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The American Petroleum Institute has developed two standards recommending

particular colors and symbols to be used to mark equipment and vehicles for the product being handled or stored. These standards are:

1. API Bulletin No. 1542, Fourth Edition, April 1986, entitled "Airport

Equipment Marking for Fuel Identification," and

2. API Recommended Practice 1637, First Edition, October 1986, entitled "Using

the API Color-Symbol System to Mark Equipment and Vehicles for Product

Identification at Service Stations and Distribution Terminals."

A standardized marking system would help prevent the contamination of a product

when returning it to storage after testing a meter. The Committee considered

adding these standards to UR.2.5. or referencing these standards in the paragraph. Because the standards address equipment not normally under the jurisdiction of weights and measures enforcement, the Committee believes that it would exceed

the authority of weights and measures officials include these standards as part

of Handbook 44. Additionally, requiring specific symbols for identification may

be inappropriate since UR.2.5. has required product storage identification for

217
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

some time, and it may create enforcement problems if equipment is clearly

marked with a different code system.

The Committee supports the use of a single system of color-symbol coding and

recommends that any jurisdiction considering regulations in this area should

adopt the standards developed by the API. Industry is encouraged to utilize the API-recommended color-symbol coding. Although no change is recommended to UR.2.5., the Committee believes that the API documents should be adopted as NCWM recommendations to promote their use. The Committee recommends that API Bulletin No. 1542 and API Recommended

Practice 1637 be adopted as recommendations of the NCWM.

330-18 VC UR.3.5.2. WRITTEN INVOICE

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The Committee received a proposal to change the term "automatic temperature

compensator" to "automatic temperature-compensating system" so that it clearly

applies to computerized (electronic) systems as well as to mechanical

compensators. The Committee concurs, and believes that both mechanical and

electronic systems are covered by the term "automatic temperature compensator."

Any reference in the code to automatic temperature compensators will be

editorially changed to automatic temperature-compensating systems.

The Committee also addressed the information that should be required on an

invoice and considered whether written invoices applied to both handwritten

tickets and printed tickets. The Committee believes the requirement should

apply to handwritten and to printed tickets. Additionally, the Committee believes that an invoice should also state the API gravity, product temperature at the time

of delivery, and the gross meter reading. In the case of handwritten tickets,

the headings and entry spaces can be preprinted and completed at the time of delivery.

The Committee recommends that UR.3.5.2. be amended to read: UR.3.5.2. WRITTEN INVOICES. - Any written invoice based on a reading

of a wholesale device that is equipped with an automatic temperature-eompensater compensating system shall have shown thereon that the volume

delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 60 oF. The invoice issued

from an electronic wholesale device equipped with an automatic temperature

compensating system shall also indicate the API specific gravity or coefficient of expansion, product temperature, and gross reading.

330-19 VC UR.3.2. DEFINITIONS; FACE AND SIDE

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

The terms "face" and "side" are used in several places in the LMD code. To

clarify these paragraphs, definitions of these terms would be helpful. The

Committee is considering changing the "face" and "side" in the code to other

218
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

terminology, such as "display area" and "customer side". Pending further review,

the Committee recommends the addition of the following definitions to the code: face. That portion of a computing-type pump or dispenser which displays

the actual computation of price per unit, delivered quantity, and total

sale price. In the case of some electronic displays, this may not be an

integral part of the pump or dispenser.

side. That portion of a pump or dispenser which faces the consumer during

the normal delivery of product.

There is inconsistency in the use of the terms "face" and "side" in S.l.4.3. and

UR.3.2. with respect to marking the identity of the product. To be consistent,

the Committee recommends that UR.3.2. be changed editorially to read: UR.3.2. UNIT PRICE AND PRODUCT IDENTITY. - On a retail device, there

shall be displayed on each faee of the device the price at which the product

is offered for sale and, in the case of a computing-type or moneyoperated

type, the unit price at which the device is set to compute and deliver.

There shall also be conspicuously displayed on each f&ee side of the device,

in the most descriptive terms commercially practicable, the identity of the product that is being dispensed. If a device is designed to dispense more

than one grade, brand, blend, or mixture of product, the identity of the

grade, brand, blend, or mixture which the c 5 set to dispense shall be displayed on each faee side of the device at any time the device is in service.

Change the word "face" in the last sentence of S.l.4.3. to "side".

330-20 REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL TYPE

EVALUATION - MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

The Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation - Measuring Industry

Sector met during the Interim Meeting. The Advisory Committee reviewed

permanence test procedures for different types of meters and discussed the

acceptable operation of card-activated systems, particularly related to the use of bank cards, power loss during a transaction, and the potential for fraud. The Advisory Committee is not recommending any changes to the type evaluation

criteria at this time. Instead, the topics discussed are reported for comment

and further study. It was agreed that the permanence test procedures could

be implemented immediately by NTEP Participating Laboratories, but adoption by

the NCWM will be delayed until experience has been gained with these

procedures.

Agreement was not obtained on new checklist criteria and test procedures

regarding power loss on card-activated systems. The concern is that, while

the criteria and tests may be appropriate, there may be conflicts with

requirements for the banking systems. Additionally, time will be required to incorporate some of these safeguards into the design of current equipment. The

219
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

objective of providing these criteria as an information item is to allow comment,

permit inquiries to explore whether or not there are conflicts with banking

systems, and to use the criteria as guidelines in type evaluation to determine

whether or not problems exist, but not to use the guidelines as "pass/fail" criteria. The Advisory Committee will review the issues over the next year with the

plan of submitting specific recommendations in time for the 1988 Annual Meeting.

SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE TANK METERS

331 W TICKET PRINTERS

The proposal to clarify the times during which a ticket may be inserted or removed from the ticket printer needs further development before it can be

considered.

SECTION 3.32. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS AND ANHYDROUS AMMONIA

LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES.

332-1 W S.l.1.5. MONEY VALUES - MATHEMATICAL AGREEMENT

The proposal to amend the code for stationary devices was developed before

the 1987 edition of Handbook 44 was available. The action taken last year has

addressed and resolved this issue.

332-2 W S. 1.5. 2. 2. MONEY-VALUE DIVISIONS, DIGITAL

Although the maximum division value for quantity is not specified, a problem

does not appear to exist. Consequently, due to the many items on the agenda,

this item was dropped.

332-3 VC S.2.5. THERMOMETER WELL

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

See also Item 330-9. To allow the use of electronic and liquid-in-glass thermometers, the Committee

recommends that S.2.5. be amended to read:

S.2.5. THERMOMETER WELL. - Means-shall-be- provided--for- inserting- f©r

test- -porposesy--a- -merettfy-in-glass- -ther-mometer For test purposes, means

shall be provided to determine the temperature of the liquid either:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

220
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately adjacent to the meter.

332-4 WS.2.6. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

The Committee was requested to propose requiring automatic temperaturecompensation systems on devices with a discharge rate greater than 20 gallons per minute. Due to the different views on automatic temperature compensation

held by weights and measures officials, the majority of the Committee believed

this issue should be addressed in the regulations of each jurisdiction, and that

it has been addressed in Handbook 130 by the Conference and the Laws and

Regulations Committee.

332-5 VC S.4.2. DISCHARGE RATES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Some stationary LPG dispensers are used exclusively to deliver product to containers and not to motor vehicles. The dispensers are identical to motor

fuel devices, so the requirement for marking should apply to all stationary LPG

dispensers.

The Committee recommends that S.4.2. be amended to read:

S.4.2. DISCHARGE RATES. - A device shall be marked to show its designed

maximum and minimum discharge rates. The marked minimum discharge rate

shall not exceed:

(a) 5 gallons per minute for motor-fuel stationary retail devices, or

(b) 20 percent of the marked maximum discharge rate for other retail

devices and for wholesale devices.

332-6 VC UR.2.4. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) To permit the owner/user discretion over the placement of temperature-sensing

equipment for the purpose of temperature compensation, the Committee

recommends adding a new user requirement to read: UR.2.4. 4. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE-COMPENSATING SYSTEMS. - Means

for determining the temperature of measured liquid in an automatic temperature-compensating system shall be so designed and located that, in any

"usual and customary" use of the system, the resulting indications and/or

recorded representations are within applicable tolerances.

221
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

332-7 VC WEIGHT INDICATIONS FOR ANHYDROUS AMMONIA

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Anhydrous ammonia is used primarily as a fertilizer and many state laws require

fertilizer to be sold by weight. The LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code specifies only units of fluid volume to be used

on these devices. Mass-flow meters are available that measure products directly

in mass units and would be suitable for the measurement of anhydrous ammonia

and LPG. The discussion of mass-flow meters in Item 330-2 is applicable here

as well. The Committee recommends that this code be amended to allow mass units to be used for devices falling under this code. The changes cmsist primarily of including appropriate references to weight, and weight values roughly

corresponding to the volume quantities specified in the code. To permit the

tolerances to apply to both volume and mass flow meters, the tolerances are expressed in percent and are a direct conversion of the existing tolerances. As a result, these values are not "convenient" percentage numbers. The Report

of the 71st NCWM 1986, page 197, discusses new tolerances for these devices.

The Committee plans to recommend changing these tolerances in 1988 to: Underregistration Overregistration

Normal tests Acceptance 0.75% 0.5%

tolerance

Maintenance 1.5% 1.0%

tolerance

Special tests Acceptance and 1.5% 1.0%

maintenance

tolerance

The Committee recommends adding a new paragraph S.2.7. and amending the

following paragraphs to read:

5.1.1.2. UNITS. - A device shall indicate and record, if the device is equipped to record, its deliveries in term of gallons, quarts, pints, pounds,

or binary-submultiple or decimal subdivisions of the gallon or pound. The

mass shall be expressed as apparent mass versus a density of 8.0 g/cm3.

5.1.1.3. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT. - The value of the smallest unit of

indicated delivery, and recorded delivery if the device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) one pint or one pound on retail devices, or

(b) one gallon or ten pounds on wholesale devices.

222
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.l.1.6. PRINTED TICKET. - Any printed ticket issued by a device of the

computing type on which there is printed the total computed price, shall have printed clearly thereon the total volume of the delivery in terms of

gallons or pounds and the appropriate fraction of the gallon or pound and

the price per gallon or pound. S. 1.6.1. TRAVEL OF INDICATOR. - A wholesale device shall be readily

operable to deliver accurately any quantity from 50 gallons or 500 pounds

to the capacity of the device. If the most sensitive element of the indicating system utilizes an indicator and graduations, the relative amount of these parts corresponding to a delivery of 1 gallon or 10 pounds shall be

not less than 0.20 inch.

S.2.5. THERMOMETER WELL, EXCEPT FOR DIRECT MASS FLOW DEVICES.

S.2.7. FOR MASS FLOW METERS ONLY. - An automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density shall be incorporated in any mass flow metering system that is affected by changes in the density

of the product being measured.

N.4.2.3. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES. - A wholesale device shall be so tested

at a minimum discharge rate of:

(a) 10 gallons per minute or 100 pounds per minute for a device with a

rated maximum discharge less than 50 gallons per minute or 500 pounds

per minute. (b) 20 percent of the marked maximum discharge rate for a device with

a rated maximum discharge of 50 gallons per minute or 500 pounds

per minute or more, or

T.2.1. ON NORMAL TESTS. - The maintenance tolerance on "normal" tests

shall be 4-cttb^4nc*tes-per-indica4ed-ga41on 1.7 percent of indicated quantity on underregistration and 2-e«bie-ittehes-t>er-indieated-gallon 0.87 percent

of indicated quantity on overregistration. The acceptance tolerance on

"normal" tests shall be 2 cubic inches per indicated gallon 0.87 percent

of indicated quantity on underregistration and t-ettbie-ineh-per-mdieated

gallon 0.43 percent of indicated quantity on overregistration.

T.2.2. ON SPECIAL TESTS. - The maintenance and acceptance tolerances

shaU be 4 -eubie -inehes- per-m^ica-ted-gaHen 1.7 percent of indicated quantity on underregistration and 2 -eubie-inches -per-indieated-gallon 0.87 percent

of indicated quantity on overregistration.

Amend the definition of retail device to read:

retail device. A device used for single deliveries of liquified petroleum

gas for domestic use and liquefied petroleum gas or liquid anhydrous ammonia for or non-resale use.

223
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Amend the following definition to read: liquefied petroleum gas liquid-measuring device. A system including a me- chanism or machine of the meter type designed to measure and deliver

liquefied petroleum gas in the liquid state by a definite volume quantity, whether installed in a permanent location or mounted on a vehicle. Means may or may not be provided to indicate automatically, for one of a series

of unit prices, the total money value of the liquid measured.

Add the following definition: mass flow meter. - A device that measures the mass of a product flowing

through the system. The mass measurement may be determined directly

from the effects of mass on the sensing unit or may be inferred by measuring the properties of the product, such as the volume, density, temperature, or pressure, and displaying the quantity in mass units.

332-8 V N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS

(This item was adopted.)

The discussion in Item 330-13 regarding the normal tests for a meter with an automatic temperature-compensating system applies to LPG and anhydrous ammonia

liquid meters as well. The Committee recommends that paragraphs N.4.1. and

N.4.1.1. be changed to be consistent with the changes recommended in Item

330-13. The tolerance for the automatic temperature compensator is not included

in this change to the LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia Device Code but is being

considered for 1988. The Committee recommends that paragraphs N.4.1. and N.4.1.1. be amended to read: N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS. - The "normal" test of a device shall be made at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated under the conditions

of installation. If- tfre dev-iee- *s- equipped-with -an-automa^e-temperature

eempensatery- this- *est-sfreuld -be- conducted-with- the-temperature compensator

deactivatedN.4.1.1. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION. - K--a On devices

is equipped with an automatic temperature compensating systems, normal

tests shall be conducted as follows: the -compensator-sfraH- be- -tested—

(a) by comparing the compensated volume indicated or recorded by

the -device-wi-th- -the- eompeflsa-ter-eenneeted-and-eperet-ingj-with

to the actual delivered volume corrected to 60 oF; and,

(b) with the temperature compensating system deactivated, comparing

the uncompensated volume indicated or recorded to the actual

delivered volume.

224
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system operating in the "as found" condition. On devices

that indicate or record both the compensated and uncompensated volume

for each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be performed as a single

test.

SECTION 5.51. WIRE- AND CORDAGE-MEASURING DEVICES

350 W DRAFT COMBINED FABRIC- MEASURING AND WIRE AND CORDAGE-MEASURING DEVICE CODE

Due to the number of items on the agenda, this item was not considered.

SECTION 5.53. ODOMETERS

353 VC N.l.3.3. VEHICLE LADING T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

When checking the odometers of rental trucks, it is not always practical to test with the customer's load or by placing standard test weights in the truck

bed, which may create a safety hazard. A tolerance for checking unladen trucks

is needed. Test data were provided to the Committee supporting the proposed

tolerance for unladen trucks. The Committee recommends amending N.l.3.3. and T.2., and adding a new para- graph T.2.1. as follows:

N.l.3.3. VEHICLE LADING. -

(a) Passenger Load - During the distance test of an odometer, the vehicle may carry two persons.

(b) Truck Cargo Load - Truck odometers shall be tested by one of the

following methods;

1. when the truck is loaded with one-half of the maximum cargo

load; or

2. unladen if unladen test tolerances are applied.

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES. - Except for unladen trucks, maintenance and

acceptance tolerances on odometers shall be four percent of the interval

under test. T.2.1. TOLERANCES FOR UNLADEN TRUCKS. - Maintenance and acceptance

tolerances on truck odometers shall be five percent for underregistration

and three percent for overregistration of the interval under test.

225
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

SECTION 5.56. GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

356-1 S.l.6.2. OPERATING RANGE

This paragraph was addressed at the 1986 NCWM, and the effective date was

delayed until January 1, 1990. The purpose of the delay was to give device

manufacturers sufficient time to incorporate design changes into models continuing to be manufactured. These devices have a long product life. The appropriateness of the S.l.6.2. requirement was again questioned this year. The Committee also reviewed the USDA/Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)

Grain Moisture Handbook. Based upon a meeting between FGIS, Maryland, and

NBS representatives, a number of changes to the Grain Moisture Meters Code

will be proposed in 1988 and will require significant changes to the design of grain moisture meters. These changes include a minimum temperature operating

range, a "warm-up" requirement, a level indicator, a minimum moisture division not greater than 0.1 percent, and several other criteria. Because the changes

are major, it is reasonable that the new requirements should apply only to new

meter models, but not to those currently in production. Because of the long

production life of models of grain moisture meters and a desire to incorporate new requirements into the code without unduly disrupting the manufacture of current models, the Committee is considering a proposal that would exempt

current models of grain moisture meters by_ type . This would make the new

requirements nonretroactive on the basis of type, rather than nonretroactive

for all devices after a specified date.

This approach to nonretroactivity is significantly different from that periodically

used in Handbook 44. It has been discouraged due to the difficulty in applying

nonretroactive status to a large number of devices in use over a wide range of applications. There are relatively few manufacturers of grain moisture meters, and the number of models used commercially is also relatively small. It may

be noted that Scales Code paragraph T.N. 8. exempts by type to phase in the

influence factors requirements on a practical basis. The Committee requests comments on the proposal to adopt a new set of criteria for grain moisture meters on the basis of nonretroactivity by device type.

Alternatives to this approach are also requested.

The Committee does not recommend any change to S.l.6.2. this year since, if the concept of nonretroactivity by device type is considered appropriate for grain moisture meters, it may then be appropriate to make S. 1.6.1. nonretroactive

by device type, along with the new requirements that will be proposed in 1988. For the purposes of information and review, the Committee reports the results of the meeting of FGIS, Maryland, and NBS representatives. The Committee is reviewing the recommendations from this meeting as a basis for proposing new

requirements for grain moisture meters (GMMs) for adoption at the 1988 NCWM.

226
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee requests that comments be submitted before the Interim Meeting

in January, 1988.

Report of the FGIS, Maryland, NBS Meeting

of January 6-7, 1987

It was unanimously agreed that the following items be recommended for consideration for adoption into the Handbook 44 Grain Moisture Meters Code for GMMs of new design.

1. Minimum Temperature Operating Range

GMMs shall comply with all the appropriate requirements of this code under

the following temperature conditions:

If not specifically marked to the contrary on the device, the temperature

limits shall be 40 oF to 104 oF (10 oC to 40 oC).

2. Sample Temperature Requirements • Moisture content values shall not be determined if the difference in temperature

between the grain sample, moisture meter, and ambient air temperature exceed

20 of. Grain sample temperature cannot be less than 10 oC or more than 40 oC.

3. Display Resolution

On moisture meters indicating moisture content values in percent of moisture

content, the maximum value of the moisture content division shall not exceed

0.1 percent moisture.

4. Electric Power Supply

A. Grain moisture meters that operate using alternating current shall comply with all appropriate requirements of this code over the line voltage range of 100-130 volts or 200-250 volts, as appropriate.

B. Battery operated instruments shall comply with appropriate requirements

of this code when battery power output is excessive or deficient.

5. Operating Temperature

A grain moisture meter indicating or recording element shall not display or record any usable values until the operating temperature necessary for accurate moisture determination has been attained.

6. Level Condition

If the moisture measurement is affected by the level condition of the GMM,

then a level indicator must be provided.

227
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

7. Humidity (Type Evaluation Test)

If not specifically marked to the contrary on the device, the GMM shall comply

with all appropriate requirements of this code within 10-93 percent relative

humidity, noncondensing. (Action taken at the 1987 Annual Meeting may determine if the requirement will be proposed.)

Summary

All attendees of the meeting felt the above listed recommendations should be

nonretroactive for existing models of GMM and consideration should be given

to making the existing Section S.l.6.2. nonretroactive also. We realize the timing is inappropriate to request action on the recommendations

at the 1987 Annual Meeting. However, we believe these recommendations should be considered and published for information and comment in this year's S&T

annual report.

The following is a list of proposed changes which FGIS still has under consideration. The intent is to finalize these and forward recommendations prior to the next Interim Meeting.

1. Review FGIS, OIML, and Handbook 44 tolerances and recommend tolerances

acceptable to all parties concerned.

2. Establish guidelines for obtaining grain samples that can be used by both

FGIS and state weights and measures programs.

3. Consider developing a specification stating that charts must be reviewed

annually and updated as required for any meter currently being used, and

a user requirement stating that the current calibration chart be used.

4. Establish a minimum operating range for grain moisture. Consider including

graphs of percent moisture versus temperature as a basis for describing the minimum temperature and grain moisture operating ranges.

356-2 S.3. ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT

Requests have been received that specifications and tolerances are needed for accessory equipment addressed in Section S.3. of the Grain Moisture Meters

Code. Specifically, the following topics have been raised.

1. A tolerance is needed on the dry measures used to determine the test weight per bushel. The tolerance given in the dry measure code are too large when

the measure is used to determine the weight per bushel of grain.

2. The funnel mechanism and drop height from the dry measure used to determine the weight per bushel should be specified.

228
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

3. Specific tolerances should be stated for scales used to determine weight per bushel if the indications are in pounds per bushel. It is suggested that a maximum verification scale division should be established for scales using one pint or one quart sample sizes for determining the weight per bushel.

