United States Department of Commerce

Technology Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 870

Report of the

79th National Conference

on Weights and Measures

1994

as adopted by the 79th National Conference

on Weights and Measures 1994

Report of the

79th National Conference on

Weights and Measures

Sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Attended by Officials from the Various States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government, Industry, and Consumer Organizations

San Diego, California July 17-21, 1994

Report Editors: Caroll S. Brickenkamp, Ph.D.

Arm H. Turner

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

Technology Administration

Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arati Prabhakar, Director

Issued November 1994

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 870, 454 pages (Nov. 1994)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1994

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

Washington, DC 20402-9325
Abstract

The 79th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held July 17 through 21, 1994, at the Doubletree Hotel at Horton Plaza, San Diego, California. The theme of the meeting was "Consensus Through

Communication."

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.

Special meetings included those of the Metrologists, the Associate Membership Committee, the Retired Officials Committee, the Scale Manufacturers' Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, the regional weights and measures associations, and the National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture Weights and Measures Division, and the National Council on State Metrication. Key words: grain moisture; legal metrology; mass-flow meters; motor-fuel dispensers; safety; scales; specifications and

tolerances; training; type evaluation; uniform laws and regulations; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766.

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

its publications; in this publication, however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been

printed as they were submitted and, therefore, may contain references to inch-pound units. Opinions expressed in non- NIST papers are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Non-NIST speakers are solely responsible for the content and quality of their material.

2
Contents

Page

Abstract 2

Past Chairmen of the Conference 5

State Representatives 6

Organization Chart 8 General Session

President's Address 13

Dr. Peter Heydemann, Director, Technology Services Honor Award Presentations 21

Special Recognition Awards 21

President's Award 23

President's Certificate Award 24 Technical Presentation - Tuesday, July 19 Trading Standards in the United Kingdom - Training, Education, and

Qualifications for Generalists and Specialists 25

- Paul Allen, Chairman, Institute of Trading Standards Administration Standing Committee Reports

Report of the Executive Committee 28

Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee 207

Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee 298

Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs 350 Metrology Working Group Report 418

Technical Presentation: Russian Metrology Under the New Legislation 424

- L. K. Issaev, Vice President, Gosstandart of Russia Annual Committee Reports

Report of the Resolutions Committee 427

Report of the Nominating Committee 429

Report of the Auditing Committee 430

Treasurer's Report 431 New Chairman's Address 436

James C. Truex, Acting Chief, Weights and Measures, Ohio Department of Agriculture List of Participants 440

3

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. Tumbull, WA

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL

61st 1976 Richard 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. Delfmo, CA

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI 72nd 1987 Frank Nagele, MI

73rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA

74th 1989 John J. Bartfai, NY

75th 1990 Fred A. Gerk, NM

76th 1991 N. David Smith, NC

77th 1992 Sidney A. Colbrook, IL

78th 1993 Allan M. Nelson, CT

5
State Representatives

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

standing and annual committees.

nepreseniaiive Alternate

Alabama Charles A.Burns, Jr. None

Alaska Aves D. Thompson None

American Samoa Silimusa Solomona None

Arizona Sharon Rhoades None

Arkansas James M. Hile None

California Darrell A. Guensler Barbara J. Bloch Colorado David R. Wallace None

Connecticut Allan M. Nelson Michael Dynia Delaware William Lagemann None

District of Columbia None None

Florida Max Gray Jack Jeffries Georgia Curt Williams Jim Wilson Guam None None

Hawaii None None

Idaho Glen H. Jex None

Illinois Sidney A. Colbrook Richard Philmon

Indiana Doyle D. Bell Charles f. Critzer Iowa Jerry Bane None

Kansas DeVern H. Phillips None

Kentucky Vicki Searcy Danny Willis Louisiana None None

Maine Clayton F. Davis Stanley K. Millay Maryland Louis Straub Constantine Cotsoradis Massachusetts Charles H. Carroll None

Michigan Edward C. Heffron Celeste Bennett Minnesota Bruce Adams Mark V. Buccelli

6
state Representative Alternate

Mississippi William P. Eldridge John Tillson Missouri Roy Humphreys Dwain Snider Montana None None

Nebraska Steve Malone Richard Suiter Nevada None None New Hampshire Michael F. Grenier None New Jersey Herbert Sehgel None New Mexico Gary D. West None New York John J. Bartfai None

Nortin Carolina N. David Smith Ronald D. Murdock

North Dakota Michael S. Pinagel None

Ohio Jim Truex Barbara DeSalvo Oklahoma Charles Carter None

Oregon Ken Simila None

Pennsylvania Dean F. Ely A. Courtney Yelle Puerto Rico Edmundo Rosario Fred None

Rhode Island None None

South Carolina Carol P. Fulmer None

South Dakota Don Walz None

Tennessee Robert G. Williams Cathryn F. Pittman Texas Edwin J. Price James H. Eskew

Utah David McKay None

Vermont Bruce Martell None

Virginia J. Alan Rogers u. vvesi uiggs

Virgin Islands Louis Penn Luis F. Santos Washington Robert D. Arrington None

West Virginia Karl Angell, Jr. None

Wisconsin Alan Porter James Akey

Wyoming Victor Gerber None

7
Executive Committee and NTEP Board of Governors (BoG)

Chairman: T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

Chairman-Elect: J. Truex, OH

Past Chair/BoG: A. Nelson, CT

Treasurer: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Members: D. Guensler, CA (1) S. Malone, NE (1)

J. A. Rogers, VA (2) A. Thompson, AK (3) C. Fulmer, SC (3) President: A. Prabhakar, NIST Director Executive Secretary: C. Brickenkamp, NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Technical Advisor: R. Bruce, Canada, (Exec. Committee only) Weights and Measures Coordinator:

A. Turner, NIST See Working Groups and Annual Committees to the Executive Committee after the Standing Committees. Laws & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee

Chairman: B. Bloch, CA (1) Chairman: J. Jeffries, FL (1) Members: R. Gunja, Kansas City, KS (5) Members: R. Kelley, NYC, NY (4) S. Millay, ME (4) R. Murdock, NC, (5) S. Rhoades, AZ (2) R. Suiter, NE (2)

L. Straub, MD (3) G. West, NM (3) Technical Advisors: Technical Advisors:

K. Butcher, NIST T. Butcher, NIST

G. Coleman, MD/NIST R. Marceau, Canada

G. Jorowski, Canada H. Oppermann, NIST

G. Vinet, Canada

Solid Volume Measuring Devices Working

Petroleum Subcommittee Group

Chair: C. Bennett, Ml Chair: C. Skonberg, United Parcel Technical Advisors: Service

C. Brickenkamp, NIST Technical Advisor:

E. Hamilton, FL N. Dupuis-Desormeaux, Canada

NIST Handbook 133 Working Group

Chairman: B. Bloch, CA

Technical Advisors:

K. Butcher, NIST

C. Brickenkamp, NIST

SI Working Group

Chair: E. Heffron, Ml

Technical Advisor:

K. Butcher, NIST

8
Education, Administration,

& Consumer Affairs Committee

Chairman: J. Harnett, Orange Co, CA (1) Members: B. DeSalvo, OH (3) M. oray, hL (z) B. Marten, VT (5) E. Price, TX (4) Technical Advisor:

J. Koenig, NIST NCWM Safety Liaison:

C. Gardner, Suffolk Co, NY

Liaison Committee

Constitution and Bylaws to be amended to delete

this committee. NCWM voting membership

accepted Executive Committee's proposal to u|jciaic v^uiiiciciiuc do II iiiia cnanye lO Constitution and Bylaws had already been made. No appointments have been made to this committee.

Privatization Work Group

Chairman: A. Nelson, CT

Members: S. Colbrook, IL

J. Colman, FMI

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

D. Guensler, CA

R. Hutton, Winn-Dixie

C. Kloos, Hunt-Wesson

N. D. Smith, NC

T. Stabler, Mettler-Toledo

D. Tonini, SMA

R. Tucker, Tokheim

Technical Advisor:

C. Brickenkamp, NIST

U.S. -Canada Mutual Recognition

Working Group

R. Andersen, NY

C. Brickenkamp, NIST

R. Bruce, Canada

T. Butcher, NIST

S. Colbrook, IL C. Cotsoradis, MD

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

A. Nelson, CT

H. Oppermann, NIST

ISO 9000 Task Force

Public Sector Members:

D. Dikken, MN

M. Dynia, CT

L. F. Eason, NC

K. Fraley, OK

S. McGuire, IL K. Moody, AZ

Private Sector Members:

R. Calkins, Rice Lake Weighing

Systems

J. Everhart, EG&G Mound Applied Technologies

M. Kline, Troemner, Inc. R. Weber, 3M

Technical Advisor:Georgia Harris, NIST

Nominating Committee

Chairman: A. Nelson, CT

Members: S. Colbrook, IL C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

M. Gray, FL

S. Rhoades, AZ

G. Shefcheck, OR

N. David Smith, NC

Budget Review Committee

Chairman: T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

Members: H. Lodge, Dunbar (2) N. David Smith, NC (2) S. Colbrook, IL (1) C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

C. Brickenkamp, NIST

Auditing Committee

Chairman: R. Gunja, Kansas City, KS (1) Members: J. H. Eskew, TX (2) R. Kalentkowski, CT (3) Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST

9
Credentials Committee

Chairman: R. Greek, San Luis Obispo, CA (1) Members: D. Ely, PA (2) P. Nichols, Alameda Co., CA

Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST

Resolutions Committee

Chairman: B. Martell, VT (2) Members: C. Fulmer, SC (2) W. Lagemann, DE (2) R. Philmon, IL (2)

J. Silvestro, Gloucester Co., NJ (1) Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST Other Appointed Officers

Parliamentarian:

K. Simila, OR

Chaplain: W. Lagemann, DE

Assistant Treasurer:

F. Clem, Columbus, OH

Sergeants-At-Arms:

R. Keadle, Monterey Co., CA

W. Korth, Ventura Co., CA

Other Elected Officers

Vice Chairmen:C Davi^ MP

K. Fraley, OK

M. Hopper, Kern County, CA

A. Porter, Wl

Associate Membership Committee

Chairman: C. Quay, Procter & Gamble

Vice Chair: T. James, Cardinal Detecto

Secretary: W. Corey, American Frozen Foods

Treasurer: T. Stabler, Mettler-Toledo Members: 1. Bell, Coca-Cola Company

W. Braun, WHBraun Resources

J. Colman, FMI

R. Davis, James River Corp.

C. Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods

10
National Type Evaluation Program

Technical Committee

Chair: J. Elengo, Jr. Weighing Sector Measuring Sector

Chair: J. Elengo, Jr. Chair: N. Alston, Daniel Flow Products, Technical Advisor: Inc. T. Butcher, NIST Technical Advisor: Public Members: T. Butcher, NIST

R. Andersen, NY Public Sector Members:

C. Bertrand, Canada R. Andersen, NY

C. Cotsoradis, MD C. Cotsoradis, MD

G. W. Diggs, VA D. Guensler, CA

D. Guensler, CA J. Jeffries, FL u

P. Peterson, USDA-P&SA S. Malone, NE

R. Pforr, USDA-FGIS D. Morgan, Canada

H. Oppermann, NIST R. Murdock, NC

J. Truex, OH H. Oppermann, NIST

0. Warnlof, NIST J. Truex, OH

K. Yee, NIST 0. Warnlof, NIST

Private Sector Members: Private Sector Members:

M. Adams, Fairbanks Scales F. M. Belue, Belue Associates

J. Antkowiak, Hettinger Baldwin R. Fonger, Bennett Pump

Msmts. M. Hankel, Liquid Controls W. Goodpaster, Cardinal/Detecto F. Holland, Schlumberger

K. Haker, BLH Electronics Technologies

T. Johnson, Sensortronics R. Huff, Universal Epsco

D. Krueger, NCR Corp. D. Joines, Dresser Wayne

G. Lameris, PMI Food Equipment G. Johnson, Gilbarco

H. Lockery, Lockery Assoc. M. Keilty, Micro Motion, Inc.

J. MacDonald, Chronos D. Krueger, NCR Corp. Richardson S. Retrum, Shell Oil Co./API

J. Reimer, Weigh-Tronix T. Scott, Brooks Instrument Co.

J. Robinson, Assoc. of American J. Skuce, Smith Meter, Inc. Railroads D. Smith, Wlliam M. Wilson's

T. Stabler, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. Sons

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers R. Tucker, Tokheim Corp. Assoc.

J. Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc. Automatic Weighing Systems Working Group

Chair: D. Johannes, CA

Technical Advisor:

K. Butcher, NIST

Class IIIL Working Group

Chair: W. T. James, Cardinal Detecto

11
Belt Conveyor Scales Sector Grain Moisture Meter Sector and Near Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector

Chair; N. Johnson, Msrrick Corp. unair. l. miii, univ. OT Illinois Technical Advisor: Technical Advisor:

K. vvnippie, iNio 1 K. rierce, UoUA-rUlb

Public Members: Public Members:

L>. Derrrana, uanaaa Canadian Grain Commission

Onfcrirarlic \j. V^UlovJI dUlo, IVID Dr\. Riirne taurns, mkAD

K. Miner, L/U 1 . butcner, nio i H. Oppermann, NIST U. rUnK, UoUA-rolo O VA/ornlnf MIQT u. vvarnioT, inio i u. unwiier, iNt Private Sector Members: H. Oppermann, NIST

W. Brasher, Southern Co. J. Koinieoer, ca

Services c 1 ew, NU

1 \j. taurger, uonsuiiani K. vvinenDerger, mu

1 ivi. v^dsdnovd, lAdiTisey t\. vvonniie, iviu

1

' Technology Private Sector Members:

P. Chase, Envirotech J. Bair, Millers Nat l Federation

u. uocKreii, uonsuiiani J. W. Barber, Dickey-John

r\. UlcUlori, r\dbr\dbl\ld Vdllcy A. Butler, Perten Instruments Scale M. Emori, Kett Electric K. ueooiiar, uenirai il ruu. Laboratory* oervice Miirhiirnh Ir lA Ct'sff^ 1 lni\/ v^. nuFDurgn, jr., ia oiaie univ.

o. nawKins, Ado ocaie D. Kaminsky, Trebor

T. Johnson, Sensortronics J. McClenethan, Growmark, Inc. K. Knapp, Milltronics M. Hall, Sartorius Instruments

r. joe Loya, ooa i ransponaiion 1 . \j uonnor, iNai i orain & reea

J. Macrariane, uo i auio vveign Assoc.

J. Oliver, Virginia Power A. Pflug, CSC Scientific* N. Ortyi, III, Dresser Industries T. Runyon, Seedboro Equipment

R. Penner, Riede Systems F. Seeber, Shore Sales Co., Grain

J. Robinson, Assoc. of American Elevator & Processors Soc.

Railroads C. Watson, Stein Labs, Perstorp

P. Sanford, Thayer Scale Analytical, Foss Foods

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers

Assoc. *(Grain Moisture Meter Sector only)

12
President's Address

Dr. Peter ^L. M. Heydemann, Director of Technology Services, National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), addressed the Conference

July 19, 1994, and represented the NIST Director, Dr Prabhakar, who is also President of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

presenting all the honor awards. His speech was not recorded, and was

extemporaneous. His slides are reprinted below since they are self explanatory. His speech focused on the role of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures as an important partner for NIST in its effort to support U.S. industry and trade. His parting words were "Remember that America is what we make it."

The Institute

&

The Conference

Our Roles & Future Together

13
National Institute of Standards

and Technology

Administration's Lead Technology

Agency

Priorities to the President, Vice

President, and NIST Director:

-Advanced Technology Program

- Manufacturing Extension Program

• to build an extramural infrastructure for our businesses and industry

National Institute of Standards

and Technology

Program Growth in "Outreach" areas - Manufacturing Technology Centers;

Advanced Technology Program (FY 94)

- 194% increase

-from $67.9 m in FY 93 to $199.5 m in FY

94

Manufacturing Extension Program

-from $16.9 m in FY 93 to $30.2 m in FY 94

Laboratory Program Increase of 17%

-from $192.9 m in FY 93 to $226 m in FY

94
National Institute of Standards &

Technology

New Director: Arati Prabhakar (May 1993)

New Director, Technology Services, Peter

Heydemann (October 1 993)

New Director, Office of Standards Services,

Belinda Collins (May 1994)

Planned reassignment of the Office of

Weights and Measures to the Office of

Measurement Services, Stan Rasberry (not

yet completed)

Planned growth of the Office of Weights and

Measures

- Hiring 3 (4?) more technical professionals

Weights and Measures Program

Original NIST Extramural Infrastructure

Support Program

-Traceable transfer from NIST standards of

mass, length, volume, and temperature to State Weights and Measures Laboratories - Sponsorship of legal metrology standards

development process

• the National Conference on Weights and

Measures

• the National Type Evaluation Program

• the National Training Program

15
Office of Weights and Measures

manages State Laboratory Program

- remodeled demonstration and training

laboratory at NIST

- building user-operated mass calibration

packages for surveillance - planning a new state-of-the-art

demonstration and training laboratory - basis for establishing a training academy in metrology and related areas at NIST

Priorities for the NCWM

state Weights and Measures

Laboratories - Maintain accreditation as State Legal

Metrology Laboratories and request

accreditation as Calibration Laboratories by

the National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP)

Why?

- Mutual recognition of your calibration services

by other nations - ISO Guide 25 (ISO 9000)

- Recognizes your role as technology transfer

assistants to your businesses and industries

16
I

I

Office of Weights and Measures

Sponsors the National Conference on

Weights and Measures

- OWM is only one of three partners: - Other partners:

• Federal, State, local weights and

measures agencies

• businesses and industry

Industry Is Our Driving Force

private business drives our economic

engine

the U.S. must compete in a global

marketplace

What does private business need to

compete globally?

17
NIST responds by:

- providing measurement services, data, and

reference materials to industry - supporting the NCWM

-working with industry in the Advanced

Technology Program (ATP)

-supporting small and midsize companies

with the Manufacturing Extension Program

(MEP)

- assisting industry with actions to overcome

non-tariff trade barriers and with standards

information

-providing a broad range of training

opportunities

At NIST:

What do we need to know about

measurement technologies for the

future?

-electronic realization of the kilogram (mass)

-diode lasers for dimensional metrology

-quantum physics realization of the volt,

ohm, and ampere

-traceability of the mole (amount of

substance)

18
Priorities of the NCWM

Establish a national/NAFTA legal

metrology information hub on the

"information highway"

Think UNITY

- not States vs. Federal government

- not government vs. business - not national vs. international

Form partnerships

Within the NCWM:

What does private business need to

compete globally? - impact of standards on competitiveness

What standards do we need to prepare

for measurement technologies for the

future?

- automatic weighing technologies - compressed natural gas as an alternative

fuel - multidimensional measuring devices for the

shipping industry - retail scanners & computer price look-ups

19
Office of Weights and Measures

manages National Type Evaluation

Program

- partnering with Canada's Legal Metrology

Branch

- coordinating Participating Laboratories - providing technical advisors for Technical

Committee Sectors

Priorities for the NCWIVI

NTEP must provide OIML Certificates

for our businesses to use to penetrate

other markets on other continents - NTEP Participating Laboratories and

Canada and Mexico can move together to make NAFTA a reality in legal metrology area - NIST is investigating equipping one NTEP

laboratory to perform entire set of OIML

tests

20
Honor Awards Honor Award Presentations

10 Years

Barbara Bloch Marilyn Herman

Robert Brumbaugh

Richard Weber

20 Years

Sidney Colbrook A.R. Daniels Harvey Lodge ^ 25 Years

Joseph Silvestro Ken Simila 30 years

Otto Wamlof

Special Recognition Awards

The success of this Conference is the result of the dedication and hard work of many individual members. The work

of the members is not complete until the official closing of the 79th Aimual Meeting on Thursday. However, we

would like to recognize them now at the General Session for their contributions over the past years within their respective committees and for their contributions to the National Conference in general. Standing Committees

Executive Committee

Darrell Guensler, State of California Steven Malone, State of Nebraska Laws and Regulations Committee

Barbara Bloch, State of California Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Jack Jeffries, State of Florida Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

James Harnett, Orange County, California Vice-Chairmen

Clayton Davis, State of Maine Ken Fraley, State of Oklahoma Monty Hopper, Kern County, California Allan Porter, State of Wisconsin Sergeants-At-Arms

Robert Keadle, Monterey County, California William Korth, Ventura County, California

21
Honor Awards

Associate Membership Committee

Chris Guay, Procter & Gamble Annual Committees We will now recognize those members who work hard to insure that all of our business is accomplished smoothly and

efficiently at these interim and annual meetings; They are the members of the various annual committees who are completing their appointments. Resolutions Committee

Joseph Silvestro, Gloucester County, New Jersey Credentials Committee

Richard Greek, San Luis Obsipo, CA

Auditing Committee

Robert Gunja, Kansas City, Kansas Nominating Committee

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut

/ Sidney Colbrook, State of Illinois Charles Gardner, Suffolk County, NY

^ ' Maxwell Gray, State of Florida Sharon Rhoades, State of Arizona George Shefcheck, State of Oregon

N. David Smith, State of North Carolina Special Committees and Task Forces ISO 9000 Task Force

David Dikken, State of Minnesota

Michael Dynia, State of Connecticut

L. F. Eason, State of North Carolina Ken Fraley, State of Oklahoma

Steve McGuire, State of Illinois Kelly Moody, State of Arizona

Richard Calkins, Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Jerry Everhart, EG&G Mound Applied Technologies Mark Kline, Troemner, Inc. Richard Weber, 3M Company

Georgia Harris, NIST

Privatization Work Group

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut Sidney Colbrook, State of Illinois Jennifer Colman, Food Marketing Institute Thomas Geiler, Barnstable County, MA

Darrell Guensler, State of California Randall Hutton, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

, Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson, Inc. N. David Smith, State of North Carolina Thomas Stabler, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association Richard Tucker, Tokheim Corporation

22
Honor Awards

National Type Evaluation

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut For his service as chairman of the National Type

Evaluation Board of Govrenors John Elengo, Jr. For his service as Chairman of the National Type

Evaluation Program Technical Committee and Chairman of the Weighing Sector President's Award

This is the ninth annual presentation of the president's award. This award is given for two levels of achievement.

First is the banner presented to those directors representing states that have 100% membership, both state and local weights and measures officials, in the National Conference on Weights and Measures for the first time in the membership year July 1, 1993 ending June 30, 1994. Those states that repeat with 100% membership are awarded a streamer for their banner. A streamer is presented

for each year the state qualifies. The second level of the President's Award is a certificate presented to any state in which all of the weights and

measures officials from the state office are members of the conference."

First Year Banners

Banners are awarded to the District of Columbia and to the State of Tennessee for 100% membership in the National Conference on Weights and Measures for the membership year begiiming July 1, 1993 and ending June 30, 1994. Streamer Awards for the Second Year

Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands Streamer Awards for the Third Year

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Streamer Awards for the Fourth Year

State of Colorado Streamer Awards for the Fifth Year

State of Montana

State of Oregon

State of Utah

State of Washington

State of Wyoming Streamer Awards for the Sixth Year

State of Arizona

State of Michigan

State of New Hampshire

State of Virginia There are no Streamers for the Seventh Year

23
Honor Awards

Streamer Awards for the Eighth Year

State of Alaska

State of Delaware

State of Idaho

State of Kansas

State of New Mexico

State of South Dakota Streamer Awards for the Ninth Year

The following two States have had 100% membership in the National Conference on Weights and Measures for their States since the beginning of the award. These two States continue to participate 100% in the membership program.

State of Arkansas

State of Nebraska President's Certificate

Five States qualify for the President's Certificate, with 100% of their State office staff members for the 1993-94

conference year:" First Year Award

' ' State of Connecticut

State of Missouri Second Year Awards

State of Massachusetts Third Year Award

State of Illinois Fifth Year Awards

State of Maine

State of New York

State of Wisconsin

Twenty-nine States, overall, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands, have been awarded banners throughout the years; 9 States have certificates, for a total of 38 States and Territories.

24
Paul Allen

Trading Standards in the United Kingdom - Training, Education, and Qualiflcations for Generalists and Specialists

Paul Allen, Chairman

Institute of Trading Standards Administration

East Sussex, England Background

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, 1 am delighted to have been invited to address your National Conference on Weights

and Measures for a second time. The first, back in 1974, was part of a Winston Churchill Travelling Fellowship to study consumer protection in the food industry in America and Canada. My Fellowship took me to New York City, where I met New York's Consumer Affairs Commissioner, Mrs. Ellinor Guggenheimer. We visited the City's excellent Small Claims Court and saw their first-class weights and measures inspection service in action in a Harlem supermarket.

1 then spent a week with the County of Monroe Weights and Measures Service and met, amongst many other friends, Charles Tooker, the Editor of the New York State Weights and Measures Association Newsletter. Charles has been

keeping me in touch with weights and measures matters in the USA ever since by sending me the Newsletter on a regular

basis. 1 was, therefore, delighted to see recorded in the 430th edition (February/March 1994) that the NYSWMA made

a special presentation to Charles for 42 years service as editor of their Newsletter. What an achievement! My journey then took me to Washington where 1 met your Executive Secretary, Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, and friends

at your Annual Meeting. From there I travelled via Boston, Toronto, Ottawa, Chicago to the Napa Valley and the University of California at Santa Cruz, to interview Ralph Nader. And so it is a double pleasure to be back in California

at your 79th Armual Meeting. Trading Standards in the United Kingdom

Since 1878 Inspectors of Weights and Measures have carried out their statutory duties, employed by local authorities and

certified as competent by central government, as a result of an examination, including an oral and a practical. As from 1976 trainee Inspectors of Weights and Measures - now called Trading Standards Officers - have been required

to register with the Examinations Department of the Local Government Management Board. The student can then commence an approved course of study for the Diploma in Trading Standards. The Diploma is awarded by the Diploma

of Trading Standards Council, which has representatives from local authorities, the Government and the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, sitting on its Council. The purpose of the new Diploma in Trading Standards (DTS) was to recognise that Weights and Measures Inspectors had become responsible for a whole range of consumer protection functions in addition to their traditional role of ensuring

correct metrology standards.

Before being registered for the Diploma, trainees must be employed by a public authority in the United Kingdom within

a trading standards department or in another appropriate organisation acceptable to the Council AND must have obtained

qualifications in English, Mathematics and Physics. The DTS examination comprises the foUowing:-

25
Paul Allen

Part I

i) General and Trading Standards Laws (2 papers)

ii) Science, materials and principles of measurement (2 papers)

iii) Economic and Commercial Practice

iv) Statistics and Quality Control

Part II

i) Consumer Protection Law (2 papers)

ii) Weighing and Measuring Technology

iii) Quality Assurance

iv) Enforcement and Advice

v) Professional Practice - A written paper and a project report

vi) Practical and Oral Examinations.

In addition, a candidate must complete two practical Training Workbooks to the satisfaction of his/her Chief Officer and

the DTS Council.

For the period 1878 - 1976 there was relatively little change in the role of an inspector of Weights and Measures. In some

authorities - mainly those covering rural areas - the responsibilities of weights and measures inspectors included Food and

Drugs; Agriculture including fertilisers and feeding stuffs; and Merchandise Marks. In more urban authorities additional

responsibilities included Shops (Sunday Trading), Explosives, Poisons and Petroleum Licensing. The qualifications, however, only related to metrology. Hence the change to the all embracing Diploma in Trading Standards. To illustrate the pace of change, the original qualification lasted for almost 100 years. Less than 20 years since introducing the DTS, it is now under review for two major reasons.

First, the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community - now known as the European Union - but

still referred to as the Common Market, has required Member State Governments to look at the competence of Food

Inspectors and Food Authorities.

Second, the Institute itself passed the following motion at its 1991 Annual General Meeting:

"This Annual General Meeting of the Institute, in recognising the serious shortfalls of trained people with competent skills and knowledge to carry out trading standards functions, instructs the Institute Council, (1) to bring forward to the 1992 Annual General Meeting of the Institute proposals for an all-embracing training system, that is modular in structure, accessible to those in trading standards departments and leads to the award of a nationally recognised qualification, and

(2) to consult and seek agreement of the DTS Council, and other appropriate bodies, to incorporate the present statutory qualification and the DCA into the above training strategy."

Generalists The Diploma of Trading Standards examination provides a sufficiently wide background to allow newly qualified officers to carry out all or any of the functions allocated to Weights and Measures/Trading Standards/Consumer Protection

Authorities. However, in practice they are soon allocated to specialist teams and become mainly responsible for -

metrology (weights and measures)

26
Paul Allen

or quality (food and agriculture) or safety (consumer safety/product safety) or fair trading (consumer credit'consumer advice) or investigations or some specialist combination of the above.

Specialists The requirements of the Additional Food Control Measures Directive (93/99/EEC) states - "Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have, or at least have access to, a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff, in particular, in areas such as chemistry, food chemistry, veterinary medicine, medicine, food microbiology, food hygiene, food technology and law, so that controls referred to in Article 5 of Directive 89/397/EEC (The Official Control of Foodstuffs) can be carried out adequately." The Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive envisages a single market in foodstuffs and therefore requires Member States

to ensure that they have well qualified 'specialists' able to interpret and enforce the law in a consistent manner throughout

the Union. This means that our generalist DTS qualified inspector may be required to specialise in food and agriculture law enforcement after the transitional period which ends in the year 2000, if he or she wishes to continue this aspect of work. As for foodstuffs, it is likely that similar requirements will be introduced for most of our other responsibilities including metrology, consumer safety and fair trading before the end of the centxiry. This will in fact do nothing more

than recognise what is already happening in practice. The Kibel Report

TTie resolution passed at our AGM resulted in the setting up of an Education and Training Working Group of which I was

the Chairman and Regina Kibel was the Academic Adviser. The report was written by Regina Kibel and was published

in Februar>' 1992. It has become known as the Kibel report and its main aim was and is as follows:-

"In the light of the AGM resolution and the discussion at the open meeting, the group took its aim to be to ascertain to what extent existing qualifications and associated training meet contemporary needs and foreseeable developments, and

to suggest if possible qualification and training patterns which are more flexible and of easier access to the full range of

staff within the service, thus making fuller use of the potential of existing staff at all levels, and improving the flow of

appropriately qualified staff to perform the very varied fiinctions for which the departments are responsible." Some seventeen detailed recommendations were made in the Report and these are being implemented by my successor and currently the Vice-Chairman of ITSA, Gordon Gresty.

27
Executive Committee

Final Report of the

Executive Committee

Thomas F. Geiler, Chairman

Director of Barnstable Consumer Affairs Hyaimis, Massachusetts

Allan M. Nelson, Chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors

Director of Weights and Measures Department of Consumer Protection, Coimecticut

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

Part I - Executive Committee 30

101-1 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments, Status Report 30

101-2 I Organization, Extend Tenure of Executive and Budget Review Committees; Specify Membership of Budget Review Committee 30

101-3 I Organization, Role of Associate Members 31 101-4 I Organization, Review of Mission Statement and Need for Long Range Plan 35

101-5 I Organization, Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee 35

101-6 VC Organization, Abolish Liaison Committee 37

101-7 VC Organization, U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group . 39

101-8 I Organization, Privatization Work Group 42

101-9 I Organization, ISO 9000 Task Force : 43

101-10 I Publications, Status Report 44

101-11 I Membership, Status Report 45

101-12 I Finances, Treasurer's Report 45

101-13 I Finances, Associate Membership Fees 46

101-14 I Finances, Auditing Committee 46

101-15 I Meetings, Networking with Other Associations 46

101-16 I Meetings, Annual and Interim, Future 47

101-17 I Program, OWM and NIST 47

101- 18 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology 47 Part II - NTEP Board of Governors 51

102- 1 I Policy, NTEP Name and Logo 51 102-2 I Program, Verification that Production Meets Type 54

102-3 I Policy, Clarification of When Remanufacturers Must Obtain and Maintain an NTEP CC . . . . 56

102-4 I Program, Acceptance by the States 56

102-5 I Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation 57

102-6 I Program, OIML Certification Plan 57

102-7 I Program, NTETC Sectors on Grain Moisture Meters and Protein Analyzers 58

102-8 I Program, Participating Laboratories/Evaluation Report 58

28
Executive Committee

102-9 I NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Reports 64

102-10 I Policy, Extensions of Existing Vehicle Scales 64

102-11 I Policy, Clarification of "One-of-a-Kind" Devices 64

102-12 I Policy, Repaired and Remanufactured Scales 65

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A Final Repon of the Privatization Work Group 101-8 69 B 1994 and 1995 Budgets 101-12 114 C Production Floor Scales Data 102-2 118 D National Type Evaluation Program Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector Report 102-9 127 E NTETC Moisture Meter and Grain Analyzer Sectors 140

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No. House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

100 (Consent Calendar) 46 0 71 0 Passed 100 (in entirety) 45 0 70 0

Passed

29
Executive Committee

Detail of Items

Part I - Executive Committee

101-1 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments, Status Report

The number and variety of standards needed by modem commerce have greatly increased. The national and international impact of the standards developed and recommended by the National Conference on Weights and Measures have also grown as the mission of the NCWM expands from development of legal metrology standards only for State weights and measures regulatory agencies to standards for private industry and Federal regulatory agencies as well. At the 78th Aimual Meeting, in July 1993, Jim Truex was unanimously voted Chairman-Elect. This created a vacancy

in the Executive Committee. Hence, the Constitution and Bylaws require that the Executive Committee replace members,

Les Barrows, Missouri, was selected to complete Jim Truex's term. However, Mr. Barrows resigned from weights and

measures this spring. Mr. Sidney Colbrook, IL, was unanimously elected by the Executive Committee to complete Jim

Truex's term, which will end at the Annual Meeting of July 1995. In addition, Chairman Geiler made the following appointments and stressed the superb work of volunteers as essential to meet NCWM goals. Fred Clem to act as Assistant Treasurer

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector: Debbie Joines, Dresser Wayne, to replace Larry Murray

Stan Retrum, Shell, API

Richard Huff, Universal Epsco NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector: Don Onwiler, NE

Under the Laws and Regulations Committee, the H133 Work Group:

Kristie Anderson, Everett, WA

Under the Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Work Group:

Steve Cook, CA; and

R. W. Wotthlie, MD.

101-2 I Organization, Extend Tenure of Executive and Budget Review Committees;

Specify Membership of Budget Review Committee

Background: Traditionally the Chairman appoints a Budget Review Committee composed of senior members who often

are already serving on the Executive Committee. Since this Committee reports to the Executive Committee, which makes

the final decisions concerning the budget, it was suggested that key membership on the Budget Review Committee should be selected from Executive Committee members to ensure an ability to explain decisions to the Executive Committee and

to support key decisions made by the Budget Review Committee.

In addition, due to their shorter tenure, the committee experience and institutional memory in the Executive Corrmiittee and the Budget Review Committee are less than in the Specifications and Tolerances and other standing committees. With 3-year terms, by the time committee members become familiar with the work of the Executive or Budget Review

Committee and are ready to contribute towards long-range goal and objective setting, their tenure is over. In contrast, the standing committees enjoy 5-year tenures. Since it may take 2 years or more to become completely comfortable with

the roles and responsibilities of any committee, the other standing committees can utilize their experienced members'

capabilities over a longer period.

Discussion: At the Interim Meeting, the Executive Committee decided not to change its own size or tenure. The

Committee feels that there is reason to change its membership more rapidly than other committees, to allow new views

30
Executive Committee

to be accommodated more quickly, making it less likely for positions to become entrenched. Two new members are selected for the Executive Committee each year; and if the tenure of the Committee were extended beyond 3 years, more members would have to be added, or fewer members elected each year. The Committee is already twice as large as other standing committees, so it was decided not to expand its size, as to whether fewer members should be elected each year,

it was stated that it would be wrong to present the voting membership with only one candidate for the Executive Committee each year. Therefore, no change is recommended to the 3 -year term of the Executive Committee, or to its make-up, at this time. The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) was invited to continue the development of its proposal to add Associate members to the standing committees (see 101-3). Concerning the Budget Review Committee's tenure and membership, a suggestion was made to change its Chair from

the NCWM Chairman to the NCWM Chairman-Elect because its advice on the NCWM budget pertains to part of the year in which the Chairman-Elect would be Chairman. There were several negative responses to this suggestion because

it was felt that the Chairman-Elect would not be sufficiently knowledgeable about the NCWM budget unless he or she had formerly been an Executive Committee member. Also, the budget that is formulated in May or June of any year is the budget for the following calendar year, which is half the year of the Chairman taking office in July and half the year

of the Chairman-Elect selected in July. Since it is a joint tenure, and because the budget must be approved by the entire Executive Committee, it was not felt to be sufficiently important to change the prerogative of the Chairman to chair the Budget Review Committee. It was decided to expand the membership of the Budget Review Committee beyond the Executive Committee, and very important to add associate members as voting members. It was therefore decided that

(1) the Chairman, Treasurer, and Executive Secretary would continue to be members on the Budget Review Committee

and adequately represent the Executive Committee; (2) the tenure of the Budget Review Committee would be increased from 2 to 4 years; and (3) two active and two associate members would be named to the committee, with the first appointments made for staggered terms. Committee Recommendation: Revise NCWM Bylaws: ^

The Finance Committee, which shall also serve as the Budget Review Committee, shall be appointed by the Conference Chairman. It shall consist of him/her the NCWM Chairman as Chairman of the Committee , tw©

weights and measures officials as voting members (each with a two year term), and the Treasurer and Executive

Secretary as ex-officio voting members. One associate member shall serve in an advisor)' capacity, without voteIn addition, the Chairman shall appoint two active and two associate members to serve on a rotating basis for four-year terms.

Since this is a change in the Bylaws, the recommendation will be published in the Interim Report and Final Report this year, but not voted upon until July 1995. The proposed changes are intended to add to the experience and knowledge of

the Budget Review Committee, and will not incur additional expenses for the Conference. The associate members would

have their expenses reimbursed by their companies. Since there were no objections from the floor, the incoming Chairman appointed members to the Budget Review Committee as if the change to the Bylaws had been adopted by the Conference. Therefore, the incoming Chair appointed two associate members rather than just one. (See the incoming Chairman's address for appointments.) 101-3 I Organization, Role of Associate Members

Discussion: The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) of the NCWM proposed that "Industry Representatives" (IR) be created for the Executive, Education, Laws and Regulation, and Specifications and Tolerances Committees with a term

of 3 years. Candidates would be identified for the Conference by the AMC and each candidate would be either appointed by the Chairman or nominated by the Nominating Committee, depending upon which Committee the candidate is recommended. The regional weights and measures associations are encouraged to discuss and refine this proposal with

their associate membership. Background: In the past, the Associate Membership Committee has been primarily responsible for hosting social events, but the scope of industry involvement has broadened over the past several years for the betterment of all. The regional Associate Membership Committees have allocated part of their funds for purchasing video equipment for Weights and

31
Executive Committee

Measures training. The new NCWM dues structure allows the Associate Membership Committee and the NCWM to jointly sponsor events and allocate excess monies to worthwhile mutual projects, such as the completion of the consumer

pamphlet published by the Liaison Committee, in an attempt to increase Weights and Measures visibility and awareness. This is a model for how the two sectors can and should continue to work together, but additional representation and

participation by Associate members is now being proposed by the Associate Membership Committee. Associate Membership Committee Chairman Chris Guay, Procter and Gamble, designated an AMC task force in 1993 to pursue

this subject to prepare a presentation to the Committee. Members of this task force are Bill Braun (WHB Resources),

Bill Corey (American Frozen Foods), Richard Davis (James River), Chip Kloos (Hunt-Wesson), and David Quinn

(Fairbanks Scales). They have worked with the standing committee members and the remaining AMC members to prepare a plan having broad-based industry input and agreement. A first draft proposal was provided by the AMC task force to the Executive Committee in January. The latest draft provided at the 79th Armual Meeting is reprinted below: Proposal: The Associate Membership Committee of the NCWM submits the following revised proposal for consideration

at the NCWM Interim Meeting in January, 1995. We are submitting this proposal in order to allow for its discussion

at the autumn 1994 regional meetings. The Associate Membership of the NCWM proposes the creation of one Industry Representative position for the following NCWM committees: Executive, Education, Laws and Regulations (L&R), and Specification and Tolerances (S&T).

This vote was unanimous at the AMC meeting held during the 79th Annual Meeting of the NCWM. IRs would serve 3-year terms on each specified committee. This proposal will require modifications to the existing NCWM Bylaws and

to the AMC Bylaws. Proposed changes to the NCWM Bylaws are contained herein. A draft of the proposed changes

to the AMC Bylaws will be forwarded to the Executive Committee in the next few months. The AMC will vote on the

draft AMC Bylaws at the January 1995 NCWM Interim Meeting. At the 78th National Conference in Kansas City, 1993, Chairman Geiler discussed the impact of reduced funding and

staffing on the Conference and need for everyone, both in the public and private sector to participate in NCWM to the

fullest. Generally, the associate membership has felt our ability to contribute to the NCWM was being underutilized. The abolishment of the NCWM Liaison Committee at the 79th Annual Meeting, dissolved the associate membership's

one formal role in the NCWM, leaving this constituency, comprising approximately 52% of the conference without

formal representation. The proposal being put forth by Associate membership is truly believed to adhere to the guidelines mandated by AMC Chairman Guay:

1. Any proposal must be carefully and thoughtfully developed; it must be complete and thorough.

2. It must have broad-based input and acceptability to industry.

3. It must be fair to ALL industry. It must not provide any firm or group of firms with an undue competitive advantage.

4. It must benefit NCWM.

5. It must be sustainable for the AMC and NCWM. There must be long-term commitment to plan's implementation.

6. It must be actionable. The AMC has obtained a legal opinion on the legal implications to the NCWM and the associate membership of this proposal from the Boston law firm of Cosgrove, Eisenberg, and Kiley that identifies no material legal issues. There are also many other industry/government instances where industry representative roles have been used and are being used

successfully. The AMC recommends the following:

1. Creation of one Industry Representative (IR) position on the following NCWM committees: Executive, Education, Laws & Regulations (L&R) and Specifications and Tolerances (S&T).

2. Designation of IRs as Non-Voting Members.

3. Designation of IR role as a 3-year position.

32
Executive Committee

4. IR election/appointment will be consistent with existing NCWM procedures for committee election/appointment. The IR candidate for the Executive Committee will be submitted to the NCWM Nominating Committee. IR

candidate(s) for standing committees will be submitted for appointment by the Conference Chairman.

5. IR candidates must be NCWM Associate members.

6. IR candidates require approval by a minimum 2/3 majority of Associate members present at an openly scheduled AMC meeting.

7. The Chairperson of an NCWM committee can exclude the IR from participation on issues/discussions viewed

confidential.

8. An IR can select, with the NCWM Chairperson's concurrence, an IR Alternate (IRA) or "Backup" to temporarily

participate in committee discussions in place of the IR.

9. The IR's organization will be responsible for the IR's travel-related expenses. The NCWM will not be responsible

for reimbursing these expenses.

10. Issues of IR misconduct or "unfair advantage" will be mediated by the Conference.

Industry Representative (IR) Proposed Responsibilities

1. An IR's responsibility is to serve an NCWM committee in both advisory and intermediary roles, providing

general industry perspective and facilitating industry/committee communication.

A. An IR does not represent any particular organization or group, but rather represents all interested persons

within the jurisdiction of the committee to which the IR is selected to represent. B. The IR represents all members of an industry, and not any particular association or company. If a matter comes before the committee that directly or indirectly affects the organization employing the IR, the IR

should inform the committee but need not be absent from the discussion or exclude oneself from

participation. C. The IR, having unique knowledge of relevant industry practice, should serve as an additional intermediary between the committee and interested persons whom the IR represents, facilitating more efficient review

of items. D. An IR may not make a presentation to that committee during a public hearing held by that committee.

E. The IR may not engage in unseemly advocacy or attempt to exert undue influence over the other members

of the committee. An IR may be removed for good cause (excessive absenteeism, demonstrated bias that interferes with objective advice, violation of applicable rules and regulations).

2. An IR is a nonvoting member of the NCWM committee. The IR carmot participate in votes pertaining to committee issues or policies. The IR can participate in voting on procedural matters such as approval of committee minutes and future meeting dates.

3. An IR will not have access to data and information that constitute trade secrets or confidential commercial or

financial information.

4. An IR is subject to and shall abide by, all rules and regulations adopted by the NCWM and the committee. The AMC recommends the following changes to the NCWM Bylaws: Redlined (shaded ) language is proposed to be

added. Cross-through language is proposed to be deleted.

Article V; § 2; A Membership (other than Executive, Finance, and Credentials Committee) The membership of each of the standing committees is a normal complement of five members appointed by the Conference Chairman from the active membership on a rotating basis for five-year terms, or until a successor

is appointed, and one nonvoting member appointed by the Conference Chairman from the associate rnembef&|||

for a three-year term. When it is necessary to make an appointment to any of the standing committees to fill a vacancy caused by the death, resignation, or retirement from active service by a committee member from the ?ciive menibership, the

33
Executive Committee

appointment is for the unexpired portion of the member's term. SSii?te?aji4a|5|>i04trttJJCKt?^^^^ memljership woald be for a term covering through die next 3 NCWM Amraai Meetings.

Article V; § 2; B

The Executive Committee consists of the President, Executive Secretary, the Conference Chairman, the Chairman-Elect, the most recent still active Past Chairman, the Treasurer, aa4 six members elected at large from

the active membership the latter to serve 3 -year staggered terms, and one memljer elected from the associate

The President! and Executive Secretary, and associate member do not have votes on matters before the Executive Committee. Recommendation: The Executive Committee encourages the Associate Membership Committee to continue its work

to address Associate membership on the standing committees. The Committee recommends that the Associate Membership Committee Task Force contact other standing committee members and regional associations in order to determine and address any of their concerns with the proposal. Chairman Geiler pointed out that, under the present Constitution and Bylaws, the Chairman can appoint one or more associate or advisory members as consultants to any

committee, but the Executive Committee wants to formalize the Associate member role in standing committee work. Both private and public sector members of the NCWM strive for equity, fair value, and a level "playing field." Over

the past 10 years. Associate members have become key members and chaired the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee and its sectors. Associate members provide important technical membership in many NCWM task forces and

other work groups, including the Petroleum Subcommittee. With funding becoming harder to get and staffing being reduced in industry and government programs, mutually shared goals and objectives must be better coordinated. Increased integration of public and private sector's abilities, knowledge, and experience will provide the NCWM with

the necessary talent and resources to prosper in a complex marketplace environment. The Executive Committee views the AMC as a positive step in the evolution of the NCWM and believes that the AMC

should continue to pursue its charter. Several members of the Executive Committee voiced concerns that they thought could be worked out:

1. If the IR were required to be a member of the AMC, or if the AMC nominated the IL candidates, the Constitution and Bylaws of the AMC should ensure balanced representation by all segments of industry, probably by incorporation or reference in the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws. The Executive Committee recommends

that the AMC review its charter with this issue in mind.

2. Although it is a positive move to add associate membership to the Executive and Education Committees, it might

be quite difficult to add an associate member to either the Specifications and Tolerances or Laws and Regulations Committee. Even if the IR were to recuse him/herself on issues of a competitive nature, the NCWM might be

subject to legal challenge from industries that did not achieve their objectives at the NCWM and saw a competitor's name on the committee membership listings. For example, how could a petroleum or alcohol industry representative be a member of the Laws and Regulations Committee (even if they recused themselves when the issues were discussed) when issues of the Petroleum Subcommittee came before it? Protections would

have to be incorporated in procedure, due process, and even presence at the Committee table during specific

issues. Perhaps it would be easier to (a) incorporate associate membership into the Executive Committee (not the NTEP Board of Governors); (b) determine whether it would be feasible to incorporate associate membership

into the Education Committee (which seems feasible to the Executive Committee); and (c) implement these changes while studying and finding alternative ways to address the associate membership on the S&T and L&R

Committees.

3. How would the associate members be selected? What number of members would constitute a quorum at the Associate Membership Committee meeting? Would a slate of candidates be sent to all Associate members in anticipation of those who desire attending the voting session? Would the Associate membership have the opportunity to vote at the Annual Meeting or Interim Meeting from a single slate or from alternatives; what would

34
Executive Committee

the role of the Associate Membership Committee and the associate membership each be in the nomination and

selection process? For example, the Associate Membership Committee has no membership from the liquid- measuring industry. How is this to be addressed? 101-4 I Organization, Review of Mission Statement and Need for Long Range Plan

The NIST Office of Weights and Measures aimually prepares a long range (5-year) plan in order to set quantitative objectives for measuring progress towards meeting its goals. Much of this plan is focussed on objectives of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Since this document is prepared by OWM, it seems appropriate that the Executive Committee review and prepare a long range plan for the NCWM, using the OWM long range plan as a model and

stepping-off point. Additional material might be the reports of the Task Force on Plaiming for the 21st Century. As the first step in this process, Mr. James Harnett (Orange Co., CA) proposes that the Conference review its "mission

statement," that is, its goals expressed in a short, easy to remember, pithy statement, for example, "to maintain equity

in the marketplace." The NCWM Constitution has a rather lengthy statement of objectives. The Executive Secretary provides a first draft of

a goal statement in the context of the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws.

Article II - Goals and Objectives The goals of the National Conference on Weights and Measures are to ensure equity in the marketplace between buyer and seller and to provide and enhance the fairness of the commercial trading environment by meeting the objectives given below. The objectives of The National Conference on Weights and Measures are:

A. Forum. To provide a national forum for the discussion of all questions related to weights and

measures administration as carried on by officials of the Federal Government and regulatory officials of

the States, Commonwealths, Territories, and Possessions of the United States, their political subdivisions, and the District of Columbia for the following purposes:

B. Mechanism. To provide a mechanism to establish policy and coordinate activities within the Conference on matters of national and international significance pertaining to legal metrology.

C. Consensus. To develop a consensus on uniform laws and regulations, specifications, and tolerances

for weighing and measuring devices, and on testing, enforcement, and administrative procedures.

D. Uniformity. To encourage and promote uniformity of requirements and methods among jurisdictions.

E. Cooperation. To foster cooperation among regulatory officers themselves and between them and

all of the many manufacturing, industrial, business, and consumer interests affected by their official

activities. The Executive Committee encourages the regional associations to provide their thoughts and observations on the mission

statement of our associations; all the associations should share the central reason for their existence and their mission. 101-5 I Organization, Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

At the Interim Meeting, the Executive Committee asked the Education Committee to hold a separate meeting with selected Executive Committee, active, associate, and advisory members to reassess its long term objectives and means to achieve

those goals.

35
Executive Committee

1. Start with the Bylaws of the NCWM as a guide to prepare an overall plan for the United States. The NCWM

Bylaws state that the scope of the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee embraces all matters dealing with:

a. the education and training of weights and measures officials, b. the promotion of weights and measures principles and techniques among the general public and the users of weighing and measuring devices,

c. the development of weights and measures principles and techniques among the general public and

the users of weighing and measuring devices, and

d. the identification of commercial weights and measures practices and problems that are of concern

to consumers.

2. Formulate a management plan for all aspects of weights and measures training, beyond the development and

maintenance of modules, including training delivery in order to manage the "National Training Program."

3. Assist NCWM to identify all weights and measures training and public relations resources, identify gaps, and formulate a future system that is greater than the sum of the parts. The Education Committee was asked to assist the NCWM in understanding and planning an education system that will leverage all participants' and members' strengths. In discussion with the Education Committee, the Executive Committee

praised the training module development and maintenance work of the Committee. The Executive Committee contrasted

the provision of the training modules with the more extensive State Laboratory Program training and continuing

educational requirements, pointing out the resultant high caliber of metrologists in the United States. The only way that uniformity in weights and measures can be attained is through training, not only of field inspectors, but of weights and measures directors, device repair and installation staff, device users and packagers, and the general

public. NIST OWM has had to reduce the training it can provide, but has always found someone in the United States, to provide, and has paid for training that it has been asked to do; States have to plan for, budget for, and provide

training. It might be necessary to provide additional incentives; a certification or accreditation program to prove that a

jurisdiction is using standard procedures and enforcing uniform requirements might be one incentive. "Total quality management" and the ISO 9000 pressures are also prime reasons for emphasizing and providing training.

In April 1994, the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee met with Associate members and with members of the Executive Committee to set new goals and objectives, and prioritize its work. See the Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee report for a report on this meeting. The Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee decided that the NCWM should change the name of the of Committee to Administration and Public Affairs, in order to indicate the importance of quality management of weights and measures programs in the Conference. Education will remain a primary objective of this Committee, but the objective of all administrators should be education for themselves and their staff. The Executive Committee commends the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee for their work

and endorses the following proposal. The proposal is provided with anticipation that it can be placed on the Executive Committee's agenda next year and adopted into the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws in 1995. The Draft Mission Statement for the Committee: To provide leadership to develop and implement uniform, quality weights and measures services in the areas of

effective program management,

education, and

public relations.

Objective 1 : Develop and recommend administrative procedures and public relations programs

Objective 2: Educate weights and measures officials

Objective 3: Promote weights and measures principles and techniques among users of weights and measures devices and

the general public

36
Executive Committee

Objective 4: liaison with Federal agencies, State agencies, and other groups and organizations on issues within the purview of the committee The Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee met at the Annual Meeting to finalize its recommendations to the Executive Committee and the Conference with respect to its management plan and the subgroups

that would be recommended to be established to carry out the work of the new Committee. 101-6 VC Organization, Abolish Liaison Committee

This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.

Decision: At the 1993 Annual Meeting, the NCWM endorsed the recommendation of the Liaison and Executive Committees to abolish the Liaison Committee by formal action of the National Conference at the next Annual Meeting. The NCWM Constitution and Bylaws requires that formal action may not be taken until the year after the Annual Meeting

at which the proposed changes are presented; the action was proposed in 1993. It can now be acted upon at the 79th Aimual Meeting. The Liaison Committee further recommended in 1993 to:

1. Assign general liaison responsibility to each of the standing committees.

2. Assign issue-specific outreach to each of the standing committees.

3. Include a strong reference to liaison responsibilities to each standing committee duty descriptions.

4. Request that each regional weights and measures association report on their activities and projects to the Executive Committee.

5. Assign Weights and Measures Week, the consumer brochure, and consumer group outreach to the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs. Committee Recommendation: Revise Publication 1, NCWM Constitution and Bylaws, BYLAWS as follows: SECTION 2 - STANDING COMMITTEES

The standing committees are: Executive Committee; Committee on Specifications and Tolerances; Committee on Laws and Regulations; Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs; Committee on Liaison; Finance Committee; and

Credentials Committee. SECTION 5 - DUTIES AND FIELDS OF OPERATION OF COMMITTEES

A. Executive Committee

(No changes to this section. Note that following section already incorporates liaison function as part of Executive Committee responsibilities.) The Committee serves as a policy and coordinating body in matters of national and international

significance which may include such areas as metrication. International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), National Conference

of Standards Laboratories (NCSL), and such internal matters as may be required. The Committee annually presents a report to the Conference on its activities, which are subject to Conference ratification.

37
Executive Committee

B. Committee on Laws and Regulations

Tlie Committee on Laws and Regulations annually presents a report for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters within the area of weights and measures supervision including:

1. the development and interpretation of uniform laws and regulations;

2. the study and analysis of bills for legislative enactment; and

3. the establishment and maintenance of published guidelines and other eH'ective means of encouraging uniformity of interpretation and application of weights and measures laws and

regulations.

4. liaison with Federal agencies. State agencies, and other groups or organizations on issues within the purview of the Committee. This role entails explaining, advocating, and

coordinating Conference positions, recommendations, and needs before Federal Government

agencies, consumer groups, the associate NCWM membership, domestic and international stan- dards 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 and standards of the NCWM.

C. Committee on Specifications and Tolerances The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances annually presents a report for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters dealing with:

1. specifications, tolerances, and technical requirements of any kind relating to scales, weights, measures, and weighing and measuring devices and accessories, including interpretation of such material whenever necessary;

2. standards and testing equipment for weights and measures officials; and

3. procedures for testing commercial equipment; and

4^ liaison with Federal agencies. State agencies, and other groups or organizations on issues within the purview of the Committee. This role entails explaining, advocating, and

coordinating Conference positions, recommendations, and needs before Federal Gk)vemment

agencies, consumer groups, the associate NCWM membership, domestic and international stan- dards 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 and standards of the NCWM.

D. Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs annually presents a report for Conference action.

Its scope embraces all matters dealing with the:

1. education and training of weights and measures officials; 2. promotion of weights and measures principles and techniques among the general public and

the users of weighing and measuring devices; 3 . development and recommendation of administrative procedures and public relations programs; and

4. identification of commercial weights and measures practices and problems that are of concern

to consumers; and

5i liaison with Federal agencies. State agencies, and other groups or organizations on issues within the purview of the Committee. This role entails explaining, advocating, and

coordinating Conference positions, recommendations, and needs before Federal Government

agencies, consumer groups, the associate NCWM membership, domestic and international stan- dards 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 and standards of the NCWM.

38
Executive Committee

¥r,—Committee on Liaison The Committee on Liaison annually presents a report for Conference action. Its mission is dividod

into two categori es as follows:

4-. Liaison with Federal Agencies . Intorgovommontal (with NIST/USDA/FDA/FrC/DOD/Postal Scnicc, etc.) contacts and relations on behalf of the Conference . This role involves explaining; advocating, and coordinating Conference

f>o6itions, recommendations, and needs before Federal Government agencies and promoting

uniformity omong those agencies and with the NCWM.

2i Liaison with Other Groups or Organizations and Agencies . This role involves public liaison with consumer groups , the associate NCWM membership, the

Fetifeemembership,—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 NCWTSl. 101-7 VC Organization, U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group

This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.

At the 78th Annual Meeting, the NCWM endorsed the following policy with respect to the United States and Canada: With respect to weights and measures devices, the parties agree that the most effective means to remove

barriers to free trade is to achieve mutual recognition of device type evaluation testing. This will necessitate the comparative analysis of type evaluation codes and test procedures together with the intent of streamlining and minimizing differences insofar as possible to enable efficient device evaluation while /- preserving the technical capability and competence of their mutual laboratories. A U.S. -Canada Mutual Recognition Work group was formed in 1993 with representation from Canada's Legal Metrology

Branch, four NTEP participating laboratories, and NIST OWM. It has met frequently since April 1993 in the United

States and Canada. Progress is on schedule toward meeting the first stage objective of mutual recognition of type

evaluations between the United States and Canada for bench/floor scales, weighing/load receiving elements with a capacity up to 500 kg (1000 lb), and digital indicators by April of 1994. A report was provided of the status at the Interim Meeting. A jointly agreed program statement has been prepared by Mr. Roben Bruce, Canada LMB, and the Executive Secretary, describing the objectives and operation of this first programmatic implementation for review by the Executive Committee

at the Interim Meeting. All milestones were met, and the program was commenced on April 1, 1994. Committee Recommendation: The Executive Committee recommends that the NCWM adopt the Mutual Recognition Agreement as a statement of policy of the NCWM, and that the NCWM operate on the basis of this policy. The U.S.-

Canada Mutual Recognition Program was inaugurated April 1, 1994. Several device manufacturers have already applied

for evaluation under the program. The Committee had recommended at its Interim Meeting that the agreement go forward for formal signatures by U.S.

Federal government representatives. After consultation with the legal advisor of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Executive Secretary advised the Executive Committee that the mutual recognition agreement could be

effective by adoption of policy by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and the Legal Metrology Branch

of Canada, without obtaining signatures of U.S. Federal government representatives uninvolved with the National Type

Evaluation Program. Therefore, the Committee recommends adoption of the following policy:

39
Executive Committee

Mutual Recognition Agreement

/. Purpose The purpose of this Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) is to set out a working relationship to implement applicable provisions of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) by providing for the mutual

recognition of the device evaluations administered and performed by the Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) of Industry and Science Canada and by the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) of the United States.

2. Background The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada are parties to the FTA. Chapter Six of the FTA applies to technical standards, and Article 604 of this agreement

provides in part 1 that: To the greatest extent possible, and taking into account international standardization activities, each

party shall make compatible its standards related measures and procedures for product approval

with those of the other party. The LMB and NTEP operate ongoing type evaluation systems for commercial measuring devices. Canada, many States, and several U.S. Federal agencies require the evaluation and approval of the design and performance of device prototypes prior to their sale for commercial use. Rather than submitting commercial devices for the United States market to NTEP laboratories and

essentially the same devices for the Canadian market to LMB's laboratory, manufacturers requested

that the United States and Canada (1) combine their evaluation tests and (2) recognize either NTEP

laboratory or LMB laboratory results of the combined evaluation as the basis upon which NTEP

and LMB would each issue their evaluation documents (either the NTEP Certificate of Conformance

or the Canadian Notice of Approval). Expected benefits include: increased uniformity of test methods reducing unnecessary differences, misunderstandings, and unnecessary duplications; reduced costs and improved turn-around time by accessing a single source for type evaluation for both nations; increased competitiveness for both U.S. and Canadian manufacturers by speeding the time from design to the end markets. The following policy was adopted in January 1993 by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, in concert with the Legal Metrology Branch, Canada: With respect to weights and measures devices, the parties agree that the most effective means to remove barriers to free trade is to achieve mutual recognition of device type evaluation testing. This will necessarily involve the comparative analysis of type evaluation codes and test procedures

together with the intent of streamlining and minimizing differences in so far as possible so as to enable efficient device evaluation while preserving the technical capability and competence of their mutual laboratories.

3. Agreement The United States National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) and Canada's Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) agree to recognize each other's type evaluation results: NTEP will recognize the results of the tests performed by the LMB for the purpose of issuing NTEP Certificates of Conformance for the device types set out in the annex to this agreement.

40
Executive Committee

LMB will recognize the results of the tests conducted by the NTEP Participating Laboratories

for the purpose of issuing a Canadian Notice of Approval for the device types set out in the annex to this agreement. Each party will continue to issue its own document (either the NTEP Certificate of Conformance

or the Canadian Notice of Approval). Each party will make all information available to the other party, maintaining conHdentiality of proprietary information;

collaborate in the development of additional areas of mutual recognition;

collaborate in the development of requirements and test methods for commercial devices and

systems;

collaborate in the development and maintenance of proficiency and uniformity of evaluation; and

collaborate to preserve the technical capability and competence of their mutual laboratories.

4. Collaboration Both parties will collaborate to eliminate or minimize differences in requirements and test methods

so as to enable efficient device evaluation.

5. Resolution of Complaints

This MRA does not create obligations binding under international law. However, each party will investigate complaints that the other party brings forward, and both parties will work together to seek satisfactory resolution of such complaints.

6. Duration and Termination This MRA will become effective on April 1, 1994. It will remain in effect for a period of five (5) years and may be extended by mutual consent. This MRA may be terminated at any time by either party upon six (6) months written notice to the other party.

7. Application for Type Approval Under this agreement, any applicant for type approval is free to apply to either country when

requesting type approval in either Canada, the United States or both countries. Mutual Recognition Agreement

ANNEX

List of device types that are subject to provisions of the Mutual Recognition Agreement.

1 . Electronic noncomputing bench and platform scales or separate weighing elements with a capacity up to and including 500 kilograms.

41
Executive Committee

2. Electronic indicators for use with weigh scales. 101-8 I Organization, Privatization Work Group

The final report of the Privatization Work Group is included in Appendix A. The following text reports the status of the work as of the end of 1993. Chairman Tom Geiler took over as representative from the Northeast in the Privatization Work Group and named Allan Nelson, CT, as Chair of the Privatization Work Group. In addition, Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson, was appointed to the Work Group. The Work Group has attacked several problems so far. (1) Members have met with and written State and

local agencies, legislatures, and other managers to explain the need for retaining weights and measures oversight as a government responsibility. (2) The Work Group developed a set of overhead transparencies and slides available to all to explain either their own programs and why needed, or the component of a complete program. These efforts are directed at developing vocal customers who, in turn, demand government regulation of the marketplace.

Recognizing economic realities, the Work Group has outlined an effective program, but also realizes that government

rarely has the resources to deliver that complete program. The Work Group therefore plans to explore in more depth how

industry can play a more effective role in delivering the most effective program possible. Some areas to be explored

^ include: minimum training; evaluating the tests performed by the testing agent; how to fund package testing and undercover buying and selling; and an accreditation system for weights and measures programs including their private company licensees. The group met in Seattle, November 4-6, 1993 in order to discuss a study produced by a Washington State Task Force. The Task Force report indicated overall benefit of individual parts of weights and measures activities, for example,

vehicle scale testing, and package testing. The Work Group consulted with Washington State Task Force members to further refine the economic generalizations made in Washington and to explore what needs to be collected in the future by any weights and measures jurisdiction to help in establishing priorities and measuring effectiveness.

Quantitative measurements of the effectiveness of a program or of changes to a program are of little value unless the same

standards are used to evaluate the programmatic effects over time and across geographic regions, that is, from State to

State. Therefore, the Work Group has begun to identify useful data that could be collected without too much effort and

could be used to measure programmatic effectiveness within a jurisdiction and nationally. Illinois and Ohio, for example, have both reported that they were able to show a direct correlation between frequency of device inspection and compliance level. For example, all jurisdictions should be collecting, quantitative data on device errors at the time of

test, rather than recording only whether the device was "in" or "out" of tolerance. Think Dollars Rather Than Pounds When weights and measures officials find short weight packages, many jurisdictions compute the economic loss in dollars, applying the shortage found, to the amount of that product sold by a given retailer over some period of time. For

example, a shortage of 0.02 lb for chicken breasts selling at $5.00 per pound converts to a shortage per package of $0. 10.

If the retailer sells 200 packages of chicken breasts per day, the economic shortage is $20 per day, $140 per week, $560

per month, or $6720 per year for that one kind of package in that one store. This is a common analysis for determining whether to impose a fine or take other legal action. Economic gain or loss can be similarly estimated for direct sales using scales or meters. For example, if an individual truck scale under-registers by 80 lb at approximately truck capacity, some estimate of the economic effect of that under- weighing can be made. If the truck scale weighing the full truck differs from the scale used to determine the tare, or

if a stored tare value was determined at some other time, the under-registration does not evenpartially cancel out. In this example, if the trucks are gross weighed on that scale only in order to sell produce from the farm to a processor, and

if the commodity is worth $0.40 per pound, the potential for economic loss to the farmer is 80 lb x $0.40 = $32 per

truck load. During a harvest season of 12 weeks duration, with an average of 100 trucks per day weighed on that scale, farmers are shorted $3,200 per day, or $16,000 per 5-day week, or $192,000 for the 12 week harvest season.

42
Executive Committee

Compliance Level Translates into Money

The ability to estimate economic profit or loss is substantial if a jurisdiction keeps records not just of the compliance

level, based on knowing the number of devices out of compliance during a given round of tests, but also records the amount of error found for each device.

All jurisdictions should record not only whether a device is in or out of tolerance, but by how much. In addition, it is important to record how far from zero any scale is found. Most jurisdictions "sanitize" their data, routinely allowing the

scale users to adjust their devices when found out of zero. The Work Group does not suggest that jurisdictions change

this practice, but inspectors should record how far from zero the scale is found before adjustment. It is logical to assume

that the scale would likely remain out of zero until and unless the inspector pointed out the problem to the scale user. Record the amount out of zero; this is potential economic gain or loss to the business and its customers if weights and

measures inspection does not occur. Armed with copies of the annual economic data from Supermarket News, and with motor fuel sales, agricultural sales, and road construction data from the local tax bureau, agricultural statistics division, and retail marketing associations, jurisdiction administrators can estimate the value of average shortages or overages on any class of devices either to buyers

or sellers over time. The Work Group repon is available upon request from the Office of Weights and Measures and will be published in the final repon of the committee. 101-9 I Organization, ISO 9000 Task Force

Georgia Harris provided a repon at the Interim Meeting on the progress toward ISO Guide 25 conformance (equivalent

to conformance to ISO 9002) of State weights and measures calibration laboratories by the end of calendar year 1994, and plans for NTEP Panicipating Laboratories to consolidate and document administrative procedures to conform to ISO

Guide 25. Chairman Geiler requested that maps be prepared to show the status of State Weights and Measures

Laboratories with respect to accreditation in specific areas and at specific levels. The importance of conformance to ISO

25 was stressed for those Panicipating Laboratories that might desire to offer OIML Certificates.

In 1994, the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) announced a new accreditation program for calibration laboratories. This is a fee-supponed accreditation program that private laboratories need to assure

their domestic and international customers of accurate measurements. The NIST OWM is funded to support the State

legal metrology laboratories as pan of the basic NIST mission to ensure traceability of standards in the States for legal purposes. Ms. Harris described the collaborations and cooperations that have led to NVLAP offering to issue its accreditation cenificate to States that already have an OWM cenificate. The State metrologists (through the work of the NCWM ISO 9000 Task Force) and OWM have been upgrading the accreditation criteria in NIST Handbook 143 during

the past year and have assisted NVLAP in developing technical criteria for laboratories in the areas of mass and volume. NVLAP has formally adopted ISO Guide 25, General Criteria for the Acceptance of Calibration Laboratories and related standards. Both NVLAP and OWM will give calibration laboratories, whether State or private, a one-year grace period

to comply with all aspects of ISO Guide 25. NVLAP has also selected several State metrologists to participate as technical expens (assessors) for the evaluation of calibration laboratories. The NVLAP and OWM pannership will provide additional recognition for State laboratories on a national and

international level since NVLAP has a number of Memoranda of Understanding for mutual recognition with national and

international organizations and countries. OWM will continue to manage the accreditation program for the States; NVLAP accreditation will be an additional benefit of compliance. NVLAP will offer accreditation to all State laboratories currently accredited under the OWM State Laboratory Program for 3-year periods. Many customers of the

State laboratories want to know that the services of the State laboratories comply with ISO 9000 and/or ISO Guide 25

criteria. NVLAP's scope of accreditation will indicate "accredited to NIST Handbook 143" and will use OWM

assessments of the laboratories as the basis for issuing accreditation certificates.

43
Executive Committee

101-10 I Publications, Status Report

The costs of publishing archival publications, such as National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44

"Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices," and other NIST

handbooks and final reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, are underwritten by the NIST. The

cost of publishing intermediate publications needed to conduct the business of the NCWM, such as the Interim Meeting Agenda and the Interim Meeting Reports, is assumed by the Conference. Any publications that the Conference desires

to publish and sell are also produced at Conference expense. For example, a full set of NCWM Publication 5 (Index of NTEP Certificates and facsimiles of the Certificates) is now a four-volume collection costing $75. Discussion centered around how Publication 5 is being received in its new format. Nebraska and Ohio do not provide their field inspectors with full copies: the officials do not want to carry that much paper around with them. Ohio would like every official to have it, but the costs are too high and Ohio continues to prepare its own short version of Pub 5. The Executive Committee members noted that the greatest complaint of their field enforcement officials is the lack of documentation,

especially for load cells, left with the device installation. NIST and NCWM Publication Summary

Fiscal Year 1994

NIST Publications NIST

Publication Title Quantity(estimate) Total Printing Costs (estimate) Total Postage (NIST)

Total Printing &

Postage Handbook 44 1995 edition 3,800 $6,000 $5,624 $11,624 SP 854 Report of 79th NCWM 3,800 8,000 3,990 11,990 Handbook 130 1995 edition 3,800 6,000 3,200 9,200 Handbook 133 1995 edition 3,800 6,000 5,624 11,624

Totals (All NIST Expense) 15,200 $26,000 $18,438 $44,438 NCWM Publications

(Printed at Conference Expense

Mailed at NIST Expense) Pub 2 Membership Directory 2,350 $6,200 (NCWM) $3,404 $9,604 Pub 5 Index of Dev Evals, 6th Ed 500 2,580 (NTEP) 740 3,320 Pub 15 Interim Agenda 3,200 3,200 (NCWM) 6,390

(First Class) 9,590

Pub 16 Prog & Committee Reports (Announcement Book)

3,700 7,800

($6,500 NCWM

$1,300 OWM

surcharge)

4,440 12,440

Total 9,750 $18,480 (NCWM)

$1,300 (OWM)

$14,974 $34,954

44
Executive Committee

Summary

Total Printing at NIST Expense Total Postage at NIST Expense Grand Total (Postage and Printing) $27,300 $33,412 $60,712 NCWM Printing Costs NCWM NCWM Total $18,480 $18,480

In 1995, NCWM will pay the tests associated with membership invoicing (approximately $11,000). 101-11 I Membership, Status Report NCWM Membership Growth

Membership as of June 30 Each Year Shown

101-12 I Finances, Treasurer's Report

, The actual income and expenses for 1993 are provided in Appendix B together with the 1994 and 1995 budgets. Some modifications

! were made to the 1994 budget to accommodate slight changes in priorities:

I 517.4, Video updates of H44/H 1 30 were zeroed out and replaced with $5 ,000 for the Education Committee to hold a special meeting

to prepare a long-range management plan for the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee; $2000 was added

to S«&T budget for Solid Volume Measuring Devices (513.3) and deducted from the Interim Meeting costs (512). NTEP Maintenance Fee

\ NTEP standards development will be covered by an NTEP Maintenance Fee approved by the NCWM in July 1993. Billing began

I October 1 , and payments were due December 1 . Fees not received by December 3 1 resulted in NTEP Certificates becoming inactive

in 1994. An update to Publication 5 was produced at the end of January showing the status of all NTEP Certificates.

i The Executive Committee determined that the NTEP maintenance fee will be devoted only to NTEP costs; an analysis of income for 1994 and expenses for 1993 was provided. $104,000 in income was received for NTEP Certificate Maintenance.

I Participation of the Executive Secretary in Financial Management

The Office of Weights and Measures designed and maintains for the NCWM an extensive database on weights and measures

' organizations and individuals, used for all mailings to members and nonmembers, including billing and offers of membership. The NCWM maintains a pan-time cashier to accept and deposit checks. Acting as executive officer of the Conference, the Executive

45
Executive Committee

Secretary manages the Conference administration and finances, certitying to the Treasurer the correctness of bills submitted to the Conference for payment. Questions have been raised about the level of fiduciary oversight necessary to protect the investment of

the NCWM members. As the NCWM has grown to an annual budget of nearly $300,000, the level of oversight and management by

OWM desired by the NCWM should be clarified. In the continuing growth of the NCWM operation from a small organization to a large organization, a business manager and outside auditor should be considered. Committee Decisions: Treasurer Gardner has obtained single signature authority on all NCWM accounts in New York. The

Executive Secretary will advertise for a financial manager and internal auditor for the NCWM to verify accounts, bills, and income;

issue checks to Treasurer; reconcile bank accounts; provide early warning and suggest opportunities for better fiscal management.

This will be a part-time position, to be bid upon and finalized by contract. 101-13 I Finances, Associate Membership Fees A status report is contained in Appendix B. The Associate Membership Committee determined that it would underwrite part of the production of the Consumer Pamphlet with the surplus funds from 1993. The Chairman of the Associate Membership Committee,

Chris Guay, announced at the 79th Annual Meeting that the Associate Membership Committee would underwrite 22 scholarships of $500 each for training in the 1994-95 membership year. The $1 1 ,000 provided by the Associate Membership Committee will be given

to the Education Committee to manage. 101-14 I Finances, Auditing Committee

The Auditing Committee now examines the NCWM finances and books at the Interim Meeting since this is the close to the end of

the 1993 NCWM fiscal year. They reported to the Executive Committee that the books were in order for FY 1993. 101-15 I Meetings, Networking with Other Associations Much of the Committee's time during the Interim Meeting was spent in discussions with the new management at the National Institute i of Standards and Technology. On Monday, the Executive Committee and 12 Associate members representing a wide array of both manufacturing and service businesses met with Mr. Ray Kammer, Deputy Directoi of NIST, and Dr. Peter Heydemann, Director of Technology Services, NIST. On Tuesday, all the standing committees and another ten associate members met with Dr. Aratitj Prabhakar, Director of NIST, and Dr. Heydemann. Both discussions centered around the essential services the NCWM provides

businesses and industries, not just State and local weights and measures agencies. These services include maintenance of a fair marketplace nationally, minimizing unfair trade and measurement practices, and providing a single large geographic marketplace through national standardization of commercial trade practices. With more resources concentrated internationally, it may be possible

to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers in foreign markets. Unfortunately, the pressing need to coordinate and leverage the contributions of all the business and regulatory agency participants within and outside the NCWM has exceeded the manpower resources of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures, which provides the secretariat of the NCWM. No fewer than 26 different working groups, subcommittee, task force, and other technical committee and sectors now actively meet on NCWM business. Even with the help of

the Canadian Legal Metrology Branch, the Federal Grain Inspection Service, and all the States and businesses, central coordination

is still essential. The same message was given when Associate members and Executive Committee members met with key

Congressional staff on Wednesday of the Interim Meetings.

Congressional staff requested and received a one-page synopsis of needs, a "white paper" on the issues [ISO 9000, Mexico/NAFTA; OIML trade harmonization, training] and the OWM long range plan. These documents are available upon request. In addition, the NCWM requested the opportunity to testify before the House Appropriations Committee, which oversees NIST's budget.

- 1

/

46
Executive Committee

101-16 I Meetings, Annual and Interim, Future

Interim Meeting, January 1995

The 1995 Inienm Meeimg will be held at the Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel, 686 Anton Boulevard. Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Telephone - 14-540-2500: Fax 714-662-6608. The dates are Sunday January 08. 1995 through Thursday January 12, 1995. The room

rate is S85 plus 6*^ tax.

San .\ntonio. Neu Orleans, and southern Florida will be explored for the 1996 Interim Meetings.

80th \CWM

The 80th .Annual Meetmg will be held at the Holiday Inn in Portland. Maine in 1995. Although the hotel is not large enough to book

enough sleeping rooms so that all the Conference delegates can reside at the same location, another hotel to accommodate all delegate overflow is within walking distance. The main hotel is on the waterfront and pan of the quaint city of Ponland. Many restaurants and shops fill the streets. Fishing trawlers and other water craft moor in the busy harbor. The secondary hotel is within one block

of the main hotel. The meeting location is close to our Canadian neighbors, so the Committee hopes to attract many business and

weights and measures representatives from north of the border.

81st Annual Meeting

The location of the 1996 .Annual Meeting must be carefully selected, since the Olympics are being hosted at that time in Atlanta, eliminating ii as a potential site. TTie Executive Committee is considering Washington, DC, for 1996 if a hotel is available, and welcomes input from the Southern Weights and Measures .Association for 1997 (and possibly 1996 if Washington is not available.) 101-17 I Program. OV\'M and MST

The OWM Long Range Plan was presented at the Interim Meeting. The Executive Secretar>' provided a status report on staffing that

it can provide to the Conference. Dr. Edward Heffron. Director of the Food Division. MI Depanment of Agriculture, past Chairman

of the NCWM, and recently a member of the NIST Visiting Committee, discussed the status of the National Institute of Standards and TechnologN' and the Federal agenc> perspective under President Clinton's administration. The Executive Committee and several .Associate Members, under the leadership of Chairman Tom Geiler. focussed significant effons on meeting with NIST management. Congressional Representati\es and their staff, describing the work of weights and measures government to maintain a fair marketplace and the role of the NIST OWM in providing absolutely essential technical suppon to the individual jurisdictions and the NCWM. The effons included a special meeting held for Dr. Peter Heydemann in Sacramento, CA,

to brief him on the broad array of serv ices for industr\- operated by California, and included meetings with Cardinal Scale and Procter and Gamble. .A meeting wiih Neal Smith. D. I.A. Chairman of the .Appropriations Subcommittee over the NIST budget, in his home

distnct. allowed weights and measures officials to describe the imponance of the OWM to their programs. N. David Smith, NC,

and W. Terr> James. Cardinal Scale testified before the Appropriations Subcommittee at its budget hearings in Washington. DC.

Several members of the Executive Committee and .Associate members met with other key staff of Congressional representatives. This work has led to NIST Technology- Serv ices Director. Dr. Heydemaim. increasing the OWM budget by a substantial amount. At the beginning of the fiscal >ear. OVvTvl anticipated having to make staff cuts: by the end of the fiscal year. OWM expects to hire four new technical staff. Chairman Geiler recommends that the Executive Committee keep NIST and elected officials aware of the NCWM

needs and issues, and establish a process for regular formal interaction with NIST. 101-18 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology

Tne Executne Secreiar.' wrote a memorandum to Dr. Sam Chappell requesting that he inform the International Bureau of Legal Metrolog\ . Pans, that the National T\ pe Evaluation Program is preparing to act as the Issuing Authorit)' for nonautomatic weighing

devices «OIML R76i. See Item 102-6 for additional details. The Executive Committee notes the reorganization of reponing structure of the Office of Weights and Measures and the Office of

Standards .Management (OIML). There is an increasing need for closer interaction with the Office of Standards Management, as the Conference acquires the capability' to act as the Issuing .Authorirv' for OIML Cenificates. The Executive Committee will explore the appropnate role of the NCWM and the NTEP and NIST Standards Management Program and OIML with the NIST management.

47
Executive Committee

Dr. Chappell, NIST, updated the Committee on the work and plans of OIML as they affect the NCWM:

International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML)

The CIML establishes the policy and approves the technical plans and work of the various OIML Technical Committees. Its 28th meeting was in Berlin, Germany from October 4-6, 1993. Representatives for 45 of the 51 member nations attended. The following

significant reports and decisions were made at the meeting: New Structures. A report was presented on the new organizational structure with regard to establishing Technical Subcommittees (SCs) under the already approved Technical Committees (TCs). All TCs have been established; however, some of the associated SCs and allocated projects have not been finalized. It was requested that the structure and allocated projects be completed by the end of 1993. The following TCs have been assigned to the member nations indicated in parenthesis: TCI Terminology (Poland) TC2 Units of Measurement (Austria) TC3 Metrological Control (U.S.A.) TC4 Calibration and Verification Devices (Republic of Slovakia) TC5 Electronic Instruments (Netherlands)

/ TC6 Prepackaged Products (U.S.A.) TC7 Measuring Instruments for Length and Associated Quantities (United Kingdom) TCS Instruments for Measuring Quantities of Fluids (Switzerland) TC9 Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density (U.S.A.) TCIO Instruments for Measuring Pressure, Force, and Related Quantities (U.S.A.) TCI 1 Instruments for Measuring Temperature and Associated Quantities (Germany) TCI 2 Instruments for Measuring Electrical Quantities (Germany) TCI 3 Instruments for Measuring Acoustics and Vibration (Germany) TC14 Measuring Instruments Used in Optics (Hungary) TCI 5 Measuring Instruments for Ionizing Radiations (Russia) TC16 Instruments for Measuring Pollutants (U.S.A.) TCI 7 Instruments for Physico-chemical Measurements (Russia) TCI 8 Medical Measuring Instruments (Germany) The Certificate System. An updated repon was provided on the issuing authorities and the categories of measuring

instruments included in the system. With regard to nonautomatic weighing instruments, 17 OIML Certificates have been

issued: 13 by the Netherlands, 2 by Germany, 1 by the United Kingdom, and 1 by the People's Republic of China.

Information. The OIML Bulletin has been redesigned. The combined September-December issue was distributed to members at the meeting. It will be issued quarterly. A brochure on OIML is under development and should be completed

early next year. Long Term Policy. A report was provided on efforts of the President and Vice Presidents to develop a long term policy

statement. A short version by Chappell and a long version by BIML were presented to members for comment by the end

of 1993. The reports addressed new trends that appear to diminish the differences between legal and industrial, or ordinary

practical, metrology. They also reflected the remarks presented by the delegates to the 1992 Conference of Legal Metrology on the subject.

Decisions

Five new and revised OIML Recommendations were approved including the following:

- Weights of Classes E,, E,, F,, F,, M,, M,, M3

- Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Belt Weighers) (Revision of R50)

48
Executive Committee

The United States was responsible for two of the Recommendations approved and had significant input in the others. BIML with

a Nordic task group will prepare test procedures and a format of the test report for "Weights." A consideration for approval was

postponed for "Format of Test Report" for R60 "Load Cells" which will be voted on by CIML by correspondence. Format of the Test Report. A resolution was passed that a format of the test report would be mandatory for a Recommendations to become a part of the OIML Certificate System but that the format was informative only for member

nations regarding their adoption and harmonization of OIML Recommendations with national regulations. It was recommended that a model format for the test reports be prepared.

It was agreed to hold the 29th meeting of CIML in Paris, France in October 1994. CIML Presidential Council The Presidential Council of CIML is its executive steering committee. It met February 10-11, 1994 in Paris, France. The principal items on the agenda were as follows: A review of the current technical work of the Technical Committees. A review of the status of the new organizational structures especially with regard to the commitment of member nations to collaborate as participating or observing members in the work of the various technical committees and their subcommittees. A discussion of the draft "Long Term policy of OIML." A review of the efforts to strengthen the communications efforts of BIML.

Activities of OIML Secretariats This part of the report provides: (1) an identification of work, either Recommendations (Rs) or Documents (Ds), being developed

in Technical Committees (TCs) and Technical Subcommittees (SCs) of specific interest to the NCWM and (2) a schedule of meetings

of the International Working Groups (IWGs) of those committees that have been recently held or planned for the near future. More

details of these activities have been reported by Otto Wamlof to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee of the NCWM.

TC3/SC1 Pattern Evaluation and Verification (U.S.A.) A second draft D "Initial Verification of Measuring Instruments Utilizing the Manufacturers Quality System" has been sent

to TC3/SC1 for comment and vote. It will also be distributed to the Executive Committee for review. TCS Electronic Instruments (The Netherlands) A draft revision of Dl 1 "General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments" has been received from the secretariat for comment and vote. TC6 Prepackaged Products (U.S.A.) A first draft revision of R79 "Information on Packaged Products" and of R87 "Net Contents in Packages" has been prepared by the secretariat and will be sent out for review and comment by collaborating member nations in 1994. TCS Instruments for Measuring Quantities of Fluids (Switzerland) A draft R "Characteristics of Standard Capacity Measures and Test Measures for Measuring Systems" was distributed to CIML for comment and vote. The U.S.A. voted yes without comments on June 15, 1994. A draft R "Pipe Provers for Testing of Measuring Systems for Liquids" was distributed to CIML for comment and vote. The U.S.A. voted yes without comments on June 15, 1994.

49
Executive Committee

A draft R "Vortex Meters Used in Measuring Systems for Liquids" was distributed to CIML for comment and vote. The U.S.A. voted no with comments on June 15, 1994. A draft OIML Document "Glass Delivery Measures: Automatic Pipettes" has been distributed to CIML for comment and

vote by September 30, 1994. TC8/SC1 State Volume Measurement (France) A draft revision of OIML R85 "Automatic Level Gauges for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage Tanks" has been distributed by the secretariat (the Netherlands) to the IWG for comment and vote by September 1, 1994. TC8/SC2 "Direct Static Mass Measurement of Quantities of Liquids" (Australia) The secretariat prepared a fourth draft R "Direct Mass Measuring Systems for Quantities of Liquids" for comment and vote by the IWG. The U.S.A. voted yes with comments 02/01/94. TC8/SC3 Dynamic Volume Measurement (Germany and France)

I A first draft R "Measuring Systems for Liquids Other than Water" was distributed by the secretariat for comment and vote

at the TC level. This draft combines R5, R27, R57, R67, and R77 (Volume Meters, Ancillary Equipment, General

Provisions, Particular Assemblies, and Metrological Controls, respectively). The U.S.A. voted no with comments mainly concerning design criteria for electronics and air eliminators. A draft R "Testing Procedures for Pattern Evaluation of Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles" was distributed to CIML for comment and vote. The U.S.A. voted yes without comments on June 15, 1994. TS8/SC4 Dynamic Mass Measurement (U.S.A.) ' A format of the test report for R105 "Direct Mass Flow Measuring Assemblies for Quantities of Liquids" was developed. The secretariat responded to comments by IWG and submitted a final draft for CIML vote on March 24, 1994. TS8/SC5 Water Meters (United Kingdom)

The secretariat submitted a draft revision of R49 "Water Meters intended for Metering of Cold Water" to CIML for comment

and vote. The U.S.A. voted no with comments on March 15, 1994. TC8/SC6 Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids (U.S.A.) A NWG met from June 8-9, 1994 to develop a revised draft for OIML R81 "Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic

Liquids." A draft revision has been completed and is being reviewed by the NWG.

TC8/SC8 Gas Meters (Netherlands)

Ij A draft revision of R31 "Diaphragm Gas Meters" was distributed to CIML for comment and vote. The U.S.A. voted yes without comments on July 8, 1994. . TC9 Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density (U.S.A.) A draft revision of R74 on "General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments," sanctioned by the 9th Conference,

is being revised further with regard to reference to "checking facilities." A format of the test report for R60 "Load Cells" was approved by CIML at its last meeting. This Recommendation,

therefore, is now within the OIML "Certificate System," and some member nations are now prepared to issue OIML

Certificates.

50
Executive Committee

A meeting of the IWG for TC9 was held in conjunction with TC9/SC2 in Teddington, U.K. May 30 - June 2, 1994. The

organization of the TC, revisions of R60 and R74, test procedures and repon forms for Rill "Weights," and the responsibility for SC4 "Densities" were discussed. TC9/SC1 "Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments" (Germany and France) A draft revision of R76 Pan 1 on "Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments" including test procedures was sanctioned by the 9th Conference, and Part 2 including the format of the test report was approved by CIML by correspondence in 1993. Proposed amendments to OIML R76-! were distributed by the secretariat to the IWG for comment and vote. The U.S.A.

voted yes without comments on April 30, 1994.