4. Develop specifications for the readability of weight per bushel scales. In particular, this issue addresses the ability of a user to determine the balance

condition of a beam scale when the scales does not have a trig loop or a balance indicator. This proposal continues with the suggestion that the

hand-held bushel weight scales should be prohibited. In 1986, the S&T

Committee reported that paragraph UR.2.2. prohibits the use of hand-held

scales because they must be freely suspended from a fixed support when

in use. (See the Report of the 71st NCWM 1986, page 184.)

5. A tolerance should be specified for thermometers used in grain moisture

testing. A tolerance of +2 oF has been suggested.

The USDA has requirements for weight per bushel equipment, such as design of the one-quart dry measure (they only allow a one-quart sample to be used for weight per bushel determinations), the funnel, test stand, and scale. The USDA

requirements will be the starting point for developing Handbook 44 criteria for

this equipment. The Scales Code will be the basis for any specific scale criteria,

if necessary. Comments are requested regarding the criteria needed and specific

recommendations for language. If criteria are adequately developed, the Committee may propose specific criteria for adoption at the 1988 Annual Meeting.

356-3 W USDA MOISTURE HANDBOOK

This item was combined with Item 356-1.

356-4 W COORDINATION OF NEW METER CALIBRATIONS

A letter was received indicating a need for improved communication among the

USDA/FGIS, the NCWM, and state departments of agriculture in advance of the

USDA/FGIS release of calibrations of grain moisture meters. The USDA/FGIS

took action immediately upon receipt of the original letter and has taken steps

to address the problem.

OTHER ITEMS

360-1 ENERGY ALLOCATION SYSTEMS

Energy allocation systems are appearing in the marketplace and their use is increasing. Courts in Maryland and the City of Seattle, Washington have ruled

that these devices are a weights and measures responsibility. The S&T Committee

believes that a task force should be formed to study energy allocation systems

and make appropriate recommendations. The position of the S&T Committee

has been communicated to the Executive Committee. See Item 101-4 in the

Executive Committee Report.

229
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

360-2 HOUR METER CODE

Interest has been ( few states test th California has hac

ments for utility n tee that changes

electric-watt houi

3d for a code for electric watt-hour meters. Although

ers, the need appears to be expanding. The State of

3 for a number of years. It is based upon requirend is well established. They have advised the Commit- w be necessary to recognize electronic versions of

Appendix C, ineludi ments for electric

code. Comments t

review and comment reproduces the California require- our meters. This is an information item, not a tentative iuested before the Interim Meeting in 1988.

360-3 CARBON DIOXIDE LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

Liquid carbon dioxide is measured and sold as a refrigerant to various segments

of the food industry, particularly processing plants and fast food outlets. Cryogenic metering systems and on-board weighing systems can be used to measure

the commodity, but standards, test methods, and user requirements are needed.

The Committee received a proposal to add a code for carbon dioxide meters in Handbook 44. A draft code, developed by the State of California, is included as Appendix D. This is an information item, not a tentative code. Comments are requested before the Interim Meeting in 1988.

360-4 OIML ACTIVITIES

OIML Membership has increased significantly in the last several years there

are now 51 member and 28 corresponding nations. Output includes 74 Inter- national Recommendations and 16 International Documents. It is generally agreed

that OIML is becoming truly international in scope, and that it is fostering

international uniformity in technical requirements and test methods. Most par- ticipants have expressed the view that their participation has proven to be most beneficial.

Members of the Committee participated in a number of OIML activities during

the past year and will continue to participate in the future. The meetings

attended, those scheduled for the near future, and the documents reviewed are

as follows: Meetings: t U.S. National Working Group (USNWG) PS7, August 12-13, 1986, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD. Reason: Review and develop U.S. position on two second Pre-draft

International Recommendations (IR), Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (automatic hopper scales) and Automatic Rail Weighbridges (weighing-in-motion).

International Working Group (IWG) PS7/RS5, September 15-19, 1986, London,

England. Reason: To discuss two second pre-drafts referenced in above paragraph.

230
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

USNWG PS7, October 14-15, 1986, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD. Reason: Review

and develop U.S. position on a proposed pre-draft International Recommendation

combining IRs 3, 28, 74, and other etc. This effort would result in a single

document containing all the requirements for nonautomatic scales. IWG PS7/RS4, November 2-6, 1986, Paris. Reason: Discuss documents referenced

in paragraph above.

USNWG PS7, March 3-4, 1987, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD. Reason: Review and

develop U. S. position on two documents — second pre-draft combined scales

document and third pre-draft on automatic hopper scales.

IV

7 G PS7/RS4, June 1-5, 1987, Braunschweig, Germany. Reason: To discuss

second pre-draft combined document on scales. Documents Reviewed : Second pre-draft IR on Automatic Rail Weighbridges

Second pre-draft IR on Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments Third pre-draft IR on Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments

First pre-draft IR combined document on scales

Second pre-draft IR combined document on scales

Third pre-draft document on test procedures and report forms

Future Work

The pre-drafts on the IR's dealing with automatic rail weighbridges

and automatic hopper scales were submitted for vote to the participating members of PS7 & PS7/RS5 both were defeated. Thus, subsequent pre-drafts will be developed by the responsible RS (UK) and

circulated for review by the end of the year, and will be the subject

of a meeting of the International Working Group of PS7/RS5 in April

1988, in London.

At the meeting of the International Working Groups for PS7/RS4,

held in June 1987 in Braunschweig, Germany, a draft revised IR applicable to non-automatic weighing instrument that incorporates all of the requirements of IR #3, #28, #74, and includes some additional

requirements applicable to certain electronic scales and test procedures

and report forms, was accepted. However, there were several issues on specific requirements that were not resolved at the meeting and

will be circulated for balloting prior to September, 1987. The results of this ballot will be reflected in the final revised IR to be submitted

to the next International Conference in 1988. Work will begin on the revision of IR #50 Belt-Conveyor Scales and

a draft will be circulated to the participating member Nations for review and comments by the end of 1987. 231
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

A first pre-draft IR applicable to electronic volumetric measuring

devices has been circulated for review and comments and will be the subject of a meeting of the International Working Group for PS5/RS6

Electronics, in November, 1987. A pre-draft IR has been developed and circulated on symbols for use with measuring instruments. It is expected that this work will continue over the next several years and subsequent drafts will be distributed

for further comment.

F. Gerk, New Mexico, Chairman

R. Andersen, New York

K. Butcher, Maryland

J. Truex, Ohio

D. Watson, Texas

H. Oppermann, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

232
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APPENDIX A

REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

ON NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

This Appendix has three sections:

1. Devices to be Tested for Influence Factors (page 234)

2. NTEP Load Cell Testing (page 235)

3. NTEP Load Cell Test Procedures (page 236)

233
ecifications and Tolerances Committee

o £ ft. a

3 H

s

OQ ft.

3

to c

•S

a)B i 03 GO O

We Ind

I*B <° •

<U O c M g Of r3 -1-5 ^

Q.

>, o Ills

CP O 3 S_

i 8

"

to c O <D O 3

** a

•o

CD £

|f Si)

£- 5 .„ * O O m

•9 c « * c

*n £3 S 0)

CO ^ CO ^ J <y O a> o o H O H > a- - co m

234
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

NTEP Load Cell Testing

Load Cells to be Submitted for Test Load cells with essentially the same design will be considered to be part of the same family. Typically, a ratio of 10:1 in cell capacities will be covered,

based upon the test of a single cell. To determine which cell(s) should be

submitted for testing, the manufacturer should submit a drawing of each capacity load cell to substantiate that they are of the same basic design. The manufacturer must provide the following information with a request for evaluation.

1. Load cell capacities

2. Quality or accuracy class

3. Number of scale divisions requested

4. Minimum verification scale division

5. Drawings for each cell

6. A complete set of test data on the load cells submitted for evaluation. (Test data is required only for the cells submitted for type eval- uation; test data is not required for each cell capacity in the family)

The following factors will be considered when determining which cells and the number of cells that will be tested.

1. Which cell can be conveniently tested

2. Which cell is expected to be the most popular

3. What the manufacturer or importer has available for test

4. The range of capacities

5. Differences in the cell design within a family

6. The number of scale divisions for which the cell is to be tested

General guidelines will be used to determine the number and the capacities of

cells to be tested. These are given below:

1. Single- and multiple-cell applications.

One cell at one capacity will usually be tested for single-cell applications. For multiple cell applications, two load cells at the same capacity will be

tested.

2. Range of capacities.

If the range of capacities is relatively small (e.g., the range of capacities

does not exceed 10:1), then cells at only one capacity will usually be tested.

If the range of cell capacities significantly exceeds a 10:1 ratio, an additional capacity load cell will be tested. The guideline in (1) for single-and

multiple-cell applications applies to each capacity cell that is tested.

3. If a large number of scale divisions is requested, one more cell capacity

or more cells at the same capacity will be tested. The actual number of load cells and load cell capacities to be tested will be

decided by NTEP in discussions with the manufacturer.

235
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Companies desiring an OIML test on a load cell must specify this in the letter of request because the OIML criteria are more stringent than the NTEP criteria. Test data collected for an OIML test may be used to satisfy NTEP criteria, but

the reverse is not true. The additional scale classification (III L), the extra tolerance step in the Class III tolerances, and the tolerances for single and

multiple load cell system (0.7 and 1.0 times the scale tolerance) require additional data analysis. This will result in additional costs for NTEP load cell tests over OIML tests.

Multiple Load Cell System Tolerances

The scale tolerance will be allowed for load cells tested for multiple-cell scales. This is justified by random errors of the load cells resulting in some cancellation, so that multiple load cells do not contribute more than 0.7 of the scale

tolerance when in actual use. Barometric Pressure Tests Barometric pressure testing will be limited to one-diaphragm canister load

cells (or scales utilizing those cells). If the barometric pressure test is run, it is not necessary to vary the pressure over the range specified in Handbook 44, but only over a relatively small range to see if the cell is affected. The test may be very short in time duration.

The barometric pressure test will not be run on hydraulic load cells because

the effects of barometric pressure cancel. A weighing system using hydraulic

load cells will always have a pressure sensor. Both the cell and the sensor

will be vented to the atmosphere so the effect of barometric pressure cancels.

NTEP Load Cell Test Procedures

Test Conditions

1. Measurement Standards: The combined measurement uncertainty of the load generating system and the indicating instrument used to observe the output of the load cell under test shall be less than 0.3 times the maximum permissible errors for the load cell under test (IR 60 section 8).

2. Before adequate testing and evaluation of load cells can be performed,

careful attention shall be given to the environmental and test conditions

under which such evaluations are to be made. Significant discrepancies

frequently result from insufficient recognition of such details. The following

shall be thoroughly considered prior to any type evaluation testing program.

3. Acceleration of gravity - The acceleration of gravity varies by as much as 0.55% over the surface of the earth. Gravity corrections shall be introduced

when standard masses are used for load generation. The value of g at the

test site should be noted in the test results.

4. Environmental conditions - Tests shall be performed under stable environmental conditions. With regard to stable ambient temperature, the temper- ature is deemed to be stable when the difference between extreme temper236
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

atures noted during the test does not exceed one fifth of the temperature

range of the considered cell, without being greater than 5 oC.

5. Loading conditions - Particular attention shall be given to loading conditions

to prevent the introduction of errors not inherent to the load cell. Factors such as surface roughness, flatness, corrosion, scratches, eccentricity, etc., should be taken into consideration. Loading conditions shall be in accordance

with the requirements of the load cell manufacturer. The loads shall be

applied and removed along the sensitive axis of the cell without introducing

shock to the load cell.

6. Reference standards - Periodic (depending on use) verification of standards should be made.

7. Stabilization - A stabilization period for the load cell under test and the

readout instrumentation shall be provided, as recommended by the manufacturer of the equipment used.

8. Temperature conditions - It is important to allow sufficient time for temperature stabilization of the load cell to be achieved. Particular attention shall be devoted to this requirement for large load cells. The loading

system shall be of a design which will not introduce significant thermal

gradients within the load cell. The load cell and its connecting means

(cables, tubes, etc.) which are integral or contiguous shall be at the same

test temperature. The indicating instrument shall be maintained at room

temperature. The temperature effect on auxiliary connecting means shall be considered in determining results.

9. Barometric pressure effects - Where changes in barometric pressure may

significantly affect minimum dead load output, such changes shall be considered.

10. Stability - An indicating instrument and a loading means shall be used which

will provide sufficient stability to permit readings within the limits specified

in point 1. 11. Instrument checking - Some indicating instruments are provided with a convenient means for checking of the instrument itself. When such features are provided, they shall be utilized frequently to ensure that the indicating

instrument is within the accuracy required by the test being performed.

Periodic verification of the instrument calibration shall also be performed.

12. Other conditions - Other conditions specified by the manufacturer such as input/output voltage, electrical sensitivity, etc., shall be taken into consideration during the test. Tests to be Performed

la. Load cell error with respect to temperature

lb. Repeatability based on results of test la

2. Temperature effect on minimum dead load output

237
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

3. Creep (One-hour test per H-44)

4. Barometric pressure effect if the cell is sensitive to barometric pressure changes as determined by guidelines discussed in the section titled "Bar- ometric Pressure Tests" Tolerances

The tolerances are expressed in load cell verification intervals, v, and the minimum load cell verification interval, v mj n specified by the manufacturer. See

pages 239 and 240 for these tolerances. Test Procedures All tests are to be performed according to the test conditions specified earlier.

I. Determination of: Load cell error Repeatability error Temperature effect on minimum dead load output

1. At room temperature, insert the load cell into the force generating system

and exercise by applying a load to maximum capacity three times, returning

to minimum dead load after each load application.

2. If the indicating element for the load cell is provided with a convenient means of checking itself, conduct the self-test at this time.

3. Monitor minimum dead load output until stable. Record instrument indication at minimum dead load.

4. All test load points in a loading and unloading sequence shall be spaced at approximately equal time intervals. The readings shall be taken at a time

which is as far as possible in agreement with the following table. These

two time intervals shall be recorded in seconds.

The initial reading shall be taken at a time interval after the initiation of load

applications or removal, whichever is applicable, as specified in the following

Table:

Load Time

Greater than To and including

0 kg

10 kg

100 kg 1 000 kg

10 000 kg

100 000 kg

10 kg

100 kg

10 seconds

15 seconds

20 seconds

30 seconds

50 seconds

60 seconds

1 000 kg

10 000 kg

100 000 kg

238
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Class III Load Cells

Load Cell Error

H44

Reference

Table 6, Class III T.N. 3. 2. T.N.8.1.1.

Single Cell Requirement

0.7 Factor Applied

Load

0-500v 0.35v 501-2000V 0.70v 2001-4000V 1.05v 4001-lOOOOv 1.75v

Multiple Cell Requirement

1.0 Factor Applied

Tolerance Load Tolerance

0-500v 0.50v 501-2000V l.OOv

2001-4000V 1.50v 4001-lOOOOv 2.50v

Repeatability

Error

T.N.5.

T.N.8.1.1.

0.7 Factor Applied

Load Error 0-500V 0.70v

501-2000V 1.40v 2001-4000V 2.10v 4001-lOOOOv 3.50v

1.0 Factor Applied

Load Error 0-500v l.OOv

501-2000V 2.00v 2001-4000V 3.00v 4001-lOOOOv 5.00V

Temperature Effect T.N. 8. 1.3. 0.7 V mi n /5 °C 1.0 v mi n /5 °C

on Minimum Dead T.N.8.1.1. Load Output

Creep (test at 90-100% of load

Cell Capacity)

T.N.4.5.

T.N.8.1.1.

1.0 Factor Applied

Load Error 0-500v 0.50 501-2000V l.OOv

2001-4000V 1.50v 4001-lOOOOv 2.50v

in 1 hour

1.0 Factor Applied

Load Error 0-500v 0.50v 501-2000V l.OOv

2001-4000V 1.50v 4001-lOOOOv 2.50v

in 1 hour

Effects of T.N. 8. 4. Applicable to only Applicable to only

Barometric specified load cells. specified load cells. Pressure l v min IkPa lv mi n IkPa

239
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Class III L Load Cells

Load Cell Error

H44

Reference

Table 6, Class III L

T.N. 3. 2. T.N.8.1.1.

Single Cell Requirement

0.7 Factor Applied

Load

0-500v 0.35v

501-lOOOv 0.70v (add 0.35v for each

500v or fraction of)

9001-9500 6.65V 9501-lOOOOv 7.00v

Multiple Cell Requirement

1.0 Factor Applied

Tolerance Load Tolerance

0-500v 0.50v

501-lOOOv l.OOv

(add 0.50v for each

500v or fraction of)

9001-9500v 9.50v

9501-lOOOOv 10.00V

Repeatability

Error

T.N.5.

T.N.8.1.1.

0.7 Factor Applied

Load Error 0-500v 0.70v

501-lOOOv 1.40v (add 0.70v for each

500v or fraction of)

9001-9500V 13.30v

9501-lOOOOv 14.00V

1.0 Factor Applied

Load Error 0-500V l.OOv

501-lOOOv 2.00v

(add l.OOv for each

500v or fraction of)

9001-9500V 19.00V

9501-lOOOOv 20.00V

Temperature Effect T.N. 8. 1.3. 0.7 V min /5 °C 1.0 v min /5 °C

on Minimum Dead T.N.8.1.1. Load Output

Creep (test at 90-100% of load

Cell Capacity)

T.N.4.5.

T.N.8.1.1,

1.0 Factor Applied

Load Error 0-500V 0.25 501-lOOOv 0.50v (add 0.25v for each

500v or fraction of)

9001-9500V 4.75v

9501-lOOOOv 5.00v

in 1 hour

1.0 Factor Applied

Load Error 0-500v 0.25v

501-lOOOv 0.50v (add 0.25v for each

500v or fraction of)

9001-9500V 4.75v

9501-lOOOOv 5.00v

in 1 hour

Effects of T.N. 8. 4. Applicable to only Applicable to only

Barometric specified load cells. specified load cells. Pressure lv min ikPa lv min IkPa

240
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The loading or unloading time, whichever is applicable, shall be approximately

one half of the specified time. The remaining time shall be utilized for stabilization. The test shall be conducted under constant conditions.

5. Apply increasing loads to maximum capacity. Increasing load points shall be at least 5 in number and shall include loads at approximately the highest

values in the applicable steps of the tolerances.

6. Record the instrument indications.

7. Remove the test loads to the minimum dead load in a similar manner.

8. Record the instrument indications for the minimum dead load.

9. Repeat the operations described in steps 4 through 8 four more times for accuracy classes I and II or two more times for accuracy classes III, IIIL and IIII. 10. Repeat the operations described in steps 2 through 9 at the high and low

temperature limits for the accuracy class or, if the manufacturer has specified a smaller or larger range, at the limits marked on the cell, provided

the temperature range is at least the range required for the accuracy class. 11. Repeat the operations described in steps 2 through 9 at room temperature.

12. At each data point the magnitude of load cell error shall be determined

and compared with the tolerances.

13. From the resulting data the repeatability error may be determined and

compared with the tolerances.

14. From the resulting data, the temperature effects on minimum dead load

output may be determined and compared to the tolerances.

II. Determination of Creep

1. At room temperature, insert the load cell into the force generating system

and load to the minimum dead load.

2. If the indicating element for the load cell is provided with a convenient means for checking itself, conduct the self-test at this time.

3. Monitor minimum dead load output until stable.

4. (a) Apply a load equal to 90 to 100% of the maximum capacity of the load

cell and record the indication after 20 seconds. Continue to record

indications periodically thereafter at regular time intervals over a

1 hour period; or

(b) Remove a load equal to 90 to 100% of the maximum capacity of the

load cell that has been applied for 1 hour and record the indication

after 20 seconds. Continue to record indications periodically thereafter

at regular time intervals over a 1 hour period.

241
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5. Repeat the operations described in steps 2 through 4 at the high and low

temperature limits for the accuracy class or, if the manufacturer has specified a smaller or a larger range, at the limits marked on the cell, provided

the temperature range is at least the range required for the accuracy class.

6. With the resulting data, and taking into account the effect of barometric

pressure changes, the magnitude of the creep can be determined and compared to the tolerance.

III. Determination of effects of barometric pressure.

1. At room temperature and minimum dead load insert load cell into pressure chamber at atmospheric pressure.

2. If the indicating element for the load cell is provided with a convenient means for checking itself, conduct the self-test at this time.

3. Monitor minimum dead load output until stable. Record instrument indication at minimum dead load.

4. Change barometric pressure to a value of approximately 1 kPa lower or higher than atmospheric pressure and record instrument indication at minimum dead load. If it is convenient, the change in barometric pressure may be significantly more than 1 kPa but cannot exceed 95 and 105 kPa

as specified in HB44.

5. With the resulting data, determine the magnitude of the barometric pressure influence and compare this with the tolerance.

242
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APPENDIX B REPORT OF THE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

Permanence Test Procedures for Meters The Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation Program - Measuring

Industry Sector is requested to reexamine the test procedure for the permanence

test of retail motor fuel dispensers. This review included the number of meters

to be tested, the number of tests to be run, and to further define when the

subsequent examination (see below) may be performed. It is believed that the

number of 5- and 10-gallon tests specified in the present test procedure can

be reduced. Additionally, clarification of the number of meters that should be

tested is needed to establish uniformity.

The following is proposed for consideration.

Permanence Test of New-Design Meters

in Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

All new-design meters are subject to a permanence test. If a meter in a dis- penser is the same as a previously tested dispenser, a permanence test is not required on the meter unless a problem is detected.

Initial Examination

1. All meters of the new type installed at the type evaluation location are

subject to examination. At least two meters must be tested.

2. At least one meter will be tested on each of two major products (e.g.,

gasoline and diesel fuel). At least two tests at both the fast and slow

flow rates will be run on each of these two meters. Only one test at each flow rate need be run on any remaining meters. If both products are

not available for the type evaluation, the test may be performed using one product and a Provisional Certificate of Conformance may be issued. The test using the other product may be performed at a later date to result in a full Certificate of Conformance.

3. All meters must perform within acceptance tolerance.

243
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Subsequent Examination

1. All meters of the new type installed at the type evaluation location must perform within acceptance tolerance throughout the time and volume period

specified below.

2. The examination will be conducted no sooner than 20 days after the initial examination and not before at least 20 000 gallons have been measured by

at least one meter on each of the two products. These may be different

dispensers than those that had the two sets of tests run as part of the

initial evaluation.

3. Two tests at both fast and slow rates will be made on meters that deliver more than 20 000 gallons. Only one test at each flow rate need be run

on any remaining meters. Permanence Test of Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

Utilizing Previously Evaluated Meters

Dispensers utilizing a meter that has been type evaluated will be subject to a permanence test. This test will not involve an extensive test of the meter,

although the meter must remain within acceptance tolerance during the per- manence test. A 20-30 day permanence test will be performed. The meter will not be required to deliver 20 000 gallons during the permanence test, but the

dispenser must receive significant use during the 20-30 day test. Only one dis- penser is required for the permanence test although all dispensers of the new

type installed at the station may be tested. The accuracy tests to be performed on the dispenser are the same as those for new-design meters in retail motor

fuel dispensers.

Permanence Test for LPG and

Cryogenic Meters The tests to be run on metering systems as adopted at the 1985 NCWM are considered appropriate for LPG and cryogenic meters. These are: o three tests at the maximum discharge rate

o three intermediate flow tests

o three slow flow tests

o three vapor or air eliminator tests Only one meter will be required for the test. After the initial test, the meter

is to be placed into service for the permanence test. A minimum throughput

criterion is needed for these meters. The following is recommended.

244
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

For LPG and cryogenic meters: Maximum rated flow rate x 1500 for meters rated equal to or greater

than 60 gal/min.

Maximum rated flow rate x 500 for meters rated less than 60 gal/min.

This corresponds to 30-60 days based upon California weights and measures experience. The time period is considered appropriate because these meters have a history of becoming inaccurate more frequently than meters for other

fuels. Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results must be within acceptance tolerances.

Permanence Test for LPG Vapor Meters The tests to be run on an LPG vapor meter as part of the permanence test are:

o three tests at the maximum discharge rate

o three slow flow tests

o one low flame test Only one meter will be required for the test. After the initial test, the meter

must have air or product passed through the meter as part of the permanence

test. The amount of air or product to be passed through the meter shall be at

least the maximum flow rate times 1000. California weights and measures performs

this test in approximately 60 days. Although this is longer than the usual

30-day test, this is considered appropriate because these meters are usually

installed for up to ten years between tests. Following the period of accelerated use, the tests listed above are to be repeated.

All results must be within acceptance tolerances.

Card-Activated Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

There is great concern regarding the potential for accidental or intentional

fraud when card-activated systems are used in service stations, especially since bank-card-activated systems give direct access to bank accounts. The following

criteria and test procedures are under review for possible additions to the type

evaluation handbook in 1988. Card-Activated Systems

A card-activated system shall have an upper limit on the authorization time

before dispensing product and properly record transactions on the appropriate

card account. When a card-activated system is subject to power loss, the dispenser shall not remain authorized indefinitely. Because systems may be installed with separate

power lines to the console, card reader, and dispenser, tests should be run with

power failures to different parts of the system to evaluate the potential for

245
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

accidental or intentional errors. The appropriate device response depends upon when the power loss occurs during the delivery sequence.

a. The dispenser must deauthorize in not more than three minutes if the pump

"handle" is not turned on. Complies? o Yes o No o N/A

b. When a power loss occurs after the pump "handle" is on, the dispenser must deauthorize immediately.

Complies? o Yes o No o N/A

c. When there is a loss of power, but the pump "handle" is not on, the dis- penser must deauthorize in not more than three minutes.

Complies? o Yes o No o N/A

d. If the time limit to deactivate a dispenser is programmable, it shall not accept an entry greater than three minutes.

Complies? o Yes o No o N/A

Test Methods

1. Authorize the dispenser and, with the pump "handle" on, interrupt power

to any part (or all) of the system. The pump should deauthorize immediately. Specifically,

a. Authorize with a card and turn the "handle" on.

b. Power down briefly and restore power.

c. Try to dispense product. The dispenser must not dispense since the

power failure should have deauthorized the dispenser.

2. Authorize the dispenser using a card (leave handle off), wait more than

three minutes, and try to start the dispenser. It should not start because

the authorization should have timed out. Specifically,

a. Authorize with a card but do not turn the "handle" on.

b. Power down for more than three minutes and then restore power.

c. Try to dispense product. The dispenser should have "timed-out" and

not dispense.

3. a. Authorize and dispense with card #1.

b. Allow the system to time out and deauthorize.

246
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

c. Authorize and dispense with card #2.

d. The transactions shall be properly recorded for each card. Note: A mechanical register may accumulate the two deliveries, but the printed

record must not have accumulated values.

4. a. Authorize with card #1. Turn the handle on and then off.

b. Authorize with card #2. Dispense product and complete the delivery.

c. Check the printed receipt to verify that the delivery has been properly

charged to card #2.

5. a. Turn the dispenser "handle" on and then authorize the dispenser

using a card.

b. Turn the "handle" off and then on.

c. Try to deliver product. The dispenser must not dispense.

6. a. Authorize with card #1, turn the "handle" on, and interrupt power.

This should deauthorize the dispenser.

b. Resupply power and authorize the dispenser with card #2 and complete

a delivery.

c. Verify that the transaction is charged to card #2.

7. a. Authorize a dispenser with card #1 but do not turn the dispenser

"handle" on.

b. Try to authorize the same dispenser with card #2. It should not be

accepted until after the three minute time-out.

8. Attempt to override or confuse the card system by

a. varying the length of time the card is in the slot, i.e., vary the

"swipe" times; and

b. pushing all other keys on the keypad during each step of the authorization process.

247
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APPENDIX C

DRAFT ELECTRIC WATT-HOUR METERS CODE

A. APPLICATION

A.l. - This code applies to electrical energy sub-meters used as commercial

measuring devices. Sub-meters are installed in mobile home parks, apartment

houses, shopping centers and similar establishments which purchase electric

service from a serving utility by a master meter and distribute the service to tenants through a sub-metered service system.

A.2. - See also General Code requirements.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

5.1. CONSTRUCTION AND WORKMANSHIP. - The meter shall be substantially

constructed of good material in a workmanlike manner. Each meter shall conform

to all applicable standards of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association

and the Edison Electric Institute.

5.2. COVER. - The cover of the meter shall be sufficiently strong to withstand

ordinary usage. It shall be dustproof, waterproof, and prevent access to the

interior without destroying the security sea.

5.3. TERMINALS. - The terminals of the meter shall be arranged so that the

possibility of short circuits in removing or replacing the cover, making connections and adjusting the meter is minimized.

5.4. EQUIPMENT GROUNDING. - Exposed non-current-carrying metal parts of fixed equipment, metal boxes, cabinets and fittings which are not electrically

connected to grounded equipment, shall be grounded as required by the National

Electrical Code, Article 250.

5.5. PROVISION FOR SEALING.

5.5.1. SEALING. - Provisions shall be made for applying a security seal

to the meter cover, meter sealing ring, and terminal block cover.

5.5.2. METER ENCLOSURE. - Meter enclosures shall be so designed that

the cover may be sealed. Provision shall be made for reading the meter

without destroying the seal.

248
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.5.3. OVERLOAD PROTECTOR ENCLOSURE. - Thermal overload protector

enclosures shall be designed to facilitate sealing. A provision shall be made

fore resetting circuit breakers or replacing fuses without destroying the seal. S.6. METER IDENTIFICATION. - Each meter shall have the following information

legibly marked on the front of the nameplate or register:

(a) manufacturer's name, type designation, and serial number,

(b) voltage rating,

(c) test amperes (TA),

(d) maximum amperes (CL),

(e) watt-hour or disk constant (kn ), (f) register ratio (Rr ) and multiplier (if 10 or larger),

(g) frequency rating (Hz ), (h) number of meter elements (polyphase), and

(i) ratio or rating of auxiliary devices.

N. NOTES

N.l. STARTING WATTS. - The rotor for a meter shall rotate continuously

when a load is applied equal to 0.5 amperes.

N.2. METER TESTS. - Meters shall be tested at full load and light load:

(a) Full load test shall not be less than the test amperes (TA) of the meter.

(b) Light load test amperes (TA) shall be 5 to 10 percent of the meter TA. However, it may be 20 percent or 5 amps, whichever is less, of the TA when

testing a 240-volt, 3-wire, single phase meter with an unbalanced load (energizing a single current coil). N.3. TEST REVOLUTIONS. - Full and light load tests shall require 8 or more

revolutions of the test standard and at least 1 revolution of the meter under test. N.4. CREEP TEST. - A meter disk that creeps more than one revolution shall be removed from service.

N.5. METER REGISTER. - A meter register shall clearly indicate the number

of kilowatt-hours measured by the meter. The register ratio must be indicated on the front of registers that are not integral parts of the meter nameplate.

T. TOLERANCES

T.l. APPLICATION TO UNDERREGISTRATION AND TO OVERREGISTRATION.

- The following prescribed tolerances shall be applied to errors of underregistration and errors of underregistration.

249
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES. - Acceptance tolerance shall be applied to new

and rebuilt meters before they have been placed in service. Maintenance and

acceptance tolerances for electric watt-hour meters shall be as follows for full and light load tests:

(a) Maintenance tolerance shall not exceed 2 percent for full and light loads.

(b) Acceptance tolerance shall not exceed 1 percent for full and light loads.

T.3. METERS WITH INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMERS. - Where instrument trans- formers are used, the provisions of this section shall apply to the metering

equipment as a whole.

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS. - UR.1.1. METER CLASS. - The meter class shall equal or exceed the total capacity in amperes of the thermal overload protectors.

UR.l. 2. SUITABILITY OF EQUIPMENT. - A meter shall be suitable for use on its electrical system. A 3-wire single phase load which is connected

to a 120-208 volt network service shall be metered by a two-stator meter. UR.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. - UR.2.1. NONDOMESTIC METER TEST FACILITIES. - All nondomestic meters

shall be provided with the same test facilities that are required of a similar meter by the serving utility.

UR.2. 2. TEST BLOCKS. - All three-phase self contained meter installations shall be equipped with test blocks, that are approved by the serving utility, for safe meter testing.

UR.2. 3. TEST SWITCHES. - All meter installations that are equipped with current or potential transformers, or both, shall have test switches installed that are approved by the serving utility, for safe meter testing.

UR.2. 4. CIRCUIT-CLOSING DEVICE. - All self-contained meter installations that cannot accept a short interruption of the electrical service, for the

purpose of the testing meter, shall be equipped with a manual circuit-closing

device as approved by the serving utility. Automatic circuit-closing devices

shall not be used on any meter installation.

250
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.3. USE REQUIREMENTS. - UR.3.1. LOCATION OF METER. - Each meter shall be accessible by an un- obstructed entrance or passageway not less than two feet in width and

six and one-half feet high. A suitable unobstructed standing space of a least 30 inches wide, 36 inches deep and six and one-half feet high shall be maintained in front of the meter to allow for installation, testing, and

reading.

UR.3. 2. METER HEIGHTS. - Meters shall be located not more than 75 inches and not less than 30 inches above the ground or standing surface.

The meter height shall be measured to its axis. UR.3. 3. METERED CIRCUITS (LOAD SERVICE). - All electricity used by

a tenant shall be taken exclusively from the load service of one meter.

All electrical circuits from the meter shall serve only one space, lot, building, room, suite, stall or premise occupies by the tenant and shall be capable

of being used at the discretion of the tenant. UR.3. 4. UNMETERED CIRCUITS (LINE SERVICE). - The tenants' electrical

circuit shall not be taken from the line terminals of the meter, meter

socket, or line service. The landlord may utilize this service.

D. DEFINITIONS

The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning when used in the

Electric Watt-hour Meter Code.

ampere. The ampere is the practical unit of electric current. It is the quantity of current caused to flow by a difference of potential of one volt through a resistance of one ohm. One ampere is one coulomb of charge per second.

creep. Creep is when the meter disk rotates continuously with potential applied

and load terminals open circuited. current. Current is the intensity of the electron flow past any one point the

circuit. Its measurement is in coulombs per second or amperes.

kilowatt. A kilowatt is 1,000 watts. kilowatt-hour (kwhr). A kilowatt-hour is 1,000 watt-hours.

landlord. A corporation and/or the person or persons who own the electrical

energy sub-meters and line service.

line service. The service conductors connecting the master meter to the tenant's meter and owned by the landlord. load service. The service conductors connecting the tenant's meter to their electrical loads.

251
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

master meter. An electric watt-hour meter owned, maintained, and read for

billing purposes by the serving utility. All the electrical energy served to a sub-metered service system is recorded by the master meter. maximum amperes (class or CL). The manufacturer's designated maximum amperes

that a meter can measure continuously without damage or exceeding limits of accuracy. Class or the designation CL associated with its numerical value ind- icates maximum amperes.

meter. An electric watt-hour meter designed to measure and register the integral of an electrical quantity with respect to time.

modern meter. A meter whose disk has a magnetic bearing system.

ohm. The ohm is a practical unit of electrical resistance. It is the resistance

which allows one ampere to flow when the impressed potential is one volt. percent registration. Percent registration is calculated as follows: Percent Registration = Kwhr measured by METER X 100 Kwhr measured by STANDARD

power factor. Cosine of the angle of lag or lead of the voltage and current.

register ratio. The number of revolutions of the gear meshing with the worm

or pinion on the rotating element for one revolution of the first dial pointer.

serving utility. Serving utility, as used in this code, means the utility or company who sells electrical energy to landlords for resale. sub-meter. An electric watt-hour meter owned, maintained, and read for billing

purposes by the landlord. All the electrical energy registered is used by the tenant. tenant. The person or persons served electrical energy from a sub-metered

service system.

test amperes (TA). The manufacturer's recommended full load test amperage.

test block. The test block facilitates safe meter testing by disconnecting the

meter from the circuit without interrupting the service to the tenant. thermal overload protector. A circuit breaker or fuse which establishes and

limits automatically the maximum current that can be conducted in a circuit. unity power factor. Unity power factor exists in alternating-current circuits

when the voltage and current reverse at the same instance.

volt. A volt is the practical unit of electromotive force. One volt will cause one ampere to flow when impressed across a resistance of one ohm.

252
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

watt. A watt is the practical unit of active power and is defined as the rate

at which energy is delivered to a circuit. It is the power expended when a direct current of one ampere flows through a resistance of one ohm. In an alternating-current circuit, the power in watts is volts times amperes multiplied

by the circuit power factor. watt-hour. The watt-hour is the total or integrated amount of energy delivered

in one hour to a circuit in which the steady or average rate at which energy

is expended is one watt. watt-hour constant (disk constant). The watt-hour constant of a meter is the

registration of one revolution of its disk expressed in watt-hours. The constant

is usually identified by the symbol Kn .

253
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APPENDIX D

DRAFT CARBON DIOXIDE LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES CODE

A. APPLICATION

A.I.- This code applies to carbon dioxide liquid measuring devices used for the measurement of liquid carbon dioxide.

A. 2. - This code does not apply to devices used solely for dispensing a product

in connection with operations in which the amount dispensed does not affect

customer charges.

A. 3.- See also General Code Requirements.

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS AND OF RECORDED

REPRESENTATIONS.

S.l.l. PRIMARY ELEMENTS.

5.1. 1.1. GENERAL. - A device shall be equipped with a primary indicating

element and may also be equipped with a primary recording element.

5.1. 1.2. UNITS. - A device shall indicate and record, if equipped to record,

its deliveries in terms of pounds or kilograms; gallons or liters of liquid; or decimal subdivisions or multiples thereof.

S.l. 1.3. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT. - The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery, and recorded delivery, if the device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of: (a) for small delivery devices:

S. SPECIFICATIONS

(1) one-tenth gallon,

(2) one liter,

(3) one pound, or

(4) one kilogram.

254
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) for Large delivery devices:

(1) one gallon,

(2) ten liters,

(3) ten pounds, or

(4) ten kilograms.

S.l.1.4. ADVANCEMENT OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS. - Primary indicating and recording elements shall be susceptible of advancement only by the normal operation of the device. However, a device may

be cleared by advancing its elements to zero, but only if:

(a) the advancing movement, once started, cannot be stopped until zero

is reached, or

(b) in the case of indicating elements only, such elements are automatically

obscured until the elements reach the correct zero position.

S.l.1.5. RETURN TO ZERO. - Primary indicating and recording elements

shall be readily returnable to a definite zero indication. Means shall be

provided to prevent the return of primary indicating elements and of primary

recording elements beyond their correct zero position.

S.1.2. GRADUATIONS. -

5. 1.2.1. LENGTH. - Graduations shall be so varied in length that they

may be conveniently read.

5.1.2. 2. WIDTH. - In any series of graduations, the width of a graduation

shall in no case be greater than the width of the clear interval between

graduations. The width of main graduations shall be not more than 50 percent greater than the width of subordinate graduations. Graduations

shall in no case be less than 0.008 inch in width.

5.1.2. 3. CLEAR INTERVAL BETWEEN GRADUATIONS. - The clear interval

shall be not less than 0.04 inch. If the graduations are not parallel, the

measurement shall be made:

(a) along the line of relative movement between the graduations at the end of the indicator, or

(b) if the indicator is continuous, at the point of widest separation of the graduations.

(See also S.l.3.6.)

255
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.1.3. INDICATORS. -

5. 1.3.1. SYMMETRY. - The index of an indicator shall be of the same shape

as the graduations at least throughout that portion of its length associated

with the graduations.

5.1.3. 2. LENGTH. - The index of an indicator shall reach to the finest

graduations with which it is used, unless the indicator and the graduations are in the same plane, in which case the distance between the end of the

indicator and the ends of the graduations, measured along the line of the

graduations, shall be not more than 0.04 inch.

5.1.3. 3. WIDTH. - The width of the index of an indicator in relation to the series of graduations with which it is used shall be not greater than

(a) the width of the widest graduation, and

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between graduations.

When the index of an indicator extends along the entire length of a graduation, that portion of the index of the indicator that may be brought

into coincidence with the graduation shall be of the same width throughout

the length of the index that coincides with the graduation.

5.1.3. 4. CLEARANCE. - The clearance between the index of an indicator

and the graduations shall in no case be more than 0.06 inch.

5.1.3. 5. PARALLAX. - Parallax effects shall be reduced to the practicable

minimum.

5.1.3. 6. TRAVEL OF INDICATOR. - If the most sensitive element of the

primary indicating element utilizes an indicator and graduations, the relative movement of these parts corresponding to the smallest indicated value

shall be no less than 0.20 inch.

S. 1.4. COMPUTING-TYPE DEVICES.

5. 1.4.1. PRINTED TICKET. - Any printed ticket issued by a device of the

computing type on which there is printed the total computed price shall have

printed clearly thereon also the total quantity of the delivery and the price per unit. 5.1.4.2. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS. - Money-value computations

shall be of the full-computing type in which the money value at a single

unit price, or at each of a series of unit prices, shall be computed for every delivery within either the range of measurement of the device or the range of the computing elements, whichever is less. Value graduations

shall be supplied and shall be accurately positioned.

The total price shall be computed on the basis of the quantity indicated

when the value of the smallest division indicated is equal to or less than

the value specified in S.l.1.3.

256
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.l.4.3. MONEY VALUES, MATHEMATICAL AGREEMENT. -Any digital

money-value indication and any recorded money value on a computing-type

device shall be in mathematical agreement with its associated quantity

indication or representation to within one cent of money value.

5.2. DESIGN OF MEASURING ELEMENTS.

5.2.1. VAPOR ELIMINATION. - A measuring system shall be equipped

with an effective vapor eliminator or other effective means to prevent

the measurement of vapor that will cause errors in excess of the applicable

tolerances.

5.2.2. DIRECTIONAL FLOW VALVES. - A valve, valves, or other effective means, automatic in operation, to prevent the reversal of flow shall be

installed in or adjacent to the measuring device.

5.2.3. MAINTENANCE OF LIQUID STATE. A device shall be so designed

that the product being measured will remain in a liquid state during passage through the device.

5.2.4. All liquid carbon dioxide measuring devices of the meter type shall be equipped with automatic means to correct the volume delivered to mass

units of measure or to volume at 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Nonretroactive.

To become retroactive January 1, 1993.

5.2.5. PROVISION FOR SEALING. - Adequate provision shall be made for applying security seals in such a manner that no adjustment or interchange

may be made of:

(a) any measurement element,

(b) any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such rate tends to affect the accuracy of deliveries, and

(c) any automatic temperature or density compensating system.

Any adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for purposes of affixing a security seal.