It was announced that the U.S.A. would become an issuing authority for OIML Cenificates of conformance of nonautomatic weighing instruments to OIML R76 through the NCWM CNTEP) in March 1994. TC9/SC2 "Automatic Weighing Instruments" (United Kingdom) A sixth CD revision of R51 on "Checkweighing and Weight Grading .Machines" including test procedures and report forms was distributed to the IWG for vote. The U.S.A. voted no with comments on May 5, 1994. A seventh CD revision of R61 on "Automatic Gravimetric Filling Machines (Hoppers)" including test procedures and repon

forms was distributed to the IWG for vote. The U.S.A. voted no with comments at the IWG meeting from .May 31 - June

2, 1994. A draft revision of R106 "Automatic Rail Weighbridges" including test procedures and a repon form was distributed to the IWG for vote. The U.S.A. voted no with comments. A draft revision of R107 "Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Instruments (Totalizing Hopper Weighers)" including test procedures and a repon form was distributed to the IWG for vote. The U.S.A. voted yes with comments on January 14. 1994.

All of these drafts were discussed at a meeting of TC9/SC2 in Teddington. U.K. May 31 - June 3. 1994. The next IWG

meeting is scheduled for the same location in December 1994. TC9/SC3 "Weights" (U.S.A.) The Recommendation on "Weights of Classes El, E2, Fl, F2, Ml, M2. and M3" was approved by CIML at its last meeting and has been published as Rill.

Part II - NTEP Board of Governors

: 102-1 I Policy, NTEP Name and Logo

1 Guidelines for the use of the NTEP name and logo are needed to protect the integrity of NTEP and eliminate false or misleading

advertising invoking or implying NTEP certification. A policy, drafted by Mettler-Toledo at the request of the Board of Governors

J and revised in time for the 79th Annual Meeting, was reviewed by the Scale Manufacturers Association NTEP Integrirv' Committee.

jbut not endorsed. The Scale Manufacturers Association recommends that the NCWM register the National Type Evaluation Program

j logo as a registered trademark. The Board endorses the general principles and guidelines of fair marketing embodied in the draft. It is proposed to be incorporated

' into NCWM Publication 14, containing NTEP Policy. The proposal would require an officer of a company holding a Certificate of "Conformance to sign an annual advertising agreement with NTEP. This is in line with the practices of such organizations as

51
Executive Committee

Underwriters Laboratories, Factory Mutual, ISO, and others. Mettler-Toledo provided examples only in the weighing device field. They recommend that the motor fuel dispenser and metering manufacturers review and provide examples suitable for their industry.

!

The Board appreciates the work of Mettler-Toledo in providing the first draft for NTEP policy, printed below. Replace Paragraph Q. References to NTEP in NCWM Publication 14 with the following:

'

Q. References To NTEP

2. Permissible Use of Statements and NTEP Logo

a. The Manufacturer

Prior to the issuance of a device manufacturer's first Certificate of Conformance and annually at the time of renewal, the manufacturer

shall execute an Advertising Agreement with NTEP. The Advertising Agreement shall be signed by an officer of the company

attesting that the NTEP Advertising Guidelines, a copy of which will be attached to the Advertising Agreement, have been read and understood and that the manufacturer agrees to abide by them.

Prior to using the NTEP name and logo, the device manufacturer shall have paid all fees required for issuing the initial certification document, including those required by the servicing laboratory that conducted the test. A manufacturer who fails to pay the annual maintenance fee for a certificate within 30 days after billing will forfeit the right to use the NTEP name and logo for devices covered by that certificate. The NCWM and the NTEP do not approve, endorse, or sponsor the products that are being or have been evaluated. Any information

issued by the manufacturer which states or implies approval, endorsement, or sponsorship are in violation of these guidelines and may

cause revocation of the Certificate of Conformance applicable to the product. The NTEP name and/or logo shall not be used in conjunction with a device that has not been certified. Use of the name and/or logo with respect to NTEP certified component(s) is not permitted if the device that contains the component(s) (e.g., load cell, indicator, platform) is not certified but could be certifiable based on Handbook 44 and these Guidelines. The NTEP logo may be used only

in conjunction with products that have been certified in accordance with this publication and Handbook 44. The logo should never be used in any manner that might suggest or imply that certification extends to a product that is not NTEP-certified. Where reference

is made to NTEP, it is essential to clearly identify which products are NTEP-certified if the copy also includes products that are not

certified. References to NTEP must always be located in close proximity to any reference to a certified product when uncertified products are shown on the same page.

Descriptive text accompaning the logo shall, at a minimum, contain the certified model number or designation, accuracy class, and

the NTEP Certificate of Conformance number applicable to the device represented. Acceptable examples of this are shown in Annex A.

In the event that a Certificate of Conformance is withdrawn and/or canceled, the device manufacturer immediately forfeits the right to use the NTEP name and/or logo for that product, literature, manuals, packaging, or other promotional items relating to that product's CC.

In addition, the NTEP Board of Governors may suspend, withdraw, or cancel the device manufacturer's right to use the NTEP logo and/or name if the manufacturer is found out of conformance with the NTEP Advertising Guidelines and if, after notification, does

not in a timely fashion correct the non-conformance. Improper references to NTEP may require revision of the advertising or packaging materials and/or destruction of existing stocks of these materials. Repeated violations of these guidelines may result in the revocation of all Certificates of Conformance held by the manufacturer.

In the event the applicant for a Certificate of Conformance is not the manufacturer of the device, all references to "manufacturer"

cited above will apply to the applicant as if he were the manufacturer.

52
Executive Committee

Annex A

Specific Guidelines For Use Of The NTEP Logo

' I The NTEP logo shall never be used on printed literature, manuals, packaging, or promotional items without the appropriate descriptive explanation of what is covered in the device cenification. The logo and descriptive explanation shall be clearly differentiated from

other information by use of border lines or paragraph breaks. Headers or titles prior to the logo and descriptive statement are acceptable, including: "Cenificate of Conformance", "NTEP Certified", "Accuracy", "Legal For Trade", "Designed For Commercial

' Use", et cetera.

I

j'j The NTEP logo may be used in video and/or audio materials without this same visual descriptive explanation of what is covered in the device certification. In these cases, certificate explanation may be made via audio or visual media. Content, however, must still conform to the guidelines listed in Article Q.2.a and this appendix.

p' The NTEP logo may be used on the device manufacturer's product only if it is in the proximity of, and can be seen with, the device

[ manufacturer's product data tag. In order to use the NTEP logo on the product, the visible data tag must include all of the

'i information required b>' Handbook 44.

1 Descriptive text which accompanies the logo shall, at a minimum, contain the certified model number or designation, accuracy class,

' and the NTEP Certificate of Conformance number applicable to the device represented. Acceptable examples of this are shown below:

^ Truck Scale The Model XXXX Truck Scale meets or exceeds Class III L, 10,000 division accuracy requirements in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance, Number XX-XXX,

was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

I Floor Scale The Model XXXX Floor Scale meets or exceeds Class III, 5000 division accuracy requirements in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Cenificate of Conformance, Number XX-XXX,

I was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

^ Indicating Element

S

I The Model XXXX Weight Indicator meets or exceeds Class II, 60,000 division and Class III/III L, 10,000 division accuracy ! requirements in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance, Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Load Cell

I

^ The Model XXXX Load cell meets or exceeds Class III L, 10,000 division accuracy requirements in accordance with the

I National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance, Number XX-XXX,

1 was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

S The Certificate of Conformance specifies the maximum number of scale divisions (n^Ax). load cell verification interval (v^in),

' and capacities for the Model XXXX load cell family. Sometimes a product will have only limited Cenification due to size, capacity, functionality or other restrictions. If the device manufacturer desires to sell or publicize versions which have not been cenified, the NTEP name or logo may be used without

1 appropriate clarification. Noncertified versions must be clearly marked as "Not NTEP Cenified, " or a statement such as the following

' will be included:

53
Executive Committee

The Model XXXX Floor Scale meets or exceeds Class III, 5,000 division accuracy requirements, in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44 for 1,000 through 10,000 pound capacities, 3' x 3' through 5' X 7' platform sizes, inclusive. A Certificate of Conformance, Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Specific logo specifications are available upon request, in writing from: NTEP Board of Governors

National Conference on Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 4025

' Gaithersburg, Maryland 20885 102-2 I Program, Verification that Production Meets Type

The Board believes that a more rigorous system is needed to ensure that production devices and components match the original types. The original intent was State enforcement agencies to provide such assurance. Publication 14, Subpart K.2. Feedback reads: 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, experience gained during verifications may justify later changes in the Certificate of Conformance; in extreme cases, it may dictate reevaluation of the type. The Board of Governors discussed what action should be taken to monitor the compliance of both scales and load cells in production with the influence factors requirements. It was agreed that compliance with the influence factor requirements caimot be determined by ordinary field enforcement testing. There were reports that some devices in the field do not match the designs and performance

(even at ambient temperature) of those devices given NTEP CCs. At the 78th Annual Meeting in July 1993, the Board preliminarily decided to transmit its concern to all jurisdictions that commercial floor scales (particularly those with 5000 scale divisions) may not meet type (particularly with respect to accuracy), and to request that thorough performance testing be conducted at ambient

temperature during field inspections. Testing the devices to full capacity was going to be reinforced. Jurisdictions were going to be asked to transmit their findings to the NTEP Board of Governors, for consideration and action.

Production Device Evaluation in Environmental Chambers

Since then, a Board member has observed tests on floor scales from production inventories of several manufacturers. His data, shared with the Board, is presented in Appendix C. Seven of eight tested scales failed to meet requirements; such results challenge the

integrity of NTEP. The Board of Governors feels that a Certificate should be withdrawn when production devices do not match type. Unfortunately, many of the scales would comply with Handbook 44 at room temperature, and most failed at low temperature,

indicating the difficulty of determining full compliance in the field. Jim Truex's recommendations for changes to Publication 14 and NTEP Policy are presented for information below with the intent to adopt policy for production devices in 1995.

Proposal: To establish NTEP policy for cases where NTEP or field inspection and testing indicates that production

devices do not match the original type evaluated by NTEP. Amend Section M.6. of NTEP Administrative Procedures (Pub 14) to read:

6. Post-Evaluation Responsibility Of Manufacturer As a result of requesting an evaluation and accepting the Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer implicitly

asserts that all devices manufactured as the type referenced in the Certificate of Conformance are the same type.

54
1

I Executive Committee

j Questions regarding the conformance of manufactured devices to the "type" for which a Certificate of Conformance

I was issued will be addressed using the existing verification system based on the following premises:

4t existing NTEP policies are sufficient to address production devices;

Or-. NTEP is limited to the initial type evaluation of devices; ^1. the field enforcement process is responsible for ensuring that production devices comply with Handbook 44 and match the original tvpe ; aftd NTEP is responsible for ensuring that production devices comply with Handbook 44 and match

the original tvpe when circumstances are convenient for inspection and testing;

service technicians, service agencies, manufacturers and other industry may report to NTEP that production devices do not comply with Handbook 44 or match the original type; however, in these

cases, noncompliance must be verified by NTEP prior to action by the Board of Governors;

if the field verification process or NTEP reveals a history of abnormally high device failure, or production devices do not comply with Handbook 44, or production devices do not meet tvpe. this information may be used in withdrawing a Certificate of Conformance for causer; and

prior to withdrawal of the Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer will be notified and given

the opponunity to show that production devices meet type in one or more of the ways described below.

(a) By submitting a production device or devices to NTEP for reevaluation.

(b) By submitting adequate information and data to NTEP to show that the quality assurance procedures in place in their company show compliance with Handbook 44 and that production meets type.

Justification : The integrity of NTEP and NTEP Certificates of Conformance is being challenged. States report deficiencies in installed devices with CCs. Manufacturers report noncompliance of competitors' devices to Handbook 44. NTEP

labs have come across devices and main elements that differ from the original type. NTEP must establish a means

of evaluating production devices to ensure that production meets type. It would be difficult, mainly due to lack of NTEP funding, to reevaluate all models traceable to an NTEP CC. However, it appears that NTEP should at least reevaluate suspect models to preserve the integrity of NTEP.

Reasons For:

1 . There are cases where production does not match type.

2. Evaluating production models will improve NTEP and the integrity of NTEP.

3. Evaluating production should improve the quality assurance procedures of many manufacturers.

Reasons Against :

1. NTEP and manufacturers will have to bear costs. Should NTEP Consider Production Quality Assurance Data or In-Plant Sampling and Testing ? To augment field verification, the Board discussed other approaches to verifying that production meets type. One possibility is voluntary cooperation by manufacturers, with in-plant inspection visits by NTEP. Some manufacturers will cooperate with this approach but not all are in favor. Other conformity assessment organizations, such as Factory Mutual (FM) and Underwriters

I

3^

4.

55
Executive Committee

Laboratory (UL), have contractual procedures in place to sample from manufacturers' products to determine that production complies

with type; NCWM could develop similar procedures. John Robecek, Vice President, Mettler-Toledo, presented mathematical

information suggesting that a totally independent sample of two production devices could indicate within 95 % confidence that, if both

failed type evaluation tests, the production devices do not match type. The cost of sampling and testing production devices is of great concern to the Board. Estimated costs will have to be developed to determine the role of voluntary sampling, or whether mandatory testing, similar to UL or FM contracts, might have to be considered. 102-3 I Policy, Clarification of When Remanufacturers Must Obtain and Maintain an NTEP

CC

The Open Hearing of the Executive Committee at the 78th Annual Meeting considered a question of applying maintenance fees to "remanufactured" devices. It was answered on the floor and in the Executive Committee report that "remanufactured" devices are subject to a maintenance fee if the remanufacturer intends to continue to remanufacture the device to which the CC applies. Mr. Richard Tucker of Tokheim later wrote to the Executive Secretary for further clarification. Tokheim offers exchange equipment

if a customer's equipment is deemed unserviceable in the field. Equipment may also be replaced due to the cost of repair or the time needed to get the unit operational. If replaced, the unit is brought back to the manufacturer, remanufactured, and put on an exchange

list. The remanufactured equipment is not necessarily returned to the original owner. The Board was consulted as to what constitutes a "remanufactured" device. One possible solution is to define "remanufactured" based on whether the device is sold after remanufacture for installation at a new

location, not in exchange for an identical model. If a device needing repair is replaced by an equivalent device, this might be

considered repair, not remanufacture. This interpretation considers that a repair could be made either on site or later at the factory. Not all members of the Board agreed with this interpretation. Two members suggested that the only clear way for such a device replacement to become a "repair" would be if the manufacturer brought the original device back after repair at the factory. One

jurisdiction, for the convenience of its field inspectors, has defined remanufactured devices as those whose serial numbers have

changed. Another Board member suggested that narrow definitions of what constitutes repair require manufacturers to bear unnecessary costs. The Board determined that any device refurbished, rebuilt, or having any major component rebuilt or replaced would be considered remanufactured if it were sold for installation in a new location; an active CC must be maintained in this case. The Board did not want to constrain a repair to have to be made in the field, however. Another point of discussion was the amount of refurbishing to consider a device not just repaired, but remanufactured. The

Measuring Sector had advised the NCWM last year that the sector members also disagreed on the definition of remanufactured

devices: three possible definitions were (1) those devices that are completely overhauled; (2) those having at least a major component

rebuilt or replaced; or (3) when other than the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or authorized representative rebuilds or

replaces major components or completely overhauls the device. If a device is not removed from the field for replacement of components, or if a device is rebuilt by other than the OEM and replaced in the same installation, there is no way for a field inspector who has been told to observe changes in the serial numbers to detect these "remanufactured" devices since the serial numbers will not have been changed. Thus, it appears to be prejudicial to define devices that have been repaired earlier and switched with those needing repair (because they will have different serial numbers) as "remanufactured" when it is the repair method of choice of some OEMs. This item is related to 102-12 concerning policy for repaired and remanufactured scales. Unlike scales, individual components of metering systems do not have to be marked. The Board will determine the extent of this problem to the OEMs and

to the weights and measures agencies in order to determine the priority to be placed on resolving the issues associated with

remanufacture. 102-4 I Program, Acceptance by the States

Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA), updated the Board of Governors on the status of its drive to assist States to i adopt the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation and the Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Service Persons and Service Agencies. SMA's program will continue into the coming year. At the time of publication of this report, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, i Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, c

56
Executive Committee

Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pemisylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming have adopted

type evaluation requirements or recognize the National Type Evaluation Program Certificates of Conformance. Alaska, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington are in the process of recommending that NTEP Certificates be

required. 102-5 I Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation

The Laws and Regulations Committee was asked to incorporate the administrative policy recommended by the Board of Governors

and NTEP Technical Sectors into an expanded version of the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation. Such expansion will require funher development of consensus concerning the policies a State should follow as to requiring a CC for resale of a used

device, how to define and test devices that are declared by the manufacturer to be one-of-a-kind, and how to determine whether a remanufactured device has been evaluated. See the Laws and Regulations Committee report for the draft regulation. 102-6 I Program, OIML Certification Plan

Reciprocity

In the spring of 1993, the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) was contacted by a scale manufacturer to determine whether NTEP would accept data from an International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Certificate in lieu of NTEP testing the scale. The scale company requested recognition of this test data since both the United States and the nation that issued the OIML Certificate were treaty members of the OIML and since the scale had been evaluated against the same performance criteria under the OIML

standards as under Handbook 44. NTEP Policy as to accepting data from other nations requires reciprocity by those other nations (that is, the other nations will accept NTEP data): "NTEP would not accept a certificate from another country as the basis for issuing an NTEP certificate. The basis of the decision was that there is no formal agreement among countries to accept each other's certificates.... The

discussions on accepting data from a national laboratory focussed on whether or not the [load cell] manufacturer had access to test equipment to monitor production and the need for reciprocity between countries before accepting data from another national laboratory as a basis for issuing a full Certificate of Conformance. "(Page

136, Report of the 76th National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1991, Weighing Sector Report of 1989.)

In an exchange of letters, the nation that issued the OIML Certificate agreed to accept an OIML Certificate issued by the United

I States.

I Since the above NTEP policy was enunciated before there was an OIML Certificate System, the NCWM and NTEP decided to revisit

I this issue. A "straw poll" of the Executive Committee and the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee was conducted by the Executive Secretary in anticipation of a meeting of the NTEP Board of Governors at the Annual Meeting. That meeting was held

July 18. The Executive Committee discussed the fact that correspondence from the other nation referred to a U.S. OIML certificate. Unfortunately, reciprocity could not be tested since NTEP has not issued an OIML Certificate.

I At the 78th Annual Meeting, 1993, the NTEP Board of Governors decided to concentrate NCWM resources on the U.S. -Canadian

j Mutual Recognition work as a foundation for future issuance of an OIML Certificate by the U.S. The Board also stated that NTEP

was not prepared at that time to accept OIML certificate test results as a substitute for NTEP evaluation without satisfying U.S.

businesses that OIML Certificates issued by the U.S. will be accepted by other nations.

At the 1994 Interim Meeting, however, the Scale Manufacturers Association and individual companies including liquid metering device manufacturers, spoke strongly in favor of moving ahead and asked NTEP to issue an OIML Certificate. The industry position is that NTEP should seek to become the Issuing Authority for OIML for Non-automatic Weighing Devices (R 76.) as soon as feasible.

Board members who also operate NTEP Participating Laboratories and are familiar with the OIML R76 standard expressed concern

about (1) the learning curve to duplicate the OIML test sequence when they are already devoting a great deal of their time becoming

57
Executive Committee

familiar with Canadian tests; (2) reporting the data in the correct format; (3) meeting ISO 25 criteria within their own laboratories; and, (4) obtaining parts of the OIML tests by private laboratories that also meet the ISO 25 criteria for laboratories. Otto Wamlof,

Standards Management Program, NIST, said that he would provide technical assistance to the NCWM and NTEP with respect to items

(1) and (2) that he would assist in locating a laboratory capable of performing tests that NTEP Participating Laboratories are not equipped to do. The Executive Secretary will pursue Participating Laboratory conformance with ISO Guide 25 by means of contract with an outside consultant. 102-7 I Program, NTETC Sectors on Grain Moisture Meters and Protein Analyzers A report of the progress of these sectors was given by Dr. Richard Pierce, the Technical Advisor from the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Federal Grain Inspection Service. The Committee also discussed progress on the issue of how to support an ongoing calibration monitoring program required for grain moisture meters.

In the scheme devised by the sector, type evaluation of grain moisture meters will take place in two phases. Phase I tests will include examination of the submitted device against "basic instrument" tests (including the current requirements as well as the proposed

specification and user requirements, which require the automatic display of moisture content results) and a test of the calibration of

the device over a limited range of grains and moisture content. Successful completion of Phase I will qualify the meter as eligible for enrollment in Phase II, the National Calibration Program. Phase II will be required to maintain the Certificate of Conformance

(CC) and permit the continued use of the meter in commercial grain exchange. Phase II will also be used to add grains to a CC for a particular meter. Therefore, the calibration status of a given meter will be indicated on the CC by a listing of the specific grains and moisture content ranges along with a designation of "approved," "pending approval," or "not approved" for each range. The costs of Phase I are intended to be covered entirely by the meter manufacturer (estimated at about $6000-7000 per meter). After

the type evaluation has been completed, the accuracy of the moisture measurement over the lifetime of the meter depends on its calibration over its lifetime routinely using a wide variety and range of moisture content of actual grain samples. The annual cost of Phase II will be double the one-time cost of Phase I for any given model of moisture meter (about $12,000-13,000 per meter for 16 grain types). Chairman Geiler, Sid Colbrook, IL, and Tom O'Connor, National Grain and Feed Association, met with staff of

Senator Daschle (D, ND) during the Interim Meeting to discuss alternative funding approaches. A meeting was held with

representatives of the grain industry November 30 in Kansas City on this subject; all agreed that Federal funding was the lowest cost approach for the Nation. FGIS is now authorized as a Participating Laboratory for the evaluation of grain moisture meters and has accepted grain moisture

meters to be evaluated under Phase I of the type evaluation program. At the present time, FGIS and NIST have agreed to set up an

Interagency Agreement with meter manufacturers to participate in Phase II of the NTEP evaluations, to provide calibration data from

a national sample pool to the meter manufacturers. FGIS is prepared to seek authorization as a Participating Laboratory for Protein Analyzers if the Conference adopts a tentative code

for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers at this Annual Meeting. They expect to be able to offer type evaluation at the beginning of 1995. 102-8 I Program, Participating Laboratories/Evaluation Report A report on the NTEP Participating Laboratories was given, including their workload and planning for addition of capabilities to conduct evaluations. New NTEP Participating Laboratories Nebraska and Field Evaluation Sites Type Evaluate Bulk Weighers

Field/Permanence Tests Medium Capacity Scales Large Capacity Scales

58
Executive Committee

Federal Grain Inspection Service Type Evaluate Grain Moisture Meters New Capabilities in Existing California NTEP Participating Laboratories Type Evaluate Load Cells (Including Influence Factors) Maryland

Type Evaluate

All Liquid Measuring Devices

Indicators/Cash Registers for Liquid Measuring Devices North Carolina Type Evaluate

All Liquid Measuring Devices

Indicators/Cash Registers for Liquid Measuring Devices New York

Type Evaluate Taximeters 1994 Objectives 1. Implement the U.S. /Canadian Mutual Recognition Program in April.

2. Publish Pub 5 in January, including all CCs since May 1, 1993.

3. Publish Pub 5 updates in May and September including CCs since the previous edition.

4. Provide updated Pub 5 index, a list of inactive CCs, and a list of one-of-a-kind devices, monthly on

computer bulletin board indicating new CCs.

5 . Improve NTEP management data to allow more accurate analysis and improve NTEP customer satisfaction.

6. Add more participating Laboratory capability.

59
Executive Committee

O E

II II O <

60
Executive Committee

National Type Evaluation Program Status Report December 29, 1993 CA 1 MD 1 N^- 1 OH 1 NTST

Requests Assigned

49 15 69 141 1993 65 24 21 60 134 New Type Ev'3lustions 50 23 20 54 40

L>'pdHted Type Evslustions 15 1 1 6 103

Certificates Effective'

1 nm 7 3 3 11 59

1993 8 5 4 4 14 New Type EvsJustions 6 5 4 4 2

Ijpdsieci Type Ev3lustions 2 12

Certificates Issued 1992 79 16 18 84 100 1993 42 11 15 38 131 New Type Evaluations 29 11 14 36 29 Updated Type Evaluations 13 1

-) 102 Assignments Not Completed

1992 30 14 12 21 30 1993 50 24 13 50 40 New Type Evaluations 46 23 13 46 27 Updated Type Evaluations 4 1 4 13 Average Time (weeks) - Assigned Date to Effective Date - All Labs'' 1992 14 1993 15 New Type Evaluations 19 Updated Type Evaluations 10 Average Time (weeks) - Effective Date to Issue Date - All Labs"

1992 10 1993 12 New Type Evaluations 11 Updated Type Evaluations 9

"Effective" means the type evaluation is complete but the certificate has not yet been generated and issued. Time, in weeks, from when the request was assigned to a lab to when the actual type evaluation was completed. Time, in weeks, from when the type evaluation was complete to when the certificate was generated and issued. Why weren't the average times reduced in 1993?

1 . Since 1992, 97 new companies have requested type evaluations. This caused a higher type evaluation failure rate, and led to a higher number of type evaluations in process and fewer CCs in 1993. Also, multiple failures of a single device have been grouped together leading to longer average times to complete a type evaluation.

2. A quality review for CCs was added in 1993 to insure more consistency and completeness of CCs. This has led to longer average times to issue a CC. What can be done about it?

1 . More confidence in the NTEP program and a quicker reaction time by OWM to respond to inquiries and needs has prevented

items 1 and 2 above from creating major problems.

2. A system needs to be developed to keep track of failed type evaluations and begin the cycle over when the device is resubmitted. This would provide more valid type evaluation cycles.

61
Executive Committee

More data is needed to assist the Labs and NIST to evaluate and reduce turn-around times.

Participating Laboratories Evaluation December 29, 1993

All Labs 1992 CCs

1993 CCs

1993 TEs

1993 Other

Requests Assigned 296 313 187 126

Certificates Effective 83 35 21 14

Certificates Issued 297 237 119 118 Assignments Not Complete 110 177 155 22 Average Time (weeks) Date Assigned To Effective Date

14 15 19 10

Average Time (weeks)

Effective Date To Issue Date

10 12 11 9

Total Time (weeks) Date Assigned To Issue Date 24 27 30 19

U.S. /Canadian Mutual Recognition Program

1. First Meeting held in April, 1993

2. Technical representatives met in June 1993.

3. Initial device types to be type evaluated by either country

- electronic non-computing bench and platform scales or separate weighing elements with a capacity up to 500 kg

- electronic indicators for use with weighing scales

4. Training on the Canadian process held in September, 1993

5. Training on the U.S. process held in February, 1994

6. Program was implemented in April 1994

7. Into which new areas do we expand? 1994 Results

1 . Published Pub 5 in January including all CCs for the previous year.

2. Published Pub 5 update in May including all CCs since the previous edition; another is scheduled for September.

3. Improved bulletin board performance including a Pub 5 index updated monthly identifying new CCs and a listing of inactive CCs.

4. Implemented the U.S. /Canadian Mutual Recognition Program in April.

5. Improved the content of NTEP management data to allow more accurate analysis and improved NTEP customer

satisfaction.

6. Added more Participating Laboratory capability.

62
Executive Committee

National Type Evaluation Program Status Report July 5, 1994

Activity CA MD NY OH NIST OTHER TOTAL

Number of Requests Assigned' 1992 49 22 15 69 141 296

1993 65 24 21 60 134 304 New Type Evaluations 50 23 20 54 40 187 Updated Type Evaluations 15 1 1 6 94 117 1994 57 19 12 50 48 11 197 New Type Evaluations (including Mutual Recognition TEs) 52 19 11 49 11 11 153 Mutual Recognition TEs'' 1 5 1 7 Updated Type Evaluations 5 1 1 37 44 Number of Certificates Effective' 1992 7 3 3 11 59 83

1993 8 5 4 4 14 35 New Type Evaluations 6 5 4 4 2 21 Updated Type Evaluations 2 12 14 1994 8 6 4 6 18 42 New Type Evaluations 7 6 4 4 1 22 Updated Type Evaluations 1 2 17 20

1992 79 16 18 84 100 297

1993 42 11 15 38 131 237 New Type Evaluations 29 11 14 36 29 119 Updated Type Evaluations 13 1 2 102 118 1994 30 2 15 15 39 101

21 2 14 13 11 61

9 1 2 28 40 Number of Assignments Not Completed

1992 30 14 12 21 30 107 1993 50 24 13 50 40 177 New Type Evaluations 46 23 13 46 27 155 Updated Type Evaluations 4 1 4 13 22 1994 34 16 6 38 30 11 135 New Type Evaluations 33 16 6 37 7 11 110 Updated Type Evaluations 1 1 23 25 Number of Assignments Withdrawn

1994 4 - - - 4

' Beginning in 1994, if a device fails a type evaluation, it is then entered as a new request for a new type evaluation. Previous to 1994, multiple failures of the same device were still considered as a single type evaluation.

^ "Effective" means the type evaluation is complete but the certificate has not yet been issued.

^ Included in total of 1994 New Type Evaluations

63
Executive Committee

102-9 I NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Reports

The Board was updated on the status of the work of each of these sectors and the work groups under the Weighing Sector. Their reports, available upon request to the Office of Weights and Measures, are published as part of the final report of the Board of Governors in Appendix D. These reports are: the Weighing Sector Meeting, December, 1993; the Measuring

Sector Meeting, October, 1993; the Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group (under the Weighing Sector) meetings, June and October, 1993; the Near Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector meeting, August, 1993; and the Grain Moisture Meter Sector meeting, August, 1993. The Weighing Sector meeting was held in Sacramento, CA, in coordination with training provided by Canada's Legal Metrology Branch to the NTEP Participating Laboratories. Canadian technical experts taught the NTEP

Labs to conduct the Canadian portion of type evaluations on those scales for which mutual recognition of type evaluation began April, 1994. The Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group, under the Weighing Sector, has held separate meetings and is ahead of schedule; the work group has been requested to extend its objectives to develop type evaluation criteria beyond automatic weighing systems for meat and poultry plants to include systems for the shipping industry. The other work

group under the Weighing Sector, Class IIIL Scale Testing, is circulating Module 5 on Vehicle Scales to recommend

improvements. Three work groups were formed under the Measuring Sector: one to recommend accuracy classes (Mel

Hankel, Liquid Controls; Jack Jeffries, PL; Ron Murdock, NC; Chuck Strawn, Schlumberger Industries; and Rich Tucker, Tokheim Corp.); one to develop test procedures of compressed natural gas meters (Chuck Miller, DVCO; Gordon Johnson,

Gilbarco; Mike Keilty, Micromotion; Richard Huff, Universal Epsco; a representative from Daniel Industries; and Charlie Nelson, CA); and a third to develop a checklist for mass flow meters (Mike Keilty, Micromotion, Chairman; Eric Kappelt, Smith Meter; and Chuck Strawn, Schlumberger Industries). 102-10 I Policy, Extensions of Existing Vehicle Scales

The Board of Governors requested that at its next meeting the Weighing Sector revisit the issue of mass produced extension

kits. As a minimum, the sector is asked to write an ad hoc testing procedure for different combinations and applications, addressing mechanical and electronic weighing elements separately. The sector might also consider including guidelines in NCWM Publication 14 for jurisdictions to use in field evaluations of combinations of scales and extension kits, whether or

not the kit has been type evaluated. Since no consensus could be reached by the Weighing Sector, the Board decided that the problem does not warrant further attention at the national level. Each State should be advised to test any extensions to an existing vehicle scale beyond the range of the existing CC and extensions by other than the OEM as if they were a new

one-of-a-kind device since there would be no NTEP evaluation of the weighing system. 102-11 I Policy, Clarification of "One-of-a-Kind" Devices

The Board of Governors adopted the following policy as developed by the Weighing Sector of the National Type Evaluation

Technical Committee:

If a device manufactured for sale has been categorized and tested as a "one-of-a-kind" device and the manufacturer then

decides to manufacture an additional device or devices, the device will no longer be considered "one-of-a-kind." This

applies to a device determined to be "one-of-a-kind" by one weights and measures jurisdiction if the manufacturer decides

to manufacture the device and install it in another State. In this case, the manufacturer must request an NTEP evaluation on the device through the normal application process unless NTEP has already deemed that such an evaluation will not be conducted. Note that indicators and load cells in all "one-of-a-kind" installations must have an NTEP CC.

The OWM sent a memo to the States to request that they communicate by fax with NTEP or use the NCWM computer

bulletin board when they determine that a "one-of-a-kind" device is in place in their jurisdiction, so that this information may

be disseminated to other jurisdictions in order to determine whether NTEP policy is being followed. NTEP entered this information in a publicly available file on the NCWM bulletin board so States can access the most current information.

Discussion: The National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Weighing Sector developed the following policy guidelines

for consideration by the Board and entry into NCWM Publication 14:

1. If a scale company converts an existing structure, such as a hopper, into a weighing device in an existing installation or retrofits an existing scale, the device can be considered to fall into the "one-of-a-kind" category under NTEP policy.

64
Executive Committee

In this case, an NTEP CC is not required and the device should be evaluated for compliance with Handbook 44 by the individual weights and measures jurisdiction. This does not apply to equipment purchased by the scale company for conversion and installation into a new location, which falls into the category of "remanufactured."

2. If a device manufactured for sale has been categorized and tested as "one-of-a-kind" and the manufacturer then decides

to manufacture an additional device or devices, the device will no longer be considered "one-of-a-kind. " This applies

to a device that has been determined to be "one-of-a-kind" device by one weights and measures jurisdiction if the manufacturer decides to manufacture the device and install it in another State. In this case, the manufacturer must

request an NTEP evaluation on the device through the normal application process unless NTEP has already deemed that such an evaluation will not be conducted. Note that, for all "one-of-a-kind" installations, the weights and measures jurisdictions should require the device to use an

indicator and load cells with an NTEP CC.

In discussion with the Weighing Sector Chairman, John Elengo, and Technical Advisor, Tina Butcher, the Board of Governors decided to adopt only item 2 of the recommended policy, and that it should become general policy, not applying

only to scales and weighing systems. There was disagreement among the Board members about the advisability of recommending item 1 at this time due to differing enforcement policies in the separate States. Some members were opposed

to forcing the jurisdiction to completely test devices when the conversion of a hopper of a given design into a weighing

device might be equivalent to a series of conversions by the same company resulting in the same final design. In other words, some conversions might not create unique "one-of-a-kind" devices. Other Board members both disagreed and agreed

with item 1 based on their experiences with conversions. Disagreement with item 1 is based on field conversions being made

into a weighing system with equipment that was not intended to weigh, and that the resulting weighing systems should not even be allowed. Agreement with item 1 is based on the fact that States can test these "one-of-a-kind" systems to the extent equivalent to NTEP; it just requires a great deal more resources in time, equipment, and effort to do so. This is unfortunate, but necessary. In order to get these systems to perform, there is a great deal of custom manufacture and assembly. Because some of the equipment is old and some new and some manufactured on site, the initial installation should be thoroughly

tested. 102-12 I Policy, Repaired and Remanufactured Scales

The Board of Governors had not been able to discuss this item at the 78th Interim Meeting in the detail that it deserved, and

intended to do so at the 1994 Interim Meeting. The Committee plans to act on items 102-10, 102-1 1, and 102-12 during the coming year. Members are invited to comment as soon as possible on these items. The Weighing and Measuring Sectors were requested to discuss the issue and provide more guidance to the Board, which

is prepared to accept the interpretation and guidance of the Office of Weights and Measures (provided below) if there is no

opposition. The Measuring Sector was asked to suggest how the NTEP principles should be applied to repaired and

remanufactured measuring devices and systems. The weights and measures community is asked to study this issue, discuss

it in the regional meetings, at trade association meetings, and when considering State policy on repaired and remanufactured

devices, not only scales. Please call or write with your input on this critical issue. As States have moved to require NTEP

CCs, OWM has received inquiries regarding application of how NTEP policy to repaired and remanufactured equipment,

including devices assembled from used parts of the same make and model or from used parts from different models made

by the same scale manufacturer. Remanufactured equipment is defined as the overhaul or replacement of parts to enable a device to be installed in a new

location. Repair is defined as the maintenance or replacement of parts for a device remaining in the same location .

Discussion: Henry Oppermann authored a memorandum on November 9, 1992, summarizing policy and stating the OWM

position regarding issues where definitive policy had not been established. That memorandum serves as the basis for policy development through the NTETC Sectors and the NTEP Board of Governors; it focusses on scales, but many aspects are applicable to all commercial devices.

Current NTEP Policy

1 . An NTEP CC applies to the specified design (type or family) for a specific manufacturer, the parameters for which are often defined through NCWM Publication 14.

65
Executive Committee

2. If a company copies the design of a device made by another company that has a CC for the device, the CC does not apply

to the "copy." The company that copied the device must get an evaluation of its "type" because critical aspects of the original manufacturing process and quality control may significantly effect the performance. These aspects may not be

evident in the finished product and may not be incorporated in the process used to manufacture the "copy."

3. Scales Code performance requirements under T.N. 8. Influence Factors Requirements apply to electronic devices. If an

electronic scale had a type evaluation before 1986, the type must (or had to) be resubmitted for an appropriate form of

type evaluation to determine compliance with the influence factors requirements. Small scales had to be submitted for

testing over a temperature range. Larger capacity scales that had a CC or an OWM Report of Test prior to 1986 had

to be modified by using load cells and an indicator with NTEP CCs to obtain an updated NTEP CC for the scale.

4. Mechanical scales (excluding belt-conveyor scales because of the belt) are not considered to be affected by temperature changes. Consequently, the original CC or OWM Report of Test is still valid and no additional testing is required.

5. Virtually all weighbridge designs must have their own type evaluations. At the June 1992 meeting of the Weighing

Sector, it was concluded that concrete and steel weighbridges (load-receiving element) for the same weighing element

design and produced by the same manufacturer must each receive its own type evaluation. A memorandum dated January

3, 1991, provides more detail regarding the type evaluation of weighing elements.

6. NTEP recognizes "one-of-a-kind" devices, designed or customized for a specific application in a specific installation. This concept does not permit multiple devices of the same device to be installed in different States (although there may

be only one per State) and still be classified as one-of-a-kind. When a "unique" design becomes a standard product, in that multiple devices are subsequently manufactured, then the device must be submitted for type evaluation and a CC

issued before it can be accepted in those States that require an NTEP CC.

7. Replacement of "metrologically-significant" mechanical parts with parts of a different design (e.g., the replacement of

levers with levers of a different design) invalidates the original CC.

8. If a company buys NTEP load cells and an NTEP indicating element and then manufactures a scale from the parts, the complete scale must be submitted for type evaluation to assess its performance characteristics for compliance with Handbook 44.

9. If load cells are repaired by other than the original manufacturer or the manufacturer's authorized agent, then the CC for the load cell does not apply to the repaired load cells.

In June 1992, the Weighing Sector of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation discussed the remanufacture of scales and which devices must be submitted for type evaluation. Remanufactured equipment is defined as the overhaul

or replacement of parts to enable a device to be installed in a new location. The criteria are listed below.

(1) If a device with an existing NTEP CC is remanufactured by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or authorized agent using OEM parts, no additional evaluation is required, and the original CC applies, provided that the remanufacturing process does not modify the design of the device.

If a device without an existing NTEP CC is remanufactured by the OEM or authorized agent, the device must be

submitted to NTEP for evaluation in order to be recognized on an NTEP CC.

(2) If a device with or without an existing NTEP CC is remanufactured by a company other than the OEM or authorized

agent, it must be marked with the remanufacturer's name, model designation, non-repetitive serial number, and the

qualifier for the serial number as required by G-S.l., General Code of Handbook 44. The device must be submitted to NTEP for evaluation; the device submitted to NTEP for evaluation should be a device considered by the remanufacturer to be a "typical" example of the remanufactured devices overhauled by the remanufacturer.

(3) Remanufactured devices will be evaluated in the same manner as newly manufactured devices, using the same test procedures and criteria. No test results obtained for the original equipment will be accepted in lieu of actual testing.

66
Executive Committee

(4) The same guidelines for including parameters of a device on a CC that apply to newly manufactured equipment shall apply to remanufactured equipment. Repair is defined as the maintenance or replacement of parts for a device remaining in the same location. The

guidelines for the repair and replacement of scale parts are as follows.

(1) The repair of a mechanical scale with parts consistent with the design and quality of the original parts does not invalidate the CC.

(2) Except for the substitution of load cells identified earlier, the policy regarding the repair of electronic scales by replacing various electronic components has not been agreed upon. The replacement of electronic components that affect the analog-to-digital converter, gain circuitry, and dead load may affect compliance with the influence factors of Handbook

44.

Basic Principles

Specific issues have been raised regarding the repair, remanufacture, and replacement of pans, particularly in mechanical

scales. It is necessary to reference some basic principles that can be applied to provide guidance in the areas where definitive policy does not exist. Some of the repair issues have been discussed by the Weighing Sector on at least two occasions. Agreement was not reached on all issues because many companies or service agencies repair scales of different manufacturers, consequently the ramifications of restricting "minor" repairs would be extremely disruptive to the maintenance

of equipment. The following principles form the basis for NTEP policy and practices:

1. A manufacturing site may be moved, but the manufacturer is responsible for manufacturing the device consistent with

the original type. The manufacturer is expected to apply the same quality control procedures regardless of location.

2. A CC does not apply to a similar device made by another company, even if the design was "copied" from a device with

a CC, because the quality control aspects and any specialized manufacturing techniques may not be part of the manufacturing process of the other company. Consequently, any company that is not authorized by the OEM to manufacture or install the device must demonstrate through a successful type evaluation that the device model is capable of complying with Handbook 44.

3. Metrologically equivalent parts may be substituted for parts produced by the OEM. The criteria for metrologically

equivalent load cells have been developed, but the details of metrological equivalence for other equipment or parts remain

undefined. This is similar to the situation where NTEP must make judgments of when a device has undergone a

significant modification. (See Section I of the Administrative Procedures for NTEP in NCWM Publication 14.)

4. Superficial differences (differences that are not metrologically significant) among devices are permitted.

5. The OEM may authorize a distributor to sell the manufacturer's product (equivalent to the device originally type

evaluated), but with the distributor's name and model designation. The original manufacturer remains responsible for ensuring that the model sold by the distributor is equivalent to the original design. This process does not work in reverse. For example, if a device is manufactured by a company, but is submitted for type evaluation by a distributor, the

distributor can obtain a CC for the device, but another CC cannot be issued to the original manufacturer at a later date without a new type evaluation because the distributor does not control the manufacturing process. The distributor

specifies the criteria for the product, consequently the distributor cannot ensure that the device marketed by the device manufacturer is the same as what the distributor receives. Responses to Specific Issues

Several questions have been raised regarding repair practices and devices routinely encountered in weights and measures

enforcement. Several States have requested guidance regarding the position they should take when requiring that only NTEP

devices be installed in their jurisdiction. The positions of the Office of Weights and Measures are reported below.

I . The repair or replacement of weighbridges has not been addressed by the NTEP Weighing Sector and is not addressed by NTEP policy. However, if the replacement weighbridge is consistent in design, material, and strength of material, then it seems that the new weighbridge is metrologically equivalent to the original. In this case, the original manufacturer

will probably not assume responsibility for the repaired device (which is in a sense equivalent to voiding a manufacturer's

67
Executive Committee

warranty), but the metrological characteristics of the device have not been changed. In this case, the original CC would

still apply. If the weighbridge design is modified, then the metrological characteristics may have changed and the original CC does not apply.

2. Replacement parts for mechanical scales, such as pivots and bearings, are not type evaluated. NTEP has avoided component testing restricting its activities to main elements, such as indicating elements, weighing/load-receiving

elements, and "intelligent" recording elements (printers). By necessity, load cells are evaluated because NTEP is unable

to test the complete weighing/load-receiving element in an environmental chamber. Consequently, to determine compliance with influence factors for medium and large capacity scales, it is necessary to test load cells separately.

In terms of replacement parts for mechanical scales, the business of manufacturing replacement parts by companies other than the OEM was well established before type evaluations were initiated through NTEP. Consequently, the practice and

acceptance of the replacement of "metrologically equivalent" mechanical parts is in place. In principle, the substitution of metrologically equivalent parts does not invalidate the CC.

The replacement of circuit boards with rebuilt boards will not be apparent to weights and measures inspectors. Replacement of some electronic parts will certainly affect compliance with the influence factors requirements. Replacement of electronic parts that affect compliance with influence factors requirements will void the original CC, but no policy addresses this type of repair.

Care must be taken regarding the repair and replacement of parts for mechanical scales to be sure that manufacturers do

not become overzealous by attempting to restrict the source of parts to repair a scale to the original manufacturer, to the exclusion of equivalent parts manufactured by competent companies. The point at which this occurs is not defined. Weights and measures officials must use judgment in making these decisions.

3. The appropriateness of assembling a scale from used parts by other than the OEM has not been specifically addressed.

It is the opinion of the Office of Weights and Measures that the original CC does not apply to the reassembled device because the quality control of parts by the original manufacturer and the control over the assembly process may

not apply to the reassembled scale . It is unlikely that the original manufacturer would assume responsibility for the reassembled product, so it becomes the product of the remanufacturer. NTEP does not have a policy addressing devices assembled from used parts.