5.3. DESIGN OF DISCHARGE LINES AND DISCHARGE LINE VALVES.

5.3.1. DIVERSION OF MEASURED LIQUID. - No means shall be provided

by which any measured liquid can be diverted from the measuring chamber

of the device or the discharge line therefrom, except that a manually

controlled outlet that may be opened for purging or draining the measuring

system shall be permitted. Effective means shall be provided to prevent

the passage of liquid through any such outlet during normal operation of the device and to indicate clearly and unmistakably when the valve controls are so set as to permit passage of liquid through such outlet.

5.3.2. DISCHARGE HOSE. - The discharge hose of a measuring system

shall be of a wet hose type with a shut-off valve at its outlet end.

257
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5.4. MARKING REQUIREMENTS.

5.4.1. LIMITATION OF USE. - If a measuring system is intended to measure

accurately only liquids having particular properties, or to measure accurately

only under specific installation or operating conditions, or to measure

accurately only when used in conjunction with specific accessory equipment,

these limitations shall be clearly and permanently marked on the device.

5.4.2. DISCHARGE RATES. - A meter shall be marked to show its designed

maximum and minimum discharge rates.

5.4.3. TEMPERATURE OR DENSITY COMPENSATION. - If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature or density compensator, the primary

indicating elements, recording elements, and recorded representations shall be clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the quantity delivered

has been adjusted to the conditions specified in S.2.4.

5.5. TEMPERATURE DETERMINATION. - For test purposes, means shall be

provided to determine the temperature of the liquid:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately adjacent to the meter.

5.6. LEVEL CONDITION, ON-BOARD WEIGHING SYSTEMS. - Provision shall be made for automatically inhibiting the delivery of liquid carbon dioxide when

the vehicle is out of level beyond the limit required for the performance to be

within the applicable tolerances.

N. NOTES

N.l. TEST LIQUID. - A meter shall be tested with the liquid to be commercially

measured.

N.2. VAPORIZATION AND VOLUME CHANGE. - Care shall be exercised to reduce vaporization and volume changes to a minimum. When testing by weight,

the weight tank and transfer systems shall be precooled to liquid temperature

prior to the start of the test to avoid the venting of vapor from the vessel

being weighed.

N.3. TEST DRAFTS. - N.3.1. GRAVIMETRIC TEST. - Weight test drafts shall be equal to at least the amount delivered by the device in two minutes at its maximum

discharge rate.

258
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

N.3.2. TRANSFER STANDARD TEST. - When comparing a meter with a calibrated transfer standard, the test draft shall be equal to at least the

amount delivered by the device in two minutes at its maximum discharge

rate, and shall in no case be less than 50 gallons or equivalent thereof.

When testing uncompensated volumetric meters in a continuous recycle

mode, appropriate corrections shall be applied if product conditions are abnormally affected by this test mode.

N.3.3. VOLUMETRIC PROVER TEST DRAFTS. - Test drafts should be

equal to at least the amount delivered in one minute at its normal discharge

rate.

N.4. DENSITY. - Temperature and pressure of the metered test liquid shall be

measured during the test for the determination of density or volume correction

when applicable. Table 1 shall apply.

N.5. TESTING PROCEDURES. - N.5.1. NORMAL TESTS. - The "normal" test of a device shall be made at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated under the conditions

of installation. N.5.2. SPECIAL TESTS. - Any test except as set forth in N.5.1. shall be

considered a special test. Tests shall be conducted, if possible, to evaluate any special elements or accessories attached to or associated with the

device. A device shall be tested at a minimum discharge rate of:

(a) 50 percent of the maximum discharge rate developed under the conditions of installation, or the minimum discharge rate marked on the

device, whichever is less, or

(b) the lowest discharge rate practicable under conditions of installation. "Special" tests may be conducted to develop any characteristics of the device

which are not normally anticipated under the conditions of installation as circumstances require.

N.6. TEMPERATURE CORRECTION. - Corrections shall be made for any changes

in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperature between time of passage through the meter and time of volumetric determination of test draft.

N.7. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE OR DENSITY COMPENSATION. - If a device

is equipped with an automatic temperature or density compensator, the compensator shall be tested by comparing the quantity indicated or recorded by the

device (with the compensator connected and operating) with the actual delivered quantity corrected to the volume at 2 degrees Fahrenheit or to the mass units of measure. Table 1 shall apply.

259
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T. TOLERANCES

T.l. APPLICATION.

T.l.l. TO UNDERREGISTRATION AND TO OVERREGISTRATION. - The

tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to errors of underregistration and error of overregistration.

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES.

T.2.1. ON NORMAL TESTS. - The maintenance tolerance on "normal" tests

shall be two and one-half percent (2-1/2%) of the indicated quantity. The

acceptance tolerances shall be one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) of the

indicated quantity.

T.2.2. ON SPECIAL TESTS. - The maintenance and acceptance tolerance on "special" tests shall be two and one-half percent (2-1/2%) of the indicted quantity.

T.3. ON TESTS USING TRANSFER STANDARDS. - To the basic tolerance values

that would otherwise be applied, there shall be added an amount equal to two

times the standard deviation of the applicable transfer standard when compared

to a basic reference standard.

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.

UR.1.1. DISCHARGE RATE. - A device shall be so installed that the actual

maximum discharge rate will not exceed the rated maximum discharge

rate. If necessary, means for flow regulation shall be incorporated in the

installation.

UR.l. 2. LENGTH OF DISCHARGE HOSE. - The discharge hose shall be of

such a length and design as to keep vaporization of the liquid to a minimum.

UR.l. 3. MAINTENANCE OF LIQUID STATE. - A device shall be so installed

and operated that the product being measured shall remain in the liquid state during passage through the meter.

UR.2. USE REQUIREMENTS.

UR.2.1. RETURN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS TO ZERO.

- The primary indicating elements (visual) and the primary recording

elements shall be returned to zero immediately before each delivery.

UR.2. 2. CONDITION OF DISCHARGE SYSTEM. - The discharge system, up to the valve at the end of the discharge hose, shall be precooled to

liquid temperatures before a "zero" condition is established prior to the

start of a commercial delivery.

260
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.2.3. VAPOR RETURN LINE. - A vapor return line shall not be used

during a metered delivery unless the quantity of vapor displaced from the

buyer's tank to the seller's tank is deducted from the metered quantity.

Table 2 shall apply.

UR.2.4. TEMPERATURE OR DENSITY COMPENSATION

UR.2.4.1. USE OF AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE OR DENSITY

COMPENSATORS. - Devices equipped with an automatic temperature

or density compensator shall be connected, operable, and in use at

all times. Such automatic temperature or density compensator may

not be removed.

UR.2.4. 2. TICKETS OR INVOICES. - Any written invoice or printed

ticket based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic temperature or density compensator shall have shown thereon

that the quantity delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 2 degrees Fahrenheit or to pounds. UR. 2.4.3. PRINTED TICKET. - Any printed ticket issued by a device

of the computing type on which there is printed the total computed

price, the total quantity of the delivery, or the price per unit, shall have shown thereon also the other two values (either printed or in clear hand script).

UR.2.4. 4. TICKET IN PRINTING DEVICE. - A ticket shall not be

inserted into a device equipped with a ticket printer until immediately

before a delivery is begun, and in no case shall a ticket be in the

device when the vehicle is in motion while on a public street, highway,

or thoroughfare.

UR.2.5. SALE BY WEIGHT OR VOLUME. - A quantity determination of weight or volume by means of an approved and sealed weighing or measuring

device shall be made on all sales.

D. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning when used in the

Code for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices.

automatic temperature or density compensation. The use of integrated or ancil- lary equipment to obtain, from the output of a volumetric meter, an equivalent mass, or an equivalent liquid volume at 2 degrees Farenheit, or an equivalent

gas volume at a normal temperature and absolute pressure. carbon dioxide liquid measuring device. A system including a mechanism or machine of (a) the meter or mass-flow type, or (b) a weighing type of device

mounted on a vehicle designed to measure and deliver liquid carbon dioxide.

Means may be provided to indicate automatically, for one of a series of unit

prices, the total money value of the quantity measured.

261
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

wet-hose type. A type of device in which it is intended that the discharge

hose be completely filled prior to each commercial delivery.

large-delivery devices. Devices used primarily for single deliveries greater

than 200 gallons, 2,000 pounds, 2,000 liters, or 2,000 kilograms.

liquid volume correction factor. A correction factor used to adjust the liquid

volume of carbon dioxide at the time of measurement to the liquid volume at

2 degrees Fahrenheit.

small-delivery device. Any device other than a large-delivery device.

transfer standard. A measurement system designed for use in proving and testing

carbon dioxide liquid-measuring devices.

262
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

TABLE 1 LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE DENSITIES

Vapor Pressure OF lb/gal lb-oz/gal

-30 9.117 9 - 1.9 163.3 -29 9.100 9 - 1.6 166.8

-28 9.080 9 - 1.3 170.2

-27 9.061 9 - 1.0 173.8 -26 9.042 9 - 0.7 177.4

-25 9.023 9

- 0.4 181.2 -24 9.003 9 - 0 184.9

-?3 8.984 8 - 15.7 188.7

-22 8.965 8 - 15.4 192.5

-21 8.946 8

- 15.1 196.4

-20 8.926 8 - 14.8 200.3

-19 8.906 8

- 14.5 204.5

-18 8.886 8 - 14.2 208.4

-17 8.866 8

- 13.9 212.5

-16 8.846 8 - 13.5 216.6

-15 8.826 8 - 13.2 219.4 -14 8.806 8 - 12.9 225.1

-13 8.785 8 - 12.6 229.5

-12 8.764 8 - 12.2 234.0

-11 8.744 8 - 11.9 238.5

-10 8.723 8

- 11.6 242.9

- 9 8.702 8 - 11.2 247.6

- 8 8.680 8 - 10.9 252.2

- 7 8.659 8

- 10.5 256.9

- 6 8.638 8

- 10.2 261.6

- 5 8.616 8 - 9.9 266.4

- 4 8.594 8

- 9.5 271.1

- 3 8.572 8 - 9.2 276.1

- 2 8.550 8

- 8.8 281.0

- 1 8.528 8 - 8.4 286.1

0 8.506 8 - 8.1 291.1

1 8.484 8 - 7.7 296.4

2 8.462 8 - 7.4 301.6

3 8.440 8 - 7.0 307.0

4 8.418 8 - 6.7 312.3

5 8.396 8 - 6.3 317.8

6 8.374 8 - 6.0 323.2

7 8.351 8 - 5.6 328.8

8 8.328 8 - 5.2 334.3

9 8.308 8 - 4.9 340.1

10 8.287 8 - 4.6 345.8

11 8.267 8 - 4.3 351.7

12 8.247 8 - 3.6 357.5

13 8.222 8 - 3.6 363.6

14 8.197 8 - 3.2 369.6

15 8.177 8 - 2.8 375.7

16 8.157 8 - 2.5 381.8

263
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

TABLE 2 CARBON DIOXIDE VAPOR DENSITIES AND PERCENT OF VAPOR DISPLACEMENT

ON METERED DELIVERIES UTILIZING A VAPOR EQUALIZING LINE Vapor c02 Vapor C02 Vapor Percent Temp Pressure Density Density Vapor Dis-

_oF PSIG lb/cu ft lb/gal placement

-30 163.3 1.988 .266 2.9 -29 166.8 2.026 .271 3.0 -28 170.2 2.064 .276 3.0 -27 173.8 2.104 .281 3.1 -26 177.4 2.144 .287 3.2 -25 181.2 2.185 .292 3.2 -24 184.9 2.226 .298 3.3 -23 188.7 2.269 .303 3.4 -22 192.5 2.312 .309 3.4 -21 196.4 2.356 .315 3.5 -20 200.3 2.400 .321 3.6 -19 204.5 2.446 .327 3.7 -18 208.4 2.491 .333 3.7 -17 212.5 2.538 .339 3.8 -16 216.6 2.585 .346 3.9 -15 219.4 2.633 .352 4.0 -14 225.1 2.680 .358 4.1 -13 229.6 2.730 .365 4.2 -12 234.0 2.779 .371 4.2 -11 238.5 2.830 .365 4.3 -10 242.9 2.880 .385 4.4 -9 247.6 2.932 .392 4.5 -8 252.2 2.984 .399 4.6

-7 256.9 3.039 .406 4.7 -6 261.6 3.093 .413 4.8 -5 266.4 3.150 .421 4.9 -4 271.1 3.206 .429 5.0

-3 276.1 3.263 .436 5.1 -2 281.0 3.320 .444 5.2 -1 286.1 3.310 .442 5.3

0 291.1 3.441 .460 5.4

1 296.4 3.503 .468 5.5

2 301.6 3.565 .477 5.6

3 307.0 3.630 .485 5.7

4 312.3 3.694 .494 5.8

5 317.8 3.761 .503 6.0

6 323.2 3.827 .512 6.1

7 328.7 3.900 .521 6.2

8 334.3 3.964 .530 6.3

9 340.1 4.035 .539 6.5 10 345.8 4.105 .549 6.6

11 351.7 4.178 .559 6.8 12 357.5 4.250 .568 6.9

13 363.6 4.325 .578 7.0 14 369.6 4.399 .588 7.2 15 375.7 4.477 .598 7.3 16 381.8 4.554 .609 7.5 264
Education Committee

REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION,

AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Thomas F. Geiler, Chairman

Sealer of Weights and Measures

Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submits its Final Report to the 72nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures. The Report consists of the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and Committee Reports" as amended by the Addendum Sheets

issued during the Annual Meeting.

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

Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The Committee's one voting item is identified in bold face print as well as by the letter "V" following the reference key number. All other items are informational and required no formal action by

the membership. One of the informational items was withdrawn; it is identified by a "W" following the reference key number.

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

400 INTRODUCTION

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT

Table A

INDEX TO REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

401 REGIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTIVITIES 266

265
Education Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

402 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (NTP) 267 402-1 NTP Status Report 267 402-2 Future Funding for the NTP 267 402-3 Certification Program Implementation 269 402-4 Registry Summary 269 402-5 V Criteria for NTP Instructors 269 402-6 Module Revisions 270 402-7 W Review of LPG Module 270 402-8 Review of NTP Production Schedule 270 402-9 NTP Implementation 271

In addition, the Report contains three appendices that are related to specific

Reference Key Numbers as follows:

Appendix Reference Title of Appendix Page

Key No.

A. 402-4 NTP Registry Summary of Activity 273

B. 402-5 NTP Criteria for Instructors 275

C. 402-8 Education Survey Results 277

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order of Reference Key Number)

401 REGIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTIVITIES

The Committee reviewed and discussed the following reports.

1. The Final Report of the Education and Consumer Affairs Committee to the

29th Annual Technical Conference of the Western Weights and Measures

Association (August 1986).

2. The Final Report of the Education Committee to the 41st Annual Conference

of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (October 1986).

3. The Final Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs to the 15th Annual Conference of the Northeastern Weights

and Measures Association (May 1987). 266
Education Committee

The Committee thanks the regional weights and measures associations for their

expressions of support for the National Training Program and the input they

provided on the criteria for NTP instructors.

402 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (NTP)

402-1 NTP STATUS REPORT

The status of all training modules published or under development as of June 15, 1987, is given in Table B on the next page.

402-2 FUTURE FUNDING FOR THE NTP

It was reported that the status of the National Training Program grant from

the National Bureau of Standards was as follows (as of June 15, 1987):

Total Amount of Funds Authorized: $515,189.00 Net Outlays to Date: $380,086.68

Total Unliquidated Obligations: $16,620.95

Outlays Plus Unliquidated Obligations: $396,707.63

Unobligated Balance of Funds: $118,481.37

NBS approved the NCWM's request for a funded extension of the grant in the

amount of $50,000 for 1987. NBS has informed the Conference this extension

will be the last one awarded.

The Education Committee estimates that the unobligated balance of funds

($118,481.37) will be enough to develop up to four more training modules. To

date, nine modules have been published, one is close to publication, and two are scheduled for publication at a later date. Consequently, the maximum number

of modules expected to be developed with grant funds is 16. The number of modules originally proposed for development under the National Training Program was 37. During a joint session with the Executive Committee on Wednesday, January 14, the Education Committee summarized the status of the National Training Program

and expressed concern over the need for future funding for the development of new modules and implementation of published modules. See the Report of the

Executive Committee, Item 101-2, for actions planned.

267
Education Committee

Table B

TRAINING MODULE STATUS REPORT

Module

No. Subject Status

7810

13

19

20

21

23

27

Mechanical Computing Scales

Electronic Computing Scales

Medium-Capacity Scales

Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales

Monorail Scales

Livestock and Animal Scales

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers

Package Checking

Hopper Scales

Loading-Rack Meters

Vehicle-Tank Meters

LPG Liquid Meters

Weights and Measures Admin.

Electronic Weighing and

Measuring Systems

Project completed.

Project completed.

Field tests of this module will be

conducted at two regional schools

in September 1987. Project completed.

Project completed.

Project completed.

Project completed.

Project completed.

The working group draft is being

reviewed by the Federal Grain

Inspection Service.

The working group is preparing

the first draft of the module.

Project completed.

The final copy of the module is being prepared for distribution

to the states,

OWM is rewriting portions of this draft module.

Project completed.

268
Education Committee

402-3 CERTIFICATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

As of June 15, 1987, the following 34 states and the District of Columbia had

signed Letters of Agreement with the NCWM and had been accepted as participants in the NTP Certification Program:

States that have not signed a Letter of Agreement form are encouraged to do

so. The forms are available from the NBS Office of Weights and Measures.

States participating in the Certification Program were sent annual report forms

and asked to complete them for calendar year 1986 and return them to the

Education Committee prior to the Interim Meeting. The Committee's review of responses received prior to and during the Interim Meeting indicated that there were some misunderstandings concerning the certification process. The Education

Committee plans to revise portions of NCWM Publication No. 11, National Training

Program, to clarify the process.

402-4 REGISTRY SUMMARY

A summary of the information in the NTP Registry as of June 15, 1987, is provided in Appendix A. The Registry serves as a permanent record of NCWM

courses successfully completed and Continuing Education Units (CEUs) earned

under the NTP. As of June 15, 1987, NTP participants had been awarded 3,173.1

CEUs (one CEU is defined as 10 contact hours of participation in an organized

continuing education experience).

402-5 V CRITERIA FOR NTP INSTRUCTORS

As part of its study of the need for certification of NTP instructors, the Education Committee requested recommendations from the regional weights and

measures associations on minimum qualifications for instructors. Many states

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

(This item was adopted.)

269
Education Committee

indicated that they do not want a mandatory certification program for instructors at this time; however, they would appreciate guidance regarding selection of

instructors. The Committee therefore developed the criteria contained in Appendix B. The Committee proposes that the Conference adopt the criteria contained in Appendix B as a guideline for voluntary use by individuals responsible for selec- ting or preparing instructors to teach NCWM training modules.

The Committee will continue to evaluate the need for more stringent, mandatory

requirements.

402-6 MODULE REVISIONS

Revisions to Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring

Systems, and Module 1, Retail Computing Scales - Mechanical, have been completed and distributed to the states and all purchasers of the modules. Revisions

to Module 2, Retail Computing Scales - Electronic, are in process. As part of the revision process, all Examination Procedure Outlines (EPOs)

currently published in the training modules have been updated. The Committee

recently published the revised EPOs in a separate NCWM publication: No. 12, Examination Procedure Outlines for Weighing and Measuring Devices. A copy

of NCWM #12 was distributed to all NCWM members.

The Committee reaffirmed the importance of annual module revisions to the success of the National Training Program and expressed its appreciation for the NBS Office of Weights and Measures' support of the revision process.

402-7 W REVIEW OF LPG MODULE

This item was withdrawn because the module had been completed.

402-8 REVIEW OF PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

The selection of the four additional modules to be developed with grant funds

(see Item 402-2) was discussed. Because of the uncertainty over the source of future funding for module development, the Committee felt it was particularly

important that the remaining funds be used to develop those modules that are most needed and will serve the largest number of people. The Committee decided

to seek the assistance of the states in setting priorities for future modules. A

survey was prepared and distributed to state weights and measures offices.

The results of the survey with respect to the priority ranking of modules, suggestions for new modules, and suggestions to delete modules from the proposed

list of projects are summarized in Appendix C. This information will be used

by the Committee to set priorities for future projects as funding permits.

Based on survey results, the Committee has already decided to proceed with

plans to develop two highly-ranked modules: Loading-Rack Meters and Labeling of Packaged Products.

270
Education Committee

According to survey respondents, the module that should be considered the

highest priority is on Handbook 44. The Committee had intended that this module provide an introduction to the Handbook and describe how to use it. A number of respondents have assumed that the module would interpret require- ments in the Handbook. The Committee had rejected the idea of including

interpretations in the Handbook 44 module since that many requirements probably cannot be satisfactorily explained in general terms — they must be discussed

in relation to specific devices, it has already been done in individual device

modules. The Committee suggests that the device modules be used as a source

of interpretations of the intent of Handbook 44 requirements. If the discussions

in a module do not adequately explain Handbook requirements, this should be

brought to the Committee's attention and be corrected in future module revisions.

402-9 NTP IMPLEMENTATION

(This item was not listed in the Interim Meeting Agenda, but was added at the

meeting.) Since the initiation of the NTP, Education Committee members have

had many discussions with state weights and measures directors about implementation of the program in their states. It became clear to the Committee that some states desiring to use the NTP were having problems with program implementation. It also became apparent that, in cases where the program had

been implemented, the NBS Office of Weights and Measures had played a significant role. Specifically, an analysis of NTP Registry records, as of December

31, 1986, indicated that 46 percent (436) of the 940 entries were the result of classes conducted by OWM staff. Over 90 percent of the entries for Module

10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, and over 80 percent of the

entries for Module 8, Retail Motor Fuel Devices and Consoles, resulted from

classes taught by OWM staff. The Committee commends OWM for the important part it has played in implementing the National Training Program. The Committee believes that OWM's con- tinued participation in training is vital to the long-term success of the NTP; consequently, it is hoped that OWM will at least maintain the current level of training and, if possible, expand its role to include more training for course

instructors. The Committee feels that OWM's policy of providing training on a regional basis is good and should be continued. Since the Interim Meeting, the

Committee has been assured that OWM intends to continue its training efforts

in support of the National Training Program at least at the current level over

the next five-year period.

It is recognized that OWM does not have the resources to provide continued

training on all modules that are published, hence priorities must be established. To assist in this effort, the Committee has developed the following system of categorizing modules according to level of assistance needed from OWM in order

to implement them.

Category 1 - Includes modules that the states should be able to implement

without assistance from OWM due to relative simplicity and the fact that the

devices they cover are examined by most states on a regular basis, making it more likely that good instructors can be found within the states. Examples

are modules 1 and 2 on retail computing scales and Module 8 on retail motor271
Education Committee

fuel dispensers. OWM's only role with regard to modules in this category should

be to provide train-the-trainer courses for state instructors.

Category 2 - Includes more complex modules thus more difficult to teach,

and those that cover devices that are examined less frequently by a smaller

number of people, making it more difficult to find instructors. Examples are modules 5, 6, and 7 on large-capacity scales and module 10 on checking the net contents of packaged goods. OWM should conduct training on these modules on a regional basis until the states are familiar with how the modules should

be taught.

Category 3 - Includes those modules that should be taught by OWM on

a continuing basis either because of safety considerations or unique expertise

within the office. Examples are module 21 on liquefied petroleum gas liquid meters and module 23 on weights and measures administration.

The training that OWM provides in support of the National Training Program

(as outlined above) should be in addition to the training it provides for state metrologists and in areas of new technology.

To ensure that the resources contributed to the development of the National

Training Program by NBS and the states are not wasted, all concerned parties must work together to fully implement the program.

T. Geiler, Town of Barnstable, MA, Chairman

C. Greene, New Mexico

S. Malone, Nebraska

T. Scott, North Carolina

P. Stagg, Louisiana

J. Koenig, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

272
Education Committee

APPENDIX A

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY

Summary of Activity

(As of June 15, 1987)

IN O . O

I

Individuals Trained?

lVIOQUie INO. oia te ii Zoo 9 ^ Q 1 n 9ft ZU L ( i o tais Aft 11

il

A T 14 25 39 AR 20 20 30 12 82 CT 3 16 18 37 DC 4 4 8 FL 9 6 7 41 63 GA 7 7 HI 14 4 18 ID 10 10

TT1L 7 7 IN 43 56 48 147 IA 4 4 KS 9 9 5 3 8 8 42 KY 19 19 LA 1 1 MA 3 23 26 ME 8 4 12 MI 2 29 52 83 MO 28 2 22 5 2 MT 6 8 14 NE 3 1 4 NH 6 5 6 6 23 NJ 114 114 NM 13 13 ND 3 12 15 NY 8 8 OH 7 58 65 OK 19 2 21 OR 12 16 28 P&S 3 3 PA 56 32 82 170 SD 7 10 17 TN 5 5 UT 15 14 14 43 VA 38 38 VT 5 7 1 5 18 WA 16 16 32 WI 56 48 63 167 WY 16 3 19 Totals 124~ 155 5 327 228 23 613" 1475

273
Education Committee

APPENDIX A (Continued)

Courses Listed ; Module 1, Retail Computing Scales - Mechanical

Module 2, Retail Computing Scales - Electronic

Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales

Module 6, Meat Beams and Monorail Scales

Module 8, Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers and Consoles

Module 10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

Module 20, Vehicle-Tank Meters

Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Syste

OWM 0201, Basic Metrology I OWM 0202, Basic Metrology II OWM 0203, Intermediate Metrology

274
Education Committee

APPENDIX B NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

CRITERIA FOR INSTRUCTORS

The following criteria were developed by the National Conference on Weights

and Measures Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs as

a guideline for individuals responsible for selecting instructors to teach NCWM

Training Modules. It is recognized that it might be difficult for an individual

to meet all listed criteria; consequently, the list should be viewed as a model

or goal — not as a set of requirements. Also, it should be noted that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the knowledge, skills, or personal characteristics needed to be a good instructor; rather, it is the Committee's attempt

to identify key characteristics that should be considered in selecting or training

instructors.

Knowledge Required

Knowledge of the subject matter

Source

Experience in the field,

device manufacture, or servicing

Knowledge of the module to be taught Participation in a course

on the module or thorough

review of the module

Knowledge of NCWM requirements Thorough review of NCWMapproved handbooks such

as H-44 and H-130

Knowledge of state requirements Thorough review of state laws and regulations

Knowledge of the mechanical and

electronic concepts embodied in weighing and measuring systems

Experience and study of manufacturers' literature

Knowledge of National Training Participation in a Trainthe-Trainer session or review of NCWM No. 11, National Training Program

Knowledge of instructional techniques A degree in education or participation in at least

16 hours of instructional

techniques training provided

by an educational group

275
Education Committee

Appendix B (Continued)

Skills Ability to communicate orally in a logical manner

Ability to focus on significant information

Ability to select and use various types of training aids

Ability to demonstrate the examination procedures described in the module

Ability to handle problem participants

Ability to motivate

Ability to create an atmosphere of trust and respect

Ability to assess the level of knowledge of the participants and adjust the content and pace of the course accordingly

Personal Characteristics

Patient

Calm even in stressful situations

Enthusiastic

Strong, pleasant voice

Neat appearance

Organized

Friendly

Positive attitude

Sensitive

No annoying mannerisms

Sincere

276
Education Committee

APPENDIX C

EDUCATION SURVEY

Final Results

June 26, 1987

Total Number of Forms Returned: 34 Number of States Responding: 30

277
Education Committee

EDUCATION SURVEY

Number of Top 10 Rankings Each Module Received

Total No. of Rankings

Module Title In Top 10 NBS Handbook 44 27 Communications 25 Labeling of Pkg Products 24 Loading-Rack Meters 23 Test Equipment, Use <5c Cal 20 Hopper Scales 19 Linear Measuring Devices 17 Application of Computer Sys 16 Prescription Scales & Jewelers Bal 14

Belt Conveyor Scales 12 Dairy-Product & Grain-Test Scales 11 NTEP 11 Theory of Scale Tolerances 10 Laboratory Administration 10 W & M Statistics 08 Weights 08 Wheel-Load Weighers 07 Load Cells 06 EMI/RFI 06 Hand-Crank Fuel Pumps 05

Solid State Circuits & Appl 05 Variable Frequency Insp 04 Environmental Testing 02 Lub Devices <5c Motor Oil Bottles 02

278
Education Committee

EDUCATION SURVEY

Recommendations to Delete Modules

From List of Proposed Modules

Module Title No. of Votes to Delete

Lub Devices <5c Motor Oil Bottles 15 Hand-Crank Fuel Pumps 15 Load Cells 11 Laboratory Administration 11 Solid State Circuits <5c Appl 11 Variable Frequency Insp 10 Theory of Scale Tolerances 10 Environmental Testing 09 W <5c M Statistics 08 NTEP 08 EMI/RFI 08 Dairy-Product <5c Grain-Test Scales 08 Weights 08 Prescription Scales <5c Jewelers Bal 07 Wheel-Load Weighers 05 Test Equipment, Use <5c Cal 04 Communications 03 Linear Measuring Devices 03 Application of Computer Sys 03

Belt Conveyor Scales 03 Loading-Rack Meters 02 NBS Handbook 44 02 Labeling of Pkg Products 00 Hopper Scales 00

279
Education Committee

EDUCATION SURVEY

Suggested Subjects for Additional Modules*

Interpersonal Skills - Meeting and dealing with the public by personal contact,

phone, letter etc. May already be covered by #10 "Communications"

Preparing Evidence and Court Appearances

Module for Instructors (Save repeating in each module)

Train the Trainer

Complaint and Fraud Investigation

Supervisor Training

How to promote weights and measures not only dealing with public relations

bur more so with Legislators, Budget Analysts, and Department Heads such as Commissioners and or Secretaries in order for us to obtain our fair share of

the State, County or Municipal budgets.

Timing Devices

A module dealing with ways devices could be or have been tampered with to deliberately defraud the consumer, i.e., the gasoline dispensers in the State of Michigan.

Scanners Used in Retail Trade

Investigation of W 3c M Fraud - what to look for

1. History of W & M which can be used to give to radio, TV, organization

(civic) talks, school talks. This would be brought up to present which would

be dealt with most. 2. Something to be used for W & M Week. Some of the

above might help. We need something easy for our inspectors to feel comfortable

using to toot our horns and protect our profession from disappearing.

Subject: 1. How to get support for program from "upstairs" or legislature. 2. How to get public support. 3. How to make our presence known. 4. How to get

business-industry support.

Direct quotations from the survey forms

280
Liaison Committee

INTERIM REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

Peggy H. Adams, Chairman

Chief Sealer, Bucks County, PA

Department of Consumer Protection

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

500 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Liaison submits its Final Report for consideration by the

National Conference on Weights and Measures. This report results from consideration of all communications received by the Committee prior to and during

its Interim Meeting at the National Bureau of Standards, January 12-16, 1987 and discussions at the Annual Meeting.

Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number are identified in Table A.

All items are informational. The Report contains one appendix: Appendix A is related to Item 514. (The report was adopted in its entirety by a hand vote of the membership.)

Table A

INDEX TO REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

501 FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES 283 501-1 501-2

501-3 501-4

501-5

501-6

Federal Grain Inspection Service

Aerosol Net Weight Labeling

Milk Meters

Credit Card Surcharge

Federal Role in Net Content Compliance

Interaction with Federal Agencies Such as the U.S. Postal Service and DOD

(Commissaries, Gas Stations), etc.

283

283 284

285

285

286

281
Liaison Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

501-7 Labeling of Turkey with Gravy 286

502 PUBLIC LIAISON 287

503 OIML ACTIVITIES 287

504 OWM STATUS REPORT 288

505 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILED

TARE WEIGHTS 289

506 THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE OFFICE

OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 289

507 TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS 290

508 THE ROLE OF THE WEIGHING AND INSPECTION

BUREAU IN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 292 509 LIAISON WITH REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 293 510 PROMOTION OF TRAINING MODULE PROGRAM 293

511 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK 293

512 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LEGAL CASES 294

513 INTERACTION WITH PRIVATE SHIPPERS SUCH

AS UPS, FEDERAL EXPRESS, ETC. 294

514 PROMOTION OF HANDBOOK 133 295

515 LABELING OF NONALCOHOLIC MALT BEVERAGES 295

In addition, the Report contains one appendix related to Item 514.

282
Liaison Committee

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order of Reference Key Number)

FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

501-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

Richard R. Pforr, Acting Chief, Equipment Branch, Field Management Division,

Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, reported

the following activities for 1986.

1. All 14 master railroad track scales were tested. Weights and Measures

jurisdictions at all locations were cooperative. FGIS provided a copy of the test to the concerned state.

2. An estimate has been received to repair the Los Angeles master scale,

which is still out of service. The prohibitive cost probably means that it will not be repaired. FGIS will review this matter.

3. FGIS conducted 82 scale tests on 41 railroad track scales used for the

official weighing of grain. In addition, four railroad-owned track scales and four railroad track scales owned by industry were tested.

4. In 1986, FGIS adopted the 1985 edition of Handbook 44. As the Federal

process is long and includes a 60-day hearing period, Handbook 44 will be approved only every few years. FGIS will participate with NTEP in the evaluation of railroad track scales and

bulk weighing systems.

A description of the Railroad Track Scale Testing Program, including scale

locations, has been put on the "WAMIS" Bulletin Board. It is also available

from the NBS Office of Weights and Measures.

FGIS is working toward uniformity with NCWM recommendations. It is working

with NBS and the NCWM S&T Committee on the development of a code for moisture meters and grain test scales.

501-2 AEROSOL NET WEIGHT LABELING

Mr. Howard Pippin of the Food and Drug Administration reported that the NCWM

petition for aerosol labeling on a net-weight-only basis was in his office in preparation to going to the Office of the Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.

283
Liaison Committee

501-3 MILK METERS

The Liaison Committee received a letter from Tanks, Inc. of Kansas, concerning

the use of a truck-based milk metering system that has received a Certificate

of Conformance from NBS/NTEP. Mr. Noble Metz, president of Tanks, Inc. of Kansas, believed that the Market Administrator for the Texas Milk Marketing

Area would not let the meter be used for milk pooled under Federal Order

1126. He quoted an article in Dairyman's Digest, dated December 1985, in which

the administrator, Mr. Dunham, is quoted as saying, "I would like to see a lot more testing and experience before we move too far toward depending on meters mounted on trucks with the jolting and vibrating caused by rural roads." In addition, Mr. Metz felt that a November 8, 1985 memo from Mr. Dunham, subject

"Verification of Individual Producer Weight," was unclear in indicating if a truck-mounted metering system could be used to measure milk. The Committee contacted Mr. Dunham in Texas to obtain his views on the issue. He replied to the Committee through a letter dated December 31, 1986, stating

that his office is not responsible for meter approval, but for the verification

of the accuracy of weights received at dairy plants from dairy farmers. Mr. Dunham cited the following paragraph from the November 8, 1985 letter as stating his position.

"We will accept weights determined by any approved measuring and weighing

device so long as such weights are verifiable by our office. If individual

farm tank calibration is abandoned and milk measurements for individual

farms are determined via a meter on farm pickup trucks, such milk will only be treated as producer milk if such measurements are verifiable as

to the amount of milk marketed by each individual producer. If the meter

fails or otherwise fails to properly measure marketings from each individual farmer, such milk would not be treated as producer milk." Mr. Metz and other members of the Tanks, Inc. of Kansas firm addressed the

Committee. A videotape of the operation of the meter was presented, along

with a discussion of the approval system that the meter has already been

through. Mr. Metz presented information on the interest in using a truck-based

metering system and the confusion over what exactly is meant by "verification." After discussing Mr. Metz's presentation and Mr. Dunham's letter to the Committee, the Committee decided to write to Mr. Dunham and ask him if the Tanks,

Inc. of Kansas meter is accepted by his office as an "approved measuring and

weighing device" as defined in his letter of November 8, 1985. Also, it was

decided that the issue could be clarified if Mr. Dunham would define "verifi- able by our office." In this regard, Mr. Metz proposed that the current on-farm,

dipstick measuring system be maintained as a backup.

284
Liaison Committee

501-4 CREDIT CARD SURCHARGE

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin have imposed

state bans on credit card surcharges. Five additional states may pass bans

this year: Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

No action is contemplated at the national level at this time.

In Kansas, which passed their law in 1986, the Attorney General stated that

the law which prohibits companies from charging extra money on card purchases

credit does not preclude offering a cash discount on gas purchases. According

to the Attorney General, cash discounts for the purchase of gasoline are not

the same as a surcharge for credit card use.

501-5 FEDERAL ROLE IN NET CONTENT COMPLIANCE

The Liaison Committee has, in the past, invited the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to present their net content compliance programs to the Committee. At those times, the FTC in- dicated that their staff has conducted studies in the net weight area when there was concern about particular products, that compliance is achieved in cooperation

with state weights and measures agencies, and that the procedures in NBS Handbook 133, Second Edition, are consistent with the FTC's requirements.

In a letter to the Committee, the U.S. Borax Company requested NCWM assistance

in obtaining the FTC's position on reasonable net content variations. U.S. Borax has continued to receive citations from the state of New Jersey after

obtaining endorsement from the NCWM on the use of alternative volumetric compliance testing procedures. U.S. Borax asked the Committee to send its letter

to the FTC substantiating the need for clarification of the reasonable allowances. The NMFS has started a study to determine whether Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) can be established and used in its Seafood Inspection Program

for determining the net weight of shrimp material in raw breaded shrimp and

the net weight of fish flesh in breaded fish sticks and fish portions. This will probably be a long-term effort because of the data which need to be collected

to evaluate the reliability and feasibility of establishing MAVs. At such time

as the Federal Food and Drug Administration adopts MAVs for this purpose, NMFS will probably do likewise.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) affirmed its position that it would

not adopt the procedures and compliance requirements contained in Handbook

133 without going through rule-making procedures for its in-plant inspection

program. (See also Item 514 and Appendix A.) However, when the Task Force

on Commodity Requirements completes its proposal on moisture loss allowances

for red meat and poultry (the gray zone approach), the USDA may be willing

to amend its program.

285
Liaison Committee

501-6 INTERACTION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES

The Liaison Committee's procedures for maintaining an ongoing Conference

relationship with appropriate Federal agencies were reviewed. Representatives

from the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Postal Service, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Marine Fisheries Service,

and Department of Defense were invited to meet with the Committee and discuss their programs pertaining to net weight labeling and other responsibilities inter- facing with those of state and local weights and measures officials. The Department of Defense was represented by Lt. Col. Jungus Jordan, who

coordinates the Department's military commissary, base service station, and

department store-type programs service-wide. Lt. Col. Jordan was concerned that prior technical memorandum agreements available to military base and installation commanders were no longer in place. He requested that NBS provide him with

current NBS Handbooks and Conference information for dissemination to the

officers responsible. The Committee will improve on DOD contacts during the next year. Steve Eckland, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, has

provided a list of FTC field offices. The list is available from the NBS Office

of Weights and Measures. Committee attempts to involve appropriate U.S. Postal Service representatives

responsible for maintenance and calibration of that agency's scales will continue. John Lacy, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, Packers and Stockyards (P&S)

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, presented a complete overview of P&S

responsibilities, including those dealing with weight fraud investigation. P&S now has agreements with 40 states to share information, 20 of which have

provisions which authorize for the state to test livestock scales.

Lists of Regional offices of FDA, FTC, and Milk Marketing Administrators of the USDA are available from the NBS Office of Weights and Measures.

In response to a petition from the NCWM, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture published a proposed regulation that would voluntarily permit meat and poultry firms to use net weight declarations accurate to three decimal places. This proposal was published July 1, 1987 and a public comment period is open until August

31, 1987. The Committee will comment on the proposal. Comments from in- dividual state and local jurisdictions are appropriate and should be sent to: Policy Office, Attn: Linda Carry, FSIS Hearing Clerk, Room 3168, South Agriculture Building, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Washington, DC 20250.

501-7 LABELING OF TURKEY WITH GRAVY

Kristie Anderson, a weights and measures inspector in Everett, Washington,

wrote to the National Conference to request that the Liaison Committee petition

the Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, to require that consumer packages

of turkey with gravy packets be labeled with a joint net weight declaration - one for the total net weight of the combination package with a separate net

286
Liaison Committee

weight for the turkey alone; or the packer may separately declare the net weight

of the turkey and the gravy packet.

A presentation was made by Kristie Anderson via telephone and a discussion was held with the Committee. Some weights and measures officials of Washington

and California pointed out that, the turkey gravy packet may not be visible in some combination packages. Therefore, the consumer has no way of determining

how much turkey is being purchased relative to the amount of gravy. Others

indicated that there is no evidence that the consumer is being deceived, since

the package indicates that the product is a combination product, although the

buyer is not able to determine how much turkey is actually in the package. The

Committee feels that uniform labeling will enable the consumer to comparison

shop.

The Committee invited all weights and measures officials and consumer groups

to furnish any evidence that consumers are being deceived by these packages.

If warranted, the Committee will petition the USDA to amend its regulations

to require a joint net weight declaration. In the meantime, the Committee will notify the National Turkey Federation and the National Broiler Council that concern has been voiced over labeling of combination products. These organizations will be asked to notify their members of this concern; more firms may

then voluntarily label the packet with both weights. The current regulations

permit separate net weight labeling of turkey and of the gravy packet, but do

not require it. All weights and measures officials and consumer organizations are requested to send complaints and data to the Liaison Committee.

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 select and

send information and publications to these groups.

Articles promoting awareness have been printed in several of publications, includ- ing "The National Food Processor's Association News Letter", "Food Chemical

News", and "ASTM Standardization News." Articles have also appeared in publications of the following organizations: National Association of Consumer Agency

Administrators, American Petroleum Institute, and the U.S. Metric Association.

503 OIML ACTIVITIES

Mr. David Edgerly, U.S. representative to the International Organization of Legal

Metrology (OIML), reviewed activities of possible interest to the NCWM. See Item 104-4 and Appendices of the Executive Committee Report.

287
Liaison Committee

504 OWM STATUS REPORT

Mr. Albert Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), reported on

the status of the program in terms of staffing and program changes.

Staffing Changes . Three personnel changes present temporary difficulties in completing all of the work scheduled for the next few months.

Mr. Louis Barbrow, who was on contract to the NCWM, died suddenly last November. He did much of the editorial review of publications and coordinated

the printing of most Conference documents. Additionally, he did much of the

detailed record maintenance of the membership files, including the updating of mailing lists and recording of mailings to the members. Rather than replace

him with a full-time contractor, we have made arrangements to hire temporary

help to assume most of the work formerly performed by Mr. Barbrow. These

temporary hires will work as needed.