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA, Chairman

A. Nelson, Connecticut, Past Chairman and Chair of the Board of Governors

J. Truex, Ohio, Chairman-Elect

S. Colbrook, Illinois C. Fulmer, South Carolina D. Guensler, California

S. Malone, Nebraska

J. A. Rogers, Virginia A. Thompson, Alaska

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Treasurer C. Brickenkamp, NIST, Executive Secretary R. Bruce, Canada Legal Metrology Branch, Advisor when meeting as Executive Committee Executive Committee

68
Executive Committee

Appendix A. Final Report of the Privatization Work Group

Allan M. Nelson, Connecticut, Chairman

Table of Contents Summary 69

Earlier Meeting Reports and Products 71 The Kansas Experience 71 The Washington State Experience 71

Analysis: The Regulatory Role of Weights and Measures 71 Weights and Measures Is Not a Device Testing Service 72 Communications with Decision Makers 72 Economic Benefits of Weights and Measures 72

Final Meeting Report 72 Record As-Found Error 72

Uniformity at the Enforcement Level 73 The Added Efficiency of Computers 73 Program Accreditation 74

Industry's Role in Delivering an Effective Weights and Measures Program 74 How Does a Weights and Measures Agency Funded by Fees Fund Package Testing and Undercover Purchases? ... 75

National Data Sharing and Funding Concerns 77 Weights and Measures, a Service of Government or a Private Sector Function? 79

National Data Sharing 85

Inspection Sampling 87

Accreditation Program 98

National Data Sharing 99

Industry's Perspective 100

Industry's Role 103

References Summary

"Privatization" is defined in this study as the shift of responsibility for maintaining equity in the marketplace from the government sector to the private sector. The future of weights and measures as a government function appeared to be under

siege in many parts of the Nation when the Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century recommended that the issue of

"privatizing" weights and measures be studied. Reports that several states had improved their programs by privatizing weights and measures functions elicited very negative responses from many weights and measures government jurisdictions. On the recommendation of the Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century, the Executive Committee established the Privatization Work Group to study the issue from several perspectives:

1. Was there information from either those who had "privatized," or had refused to privatize did not have, which would

permit consensus to be developed about rational alternatives to maintaining equity in the marketplace? The Work Group found that those who had claimed to have privatized did not know the full extent of the weights and

measures regulatory functions to maintain a fair marketplace. In general, governments that had "privatized" had shifted device testing activities to private service and repair agencies, but had not found ways to privatize testing packaged

commodities, transaction verification, investigation of complaints, or the enforcement of weights and measures laws and

regulations. The Work Group also found that most weights and measures agencies had already privatized testing and placing devices into service after installation or repair. Most weights and measures agencies in other countries had not privatized that far. (Two

repons prepared for Canada's Legal Metrology Branch are available upon request.) Weights and measures regulatory agencies must fmd ways to partner with private sector groups to effectively maintain equity in the marketplace. Government

agencies cannot contract for or transfer to the private sector those functions that are regulatory and enforcement in nature.

69
Executive Committee

The Work Group concluded that:

a. Government decision makers who believe that weights and measures can be privatized do not understand the scope and breadth of weights and measures, nor its intrinsic regulatory nature for maintaining equity in the marketplace.

b. Weights and Measures agencies should be prepared to explain the scope of weights and measures responsibilities when questions are asked about shifting functions to the private sector. Regulatory functions, police powers, rightly belong only to the government. The Work Group generated visual aids that assist in explaining the scope of weights and measures. (See pages 125-128, Report of the 78th NCWM, 1993.)

c. Shifting device testing responsibilities from public agencies to private companies does not privatize the weights and

measures regulatory function. Government oversight over device testing is still required when private companies, such as food stores, are required to purchase testing services (for their scales, for example) from other private companies. (See pages 58-61 in the 1993 Report of the 78th NCWM.)

2. Was the negative response to the concept of privatization merely a self-serving response by govenmient agencies that private businesses did not share? The Work Group was established with both public and private membership. The Scale Manufacturers Association and the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association both declared that privatization of marketplace regulation was not possible, nor was

it desirable, from the perspective of businesses trying to compete in a marketplace that would degrade to a "free-for-all." (See page 61 of the Report of the 78th NCWM, 1993.) The Work Group concluded that marketplace regulation cannot be privatized and that even more than ever there is a need for weights and measures government presence.

a. Unfortunately, many businesses do not understand the need for weights and measures enforcement. It is imperative that weights and measures seek out its business customers and explain what weights and measures government agencies can do to assist business. Weights and measures at all levels needs to market its regulatory

services. (See Chairman Tom Geiler's speech appended to this final report, page 79.)

b. Weights and measures cannot continue to do its job in the same way as always, however. Whether weights and

measures regulation is supported by general taxation or by fees to businesses, it must devise ways to gain greater

efficiency at the same or reduced costs. This includes greater use of computers and use of sampling in more than

the package testing area. (See Darrell Guensler's discussion appended to this final report, page 77.)

3. What steps could be taken to improve equity in the marketplace within the resources available? The ultimate objective of privatization is to save government revenues for other purposes. Introducing efficiencies and

increasing program effectiveness can also save government resources. The Work Group discussed many alternatives to traditional weights and measures activities that might increase efficiency and effectiveness, such as sampling from a device population (also called variable frequency of inspection), similar to sampling packages for net contents testing (See page ?.) Cross-jurisdictional measures to determine the effectiveness of program alternatives are lacking. The Work Group determined that (1) the as-found errors in devices should be recorded (rather than allowing the device owner to rezero his device before testing); and (2) the actual errors in devices should be recorded (rather than

just "in" or "out" of tolerance) so that the economic impact of errors can be estimated as compared with program

costs. These numerical estimates can be used to set the "benchmark" level of equity at a particular time. Changes

in program can then be assessed against these benchmarks as to their effectiveness. The Work Group recommends that a new work group be established to build on the outlines of what individual agencies and this work group have done to measure the benefits of weights and measures activities. The objectives of this work group would be to devise ways to measure whether changes in process, procedures, or program are

actually improvements. Its scope of work would be to provide tools to measure the benefits and costs of individual parts of a weights and measures program, and to provide uniformity in reporting those measures and uniformity in the meaning of the data reported. The Work Group would report to the Education Committee or its successor, the Administration and Public Affairs Committee.

70
Executive Committee

The Work Group also recommends that a second work group be added to the NCWM already formed by the Central Weights and Measures Association to develop standards for a jurisdictional accreditation program. This work group

should also report in some way to the Administration and Public Affairs Committee. See Sid Colbrook's remarks at the end of this report.

Earlier Meeting Reports and Products The first meeting, October 1992, produced a set of visual aids that could be used or modified to describe weights and measures and explain the regulatory functions that cannot be shifted to the private sector. At this meeting, the Work Group

analyzed the functions of maintaining equity in the marketplace. Traditional functions begin with the metrology laboratory

to assure accuracy in transactions involving measurements, on through a list of other functions and activities, including sampling from marketplace transactions. Members of the Conference and Work Group also wrote letters explaining the weights and measures regulatory functions, and visited legislatures and other decision makers to provide rationale for maintaining weights and measures regulatory oversight by the government. This was successful for the States of Iowa, Massachusetts, and Washington, and the city of

Indianapolis. The Kansas Experience The second meeting was held June 1993 in Topeka, KS, because Kansas has advertised its weights and measures program

as being more effective than ever as a privatized program. The Work Group found that Kansas required all businesses to get their commercial devices tested annually by a private service company. However, Kansas weights and measures was

not privatized in the sense defined by the Privatization Work Group; that is, maintaining a fair marketplace continued to be

the responsibility of Kansas State government. Kansas maintained approximately the same staffing level, still checked

packages, scales, and handled complaints. The State had found that the frequency of inspecting and testing large capacity

scales had declined over the years to about a 4-year cycle. Kansas now requires annual testing at the expense of the device owner, and uses its staff to test devices after repair agencies had performed their annual inspections. In this way, Kansas

maintained its regulatory oversight over the marketplace.

Since Kansas had not had the resources to inspect annually, they mandated that businesses buy annual mspections from the

private sector. However, they do not empower private companies to reject or condemn devices, and the State oversees the work of the private companies. Kansas still needs more resources to train these companies and to better utilize them as contractors of the service part of the weights and measures function. For example, the repair firms that the Work Group

talked with did not inspect devices against specification requirements; they tested the devices and adjusted them to perform

within tolerances. The Washington State Experience The third meeting of the Work Group was held in November 1993 in Seattle, Washington. A report of this meeting is on

page 104. The purpose was to discuss a study conducted by the Washington Office of Financial Management on the subject of the cost benefit of weights and measures in Washington, and to compare that with other States. Although the study did determine the very real economic benefits of weights and measures in Washington and led to the continuation of the program,

the study leaders were not able to evaluate the worth of the Washington program in comparison with other States. The lack of uniformity in the report to Washington was yet another instance of the harm often caused by nonuniformity in reporting and field enforcement (assumed because the compliance rates were so very different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). Several recommendations were made about the kind of data needed to make cost/benefit decisions. Work Group members who direct weights and measures regulatory programs submitted copies of their reporting forms and quickly came to the conclusion that standardized report forms are needed in order to compare compliance data and error rates. The Work Group

also noted that actual errors need to be recorded in order to make economic evaluations.

Analysis: The Regulatory Role of Weights and Measures Many definitions of "privatization" are quite general, often, meaning the shift of services from government to private sources

in order to save government funds for other priorities. Privatization of such services as trash collection, parks maintenance, and hospitals are examples of successful shifts from public to private providers. However, the heart of weights and measures

is regulation of the marketplace to maintain equity, although many weights and measures activities are perceived as services. The Work Group hypothesized that privitization of weights and measures may seem reasonable to some groups since it is viewed as a device-testing service, not as a general regulatory function of government. If a State can split service from

regulatory functions, then the service ponion may be privatized. Thus, all but 12 States have regulations that permit private agencies to install devices and place them into service without the presence of weights and measures officials. Kansas has gone one step further, requiring devices to be tested at least annually by a private company. Kansas retains its regulatory

71
Executive Committee

powers and thus must maintain its capability to test devices, hence must add to its resources the capability to train the private companies that test devices. Weights and Measures Is Not a Device Testing Service

If we focus on today's weights and measures agencies, we see that many are reducing staff and other resources so that they

little more than test devices; this is inadequate marketplace oversight. All weights and measures agencies should also be

ensuring that potential customers are adequately informed, training and inspecting the work of registered repair companies and weighmasters, testing packages, and buying and selling undercover to ensure that entire transactions are conducted fairly. Under tough fiscal constraints, the only way jurisdictions can possibly find the time and resources to look at other elements of the marketplace is by devising ways to sample devices, not test every device aimually. Jurisdictions know that they should

focus resources on transactions with poor compliance levels. Unfortunately, many agencies feel trapped into generating fees for device testing. In other words, they must convince decision makers that licensing and fees must support the other elements of weights and measures marketplace oversight. Fees must be set high enough to support the total program or

general tax revenues must be made available for these other activities for which fees cannot be charged. Communications with Decision Maimers

In order to justify the amount of fees or general tax revenues supporting a weights and measures program, legislators, governors, business leaders, and the general public must be made aware of the benefits of marketplace regulation. Weights and measures agencies and their management must interface with the community they serve, explaining the weights and measures function and how it helps, and listening to the community to find ways to serve them better, more effectively, more

efficiently, and at less cost. NCWM Chairman Geiler provided a copy of his speech on the subject of privatization;

it is appended to the end of this report and will provide for thoughtful discussion by those considering privatization of weights and measures functions. Economic Benefits of Weights and Measures

Weights and measures agencies need measures of effectiveness against which to compare changes and determine the efficacy of their programs. This was a serious flaw in Washington State when it discussed privatizing weights and measures. There was no data available on the economic value of weights and measures regulation in Washington. The data provided by other

States in response to a questionnaire from Washington indicated that there were no uniform measures that could indicate the economic value of the basic functions that cost the most, such as device inspection. Washington State has been collecting some of that data over the past 2 years, the indication that economic benefits far outweigh the costs. For example, in the area of large capacity scale testing in Washington, which costs the state less than $500,000 to operate, annual dollar savings from devices that would have continued to be used without repair when they were in fact operating beyond the tolerances were more than $30 million dollars. Unfortunately, this information was not available before the State Legislature decided

to withdraw general tax revenues as a source of funding this program. However, the program is now fee supported and there

is general agreement that weights and measures is a necessary government function. A copy of the Washington State Study

is available from the Office of Weights and Measures.

Final Meeting Report The final meeting of the Privatization Work Group was held June 1994 in Las Cruces, NM. It was held to summarize the work and to make one last attempt to determine whether means and methods were available, or would have to be invented,

to permit comparison of compliance levels, cost, or economic benefit from one jurisdiction to another. Record As-Found Error Dave Smith, NC, piloted efforts in his jurisdiction to collect data on the actual errors found during device testing. His

studies indicate that the field officials cannot test as many devices when more data must be collected. The officials must

be retrained and the report forms modified. For example, inspectors cannot immediately disconnect automatic temperature compensators when testing volume delivery devices. They must run an additional test in the as-found condition in order to determine the amount of error that would presumably continue if weights and measures inspectors had not tested at that time.

In addition, the field inspector cannot effectively obtain the sales data or other economic value data of the commodities being measured. To estimate the economic value of inspection will require the State office to find the economic value of commodities being measured. A state office can obtain this information from state or regional trade associations and

marketing boards. Mr. Smith's report is appended to this report.

Darrell Guensler pointed out that until one can measure effectiveness of a program, there is no way to measure whether

changes can improve it. He pointed out that we must list the objectives and outcome measures for each element of a program, then have national norms against which to compare. Only through this standard setting and data collection can the promise of future efficiencies from sampling devices, rather than testing each one, be assessed. One of the prime statements

72
Executive Committee

made at the Work Group meetings, is that Weights and Measures agencies must learn to "hoe where the weeds are." As

resources diminish, we must reson to selective testing and focus on worst actors. A cop on the beat has a deterrent effect, but few jurisdictions can afford more cops on a beat. Mr. Guensler also pointed out that we must find different ways to fund our programs; assessing a license or fee demands that agencies test annually as external proof that businesses are getting value for their fee. This does not permit rational programmatic adjustments. As a result of discussion at this last meeting, however, the Work Group decided that recording the actual error and

as-found errors should be collected as part of a sampling effort in each jurisdiction to determine the "marketplace

conditions" at the time of the survey. It is not necessary to record the as-found error and the actual numerical errors found for every device tested. A sample will also provide the economic information needed. Chip Kloos, HuntWesson, provided guidance on sampling and some simple sampling plans as tools for determining the level of compliance without having to test every device (or every business). His report is also appended to this report. Mr. Kloos provided a repon that guides inspection agencies through widely available sampling plans, Military Standards 414

and 105-D, showing to read these plan to determine how much sampling of the population (of meters, of scales, of

businesses, of business locations) is needed to be effective in lieu of 100% testing. The Military Standards have been widely

used since World War II as decision tools to determine when to increase testing if results are poor and when to reward

suppliers or companies who routinely comply. Mr. Kloos provided descriptions of how to use these standard statistical tools both for decision making and for estimating

the level of compliance. Military Standard 105D is called a set of "attributes" sampling plans, that is, one decides whether

a device, for example, is in tolerance or not; is "good" or "no good"; black or white. Military Standard 414 is called "variables" sampling plans, because one can often record the actual measurement value associated with any inspection, for example, the error for each device, such as -4 cu in. Attributes sampling plans require larger sample sizes than variables sampling plans, but both give valid results. Handbook 133 provides variations on Mil Std 414 as a means to test the net contents of packaged goods. All sampling plans are based on taking random samples. Alternative sampling might include

cluster sampling, which is useful when most of the inspector's time is spent traveling to and from an inspection site. Another

type of sampling is called stratified sampling. These tools allow us to concentrate either on devices or on businesses. Uniformity at the Enforcement Level The need for uniformity at the enforcement level was one of the key issues identified by the Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century. Washington State and the Privatization Work Group were not able to cross compare the effectiveness of

different jurisdictions due to the differences in interpretation, nor the information they recorded about what they did. In Kansas, the data before and after requiring armual testing by private service agencies was non-intercomparable due to a lack of uniformity in what was considered noncompliance before and after the program was changed. This affected the resulting

statistics of the efficacy of the programmatic changes. When the Work Group investigated whether there were model report forms or other information in the training modules that might be used to standardize reporting, only the net contents package

inspection module, Module 10, had a standardized report form. Another standardized report form is that of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Packers and Stockyards Administration form for testing livestock scales. The Work Group

agreed that if standardized reporting were instituted, much greater uniformity in testing and inspection would result. The Work Group recommends the survey and establishment of standards in reporting key numerical data on errors found

in the marketplace to use for measuring the state of equity and the effect of changes. The Added Efficiency of Computers

Although not absolutely mandatory in order to benefit from standardized reporting, government agencies should take advantage of the labor savings that computers can provide. In order to establish a central data bank either within the State headquarters or at the national level, data must at some point be made accessible by computer. The greatest efficiency would

be to provide field inspectors with lap-top computers for field entry of data. Today computers are much more rugged and

will hold up in hostile field conditions much better than their predecessors. In addition, tiny battery-powered printers are available that can provide a professional report in the field to the business on-site. Linking a lap-top computer by modem

to a central office computer to upload and download the data provides additional speed of data entry without the usual keyboard data entry errors that occur when one person tries to read another person's handwritten information. Some jurisdictions have computerized their package inspection reports. One jurisdiction, Kern County CA, is in the process of computerizing all its inspection reports. Ideally, we should seek uniformity in computer programs and data while these new systems are being invented. California may be able to purchase a few lap-top computers and provide pilot study experience in this area. NIST OWM is evaluating an off-the-shelf software package, a front-end application that permits data bases to accept data from an electronic report form. OWM expects to evaluate it with the NTEP Laboratories and eventually

73
Executive Committee

expand it. Sid Colbrook reminded the Work Group of the absolute necessity for developing standardized test procedures

for all aspects of weights and measures activities for which data may be collected, ensuring that any information system is compatible with a national system. The Weights and Measures Information System (WAMIS) computer bulletin board

is underutilized and could be a convenient vehicle for collecting national data. A survey is needed to determine what

systems and software jurisdictions are currently using. Another advantage of computer access in the field would be accessibility to all the helps in testing procedures, such as providing a compact and portable way to prompt and guide field inspectors in test and inspection procedures. Computers

can contain all of the handbooks, modules, and examination procedures and have examination procedure outlines integrated with the report forms as guides to assist the inspector who is conducting the test. This would be a great aid to any inspector who must conduct an inspection in a while. The successor of the Privatization Work Group should survey the

jurisdictions to determine what computer programs are already in use to record data from the field, the type of data

that is collected, and the purposes for which the data is collected. The Work Group believes that portable computers

will become as necessary an adjunct for field inspection as traceable weights and provers. Program Accreditation

Sid Colbrook, IL, discussed the efforts of the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) to establish a weights and measures accreditation program within the Central region. CWMA believes that standards for all aspects of a weights and measures government agency should be established and that accreditation should be offered to those programs that meet

these standards. CWMA has a volunteer corps to develop the standards, namely Sid Colbrook, Steve Malone, NE,

Jim Truex, OH, and Tom Stabler, Mettler-Toledo. CWMA discussed the possibility of conducting an audit of a state program against the standards, not only of its administration and management, but also of the marketplace condition within

the jurisdiction. Several years ago the Conference evaluated of weights and measures programs with a group of three to five NCWM members visiting and reporting on their general status. There were general criteria, but they were not strictly applied. CWMA thinks that jurisdictions are now ready for more standardization and the resulting benefits. The

accreditation program has five primary objectives: development of uniform testing procedures, uniform training for inspectors, uniform training for administrators, uniform standards for metrology, and a higher degree of integrity in the overall programs. Industry will benefit from uniformity, of course, but State now realize potential benefits as well. Having

adopted Handbook 44 isn't enough to attain enforcement uniformity; we need peer pressure to stay uniform. Weights and

measures agencies make short cuts that they shouldn't.

Linking the CWMA group to the NCWM would have mutual benefits. CWMA would get resources from the Conference and a technical advisor. The NCWM Administration Committee would get highly motivated volunteers to flesh out minimum

standards. Mr. Colbrook's presentation is appended to this report. The Work Group believes that the CWMA group

should become a work group under the program evaluation group recommended to carry on the work of the

Privatization Work Group.

Industry's Role in Delivering an Effective Weights and Measures Program

Enlightened businesses are NCWM members. Slightly more than half the membership of the NCWM is Associate, that is, from private sector participants. It is important that neither individual weights and measures agencies nor the NCWM itself lose sight of industry as its customers. We have in the past 10 years begun to strength and formalize the vital relationship with businesses within the NCWM - membership on the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, on work groups, and on subcommittees. The moves that the Executive Committee is making to establish Associate membership on the Executive Committee is a very important step in bonding the business community at the national level to the regulatory community. Associate members arc anxious to help bring new Associate members up to speed and enlist them in important work of the Conference. This same participation and interaction is needed at the State and local level. Some State weights and measures associations have strong and vital working relationships with their business leaders; others need to establish

this as the only way that retailers can be educated to accept something different from annual testing as the service they

receive for their licenses or fees. Concerning the role of repair and service companies, no private business that sells or services equipment for a fee should

ever be put into the role of condemning or taking equipment out of service. Service agencies can provide an important

adjunct to government testing of devices, but only if they are provided adequate training. Unfortunately, no service agency

can afford much of its own training, so a jurisdiction may have to require the training on laws, regulations, and test methods

at least on an annual basis to get the expertise required. Many Associate members believe that this is not just a weights and measures government responsibility, but a shared responsibility to train service agency people. The Institute of Weights and Measures, an Associate membership underwritten effort, has trained hundreds of service people on NTEP these past 2 years. Some local divisions of the International Society of Weighing and Measurement (ISWM) also provide good "Scales on

74
Executive Committee

Saturday" training. But adequate funding is never available, and most States have no training requirements for their registered service agencies. The only other driving force to get repair agency staff trained is when a jurisdiction "causes problems" by rejecting more than the normal number of devices. This gets service companies' attention, and causes unnecessary frustration on the part of the government agency, the device owner, and the service company alike. Another improvement in the State weights and measures system would be a standardized test form for repair agencies instead of the different state reporting requirements and forms. Repair agencies are growing in size and many do business across

State lines. Many States do not require any specific report form, or if they do, it is not the same form as used by their own

staff. How can a State audit the adequacy of a repair agency not using the same report and not doing the same test?

It may also be time to change the Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Service Persons and Service Agencies

to a mandatory requirement. All repair firms should meet the same standards within any jurisdiction. Instead of removing

their licenses, 12 weeks of training might be imposed when serviced equipment still does not meet tolerances. Device

manufacturers would gladly participate in repair company training and provide vital resources. A jurisdiction must have the resources to test devices very soon after service in order to review the quality of any service company's work. Years ago

the Laws and Regulations Committee studied the Registration Regulation and found that its greatest shortcomings then were

the lack of administrative policy guidelines on how to test, train, and monitor repair companies. Data on repair firms cannot be adequately maintained without computer database information retrieval. This aspect of weights and measures government

oversight should be part of the minimum standards for jurisdiction accreditation. RemarKs by Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association, are appended to this report, focussing on industry's role in weights and measures. Mr.

Rich Tucker, Tokheim Corporation, representing the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association, also provided his position

in writing, also appended. Due to individual competitive issues, it is often the trade associations, rather than individual businesses, that actively support

a weights and measures agency. As long as there are no "problems," businesses are uninterested in weights and measures.

Individual businesses will more willingly help to provide training, but might not be as willing to go to a State legislature in support for weights and measures (although individual businesses have done so). Efforts by Ken Butcher this past year have

led the Food Marketing Institute to offer the NCWM a booth at its mammoth trade show in Chicago next year. It is important to seize every opportunity to let businesses know more about weights and measures and why regulation will help

their business. How Does a Weights and Measures Agency Funded by Fees Fund Package Testing and Undercover Purchases? Mr. Smith explained that fees are just a tax directed at a narrow segment of the business population. Weights and measures

agencies should get involved when fee programs are introduced or modified to make sure that the fees are high enough to support other aspects of the weights and measures program. Device testing should be only a small part of any well rounded

weights and measures program. All Work Group members were philosophically opposed to using civil penalties, fines or

other retributive system, to support a weights and measures program. However, some legislators feel that there is no need

for a regulatory program if there are no violations. The Work Group does not want any weights and measures agency to be perceived as bounty hunters. Programs should be able to demonstrate their costs and offsetting revenues from fees, fines, and other revenue sources, but not directly depend upon those revenue sources. Chip Kloos, from Hunt-Wesson said that the primary beneficiaries of package testing are the packagers and that they might very well be willing to support package

testing programs. Unfortunately, the closest special interest groups speaking for weights and measures to the legislatures represent device manufacturers and service agencies. This gives additional credence to the perception of weights and

measures as device testing agencies only. In addition, many agencies have been reduced to programs supported only by their device inspection fees and only test devices. Some jurisdictions are considering other methods to generate funds, such as consulting or training businesses on a cost recovery basis. These services would be nonregulatory in nature and would not cost the taxpayer anything. For example,

the NJ Department of Transportation is now trained and licensed to consult for businesses to reduce car use; their services

are paid by industry. Mr. Kloos raised the issue of in-plant inspection of packages as another area that would benefit manufacturers and which

they might be willing to support. Mr. Guensler reported that California officials visit packaging plants about every other

year, and that they use retail inspection as a means to force packagers to fill full net weight. Mr. Kloos said that his company's plants were located in five States, but that checking there would benefit all 50 States, and that funding such a

project might be possible. Mr. Colbrook said that his agency would need additional clarification of authority to go into plant, for example, an inspection warrant, or administrative search warrant. Mr. Guensler said that the greatest benefit from in- plant inspection would be to the small packager lacking the statistical and quality control capabilities of large companies.

75
Executive Committee

The Privatization Work Group concluded its work by offering to make its members available for guidance and continuity

to assist the next work group, if the Executive Committee and Education Committee acts favorably on the Privatization Work

Group's recommendations.

Privatization Work Group

Allan M. Nelson, Connecticut, Chairman Thomas F. Geiler, Barnstable MA

Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Randy Hutton, Winn-Dixie Tom Stabler, Mettler-Toledo Jennifer Colman, Food Marketing Institute Darrell Guensler, California Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson, Inc. N. David Smith, North Carolina Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association Richard Tucker, Tokheim Corporation Carroll Brickenkamp, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Robert Bruce, Legal Metrology Branch, Canada

76
Executive Committee

National Data Sharing and Funding Concerns

by Darrell Guensler, California

\V"hy CoUect Data?

There are at least two reasons to collect data. The first is to help improve program effectiveness and efficiency. The second

is to provide information to help justify necessary programs in order to secure adequate resources to carry them out.

WTiat Data Should Be Collected? Marketplace transaction data can reveal how accurate transactions are at a given time, help in priority setting, and be used

as a bench mark to measure against in the future to determine program effectiveness. This data should include

the average error found in a random sample (taken across the entire marketplace of the jurisdiction being evaluated) of a given type of transaction (retail gasoline transactions, packaged meat sales, scanner pricing transactions, etc.) Also it is useful to record error information by

t>-pe of business (grocery versus discoimt drug, aluminum can buyers versus household movers, etc.), by business name (Safeway, Thrifty, etc.) and by region (coimt>', cit>', etc.) if applicable. This information may also aid in budget justifications. Complaint data, recorded by type of transaction and by specific business, is also useful for priority setting and budget

justification.

Inspection result data which includes detailed information on what was inspected, the results of the mspection, and the impact of the error (if applicable) is useful in various ways. Useful data includes: For device inspections: manufacturer, model number,

serial number,

size or capacity', product measured,

device owner,

service company,

as-found error converted to percentage, (at least one or two points in the inspection), etc.

For package inspections: packer,

date of pack or pull date, package size,

lot size, product,

seller, as-foimd error, etc. For bulk products sales verifications:

seller, product, grade (if applicable), manufacturer (if applicable), as-foimd error, etc. Annual sales data on the various products under inspection (devices, packages, or bulk) is necessary to properly extend the

effect of the as-fovmd errors. Population and general data including workload measurements (number of devices, number of establishments, etc.), available personnel resources, costs (by program), number of people impacted by program (statewide population, etc.), and

per capita costs are all useful.

77
Executive Committee

Translate Error to Dollar Value Loss or Gain

Error data can be translated to impact on the marketplace in several ways: Weighing or Measuring Devices. By utilizing annual sales data in the jurisdiction and applying average retail prices and

device errors to the equation, the overall impact of the mean error on the marketplace can be projected. Also, comparisons

can be made to previous evaluations of the jurisdiction or to evaluations conducted on comparable jurisdictions. Further, with

individual establishment information, projections can be made relative to the impact on fair competition between sellers. Finally, these impacts can be compared to the cost of providing the verification service. Prepackaged and Bulk Sale Commodities. Similar evaluations can be made for packaged commodities or bulk sales. For

example, (for purposes of the example, uncertainties are disregarded) if a random selection is taken of prepackaged meat

in a county jurisdiction and the mean error is determined to be +1.51 percent, the impact can be projected in various ways.

If compared to the mean error of -0.78 percent determined in a county which has no inspection program, the savings to consumers (based on annual sales of approximately $62 million) is $1 .4 million for a program, which in this case, costs less than $60,000 annually to operate. If compared to a statewide average of +1.69 percent, the results show that the program

compares favorably to the larger area. If individual packer data is evaluated it may show significant enough differences to project fair competition comparisons.

Is Standardized Format Necessary?

If the data is to be shared nationwide it must be collected in a standardized format. Field data should be collected and

transferred electronically. Data format and accompanying software which enhances the field inspection as well as collects data should be centrally developed and disseminated to the participating agencies. How Do We Fund Package Testing and Undercover Purchases? Weights and measures package testing and undercover purchases are properly funded through general tax revenues since the

benefits are universal. If this ftinding source is not available, the next place to look is to the primary beneficiaries of the program.

In the case of undercover purchases, the primary beneficiary is the seller's competitor. Large errors which have a significant impact on buyers are normally self-evident and therefore self-correcting. Small errors normally only detected by weights and measures undercover purchases have minimal impact on individual buyers but have a significant impact on competitors

trying to make a legitimate profit in the marketplace.

In the case of package checking activities, the primary beneficiary is the packer's competitor since, as stated above, most

errors identified in the marketplace have the greatest impact on fair competition.

Finding an efficient method of taxing the primary beneficiaries is a difficult process. In the case of packagers, a tax could be levied on the number of packages produced or sold in a given jurisdiction. In the case of undercover purchases, a license

fee could be established for businesses which make bulk sales of commodities. Depending on civil penalties for funding may be a dangerous and possibly unethical procedure. It is however, quite appropriate to utilize the civil penalty process to recover investigative costs. Why should the law abiding business pay for the extra costs of investigation caused by the bad actor? Another possible method of gaining better compliance, with less general fund resources, is to develop a cost recovery training and consulting program to offer businesses. Under such a concept, weights and measures cold conduct non-regulatory

inspections and training of store or plant personnel to better equip them for compliance with weights and measures

requirements.

78
Executive Committee

Weights and Measures, a Service of Government or a Private Sector Function?

by Thomas F. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

Traditional weights and measures functions have been a service of govenmient to protect the interests of buyers and sellers of measured commodities. This service has been viewed as a third party in all commercial transactions intent on ensuring

equity by preventing any bias or fraud. In most industrialized countries this function has been provided by the Federal Government. In the United States, however, the responsibility for weights and measures services lies with the States by

virtue of the States Rights portion of the U. S. Constitution. Many States patterned their State Constitution after the U. S. Constitution and shared their responsibility with cities and counties in structuring their weights and measures function as a

joint state, county, or city responsibility. One of today's buzzwords in and out of government is "privatization. " This is a term often applied to the act of transferring a traditional government function to the private sector with the aim of reducing the cost of government, or increasing private

sector competitiveness and improving service levels. There are as many definitions as there are proposals and each identifies some perceived benefit to a change in the structure of providing the service. Weights and Measures services have increasingly been the subject of discussion as a possible beneficiary of privatization. Before we can begin to understand how such a proposal may impact the delivery of services, we need to understand the basic

service of a weights and measures program. While there are variations from state to state in their weights and measures

service delivery, the basic components of the function are very similar and usually consist of the following services.

A. Metrology Laboratory Program. A function where the state maintains traceability to measurement standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and is able to issue certification, to standards in use in that state by government and private industry, of the accuracy of those standards based upon a comparison to certified state standards. This function is the foundation of every weights and measures program and provides for uniform standards world wide

through state, national, and international metrology agreements.

B. Device Inspection Program. A program of providing certification, usually annual, to all commercial weighing and

measuring devices in operation in the jurisdiction. The certification is issued upon a satisfactory inspection and test of the device that indicates that the device is accurate, within prescribed limitations, through the full range of its indications and

that it is correct. To be correct a device must conform to standard design requirements and specifications, be used for the purpose for which it was intended, and not be susceptible to or modified for fraudulent use.

C. Net Weight Compliance Program. A program where a percentage of prepackaged commodities are randomly selected and tested to determine compliance with the stated quantity. Inspections are done in packaging plants, warehouses, and retail outlets and involve a full range of commodities. The vast majority of commodities inspected in this program are commodities

that were weighed or measured on noncommercial devices that are not inspected in device inspection programs.

D. Transaction Verification Program. A program where inspectors will make undercover or test purchases of commodities

to determine the accuracy of the stated quantity. This function is generally a random sample process on a percentage of the

total number of commodities available and may also be the result of complaints. Generally, the target is non-prepackaged commodities such as found at service deli, fish, meat, and dairy counters, etc., or petroleum products, such as gasoline,

diesel fuel, home heating oil, etc. , purchased through a metering system. This program provides verification of the accuracy of a stated quantity and may frequently involve a product, such as gasoline of home heating oil, which the consumer has no means of verifying the quantity received. This function may frequently involve the use of a device which was inspected in the device mspection program and provides additional verification that the device is being used correctly and not in a fraudulent maimer, and is maintained in an accurate and correct condition.

E. Complaint Investigation Program. This program provides a process to investigate complaints received from consumers

and industry relating to measurement shortages and overcharges. While many of the complaints received will fit into the everyday investigation of one of the other existing weights and measures functions, many will not. Complaints regarding

the sale of firewood, coal, building materials, etc. will require investigation outside of those normally conducted by existing programs.

F. Government Purchase Verification. Most weights and measures jurisdictions provide assistance to other government

agencies within their jurisdiction in verifying the quantity of purchased goods. Everything from fuel to school lunch food

79
Executive Committee

items, road sand and salt, paper products, chemicals and fertilizers, etc. may be remeasured by weights and measures

officials for other government agencies to ensure full value for government purchases. G. Packaging and Labeling Regulation Program. Weights and measures regulations include the Uniform Packagmg and

Labeling Regulation which is modeled after the Fair Packagmg and Labeling Act adopted by federal agencies. This

regulation requires a uniform approach to packaging and package labeling to provide consumers with a clear, accurate

declaration that assists consumers in making value judgments. These regulations also prevent misleading or deceptive packaging or labeling practices designed to confuse or deceive the consumer. This program involves inspection of a random

sample of prepackaged commodities offered for sale in the marketplace. H. Method of Sale Program. Either through individual state laws or through the Uniform Regulation for the Method of

Sale of Commodities, all states have some form of consumer protection to prevent deceptive method of sale practices which

prevent value comparisons by consumers. Method of sale regulations and laws specify the appropriate unit of measure for a particular commodity and require all commodities of a particular class be sold by a prescribed method of sale to allow for value comparison and prevent confusion or deception. Weights and measures departments are frequently called upon by

industry within their jurisdiction for assistance in developing appropriate packaging and labeling formats for new products. A random sample survey is utilized to ascertain compliance in the marketplace. L Unit Pricing, Item Pricing, Open Dating. Most states have either a mandatory or voluntary regulation, or a combination

of both, to regulate Unit Pricing, Item Pricing and/or Open Dating. In this program, assistance is provided to local industry m understanding their requirements in these areas, as well as a random marketplace survey to determine compliance levels.

J. Weighmaster Program. A program to provide a registration, licensing and enforcement process for "public weighmasters" or third-party measurers m commercial transactions. The purpose of the program is to ensure accurate measurements by public weighmasters and is accomplished by a registration/licensing function and random field inspection of weighmaster activities.

K. Electronic Retail Checkout System Program. The advent of bar coding and electronic scanners, which enter the price of a commodity into a cash register automatically rather than manual entry by a cashier, caused a need to create the process of scanner verification, or more accurately, computer verification. A representative sample of commodities is selected and

run through the scanning system in the same manner a cashier would process a retail customer's order. At the conclusion,

the cash register tape is compared to the stated price of the item for agreement and to determine any noncompliance or overcharges.

L. Motor Fuel Inspection Program. A program to verily that motor fuels be properly labeled at the point of retail sale. Consumers need to know the octane or cetane rating of the fuel, as well as the presence of additives, such as oxygenates.

Inspectors randomly sample motor fuel dispensers to determine labeling compliance. Samples of motor fuel are taken to be

analyzed in a motor fuel laboratory to determine octane or cetane levels and to determine the presence of additives and the percentages. This process determines the compliance level and helps maintain consumers confidence in their purchase of motor fuels. M. Serviceperson/Agency Registration Program. Most states have some form of mandatory or voluntary registration requirements for service persons and service agencies for commercial weighing and measuring devices. This program is conducted primarily for the benefit of the users, manufacturers, and distributors of commercial weighing and measuring

devices. The program involves accepting applications from, and issuing registration certificates to, an individual or agency,

or both, that provides acceptable evidence that he, she or it is fully qualified by training or experience to install, service,

repair, or recondition a commercial weighing or measuring device; has a thorough working knowledge of all appropriate weights and measures laws, orders, rules, and regulation; and has possession of or available for use, and will use, calibrated weights and measures standards and testing equipment appropriate in design and adequate in amount. N. Type Evaluation Program. This is a program of cooperation between the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST), the National Conference on Weights and Measures, the States, and the private sector for determining, on a uniform

basis, conformance of NIST Handbook 44 "Specifications and Tolerances and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing

and Measuring Devices," NIST Handbook 105.1, Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NIST Class F) NIST Handbook 105.2

"Specification and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures, Specifications and

Tolerances for Field Standards Measuring Flask," or NIST Handbook 105.3 "Specifications and Tolerances for Reference

Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures, Specification and Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric

80
Executive Comminee

Field Standards. " This program is essential to the industry in the jurisdiction to provide a level playing field and a nationally uniform standard for equipment design and construction, as well as the application thereof.

O. Training. The broad range of weighing and measuring devices and the rapidly changing technology require a professional training program for weights and measures officials to keep pace with current requirements and regulations and

to be able to apply the requirements uniformly. This function is key to the success of all of the other weights and measures

functions. Both the retail industry' and the device service industry rely on a professional weights and measures function to conduct their competitive activities on a level playing field. Poorly trained weights and measures officials add to the cost of doing business of effected industries and reduce the efficiency of the jurisdiction's weights and measures program, and

greatly reduces the ability of the service to achieve its goal of equit>' in the marketplace.

P. Administration. This function will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction according to the structure of that particular government agency. As with any effective program, professional administration is key to the success of the program.

Administration includes a process for effectively resolving noncompliance issues. Many states have other functions which are unrelated to a traditional weights and measures program which has been assigned

to, and is being performed by, the weights and measures agencies. The basic function of a weights and measures program described above all have one common goal; to provide industry with

a uniform set of standards and regulations by which they may operate and to provide consumers with an assurance that the standards and regulations are being adhered to. Most states have annual sales of commodities sold by units of measure in excess of a billion dollars. Aimual sales in the larger states may be one hundred billion dollars. In all states, the cost of

operating a professional weights and measures program is usually less than 1/10 of 1% of that state's overall annual marketplace dollar volume. Even a moderately successful weights and measures program will have the effect of reducing marketplace measurement errors by at least 20 times the cost of the program. The current trend to reduce the size and cost of government has opened every government function to review as a possible candidate for privatization. Discussion of privatization of weights and measures services usually centers around only one

function of the service and that is the device inspection program. In a typical weights and measures program, the device

inspection function may account for up to 50% of the depanment resources. Most weights and measures privatization efforts are based on the premise that there exists a duplication of service (device inspection) by the public and private sector and

that the elimination of the duplication would increase efficiency and reduce costs. The basis for the suggestion that there

is a duplication of services is apparently based on the observation that weights and measures officials inspect and test weighing and measuring devices and that private sector service persons also inspect and test weighing and measuring devices. This observation demands a closer examination to determine any duplication that may exist.

In a typical government weights and measures fimction, the weights and measures inspector does inspect and test weighing

and measuring devices. The inspection and testing of weighing and measuring devices by weights and measures officials generally fall into three categories: initial verification, subsequent verification, and complaint investigation. Initial verification is usually at the request of the device owner and involves a new or remanufactured device being placed into service for the first time. The weights and measures inspector inspects the device to determine that the device is correct,

that is, that it is appropriate for the intended use, and that the device is in compliance with design, maintenance and user requirements. The inspector then tests the device to determine the accuracy of value or performance of the equipment under

examination by comparison with the actual physical standards of the official. Upon a satisfactory inspection and test of the device, the inspector places an approval seal conspicuously on the device indicating legal compliance at the time of test.

Subsequent verification by the weights and measures inspector is usually unannounced and scheduled by the weights and

measures jurisdiction on a regular basis, most often annually. The basic process for inspection and test are the same for

initial and subsequent verification. Complaint investigation is generally the result of a consumer complaint, but may also be the result of a competitor complaint, serviceperson complaint or even a complaint from the device owner resulting from

a concern over the current accuracy of the device. The inspection and test, as the result of a complaint, may be the same

process as for subsequent verification, or it may be something less depending on the nature of the complaint and the personal knowledge of the inspector regarding the device.

In all cases, the weights and measures official is acting as a third party with no financial interest in the device or the use of

the device. Every state has conflict of interest laws and ethics regulations which prevent the weights and measures official from having any financial interest in the business of buying, selling or repairing weighing and measuring devices or any

financial interest in the business entity which is utilizing a commercial weighing or measuring device. These laws and

81
Executive Committee

regulations are intended not only to prevent any collusion or improprieties, but also the appearance of any conflict or impropriety. Third party verification of measurement accuracy has been the basis of a strong consumer confidence in marketplace accuracy for over two thousand years. Several cenmries ago, when weighing and measuring devices were

simple balances or measure containers, European cities would commonly have a weights and measures official who was

present in the marketplace with official city scales and measures to reweigh or remeasure consumer purchases to verify measurement accuracy and to preserve a sense of order and equity in the marketplace. As the marketplace grew so did the need for weights and measures services. Government appointed weights and measures

officials would go to the several marketplaces and inspect and test the commercial weighing and measuring devices in use and to enforce the laws of equity in the marketplace. Then, as today, this service was to protect the interests of buyers and

sellers alike, regardless of whether the measuring device belonged to the buyer or seller. Today's consumer is much better educated than those of past centuries. He has the ability to count, add, subtract, multiply, divide, and to understand and use

algebraic formulas. However, he still does not have his own commercial weighing and measuring device and must rely on

the accuracy of the device owned by the merchant and the third party verification of that device by the weights and measures

official. The private sector manufacturers sells, installs, services and maintains commercial weighing and measuring devices. Suggestions of duplication of service between weights and measures programs and the private sector center on the weights and measures device inspection function and the segment of industry that installs, services, and maintains commercial weighing and measuring devices. Let us try to examine the similarity and differences of these two functions. The major difference is that the weights and measures function is a law enforcement activity with no financial or beneficial

interest in the device or the transaction. The private sector agency is a for profit entity, selected and compensated by the device owner.

Service agencies install, service and maintain weighing and measuring devices and in the process of so doing should perform

a similar, if not identical, inspection and test procedure as the weights and measures inspector to ensure that the device is in legal compliance. This is the basis for the suggestions that there is a duplication of services between the two groups. While there are similarities in procedures between the weights and measures official and the service persons, it is an error

to suggest that the functions are the same. The service person, in many cases, is also an agent of the device manufacturer

or distributor, as well as under contract to the device owner. His willingness to reject or condemn a device found out of compliance in these circumstances is complicated by his financial interest in his employment. His ability to adhere to a prescribed test and inspection procedure is complicated by his motivation of profit and competitiveness.