Mr. Stephen Hasko retired at the end of December after a 34-year government

career, much of it in the Office of Weights and Measures. OWM has contracted

for his services to formally document some of his training seminars and to train current OWM staff members as trainers. Mr. Otto Warnlof transferred from OWM to the Standards Management Program,

where he will work on OIML activities full-time rather than part-time (as he

did as a member of the OWM staff). Mr. Henry Oppermann has assumed Mr. Warnlof's former assignment as technical advisor to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. Mr. Karl Newell has been assigned to assist Mr. Opper- mann in selected NTEP tasks, computerizing much of the NTEP record-keeping

and conducting evaluations. Mr. Paul Krupenie works with Mr. Oppermann in carrying out various tasks of the State Laboratory Program, including conducting

training seminars, supporting the Regional Measurement Assurance Programs,

and management of the laboratory certification activities. OWM plans to replace Mr. Hasko and Mr. Warnlof through national recruiting

in the next few months.

Program. OWM will continue to carry out its plan to provide all of the staff with the latest computer capability. The current CompuCorp system will be

replaced with IBM-compatible equipment. During calendar year 1987, the new

IBM-compatible equipment will be procured, staff trained, and records transferred from the CompuCorp system. All files will then be compatible with the Bulletin Board.

The Bulletin Board will be improved and its use promoted.

288
Liaison Committee

505 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILED TARE WEIGHTS

John J. Robinson, Senior Assistant Vice President, Association of American

Railroads (AAR), reported the following to the Committee.

1. Due to the drop-off of smokestack industries, the railroad business has

dropped. Railroad cars not in use for an extended time have been stored,

and it is impractical and expensive to restencil them. Approximately 10 percent of the fleet is out of service due to repairs.

2. A total of 87,610 non-exempt cars, or about 12.1 percent of the serviceable

fleet of general service freight cars, were restenciled in 1986.

3. There were 53,491 so-called "exempt" cars (not subject to the basic 60-month

reweighing rule), or 6.5 percent of the serviceable specially-equipped car

fleet. There were 20,684 covered hoppers reweighed.

4. AAR is continuing to explore procedures for streamlining the weighing/restenciling process.

5. The current trend in railroad industry freight rates is for more quotations

per car based upon weight agreements.

6. AAR has a computerized data base of virtually all railroad track scales

in the United States, providing capacity, manufacturer, type, location, etc.

In the interest of promoting accurate weights and maintaining a workable

liaison with the members of the NCWM, AAR will furnish a computer prin- tout of railroad track scales located in their respective jurisdictions to any state officials upon written request.

The Committee has sent a letter to AAR urging it to continue to determine

tare weights.

506 THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS

AND MEASURES

The Committee urges NCWM to focus on the 150th anniversary of the amendment

in 1838 of the Joint Congressional Resolution of 1836 which directed the Secretary of the Treasury to make and deliver one standard balance to the governor

of each state. This direction concluded the first attempt at national uniformity

in weights and measures. The planned celebration includes a special commemorative membership certificate for each member attending the 73rd Conference in Grand Rapids; a dinner featur- ing a speaker interest to the Conference; articles in various publications; and,

possibly, historic exhibits and videotapes.

289
Liaison Committee

The Committee urges members to continue to support the effort for a commemorative stamp in 1989 since each custom house received a set of standards in 1839. Letters should be sent to Belmont Faries, Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, 475 L'Enfant Plaza Southwest, Washington, D. C. 20260-6300, and to Dickey B. Rustin, Manager, Stamp Information Branch, Marketing Department,

United States Postal Service.

A weights and measures commemorative stamp in 1988 appears unlikely. The

Committee therefore suggests that the NCWM issue a special weights and measures stamp in conjunction with the 150th anniversary celebration in 1988.

507 TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS

At its interim meeting in Sacramento, California on February 19, 1987, the

Task Force continued its discussions on the use of computerized information

systems in field, office, and laboratory applications. Specific recommendations

and conclusions of the Task Force to the Conference follow. Item 1 - Funding alternatives for the NCWM's WAMIS

(Weights And Measures Information System)

Electronic Bulletin Board

Task Force discussions on this item revolved around the various ways that the costs (e.g., telephone link connection charges) to user jurisdictions might be

equalized across the country: computer users most geographically remote from

Gaithersburg, Maryland now pay up to 10 times as much to receive the same

service as those within 350 miles of the National Bureau of Standards. Possibilities range from NCWM-subsidized (by an annual user fee or addition to the NCWM membership fee) 800 (toll free) or 900 (50 cents per call) leased

lines to an FTS incoming Federal tie line. As a first step, however, the Task Force requested that the possibility of a National Bureau of Standards Western

United States link be explored by means of a Boulder, Colorado (area code

303) connection directly through to Gaithersburg. Such a link would substantially

reduce WAMIS access costs to those jurisdictions west of the Mississippi.

Item 2 - Regional weights and measures association "user groups" — a Task Force recommendation

The Task Force recommends that each of the four regional weights and measures associations (SWMA, WWMA, NEWMA, and CWMA) provide time (and space) for convening a computer users group meeting in conjunction with their annual

conferences. It has been amply demonstrated that computer users groups provide

the most effective way to share information about computer applications, answer

technical questions, educate new users, obtain new programs, pass on successful approaches, and otherwise get information from "those who have it" to "those

who want it". Within regions, program similarities among jurisdictions are usually

greatest, travel costs and approval difficulties are usually lower, and the likeli- hood of participation by the smaller jurisdictions (or users) usually greater.

This activity might lead to a formal committee arrangement; however, initial "bull-session" type meetings among interested individuals will be sufficient now.

290
Liaison Committee

As interest and the need to organize grows, agendas, officers, and subgroups

(by hardware type and/or operating system, etc.) can evolve as desired. Item 3 - WAMIS security and accessibility considerations

The WAMIS Bulletin Board is currently open to all computer users interested in the activities of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. As an "open" bulletin board, WAMIS information (except protected messages sent between

specific identified users) can be accessed and used by anyone who logs onto

the system. The system has the capability of being redefined in up to 10 dif- ferent security levels in the future if it becomes desirable. All users are currently at the "level five" security category and can transmit protected messages to authorized users by keying in the "P" command and a password when the message is posted. Such messages can be read and subsequently deleted by either

the SYSOP (System Operator, Karl Newell) or others who can give the pass- word.

General information posted for the use of weights and measures jurisdictions,

such as results of inspections, listings of shortmeasure products, etc., is accessible to all who log onto the system. Users who post (or use) such information are reminded to heed the WAMIS disclaimer and listing of user responsibility as published in the WAMIS User's Guide Book and as also flashed onto the screen at log-on, which declares:

"1. Actively encourage and promote the free exchange and discussion of infor- mation, ideas and opinions, except when the content would compromise

the national security of the United States; violate proprietary rights, per- sonal privacy, or applicable state/federal/local laws and regulations affecting

telecommunications; or constitute a crime or libel.

2. Use your real name and fully disclose any personal, financial, or commercial

interest when evaluating any specific product or service.

3. Adhere to these rules and notify me immediately when you discover any

violations of the rules. FURTHER every user explicitly acknowledges that all information obtained from

this RABBS-PC is provided "as is" without wararanty of any kind, either expressed

or implied, including, but not limited to the implied warranties of merachantability

and fitness for a particular purpose and that the entire risk of acting on information obtained from this RBBS-PC, including the entire costs of all necessary

remedies, is with those who choose to act on such information and not the

operator of this RBBS-PC."

Item 4 - Recommendations for Conference handling of information systems

issues, the WAMIS Bulletin Board, and related subjects in the future

Recommendation 4. A. - The Task Force recommends that NCWM supervision over the WAMIS Bulletin Board and all related subjects be assigned to the NCWM

Committee on Liaison. The Liaison Committee technical advisor is the WAMIS

SYSOP, so this is a logical, appropriate place for these subjects to be considered.

291
Liaison Committee

Recommendation 4.B. - The Task Force recommends that the Committee on

Liaison either appoint or itself function on an interim basis as a WAMIS Advisory

Committee for interested users of the system. Where possible, WAMIS Advisory

Committee members should come from the ranks of regional computer users groups (see ITEM 2 of this report). The purpose of the WAMIS Advisory Committee should be to advise and consult with the NCWM and OWM/NBS on operational

issues and concerns relating to the bulletin board on an ongoing basis, including areas such as system capacity, security, access needs, changes in ground rules, etc. Recommendation 4.C. - The Task Force recommends that it go out of existence

with the presentation of this final report. While much remains to be done

with respect to computer-based information systems in the weights and measures community, those tasks and functions can and will be addressed outside the

NCWM Task Force format.

In Conclusion - The Task Force members believe that the era of the computer in weights and measures is just beginning. Furthermore, it is felt that use of computers in the weights and measures system offers more opportunity for improving the

productivity of the limited resources available (of equipment, personnel, and

time) in the jurisdictions than anything else now available.

Members of the NCWM Task Force on Information Systems are Kendrick Simila

(Oregon), Chairman; James Lyles (Virginia); Joseph Rothleder (California); Jerry Hanson (San Bernadino County, California); Robert Bruce (Canada); and Karl

Newell (National Bureau of Standards), Technical Advisor.

508 THE ROLE OF THE WEIGHING AND INSPECTION BUREAUS IN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Mr. Jimmy Willis, regional manager of the Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau (WWIB), Kansas City Service Center, reported on WWIB activities. WWIB

originated in 1881 as a small railroad carload weighing bureau and now provides

transportation services to carriers and shippers in all sections of the country.

WWIB is a private national organization providing transportation auditing, contract compliance, and inspection services to the rail freight transportation industry.

They help to establish, maintain, and update weight agreements between carriers and shippers. This includes compliance audits and certifications of rail traffic moving subject to weight agreements, and investigation and adjustment of shippers' weight or classification claims. WWIB offers inspection of scale facilities and bulk weighing system material tests. Testing of platform and hopper scales up to 5000 pounds capacity is available in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and

hopper scale testing of any scale capacity is available in Colorado.

In grain weight inspection and supervision, the railroads have charged WWIB

with the surveillance as to scale performance, accuracy of weights, and related procedures. AAR is responsible for the overall administration of their grain

market classification program.

292
Liaison Committee

Weight agreements involve, among other things, the use of shipper's weight for shipping costs, rather than the railroads taking the time to weigh the cars, approximately 6300 weight agreements are in effect, of which about 1000 are in-bound shipments to cosignees who have proper facilities for weighing.

WWIB inspectors work with states weights and measures departments when necessary, and those WWIB inspectors testing scales are familiar with NBS

Handbook 44.

509 LIAISON WITH REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Dick Smith, NCWM regional coordinator, met with the NCWM Committee on

Liaison for the purpose of updating the Committee on activity with the four

regional associations during the past year. Mr. Smith reported that he has continued the practice of exchanging the NCWM

Interim Reports and the regional association reports of the S&T, L&R, and

Education Committees. In addition, he has attended each of the regional conferences and worked with their respective committees in an effort to bring to them items of national significance and to provide background information from

the NCWM to aid in their deliberations of the various items.

He also reported that the regional associations now promptly supply him with

current lists of officers and committee members, which are made part of WAMIS

for ready reference. He will continue to be alert to areas where the assistance of the NCWM Committee on Liaison would be beneficial.

510 PROMOTION OF TRAINING MODULE PROGRAM (NTP)

The Committee supports promotion of the National Training Program (NTP)

Training Module Program for use by industry and Federal agencies in addition

to weights and measures officials. The Committee will write an article for industry trade journals informing them of the availability of the training modules

and how they might be used to train industry personnel.

511 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

The Weights and Measures Week theme for 1987 was "Consumer Involvement

for Progress." An informational packet, including the logo, ideas, news articles,

NBS Publication 447, "Weights and Measures Standards in the United States,"

and a pamphlet for consumers, "The Weights and Measures Inspector," were

mailed to all coordinators. VHS videotapes of "Equity in the Marketplace" were made available for $10.

The emphasis for the 1987 Weights and Measures Week activities was the 200th

anniversary of the celebration of the Constitution. The power to "fix the stan- dards," part of Article 9, Paragraph 4, is found in the Articles of Confederation.

Article 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "fix the standards."

293
Liaison Committee

Weights and measures coordinators are requested to include Weights and Measures Week activities during National Consumer Week — "Consumers Celebrate the

Constitution." (April 19-25, 1987)

NCWM Publication #7, "Weights and Measures Week Guide," is available on a very limited basis. In 1987, the guide will be reprinted and revised. The Committee reminds weights and measures officials to use the guide for year-round

publicity. Weights and Measures Week articles and activities and year-round

information and brochures should be mailed to Peggy Adams, Bucks County

Consumer Protection and Weights and Measures, Broad and Union Streets, Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901.

512 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LEGAL CASES

A survey form was mailed to all weights and measures jurisdictions and was

included in the 71st National Conference Report. Some jurisdictions responded.

The Committee will request each jurisdiction to send information about one

interesting case. Information will also be requested through the WAMIS Bulletin Board.

John Lacy of the Packers and Stockyards offered to send information on cases concerning weights and measures problems. It is noted that state and Federal

decisions are available through a commercial computerized information system

called LEXIS. There is still a need to receive information on hearings at the

administrative and local court level.

513 INTERACTION WITH PRIVATE SHIPPERS SUCH AS UPS, FEDERAL

EXPRESS, ETC.

In recent years, both the volume of shipments and the number of private shipping companies that charge for services on the basis of package weight have

grown significantly. The Committee contacted representatives of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and private shipping companies to determine what

ongoing role the Liaison Committee should play in interacting with the private

shipping industry.

The ICC responsibility for regulating interstate commerce, by way of tariff approval and certificate of authority, raises a question of concurrent jurisdiction.

John Fristoe, ICC compliance officer, indicated that his agency would probably

back weights and measures officials' decisions pertaining to weighing devices.

Air freight firms apparently do not now fall under ICC jurisdiction; the Committee will determine where oversight responsibility falls in future contacts with

Federal certifying agencies such as ICC. The proliferation of so-called "commercial counters," i.e., private enterprises

providing pick-up points for private shippers such as UPS, was also reviewed.

The Committee will explore and recommend means for advising individuals contemplating entering the "commercial counter" business as to requirements for use of type-approved scales.

294
Liaison Committee

Mr. Robert Potter, National Customer Relations Representative, United Parcel

Service, reviewed his company's procedures for assuring compliance with type ap- proval and NBS Handbook 44 requirements. UPS checks its own equipment

in-house. However, UPS does not have scales for their agents or commercial

counters. Mr. Potter stated that commercial counters are independent small

businesses and are under state and local weights and measures jurisdiction. He

stated that they are not agents of UPS. The Committee will continue to communicate with UPS in an effort to set some guidelines for UPS to distribute to commercial counters on a voluntary basis so that scales purchased are appropriate

and approved for their use.

514 PROMOTION OF NBS HANDBOOK 133 The Committee on Liaison recommends the adoption of NBS Handbook 133 by

all state and local weights and measures agencies. The Committee expresses

its willingness to work with each state that has not already adopted Handbook

133. The Committee will help to identify steps necessary for adoption within a given state and aid in the adoption procedure. Appendix A contains a letter from the Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, explaining its position concerning Handbook 133. This should reassure weights and measures agencies that package lots called off sale using NBS Handbook 133 Category A will not be challenged by USDA.

515 LABELING OF NONALCOHOLIC MALT BEVERAGES

Sections 8.1.1. and 8.1.5. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

require the quantity declaration to appear within the bottom 30 percent of the

principal display panel(s) and generally parallel to the base on which the package

rests as it is designed to be displayed. Nonalcoholic malt beverages, under the Federal requirements of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF)

are not required to show the quantity declaration parallel to the base or in the lower 30 percent of the principal display panel. When registering these

products for the required BATF permit, the agency has allowed these nonalcoholic

beverages to be labeled in accordance with BATF regulations, resulting in vi- olative labeling in every state that has adopted the Uniform Packaging and

Labeling Regulation. The Committee has responded to a Federal Register an- nouncement for comments to these BATF regulations. The response requested

that BATF (1) recognize that state requirements also cover nonalcoholic malt

beverages and (2) require these declarations to be placed in accordance with

the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

295
Liaison Committee

The Committee has received a response from the BATF saying that the committees' comments will not be acted upon at this time because they did not relate to the specific proposals of the notice. The Committee will continue to pursue the matter.

P. Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Chairman

J. Akey, Kansas

P. Engler, Los Angeles County, California

C. Kloos, Beatrice

J. McCutcheon, USDA

K. Newell, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

296
APPENDIX A Liaison Committee

United States Department of Agriculture

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Washington, D.C. 20250

NOV 25 1986

Ms. Peggy H. Adams

Bucks County Consumer Protection/

Weights and Measures

Broad and Union Streets

Doylestown, PA 18901

Dear Ms. Adams:

This is in response to the request made at the National

Conference on Weights and Measures in Albuquerque concerning

endorsement of NBS Handbook 133.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is restricted from adopt i ng 'Handbook

133 as the statistical basis for determining accuracy of net content labeling of federally inspected meat and poultry

products. To adopt provisions of Handbook 133 would require FSIS

to revise existing net content regulations in accordance with the

Administrative Procedures Act prior to implementation of revised

regulatory requirements.

FSIS presently enforces procedures for net content control in federally inspected meat and poultry plants that are very similar

to those detailed as Category B in Handbook 133. These

procedures are used to determine if a production lot is correctly

labeled for net content.

If a State or jurisdiction elect to implement Handbook 133 and

use the sampling plan Category A to determine accuracy of the net content statement of federally inspected meat and poultry

products, FSIS would not object and should the results of

applying Category A sampling plan reveal underweight product,

FSIS would assume that the product is truly mislabeled as to the

net content statement.

If additional information is needed, feel free to contact me at Area Code (202) 447-3521.

Si nee rely.

40hn W. McCutcheon

J/eputy Administrator

Meat and Poultry Inspection

Technical Services

297
Nominating Committee

REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

George Mattimoe, Chairman

State of Hawaii

REFERENCE KEY

800 The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and nominated the listed persons

to be officers of the Conference. In the selection of nominees from active

membership, consideration was given to professional experience, qualification of individuals, Conference attendance and 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:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

(3-year terms)

TREASURER:

CHAPLAIN:

John Bartfai, New York

James Vanderwielen, Tippecanoe County, IN Stuart Rosenthal, City of New York, NY

Sterling McFarlane, City of Seattle, WA

Tom Scott, North Carolina

Bruce Niebergall, North Dakota

Sam Hindsman, Arkansas

Charles A. Gardner, Jr., Suffolk County, NY

Martin Coile, Georgia

Respectfully submitted:

George Mattimoe, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

Edward Heffron, Michigan

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Richard Thompson, Maryland

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

On motion of Mr. Simila, Acting Chairman, the report of the Nominating

Committee, voting key item 800, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference.

298
Resolutions Committee

REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

Donald L. Lynch, Chairman

Standards Administrator

City of Kansas City, Kansas

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

701 GENERAL

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to those who contributed

their time and talents toward the arrangements for, the conduct of, and the success of this 72nd Annual Meeting. Special votes of thanks are extended:

(1) to Kenneth Gilles, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, USDA, for his description of the several roles of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including

the Federal Grain Inspection Service and the Food Safety and Inspection

Service in the growing National commerce, and for his continuing interest

in the coordination of Federal and State activities in support of the marketplace and the myriad complexities of commodity processing and selling;

(2) to Ernest Ambler, Director, National Bureau of Standards, for his insightful

description of the roots of weights and measures in the Constitution of the United States; his stimulating recounting of the evolution of commercial

measurement and the parallel cooperation of the NBS and States through

the National Conference on Weights and Measures; and his encouraging

summary of recent achievements was encouraging as the National Conference on Weights and Measures membership plans for the future;

(3) to officers and appointed officials of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures for their assistance and service toward progress on national

issues;

(4) to committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing

and presenting their reports, to the subcommittees and task forces for their discerning and appropriate recommendations;

(5) to governing officials of state and local jurisdictions for their advice,

interest, and support in weights and measures administration in the United

States;

(6) to representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assis- tance in committee and Conference work, to the associate membership

organization for its hosting functions;

(7) to the staff of the Excelsior Hotel for their assistance and courtesies,

299
Resolutions Committee

(7) to the staff of the Excelsior Hotel for their assistance and courtesies,

which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the delegates in their

fine facilities;

(8) to 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) to the Office of Weights and Measures staff: Ann Heffernan,

Karen Barkley, and

Terry Grimes, for their expert and hospitable operation of the

administrative operations of the meeting; and

(10) to the Arkansas Bureau of Standards for their tireless and essential support

to the Conference, its committees, and our guests throughout the meeting

week.

(11) to the family of Mack Rapp

whereas Mack spent 50 years of his life in the weighing industry

and was known and highly respected by all who knew him, and

whereas hundreds of members, both past and present, of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures have benefitted

from his dedication to the objectives of this organization, and

whereas Mack was a strong and enthusiastic formulator of means

to obtain national recognition for the weighing industry through

establishment of "Weights and Measures Week" and the issuance

of a commemorative postage stamp, and

whereas Mack's was a voice often heard, speaking with authority

and conviction on matters of great importance to the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, therefore be it resolved that The National Conference on Weights and Measures extends its condolences and sympathy to you in marking the passing of

this great and good friend from our midst.

D. Lynch, Kansas City, Kansas, Chairman

C. Carroll, Massachusetts

G. MacDonald, Minnesota

M. Gray, Florida

O. R. Elliott, Oklahoma

S. Meloy, Montana

R. Smith, NBS, Technical Advisor

(On motion of Mr. Carroll, Acting Chairman, the report of the Resolutions

Committee, Reference Key Item 700, was adopted by the Conference.)

300
Auditing Committee

REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Ed Romano, Sealer

Department of Weights and Measures

Glenn County

Willows, California

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

900 The Auditing Committee met on Tuesday afternoon, July 21, 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

J. Rardin, WV

R. Smith, NBS, Regional Coordinator

(On motion of Mr. Romano, the Report of the Auditing Committee, Reference

Key Item 900, was adopted by the Conference.)

301
Treasurer's Report

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER

Charles A. Gardner, Director

Weights and Measures

Suffolk County, New York

REFERENCE KEY

1000

It is my pleasure to report to you on the financial status of the Conference

Treasury as follows: CASH ON HAND - JUNE 30, 1987 $ 41,065.80

RECEIPTS

Account Number

1.1 Registrations

1.2 Membership

1.3 Training Modules

1.4 Interest

1.5 Promotions

1.6 Special Events

1.9 Miscellaneous

TOTAL RECEIPTS

$31,500.00

47,565.00

9,371.04

2,113.53

2,325.65

3,413.00

-0-

TOTAL CASH BALANCE AND RECEIPTS

$ 96,288.22

$137,354.02

DISBURSEMENTS

Account Number

2.0 Annual Meeting $12,194.23

3.0 Interim Meeting 1,554.83

4.0 Committee Operations 18,724.19

5.0 Special Programs 13,401.12

6.0 Chairman's Expenses 3,601.13

7.0 Membership Expenses 8,016.28

8.0 Printing & Publications 10,108.32

9.0 Administration 3,113.08

10.0 Special Events 1,691.75

11.0 Promotions 124.42

12.0 Training Modules 9,124.40

302
Treasurer's Report

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $ 81,653.75

BALANCE - Income/Disbursements $55,700.27

Cash on Hand - June 30, 1987 Super NOW Account

European American Bank, Hauppauge, NY $ 55,386.03

Signet Bank Account

Gaithersburg, MD $ 314.24 TOTAL ASSETS $55,700.27

FISCAL YEAR 71 (1986-87)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

GRANT ACCOUNT

CASH ON HAND - June 30, 1986 $ 2,143.17

RECEIPTS 43,863.74

TOTAL CASH BALANCE AND RECEIPTS $ 46,006.91

DISBURSEMENTS 36,484.45

Cash Balance - June 30, 1987 Super N.O.W. Account - European American Bank

Hauppauge, New York $ 9522.46 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS AND CASH BALANCE $46,006.91

Charles A. Gardner, Treasurer

(On motion of Mr. Gardner, the Report of the Conference Treasurer, Reference

Key Item 1000, was adopted by the Conference.)

303
Metrology Workshops

REPORT ON STATE METROLOGY WORKSHOPS

Paul H. Krupenie

National Bureau of Standards

Workshop sessions were held on Monday, July 20 and Wednesday, July 22, 1987. The morning of July 20 was devoted to a tour of the Arkansas laboratory and

the afternoon to a tour of the National Center for Toxicological Research(NCTR), a little-known branch of the Food and Drug Administration. A technical session was held on Wednesday morning.

Billy Sullivant and Charles Kirspel, of Arkansas, ushered visitors through the

Arkansas mass, volume, length, and grain moisture laboratories. Their length

bench is used less and less, since the primary clients of length measurement, the state's Highway Department and industry, make increased use of laser devices.

The large volume lab includes a rack of provers, 50 gal to 1000 gal, permanently

mounted high enough, for tank trucks to pull in one door and exit through

another. The lab computer is programmed for double substitutions, LAP problem

27, and the Z-60 calculation. Word processing software prepares certificates of calibration, worksheets, and reports.

David Karlish of Arkansas guided the tour through the petroleum testing lab and mobile lab, where fuels and possible contaminants are analyzed. Outside the lab are various truck-mounted provers and a truck, fitted with three 5-gal test measures and dump tanks, for use at truck stops.

The primary weights of the lab facilities of the NCTR are calibrated by the

Arkansas lab. The visitors observed their working standards, used to weigh

feed; chemical additives in the study of toxicity; animals (mice and rats); and

organs. The working standards are used to calibrate balances that are interfaced

with computers.

The technical session opened with detailed accounts by L.F.Eason, North Carolina,

and Herb Eskew, Texas, of their labs' experience with electronic microbalances

of 3- or 4-g capacity. Atttendees were informed that the standard deviation

claimed by the manufacturer may be based on a different calculation procedure

than that used by metrologists. Electrostatic effects are commonly encountered

in the use of these small-capacity balances; therefore, static ground straps on

shoes, anti-static brushes, lab coats, and wrist straps are recommended. Static

electricity problems may also be caused by chairs, lint, or the material in boxedweight containers.

304
Metrology Workshops

For the small-capacity balances as well as the larger-capacity mass comparators

(e.g., in the 50-lb regime), the latter discussed by Ken Fraley, Oklahoma, the

general advice was to keep them on at all times. Joe Rothleder, California, summarized how, in California, statistical analysis of computerized records on the stability of field weights and volume measures

enable the lab to adjust the time interval for each jurisdiction to send its stan- dards for retesting. This has added flexibility to both the State lab and the

various jurisdictions.

Paul Krupenie, National Bureau of Standards, spoke on errors made in reporting masses in round robins, and presented guidelines for analysis of data on control

charts, an early warning system of possible sources of trouble before the measurements reveal failure of a statistical test.

305
Registration List

REGISTRATION LIST - 72ND ANNUAL MEETING

Adams, Peggy H. PA Bureau of Weights

<5c Measures

Bucks Cnty. Consumer Protection

Broad and Union Streets Doylestown, PA 18901

215/348-7442

Akey, James H. KS Weights & Measures

2016 SW 37th St. Topeka, KS 66611-2570

913/267-0278

Albers, Bob

MO Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

314/751-2495

Allen, Jack

MO Weights <5c Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

314/751-1100

Allen, James

Dept. of Labor

Div. of Weights & Meas.

220 Elmwood Rd.

Providence, RI 02907

401/457-1863

Ambler, Ernest National Bureau of Standards

Administration A1134

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-2411

Andersen, Ross J. NY State Bureau of

Weights <5c Measures

Bldg. 7-A, State Campus

Albany, NY 12235

518/457-3452

Angell, Karl H. WV Weights and Measures

570 McCorkle Ave,

St. Albans, WV 25177

304/727-5781

Appell, Kenneth C. 300 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022

212/310-2022

Austin, Bernard H. Weights and Measures

State House Sta. 28 Augusta, ME 04333

207/289-3841

Ballenger, Betty

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st St. Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Bane, Jerry

IA Dept. of Agriculture

and Land Stewardship

Wallace Bldg., 1st Floor Des Moines, IA 50319

515/281-5716

Barkley, Karen L. Office of Weights <5c Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4004

Barnett, Tom

Fred Stein Labs. Inc. 121 North Fourth

Atchinson, KS 66002

913/367-3945

Barrows, Lester H. MO Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

314/751-4316

306
Registration List

Bartfai, John J. NY State Bureau of Weights & Measures

Bldg. 7-A, State Campus

Albany, NY 12235

518/457-3452

Baugus, Ray

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Beatty, Hilton I. Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Bell, Irving

The Coca-Cola Co.

P.O. Drawer 1734

Atlanta, GA 30301

404/676-2623

Belmont, Anthony F. Consumer Affairs Coord.

101 Field Point Rd.

Greenwich, CT 06830

203/622-7710

Belue, F. Michael

Southwest Pump Co.

2004 Liberty St. Bonham, TX 75418

214/583-3134

Bies, Leonard

SD Div. Commercial

Inspec. <5c Reg.

4109 S. Fairhall

Sioux Falls, SD 57106

605/361-3093

Bird, James R.

Bella Bridge Rd., Box 194 Medford, NJ 08055

609/267-5520

Birmingham, Coleen M. Weights and Measures, Canada

207 Queen St. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

613/952-2631

Bishop, Terrell Arkansas Bureau of Standards

Route 1, Box 357

Russellville, AR 72801

501/967-4083

Bloch, Barbara J. Div. of Measurement Stds. 8500 Fruitridge Rd.

Sacramento, CA 95826

916/366-5119

Bone, John

#86 Ashley Rd.

North Little Rock, AR 72118

501/851-1618

Bowen, Donice

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Bradley, Chester D. Route 2, Box 179 Heathsville, VA 22473

804/580-4305

Bradshaw, Harold

Clark County Weights and

Measures

City County Bldg.

Jeffersonville, IN 812/283-4451

Brasher, W. D. Southern Co. Services

P.O. Box 2625 Birmingham, AL 35202 205/877-7653

Bratle, Edward A. NCR Corporation

1700 S. Patterson Blvd. Dayton, OH 45479

513/445-1306

307
Registration List

Braun, William H. Procter & Gamble

6100 Center Hill Rd.

Cincinnati, OH 45224

513/659-5233

Brewer, John F. Jr. Fina Oil & Chemical Co.

P.O. Box 2159

Dallas, TX 75221

214/750-2642

Brickenkamp, Carroll S. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4005

Brink, Trafford F. Weights <5c Measures

and Retail Inspection

VT Dept. of Agriculture

116 State Street

Montpelier, VT 05602

802/828-2436

Brumbaugh, Robert T. Systems Associates, Inc. 205 Peterson Rd.

Libertyville, IL 60048

312/367-6650

Bumgemer, John H. Pelouze Scale Co.

2120 Greenwood St. Evanston, IL 60201

312/328-8330

Burger, Gerald R. Consumers Power Co.

1945 W. Parnall Rd.

Jackson, MI 49201

517/788-2387

Burns, Randy

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Butcher, Kenneth S. MD Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Butterbaugh, William N. Natl. LP-Gas Assoc.

1301 W. 22nd St. Oak Brook, IL 60521

312/573-4800

Calkins, Richard

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

230 W. Coleman St. Rice Lake, WI 54868

715/234-9171

Caris, Richard F. Interface Inc. 7401 E. Butherus Dr. Scottsdale, AZ 85260

602/948-5555

Carles, Robert S. Lance, Inc. P.O. Box 32368

Charlotte, NC 28232

704/554-1421

Carleton, George E. Procter & Gamble Co. One Procter & Gamble Plaza

Cincinnati, OH 45202

513/983-2721

Carpenter, G. Edward

175 Hollywood Dr. Middletown, PA 17057

717/939-6586

Carroll, Charles H. Division of Standards

One Ashburton PL, Rm. 1115

Boston, MA 02108

617/727-3480

Carter, Charles

OK Dept. of Agriculture

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298

405/521-3861

308
Registration List

Casanova, Max C. Ramsey Engineering Co.

1853 W. County Road C

St. Paul, MN 55113

612/633-5150

Chappell, Samuel E. Standards Management

National Bur. of Stds. Admin. A623

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4024

Chesser, Clen

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Chohamin, John M. Middlesex County

841 Georges Rd.

North Brunswick, NJ

201/745-3298

Clark, Gilliam

Chrysler Motors

Chrysler 418-35-23 Box 1118

Detroit, MI 48288

313/956-4777

Claussen, Richard

Porter County, Ind. Kouts, IN 219/766-2323

Clegg, LaVar

Transducers Inc. 14030 Bolsa Lane

Cerritos, CA 92686

714/739-1991

Clem, Fred P. 50 W. Gay St., Rm. 605 Columbus, OH 43215

614/222-7397

Coile, Martin T. Weights <5c Meas. Lab.

Atlanta Farmers Market

Forest Park, GA 30050

404/363-7611

Colbrook, Sid

IL Dept. of Agriculture

801 E. Sangamon Ave.

Springfield, IL 62708

217/782-3817

Conrad, Carl P. Jr. Office of Weights & Meas.

State of New Jersey

Trenton, NJ 08625

609/292-4615

Corwon, Michael E. Neptune Measurement

P.O. Box 792 Greenwood, SC 29646

Coyne, Mark P. 45 School St. Rm. B-12, City Hall

Brockton, MA 02401

617/580-7120

Croft, Sandra J. L. Weights & Measures

Licensing <5c Consumer Aff. Golden Rock Shopping Ctr. Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 809/773-2226

Cummins, Millard

Thurman Scale Co.

1939 Refugee Rd.

Columbus, OH 43207

614/443-9741

Curtis, J. E. Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Cushing, Ken

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

309
Registration List

Daniels, A. Raymond

NCR Corporation

1700 S. Patterson Blvd. Dayton, OH 45479

513/445-1310

Darsey, Stan

1504 Seminole Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32301-5736

904/877-1603

Davis, Delores D. NY State Bureau of

Weights and Measures

Bldg. 7-A, State Campus

Albany, NY 12235

518/457-3452

Davis, Richard L. James River Corp.

1915 Marathon Ave. Neenah, WI 54956

414/729-8174

DeCheco, Tod

Summit County Ohio

522 E. Cuyahoga Falls Ave.

Akron, OH 44310

216/923-9546

DeGrange, Lacy H. MD Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Deisley, Michael L. P.O. Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509

402/471-4292

DeSalvo, Barbara J. OH Div. of Weights

and Measures

8995 E. Main St. Reynoldsburg, OH 43062

614/866-6361

Determan, Tom

Brownie Tank Mfg. Co.

1241 72nd Ave., NE

Minneapolis, MN 55432

612/571-8110

Diggs, G. Wes

VA Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 1163 Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2476

Dills, Carl

Div. of Wts. & Meas. KY Dept. of Agriculture

106 W. 2nd St. Frankfort, KY

502/564-4870

Draghetti, Louis D. Town of Agawam

36 Main St. Agawam, MA 01001

413/786-0400 ext. 232/234

Dycus, Don W. Arkansas Scales Inc. Rt. 8, Box 156 Jonesboro, AR 72401

Dykes, Robert C. Federal Express

P.O. Box 18451

Memphis, TN 38181

901/369-3073

Eason, L. F. P.O. Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

919/733-4411

Eckhardt, Steve K. Micro Motion

196 South Brown Rd.

Long Lake, MN 55356-9407

612/475-0067

Elengo, John

Revere Corp. of America

P.O. Box 56 Wallingford, CT 06492

203/284-5102

310
Registration List

Elliott, O. Ray

Agricultural Products Div.

OK Dept. of Agriculture

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298

405/521-3861

Ely, Dean I. PA Assoc. of Weights

and Measures

332 Wash Ave.

Jersey Shore, PA 17740

717/398-2811

Engh, Harold V. Ill North American Plastics Co.

921 Industrial Dr. Aurora, IL 60506

312/896-6200

Engler, Paul B. Los Angeles County

3400 La Madera Ave.

El Monte, CA 91732

818/575-5451

Eskew, James H. TX Dept. of Agriculture

119 Cumberland Rd.

Austin, TX 78704

512/462-1441

Ethridge, Mark A. Measurement Dept.

American Petroleum Inst. 1220 L St., NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/682-8146

Evans, Alfred C. Veeder-Root Company

28 Sargeant St. Hartford, CT 06102

203/527-7201

Farrar, Allen J. Consultant/NBS

2302 Ross Rd.

Silver Spring, MD

301/587-7224

Feinland, Sy

Pitney Bowes, Inc. 380 Main Ave. Norwalk, CT 06852

203/854-7007

Fishman, William

NY State Bureau of Weights and Measures

Bldg. 7-A, State Campus

Albany, NY 12235

518/457-3452

Fonger, Robert

Bennett Pump Co.

P.O. Box 597 Muskegon, MI 49443

616/733-1302

Fraley, Ken

OK Bureau of Standards

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405/521-3864 ext. 370

Frazier, Loyd

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

Route 1, Box 102A

West Fork, AR 72774

501/761-3615

Frazier, Roger

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

211 Princeton

Benton, AR 72015

501/778-1627

Freyer, Ronald G. Pillsbury Company

200 S. 6th St. - M.S. 2545

Minneapolis, MN 55402

612/330-4034

Fuehne, R. H. Ralston Purina Co. Checkerboard Sq. - 4RN

St. Louis, MO 63164

Fugatt, Terry

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

311
Registration List

Fulmer, Carol P. SC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 11280

Columbia, SC 29211

803/737-2080

Furey, Robert L. General Motors Res. Labs.

30500 Mound Rd.

Warren, MI 48090

313/986-1927

Gardner, Charles A. County Center North

Bldg. 340

Hauppauge, NY 11788

516/360-4620

Gardner, Charles H. Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Ave. Rancocas, NJ 08073

609/267-0922

Gates, Van

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Geiler, Thomas F. Town of Barnstable

397 Main St. Hyannis, MA 02601

617/775-1120

Gerard, Sabiron

Esselte Moreau S.A. 106 Bis Avenue Beaurepaire

Saint Maur, France 94100

48-86-12-83

Gerbert, Victor L. State of Wyoming

2219 Carey

Cheyenne, WY 82001

307/777-7321

Gerdom, Walter F. Tokheim Corporation

P.O. Box 960 Fort Wayne, IN 46801

219/423-2552 ext. 4216

Gerk, Fred A. Div. of Stds. & Cons. Svs. NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Giannina, Joe

G.E.A.P.S.

P.O. Box 1541 Corpus Christi, TX 78403

512/883-1162

Gilroy, Michael J. Food and Drug Counsel

The Coca-Cola Co.

P.O. Drawer 1734

Atlanta, GA

404/676-3207

Goodpaster, William V. Cardinal Scale Co.

1610 H.C. Sacramento, CA 95814

916/441-0178

Gray, Maxwell H. FL Dept. of Agriculture

& Consumer Services

3125 Conner Blvd. 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

Greene, Robert D. Sensortronics Inc. 677 Arrow Grand Circle

Covina, CA

818/331-0502

312
Registration List

Greiner, L. M. (Jake) R.R. #3

Fayette, MO 65248

816/248-3892

Grenier, Michael F. NH Dept. of Agriculture

10 Ferry St., Caller Box 2042 Concord, NH 03301

603/271-3700

Grimes, Terry L. Office of Weights <3c Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4004

Gruber, Martin R. Jr. IWCC

4133 Navajo Trail, NE

Atlanta, GA 30319

404/457-4148

Guensler, Darrell A.

Div. of Measurement Stds. 8500 Fruitridge Rd.

Sacramento, CA 95826

916/366-5119

Halverson, John C. USDA/FGIS

P.O. Box 20285

Kansas City, KS 64195

816/891-6506

Hanish, Edwin

Laporte County, Ind. 119 Tilden Ave. Michigan City, IN 46360

219/879-9486

Hankel, Melvin C. Liquid Controls Corp.

Wacker Park

N. Chicago, IL 60064

312/689-2400

Hanson, Gerald W.

Dept. of Weights <5c Measures

777 E. Rialto Ave.

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

714/387-2140

Hare, George C. Badger Meter Inc. 4545 W. Brown Deer Rd.

Milwaukee, WI 53223

414/355-0400

Harrington, Marvin

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

Route 3, Box 140 Greenbrier, AR 72058

501/679-3953

Harrington, Robert J. Marathon Petroleum Co.

539 South Main St. Findlay, OH 45840

419/422-2121

Hausherr, Walter

Mettler Instrument Corp.

P.O. Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000 or (800)

Hayes, Ron

MO Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102 314/751-2922

Heffernan, Ann P. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4012

Heffron, Edward C. MI Dept. of Agriculture

4th Floor, Ottawa Bldg. N

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing,, MI 48909

517/373-1060

Hejzlar, Sid Chatillon Inc. 83-30 Kew Gardens Rd.

Kew Gardens, NY 11415

718/847-5000

313
Registration List

Helmick, Ray

Weights & Measures

3039 W. Indian School Rd.

Phoenix, AZ 85017

602/255-5211

Henninger, Richard G. City of Dallas

2405 W. Newton Circle

Irving, TX 75062

214/252-7326

Herman, Marilyn J. Herman <5c Associates

2300 M St., NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20037

202/775-1630

Hernandez, Cecil "Chico"

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Hershbein, Arthur

Dade County, Florida

140 W. Flagler St., Suite 1605

Miami, FL 33130

305/375-4222

Herstein, Jeffrey N. Poly-tech, Inc. 1401 W. 94th St. Minneapolis, MN 55431

612/884-7281

Hescox, Mitchell C. Thayer Scale

Route 139 Pembroke, MA

617/826-8101

Hight, Kim

Micro Motion, Inc. 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

303/530-8418

Hile, Mike

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Hindsman, Sam F. Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Ho, Cheng-Hsin

Ctr. for Measurement Stds. Industrial Technology

Research Institute 321 Sec. 2 Kuang Fu Rd.

(30042) Hsinchu, Taiwan

011-886-35-712-564

Hock, L. G. Standard Oil Co.

4850 E. 49th St. Cleveland, OH 44125

216/271-8211

Hockmuth, Richard L. PMP Corporation

P.O. Box 422 Avon, CT 06001

203/677-9656

Holthoff, Greg

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Holiman, James E. (Ed)

11914 Ashwood Dr.

Little Rock, AR 72211 501/225-4213

Hooker, Ron

MO Weights <5c Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

314/751-4278

Hoover, Brian

Micro Motion Inc. 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

303/530-8534

314
Registration List

Hudspeth, Jan Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Hunter, Dave

Micro Motion

7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

303/530-8400

Hurley, Richard H. Fairbanks Weighing Div. 711 East St. Johnsbury Rd.