It is not uncommon for a retail company with a large number of weighing or measuring devices of a particular class, such

as gasoline pumps or scales, to employ their own service technicians. The motivation of the technician in these instances

is considerably different from that of the weights and measures inspector. Most service technicians have skills and expertise limited to only a few classes of devices. Often the technician's training

is limited to that of a single manufacturer of equipment. A weights and measures official is most often trained to be able

to inspect and test the full range of weighing and measuring devices. The major reason for this is that the training for the weights and measures official is limited to the inspection and testing process, while the service technician must also be trained

in maintenance and repair technology. A typical supermarket today might have 30-50 commercial retail scales. Typically,

all of the scales would be inspected by a single weights and measures official. Service and maintenance of this equipment, however, would typically be provided by three to five different service agencies. In the State of New Hampshire, which

has "privatized" the device inspection function of weights and measures, costs to the retailer have risen dramatically for device inspection services. There are many small retail outlets throughout the state which typically include retail grocery

sales, gasoline sales, propane sales and hardware sales. All of the commercial weighing and measuring devices in these

outlets were aimually inspected by a single weights and measures official inspector when the State provided the service. Today, this same retailer must obtain this service from up to five different service agencies. There simply does not exist any private sector equivalent of a weights and measures inspector. There does exist a large network of private sector agencies that have found their niche in the marketplace. A service agency that might offer maintenance and repair service

to the retail gasoline industry typically does not offer this service to the retail fuel oil delivery company or the retail propane

delivery dealer. The service agencies that maintain and repair supermarket scanner scales typically do not maintain or repair

deli, meat or produce scales. Because of the high costs of training, test equipment, parts inventory and arrangements with

distributors and manufacturers, service agencies tend to concentrate on their marketplace niche.

82
Executive Committee

Transferring the weights and measures device inspection responsibility to the private sector service industry is technically

possible. The service industry is, or should be, very capable of performing an official inspection and test on the commercial

weighing and measuring devices they maintain and repair. However, to suggest that this transfer of responsibility is designed

to reduce or eliminate duplication of effort, reduce costs, or improve efficiency is false. While costs to government agencies may be reduced, costs to the retail industry will skyrocket. Third party verification is eliminated and, along with this, is an erosion of consumer confidence in the marketplace. The retailer's relationship with the service industry will also change. When in the past, a weights and measures official would reject or condemn a weighing or measuring device for noncompliance, the retailer would contact a service agency for repair or replacement of the equipment with reasonable confidence in the decision of the inspector and the advice of the service agency. When a device is rejected by a service agency who also happens to have several expensive components, or even a new device that he can sell the retailer to get the

retailer's equipment back in business, the confidence starts to erode and the entire process becomes a little suspicious. Third

party verification also has a significant benefit to the retailer in this process. What about the cost reduction benefits to government? Earlier we identified the device inspection function of a weights and

measures program as something less than 50% of the program resources and costs. Would the transferring of this function

to the private sector save the government 50% of the weights and measures costs? Proposals to "privatize" device inspection

usually include a proposal for a device inspection audit program. Instead of inspection and testing of all of the devices each

year, the idea is to inspect and test a portion, usually about 20% of the devices, each year as an audit function to ensure that the private sector's service industry is conducting the inspection and tests according to the legal requirements and to maintain some third pany verification. If we test only 20% of the devices annually, will we then save 80% of the program costs? By conducting a random sample of the devices within the state instead of all the devices the cost per inspection will increase because of travel time costs. When inspecting 100% of the devices, the inspector would be assigned a geographic area to minimize travel time and costs. By reducing the total number of devices tested a jurisdiction will have to greatly expand

the geographic area for the inspector. We must also remember that one component of the device inspection program is complaint investigation. "Privatizing" this aspect of the program is not feasible, so the cost of this function is also retained, however, the cost of this will increase for

the same geographic reasons as the audit. A portion of the device inspection program costs of a weights and measures program is also clerical. These costs generally

will increase because the private sector is required in a "privatization" effort to send their official test reports to the weights and measures agency for review. Most "privatization" proposals also require that all service agencies and service persons pay a fee to the state and obtain a

license or registration annually. This licensing or registration function will generate additional revenue for the state, but it will also increase the clerical responsibility of the agency and the cost of clerical services. A close scrutiny of the real costs of a weights and measures "privatization" effort will show a slight reduction in the cost

to government while corresponding costs to retailers increase eight to ten times. While experiencing dramatic increases in their costs retailers will also have to deal with the erosion of confidence. The erosion of confidence develops between the

retailer and the service agency and the consumer and the retailer, as well as between the retailer and his competition. The

level playing field benefit of state weights and measures function is also reduced in this proposal. No business likes government regulation. Complying with any regulation has a cost and the cost is especially painful if you as a business person are paying that cost and you suspect that a competitor is not. Much has been said recently about government maintenance of our infrastructure. Observations have been made that we

as a nation are more concerned with today than we are with tomorrow. Leading economists have suggested that personnel

saving is down, spending on capital improvements by the private sector is down, and government spending and maintenance

of infrastructure is down. If these observations are true, and they certainly appear to be true, our fiscal problems will be even greater tomorrow.

Weights and measures services are our marketplace infrastructure. The strength of tomorrow's marketplace depends on

today's maintenance of that infrastructure. Changes to the methods of providing weights and measures services should be

carefully reviewed to ensure that the marketplace infrastructure is maintained or improved by the changes. Proposed changes

in the delivery of traditional weights and measures services must carefully address conflict of interest issues and marketplace

confidence concerns. Costs must be reviewed not only with an eye towards government costs, but also with a review of the

costs to the retail industry, the service industry, and to the consumer.

83
Executive Committee

Any review of weights and measures services should include an audit or review of the current conditions in a state. The

audit should identify the beneficiaries of weights and measures services and the type of services that are needed. After

identifying what services are needed and the benefits, the audit should identify all of the options for providing the service. Each option should be carefully reviewed to determine the most effective and efficient method to deliver the service. Proposals to change components of a weights and measiu:es function which do not closely examine the effects the changes

will have on remaining services are short sighted. John Quincy Adams, in a remark made to the Senate in 1821, stated "Weights and measures may be ranked among the necessaries of life to every individual of human society. They enter into the economical arrangements and daily concerns of every family and are necessary to every transaction of trade and commerce. " These remarks are still true today and

emphasize the importance of maintaining a weights and measures service delivery system that meets the need of every

individual of human society.

84
Executive Committee

National Data Sharing by N. David Smith, North Carolina

Unless the "as found" condition of weights and measures devices is documented, it is impossible to accurately determine the operating condition of devices in a jurisdiction. The usual listing of rejection rates is of little value if scales and meters are zeroed and adjusted before testing. It is likely historical rejection rates are in fact tmder reported. To correct this situation,

it is desirable to document "as foimd" conditions. This activit}% however, does have a few drawbacks:

a. Inspectors must be retrained and reporting forms modified.

b. More lime must be allocated to perform inspections and this additional time means fewer devices will be inspected.

c. With fewer devices being inspected, inspection totals, when compared to prior time periods, may falsely indicate that inspection activit>- has declined.

d. Program resources (fees), if directly lied to the number of inspections performed, will suffer since the number of

inspections is down.

Yet. the value of "as found" reponing is too great not to pursue. Such reponing, coupled with a national reponing form, could provide valuable information on evaluating the effectiveness of individual jurisdictions, identifv'ing types and models

of devices with excessive rejection rates, and documenting the true economic value of an effective weights and measures

program. What information must be collected and how should it be documented? By necessit>', the extra documentation must not be

extensive if weights and measures jurisdictions are required to alter their routines to capture the needed information. In addition, the information must be available in the course of routine inspections so that the impact on historical inspection

rates will be minimal. Since weights and measures jurisdictions follow Handbook 44 procedures, the logical action is to incorporate those procedures on a national or standardized reponing form. Suggested "as found" documentation is:

a. For all devices, ihe condition of the device (scale on zero, meter on zero, etc.) immediately prior to the inspection

routine.

b. For all devices not at zero, the amoimt of the error (plus and minus).

c. For small commercial scales, the error at one and five pound loads.

d. For all other scales, the largest error at any point in the test procedure.

e. For any meter, the error at the testing volume. Of course, the amount of error provides limited information unless an economic value is placed on the error. For many

commodities, the value of the commodit>' being measured is easy to obtain, but for others, it is much more difficult to document since many commodities may be weighed on a single scale or various prices may be charged depending on the

quantit\' purchased. In some instances, the merchant may not want to reveal prices being paid for particular commodities.

In any event, securing commodity value information must not become an advenmre requiring lengthy amounts of time to procedure.

Perhaps commodities can be put in broad categories, such as:

a. construction materials

b. grain and feed

c. forest products

d. petroleum products

e. retail motor fuels

f. and so on - this list could become endless but it must be kept to a manageable number since a simple check off form (or code) is desirable.

85
Executive Committee

Therefore, it is imperative that the sought after information be limited to: "as found" information, conmiodity being measured

and its value, and perhaps information on the weighing or measuring device. (The latter could be controversial since competitive forces could use the information to discredit a competitor.)

Unless NIST is in the position to equip weights and measures jurisdictions (or at least a few jurisdictions) with portable computers, the transfer of computer technology to field inspections will be very slow. A more likely prospect is a software program to capture inspection information from the paper reports sent to a central office. Of course, the paper reports or

inspection forms must be standardized so everyone is reporting the same information. NIST computer specialists should be able to design the appropriate software programs for distribution to jurisdictions with

capable computer hardware. However, the field information must be entered into the computer and this takes resources which may not be available to many jurisdictions. Once captured, the information can be shared in a variety of ways. With the increasing popularity of electronic communication (e-mail), large volumes of data can quickly be distributed. HOW DO WE FUND PACKAGE TESTING AND UNDERCOVER PURCHASES?

No weights and measures program is complete unless it has the resources to perform package inspections and respond to complaints. Simply testing devices ignores a significant portion of the commercial transaction. For example, is the cash discount computed correctly; are products sold from bulk deliberately misweighed; are packaged products misweighed for weekend sales; are merchants remotely manipulating the accuracy of motor fuel dispensers; and are vendors cheating sellers by short weighing commodities? In most cases which come to the attention of weights and measures officials, citizens suspect they have been cheated and report it to the authorities. When people are being deliberately cheated, it doesn't do

any good to test the weighing or measuring device and in fact, responding to the complaint by just testing the device may

discourage complaints. People sense when government is adequately responding to their complaints and quickly lose confidence when inadequate measures are taken. It is imperative that a weights and measures program has sufficient resources to conduct routine package inspections and respond to consumer complaints even if it means that undercover

purchases must be made.

Ideally, package inspection and undercover investigations are funded through general revenue sources along with device

inspections. When device inspections are supported through fees, there is great temptation to restrict inspection activities to those areas generating the fees. Since package inspections and undercover investigations do not generate any fees, they

are usually left out of the weights and measures equation. Such thinking is short sighted for a complete weights and

measures program encompasses certain activities, regardless of the sources of funding.

86
Executive Committee

Inspection Sampling

by Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson

Inspection sampling is not a new concept. It is used whenever there are more items to be inspected than there is time or

resources available to inspect them. It is used most frequently in the area of package inspection. However, when it comes to device inspection, the owners of the devices as well as the inspectors themselves expect every

device to be inspected periodically. But in this time of diminishing resources, sampling may be the answer to maintaining

responsibility without having to resort to 100 percent inspection.

Objectives of Sampling

Sampling can be used to achieve two different objectives. The most common and obvious use of sampling for regulatory

officials is for the purpose of obtaining information to make compliance decisions. This is called acceptance sampling and

is used to make pass (acceptance) or fail (rejection) decisions. This approach could be applied to devices where individual establishments, such as a trailer park or gasoline service station, are responsible for maintaining their devices. When an

establishment is being inspected, not every device needs to be evaluated in order to reach a compliance decision. Only a representative sample would be required. The second objective that sampling could achieve is that of estimation. Instead of a pass or fail decision, sampling can be

used to estimate the compliance level of devices within a jurisdiction. Again, 100 percent inspection is not necessary to obtain an accurate estimate of the compliance level. Acceptance Sampling

Acceptance sampling is based on the premise that repeated samples will be taken periodically. If sampling rather than 100%

inspection is performed, the frequency of inspection could be increased where needed. This approach to sampling can be

applied to individual establishments, to package lots, or to device types where compliance is required.

There are basically two different types of acceptance sampling plans: attribute plans and variable plans. With attribute sampling plans, each device or item inspected would be tested to see whether or not it complied with the requirement(s). The acceptance of the establishment (lot) would be based on the number of non-complying items found in the sample. Actual measurement of each device is not required (though usually performed), only whether it complies or not is recorded. Since

there are no quantifying measurements that accompany each observation, relatively large samples are required to achieve

the desirable level of confidence associated with the compliance decision. Basically, each device would be tested to see if

it possesses the desired attribute of compliance or not, e.g., pass/fail, go/no-go or nondefective/defective only.

Variable sampling plans would require a measurement to be made in order to determine the compliance of each device. In

this case, each observation would have more information (the variable) on how good or bad it is. Smaller sample sizes are required when compared to attribute plans with the same level of confidence because of this added information. Examples of both types of acceptance sampling plans are shown below. An attribute sampling plan based on Military Standard Plan 105D (M1L-STD-105D) is illustrated in Table 1. An example of a variable sampling plan based on Military Sampling Plan 414 (MlL-STD-414) is shown in Table 2. It is interesting to note that the attribute plan required a sample

size of 13 while the variable plan required only 5 items and both reach the same conclusion. Tables referenced in both examples are found in the Appendix. You will note that both types of plans provide for a variety of inspection levels. In Mil-Std-105D, there are four Special

levels (S-1 to S-4) and three General levels (1 - III) shown in Table I of the plan. Although General level II is traditionally used. General level I could be used for typically good establishments and General level III could be used for poorer

establishments if you want to vary the intensity of inspection. Similarly, Mil-Std-414 has five inspection levels (I - V) shown

in Table A-2 of the plan. Although level IV is used most often, the levels can also vary accordingly. The Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) is the defect level or percent noncompliance typically associated with high quality.

It is the defect level that has approximately a 95 percent chance of passing the inspection. In the above examples where the AQL is 4.0 percent, if a station had 4.0 percent of its pumps out of compliance, there is approximately a 95 percent chance

that it would pass the inspection. It is equivalent to the highway (good) mileage shown on a new car sticker. There is another aspect of the plan called the Reject Quality Level (RQL). This is the defect level that has approximately only a 10

percent chance of passing. In the plan shown in Table 1, the RQL is 26.8 percent. That is, if the station had 26.8 percent

87
Executive Committee

of its pumps out of compliance, it would have approximately a 10 percent chance of passing the inspection. The RQL is equivalent to the city (bad) mileage on a new car sticker. These quantities, the AQL and RQL for each plan, can be read

off the Operating Characteristic Curves (0-C Curves) contained in the Mil-Std Handbooks. One other feature of the acceptance sampling plans contained in Mil-Std 105D and Mil-Std-414 are the switching rules. For

a given level of inspection, the sample size and acceptance criteria can be changed in accordance with consistently good or poor establishments (just like with production lots). The rules are shown in Figure 1 and indicate that the requirements can

be relaxed or reduced when an establishment consistently passes inspections or tightened when it fails some of the

inspections. Realize that the sampling plans and switching rule generally apply to continuous manufacturing processes where

production lots are being continuously inspected. It is a bit of a jump in going form a continuous manufacturing process

to a group of gas stations located within a jurisdiction that is inspected once every year or so, but the methods are quite

suitable. TABLE I. ATTRIBUTE SAMPLING PLAN

(MIL-STD-105D) PROCEDURE EXAMPLE

1. Determine the total number of devices 1. Assume a gas station has 30 pumps subject

subject to inspection. to inspection.

2.

/

Determine the appropriate sample size code

letter from Table I in the Appendix. Look

under Lot Size for the total number and

use General Inspection Level II.

2. For a total of 30 pumps, the sample size code letter would be D.

3. Define the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

3. An Acceptable Quality Level of 4.0% is desired.

4. Determine the appropriate sampling plan

for the desired sample size code letter and AQL from Table II-A. This will include

the definition of the sample size and the

accept/reject criteria.

4. The sample size code letter D would

require 8 pumps to be inspected. However, an AQL of 4.0% requires that code letter E and a sample size of 13 pumps be used. The station would be

accepted (pass) if no more than 1 pump

(Ac = 1 ) was found to be defective and the

station would be rejected (fail) if 2 or more pumps (Re = 2) were found to be

defective.

5. Determine if each pump, as found, is in compliance (is non-defective).

5. Using a five gallon prover and tolerance

limits of 6 cubic inches (in^), the results showed errors of -3, +5, -6, -2, +3, +3, -7, +5, -3, -7, +4, +2 and -2 in^

6. Determine whether the station passes or

fails the inspection.

6. Since two of the 13 pumps exceeded the

tolerance limits of ± 6 in\ the station

failed the inspection.

88
Executive Committee TABLE 2. VARIABLE SAMPLING PLAN

(MIL-STD-414)

PROCEDURE

1. Determine the total number of devices

subject to inspection.

2. Determine the appropriate sample size code

letter from Table A-2 in the Appendix. Look under Lot Size for total number and

use Inspection Level IV.

3. Determine the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

4. Determine the appropriate sampling plan for the desired sample size code letter and AQL

from Table B-3.

5. Measure the error of each pump as found.

6. Calculate the average and standard deviation of the errors.

7. Calculate the number of standard deviations each tolerance limit is from the sample

average.

8. Estimate the total percent defective pumps

(percent of pumps estimated to exceed the tolerance limits) based on how far (how many standard deviations) each tolerance

limit (Ql; and QJ is from the sample

average using Table B-5.

9. Determine whether the station passes (est. %

defective M) or fails (est. % defective > M) inspection.

89
Executive Committee

Sampling for Estimation Purposes

If, instead of acceptance sampling, your objective is to accurately estimate the compliance level of devices within a

jurisdiction, a simpler sampling plan can be used. For estimation purposes, you want a sample that is large enough to be

representative of the population of devices under consideration and reasonably accurate. The simplest approach is based on

the assumption that the population is fairly homogeneous, i.e.. not made up of groups that are distinctly different with regard

to compliance level. It utilizes the principle of random sampling where each device in the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample. The size of the sample is based on the total number of devices in the population, the estimated compliance level and how accurate you want the estimate to be. This would be a good approach to doing a marketplace survey to determine the level of equit>- in the marketplace at the time of the survey.

Table 3 below shows the sample sizes needed to estimate the percent compliance for population sizes ranging from 10 devices

to infmit>' (a whole lot). The sample sizes are based on the assumption that the level of compliance is approximately 95 percent or 90 percent and the desired level of accuracy (error of the estimate) is either 1 percent or 5 percent. The table shows that if the level of compliance is lower (90% vs. 95%), the sample size increases. The reason is that with more non- complying (defective) devices, you would need to do more sampling than you would if there were fewer non-complying

devices in order to achieve an accurate estimate of the compliance level. Similarly, if the desired level of accuracy is high

(1%) error of the estimate vs. 5%), the sample size would also need to be increased. It is interesting to note that for a population size greater than 10,000, the sample size does not change that much, particularly with a 5 percent error of the

estimate.

If the assumption of homogeneit\' of the population is not valid and there are distinctly different levels of compliance with

different establishments or device manufacturers, a stratified sampling plan would be more appropriate. In this case, for example, let's say there are tvvo distinct levels of compliance: good establishments or devices and poor establishments or

devices. The population would be segregated (stratified) into the nvo groups (good and poor) and a reduced sample size applied to the good group and an increased sample size applied to the poor group. Another t>pe of sampling called cluster sampling should also be considered. When faced with a large territor>' to cover, it may be inconvenient to try to sample the entire state or jurisdiction with equal coverage. Rf--her than covering 100 percent of the territory, randomly select counties or subsections within the jurisdiction (clusters) and extensively sample within these

clusters. That way, not all areas within the jurisdiction will be sampled but, as long as each section or cluster has an equal chance of being selected for inspection, you will obtain a valid estimate of the compliance level. The advantage associated with cluster sampling is that you can concentrate your efforts in fewer areas (perhaps those needing special attention), thus being more thorough, while at the same time minimizing the amount of necessar>' travel time.

NORMAL

INSPECTION

REDUCED

INSPECTION

Figure 1. Switching Rules

90
Executive Committee

Table 3. Sample Sizes (n) needed to Estimate Pecent Compliance

Total No. of

Devices (N)

Estimated Compliance Level (p) 95% 90%

Error of the Estimate (e) 1% 5% 1% 5%

10 10 9 10 10 25 25 19 25 22

50 49 31 50 38

100 96 44 98 60 500 396 67 440 112

1,000 656 71 783 126

5,000 1,378 75 2,094 140

10,000 1,597 76 2,648 142 50,000 1,831 76 3,359 144

100,000 1,865 76 3,475 144

00 1,900 76 3,600 144

n = 4Np(l-p) ((N-l)e' + 4p(l-p))

Examples of both stratified sampling and cluster sampling schemes can be developed. However, the move from 100 percent

inspection to random sampling should be digested first before moving to the more complicated sampling designs.

Additional questions beyond the scope of this introduction to sampling must also be considered. These might include the

effect of charging fees for devices that are not inspected, the impact of longer periods between inspections at the same

establishments or for the same devices and keeping track of those devices not yet inspected.

Sampling definitely adds another level of complexity to inspection. However, it is the only practical way to maintain

responsibility over a wide area and a large number of devices with diminishing resources.

91
Executive Committee

MIL-STD-105D

29 April 1963

SUPERSEDING

MIL-STD-105C

18 July 1961

MILITARY STANDARD

SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND TABLES

FOR INSPECTION BY ATTRIBUTES

92
Executive Committee

TABLE /Sample size code letters

(See 9.2 and 9.3)

Lot or batch .size Special inspection levels General Inspection levels S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 1 II III 2 to 8 A A A A A A B

9 to 15 A A A A A B C

16 to 25 A A B B B C D

26 to 50 A B B C C D E 51 to 90 B B C C C E F 91 to 150 B B C D D F G

151 to 280 B C D E E G H

281 to 500 B C D E F H J 501 to 1200 C C E F G J K 1201 to 3200 C D E G H K L 3201 to 10000 C D F G J L M

10001 to 35000 C D F H K M N

35001 to 150000 D E G J L N P 15001 to 500000 D E G J M P Q

50001 and over D E H K N Q R

CODE

LETTERS

93
Executive Committee ' t rrr

s ? V

R « ^

c3 S 5 2 a s

2 S S

CO t

s

SINGLE

NORMAL

= £ 8

<=> *

s s s a I 2 SIS

I r

J! -S s s

•3. o.

E C « i

;3 X —

94
Executive Committee

MIL-STD-414

11 June 1957

SUPERSEDING

ORD-M608-10

June 1954

NAVORD OSTD 80

8 May 1952

MILITARY STANDARD

SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND TABLES

FOR INSPECTION BY VARIABLES

FOR PERCENT DEFECTIVE

95
Executive Committee

TABLE A-2 Sample Size Code

Letters'

Lot Size Inspection Levels

II II I

I V

V

3 to 8 B B B B C

9 to 15 B B B B D

16 to 25 B BBC E

26 to 40 B B B D F

41 to 65 B B C E G

66 to 110 B B D F H

111 to 180 B C E G I 181 to 300 B D F H J 301 to 500 C E G I K

501 to 800 D F H J L

801 to 1,300 E G 1 K L

1,301 to 3,200 F H J L M

3,201 to 8,000 G I L M N

8,001 to 22,000 H J M N O

22,001 to 110,000 I K N 0 P

110,001 to 550,000 I K 0 P Q

550,001 and over 1 K P Q Q

'Sample size code letters given in body of table are applicable when the indicated inspection levels are to be

used.

Table B-3 Standard Deviation Method

Master Table for Normal and Tightened Inspection for Plans Based on Variability Unknown

(Double Specification Limit and Form 2-Single Specification Limit)

Sample <ize code letter Sample

aize

Acceptable Quality Levels (noi mal inspection)

.04 .065 .10 .15 .25 .40 .65 1.00 1.50 2.50 4.00 6.50 10.00 15.00 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

B 3 T 7.59 18.86 26.94 33.69 40.47 C 4 4- 1.53 5.50 10.92 16.45 22.86 29.45 36.90 D 5 i

1.33 3.32 5.83 9.80 14.39 20.19 26.56 33.99 E 7 0.422 1.06 2.14 3.55 5.35 8.40 12.20 17.35 23.2? 30.50 F 10

r 0.349 0.716 1.30 2.17 3.26 4.77 7.29 10.54 15.17 20.74 27.57 G 15 0.099 0.186 0.312 0.503 0.818 1.31 2.11 3.05 4.31 6.56 9.46 13.71 18.94 25.61 H 20 0.135 0.228 0.365 0.544 0.846 1.29 2.05 2.95 4.09 6.17 8.92 12.99 18.03 24.53 25 0.1 55 0.250 0.380 0.551 0.877 1.29 2.00 2.86 3.97 5.97 8.63 12.57 17.51 23.97 J 30 0.179 0.280 0.413 0.581 0.879 1.29 1.98 2.83 3.91 5.86 8.47 12.36 17.24 23.58 K 35 0.1 70 0.264 0.388 0.535 0.847 1.23 1.87 2.68 3.70 5.57 8.10 11.87 16.65 22.91 L 40 0.179 0.275 0.401 0.566 0.873 1.26 1.88 2.71 3.72 5.58 8.09 11.85 16.61 22.86 M 50 0.163 0.250 0.363 0.503 0.789 1.17 1.71 2.49 3.45 5.20 7.61 11.23 15.87 22.00 N 75 0.147 0.228 0.330 0.467 0.720 1.07 1.60 2.29 3.20 4.87 7.15 10.63 15.13 21.11 O 100 0.1 45 0.220 0.317 0.447 0.689 1.02 1.53 2.20 3.07 4.69 6.91 10.32 14.75 20.66 P 150 0.1 34 0.203 0.293 0.413 0.638 0.949 1.43 2.05 2.89 4.43 6.57 9.88 14.20 20.02 Q 200 0.1 35 0.204 0.294 0.414 0.637 0.945 1.42 2.04 2.87 4.40 6.53 9.81 14.12 19.92 .065 .10 .15 .25 .40 .65 1.00 1.50 2.50 4.00 6.50 10.00 15.00 Acceptability Quality Leveli (tightened inspection)

All AQL and table values are in percent defecti

I Use first sampling plan below arrow, that is, size, every item in the lot must be inspected. both sample size as well as M value. When ize equals or exceeds lot

96
Executive Committee

TABLE B-S-Continued

Table for Estimating the Lot Percent Defective Using Standard Deviation Method Qu

orQl

Sample Size

3 4 5 7 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 75 100 150 200 LIO 9.84 13.33 13.48 13.49 13.50 13.51 13.52 13.52 13.53 13.54 13.54 13.54 13.55 13.55 13.56 13.56 Lll 8.89 13.00 13.20 13.25 13.26 13.28 13.29 13.30 13.31 13.31 13.32 13.32 13.33 13.34 13.34 13.34

1.12 7.82 12.67 12.93 13.00 13.03 13.05 13.07 13.08 13.09 13.10 13.10 13.11 13.12 13.12 13.12 13.13

1.13 6.60 12.33 12.65 12.75 12.80 12.83 12.85 12.86 12.87 12.88 12.89 12.89 12.90 12.91 12.91 12.92

1.14 5.08 12.00 12.37 12.51 12.57 12.61 12.63 12.65 12.66 12.67 12.67 12.68 12.69 12.70 12.70 12.70

1.15 0.29 11.67 12.10 12.27 12.34 12.39 12.42 12.44 12.45 12.46 12.46 12.47 12.48 12.49 12.49 12.50

1.16 0.00 11.33 11.83 12.03 12.12 12.18 12.21 12.22 12.24 12.25 12.25 12.26 12.28 12.28 12.29 12.29

1.17 0.00 11.00 11.56 11.79 11.90 11.96 12.00 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.08 12.09

1.18 0.00 10.67 11.29 11.56 11.68 11.75 11.79 11.81 11.82 11.84 11.84 11.85 11.87 11.88 11.88 11.89

1.19 0.00 10.33 11.02 11.33 11.46 11.54 11.58 11.61 11.62 11.63 11.64 11.65 11.67 11.68 11.69 11.69

1.20 0.00 10.00 10.76 11.10 11.24 11.34 11.38 11.41 11.42 11.43 11.44 11.46 11.47 11.48 11.49 11.49

1.21 0.00 9.67 10.50 10.87 11.03 11.13 11.18 11.21 11.22 11.24 11.25 11.26 11.28 11.29 11.30 11.30

1.22 0.00 9.33 10.23 10.65 10.82 10.93 10.98 11.01 11.03 11.04 11.05 11.07 11.09 11.09 11.10 11.11

1.23 0.00 9.00 9.97 10.42 10.61 10.73 10.78 10.81 10.84 10.85 10.86 10.88 10.90 10.91 10.91 10.92

1.24 0.00 8.67 9.72 10.20 10.41 10.53 10.59 10.62 10.64 10.66 10.67 10.69 10.71 10.72 10.73 10.73

1.25 0.00 8.33 9.46 9.98 10.21 10.34 10.40 10.43 10.46 10.47 10.48 10.50 10.52 10.53 10.54 10.55

1.26 0.00 8.00 9.21 9.77 10.00 10.15 10.21 10.25 10.27 10.29 10.30 10.32 10.34 10.35 10.36 10.37

1.27 0.00 7.67 8.96 9.55 9.81 9.96 10.02 10.06 10.09 10.10 10.12 10.13 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19

1.28 0.00 7.33 8.71 9.34 9.61 9.77 9.84 9.88 9.90 9.92 9.94 9.95 9.98 9.99 10.00 10.01 1.29 0.00 7.00 8.46 9.13 9.42 9.58 9.65 9.70 9.72 9.74 9.76 9.78 9.80 9.82 9.83 9.83

1.30 0.00 6.67 8.21 8.93 9.22 9.40 9.48 9.52 9.55 9.57 9.58 9.60 9.63 9.64 9.65 9.66

1.31 0.00 6.33 7.97 8.72 9.03 9.22 9.30 9.34 9.37 9.39 9.41 9.43 9.46 9.47 9.48 9.49

1.32 0.00 6.00 7.73 8.52 8.85 9.04 9.12 9.17 9.20 9.22 9.24 9.26 9.29 9.30 9.31 9.32

1.33 0.00 5.67 7.49 8.32 8.66 8.86 8.95 9.00 9.03 9.05 9.07 9.09 9.12 9.13 9.15 9.15

1.34 0.00 5.33 7.25 8.12 8.48 8.69 8.78 8.83 8.86 8.88 8.90 8.92 8.95 8.97 8.98 8.99

1.35 0.00 5.00 7.02 7.92 8.30 8.52 8.61 8.66 8.69 8.72 8.74 8.76 8.79 8.81 8.82 8.83

1.36 0.00 4.67 6.79 7.73 8.12 8.35 8.44 8.50 8.53 8.55 8.57 8.60 8.63 8.65 8.66 8.67

1.37 0.00 4.33 6.56 7.54 7.95 8.18 8.28 8.33 8.37 8.39 8.41 8.44 8.47 8.49 8.50 8.51

1.38 0.00 4.00 6.33 7.35 7.77 8.01 8.12 8.17 8.21 8.24 8.25 8.29 8.31 8.33 8.35 8.35

1.39 0.00 3.67 6.10 7.17 7.60 7.85 7.96 8.01 8.05 8.08 8.10 8.12 8.16 8.18 8.19 8.20

1.40 0.00 3.33 5.88 6.98 7.44 7.69 7.80 7.86 7.90 7.92 7.94 7.97 8.01 8.02 8.04 8.05

1.41 0.00 3.00 5.66 6.80 7.27 7.53 7.64 7.70 7.74 7,77 7.79 7.82 7.86 7.87 7.89 7.90

1.42 0.00 2.67 5.44 6.62 7.10 7.37 7.49 7.55 7.59 7.62 7.64 7.67 7.71 7.73 7.74 7.75

1.43 0.00 2.33 5.23 6.45 6.94 7.22 7.34 7.40 7.44 7.47 7.50 7.52 7.56 7.58 7.60 7.61

1.44 0.00 2.00 5.01 6.27 6.78 7.07 7.19 7.26 7.30 7.33 7.35 7.38 7.42 7.44 7.46 7.47

1.45 0.00 1.67 4.81 6.10 6.63 6.92 7.04 7.11 7.15 7.18 7.21 7.24 7.28 7.30 7.31 7.33

1.46 0.00 1.33 4.60 5.93 6.47 6.77 6.90 6.97 7.01 7.04 7.07 7.10 7.14 7.16 7.18 7.19

1.47 0.00 1.00 4.39 5.77 6.32 6.63 6.75 6.83 6.87 6.90 6.93 6.96 7.00 7.02 7.04 7.05

1.48 0.00 0.67 4.19 5.60 6.17 6.48 6.61 6.69 6.73 6.77 6.79 6.82 6.86 6.88 6.90 6.91

1.49 0.00 0.33 3.99 5.44 6.02 6.34 6.48 6.55 6.60 6.63 6.65 6.69 6.73 6.75 6.77 6.78

97
Executive Committee

Accreditation Program

by Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Whenever we have a weights and measures meeting, it seems that we talk about how we need to make our programs more uniform, however, it never gets done. We see standards adopted by the Conference to Handbooks 44, 130, and 133, which should make our

inspection procedures more uniform. I believe that we have less uniformity when certain requirements are adopted because many

jurisdictions do not intend to follow through enforcing Conference action. An accreditation program may be the answer. We began this process several years ago. A few jurisdictions were evaluated. It is my understanding that it was then determined a

training program with modules must be created in order to establish the "tools" for evaluating a program. Now we have developed and implemented training modules. Training programs have been conducted for each of the modules developed. Now perhaps it is time to look at an accreditation program for weights and measures programs.

In the Central, we asked the states how they were testing devices. Procedures being used were in some ways rather uniform. We

prepared an overview of each state in a generic form to show some basic discrepancies of the way devices were being inspected and

tested. The Central group supports in principle an accreditation program. Industry came forward supporting the program. We plan to initially evaluate a couple of the programs. Such evaluation will consist of reviewing first procedures manuals, laws, regulations, test reports, computer printouts of inspection results, and other documents such as documents for quality to get a feel for the program. Then later, testing equipment would be used in the field to determine the effects of the program. I cannot give you many specifics of the program

because the program is just being developed. As I see it, the program will accomplish at least five major objectives which are:

1. It will promote uniform testing procedures.

2. It will raise the need for more training to educate administrators and field staff

3. It will establish a standard similar to our metrology accreditation program which will assist directors in supporting

their programs. The program then may be used to increase the level of the program which would result in a higher pay scale for weights and measures and a more qualified staff. 4. Device manufacturers and packagers will benefit from this program because uniform testing procedures will be used.

5. Peer pressure will eventually force jurisdictions to buy into the program. Programs will change and be updated to maintain their accreditation. Conference action will have more impact than now, and perhaps it will make

representatives at the Conference to be more knowledgeable and responsible when action is taken.

If the program is successful, it will accomplish what most have been saying for years and that is we must become more uniform in what we do. Tom Stabler was very supportive and wants to be involved in this pilot program. The Central wants industry to play an active role during the developmental and implementation stages. We also will be cautious to insure any results will not damage

a program or manufacturer. We plan to result the progress of our plan to the National Executive Committee. Our plan will be modeled after the earlier plan considered at the NCWM. We expect to, in a smaller region, go through the "growing pains" associated with developing such a program. When it becomes more of a finished product, the NCWM may want to use the program as a national program. This program has the potential of being one of the most important programs ever developed. If we do not get our houses

in order, some day some one will do it for us.

98
Executive Committee

National Data Sharing by Sidney Colbrook, Illinois

ii

j National data sharing is difficult to address because by collecting data we must be uniform in the processes, systems, and procedures

used. Before we go any further, two major problems exist.

1 . Lack of uniform testing procedures where we would be comparing apples to oranges, and

|j 2. The method (types of information) and systems used must be compatible to enter into a national database sharing network. Our agency has spent thousands of dollars in creating and developing our weights and measures computer system. Our recent change

, of going from Nomad to Paradox has taken a year to accomplish. Changing computer programs is no easy task.

'' What do we need? 1 believe we need a database network to monitor devices and packages to determine what is and what is not in

f compliance. For noncompliance packages, this would allow jurisdictions to focus their programs on those products found not to conform with the requirements of HB-130 and HB-133. For weighing and measuring devices, this program would allow NTEP to focus in on insuring that production equipment is conforming to type.

Concerns to the results would be how this information may be made public and could be used against either a device manufacturer

or product packager. The legality of supplying this information must be researched. One of the questions asked is can the WAMIS program be used. It seems to me that WAMIS is currently underutilized. Our computer

1 gurus have informed me that we must now take a computer off of our network to be used for contacting outside programs because of the potential of viruses being introduced into our system. This will not be a problem because data can be downloaded from our

system into the off-line computer, and then this information may be transferred into the WAMIS program. In answer to the question proposed, I believe WAMIS can be used. It needs to be made more computer friendly and more widely used.

I I believe NIST should provide the technical support to each jurisdiction in developing and implementing a generic computer system.

In order for this program to be successful, it must be friendly and convenient to the user. It should take just the mechanics of downloading from one system to another. Jurisdictions I do not believe will manually enter any collected data. It must be

accomplished by downloading already captured information. It should be NlST's responsibility to tell us what type of hardware and

software to use. It is expensive for each jurisdiction to develop its own program and it will lead to nonuniformity. Programs can be

personalized for the jurisdiction using the programs. The hardware must be able to withstand hostile environments.

( Now is the time to develop a generic computer program. Many jurisdictions have already or are in the process of implementing

computers and computer programs in the field. We plan to purchase at least two computers after July for field use. Let's get ahead

of the game by having the programs available before too many jurisdictions have differing programs and software. One thing we have

to remember, we will always be outdated with computer software programs. We must bite the bullet and go with what is best at the

time.

Let's develop a national database and let's do it now. This database will be usefiil to support our existing programs. The time to act

is now!

99
Executive Committee

Industry's Perspective by Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association The following represents the report developed by Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA). It is not a formal SMA » position, but represents a mainstream position among the many company representatives with whom he has discussed the issue.

1. What is industry's role in helping to deliver an effective W&M program? What role should industry play with respect to education , (training) of inspectors and industry service personnel?

2. What tools are needed to insure the integrity of tests performed by industr>' service personnel?

3. WTiat constitutes a "strong" program for:

^

a. registration of service persons; I

h. notification of device repairs; and 1,

c. revocation/suspension of licenses for poor or inadequate performance by service persons/agencies?

One of the most effective roles that industry has in delivery of an effective W&M program is through participation in the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). Participation includes: involvement in national and regional weights and measures

conferences; development of industry positions on items brought to the conferences through the standing committees; and constructive support of the conference, its leaders and programs. It also involves a willingness to support the Conference by accepting assignments (whenever possible) made by the Conference Chair.

This support can be technical, such has been provided by industry associations over the years on such subjects as the H-44 New Scale Code, audit trails, the NTEP Weighing and Measuring Sector Committees, the U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition Program, OIML

national and international working group programs and meetings. The support can also be programmatic such as the Blue Sky and i., Privatization Task Forces, development of the NCWTvI Legal Metrology Control System, the many aspects of creating and bringing

the NTEP program to reality, and direct representations to NIST and Congress in support of resources for the Office of Weights and

Measures.

In addition, industry provides support to the NCWM through the Associate Member Committee. This support has been a vehicle for the public and private sector members to work together toward a common cause. The Committee has adopted a forward-looking view

with regard to the financial needs of the Conference by supporting a realistic meeting registration fee structure. Industry-sponsored

social events at National Conference meetings have played an important role in bringing the regulators and the regulated together in a very pleasant atmosphere. This has contributed to the mutual respect that is evident at the conference and during its proceedings. |( Industry has an excellent opportunity and an important role to play in the professional/technical training of inspectors and service personnel. Industry, in a very real sense, shares a responsibility with the jurisdictions for promoting and conducting training of officials ; and service persons. A good example of this is the Institute for Weights and Measures which has, through its education programs,

trained hundreds of officials and service persons. An example on a much smaller scale occurred during the process of developing the I laboratory test procedures for the U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition program. Industry engineers and NTEP laboratory metrologists .

!

had a unique opportunity to exchange technical procedures to the mutual benefit of industry and government.

Perhaps the most critical technical problem before the Conference is training a very broad base of industry technicians and officials with respect to NTEP requirements. The success of a conformance program such as NTEP must ultimately depend on field

, enforcement to insure equipment standards are met. Quality assurance programs aside, the ultimate test of equipment performance and quality rests jointly in the hands of the service agencies and the field enforcement system. Industry must exert its best efforts and

offices in helping the NCWM in marshalling the resources needed to make the integrity of the NTEP process a reality.

Industry also has an important role to play in influencing and heading off efforts to privatize weights and measures regulatory activities,

e.g., the transfer of approval, rejection and condemnation authority to the private sector. Recent history has shown the effectiveness

DISCUSSION:

100
Executive Committee

of industry involvement in the privatization debate; this participation must be timely and to the point to insure that the industry view

is fully considered. The NCWM Legal Metrology Control Plan (MCP) recognizes the principle of private sector testing of devices. Registration of Service persons and Agencies Regulation model regulation (Voluntary Registration Regulation, VRR) (NIST Handbook 130, 1994, Uniform Laws and Regulations) authorizes private sector maintenance personnel and service agencies to "remove an official rejection tag or mark placed on a weighing or measuring device by the authority' of the director; place in service, until such time an official examination can be made, a weighing or measuring device that has been officially rejected; and place in service, until an official examination can be made, a new or used weighing or measuring device." This, in effect, authorizes a properly registered agency or person to act as an agent with limited powers for a weights and measures jurisdiction.

Kansas, in its approach to "privatization", has created a hybrid system combining the MCP private sector testing of devices concept

with a registered service agency 'person approach. In Kansas, the user of a device is required to have his equipment tested annually by a registered agency person; the state inspectors audit this work on a sample basis to insure that, statewide, the test work conducted by the private sector meets state (H-44) standards. Under the Kansas model, private sector agents do not have the authority to reject devices, thus avoiding or minimizing potential conflicts of interest which would arise if the private sector was empowered to reject condemn equipment. Under any of the above concepts, there is reason for concern regarding the mtegrity of "official" tests performed by private sector

agents. Some tools used (not an all inclusive list by any means) to insure the quality and uniformity of private sector tests are as follows:

i. Agents must have available sufficient standards and equipment to adequately test devices as set forth in the Notes section of

each applicable code in NIST Handbook 44 (VRR, Section 5);

b. A standardized test report form should be used and the private sector agents must be trained in its use. Both the VRR and

Kansas assign this training responsibility to the W&M jurisdiction. In that service agencies/persons can and do operate in more than one jurisdiction (inter and intrastate) there is an identifiable urgent need for both standardized forms and for uniform training materials.

:. An auditing system to insure that standards are being met by the private sector. In VRR jurisdictions that require a "placedin-service" report when an officially rejected device is returned to service, good practice suggests that for each placed in service report there should a subsequent official test when the device is sealed or again rejected. Substandard work would

be revealed if a pattern of agent placed-in-service reports was followed by a pattern of official rejection of the devices, hi Kansas, quality is addressed by testing a sample of approved devices. However, this approach may be limited by available

official resources to audit the private sector testing. The jurisdiction that follows up each placed-in-service report with an

official test would have a much better idea about how an individual agency/person was meeting his registration

responsibilities.

d. A program to test/certify test equipment used by the private sector to place equipment into service. In most states, this program is managed by the state metrologist. The question of what makes up a strong registration program is answered in general terms in the VRR.

a. However, when one reviews the H-130 summary of VRR adoption, there appears to be some diversity with respect to what

has been adopted by the states. Three states are shown as adopting and updating the VRR on an annual basis; 29 states have

a registration program based on the VRR, but from an earlier year (not a serious impediment in this case to uniformity); nine

states have a program in force but not based on the VRR; 12 states have no law or regulation.

b. Regardless of the approach taken, any conceivable variation of a registration program must depend on good data regarding

the work of ihe service agency/person. The test report would appear to be the preferred input document. This applies to devices placed in service as well as repairs. In addition, these reports appear to be essential for the jurisdiction to maintam

its device population list. Furthermore, test reports when a device is initially placed in service (assuming the test is uniformly conducted using standardized procedures) become an important source of data with respect to NTEP requirements on

production devices meeting type. There is no way that a manual system for keeping track of this information could be cost

effective; thus some means by which these reports could enter the W&M information highway must be developed. Conceivably, this process could be automated down to the field inspector level.

101
Executive Committee

c. In that revocation/suspension of licenses has a very serious impact on the ability of an agency/person to pursue its livelihood, such procedures must be able to pass a very high administrative standard. In order for the regulatory system to meet legal muster, a jurisdiction needs to be in a position to show that it has met its responsibilities by way of training and

administration, i.e., adoption of NCWM model laws and regulations (VRR, NTEP, etc.). The private sector generated test report (coupled with official follow-up tests) becomes a key document in determining whether a registration should be revoked

or suspended. When revocation/suspension is imposed, consideration should be given to developing a means by which this information can be communicated to other jurisdictions for their attention. This is another need for a much better W&M data system than exists today. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the NCWM request an OWM analysis of industry group/company participation in NCWM activities for some period,

i.e., 5 or 10 years. This analysis should be broken down by those groups/companies who appear to have an ongoing interest and to those who appear to be single-issue oriented. Following this analysis, a member of the NCWM leadership should be

assigned to meet with the leadership of each group/company and solicit their ideas as to how, in their view, the Conference

can be made more effective in addressing marketplace issues. Establish their interest in participating in selected activities of the Conference, i.e., willing to provide testimony at legislative hearings, Associate Member Committee activities. Then

follow up with a meaningful assignment. Let's make sure we are listening to our private sector constituents and are aware of their agendas.

2. That the NCWM make an appropriate standing committee assignment to lead the effort to develop standardized test report forms and to prepare EPOs to support the use of these forms. It is suggested that the committee given this assignment draw

from the expertise of W&M jurisdictions, weighing and measurement industry associations, the Institute of Weights and Measures and the service agency/dealer interest groups in the ISWM. Also, that a model audit methodology be adopted to help jurisdictions in monitoring VRR performance quality.

3. That the NCWM establish a program to encourage W&M jurisdictions who have not done so to adopt the VRR. The priority for this effort should be directed to states (12) who have no law or regulation. Second priority to those States that have a program in force but not based on the VRR (9). Concurrently, develop an administrative procedures guide for all jurisdictions with VRR.

4. Set up an ad hoc working group to advise the standing committee tasked with VRR with respect to such matters as fees, penalties, administrative procedures for withdrawal of registrations. This group should include service industry representation.

5. In addressing the above recommendations, it must be borne in mind that, on a national scale, the issues relating to private sector service activities cannot be isolated from the effects of non-uniformity in the public sector administration of weights and measures. Private sector service agencies are often subject to the authority of more than one weights and measures

jurisdiction. Some agencies conduct their business regionally; others do so nationally. Therefore, any effort to bring uniformity to the private service sector carries with it the obligation that the public sector actively develop a parallel effon

to bring uniformity to regulatory and administrative activities. It is strongly recommended that this effort be pursued

concurrently with the service agency uniformity agenda.

102
Executive Committee

Industry's Role

by Richard Tucker, Tokheim Corporation

Industry must support weights and measures on both the State and regional as well as the national levels. The type of support is solely dependent on the level we are working on. At the State and regional level we provide technical support on our equipment. This can and would include supplying technical information (brochures), phone support, and training, since the contact person is the field inspector, the information must be geared to allow them to recognize standard features and options within the realm of requirements of weights and measures. In simple terms, does the item being inspected meet Handbook 44 and as designed by the manufacturer? We provide information to our distributors relative two eights and measures requirements. We encourage a good working relationship between the service organizations and the local inspectors. On the national level our support is similar but different. Manufacturing must join and participate in the activities of the national and

regional conferences. We still provide technical support but it is geared to the drafting of new requirements and maintaining existing ones. We must provide information to national committee members to what current technology can and cannot provide relative to weights and measures concerns. Our participation provides weights and measures an insight to the direction of the industry and

industry gets feedback to weights and measures problems. Our participation creates the network for communications. A Strong registration program for service companies must include registration, training, and follow-up. Registration and training is the commitment by the service organization to perform within a set of guidelines. The training is necessary to establish the testing procedures and set the boundaries. The follow-up would be a function of weights and measures to audit the testing process. If any one of the elements is missing, it becomes a revenue-generating program rather than enhancing the overall program.

Notification of device installation and repairs are the boundaries established during the training. To track compliance to weights and

measures standards, a State needs to maintain a database of all devices. To do that you need a Placed-in-Service Report. Part of our

startup procedures is to file a warranty registration card. This card starts the warranty period. You need the capability of querying

the data to develop notifications for retest. Once the data base is established you can enter as much or as little information that you

want. Service information could be part of the database. A strong penalty section in your law for suspension and/or revocation of registration licenses would be nice but not necessary. If service companies are registered, you always have to option to pull the registration. Please remember that this a form of income for the service organizations.

103
Executive Committee

Report of the Privatization Work Group Meeting, November 4-6, 1993, Seattle, WA

Allan M. Nelson, Chairman Summary

The NCWM Privatization Work Group met in Seattle in order to discuss the conclusions reached by a Washington State (WA) Tasic Force on Weights and Measures with public and private sector members of that Task Force. The WA Task Force report clearly indicated the overall benefit of weights and measures activities in Washington. Certain findings of the study, however, did not coincide with NCWM Work Group members' experience and expectations. It was imperative that these findings be examined with the WA Task

Force, since their implications may have far reaching effects on weights and measures programs in other States. The NCWM Work

Group consulted with WA Task Force members to further refine the economic generalizations made in Washington, and to explore what needed to be collected in the ftiture by any weights and measures jurisdiction to help in establishing program priorities and measuring the effectiveness of inspection activities. Frequency of Inspection and Compliance Levels Are Correlated. - The WA Task Force study concluded that there was no

correlation between frequency of inspection and compliance. Chip Kloos, NCWM Work Group member, analyzed the WA data to show that the correlation, not obvious at first glance, exists. His report is appended to this as Appendix A. Economic Benefit of Weights and Measures Programs Should Be Shown on a Per Business Basis. — The WA Task Force study

indicated that the per-capita benefit of the Washington Weights and Measures program far outweighs the per-capita cost. However,

the NCWM Work Group pointed out that the benefit and cost per business is much more substantial than per citizen. It is a much better measure of the need for weights and measures enforcement to preserve a fair marketplace for honest businesses to compete. The cost per citizen (in allocated tax dollars) for a weights and measures program is trivial (from 25 to 50 cents per person per year); and, the savings to individual citizens in reduced errors in transactions by the existence of a weights and measures program may be several times the cost, yet the overall savings per individual citizen may amount to only several dollars per year. The savings per household

attributable to a weights and measures program may be several hundred dollars per year. However, the cost to any business, even a

small business, of error beyond the allowed variations, is substantial (many thousands of dollars per year). Although weights and

measures agencies rightly perceive themselves as objective third parties between the buyer and seller, business can be an important

ally if the regulatory agency can show business the potential for substantial economic harm to it if inequity is tolerated in the marketplace.

All jurisdictions should be collecting quantitative data on device errors outside tolerances at the time of test including the "as found" error, rather than only recording whether the device was "in" or "out" of tolerance. — Although there is a general

correlation between frequency of inspection and compliance level, quantitative data on actual error of a device or trade practice "as found" would provide estimates of the monetary benefit of weights and measures programs, because quantitative error can be

converted into dollars. All jurisdictions should be recording not just whether a device is in or out of tolerance, but by how much.

In addition, it is important to record how far from zero any device is found. Most jurisdictions "sanitize" their data, by routinely allowing the device users to adjust their devices when found out of zero and not recording that the device was found off zero. The Work Group is not suggesting that jurisdictions change the practice of allowing users to adjust their devices, but that inspectors should

record how far from zero the device is found before adjustment. It is logical to assume that the device likely would remain out of

zero until the inspector pointed the problem out to the device user. Record the amount out of zero; this is potential economic gain or

loss to the business and its customers if weights and measures inspection did not occur.

Additional information must also be gathered concerning what commodity or service is measured across the device in question (or of

a small sample of devices within a jurisdiction,) and the number of times the device is used per day, week, month, or year. Alternatively, annual economic data from Supermarket News, motor fuel sales, agricultural sales, and road construction data from the

local tax bureau, agricultural statistics division, and retail marketing associations can be collected so that weights and measures

administrators can estimate what shortages or overages on any class of devices are worth to either buyers or sellers over time.

^ Background When government must reduce costs, privatization of weights and measures has seemed a reasonable cost-saving measure, since many

businesses, and even legislatures, see weights and measures as a "device testing service." The NCWM Privatization Work Group has found that most decision makers considering eliminating weights and measures agencies do not know of (1) the law enforcement

104
Executive Committee

responsibilities of weights and measures; (2) the cost/benefit of weights and measures programs to their business communities; nor

(3) any significant improvements in operations or management that can reduce costs in regulatory efforts and increase benefits. The Work Group identified several questions and set several objectives at its last two meetings:

1 . What are the reasons for and benefits of a weights and measures program? The scope and rationale of a weights and measures program was documented in the 1993 Work Group report in order

to be a resource and tool for weights and measures administrators to explain what they do and why. The Work Group is now suggesting additional information collection that will assist administrators and legislators quantify the need for a weights and measures program. This will entail not just cost/benefit measurements and

estimates, but logical arguments and everyday examples of benefits. For example, Dave Smith noted that weights and measures inspectors do not look only at the performance of a device in a gasoline service station; they examine

price signage and other trade practices there. Weights and measures needs to explain the additional duties inspectors perform beyond device inspection.

2. How can a jurisdiction do more with less resources? There are several responses to this issue; the Work Group has not yet explored and listed all alternatives. One major productivity enhancement is through additional job related training; however. State and local budgets,

staff, and equipment have been so drastically reduced that they cannot continue routine annual inspections. Administrators should be reminded that productivity increases of 15-20 percent are normally reported as direct benefits of training ~ therefore, weights and measures administrators can alleviate staff cutbacks by thoroughly

training those who are left. An additional productivity enhancement for weights and measures programs is through adopting and administering

a device repair agency registration and training program.

Finally, there are opportunities to partner with local consumer groups and business associations. Ask for volunteers

, fi-om the business and concerned consumer communities to assist the weights and measures jurisdiction in actual inspections, purchases, and alerting the enforcement agency to perceived inequities. Volunteers can be used in answering the telephones, and can be trained to speak about weights and measures to citizen groups.

3. How can a jurisdiction evaluate the effect of shifting certain traditional weights and measures responsibilities to the private sector?

For those jurisdictions that have already shifted a significant amount of testing to the private sector or must do so, how do they evaluate their job of auditing this "privatized" system? No study of "privatized" structures such as those operated by Kansas or New Hampshire and more traditional structures has been conducted. How can a jurisdiction evaluate the impact of reduced inspections on the government's part? No independent audit of the status of compliance, equity, etc. has been done to compare a particular type of regulatory structure with

another, except for the marketplace surveys conducted in California in which certain counties operate a "variable frequency of inspection" program and others do not. Another question needing answer is how much government resources must be devoted auditing? It is the opinion of

the NCWM Work Group that the quality of private service agencies' performance is in direct relationship to what

is demanded from them by the State. The State will need the expertise and experience of its measurement specialists (and the same equipment it presently has invested) to audit service work knowledgeably. States cannot simply review

the paperwork of service agencies to determine whether they are performing adequately and in more than a

superficial manner.

4. How much sampling of the total population of devices can be effective in lieu of testing every device annually? Chip Kloos

has offered to design a simple sampling procedure to assist jurisdictions that would like to sample the population of devices

in their jurisdiction. It will require comparison against present testing schemes in order to evaluate its effectiveness (see the need to quantify data collected below).

105
Executive Committee

Definition and Rationale for Weights and Measures Regulation and Defense of Programs

The NCWM Privatization Work Group lias addressed several issues so far. (1) Members have met with and written State and local agencies, legislatures, and other managers to explain the need for retaining weights and measures enforcement oversight as a government responsibility in order to keep competitive forces from overwhelming honest businesses. (2) The Work Group developed

a set of overhead transparencies and slides available to anyone to explain either their own program and why it is needed, or of what

a complete program should consist. On November 4, a presentation on the scope of weights and measures was provided to the members of the WA Task Force based on

prior work of the NCWM Work Group (see the Work Group report in the 1993 Annual Meeting Report) in order to emphasize to the

private sector representatives that weights and measures regulatory activities were not "device testing services," and to focus discussions on the cost and benefit for government to oversee a private testing force as compared with the cost of more traditionally operated weights and measures programs. Copies of the transparencies used in this presentation are included in Appendix B. Fee Based Programs Provide Little Flexibility A basic weights and measures program includes a State weights and measures laboratory, device inspection program, commodity

inspection program, and consumer complaint handling. Weights and measures is law enforcement activity, not a device testing service. Fees, however, often mean the difference between minimal oversight and none at all. Fee-based programs are usually based on device

testing, whether or not actually levied when a test is performed; thus, fee-based programs rarely allow innovations in device inspection frequency to be applied. Unfortunately, adding the fee question muddies good decision making policy. If a State decides to authorize

private companies to test devices, and then the State verifies the work of the private companies, there is not a distributed base of customers upon whom to levy a fee. If a program is to be based on device fees, the fee payer demands something for the fee (e.g. device testing and approval). Weights and Measures Administrators Must Sell Weights and Measures

Participants at this meeting agreed that better communications with industry needed to be established. Businesses need enlightenment concerning the costs to them in integrity and competition if the marketplace does not demand equity between buyer and seller. Informed businesses can then assist weights and measures agencies communicate with their legislators to maintain a program needed by business as much as by individual consumers. An error rate that is low may only indicate that a program is working, not that resources are being expended in the wrong areas. Every

government-operated program, however, competes with other programs for a portion of tax revenue. Weights and measures

administrators must show more than a good return on the public investment in comparison with the relative value of other programs.

Variable Frequency of Inspection as an Alternative to Annual Device Testing Improving service and law enforcement delivery requires creativity and teamwork. Recognizing economic realities, the NCWM Work

Group has outlined what is an effective program, but also realizes that government sometime lacks the resources to deliver a complete

program. One of the approaches that Washington State and Iowa Weights and Measures have been directed to study is a "variable frequency of inspection" program.

Darrell Guensler, California Director of Measurement Standards, provided a brief summary of the status of these types of programs

in his State: County governments in California enforce device and commodity laws and regulations. In the 1970's, in order to reapportion resources expended mainly in device testing more towards commodity testing, Ventura County piloted a program that is now in use in about

half of the 58 California counties. Based on prior good performance, businesses are placed on extended frequency of inspection cycles.

If a business does not pass one of the last two inspections, it remains on normal frequency of inspection cycle (usually annual), and

if a business fails its last two inspections, it will be tested on an increased frequency. Combined with this "variable frequency of

inspection" is a strong enforcement operation. Since inspection is less frequent, violations must be dealt with in a firm manner. Tools such as written warnings, followed by hearings, followed by prosecutions are linked with less frequent inspections. Less than annual

inspection is routine for electric watthour and gas vapor meters based on prior studies that indicate that these devices need only be checked on cycles as long as 10 years. All variable frequency programs start with a complete evaluation of all the devices in a

jurisdiction. The results of this evaluation are translated into percentage compliance figures which can then be tracked over time, to indicate that the compliance level is maintained, improves, or falls with a given level of inspection.

106
Executive Committee

When variable frequency of inspection programs began in California, weights and measures programs were tax-supported programs. Now fee-based programs have proliferated. Fee-based programs generally impair variable inspection frequency programs as they often

require fixed inspection frequencies. The State of California has performed marketplace surveys on selected commodities, and selected devices. This state-wide level of

compliance is a benchmark against which individual local programs can compare. It assists local administrators to identify where the

! problems are, and to "hoe where the weeds are" according to individual stores, types of businesses, and entire counties.

In the last 10 to 13 years, although California population has risen as a rate greater than the national average, weights and measures

at the count>' level has shrunk 1 to 2 percent per year. Thus, California weights and measures as a whole is 25 percent behind where

it was 10 years ago. The question of where to concentrate its resources must constantly be asked. Whether variable frequency of inspection can be adopted in a particular jurisdiction depends upon the laws and regulations in place, the extent of weights and measures authority within the agency, the enforcement tools available to the agency, its business density, and the level of interaction and type of relationship maintained with the business and individual citizen level. Sufficient data must

be available to assess the benefits of any given level of inspection and the risks of reduced oversight. One of the necessar>' but sometimes more difficult parts of weights and measures enforcement programs is the evaluation of the

integrity of an entire transaction, not just the device used in the transaction. For instance, to buy or sell scrap metal or verify household moving weights requires ingenuity and creativity in finding willing partners to assist in transaction evaluations. Hard choices are being made in reducing weights and measures protection in California and all over the Nation. If the affected parties are able to check a measurement for themselves, the decision has been made to reduce oversight in such areas. Service based on time measurement is an example of such an area. On the other hand, consumers are not well equipped to protect themselves on over the counter direct sales and purchases of packaged products. In these areas, efforts have been made to at least maintain traditional levels of oversight. This is not always successful as these types of activities are not amenable to a fee for service; therefore, they must compete for increasingly scarce tax revenue. Background documentation of California's variable frequency of inspection activities and marketplace surveys is included in Appendix C.

'i

i Variable Frequency Inspection Programs Don't Work Without Strong Enforcement Powers

In further discussion, the Work Group generally agreed that variable frequency of inspection reduces contact with the businesses

regulated, and requires a change in enforcement philosophy. When weights and measures regulators are in relatively more frequent

I contact with businesses, they can work with the business to improve measurement accuracy and reduce errors; reduced frequency of

I inspections requires heavy reliance on the deterrent effect of severe consequences if violations are found.

Registration of Service Companies Is Critical A key to more effective use of the private sector requires that the State institute a registration or licensing of service agencies and

private repair and installation firms. If these firms do not perform, the State has the power to revoke the license or registration. With

a license, a firm can install devices and place them into service after repair or installation. The service agent must notify the State

f of all tests and are the eyes and ears of the government. On the other hand, it is the belief of the NCWM Work Group that if the State operates a good inspection program, it promotes a good maintenance program, and a good service company program. Training Is More Important Than Ever Before

I Unfortunately, in these days of reduced funding, weights and measures officials have not received adequate training and updating of

I test methods and criteria; the training provided by weights and measures administrations to the private sector has been even less than

I for government officials. Weights and measures administrators have not yet fully embraced the importance of training as a primarv

• need to maintain and improve equity. Guidance on Reduced Inspection When Possible

In a station having 30 pumps, should the inspector test all 30 or only 5? This decision is not simply one of sampling. There is a cost associated for the agency to get to a particular location. If the agency tests only 5 pumps, does it place seals on just those 5 or on

all 30 pumps? Kristie Anderson, representing a local weights and measures jurisdiction, stated that local officials might not have the resources to test all 30 pumps, and in many years, certain stations have never had one of their pumps rejected. How should a local agent remain visible, but cut down the time in any single location? Chip Kloos volunteered to provide her and the Work Group a twostage sampling procedure, that would look at a small sample at first, and if errors are found, expand the number of devices tested in

107
» idtMitfti. Chip w>l( mm imit ^urMttitftis pat 6tf(yfi«i whm (hm i§ fhB ^&fite<tt mitthilHy, that h Mtit'm i<y mim,

titii. pijtftp in pittttp. Whfttevftf Mt^ h ptfjvM mM ha ufi^ )u&ftkm\y, httwmm, »lrt6« iha ff*v6l, s^t-^tip, m6 im-dfywn i'tma tm

be a ii'i^ri'ititmi pmt trt m impatVitm, mA iha mimi t'lmti fh^/fti&i par pimip tmtt ft»e^ tnti^m m<inhitncled. Vm eK»mp)b, htAh flcrff^ Cmtyiim md iiUmm have gtppr(r>(im^ti)y tha mna mmh^f frt retail wfAtrr fuel ^iMUfn<i wiih'tn wkle ge^/g/aphic nrtif*^, -//herea** a city imi§6i(Aitfh hm imb) to fmitjt Mtf m tmiitig iittia.

thfc Vi/fi<thinf^Uin fHnitf Taftk fntf^ nn^ lU f (ttitlmintiM in (fre ^Ma rrf Wa«}hingf</h's legi<>lfrture fmitM a l-ye?tf sfu^Jy Ut rleferrrtine wfiether (f»eir ^fate's weighs an<l meastire^s 9(A'mi'm hm) <inh^imf}9i hamfiia m tfftnpntad w>f>» (be tmin. ttm tjeiler m) tmtaU fhm^ht frt >he MCWM Wwlc Or</t<p rne< wHh iha Wmhiti^imi <»f(tvey fe?rm )ti eafly l^^'l, <>evef«l mmhm trf the WwV; Off»t(icr tjjtmptrtiA^i with the (««fr( t>>f<rt/ghwit tt»«

f#^)je<)t. I'he rest/Hs t/t ihn pr&f^ti Jft^Ufcsfed tffjrt tha hsmtlt^ measiife/l were tnmy Otntm Jfie CMf». The Tn^li Ptnte nppttMtn\ hy

the Legislature is f((rw an advlsfrry body Jasked atpUrta hw t^; furtrl <Kfrr)6 Untl '/f welghfs m6 memim** mtdtc^imni ptiipm. the tpmiUrtf rerrralrtlrjg frrrm the Washlrigkm study was rj^rt v/hether to retain the program, hfrt h<w to t«fy frrr it. The NC WM W'/rt; Orrrt*p believed (hat there was a need fo irrteract directly with ^aihat <itate that had ttmuUtfj) privatl/Jttion rrf weights arid measures

serirrusly, artd to delve irrto the dat« upon which the study had been written. Many members of the WA Task ^'orte were able to meet

with the NCWM Wtrrk Oroup at its Mr/vember meeting, but few *ytate or local weights and measures tbptitttmy officials pafticipat«<l.

Mf. Kent ^heftrurne, Washington Off^ta of Ptfisftcial Mffnag«meftt, h«ad of (be Wasblngton Task Pmte, pfovJded a presentatlw or. the WA Task P^#fce findings on l^tmttihat Kis abbreviated t^ptrrt Is Appendi>< ty A ^/rpy of the full report t,mi be obtalne^Jl either from the t/ffice of Weights and Measnres m frrrm Mr ftob Arringt/zn, Washingt/m 5ltate W*>ighfs anfl Measures Me said that Washingtrrn's findings were that a predmninant am^fimt of the error fonnd tr/ annual inspecti'fn wai random cntrt, this type iif crrtit

Is hard to argue as ecirnornic damage to any individual ^ ;n this point, fif/b ^Vruce pointed out that lack of maintenance was a <,umtium

fallout from decreased inspection frequency; rme t(iu\6 label this error random rather than fraud, y "f.-in'iom" 'lo": not rrf^ -ir, tt,;it ttK «ffOf averages wtf to ettsf ttelfbef the buyer rtor tb« seflef \n the example of malwtenance

Mr. fiherburne argued that accuracy Isn't the purpose of weights and measures, ecrrnomic fairness is the p»»rpose. /berefore, it i? hetessary to ask probing t(uesti(ms to avoid tunnel visirm, to avoid "the device is there, therefore it shmrld be checked," Lmk of Quand^ottve tfa^tf Mr ^herbttrne also lamented that snrveys sent out by his office to Mher jurisdlctimis did n</t pr/>vide the assistance he needed, no trfher programs had the ((uantitative inf^rrmatirrn needed to suppwt the amount of resources expended frrr weights and measures enf(rrcement. Work ^ iroup members f(uestioned his analysis of the cf»st and benefit of weights and measures on a per caplta basis. A Ithough the

.savings per person for sotne parts of the program amounted to D't.'rO, the savings per agricultural business, fw example, in large Capacity vehicle scales was approximately $l7,0tttt apiece. Torn Oeiler summari/,ed that weights and measures has no bn«)eline datn concerning the error rate as compared v/ilh the cost to the local etommiy without a weights and measmes program.

CHI/«fi foffiplaJnts Allocation of r«« n«venu«<ii Policy ((uestlons at legislatures focus on recwciling ecortomi'; shor ((Mlh with rf^^ipfFUtie (o bicsiness wi\ < on^jurner cfanplnini') Husine«!'?eti have a responsibility to fix the problems; consumers have a respou'^ibility to use information available to them tr» make informed

purchasing decisirrns, 0(rvernmenl has the responsibility of "steering rather than rrrwing," and using both the carrot and stick to obtain compliance with (he law. On one hand, weights and measures is In a uni((ue position to measure its performance; no estimates rrf the value of a life or safety of an Individual need be made. All costs and benefits are directly translatable Into d(»llar values, fm the other hand, no harm of an e6(7tttrttllt3 nature alone can be compared (o the priority placed on the value of life or health

States note that their large.st complaint Is In the area of gasoline sales, t/ave Smith surmised that ihi<) might have flrrme psychological

ratirmale, one can't see gasoline going into one's tank, and if one doesn't like the prfrdifct, »rne can't put it back in the retailer'*) tank

More data Is neetled to StrpprrH Welghl'i hM'I tfi^nqiifpt) and liKtjin^qqe'J » omI» fiti<»iiq -rv* rnll tlif^ Wf^ of nriri^KJ linq irri|.f'.v» d IIk pricing accuracy in retail stores .Mcanners In grocery stores are a large perf entage of i «implaints, yet people only repoft when ih'^y are overcharged ( me must look at a variety of complaint indicators, however In the area (»f icannern, Un example, it Un<i heen contended that consumers can protect themselves, since they can see errr»r<? In pricing. M»TWever, potential purchasers must mark <l»iwn the price displayed on .shelves when individual packages are not |.ii<f ttin»i'f <l. id nuU to -otnimM t(if <)» (.riret. with thoti^ <hm£jed

at (he chetJkout; this Is a petjeeduce ftew pufdhasers will follow

108
Executive f'ommitlec

It would seem to be effective to join forces with honest businesses, help them improve the overall management of their pricing systems, and report the improved statistics of compliance and overall errors to the public. Data Collection, Review, and Assessment

Measuring cost/benefit is impossible without uniform standards concerning (1) what constitutes compliance; (2) what the actual measurement errors are; and, (3) what action is taken when errors beyond the standards are found. Although State and local weights and measures have all adopted Handbook 44, for example, as the standards for commercial measuring devices, the actual enforcement of these standards are set at varying levels; for example, rejection of devices often does not occur until the device is out of tolerance by two or tlirce times the tolerance in Handbook 44. Since juri.sdictions often do not record the amount by which many classes of

devices arc in error tlicre is no information to determine whether changes in policy or procedure improves the overall compliance rate or error rate within a jurisdiction over time. Finally, if devices are adjusted, but that adjustment is not recorded at tfic lime of Official

testing, the benefit of weights and measures presence is unknown.

Neither the effectiveness of a program itself, nor the effectiveness of changes to a program can be tracked, estimated, or measured

if the same standards are not used to evaluate the effects over time or in different locations. This was part of the problem encountered by the WA Task Force when they found widely varying compliance rates in different jurisdictions irrespective of the frequency of

inspection. Chip Kloos has shown that a correlation does exist between frequency of inspection and compliance rate. However, if a single jurisdiction is to measure the effectiveness of its program, or to measure the effect of improvements, basic information must

be collected to assess programmatic effects. Therefore, the Work Group would like to clarify what data would be useful to collect without too much effort, that can be used to measure programmatic effectiveness. All jurisdictions should be collecting the error of

the device as found at the time of test, rather than only recording whether the device was "in" or "out" of tolerance. What needs to be recorded: error "as found"

Small capacity scales: (1) How far from zero is scale?

If inspectors weren't here, the scale would stay off zero by this amount. Coach the owner through resetting zero if necessary and continue test, but record amount of f zero. (2) On 30 lb scale, what is error at I and 5 lb load? This is the range of most common use. (3) Other as found errors not related to measurement: wrong IM.IJ, wrong tare, etc. (4) What is weighed on the scale (the type of commodity or commodities) and the total number of similar devices in the store or department. Example of how to use this information: A delicatessen scale in a supermarket is overregistering 0.01 lb as found (it is off zero), and when 1 and 5 lb lest weights are placed on the device, the scale reads 1.01 lb and 5.01 lb. We will assume all the weighings done on this scale have been in error by 0.01 lb since the last inspection by weights and measures one year ago. At average prices of $8.00 per pound (to be determined in the

particular jurisdiction from supermarket sales information from the local retail grocers as.sociation), each weighing on the scale is in error 0.01 lb or $0.08 per transaction from the scale off zx;ro and not adjusted. In this example, we do not know if every weighing

operator properly deducted the tare. Supermarket News reports the average sales volume in the delicatessen departments of supermarket

to be about $160,000 per year. With the average amount purchased per delicatessen weighing about 0..5 lb or $4.00 per purcha.se, this amounts to about 40,000 weighings per year in an average delicatessen. The particular supermarket js of "average" si/xj and has two

scales. If both scales are used about the same amount, we will assume each scale weighs items 20,000 times in the year. If one scale

is off by 0.01 lb or $0.08 per transaction, this amounts to an error of $0.08 x 20,000 or $1,000 per year just from being off zero by

0.01 lb!

Large capacity scales: (1) How far from zero is scale? Teach inspector how to use error weights.

(2) Perform routine test, record all errors, and circle largest error found during any part of test and amount of test wcigtits at ttiat part of test. (3) Record capacity of scale.

Retail motor fuel dispensers:

(1) totalizer reading; which pumps are used most in a station?

(2) actual error at 5 gal (-2 cu in, for example), not just "in" or "out" of tolerance.

109
Executive Committee

What additional information has to be collected:

(1) supermarket and retail motor fuel trade volumes, average prices, etc. (2) average prices for agricultural, road construction, and other commodities per pound When weights and measures officials find short weight packages, many jurisdictions compute the economic loss in dollars using the shortage found, and apply that shortage to the amount of that product sold by a given retailer over some period of time. For example,

if a shortage of 0.02 lb is found for chicken breasts selling at $5.00 per pound, the shortage per package is $0.10. However, if the

retailer sells 200 packages of chicken breasts per day, the economic shortage is $20 per day, $140 per week, $560 per month, and

$6,720 per year for that one kind of package in that one store. This analysis is commonly done when determining whether to impose

a fine, or take other legal action. The same economic gain or loss can be estimated for direct sales using scales or meters. For example, if an individual truck scale

is under-registering by 80 lb at approximately truck capacity, some estimate of the economic effect of that under weighing can be made. If the truck scale weighing the fiill truck is different than the scale used to determine the tare, or if the tare weight is a storedtare value that was determined at some other time, the under-registration does not even partially cancel out. If, in this example, the trucks are being gross weighed only on that scale in order to sell produce, from the farm to a processor, and the commodity is worth

$0.40 per pound, the potential for economic loss to the farmer is 80 lb x $0.40 = $32 per truck load. During a harvest season of 12 weeks duration, with an average of 100 trucks per day weighed on that scale, farmers are shorted $3,200 per day, or $16,000 per 5-day week, or $192,000 for the 12-week harvest season.

Standardization of Reporting

NCWM Work Group public sector members were asked to contribute copies of their report forms to determine how they might be

easily modified to collect the information needed to measure program effectiveness. See Appendix E. Two conclusions can be drawn

from this collection of forms: (1) the wide variety of information that is collected from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the differing placement of this information on a paper form; and (2) the fact that there are certain forms already containing key information that should be generally collected across all types and classes of devices. For example, the forms provided by private service companies

varied greatly from the report forms used by the weights and measures government representative. Illinois report forms for meters and a few for scales generally had locations on the forms to report the "as found" condition in terms of error. Other State forms that we have seen usually have space under "remarks" to add "error as found." Errors at 1, 3, and 5 lb can be circled on small scale test reports. The maximum error under any part of a test of mid and large capacity scales can be circled; the test load must always be

identified, of course.

Certainly, none of the forms that the Work Group examined appeared designed for computer data entry either in a central office or

in the field. Since sufficient routine inspection data is not available, California has attempted marketplace surveys to determine the

level of marketplace equity by sampling stores, devices, and practices to obtain a status of equity within the State at any given point

in time. This is an effort that has been conducted above and beyond routine inspections and should be made to efficiently incorporate such evaluations into the routine activities of a weights and measures program. We do not need data of the above sort for all devices

in a jurisdiction to evaluate the condition of the marketplace. We do need a stratified sampling process to assist us in evaluation. Laptop computers would greatly assist in data collection at the field level. The Work Group believes that the weights and measures jurisdictions should take data collection seriously and that a presentation should be made at the Annual Meeting in order to get some of the fine points across in this area. A standardized report form would

certainly assist in obtaining the minimum data needed to make economic estimates across jurisdictions.

Issues that were not addressed in detail by the Work Group:

1. What are the relative costs per device to do 100 percent testing as compared with sampling devices (either public agency or

private business)? The cost of equipping inspectors to sample the population of devices would be equal to the cost of equipping them for 1 00% testing. The amount of labor cost reduction due to reduced number of devices tested within a given

area would depend upon the percentage of total time contributed by travel time in an inspection. In rural States, the travel time is often a major fraction of the total inspection time. The additional time to inspect a retailer's business practices over and above testing for the compliance of the device with Handbook 44 should also be included.

2. What is the relative compliance level for 100 percent testing as compared with compliance when testing only a sample of

devices? When comparing these alternatives, the type of enforcement actions when noncompliance is found must also be

110
Executive Committee

factored into the comparison. Because of the varying enforcement methodologies in place at the State and local level, a comparison of these tvpes of testing programs will need carefiil planning and organization.

3. How many jurisdictions target only devices that do not have high levels of compliance? We know that California counties and Wisconsin use variable frequency of inspection. We do not know if cutbacks have occurred in any jurisdiction that have

required testing only of devices with low compliance histories.

4. How can jurisdictions fund package testing and investigation of other commercial trade issues when their income is based upon device testing fees? Business licenses have been proposed, but no jurisdiction has been able to implement this type of

program.

! 5. How feasible are minimum training requirements for government agent and for service company employees? How can

! training requirements be linked to minimum performance standards? Can industry play a more effective role in delivering

j training or other necessary tools to obtain the most effective weights and measures program possible?

Privatization Work Group Participants

Kristie Anderson City of Everett 3200 Cedar St

Everett, WA 98201

206-259-8810

Fax: 206-259-8856

Bob Arrington WA State Weights and Measures PO Box 42560

Ulympia, wa yojU4-zjou

206-902-1856

Fax: 206-902-2086

Grant Becherini Becherini Scale Center, Inc. E 317 Sprague

Spokane, WA 99202

509-747-0181

Fax: 509-747-0808

Carroll Brickenkamp Office of Weights and Measures

National Institute of Standards and Technology A617 Administration

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4004

Fax: 301-926-0647

Bob Bruce Weights and Measures Canada

301 Laurier Ave W

Ottawa, Ontario KOA 1C9

613-952-2625

Fax: 613-952-1736

Sid Colbrook IL Department of Agriculture PO Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

217-782-3817

Fax: 217-524-7801

William Collins City of Takoma

747 Market St Room 345 Tacoma WA 98402

206-591-5035

Fax: 206-591-5433

Tom Dooley Association of Washington

Business PO Box 658

Olympia, WA 98507-0658

206-943-1600

Fax: 206-943-5811

ill
Executive Committee

Privatization Work Group Participants Ron Dougal Mettler Toledo

1057 Andover Pk E

Seattle, WA 98188

206-575-0063

Dave English Measurement Systems International 14240 Interurban Ave S

Seattle, WA 98168

206-433-0199

Carter Evans Weights and Measures Canada

1400-800 Burrard St. Vancouver, Canada V6Z 2H8

604-666-5038

Fax: 604-666-7981

Bruce Feagan City of Seattle 805 S. Dearborn

Seattle, WA 98134

201-386-1298

Jan Gee Washington Retail Association PO Box 2227

Olympia, WA 98507

Fax: 206-943-1092

Tom Geiler Barnstable Consumer Affairs PO Box 2430

Hyannis, MA 02601

jUo- /7U-OZ jU

Fax: 508-778-2412

Darrell Guensler CA Division of Measurement

Standards 8500 Fruitridge Sacramento, CA 95826

y 1 0- JO /-'tZ'4- 1 Fax: 916-387-4260

Mary Jacobsen Oil Heat Institute of Washington iozU btone Way No

Seattle, WA 98103

206-548-1500

Coir. OA/C ^AQ rax. zUd-j4o- 1 5 1 d

Chip Kloos Hunt-Wesson, Inc. 1645 W. Valencia Dr. ruilerton, CA 92714

714-680-1098

Fax: 714-449-5166

Allan Nelson Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Weights and Measures

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

203-566-4778

Fax: 203-566-7630

Julie Sandberg Washington Department of

Agriculture PO Box 42560

Olympia, WA 98504

206-902-1851

Kent Sherburne Office of Financial Management

State of Washington PO Box 43113

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-1811

112
Executive Committee

Privatization Work Group Participants

K.en Simila Oregon Department of Agriculture Measurement Standards Division 635 Capitol St. NE

Salem, OR 97310

503-373-0964

Fax: 503-378-6525

N. David Smith NC Department of Agriculture PO Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

919-733-3313

Fax: 919-715-0524

Daryl Tonini Scale Manufacturers Association 932 Hungerford Dr #36

Rockville, MD 20850

301-738-2448

Fax: 301-738-0076

Richard Tucker Tokheim Corp

1600 Wabash Ave PO Box 360

Fort Wayne, IN 46801 Tim Tyler City of Everett/Weights and Measures 3200 Ceder St Everett, WA 96201

206-259-8810

I

113
Executive Committee

Appendix B

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Budget for 1995 (Jan 1 - Dec 31) Compared with 1993 Actual and 1994 Budget

Table 1. Income

Category Number

Account

Description FY 94 Budget

Proposed FY

95 Budget FY 93 Actual

General Funds

411 Registration Fees $66,000 $66,000 $40,500 412 Membership Fees $122,500 $122,500 $117,215 413 Interest $1,000 $1,000 $1,484.33 414 Associate Membership Account -0- -0- -0- 416 Other Income -0- -0- $3.00 410 Income, General Fund $189,500 $189,500 $159,202.33 Expense & Income (Reimbursable)

481 Special Events $2,000 $2,000 $2,246.81 482 Publications $20,000 $3,500 $8,108.30 484 NTP, Seminars $6,000 -0- 485 Promotional $2,000 -0- -0- 486 Grain Equipment Cooperative Agre- ement

$15,000 $13,624.29

480 Income, E&l $45,000 $5,500 23,979.40 Total Income

400 Total Income $234,500 $195,000 $183,181.73

114
Executive Committee

Table 3. Expenses

Account Categon Description Number

FY 94 Budget

Proposed FY 95 Budget FY 93 Actual

General Funds

511 Annual Meeting $44,000 47,200 $31,852.88 512 Interim Meeting S35,500 31,000 $26,587.95 513 Travel - Committees S24,000 18,500 $41,816.81 514 Travel-Task Forces/Special Committees S17,700 $16,000 $37,928.72 515 Chairman Chair Elect S22,000 20,500 $15,436.25 516 Administration S36.500 23,500 $41,198.42 517 Printing Publications S8,500 $19,500 $28,127.46 518 Training & Train-the-Trainer -0- 788.85 510 Expenses, General Fund 3188,200 $176,200 $223,737,94 Expense & Income (Reimbursable)

581 Special Events $2,000 $2,000 -0- 582 Publications $13,500 $3,500 $9,125.80 584 NTP. Seminars $6,000 -0- 585 Promotional $1,000 -0- -0- 586 Grain Equipment Cooperative Agreement SI 5.000 $7,599.75 580 Expenses. E&l $37,500 S5.5O0 $16,725.50

Total Expenses 500 1 Total Expenses S225,700 j $181,700 | $240,463.44

115
Table 5. Associate Membership Account Cam -ov er balance 1 1 93: $8,878.65

Carr>' over

balance 1/1/94: $12,748.29

Income: 26.147.11 Income (estimated)

for all of 1994: 25.200.00

Total Income: $35,025.76 Income (estimated) by 7/1/94: 15,000.00

Total (estimated) by 7/1/94: 27.748.29

Expenses: Expenses (estimated) Banjamin Ranch $15,884.57 San Diego Zoo 15.580.00 Bank Checks 14.25 Balance

7/1/94 $12,168.29 Consumer

Pamphlet 6.378.65

Rest of year (estimate)

to 12/31/94 10.200.00

Total Expenses: $22,277.47

Balance-end of year

(estimated) 12/31/94 22,368.29 Balance 12/3 1/93 $12,748.29 Less Training

Scholarship 11.000.00 Balance-end of year

(estimated) 12/31/94 $11,368.29

Table 6. NTEP Accounts

Category NumberAccount Description FY 94 Budget

Proposed FY 95 BudgetFY 93

Actual

483.1 NTEP: Logo Sales $1,500 $1,000 $2,000

483.2 NTEP: Maintenance Fee $87,500 $105,000 $86,600*

483.3 NTEP: Publications Sales (Publication 5) $10,000 $10,000 $10,325 483 NTEP Operations $99,000 $116,000

483: The fall of 1993 was the first time we collected an NTEP maintenance fee. We had estimated 875 CCs would remain

active and 1040 were maintained ($104,000) by the end of January 1994 ('collected in Fy 1993). We expect the number of CCs to the issued and maintenance fees to be paid to offset the loss of income from CCs allowed to become inactive next

year. Therefore, we estimate 1995 maintenance fees to be $105,000 (approximately matching income of 94). Logo and

Publication 5 are expected to generate another $1 1,000 (accounted in 482 in 1993).

583.1 NTEP Board of Governors $7,000 $7,000

This account will pay for the event of a hearing on an appeal that might not be conveniently scheduled as part of the Interim

or Annual Meeting. It also pays for meetings of the Board on other NTEP issues (1994 Software).

116
Executive Committee

Table 6. NTEP Accounts

Category' NumberAccount Description FY 94 Budget

Proposed FY 95 BudgetFY 93

Actual

583.2 NTETC: Weighing Sector $12,000 $7,000

$11,183.94

583.3 NTETC: Measuring Sector $5,000 $5,000

583.4 NTETC: Belt Conveyor Scale Sector $3,500 $3,500

583.5 Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group $6,000 $10,000 $3,004.42 583.55 Multiple Dimensions Device Work Group $5,000 The ongoing work of the sectors to develop and maintain type evaluation criteria, checklists, and policy requires from one to two meetings per year. 583.2: The Weighing Sector costs were predicted too high for 1994 since it now appears that only one meeting per year will be necessary. Therefore costs for a single meeting have been estimated for 1995 as well. 583.4: The Belt Conveyor Scale Sector did not meet in 1993 but is expected to meeting in 1994 and perhaps in 1995.

583.5: The Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group reports to the Weighing Sector. When their work is concluded on

systems for meat and poultry plants, they have been asked to develop type evaluation criteria for the shipping industry. No Account Number: It is expected that once a code is developed by the Multiple Dimension Devices Work Group (operating

in 1994 under 513.3 S&T Committee), there may need to be developed checklists and type evaluation criteria under a new

cost center in the NTEP accounts. No decision was made about this group because it was not known how close the group is to a tenetative code in H44 and therefore what their needs in type evaluation criteria development might be. 583.6 U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group $10,000 $10,000 $10,864.01 The two countries have been asked to expand in two specific areas: liquid measuring devices and to issue OIML certificates. 583.7 Participating Laboratory Conference $10,000 $10,000 -0-

It is hoped that the Participating Laboratories can meet as part of the U.S. /Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group meetings, and these costs can then be reduced. 583.8 NTEP Personnel - cashier - clerk $22,000 $20,000 -0- Since this is the first year for this program, we cannot yet predict what the specific external costs for maintenance of the NTEP Certificates will be. 583.9 NTEP Publication Pub 5; Pub 14; Logo Printing $12,000 $12,000 $1 1,783.10 The expense of printing Publication 5 was accounted in 582.2 in 1993. 583 NTEP Operations $87,500 $84,500

I

117
Executive Committee

Appendix C. Floor Scales Data

Late in 1993, eight different models of production floor scales, involving seven different manufacturers, were tested in an environmental chamber. An Ohio NTEP laboratory representative assisted in the testing and was present for all of the tests. The scales were selected and purchased based on the premise that the scales should be legal for trade and traceable to an NTEP CC.

All scales were 5000 division scales. All scales utilized 4 load cells. Seven were 5000 x 1 lb, 4 ft x 4 ft. One was 2500 x 0.5 lb, 3 ft x 3ft. Six scales were traceable to an NTEP CC and used load cells traceable to an NTEP CC with appropriate V„j„ and

"max values. One scale has been assigned to an NTEP lab for field evaluation so is "in process." The load cells used were

appropriate NTEP cells. The eighth scale does not appear to be traceable to an NTEP CC, however it had a Class III marking. No markings

could be found on the load cells used in this scale.

It should be noted that these 2500- to 5000-pound weighing elements were tested for compliance with influence factor requirements even though NTEP does not normally test weighing elements with a capacity of more than 2000 lb in the laboratory. Two increasing/decreasing load tests and shift tests were conducted at four different temperatures. The order of testing was the performance of an increasing/decreasing load test, then a 1/2 capacity shift test, then another

increasing/decreasing load test, and finally a 1/4 capacity shift test. This order was followed for each scale. Each

increasing/decreasing load test took approximately 10 minutes. Comments concerning the tests and results of tests of the eight scales: (see data sheets labeled Manufacturer A thru H)

only scale H met Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance limits for all tests

if we don't consider the first increasing/decreasing load test, since the weighing elements were not exercised prior

to testing, then scales H & F pass and scale E is very close even though it uses up the entire tolerance range

if we do not consider the - 10 °C tests, five or six of the scales meet requirements

118
Executive Committee

??????

X <I<30 oouo

rl § ^ - S = S s ^! S S S

:piiiliOiP

IjiiiiliiP mm

mm

mm

1111°

•mr

3 iNvuovno IgISNOISIAIO) bOeiH3

ssi

11

Ax X f fo

<ip 6 6 0

g S S 5 g S S S S S, K; g;;ss§sss2ss

g = = S S g S 2 S S Ki oooooo-ooo

^mmm

rniumr

sililliP'

g=SSSl

oo-_oo mm

mm

siAio) boaai

119
Executive Committee

1

ooooooooooo o o o o o o

° ° - - "

- ° ? ? r r

OOOOOOOOOCO oooooo 4

OOOOOOOOOOO oooooo ^mMm

ipip

1

iNvuovrvo

ooooooooooo urn

g s s g le ;j £ g s g ;^ mil

ooooooooooo

0.00

-0,56 -0. 15

-0.07

s ooooooooooo I??-:?

iiiliiillii iillii

is:

^illliiilii - mm

f 'mum" °mr

I'mmm- "111°

i 1^4]

120
Executive Committee

sss~ss

oooooc,

p. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oooooo

o o o o o o o o o o o o oooooo

r.ooooooooooo oooooo

- ' = 2 S 5 S S S 2

- ifsiiiiiiiiif mm

Fiiiliiiiiii mm

nim

liir

"iur

m

2SS2SS oooooo

ooooooooooo ssss-s

'°°???