St. Johnsbury, VT 05819

802/748-5111

Hussey, James

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Jackson, John

Sunbelt Plastics P.O. Box 7400 Monroe, LA 71201

318/388-2200

James, David F. MO Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

314/751-5638

James, W. Terry

P.O. Box 151

103 E. Daugherty

Webb City, MO 64870

417/673-4631

Jason, Robert

R. 1 Samara Trail Lake Ann, MI 49650

616/947-3171

Jeffries, Jack

7810 Alafia Dr. Riverview, FL 33569

813/677-3851

Jennings, Randy

P.O. Box 40627

Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

615/360-0160

Jex, Glen

ID Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 790

Boise, ID 83701 208/334-2345

Jolliffe, Lane W.

ID Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 790

Boise, ID 83701 208/334-2623

Johnson, Ted F. Sensortronics

677 Arrow Grand Circle

Covina, CA 91722

818/331-0502

Joly, Galen

Poly-tech, Inc. 1401 W. 94th St. Minneapolis, MN 55431 612/884-7281

Jones, Scott A. City of Indianapolis

Rm. 1760, C.C. Bldg.

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/236-4272

Jorowski, Gerry A. Consumer & Corporate

Affairs Canada

50 Victoria St., Phase I Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0C9

819/899-1177

Kalentkowski, Raymond S. State of Connecticut

165 Capitol Ave.

Hartford, CT 06106

Karlish, David O. Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

315
Registration List

Keeley, Eugene

DE Weights and Measures

2320 S. Dupont Highway

Dover, DE 19901

Kelley, Robert B. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs

80 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10013

212/566-8776

Kelly, Thomas W.

Office of Weights <5c Measures

State of New Jersey

Trenton, NJ 08625

609/292-4615

Kilcoyne, Mary P. The Soap <5c Detergent Assoc.

475 Park Ave. South

New York, NY 10016

212/725-1262

Kirby, Thomas E. Route 3, Box 65C

Jackson, GA 30233

404/775-6387

Kirspel, Charles Jr. Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Kirspel, Charles Sr. Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Klein, Paul J. 115 Virginia St. Mishawaka, IN 46544

219/255-2367

Klevay, Tom

Millers' Natl. Federation

600 Maryland Ave., Suite 305W

Washington, DC 20024

202/484-2200

Kloos, Chip

14251 Matisse Ave.

Irvine, CA 92714

714/552-0845

Koenig, Joan A. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4007

Korn, Harry D. Colgate Palmolive Co.

105 Hudson St. Jersey City, NJ 07302

201/547-2661

Kosits, Frank A. Jr. 17500 Daleview

Lakewood, OH 44107

216/228-8839

Kowalchik, Michael J. Mobil Oil Corp., Rm. 2A211

3225 Gallows Rd.

Fairfax, VA 22037

703/849-5320

Kroeger, Jim

Ohaus Scale Corp.

29 Hanover Rd.

Florham Park, NJ 07932

201/377-9000

Krupenie, Paul H. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4015

Kupper, Walter E. Mettler Instrument Corp.

P.O. Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000

Kushnir, Dan

Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Ave. Rancocas, NJ 08073

609/267-0922

316
Registration List

Lacy, John T. USDA/Packers

<5c Stockyards

3414-S, 14th <5c Independence SW

Washington, DC

202/447-3140

Ladd, Tony

The Pillsbury Co.

255 N. Portage Path

Suite 213 Akron, OH 44303

216/836-4569

Lee, Jyr Dwo

Ctr. for Measurement Stds. Industrial Technology

Research Institute 321 Sec. 2 Kuang Fu Rd.

(30042) Hsinchu, Taiwan

011-886-35-712-564

Lemme, Wolfgang H. Mettler Instrument Corp.

P. O. Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000

Land, Robert L. Dept. of Weights

and Measures

City of Anderson

P.O. Box 2100

120 E. 8th St. Anderson, IN 46011

317/646-9839

LaGasse, Robert C. National Bark Prod. Assoc.

13542 Union Village Circle

Clifton, VA 22024

703/830-5367

Laster, Abe

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

P.O. Box 465

Clarksville, AR 72830

501/754-3875

Laurel, Karl

Liquid Controls Corp.

Wacker Park

N. Chicago, IL 60064

312/689-2400

Lawson, Dorothy

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

Route 1, Box 10 Colt, AR 72326

501/633-1466

LeCaire, Robert A. Jr. Presto Products, Inc. 670 N. Perkins St. Appleton, WI 54914-3133

414/739-9471

Lloyd, Raymond J. Scale Manufacturers Assoc.

152 Rollins Ave., Suite 208 Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Lodge, Harvey

Dunbar Manufacturing

307 Broadway

Swanton, OH 43558

419/244-3021

Lowe, Robert E. City of Indianapolis

Rm. 1760 City Cnty. Bldg.

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/236-4272

Lowery, Lawrence L. Norfolk Southern Corp.

99 Spring St. Atlanta, GA 30303

404/527-2538

Loyd, Joe F. CSX Transportation

500 Water Street

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904/359-1024

Lyles, James F. VA Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 1163 Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2476

317
Registration List

Lyons, Melvin L. Jr. LA Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 44456, Capital Sta. Baton Rouge, LA 70804

504/925-3780

Lyons, Robert L. Gerber Products Co.

445 State St. Fremont, MI 49412

616/928-2267

Malone, Steven A. Weights and Measures Div. P.O. Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509

401/471-4292

Manning, Paul H. 1010 Massachusetts Ave.

Boston, MA 02118

617/442-3154

Marino, Patrick

New Brunswick Intl. Inc.

5 Greek Lane

Edison, NJ 08817

201/287-2288

Marshall, Glen R. Shell Oil 777 Walker

Two Shell Plz., Rm. TSP-1130

Houston, TX 77002

713/241-1452

Marshall, Terry J. Ikea Inc. Plymouth Commons

Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

215/834-0180

Massey, Vernon L. Shelby County Sealer

814 Jefferson

Memphis, TN 38105

901/576-7546

Mathieu, David M. Weighing & Measurement

P.O. Box 5867 Rockford, IL 61125

815/962-2815

Maurer, Lynda L. State of Rhode Island Mercantile Division

220 Elmwood Ave.

Providence, RI 401/457-1867

McCarthy, Charles V. Pepperridge Farm, Inc. 595 Westport Ave. Norwalk, CT 06856

203/846-7175

McCoskey, James

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

2500 Phillips St. Pine Bluff, AR 71603

501/247-2793

McCutcheon, John

USDA/FSIS/MPI

Admin. Bldg., Rm. 350 E

14th and Independence, SW

Washington, DC 2050

202/447-3521

McFarlane, Sterling

805 S. Dearborn St. Seattle, WA 98134

206/625-2717

McGuire, Stephen E. Bureau of Labs. State Fairgrounds

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

217/785-8480

McPhearson, John R. Exxon USA

P.O. Box 4415

Houston, TX 77210-4415

713/656-7757

Melgaard, Jim

Div. Comm. Insp. & Reg.

118 W. Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501

605/773-3697

318
Registration List

Miller, Ronald H. Pekin Energy Co. - Renewable Fuels Assoc.

P.O. Box 10 Pekin, IL 61555

309/347-9388

Mirzai, Mohammed

Chesebrough-Pond's Inc. 828 Bridgeport Ave.

Shelton, CT 06484

203/381-5542

Moore, Charles W. Madison Co. Inc. 12 W. 7th St. P.O. Box 84 Lapel, IN 46051

317/534-3328

Morris, Paul E. Pelouze Scale Co.

2120 Greenwood

Evanston, IL 60201

312/328-8330

Morrow, Thomas L. TEC America

2150 W. 190th St. Torrance, CA 90501

213/320-8900 x301

Murdock, Timothy S. 3815 Leo St. Baltimore, MD 21226

301/355-7788

Murphy, Emmett

Weights and Measures Off. 1101 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19107

215/592-6081

Murray, Larry

Wayne

124 W. College Ave.

Salisbury, MD 21801

301/546-6690

Mysogland, Albert M.

2293 N. Main

Crown Point, IN 46307

Nagy, Joseph V. 701 W. Sample St. South Bend, IN 46621

219/284-9273

Nelson, Allan M. Weights and Measures

Dept. of Consumer Prot. 165 Capitol Ave., Rm. G17

Hartford, CT 06106

203/566-5230

Nelson, Robert L. General Mills, Inc. 9000 Plymouth Ave. N. Minneapolis, MN 55427

612/540-2729

Newell, Karl G. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4013

Nichols, Patrick E. 333 5th St. Oakland, CA 94607

415/268-7343

Niebergall, Bruce

Public Service Commission

State Capitol

Bismarck, ND 58505

701/224-2400

Nieves, Samuel

Puerto Rico Dept.

of Consumer Affrs. Minillas Government Ctr. Santurce, PR

809/721-1930

O'Connor, James M.

IA Dept. of Agriculture

& Land Stewardship

Wallace Bldg., 1st Floor Des Moines, IA 50319

515/281-5716

319
Registration List

O'Dea, Richard

NCR

1700 S. Patterson

Dayton, OH 45479

513/445-5254

Oppermann, Henry V. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4008

Parent, Claude R. Retired Wts. & Meas.

7 Eastwood Dr. Orinda, CA 94563

415/376-5697

Park, James P. Tennessee Weights and

Measures

210 N. Chestnut

Bruceton, TN 38310

901/586-7936

Paugstat, John F. NCR Corporation

Cambridge, OH

614/439-0571

Paull, Bill B. Hobart Corp.

World Headquarters

Troy, OH 45374

513/332-2651

Penn, Louis

Bldg. #1 Subbase

St. Thomas, VI 00801

809/774-3130

Perino, Peter R. Transducers, Inc. 14030 Bolsa Lane

Cerritos, CA 90701

714/739-1991

Perry, Stephen C.

.

350 W. Wilson Bridge Rd.

Worthington, OH 43085

614/438-4600

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, Suite 320 Washington, DC 20005

202/628-5757

Pforr, Richard R. USDA-FGIS

Room 0623

1400 Independence Ave. Washington, DC

202/382-0262

Phillips, DeVern H. Kansas Weights and Measures

2016 S.W. 37th

P.O. Box 5516

Topeka, KS 66605

913/267-4641

Phillips, Michelle I. City of Indianapolis

Rm. 1760,, C.C. Bldg.

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/236-4272

Picton, Thomas

Conrail

Philadelphia, PA

215/977-1617

Pierce, Marcie

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Pitt man, Cathryn F. Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Sta. Nashville, TN 37204

615/360-0159

Pragar, Thomas

3406 Anaconda Dr. Cincinnati, OH 45211

513/662-4385

320
Registration List

Pretanik, Stephen

National Broiler Council

1155 15th St., NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/296-2622

Price, Edwin J. 17th <5c Congress Ave. Room 1036

Austin, TX 78711

512/463-7607

Prince, Gale

The Kroger Co. Technical Center

1014 Vine St. Cincinnati, OH 45201

606/572-2209

Prince, Leon

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

Route 3, Box 304 Hope, AR 71801

501/777-5402

Rabb, John B. P.O. Box 3336

1445 Federal Dr. Montgomery, AL 36193

205/261-2652

Rardin, Jim

WV Weights and Measures

570 West McCorkle Ave.

St. Albans, WV 25177

304/777-5781

Rathman, Ron R. The Vince Hagan Co.

1601 N. Walton Walker

Dallas, TX 75211

214/330-4601

Reimer, John W. National Controls

Weightronix

P.O. Box 1501 Santa Rosa, CA 95402

707/527-5555

Reinfried, Bob

Scale Manufacturers Assoc.

152 Rollins Ave., Suite 208

Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Reynolds, Robert E. New Energy Co. of Ind. Renewable Fuels Assoc.

300 N. Michigan St. South Bend, IN 46601

219/232-8044

Roberts, Guy

3 Woodbine Ct.

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/565-7963

Robertson, Gage

Southern Public Serv. Co.

P.O. Box 1261 Amarillo, TX 79170

806/378-2722

Robinson, Cordell L. 50 W. Gay St., Rm. 605 Columbus, OH 43215

614/222-7397

Robinson, J. J. Assoc. of American RR

50 F St., NW

Washington, DC 20001

202/639-2203

Roelofsen, Willem A. J. Koppens Automatic/Schlumberger

988 Autumn Harvest Dr. Virginia Beach, VA 23464

804/495-0207

Romano, Ed

Glenn County

P.O. Box 351 Willows, CA 95988

916/934-4651

Rosenthal, Stuart A. Dept. of Consumer Affairs

80 Lafayette St. New York, NY 10013

212/566-3042

321
Registration List

Rosfelder, Terry H. 1801 Market St., 22nd Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103

215/977-6502

Ross, Robert M. Amerada Hess Corp.

218 West 6th St. Tulsa, OK 74102

918/599-4205

Rothleder, Joseph

Div. of Measurement Stds. 8500 Fruitridge Rd.

Sacramento, CA 95826

916/366-5119

Sabiron, Gerard F. Esselte Moreau

106 Bis Ave. Beaurepaire

34100 Saint Maur

Paris, France

33.1/4886 1283

Schaible, Michael J. Marathon Petroleum Co.

539 S. Main St. Findlay, OH 45840

419/422-2121

Schafer, Tom

Bureau of Weights

and Measures

P.O. Box 790

Boise, ID 83701

208/334-2345

Schaffer, Dennis

TEC America Inc. 2160 W. 190th St. Torrance, CA 90504

213/320-8900

Scott, Thomas W.

P.O. Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

919/733-3313

Seitz, Richard L. Veeder Root Co.

28 Sargeant St. Hartford, CT 06102

203/527-7201

Selig, Thomas R. BLH Electronics, Inc. 75 Shawmut Rd.

Canton, MA 02021

617/821-2000

Sevier, William R. Gibson Co. Inc. Box 302 Somerville, IN 47683

812/795-2532

Shelby, William H. USDA/FGIS

P.O. Box 2708

Mobile, AL 36526

205/690-2114

Shelton, W. O. Arkansas Bureau of Standards

815 Cedar Lane

Ft. Smith, AR 72903

501/646-1362

Silvestro, Jospeh

County Building

49 Wood St. Woodbury, NJ 08096

609/853-3358

Simila, Kendrick

Weights <5c Measures Div. 635 Capitol St., NE

Salem, OR 97310

503/378-3792

Skibinski, Robert E. Stephens Mfg. Co.

403 4th St. Tompkinsville, KY 42167

502/487-6774

Skluzacek, Edward P. State of Minnesota

2277 Hwy. 36

St. Paul, MN 55113

612/341-7200

322
Registration List

Skuce, John C. Smith Meter Inc. 1602 Wagner Ave.

P.O. Box 10428

Erie, PA 16514

814/899-0661 ext. 405

Slater, Patricia M.

11500 Chicot Rd. #2-A

Mabelvale, AR 72103

501/562-7947

Smith, Douglas C. Wm. A. Wilson's Sons, Inc. 8th St. & Valley Forge Rd.

Lansdale, PA 19446

215/855-4631

Smith, N. David

NC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

919/733-3313

Smith, Richard N. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4014

Smith, Robert B. Rex Plastics

P.O. Box 948 Thomasville, NC 27360

919/475-2176

Smoot, Robert A. 350 N. Redwood Rd.

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

801/533-5945

Soberg, Donald J. 801 W. Badger Rd.

Madison, WI 53713

608/266-7220

Spires, James H. City of Dallas Cons. Svs. Weights & Measures Div. Oak Cliff Municipal Ctr.

Dallas, TX 75203

214/948-4400

Stabler, Thomas M. Toledo Scale

P.O. Box 1705 Columbus, OH 43216

614/438-4548

Staffeldt, George W.

City Hall Mishawako, IN 46544

Stein, Ruth A. Fred Stein Labs. Inc. 121 North 4th

Atchison, KS 66002 913/367-3945

Strock, Dennis J. Amoco Oil Marketing

200 E. Randolph

Chicago, IL 60601

312/856-5125

Sullivant, Billy

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Summerville, Jim

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Sumners, Robert C. Arkansas Bureau of Standards

614 Marsh Ave.

El Dorado, AR 71730

501/862-6008

Szyndrowski, Chester P. 1102 West 151st St. East Chicago, IL 46312

219/397-3409

Tadlock, Lonnie

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

323
Registration List

Tholen, Albert D. Office of Weights & Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4009

Thomas, Johnnie

MO Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

314/751-5639

Thomas, Ken

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st Street

Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Thompson, Aves D. AK Dept. of Commerce

& Economic Devlop.

P.O. Box 111686

Anchorage, AK 99511

907/345-7750

Thompson, J. Edward

Kraft, Inc.

1 Kraft Court

Glenview, IL 60025

312/998-2492

Thompson, Merrill S. Chadwell & Kayser

P.O. Box 8500 Bridgeton, IN 47836

317/548-2202

Thornell, David V. Federal Express Corp.

2842 Business Park

Memphis, TN 38118

901/369-3088

Thuner, Kathleen A. Weights & Measures

5555 Overland Ave., Bldg. 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

619/565-5789

Tierney, John E. Pepperidge Farm, Inc. 595 Westport Ave. Norwalk, CT 06856

203/846-72727

Tinker, John A. PSI Precision Systems Inc. 3301 Confians #301

Irving, TX 75061

214/986-1220

Tkachuk, Walter K. 17919 Fireside Dr. Spring, TX 77379

713/251-0327

Tolbert, Ernest L. Michigan Dept. of Agriculture

1120 W. State Fair

Detroit, MI 48203

313/368-0280

Tommasi, Guy J. City Hall

245 DeKoven Dr. Middletown, CT 06457

203/344-3492

Tonini, Daryl E. SMA

6842 Elm St. #102

McLean, VA 22101

703/821-0622

Topalis, Tom A.

617 Main St. Barrington, IL 60010

312/381-1980

Truex, Jim

OH Div. of Weights

and Measures

8995 E. Main St. Reynoldsburg, OH 43062

614/866-6361

Tucker, Richard L. Tokheim Corp.

P.O. Box 360 Fort Wayne, IN 46801

219/423-2552

324
Registration List

Vadelund, Eric A. Warnlof, Otto K. Standards Management Standards Management

National Bur. of Stds. National Bur. of Stds. Admin. A623 Admin. A623

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4028 301/975-4026

Vanderwielen, James A. Warp, Harold G. Tippecanoe County Warp Brothers

Weights and Measures 4647 W. Augusta Blvd.

20 N. 3rd Chicago, IL 60651

T.flfflvpttp TN 47901 3T7/423-9229 Warshaw, Stanley I. Off. of Product Stds. Pol. Venable, Lester National Bureau of Standards

4735 Waynesboro Hwy. Administration A603

Lawrenceburg, TN 38464 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

615/762-4092 301/9975-4001

Violo, Fred J. Weary, Sheron E. State of Rhode Island Flexible Packaging Assoc.

220 Elmwood Ave. 1090 Vermont Ave. NW

Providence, RI Washington, DC 20005

401/457-1867 202/842-3880

Vroom, William R. Weaver, James E. Somerset County, NJ Arkansas Bureau of Standards

Box 3000 4608 West 61st Street

Somerville, NJ 08876 Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1759

Wagner, Ted

Amoco Weber, Richard H. Box 400 3M Co.

Naperville, IL 60566 3M Metrology Lab.

312/420-4952 1185 Wolters Blvd. Vadnais Heights, MN 55110

Walker, Robert W. 612/733-2674

1330 W. Michigan St. Indianapolis, IN 46206 Weick, Donald J. 317/633-0350 5811 N.W. Glenwood

Topeka, KS 66617

Wallace, David R. 913/288-1293

Dept. of Agriculture

3125 Wyandot Wells, Raymond R. Denver, CO 80211 Sensitive Measurement Inc. 303/866-2845 P.O. Box 72 Pemberton, NJ 08068

Walters, James K. 609/894-2292

American Petroleum Inst. 1220 L St., NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/682-8145

325
Registration List

Wentworth, Steve

Natl. Corn Growers Assoc.

1000 Executive Pkwy., Suite 224

St. Louis, MO 63141

314/275-9915

Zube, Robert W. Determan Welding and

Tank Service, Inc. 1241 72nd Ave. NE

Minneapolis, MN 55432

612/571-8110

Westmoreland, Arch

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

Route 1 Sidney, AR 72577

501/346-5236

Wheeler, Harlin

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

Route 8, Box 278AA

Paragould, AR 72450

501/586-0821

Whipple, Richard L. Gilbarco, Inc. P.O. Box 22087

Greensboro, NC 27420

919/292-3011 ext. 3042

Williams, Curtis P. GA Dept. of Agriculture

5235 Kennedy Rd. Forest Park, GA 30050

404/363-7597

Williams, Robert C. P.O. Box 40627

Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

615/360-0160

Wilson, George D. American Meat Inst. P.O. Box 3665

Washington, DC 20007

703/841-2400

Wittenberger, Bob

MO Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 630 Jefferson City, MO 65102

314/751-3440

Zorlen, Harold

65655 Campground Rd.

Romeo, MI 48065

313/752-9369 <rU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1967- 1 8 1 - 1 0 0 / 7 2 4 5

326


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. Nonperiodicah

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. 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 90-396). 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 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

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. V oluntan 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 following 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.