SSJSSS

oooooo

:?:=?• mmmp

1 Mimm tiliP

mmm

mmm

°mr

mr

ISNOISIAIOI tiOUb3

121
Executive Committee

It

' iv fS S o s

X X X <) <i o <i6S6do

o .. II"I

1 1

o O - ~ , r, o d O O r

OOOOOO .OO oo_ooo 4

§TMfinm§SSSf!2

u - jiilipiiii

K ^illiifP mil

"iiiiliis- 1111°

•sillillir liir

EliNVdOvnolia

ISNOISIAIOI lDUb3

Cooooo^ooooo

° ? T 7 7 T ? ° ° °

°? V°°?

° OOOOOO iiiiii Mmmm mm

mm

mm

°mr

1

122
Executive Committee

;^2 = sss oooooc

(SNOISIAIOI

123
Executive Committee

oooooo 13

Wooooooooooo

H rmmw-'

ii 00 00 CO f

00000000000 000000 V

ggg§S2-SS:2

ooooooooooo

• G - |5§||fipi?

t mm

I •siiiiiiip- °mr

-• "iliiiiP° •mr

124
Executive Committee

1

i

<ib6

1

g = = oooooo i

Ultra

2ooo--c,ooooo OO-OOO

g,ooo--o-oooo °???7°

°????°

fcHiiiiiiiii mm

Ihmmm mm

mii

j j"liliiiir °mr

|'i"iifiiiir

125
Executive Committee

1 oo_ooo

1

^ § 2 £ S 5 ? J S g g 2

, 00000000000 OOO-OO

M

1 m

Ioooooo 1

Ultra

oooooooooo

g S 2 S S 2: Z 2 2 § oooooooooo

(SNOISIAIO) M0UU3

126
Executive Committee

Appendix D. National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Measuring Sector Meeting

October 16-17, 1993 Charleston, SC

Outline of Agenda Items

1) Handbook 44 Changes

2) Audit Trails

3) Totalizers for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers

4) Criteria for Cash Acceptors at Attended Stations

5) Remanufactured Equipment Components

6) Listing of Vapor Recovery Options on NTEP CCs

7) Update on Compact Prover Testing

8) Update and Discussion on Work on Classification of Liquids for PD Meters (Family of Liquids)

9) Establishing Meter Classes for Handbook 44

10) Suitability of Equipment

11) Test Procedures for Compressed Natural Gas Meters

12) Tolerances for Mass Flow Meters During Type Evaluation Testing

13) Manual Volume Entries

14) Checklist for Mass Flow Meters

15) US/Canada Harmonization Meeting Summary

1) Handbook 44 Changes

Background/Discussion: The Committee reviewed recommended changes to Publication 14 to reflect changes made

at July 1993 National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM).

Conclusion: The Committee agreed to make the following changes to Publication 14. New text is indicated by

underlining .

(Note: As noted in Agenda Item 3, the language adopted in paragraphs S.4.1. and S.4.2 of the Liquid-Measuring

Devices (LMD) Code may be revised by the NCWM. Consequently, no reference is made to these two paragraphs in the changes suggested to Publication 14 below.)

Checklist for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers: Code Reference: S.1.6.5. Money-Value Computations

1 . A retail computing device shall compute total sale prices for all quantities and unit prices within the range of its quantity and computing capacities. NOTE: For dispensers which are not capable of complying with the requirements of UR.3.2., UR.3.3., and

S.1.6.5., the Certificate of Conformance must be limited to single-tier pricing applications. NOTE: This requirement does not apply to devices for which the Certificate of Conformance is limited to installations where the devices are used for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks. Code Reference: S. 1.6. 5.4., Selection of Unit Price When a product or grade is offered for sale at more than one unit price through a computing device, the selection of

the unit price shall be made:

a) using controls on the device; or

127
Executive Committee

b) using other user-activated controls. NOTE: This requirement does not apply to devices for which the Certificate of Conformance is limited to installations where the devices are used exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck

refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks.

2) Audit Trails

Background/Discussion: NCWM action in July changed the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to specify the minimum

form of audit trails for liquid-measuring devices. Attachment B of the paper on audit trails which was included as part of the 1992 S&T Committee report was updated to reflect the new requirements; a draft of the revised Attachment B

was distributed to the Committee during the meeting.

Conclusion; The Committee briefly discussed the scope and types of changes made to the original paper. Due

to the complexity of the original document, the Committee agreed that members should take additional time to review the changes to the paper prior to including it in Publication 14. Committee members will review the

revised paper and forward any comments to the technical advisor by November 22. Based on the comments

received, a revised draft will be prepared and distributed to the Committee by December 20. Additional comments on the revised draft should be directed to the technical advisor prior to the Interim Meetings in January 1994; the Committee agreed that any members attending the Interim Meetings could hold a brief impromptu meeting if necessary to discuss the comments received. A final draft will be distributed to the Committee with a letter ballot (asking whether or not the document should be included in Publication 14) following the Interim Meetings. The Committee agreed that Attachment A, which includes the five basic philosophies for sealing and a listing of

the features to be sealed, should also be included in Publication 14. It was noted that few changes will be needed

to Attachment A since this document did not reference specific code requirements.

3) Totalizers for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers

Background: At the July 1993 annual meeting of the NCWM, the LMD Code of NIST Handbook 44 was revised to include the following requirements for totalizers on retail motor-fuel dispensers.

S.5. Totalizers.

5.5./. Totalizers for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. - Retail motor-fuel dispensers shall be equipped with a nonresettable totalizer for the quantity delivered through the device. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1994. To become

retroactive January 1, 1995.] (Added 1993)

S.5.2. Sealing Totalizersfor Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. - Adequate provision shall be madefor sealing a mechanical

totalizer in such a manner that the quantity registration on the totalizer cannot be affected. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1994. To become retroactive January 1, 1995.] (Added 1993)

Since the aimual meeting, a number of questions have been raised to the S&T Committee and the NIST OWM

concerning the language that was adopted for totalizers; the intent of the NCWM in adopting language for totalizers; and how the requirements will be interpreted and enforced by weights and measures officials, particularly when a dispenser has both an electronic and a mechanical totalizer. A letter was distributed to State Weights and Measures Directors by the S&T Committee to recommend deleting S.5.2. and modifying S.5. 1 . , UR.4. 1 . , and UR.4.2. The Measuring Sector was asked to discuss the proposed changes in order

to provide recommendations to the S&T Committee.

Discussion: The Measuring Sector discussed the comments and positions of the regional associations in response to the S&T Committee's letter. Some Committee members noted that NCWM action to adopt the requirements for

128
Executive Committee

totalizers was primarily intended to address the use of totalizers by fuel tax agencies. While the requirements adopted

in July 1993 seemed straightforward, the Committee agreed that a number of issues, such as sealing, need clarification.

It was noted that both mechanical and electronic totalizers have limited volume capacities, and totalizers in some high volume stations may even "roll over" in the course of a week. This renders totalizers of limited value to weights and

measures jurisdictions as other than an enforcement tool to determine whether or not further investigation into a device's use is needed. For totalizers to be used other than as a tool, additional specifications, such as maximum capacity and minimum division size, would be needed. Some members questioned whether or not it is reasonable to even require

a totalizer unless the NCWM plans to develop meaningful specifications for them. The Committee generally agreed

that the resources required to develop such specifications would outweigh the anticipated value to weights and measures

officials. Although the Committee does not support the development of specifications for totalizers, it agreed that requiring a dispenser to have a totalizer is reasonable since it can be a useful enforcement tool and facilitates tracking quantities dispensed during routine testing. Most devices are presently equipped with totalizers, but some older devices are not. The Committee agreed that the costs of retrofitting older devices is not justified by the anticipated benefit to weights and measures.

In the S&T Committee's discussions with weights and measures officials and industry, many questions were raised in attempting to define what constitutes a scalable totalizer with respect to the type of seal and method of sealing. Suggested types of seals ranged from epoxy seals with no identifying mark to pressure sensitive and wire seals. It was

noted that placing seals on the ends of the totalizer cables may not satisfy all jurisdictions; for example, some

jurisdictions believe that access to the gears driving the totalizers must also be sealed to deter tampering. The

Measuring Sector acknowledged the difficulties encountered in defining what constitutes an acceptable means of sealing

totalizers. Given the Committee's position on not developing requirements for totalizer capacity and other

specifications, the Committee saw no point in trying to further define minimum sealing criteria.

Conclusions: Although the Committee does not support the development of specifications for totalizers, it believes that a totalizer should be required on a dispenser. The Committee agreed that there would be little benefit from

requiring that totalizers be scalable; however, the totalizer should be non-resettable. The Committee agreed that a device with at least one non-resettable totalizer would meet the needs of weights and measures officials and

agreed that the totalizer could be electronic, mechanical, or electro-mechanical. The Committee believes that the requirements for totalizers should be nonretroactive. The Committee recommends that the S&T Committee consider the following language proposed by the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association in place of the language adopted by the NCWM in July 1993.

• Amend paragraph S.5.1. to read as follows:

S.5.1. Totalizers for Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers. - Retail motor-fuel dispensers shall be equipped

with a non-resettable totalizer for the quantity delivered through the metering device. [Nonretroactive

as of January 1, 1994 1995 . To become retroactive January 1> 1995 .]

• Delete paragraph S.5.2. Sealing Totalizers for Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers.

• Delete paragraphs UR.4.1. Totalizers for Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers, and UR.4.2. Sealing Totalizers for Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers.

4) Criteria for Cash Acceptors at Attended Stations

Background/Discussion

At its October 1992 meeting, the Committee reviewed and made revisions to a proposed

checklist for cash acceptors in attended stations, "Checklist for Cash-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers, Attended

Locations. " The revised checklist was distributed to Committee members for review along with an alternative proposal from Gilbarco, Inc. The Committee was asked to provide additional comments prior to incorporating the checklist into Publication 14.

129
Executive Committee

. At the Committee's last meeting, several Committee members indicated an interest in working together to develop

suggested language for the use of the cash acceptor option in unattended locations. Conclusions: The Committee agreed to add the term "or equivalent" following the references to "battery back-up and uninterruptable power supply" to recognize that other alternatives are available to ensure that a system can

continue to operate in the event of a power failure. The Committee agreed that the checklist should be included

in Publication 14 with this revision. Committee members acknowledged that few requests have been received for use of card-activated retail motorfuel dispensers in unattended sites; it was noted that local and state fire codes prohibit unattended operation of

these devices in many areas. At some future time Committee members may wish to address the use of these devices in unattended locations; in this event, members of the Gasoline Pump Manufacturer's Association agreed

to review the existing criteria and propose those changes, if any, that would be needed to the checklist to evaluate

these devices for use in unattended locations.

5) Remanufactured Equipment Components

Background: The Measuring Sector established criteria for remanufactured devices at its October 1992 meeting, agreeing that further work is needed to develop a policy for repair of components used in existing installations. Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, drafted language for such a policy which was distributed to the Committee for comments. A summary of the diverse comments received from Committee members on this item was distributed, indicating that additional discussion is needed.

- When a Certificate of Conformance (CC) is issued to a device, the original equipment manufacturer has the responsibility to continue to manufacture the device consistent with the device originally submitted to NTEP. If the device is altered in the field through modification or repair, the alterations may affect the device's ability to comply with Handbook 44. The field official may require guidelines to determine whether or not a CC has been invalidated as a

result of such modifications or repairs. NTEP has established criteria for weighing devices which define what changes can be made to a device without

invalidating the CC; these criteria were developed due to influence factors considerations. For example, when a load

cell is repaired or replaced, specific criteria are used to determine whether or not the original CC still applies to the repaired scale.

Discussion: Many Committee members indicated that they are comfortable with the guidelines developed for remanufactured (complete) devices; however, they expressed concerns about the proposed criteria for addressing components of devices. Among the concerns was that weights and measures officials in the field have no way of knowing whether or not a component has been remanufactured (although the original equipment manufacturer can

usually determine this rather easily). There are no requirements in Handbook 44 for components of measuring devices

to be marked with identifying information; even if the components were marked, it would not be feasible for weights and measures officials to verify whether the component was original or if it had been rebuilt or remanufactured and

simply not marked as a remanufactured component by the remanufacturer. The intent of the proposed requirement was not to evaluate the performance of an individual component, but rather the performance of a device with that component. Given the numerous possible combinations of remanufactured components in devices, it was noted that NTEP would have difficulty determining whether or not a component would

affect the compliance of a given device.

It was commented that NTEP has no criteria for evaluating individual components of metering systems. If a remanufacturer were to ask NTEP to evaluate a particular component for compliance with Handbook 44, NTEP has no criteria by which to perform the evaluation on the component alone. NTEP cannot justify limiting the manufacture

of components to the original equipment manufacturer unless it can be demonstrated that a remanufactured component

affects the capability of the device to comply with the applicable requirements. The Committee also noted that, unlike weighing devices whose performance cannot easily be verified in the field for some requirements, such as temperature, the performance of liquid-measuring devices can typically be verified in the

130
Executive Committee

course of a routine field inspection. Thus, if a device does not comply with Handbook 44 due to a remanufactured component, the field official will reject it for failure to comply with routine inspection requirements. Many Committee members believe that fault\' remanufactured components are best addressed by the original equipment

manufacturer, the remanufacturer, and the local weights and measures jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. Some

manufacturers indicate that this is a customer service issue, rather than a weights and measures or NTEP issue, since the device owner topically calls the original equipment manufacturer if a malfunction occurs or the device is rejected by weights and measures officials. If a device malfunctions or is rejected, the original equipment manufacturer can

usually determine when the problem is anributable to non-OEM parts; the owner of the device is then usually given the option to work the problem out with the remanufacturer or replace the components with OEM or equivalent parts. Conclusion: Most Committee members agreed that it would be beneficial to have some means of ensuring that replacement components are of equal quality to the original components; however, it is not feasible for IVTEP

to address this issue and it is not possible for weights and measures to control. Consequently, the Committee

concluded that no criteria should be established for remanufactured components for measuring devices.

6) Listing of Vapor Recovery Options on NTEP CCs

Background: At its November 1990 meeting, the Committee addressed the issue of how vapor recovery options are referenced on NTEP CCs; the Committee added language to the checklist to address cases in which (1) no testing has been done on the vapor recoverv' equipment, and (2) NTEP testing is done on equipment which uses vapor recovery equipment which has been tested by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Committee was asked to consider adding language to the checklist to address a third case which was not addressed in the original language: "When NTEP testing is performed on a device that is equipped with vapor recovery equipment, but no CARB testing has been performed on the vapor recover)' equipment."

Discussion: The Committee noted that this issue was originally discussed in 1990 in response to requests from

manufacturers to include listings of vapor recover}- options on CCs. NTEP does not test the vapor recovery equipment

for compliance with CARB requirements, and panicipating laboratories other than California Division of Measurement

Standards do not perform tests to determine compliance of the vapor recovery equipment with Handbook 44

requirements for diversion of product. Since many States rely on NTEP CCs as a basis for determining initial acceptance of the device, NTEP wants to ensure that inclusion of the vapor recovery option does not imply that NTEP

has performed testing on those components for compliance with air resource board requirements. Committee members noted that weights and measures jurisdictions which have requirements for compliance with CARB

or equivalent standards should not rely on the NTEP CC alone; they should require a separate certificate from CARB

or an equivalent agency. It was indicated that, when an NTEP CC lists a vapor recover)' option, it is not always clear

to a weights and measures official whether or not NTEP has performed some testing on the vapor recovery equipment;

weights and measures officials must have a clear indication of the testing performed by NTEP.

Concerns were also expressed that when a CARB Certificate is changed, or perhaps revoked. NTEP may not be aware

of the changes and. consequently, not update the NTEP CC to reflect the changes.

Conclusion: The Committee agreed that it is best to limit statements on the CC to indicate only which tests have performed by NTEP. The Committee agreed to modify the existing language in the Liquid Measuring Devices

Checklist of Pub 14 as follows:

{i^—If a device has had no vapor rocovcr? testing performed; the "vapor recovery" and/or the "vapor recovery

ready" option can be list ed on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance and a statement will bo included on

the Certificate of Conformance to indicate this. For example! "No NTEP testing was performed on the Model ABC dispenser equipped with vapor recover) equipment or on the vapor recovery equipment to be

used with the Model jVBC dispenser/'

(3^

If th e vapor recovery equipment used by a manufacturer has a Ci\RB certificate for the vapor recover)'

equipment) one of the following actions should be taken:

131
Executive Committee

4a)if there i s an existing NTEP CC issued to a device which uses the same vapor rocovor}^ equipment,

reference this existing NTEP CC on the CC under consideration; OR

(b)

if there is no existing NTEP CC issued to a device which uses the vapor recovery equipment, then

reference the Ci\RB CC [executive order number]>

If a retail motor-fuel dispenser includes a vapor recovery option, the following statement will be included on the

Certificate of Conformance: "No NTEP testing has been performed on the device equipped with vapor recovery option or equipment to determine compliance with air resources board requirements."

7) Update on Compact Prover Testing

Background/Discussion; At the Committee's October 1992 meeting, the Committee agreed that NTEP should

recognize the use of compact provers for laboratory and field portions of type evaluation testing. The Committee had

also noted that additional data would be needed before a decision can be made regarding whether or not NIST will recognize compact provers for use as acceptable substitute legal standards in place of the neck-type prover or gravimetric testing. Mr. Tim Scott, Brooks Instruments, agreed to develop a plan for comparison testing between

volumetric neck-type provers and compact provers. Mr. Scott has outlined a plan with provisions for demonstrating the calibration of a compact prover and for comparing

the operation of the volumetric neck-type prover with the compact prover; he provided a detailed copy of the plan to the technical advisor prior to the Sector meeting and reviewed the highlights of his proposal with the Committee:

Factory Tests: Testing of the compact prover will be performed at the Brooks Statesboro, GA facility, including

hydrostatic pressure testing, upstream/downstream volume waterdraw, functional flow test with turbine flow meter. Laboratory Tests: The compact prover will be transported to a designated state or NIST laboratory location for testing

in comparison with other established reference devices; round robin testing may be performed as recommended by NIST.

Field Tests: Testing will be arranged at field installations of loading rack meters where the compact prover can be

installed in series with a volumetric neck-type prover. The results of both proving methods can be compared for test runs of both positive displacement and turbine meters. These tests can be witnessed by weights and measures officials; Florida and North Carolina were identified as possible field sites. During the discussion of the proposed test plan, Committee members questioned whether or not comparisons will also be made with mass flow meters. Mr. Scott indicated that they plan to include mass flow meters in the comparison. The Metrologists' Group is the NCWM body responsible for evaluating proposed test methods and devices used in routine field testing of weighing and measuring devices. It can assess whether or not a device such as the compact

prover is acceptable as a substitute legal standard in place of the neck-type prover or gravimetric testing. It was

suggested that Mr. Scott work closely with the NCWM Metrologists' Group on this project and request it to address

this issue. The Measuring Sector's technical advisor will provide the background information supplied by Mr. Scott to Ms. Georgia

Harris, NIST, technical advisor for the Metrologists' Group. Mr. Scott will also contact Ms. Harris to request that the Metrologists' Group consider addressing the subject.

8) Update and Discussion on Work on Classification of Liquids for PD Meters (Family of Liquids)

Background & Conclusions: At the Committee's last meeting, the Meter Manufacturer's Association (MMA) indicated

that it would be continuing work on this issue with respect to further defining accuracy classifications (including a review of tolerances for agri-chemical meters) and modifying existing families of liquids as needed. Mr. Tim Scott, Brooks Instruments, addressed the Committee on behalf of the MMA. He indicated that the family of

liquids issue is an ongoing topic for the MMA, and a document with proposed revisions is currently circulating among

132
Executive Committee MMA members for review and comment. Mr. Scott indicated that the MMA will provide an update to the Committee

following this review period and will supply information for discussion at the next meeting of the Committee. The MMA agreed to address the possibility of adding one or more categories to address food products. It was noted

that this can include a wide range of products with varying viscosities or other characteristics, for example, viscous products like peanut butter and products which must be maintained at a given temperature, such as liquid sugar. The MMA also agreed to address CO, in its work on product classifications. (NOTE: See also combined agenda items (9) and (10) for related discussions on the topic of Meter Classes and Suitability of Equipment.)

9) Establishing Meter Classes for Handbook 44 &

10) Suitability of Equipment

(Note: The Committee agreed that Agenda Items (9) and (10) were closely related and, therefore, addressed them

in a single discussion.) Background/Discussion

The concept of separating meters into "classes" was briefly noted at the Committee's October 1992 meeting during the discussion on families of liquids for positive displacement meters (See agenda Item 8). This concept is used by the International Organization for Legal Metrology (OIML) for positive displacement and other types of meters.

Ln a related issue. Committee members were provided with a copy of Item 330-8 of the 1993 final report of the S&T

Committee, which discusses a proposal to include suitability of equipment criteria for liquid-measuring devices in Handbook 44. The proposal outlined suggested suitability criteria in the form of a table with minimum delivery sizes, maximum division value, and required accuracy. The S&T Cormnittee seeks input from the Measuring Sector on this issue. Committee members noted that NCWM discussions on suitability of equipment for liquid-measuring devices originated primarily as a result of difficulties encountered by field officials in distinguishing between wholesale and retail devices. Handbook 44 does not adequately define the various applications for liquid-measuring devices encountered by field

officials. The definition for retail may not address all applications of devices which should fall into the retail category, and the definition for wholesale devices is vague. Many weights and measures officials believe that Handbook 44

criteria are needed in order for the criteria to be enforceable and to ensure that all weights and measures officials, manufacturers, and service companies have access to the information. The concept of establishing a table to define suitability of equipment for given applications was based on a similar approach used in the Scales code. Committee members noted that much confusion has arisen over how the proposed

table is intended to apply, panicularly because the tolerances in the table often differ from the tolerances in the specific code for a given device. It was noted that the tolerances in the table simply define the tolerance that must be met in order for a device to be considered suitable for a specific application. Another area of particular concern to some Committee members was the restriction of the division size on analog

devices to 0.01 gal or smaller. It was noted that this is a nonretroactive restriction, applying only to new models of

devices, not to existing models already in production; under the proposal, existing models could continue to be produced

and used in these applications. In proposing this restriction, the S&T Committee was recognizing that technology has developed to the extent that a 0.1 gallon division size is no longer considered suitable for delivery sizes of 10 gallons

since alternative devices with higher resolution are readily available. The concept of using accuracy classes, device divisions, and minimum delivery sizes to define suitability of equipment

is new for liquid-measuring devices, although the Committee noted that OIML has established the use of accuracy

classes for metering devices. It was noted that minimum delivery size is an imponant concept in this approach in order

to keep the error small relative to the size of the delivery. Committee members also noted that flow rate may be an

additional parameter to consider when addressing suitability.

Conclusions: The Committee agreed that the concept of establishing accuracy classes, minimum division sizes, and minimum delivery sizes has merit; however, detailed study is needed beyond what the Committee can

accomplish during a given meeting. The Committee agreed that this work would best be done by a subgroup

which would make recommendations to the Committee.

133
Executive Committee

The following people agreed to be on the subgroup: Mel Hankel (Liquid Controls Corp.); Jack Jeffries (FL); Ron

Murdock (NC); Chuck Strawn (Schlumberger Industries); and Rich Tucker (Tokheim Corp.). The subgroup was

asked to review the concepts of accuracy class, division size, and minimum delivery relative to specific applications. It will report its findings to the technical advisor, who will distribute the information to the Committee for consideration.

11) Test Procedures for Compressed Natural Gas Meters

Background/Discussion

:

A draft examination procedure outline (EPO) for CNG has been developed by Jim Akey (WI) on behalf of the NCWM Metrologist's Group and distributed to Committee members for review. Several NTEP tests have been performed on CNG meters in retail-motor fuel applications using the NTEP criteria and test procedures for mass flow meters. More specific procedures are needed for mass flow meters dispensing compressed natural gas due

to the nature of the product and concerns about the use and operation of these devices. The NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee and the Specifications and Tolerances Committee are working with members of the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) and other representatives from the CNG industry to establish the method of sale for CNG in retail motor-fuel applications. These groups are also working to identify adequate procedures for routine field testing. The Committee was asked to review the proposed EPO for CNG meters to determine how these procedures might be incorporated into Publication 14 and possible changes to the document. The

Committee was also asked to consider establishing a subgroup to work with the NGVC on the further development of

test procedures. During the meeting, the Committee was advised that Dick Suiter, Nebraska Weights and Measures, has also developed

an examination procedure outline based on Nebraska's experience performing routine tests of these devices. Committee member, Steve Malone (NE W&M) noted that the primary difference between Nebraska's proposed procedure and the EPO distributed to the Sector is that Nebraska stipulates comparison of the indicated values with the scale rather than comparison with derived values (i.e., calculated values). Nebraska's procedure also reflects many safety concerns that their inspectors have encountered.

Conclusions: The Committee agreed that a subgroup should be formed to work with the NGVC on the development of test procedures for these devices for both type evaluation and routine field testing, and that Jim

Pekor (NGVC) should be advised. Those agreeing to serve on the subgroup are: California W&M (no specific representative at present, most likely will be Charlie Nelson); Daniel Industries (no specific representative at present); Chuck Miller (DVCO); Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco); Mike Keilty (Micromotion); and Richard Huff

(Universal Epsco). Mr. Keilty agreed to coordinate the efforts of this group with the work being done by the NGVC.

The Committee noted that the proposed EPOs cover mass flow meters, but Committee members noted the need

to address other technologies, such as sonic nozzles, turbine or other types of meters. Questions were raised particularly concerning how the sonic nozzle can determine BTU content of the measured product. Another area identified by the Committee as needing further development is the disposal or return of product

following testing. Many concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of expelling the product back into the atmosphere. While air resources boards may not object to this practice, many fire marshal codes prohibit

this for safety reasons and, in some cases, stipulate safety specifications for the equipment.

12) Tolerances for Mass Flow Meters During Type Evaluation Testing

Background/Discussion: At its July 1993 annual meeting, the NCWM added paragraph T.5. to the tentative Mass Flow Meters Code to specify a tolerance of 0.3 percent during type evaluation. The intent of part (b) of this paragraph

is to specify that a tolerance of 0.3 percent applies at a given temperature and pressure. As part of a type evaluation field test, a mass flow meter will be tested initially and then again after a specified amount

of product (throughput) has gone through the meter. There will likely be a difference in the temperature of the liquid between the initial and subsequent tests. Despite such differences, the tolerance of 0.3 percent is applied to the meter

during each test, and no meter adjustment is permitted between the initial and subsequent tests. The Committee was

asked to consider modifying Publication 14 to clarify this point and to reflect the addition of the new paragraph T.3.

134
Executive Committee

A number of concerns were raised by Committee members over the differences in tolerance applied to different types of meters, specifically, mass flow meters vs. positive displacement, turbine, and other types of meters. For example,

during type evaluation, positive displacement meters have a larger tolerance than mass flow meters for agri-chemicals;

for products categorized as "other liquids" the opposite is true. Since all references to mass flow meters will be removed from the specific codes when the mass flow meter code becomes permanent, the Committee is particularly concerned that this issue be addressed.

Manufacturers expressed a general desire to see all types of metering technology treated equally for a given application. Committee members noted that the establishment of meter classes with specific tolerances and applications (as noted

in agenda items 9 and 10) might help to eliminate the discrepancies which currently exist among the various measuring

device codes. Committee members were advised that Canada is currently considering meter classes for its mass flow meter requirements; using this approach might assist in future harmonization efforts in the measuring device area. Conclusions: Since the proposed change merely clarifles requirements already recognized in Handbook 44, the Committee agreed that Publication 14, Part (H), Field Evaluation and Permanence Tests for Metering Systems, under the section titled "Permanence Tests for Mass Flow Meters" be modified by adding the note shown (in underlined text) below and adding the word "liquid" prior to "temperatures and pressures" in the last sentence

of the note. However, the Committee noted that many of the issues identified in the discussion of this issue must

be further addressed. Some of the concerns raised might be addressed through the establishment of meter

classes. The Committee agreed that these issues should be dealt with by the subgroup established to examine

meter classes and suitability of equipment (see combined agenda item numbers 9 and 10). Modify Publication 14 as follows:

Test Data The following tests are considered to be appropriate for mass flow meters: o five tests at each of four different flow rates across the range of the meter

All data points must fall within the maximum permissible error limits. Following the initial test, the meters will be placed into service for the permanence test. The following minimum throughput criterion is recommended for these meters. 60 days OR

2,000 x maximum flow rate achieved in the installation, whichever is greater Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results must be within acceptance

tolerances. NOTE: The specified tolerance of 0.3 percent is to be applied to both the initial and the final tests. No

adjustments may be made to the meter between these tests. The tolerance is to be applied even

if liquid temperatures and pressures differ between the initial and final tests.

13) Manual Volume Entries

Background: In January 1993, Committee members agreed by letter ballot to modify the checklist for Electronic Cash

Registers (ECRs) Interfaced with Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers (RMFDs) to permit manual fuel entries as follows. Committee members were provided with a summary of the comments received in conjunction with the letter ballot.

2. Manual volume entries other than preset amounts are not permitted when the dispenser is "on-line" with the ECR. Manual volume entries are permitted when:

(a) the dispenser is "off-line" with the ECR and

(b) the entry is clearly identified on the receipt as a manual entry by the terms "MANUAL VOLUME".

"Manual Volume". "MAN VOL". "Man Vol". "MANUAL ENTRY", or "Manual Entry".

135
Executive Committee

[Editor's note: The term "on-line" indicates that the dispenser is interfaced with and can communicate with the ECR. The term "off-line" indicates that the interface between the dispenser and the ECR is not functioning and

the dispenser camiot communicate with the ECR.]

In the letter ballot, most Committee members agreed that the term "MANUAL VOLUME" or "Manual Volume" are acceptable to identify the entry on the printed receipt. Although the terms "MAN VOL" or "Man Vol" and "MANUAL

ENTRY" or "Manual Entry" were considered acceptable by a majority of Committee members, a fair number of Committee members opposed these terms. Committee members were asked to discuss these latter terms further. Among the comments received with the responses to the letter ballot was a request to permit the use of manual fuel entries when the system is in an "on-line" mode in order to permit corrections to mischarged sales.

Discussion: The discussion of this issue questtioned the basis for permitting manual fuel entries since they are not

specifically referred to in Handbook 44. Committee members noted that, despite this lack of mention, the ECR/RMFD

checklist has for some time prohibited their use. The Measuring Sector previously believed that use of manual fuel entries facilitated fraud and included this language as an interpretation of the General Code paragraph G.S.2., which

prohibits features that facilitate fraud. The Measuring Sector has since (in their letter ballot) reassessed this interpretation and, as a result of the letter ballot, agreed to permit manual fuel entries under specific conditions. Concerns were also raised over whether the S&T Committee, rather than the Measuring Sector, should review this issue, and whether a change to Handbook 44 is needed to permit manual fuel entries. Committee members noted that the S&T Committee has the authority (as does the NTEP Board of Governors) to override any decisions made by the Measuring Sector if the decisions of the Sector are not felt to be consistent with Handbook 44 requirements.

Additionally, the NCWM can question the decisions and interpretations made by the sectors since the summaries of the technical sector meetings are typically included as appendices to the Executive Committee's report. The chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors, Allan Nelson, confirmed this hierarchy and briefly reviewed the role of the technical sectors in providing reasonable interpretations based on their knowledge of Handbook 44 requirements and their practical expertise. Committee members further noted that the NCWM does not typically review step-by-step and discuss each decision of the technical sectors in detail, and reopening each issue would defeat the purpose of

appointing the sectors. The sectors have been charged with the responsibility of making these decisions based on

thorough technical discussions, which are typically not possible in the framework of the NCWM open hearings. Committee members noted that, if the role of the Sectors is not to develop criteria and provide interpretations, then the Sector should be disbanded or redefined. In addition, if the Sector overrides the wishes of the NCWM, it should

receive that feedback. Some Committee members opposed the direction of the Committee on this issue, believing that it is making decisions not based on H44 criteria, and that the S&T must review this issue first. Since there were strong feelings in both

directions, the Committee voted 11 to 5 against forwarding the issue to the S&T Committee for review prior to deciding. However, the Sector reiterated its understanding that the S&T Committee still has final authority over all decisions made by the Sector.

In the technical discussion of the issue, some weights and measures officials indicated that they would allow any of the proposed terms since all would permit a weights and measures official to identify a manual entry in the event of a consumer complaint. Some Committee members noted that one of the primary concerns is to make sure that the customer can understand the designation of a manual fuel entry. The primary need for "on-line" manual fuel entries is to be able to correct for cashier errors. For example, the cashier who clears the wrong dispenser when a customer comes in to pay needs some means to re-enter the cleared information

for the appropriate customer.

Conclusions: The Committee agreed to permit manual fuel entries while the dispenser is "on-line" with the ECR

by modifying the ECR/RMFD checklist as follows. The permissible terms identified by the Committee for designating a manual fuel entry are also included in the modified text.

136
Executive Committee

2. Manual volmno entries other than preset amounts are not permitted when the dispenser is "on-line" with the ECR. Manual volume entries are permitted-wbeaf.

<a)the dispenser is "off line" ^rith the ECR and

<b)—tThe entry is must be clearly identified on the receipt as a manual entry by the terms "Mi\NUAL

VOLUME "Manual Volume", 'M.\N VOL", "Man Vol", "M.\NU.\L ENTRY", or "Manual

Entr) " "Manual Volume," "Manual Fuel Entry," "Manual Entry," "Manual Sale." or "Manual

Fuel Sale." (Note: All uppercase or a combination of upper and lower case letters are permitted, provided the resulting text is found to be clear and legible by the evaluating laboratory.) —the ECR will not accept manual entries when "on- line" with dispensers .

14) Checklist for Mass Flow Meters

Background/DiscussionHandbook 44 currently includes a tentative code for mass flow meters. The NCWM has made revisions to the tentative code over the past several years and it is proposed that its status be changed from

tentative to permanent next year. A number of mass flow meters have been evaluated by NTEP over the past several years using testing criteria established by the Measuring Sector at past meetings. When the tentative code becomes

permanent, references to mass flow meters in other codes will be deleted.

In anticipation of the code becoming permanent and to better address NTEP testing of mass flow meters, the Committee was asked to discuss the possible development of a separate checklist for mass flow meters. Committee members noted that this issue is closely tied with the work of the subgroup established to develop test procedures for CNG dispensers since many of them use mass flow meter technology. Committee members urged the group to consider moving forward on the development of a proposed checklist based on the tentative code in anticipation of the eventual acceptance of the mass flow meters code by the NCWM. Any changes made in the tentative code can

still be tracked in the proposed checklist. A checklist based on the proposed mass flow meters code would not be

finalized until the status of proposed code is made permanent; however, since other codes recognize the use of mass

flow meters, many of the testing procedures could be used by participating laboratories. The Committee was asked for input to the S&T Committee on whether or not the tentative mass flow meter code should be made permanent. Concerns were expressed over the discrepancies in tolerances among the various codes and other unresolved questions. This issue might be addressed in the discussion on meter classes and suitability of equipment (see Agenda Items 9 and 10).

Conclusions; The Committee agreed that a subgroup should develop a proposed checklist for mass flow meters

in anticipation of the NCWM's eventual acceptance of the tentative mass flow meter code. The following people agreed to serve on the subgroup: Eric Kappelt (per John Skuce) (Smith Meter), Mike Keilty (Micromotion), and Chuck Strawn (Schlumberger Industries). Mr. Keilty agreed to serve as chairman of the subgroup and to coordinate the efforts of this subgroup with that of the subgroup working on test procedures for CNG dispensers. The subgroup will bring its recommendations back to the Committee for review and comment. Due to the remaining concerns over the discrepancies in tolerances among the various codes, the Committee puts

forth no recommendation to the S&T Committee concerning the status of the tentative mass flow meters code.

15) U.S. /Canada Harmonization

Background/DiscussionIn Fall 1992, members of the NCWM (including weights and measures officials, industry, and members of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures) met with representatives from Canada's Legal Metrology

Branch to discuss the harmonization of U.S. and Canadian weights and measures requirements as a means of eliminating

trade barriers for equipment manufacturers. Members of the weighing industry indicated that their main objective was

to recognize type evaluation tests by either the United States or Canada as acceptable, rather than harmonizing the weights and measures requirements.

137
Executive Committee

In April 1993, the U.S. /Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group adopted a plan to develop a program in which a manufacturer can submit a weighing device to either country and have it evaluated for U.S. and/or Canadian type

approval, eliminating the need to go through the type evaluation process in both countries. The group agreed that a

basic set of tests would address requirements which the two countries have in common, and a separate set of tests would

be run for areas where the two countries differ. Over the past year, representatives of Canada's Legal Metrology Branch have worked closely with members of the participating NTEP laboratories to identify the similarities and differences between U.S. and Canada's type evaluation

testing procedures and policies for several categories of weighing devices. As part of this process this subgroup is developing a unified checklist, application form, and applicant's guide which will be used by the type evaluation

laboratories to evaluate certain weighing equipment for both countries. It is anticipated that this program will be implemented sometime in 1994. If this program proves to be successful, it will be expanded to include other types of weighing devices. The NCWM wants to explore the issue of U.S. /Canada harmonization with manufacturers of liquid-measuring devices

in anticipation that a program similar to that developed for weighing devices might be implemented for liquid-measuring

devices sometime in the future. This issue was brought before the Measuring Sector to update the Committee with the work being done in the weighing area and to provide an opportunity for Committee members to give some preliminary

input on what approach might work best for the liquid-measuring device industry. NTEP Board of Governors Chairman, Allan Nelson, reviewed this issue with the Committee. He noted that the issue

is more appropriately addressed as mutual recognition within the weighing industry where the focus is to attain mutual

recognition of type approval rather than making the requirements of the two countries the same. Mr. Nelson reported

that the work within the weighing industry is proceeding well and noted that training of NTEP participating laboratories

in the Canadian requirements for certain weighing devices is scheduled for December. Mr. Nelson asked the measuring industry and weights and measures officials to consider how this issue might best be

addressed for the measuring industry . He noted that they should consider whether the mutual recognition approach used by the weighing sector or the approach of harmonizing requirements would best suit the needs of the measuring

industry. Due to the limited time available to the Sector, little input was given by the group; however, Mr. Nelson encouraged

the group to give further thought to the issue and provide their input to the NTEP Board of Governors on this issue to

assist the Board in plaiming for future work in this area.

List of Participants Norman Alston

Richard Huff

Jack Jeffries

Mike Belue Tina Butcher

Steven Cook Tom Geiler Mel Hankel

Allan Nelson

Stan Retrum

Timothy Scott John Skuce Chuck Strawn Bob Traettino

Gordon Johnson Debbie Joines Michael Keilty Steve Malone

Ronald Murdock

Frances Holland

Daniel Flow Products, Houston, TX

Belue Associates National Institute of Stds & Technology

State of California W«&M

Barnstable W&M

Liquid Controls Corporation Schlumberger, Chesapeake, VA

Universal Epsco, Atlanta, GA

Florida Dept. Agriculture Stds Division

Gilbarco, Inc. Wayne Division Dresser Industries Micromotion, Boulder, CO

Nebraska W«&:M NC Dept. Agriculture Standards Division

State of Connecticut W&M

Shell Oil Company

Brooks Instruments Smith Meter, Inc. Schlumberger Industries, Greenwood, SC

Liquid Controls Corporation

(713)

(903)

(301)

(916)

(508)

(708)

(804)

(404) (904)

(910)

(410)

(303)

(402) (919) (203)

(713)

(912) (814)

(803)

(708)

827-3857 583-9082

975-2196

387-4241 790-6250

295-1056

366-4162 351-2740 487-2634

547-5375 546-6699 530-8400

471-4292

733-3313 566-5230

241-1794

764-5471 898-5405 942-2247 295-1056

138
Executive Committee

Jim Truex State of Ohio W&M (614) 866-6361

Richard Tucker Tokheim Corporation (219) 423-2552

Richard Wotthlie Maryland Dept. Agriculture W&M/NIST (410) 841-5790

139
Executive Committee

Appendix E. National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Moisture Meter Sector December 17-18, 1991 INTRODUCTION

The agenda for the two day meeting is listed below.

I. Goals and scope of the Committee

II. Handbook 44 Code considerations A. Moisture measurement technologies to be considered by the Committee

B. Mass, temperature, and test weight measurements

C. Reference method

III. Type Evaluation Considerations A. Instrument calibration

1. Calibrations used for type evaluation testing

2. Ongoing national calibration effort B. Grain types and classes C. Test procedures and tolerances

1 . Basic accuracy and precision tests 2. Verify operating ranges for the instrument. D. Sample selection and preparation

IV. Discussion and Planning for Upcoming Meetings

A. Issues requiring discussion at future meetings

B. Scheduling the next meeting

Sid Colbrook (Chairman, NCWM), Carroll Brickenkamp (NIST), and Dave Funk (FGIS) welcomed sector members to the organizational meeting. Selected comments are summarized below as part of the discussion on goals and scope of the Moisture Meter Sector. These remarks also apply for the Near-Infrared (NIR) Wheat Protein Analyzer Sector.

Discussion of "Type Evaluation Considerations" did not proceed according to the agenda shown above. Consideration of

the first issue "Instrument Calibration" led to a more general discussion of type evaluation requirements. This discussion was summarized and reported under five general categories: (1) General Approval Approach, (2) Instrument Calibration,

(3) Sample Set Selection, (4) Tolerances, and (5) Sealing Instruments. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I. Goals and scope of the Committee

The primary responsibility of these National Type Evaluation Technical Committee sectors is to develop type approval requirements for moisture meters and NIR wheat protein analyzers. The sectors are also charged with making parallel changes to the Handbook 44 Grain Moisture Meter code and with developing new code for NIR protein analyzers. NCWM is a standards writing body, and like most standards writing bodies, requires that only members may participate in the process, including technical sector activities. Membership applications were distributed at the meeting. Rather than

resolving issues by bringing them to a vote, the sectors shall attempt to reach a consensus. Consensus was defined as "more

than a majority but less than unanimity."

Sector activities will be consistent with the organizational structure and operational procedures of NCWM. Sectors may make

recommendations on policy issues that will then be forwarded to the Executive Committee of NCWM for consideration. Recommendations on technical issues will be forwarded to and voted upon by the Specifications and Tolerances Committee. The NCWM Chairman and the Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures worked to appoint members to the sectors. During this process, they responded to questions and provided information to sector members. Now that the sectors have

140
Executive Committee

been established, they should no longer be considered as primary contacts regarding sector activities. Inquiries should be

directed to either the Technical Advisor or the Chairman of the Sector. Type evaluation criteria need to be a reasonable interpretation of the appropriate code in Handbook 44. Type evaluation tests need to be developed for all features that will be listed on the Certificate of Conformance. The sectors need to address "direct sale considerations." Both the customer and seller are entitled to equal information at the time of sale. Instruments should be designed in such a fashion that they do not "facilitate fraud." n. Handbook 44 Code considerations

A. Moisture measurement technologies to be considered by the Committee

Results of the Meeting The sector discussed whether moisture measurement technology should be limited by Handbook 44 code, to what extent instruments can be sealed, and whether current Handbook 44 tolerances should be maintained.

1 . Sector members agreed that technology should not be limited by Handbook 44 code, and that type evaluation test criteria should emphasize performance specifications rather than design features. The Technical Advisor was assigned the task of reviewing the literature and providing information on minimum acceptable sample sizes for moisture meters.

2. The Technical Advisor will also provide a technology update at the next meeting regarding means of sealing instruments

or otherwise deterring fraud.

3. It was recommended that the present maintenance tolerances in Handbook 44 be maintained. This assumes that field

test samples are screened to achieve good agreement between moisture meter and air oven results.

Discussion

1 . The consensus of the group was that Handbook 44 code should be general enough that it does not limit the development

and adoption of new moisture measurement technologies. This does not imply that all technologies will be suitable for commercial use. The intent is that the emphasis be placed upon performance, not design considerations. It was

determined that the sector can and should define what data needs to accompany an application for type evaluation to show

that the instrument potentially meets test criteria. Publication 14, not Handbook 44, is the appropriate place to specify application requirements.

It was suggested that it would be easier to develop performance specifications if we limited discussion to those types of technology that we understand, e.g., capacitance meters, DC conductivity meters, and NIR analyzers. The concern was

that different test procedures will be required for different measurement technologies, and that developing type evaluation

criteria would be more difficult if no technologies were eliminated.

In the discussion on including or excluding specific technologies, it was proposed that any moisture measurement system

accepting a whole grain sample and providing a moisture reading be considered a grain moisture meter. Thus, a "moisture meter" might consist of several pieces of equipment and require a number of different steps to make a moisture

determination. For example, it would be acceptable to have a grinder included as pan of the system if the performance

of the overall moisture measurement system meets type evaluation test requirements. Auxiliary equipment and analysis procedures would be specified on the Certificate of Conformance. Devices intended for use in measuring the moisture of processed grain commodities (flour) should be excluded from consideration.

It was agreed that there should be no limit on the time required to make a moisture determination. Rather, the marketplace should be relied upon to discourage unrealistic analysis procedures. The priority placed upon analysis time depends upon the situation and the specific application. Sample size was identified as one of the more critical design considerations. Discussion included the importance of

obtaining a representative sample from the bulk lot, use of proper subsampling techniques, and the fact that air oven

reference methods use only a small amount of sample. Questions posed by the group included: Should minimum sample

141
Executive Committee

size requirements be described on a weight or volumetric basis? Does sample size matter if we get the correct result? How large a sample is required in order to get repeatability? This issue was not resolved.

It was agreed that Handbook 44 code should continue to exclude testing of in-motion moisture measurement devices. Concern was expressed that grain moves through some instruments during analysis, and that this might be defined as in-motion moisture measurement. It was suggested that a static moisture measurement be defined as one where the sample is retained by the instrument after the analysis is complete.

2. Considerable discussion regarded direct sale considerations and the fact that some instruments, NIR analyzers in

particular, may more readily facilitate fraud than other instrument types. There was concern that operational procedures

differ from those for dielectric meters. NIR operators normally make frequent bias checks, adjusting instrument results up or down as required. There was discussion regarding how frequently NIR's need to be biased for moisture. It was

suggested that bias checks might not need to be as frequent for moisture as they are for protein because the moisture bands are strong and may be inherently more stable. The group discussed whether some type of audit trail would be

required for NIR instruments.

It was acknowledged that, though some dielectric meters can be largely sealed, all instruments currently in use to some

extent facilitate fraud. Meters requiring conversion charts were cited as an example. In addition to the opportunity for fraud, the possibility of operator error is greater with these instruments. NCWM wanted to specify the use of fully automatic meters at the time the moisture meter code in Handbook 44 was developed; is now the time to specify the use of fully automatic moisture meters? The Technical Advisor was tasked with providing a technology update regarding methods, other than sealing the instrument, of preventing fraud. One suggestion was that NIR manufacturers design safeguards into the instrument, but

several years might be required to develop software to lock out the operator from some features. Another suggestion was that the bias setting be printed with the moisture result.

3. The sector did not feel that any changes were required to current Handbook 44 acceptance and maintenance tolerances. Representatives from state Weights and Measures offices reported few problems with the tolerances when using

preselected field test samples. Meter rejection rates from 0.5 to 5.0% were reported by the various state representatives.

B. Mass, temperature, and test weight measurements

Results of the Meeting The sector recommended that existing tolerances for auxiliary equipment (that is, equipment which is separate and external from the moisture meter) be maintained. Internal devices providing intermediate temperature, test weight, or mass

measurements used to adjust moisture values do not need to be tested unless the intermediate result will be reported and used

for purposes of trade.

Discussion Most of the discussion was to clarify existing Handbook 44 code to make it clear that internal devices will not be tested as part of type evaluation, and that the primary performance requirement is that the instrument provide accurate moisture

results. If intermediate results are printed or displayed, the display should indicate that these results are "not legal for trade.

A question was asked regarding how this requirement affects an NIR that is approved for making moisture determinations but not protein determinations. The response was that the same restrictions apply as far as displaying information. There was some discussion that the tolerances for external devices may be unrealistic. For example, requirements for moisture scales might not be practical because weighing error does not necessarily translate into a moisture determination

error of the same magnitude. The question was then asked whether temperature requirements in sections T4 and N1.3 were

excessive. Most Weights and Measures representatives felt that there was no problem with the tolerances for temperature, hence no need to recommend changes to this section of Handbook 44. Concern was expressed as to whether the 0. 15 tolerance for test weight was meaningful without defining the test procedure.

It was agreed that FGIS procedures for determining test weight per bushel should be referenced in Handbook 44. It was

suggested that the sector recommend that test weight tolerances be removed from the Grain Moisture Meter chapter. There

142
Executive Committee

were objections to removing test weight tolerances in that they are needed for enforcement purposes and for addressing

complaints.

C. Reference method

Results of the Meeting The committee agreed that NCWM should continue to recognize the most current FGIS air oven procedures as the reference method. It is imderstood that calibrations will need to be updated if FGIS changes air oven procedures. It was recommended

that the defmition for the air oven reference method be moved from the "Definitions" section of Handbook 44 to section N.1.1 "Transfer Standards" in the Grain Moisture Meter chapter.

HI. Type Evaluation Considerations

Results of the Meeting The discussion of type evaluation procedures did not closely follow the meeting agenda. Rather, broad type evaluation

considerations were discussed. It became obvious that a number of issues must be resolved before type evaluation test criteria can be developed for moisture meters. A sub-committee was appointed to address these issues and draft type

evaluation test procedures before the next meeting. Members of the sub-committee are: Rich Pierce, Dave Funk, Jim Rampton, Cliff Watson, Jack Barber, and Bob Wittenberger. The topics that needed to be discussed to provide direction

for the sub-committee are summarized below.

General Approval Approach Two basic approaches to type evaluation testing of moisture meters were discussed. The first is to evaluate and approve

basic instrument capabilities using a calibration that is suitable for type evaluation purposes, but perhaps not adequate for

field use in commercial transactions. The second approach is to test both the instrument and the calibration as part of type

evaluation, approving the instrument and the calibration for immediate use in commercial transactions. There was

disagreement about the more appropriate approach. Those favoring the first approach felt that "full testing" should not be required as the instrument is approved for additional grain types. They preferred that tests of basic instrument performance, such as susceptibility to radio frequency interference, be conducted only once to approve the instrument, and that a reduced set of tests be conducted to approve calibrations. Calibrations used for type evaluation purposes could be developed using more limited sample sets than would be required

for a commercially acceptable calibration. The instrument could be "approved" and calibrations "endorsed" as developed and tested for additional grains. By separating the two testing processes, it would be easier to define what must be done to maintain adequate calibrations. A suggestion that an instrument be "provisionally" approved until suitable calibrations are developed received little suppon. Those favoring the first approach also felt that it was unrealistic to expect a new instrument to come in for type evaluation

testing equipped with a calibration suitable for coirmiercial use. If devices must be calibrated by the manufacturer prior to being submitted for type evaluation testing, then test tolerances would have to be increased. An associated concern with

evaluating both the instrument and the calibration is handling biases between predicted and reference values. It may be

necessary to adjust type evaluation data to address bias problems. Funhermore, bias adjustment would not be a problem

with NIR analyzers because a validation set could be used to slope and bias individual instruments. A final concern with approving the instrument and calibration was that sometimes the calibration might mask problems with the instrument. A potential benefit of using a limited sample set to develop a calibration for type evaluation purposes is that the time required

to test an instrument may be reduced. However, because of the problems associated with storing high moisture samples,

it may not be possible to develop a calibration and conduct type evaluation testing in a single harvest season. Suggestions

for addressing this concern were to use a material other than grain for testing, or to use "dry" samples of one type of grain

to predict performance with other grains. Neither approach was felt to be feasible. Those favoring the second approach were concerned about approving an instrument without considering long-term calibration needs. FGIS representatives commented that they have tried approving just the instrument, and that there are problems when

type evaluation and calibration are not carefully coordinated. The users or customers do not view the instrument and

143
Executive Committee

calibration separately. They do not understand how an instrument can be approved, yet caimot be used because an approved

calibration is not available. A related problem is that of determining criteria for testing or identifying approved calibrations. The question was raised whether a certificate of conformance should be issued if approved calibrations are not available and

the instrument cannot be used in the field. One consideration is the importance of documenting approval activities. The

approved instrument and calibration should be clearly specified on the certificate of conformance, along with any auxiliary equipment. The certificate of conformance can then be used to document changes in a calibration. Issuance of a certificate of conformance does not assure permanence or long term approval. It may be desirable for each certificate of conformance

to have an expiration date.

Supporters of both approaches seemed to agree that a hierarchial approval process would be required. Specifically, the most

feasible approach appears to approve an instrument for use with a few grains and add calibrations and approval for other

grains at a later time. One concern with this approach is that not all calibrations stored on an instrument may be approved. This could lead to a problem with sealing instruments if some calibrations on an instrument are approved and others are not. The committee discussed basic philosophy of experimental design as it relates to type evaluation testing. The comment was made that the test procedures outlined in the FGIS Moisture Handbook approach a fiill factorial design. An alternative approach is to perform sensitivity analyses and develop test criteria for only those factors affecting moisture results. This approach requires basic knowledge of the instrument technology being tested. It was recommended that the sector ask manufacturers for information on the types of technology most likely to be submitted for testing, then develop general type evaluation tests for these technologies.

Instrument Calibration

It was generally agreed that the sector needs to consider calibration requirements for both type evaluation (whether or not

this is the calibration to be used in the field) and the long-term. An on-going, long-term calibration effort was viewed as essential if we are to achieve national uniformity in moisture measurement.

There was less agreement regarding how an on-going calibration effort would be maintained. FGIS has the facilities and

access to national samples needed to develop these calibrations, but would need to recover the cost of providing calibration data to instrument manufacturers. There was little agreement regarding who should pay for an on-going calibration effort. The sector felt it reasonable to expect a manufacturer to support calibration efforts for the first few years after a new

instrument is introduced because calibration costs could be recovered from the sale of new instruments. Concern was

expressed on whether calibration costs could be recovered for instruments already being used in the field. The manufacturer

has little leverage to force users to pay for calibration updates. It might cost $100 to $500 dollars per user to support

calibration development for some older instruments with low sales numbers. This issue was not resolved. Sample Set Selection

There was discussion of assembling a national sample set that could be used for both type evaluation and enforcement by

the states, which would ensure that the states are using appropriate field test samples. It would be difficult, if not impossible,

to assemble and maintain standard sample sets because high moisture samples will survive for only a couple of months.

Furthermore, the availability of high moisture samples may require that all type evaluation testing be conducted during and

immediately after harvest. Concern was expressed that type evaluation testing might not be possible in the off-season or in drought years. It might be

possible to characterize a set of stable grains to give the same instrument response as the set we are interested in testing. A similar suggestion was to substitute more stable grain types. These approaches might not work because electrical and

surface characteristics are different. There does not appear to be a substitute for using grain with the proper characteristics. A type evaluation test set should represent a range of varieties, geographic areas, and moisture contents. It was suggested

that the sub-committee look at the moisture ranges for samples included in the annual FGIS moisture survey and the moisture

ranges specified in Chapter 2 of the FGIS Moisture Handbook to determine realistic moisture ranges for type evaluation and

calibration needs. Obtaining high moisture samples at harvest is critical. If type evaluation and on-going calibration efforts are coordinated with the FGIS moisture survey, it will be necessary to obtain larger survey samples.

144
Executive Committee

Tolerances The initial question considered by the sector was whether tolerances similar to the acceptance and maintenance tolerances

in Handbook 44 would be appropriate for type evaluation purposes. Performance results compiled using data from the aimual FGIS moisture survey were distributed. This data indicates that existing moisture meters would be unlikely to meet Handbook 44 tolerances when tested using a randomly selected test set. It was cautioned that Handbook 44 reflected trade expectations and that such expectations often exceed the capability of available technology. It was proposed that statistical tolerances, such as the Normal Root Mean Square of the Difference (NRMSD) as outlined in Chapter 2 of the FGIS Moisture Handbook, be used in type evaluation testing. Concern was expressed that an instrument might fail simply due to the sample set assembled for type evaluation testing, and

that the same instrument might pass with a different test set. This problem might be minimized by eliminating outliers from

type evaluation test sets. It was proposed that the Motomco 919 be used as a screening device to preselect samples for use

in type evaluation testing. A similar screening process is currently used by state Weights and Measures officials when they

select test samples for field verification of moisture meter performance. Another point of discussion was whether type evaluation approval can be based on instrument performance using a test set consisting of lower moisture samples that would be easier to maintain in good condition. The sector was asked what priority should be placed on high moisture samples. It was estimated that as much as 80% of the com crop is dried to a moisture

content of 18% or less before marketing. The sector discussed type evaluation testing over a range of operating temperatures. Handbook 44 currently specifies that a moisture meter will operate over a temperature range of 2 °C - 40 °C (35 °F - 104 °F), or the temperature range specified by manufacturer if that temperature range is not applicable. Interest was expressed in establishing a standard temperature range for type evaluation testing. This would facilitate testing of more than one instrument at a time during the environmental phase of type evaluation testing. A standard test range of 10 °C - 40 °C (50 °F - 104 °F) was suggested. There was no discussion of testing instruments over a range of relative humidities. A final point of discussion was whether it was desirable to test the effect of Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) on

instrument performance. Henry Oppermann cautioned that, if we are going to require RFI testing, it would be necessary

to test over the entire spectrum of frequencies. The sector will have to determine how much of a problem RFI presents and weigh the costs and benefits of testing for susceptibility to RFI. Instruments are currently being tested to determine if they generate RFI that interferes with other applications, but not to see if they are susceptible to RFI. One suggestion was to require that instruments be tested by an independent laboratory that would certify that they are not susceptible to RFI.

Sealing Instruments Adjustments Some sector members were troubled that NIR instruments are unique and require individual slope and bias adjustment. They

were concerned that the operator needs to make frequent bias adjustments hence the sector may need to consider that NIR

analyzers might not be suitable for commercial use as moisture meters. Devices are already available that do not require

a daily bias check. As an alternative, the sector may need to investigate other means of establishing checks and balances, such as requiring certification and licensing of NIR operators. There are more safeguards available in other areas regulated by Weights and Measures. The performance of NIR analyzers was defended, and it was noted that they work very well in Canada for determining

moisture. However, only six to eight well-centralized companies measure grain moisture in Canada. These companies have

strong quality control programs, and their operation is similar to that in a regulated environment. Some sector members felt that it was inappropriate to exclude NIR analyzers, but putting a quality control system in place could ensure reliable results. A final comment was that it is inconsistant to consider NIR analyzers unsuitable for use as moisture meters, but all right to use them for determining wheat protein.

145
Executive Committee

Participants December 17-18, 1991

Name Organization John Antoniszyn Canadian Grain Commission

John Barber Dickey-john Corp. Cathy Brenner USDA/FGIS

Carroll Brickenkamp NIST

Bill Burden USDA/FGIS

Randy Bums Arkansas Bureau of Standards Tina Butcher NIST

Sid Colbrook Illinois Weights and Measures

Dieter Curlis Perstorp Analytical, Inc. Dave Funk USDA/FGIS

Lx)well Hill University of Illinois Terri McLain Sartorius Instruments Allen Nelson Connecticut Weighs and Measures Tom O'Connor National Grain & Feed Association Henry Oppermaim NIST

Allison Pflug CSC Scientific Rich Pierce USDA/FGIS

Robert Rachlis Bran+Luebbe Inc. JimRampton USDA/FGIS

Joseph Rothleder California Div of Measurement Standards Tom Runyon Seedburo Equipment Company

Cheryl Tew North Carolina Dept of Agriculture

Cliff Watson Consultant

Phil Williams Canadian Grain Commission

Robert Wittenberger Missouri Weights and Measures

Richard Wotthlie Maryland Weights and Measures

Hiroshi Yamahira Kett Electric Laboratory

146
Executive Committee

Meeting Summary

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee MR Wheat Protein Analyzer Sector December 19-20, 1991

The agenda for the two day meeting is listed below.

I. Goals and scope of the Committee

II. Overview of NIR technology and FGIS programs m. Handbook 44 Code

A. Handbook 44 code needs to be developed for NIR wheat protein analyzers. B. Measurement Technologies to be Considered by the Committee

C. Reference Method for Determining Wheat Protein

VI. Type Evaluation Considerations A. Calibrations

1. Calibrations used for type evaluation testing

2. Wheat classes

3. Grinder specifications B. Test Procedures and Tolerances

1. Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility

2. Environmental tests C. Sample Selection and Preparation

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I. Goals and scope of the Committee

Because all members of the NIR Wheat Protein Sector are also members of the Moisture Meter Sector, there was no

additional discussion of the goals and scope of the sector. Refer to the summary of the Moisture Meter Sector meeting for comments relating to the goals and scope of the two sectors. n. Overview of NBR technology and FGIS programs

Results of the Meeting

Conmiittee members were provided with background information on (1) basic operating principles for NIR protein analyzers,

(2) reference methods for determining wheat protein, (3) FGIS monitoring procedures for official wheat protein determination, and (4) FGIS type evaluation test procedures. The overviews effectively provided background information

to committee members, and provided an opportunity for those individuals familiar with NIR instruments to share observations on basic operating principles.

Discussion NIR Overview . Dave Funk, FGIS, presented operating characteristics for two basic types of NIR technology:

Reflectance-type instruments that usually are fixed filter instruments operating at wavelengths between 1068 to 2575 nm,

and transmittance-type instruments that utilize wavelengths in the very near-infrared region from 800 to 1100 nm.

Reflectance-type instruments typically obtain readings from the light reflected from the surface of a ground grain sample.

Multilinear regression is the most common calibration technique used with these instruments. Transmittance-type instruments

typically measure the amount of light transmitted through a whole grain sample. One concern expressed following this presentation was the need to standardize acronyms used to describe these instrument

types, i.e., NI, NIR, NIRS, NIRR, NIRT, or NIT.

147
Executive Committee

Reference Method. Bill Burden, FGIS, discussed kjeldahl and other procedures used to determine protein content. FGIS

plans to adopt a combustion-type nitrogen analyzer for use as an approved protein reference method were discussed. Use

of a combustion-type nitrogen analyzer should allow more samples to be analyzed in a shorter period. This is important because NTEP type evaluation and calibration activities would represent added load on an operation that is already a bottleneck in FGIS protein operations. It was commented that individual states may want to use kjeldahl facilities currently

available in their states to establish protein values for standard field check samples. FGIS Wheat Protein Program. Dave Funk, FGIS, outlined FGIS procedures for maintaining a wheat protein program within

the official inspection system. This effort includes instrument calibration, maintaining slope and standard reference sample

sets, and monitoring the performance of instruments in the field. FGIS receives nation-wide monitoring samples and can assemble a pool of samples to be used for type evaluation or calibration purposes. FGIS NIR calibrations are developed

using protein values adjusted to a constant moisture basis of 12% wet basis (w.b.). Slope adjustment is a procedure used

to transfer universal calibrations to different instruments of a given model. Slope adjustments are infrequent, typically not required more than once or twice a year. Bias adjustments with standard reference samples are more frequent, with bias checks required daily. Thus, NIR instruments typically require frequent checks; checking only once a year probably is not

realistic since there can be significant changes in bias over that period. FGIS Type Evaluation . Rich Pierce, FGIS, presented an overview of FGIS design criteria, performance specifications, and

test protocol for NIR wheat protein. Discussion focussed on test procedures outlined in the document "Design Criteria and

Operational Performance Specifications for Grain Constituent Measuring Instruments Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy." The question of having to submit NIR instruments for both wheat protein and grain moisture type evaluation testing was

discussed. Reasons given for conducting these tests separately included: (1) test sample sets may not be the same for both

type evaluation tests, (2) high moisture samples need to be handled differently than the lower moisture, more stable samples

suitable for use in testing wheat protein determination, and (3) desirable grinder characteristics for use with reflectance-type instruments, such as minimizing moisture loss and the fineness of grind, are different for moisture and protein analyses. A uniform, fine particle grind is required for protein analyses while a coarser grind may be acceptable when making moisture

determinations. FGIS uses the Udy cyclone grinder to prepare samples for protein analyses, and uses the Wiley Mill when a whole grain moisture determination is required and moisture loss during grinding needs to be minimized. The Wiley Mill typically provides a coarser ground product than the Udy grinder. m. Handbook 44 Code

A. Handbook 44 code needs to be developed for NIR wheat protein analyzers.

Results of the Meeting The committee agreed that the Grain Moisture Meter code should serve as a guide for developing NIR wheat protein analyzer code. The committee recognized that the use of metric units is required for Handbook 44 code. It was recommended that the code specify that protein values be corrected to a constant moisture basis of 12% w.b.. Rich Pierce and OWM personnel

will draft NIR Wheat Protein code for Handbook 44.

The committee agreed to adopt ten design requirements (with appropriate revision) used by FGIS in previous type evaluation

testing. The specific items adopted by the committee are listed below with discussion of recommended changes. The

committee recommended against adopting requirements that FGIS personnel be able to develop calibrations on approved

instruments, that minimum calibration capacity be four products and three constituents each, that the instrument be equipped

with FGIS specified optical filters, and that the minimiun analysis time be five minutes.

Discussion The committee discussed reporting wheat protein on either the 12% moisture basis used by FGIS, the 13.5% moisture basis used in Canada, on a dry basis moisture content, or on an "as is" moisture basis. To promote uniformity, it was decided

that protein values should be reported on the 12% moisture basis used by FGIS. Handbook 44 code should include a user requirement that wheat protein be displayed only on a 12% moismre basis. The moismre basis used to report protein level should be listed on the printed statement, if available, or on the hand written ticket.

148
Executive Committee

Concern was expressed whether the consumer (farmer) would believe the corrected protein value unless the moisture content

also is displayed. This issue was not resolved. The committee discussed design criteria previously used by FGIS, agreeing diat the following items should be included in

either Handbook 44 or Publication 14.

1. The manufacturer shall provide the model(s) identification, applicable drawings, and data indicating the equipment

potentially meets performance specifications. This does not require that detailed schematics of electronic circuits be

submitted unless required to definitively define the model. Requirements regarding the materials to accompany the request for type evaluation will be addressed in Publication 14.

2. Handbook 44 code should state that calibrations must be transferable between different instruments of a given model type. Comments: Allowable techniques for transferring calibrations must be specified. Slope and bias adjustments are considered normal calibration transfer procedures.

3. Handbook 44 code shall include a requirement that the operator be able to load and verify calibration constants and

standardize the instrument on location without use of an auxiliary computer. An external computer used for normal

constituent analysis is not considered auxiliary. Comments: The operator's ability to change calibration constants may contribute to the facilitation of fraud. It was

correctly noted that calibration constants caimot be verified on some instrument types.

4. Handbook 44 code should specify that instruments have a built-in standard serial port, such as an RS 232 port, capable

of providing output of constituent contents and data required for calibration development. Comments: This feature is needed to collect calibration data and is also a desirable feature for day-to-day data collection. Handbook 44 code should specify use of a "standard serial port" instead of requiring an RS 232. It was pointed out that RS 442 or RS 449 ports are better suited for some uses, i.e., a high noise environment, than an RS 232 port. It should be required that the output be compatible with that of an RS 232, and stated that BCD or HPIB output is not acceptable.

Serial pons are used in instrument development and production and most instrument models are equipped with serial ports, so this requirement should not be difficult to meet. It is anticipated that as inspection systems become more

sophisticated, information will be routinely downloaded to remote computers.

5. Handbook 44 code should require that instruments be capable of programming to display constituent contents of products

in percent on a constant moisture basis. The display shall permit constituent value determination to 0.01 and 0.1 percent

resolution. Comments: It was discussed that the 0.01 percent resolution is required for use in type evaluation testing, and that the

0.1 resolution is typically used in the field. The consensus was to keep this specification, but to clarify the reason for requiring two different display resolution values. This requirement is consistent with General Code requirements on

rounding.

It was suggested that requirements for size and visibility of displayed values should be defined. This concern appears

to be adequately covered in the General Code. It was suggested that we might want to require a printout of pertinent information such as date, product, and protein level.

6. Handbook 44 shall require that an instrument operate on AC power and that performance requirements shall be met with

line voltage variations from 100 to 130 volts at 59.5 to 60.5 cycles per second. Comments: It was suggested that the cycles per second range not be specified in Handbook 44. There is a similar requirement in the Scales Code, but the effect of varying cycles per second is typically not tested. The response was

that this requirement should be in Handbook 44, even if it would typically not be tested during type evaluation, so that a device can be rejected if a problem exists. It was felt that this approach could be explained to the Specifications and

Tolerances Committee.

149
Executive Committee

7. FGIS requirements state that the instrument shall attain hardware accuracy within 24 hours of power turn-on from a cold

start. Comments: It was felt that the 24-hour warm-up time is excessive and that the precedent in the Scales Code is that a device should not indicate a result until it can perform within specified requirements. Typically, this requires a sensor

to detect when the instrument is ready to analyze. It is not trivial to design this into an instrument. Concern was

expressed that an instrument may lock up due to a power glitch or after being unplugged and moved across the room. A suggestion that manufacturers could incorporate an UPS system met with concerns about expense. A similar problem

is addressed in Sections T.5 and TN.814 of the Scales Code. The consensus was that requirements for warm-up time should be written using language already developed in other Handbook 44 chapters.

8. Handbook 44 should include a requirement that instrument optics and electronics be protected from exposure to dust by

either sealing both areas or by protecting them with a dust filtration system suitable for the removal of air-borne grain

dust. Instruments with dust filter systems should not overheat at 50% blockage of the filter within the operating temperature range. Dust filters shall be easily replaced.

9. FGIS requirements state "If an instrument has an upper internal operating temperature limit that could be exceeded within an ambient temperature range of 10 °C to 32 °C (50 °F to 90 °F), then a means of sensing and indicating an

over-temperature condition must be provided." Comments: This requirement needs to be reworded and included with requirements for warm-up time. Again, a similar requirement is addressed in Section T.5 of the Scales Code.

10. Handbook 44 should specily that if an instrument must be positioned to less than 3 degrees from an upright normal

position to a level plane in order to meet performance specifications, then the instrument shall have a level indicator and leveling adjustments. Comments: This requirement should be included because some monochromater devices might be sensitive to operation

in out of level conditions. The committee decided not to include requirements for permanence or life testing in the NIR chapter, feeling that this area

is adequately covered in Section G-S.3 in the General Code. Procedures for testing permanence should be included in Publication 14. FGIS test criteria include a requirement of 8,000 continuous measurements without failure, that was intended

to reflect 1 year of operation in their system. FGIS has waived permanence testing in the past, and required justification from the manufacturer that their instrument meets permanence requirements. It was commented that 8,000 measurements

is not a very challenging test.

B. Measurement Technologies to be Considered by the Committee

Results of the Meeting

It was agreed that the code for protein analyzers should be limited to near-infrared reflectance- and transmittance-type

instruments. These instruments may utilize either whole grain or ground grain samples.

Discussion We are limiting technology to near-infrared analyzers since by definition we are developing test criteria for NIR wheat

protein analyzers. It was recommended that the code be general enough to accommodate future type evaluation of NIR

instruments used to test other commodities and constituents such as soybean protein and oil.

C. Reference Method for Determining Wheat Protein

Results of the Meeting The code will require use of a reference method recognized by FGIS. FGIS will develop the wording to be used in the code.

150
Executive Committee

Discussion The committee discussed the fact that FGIS is moving toward recognition and use of a combustion-type nitrogen analyzer

as a primary reference method. Some states may want to use kjeldahl to establish field standards for enforcement; this may

require a round-robin sample exchange program to ensure agreement between kjeldahl and combustion-type nitrogen analyzer

results.

rv. Type Evaluation Considerations A. Calibrations

1. Calibrations used for type evaluation testing

2. Wheat classes

3. Grinder specifications

Results of the Meeting The committee agreed that calibrations used for type evaluation testing may be either supplied by the manufacturer or developed as part of type evaluation. The calibration used during type evaluation testing shall be specified on the Certificate of Conformance, and its use will be required for instruments used in commercial inspection. An on-going calibration effort

is required for NIR wheat protein analyzers; a national calibration set is needed.

Instruments (and calibrations) must be evaluated for each individual class of wheat for which approval is requested. This does not mandate the use of separate calibrations for each wheat class. Instruments may be submitted for evaluation using an all-class calibration that will be tested for each class individually using a single slope and bias adjustment. Instruments

using all-class calibrations must conform to the same test requirements as those using calibrations for individual classes of

wheat. The classes of wheat for which an instrument is approved will be specified on the Certificate of Conformance. The make and model of grinder used when developing calibrations for ground-grain NIR protein analyzers must be specified by the manufacturer, and listed on the Certificate of Conformance as required auxiliary equipment.

Discussion The committee discussed two means of obtaining calibrations suitable for use in type evaluation testing. One option is to use a calibration provided by the manufacturer. If calibrations are provided by the manufacturer, a standard set of slope samples may be required so that appropriate slope and bias adjustments can be made to accommodate type evaluation testing with a national test sample set. Having the manufacturer provide calibrations may not be a reasonable requirement for new

instruments with no calibration history. The second option is to develop calibrations as part of type evaluation testing. FGIS has tested NIR analyzers using

calibrations developed specifically for type evaluation testing and based upon 50 samples selected from the same population

as the test set. This approach is not recommended for NTEP evaluations because calibrations based upon only 50 samples

are probably not adequate for field use. A national calibration set is needed to promote uniformity in wheat protein measurements. A national calibration set could be used to develop calibrations suitable for both type evaluation and commercial protein determinations, requiring that 150-200 calibration samples be assembled for each class of wheat. The NTEP laboratory would supply the manufacturer/applicant with log and chemical data for these calibration samples, and for an additional 50

samples included in a validation set. It would then be the manufacturer's responsibility to use this data to develop a

calibration that meets all type evaluation test requirements. With this approach, there would be no need to specify minimum

requirements for the Standard Error of Calibration (SEC). This approach should promote uniformity since field results would

be based upon calibrations developed using a standard calibration set. The committee discussed how to handle situations where instruments are resubmitted for testing after having previously failed

to meet type evaluation test criteria. Normally, the manufacturer must addressed problems identified during type evaluation

before resubmitting the instrument for another evaluation. It was suggested that we allow an instrument to be resubmitted

for type evaluation if the calibration is modified and improved. There was some concern that an instrument might fail due

to the test set used for evaluation. Testing should clearly demonstrate that an instrument has a tendency to fail.

151
Executive Committee

The grinder and the characteristics of the ground sample have a significant effect on calibration performance. Changing the grinder invalidates the calibration and requires that the instrument be reevaluated. This presents a dilemma for NIR

manufacturers in that the approval of an instrument depends upon continued availability of the specified grinder. The NTEP

laboratory should have the option of requiring the manufacturer to provide a grinder to be used in type evaluation testing. The question of durability and permitted wear on the grinder was also discussed.

B. Test Procedures and Tolerances

1. Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility

2. Environmental tests

Results of Meeting The committee agreed that type evaluation criteria previously used by FGIS should be revised to form the initial draft of NTEP test criteria. Test criteria and tolerances developed by FGIS for instrument accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility, and susceptibility to environmental conditions are described in the document "Design Criteria and Operational Performance

Specifications for Grain Constituent Measuring Instruments Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy."

Discussion

It was suggested that the order of testing be such that it is possible to check fatal errors first. Type evaluation testing would

stop at the first failure. It was recommended that instrument precision be tested first as a good check on the suitability of

the calibration. The tolerances established by FGIS were intended to define state-of-the-art equipment. The committee was asked if it was

reasonable to expect this kind of performance from commercial grain inspection equipment. The committee felt it was

acceptable for type evaluation tolerances to be tighter than what can be maintained in the field. Several instruments have

already met these requirements, and it would be a move backward to widen tolerances.

Requirements for some environmental tests are severe, and different tolerances might be needed for instruments operated

outside the "normal" range of parameters. The committee felt that all environmental tests should be retained, but that tolerances should be reexamined. The tolerances are a particular concern for instruments that cannot accommodate the use of sealed samples.

Tolerances for field enforcement were discussed briefly. Handbook 44 tolerances should be related to the statistical tests used for type evaluation. It is important that the grain industry understand the variability and limitations associated with wheat protein determinations. The need for an on-going quality assurance program to maintain field performance was discussed. The availability of field

test samples and standard reference samples (for regular bias checks) are a concern. States could assemble test samples and

submit a portion of each to FGIS for analysis. In this way, FGIS laboratories can be used to standardize the protein values of samples used for regulation. The states may in turn provide reference samples to elevators. Such efforts will complement

an on-going calibration program.

C. Sample Selection and Preparation

Results of Meeting The committee agreed that type evaluation test sets should be selected to cover appropriate ranges of growing conditions (geographic location) moisture content, protein, and hardness level for each wheat class. The rules for selecting test samples need to be consistent. This is important because it will not be possible to use the same test set for an extended period. It also will be desirable to use a different test set in the event an instrument is reevaluated. V. Next Meeting

Issues identified for discussion at the next meeting are:

1 . How will on-going calibration efforts be funded? This is a concern for both moisture meters and NIR wheat protein

analyzers.

152
Executive Committee

2. Will NTEP testing be waived for instruments currently approved by FGIS?

The meeting adjourned at noon Friday, December 20. Several committee members toured the FGIS Technical Center in the afternoon.

Participants December 19-20, 1991 Name Organization John Antoniszyn Canadian Grain Commission

Cathy Brenner USDA/FGIS

Bill Burden USDA/FGIS

Randy Bums Arkansas Bureau of Standards Tina Butcher NIST

Dave Funk USDA/FGIS

Lowell Hill University of Illinois Allen Nelson Coimecticut Weights and Measures Tom O'Connor National Grain & Feed Association

Henr>' Oppermann NIST

Rich Pierce USDA/FGIS

Roben Rachlis Bran+Luebbe Inc. Joseph Rothleder California Div of Measurement Standards Cher> l Tew Nonh Carolina Dept of Agriculture

Cliff Watson Consultant

Phil Williams Canadian Grain Commission

Robert Wittenberger Missouri Weights and Measures

Richard Wotthlie Maryland Weights and Measures

153
Executive Committee

Meeting Summary

Subcommittee of the NTETC Moisture Meter Sector xMarch 18-19, 1992

Attendees

1 . Jack Barber, Dickey-John

2. Dave Funk, FGIS

3. Henry Oppermann, NIST

4. Rich Pierce, FGIS

5. Jim Rampton, FGIS

6. Hugh Shown, Dickey-john

7. Cliff Watson, ConsuUant

8. Bob Wittenberger, Missouri W&M

Goals of the Meeting The purpose of this meeting was to outline type evaluation tests and tolerances for use in developing a moisture meter section

in Publication 14.

Results of the Meeting

A. The subcommittee reviewed moisture meter test requirements specified in the FGIS Moisture Handbook, OIML

International Recommendation No. 59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds," and the NCWM

Handbook 44 to determine which tests should be included as part of an NTEP type evaluation.

B. The subcommittee discussed the overall evaluation process and general approval requirements.

C. The subcommittee outlined specific procedures for several tests, and suggested approaches for defining procedures

for the remaining tests. D. The subcommittee identified issues that need to be addressed by the Moisture Meter Sector. Discussion Subcommittee members were provided copies of Attachments 1, 2 and 3 at the meeting. Attachment 1 outlines the topics

to be included in Publication 14, and illustrates how development of type evaluation test procedures fit into the overall development process. Attachments 2 and 3 list tests that need to be considered in developing type evaluation test criteria. Discussion is summarized into the four general categories listed above. Concern was again expressed that it is difficult to develop test criteria if there are no limits placed on the types of measurement technologies that may evaluated. The subcommittee listed dielectric (capacitance), conductance (resistance), near-infrared spectroscopy, microwave transmission, thermogravimetric (moisture balance), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) as possible measurement technologies. It was agreed that both line and battery power sources might be used. The

subcommittee was reminded that the technologies to be evaluated will not be limited by design criteria in Handbook 44, but may be eliminated if they can not meet performance specifications.

A. Type Evaluation Tests The subcommittee recommended that type evaluation testing verify the effects of fluctuations in power supply, power

interruptions, storage temperature, temperature cycling, leveling, endurance (life test), warm-up time, operating temperature,

differences between instrument and sample temperature, humidity, and instrument accuracy, precision, and reproducibility. Tests for vibration, radio frequency interference, stabilized readout, impurity (dockage) levels, external magnetic fields, electro-magnetic radiation, and failure of the power supply were not recommended for type evaluation. Comments on these

tests are summarized below; a notation is provided for each item to indicate whether or not it is included the in the checklist.

1 . Power Supply (include) - It was agreed that this test should be included because power supply requirements are addressed in Handbook 44. The subcommittee recommends that performance be tested over a range of voltages (100 - 130 volts) while operating at a nominal frequency of 60 Hz. This nominal frequency should be used throughout type evaluation testing.

154
Executive Committee

2. Vibration (do not include) - Henry Oppermann commented that NTEP evaluations for other types of equipment do

not include vibration tests. It was noted that vibration problems during shipping are normally a reliability problem.

Before on-site vibrations become a problem it is generally necessary that they be at a resonance frequency. This makes it difficult to design a test to demonstrate that a vibration problem exists.

3. Storage Temperature and Temperature Cycling (include) - This test is associated with conditions that might be encountered while an instrument is being shipped. Storage temperature tests should expose problems associated with

adjoining parts having different coefficients of thermal expansion. It was suggested that these problems would be more readily apparent if the temperature was cycled. Storage temperature/temperature cycling tests will be conducted while the instrument power is off. It was noted that storage temperature is not referenced in Handbook

44 and that it will be necessary to either revise Handbook 44 to include storage temperature or to interpret some

other section of Handbook 44 (permanence?) to cover storage temperature/temperature cycling tests.

4. Radio Frequency Interference (do not include) - Henry Oppermann indicated that this test is not required for other

types of equipment tested by NTEP, and that the metal walls in their lab were not suitable for RFI testing. It was

noted that RFI testing requires a lot of work and that testing might not address or identify actual problems.

5. Leveling (include) - This test should be required because grain might flow differently through instruments that are not level.

6. Life Test (include) - It was noted that stability might be a more important long-term test than permanence. It was

unclear whether life testing should reflect the volume of samples run, a specific time period, or both.

7. Warm-up Time (include) - Warm-up time tests should be included because they are addressed in Handbook 44

specifications.

8. Stabilized readout (do not include)

9. Display Resolution - Display resolution is addressed in Handbook 44 and must be verified, but is more appropriately included as part of the checklist.

10. Moisture Ranges - Moisture ranges are related to the calibration and should be reported accordingly. The moisture

range needs to be specified on the Certificate of Conformance. The problem is in verifying the moisture range over which instrument and calibration performance should be approved.

1 1 . Accuracy, precision (repeatability) and reproducibility all describe instrument performance and should be included

as part of type evaluation testing. These terms need to be defined, both in descriptive and mathematical terms. Jack Barber commented that the Normalized Root Mean Square of the Difference (NRMSD) described in Chapter

2 of the FGIS Moisture Handbook does not provide information on how well moisture is predicted over specific moisture ranges, and that a better measure than NRMSD is needed to describe instrument and calibration accuracy. There also is a need for a meaningful measure that can be used to determine when calibrations need to be updated. Tolerances used in type evaluation testing need to be tight enough to ensure that meters meeting type evaluation

criteria also meet Handbook 44 requirements. Tests for instrument reproducibility are not covered by Handbook

44 requirements.

12. Auxiliary Equipment (do not include) - There was considerable discussion regarding test criteria and tolerances for

test weight apparatuses. It is obvious that state Weights and Measures officials need approval criteria for test weight

kettles. However, development of such criteria is not the responsibility of the sector.

13. Impurities (do not include) - The effect of impurities (broken grain and fine material) in the grain sample is difficult to define in a meaningful way. It is included in OIML requirements primarily because of concerns with measurements on high moisture grain. A statement indicating that tests will be conducted with clean grain needs

to be added to Publication 14. User requirements may need to address the effect of impurities on instrument performance. It was felt that dockage levels of 5 percent or less probably will not affect moisture results.

14. Humidity (include) - Humidity tests should be included because humidity level might have a considerable affect upon

the performance of thermogravimetric devices, and may have some affect upon resistance meters. Henry had

155
Executive Committee

reservations about including humidity tests, and noted that scales are not tested over a range of humidities. It was

suggested that humidity tests could be adapted from A. 3. 2 Damp Heat, Steady State.

15. External magnetic fields and electro-magnetic radiation (do not include) - The reason for not including these tests

is similar to that given for electromagnetic susceptibility. These problems are difficult to detect and there is no

guarantee that a test can be developed that would reliably identify instrument weaknesses.

16. Electrostatic discharges (do not include) - These effects are random. We are not sure what the effect will be.

17. Failure of the electrical power supply (do not include) - The general feeling was that problems associated with a power failure or brownout are obvious to the user through error codes or instrument failure. There is no need to type evaluate features that are obvious in the field. The subcommittee discussed the associated problem of automatically detecting a corruption in the calibration. This is a concern where calibration data is stored as bits of data. Most subcommittee members agreed that detection of calibration corruption needs to be designed into the instrument as an automatic check instead of having to manually check calibration codes. Cliff Watson felt that printing out the calibration constants is an acceptable alternative. It was recommended that Handbook 44 code be developed specifying automatic checks for calibration corruption.

B. Overall Evaluation Process A concern voiced at the December sector meeting was that "full-blown" type evaluation testing should not be required to extend approval to additional grain types or update calibrations. It was clarified that there is no need to perform redundant

tests, and that only new features or performance ranges need to be tested. Type evaluation should not be required for calibration updates performed as part of the on-going calibration effort. The subcommittee recommended that type evaluation testing be conducted in two phases. The first phase would emphasize

tests more directly related to instrument performance, and would be conducted using grain samples representing a limited moisture range. Limiting moisture ranges will allow these tests to be conducted nearly year-round. The second phase of

testing will be designed to extend approved moisture ranges for the calibration and will be conducted during harvest when

higher moisture samples are available. The manufacturer will be responsible for supplying instruments equipped with calibrations capable of meeting phase one test requirements. They also must provide data showing that the calibration is based on real grain samples representing their reported operating range.

C. Specific Test Procedures

Basic phase one testing will be conducted by running all tests on each of two instruments. Most tests will be conducted at room temperature (room temperature conditions need to be defined). The subcommittee agreed that many of the test can be conducted using Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat or the most uniform applicable grain. The following test procedures were outlined for power supply, storage temperature and leveling tests. Grain Moisture No. of Test

Test Type Range Samples Tolerance Range

Power-Line HRW 12-14 1 sample. 0.2 X accept tol. 100-130 v

10 drops (also precision) 200-250 V

Battery HRW 12-14 1 sample. 0.2 X accept tol. Max Volt. 10 drops (also precision) No result Storage Temp HRW 12-14 1 sample 0.4 X accept tol. -20 to 55 °C

10 drops Leveling HRW 12-14 1 sample 0.2 X accept tol. H-44 spec

156
Executive Committee

Notes: Power supply - A total of 30 drops will be required, 10 at the nominal voltage of 1 17 V, and 10 drops each at the voltage extremes. The lower voltage limit for a battery powered instrument will be the point at which a result is no longer

provided.

Storage Temperature - Drop the sample 10 times at room temperature and relative humidity prior to temperature cycling. Turn the instrument off. Increase the temperature to 55 °C over a 1 hour period. Maintain the temperature at 55 °C for 3 hours. Decrease the temperature to -20 °C over a 1 hour period. Maintain the temperature at -20 °C for 3 hours. Repeat the cycle. Turn the instrument on for the specified warm-up period and drop the test sample 10 times.

Leveling - The leveling test will be conducted for a minimum of 2 orientations; front-to-back and left-to-right. Additional

orientations will be tested as deemed appropriate. Due to time constraints, the subcommittee moved to discussion of accuracy, precision and reproducibility tests instead of

continuing to outline procedures for the more basic tests. The discussion dealt primarily with identifying an approach for developing test criteria. General recommendations include:

1. In addition to testing for accuracy over the moisture range, instrument accuracy should be evaluated for each 2%

moisture interval.

2. FGIS data for the Motomco 919 will be used to determine the number of samples per 2% interval, the number of drops per sample (probably 3), and the tolerance limits that will be applied.

3. Tolerances will reflect a confidence interval, determined using FGIS data, applied to the maximum allowable instrument bias. Confidence intervals will be developed for individual grain types and classes.

4. Accuracy tolerances should be established for both the average moisture for samples in a 2% interval and for the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD) for all samples in an interval.

Jack Barber asked whether it was necessary to evaluate instrument precision for every grain type, or whether testing could

be done using a limited number of grain types. He suggested oats (low test weight), sunflowers (conductivity), soybeans

(uniformity), com, and wheat. It may be possible to collect all the data needed for precision testing at the same time that accuracy testing is being performed. This item was not resolved.

D. Additional Issues and Action Items

Jack Barber noted that the State of California lists calibration constants on the Certificate of Conformance they issue for moisture meters. It was recommended that calibration constants be listed on NTEP certificates. The sector needs to develop criteria for determining when a calibration needs to be updated.

There needs to be a procedure to phase out instruments if calibrations are not being maintained by the manufacturer. This

is a particular concern if instrument users are bearing the cost of collecting calibration data. Handbook 44 code should require that only the most recent calibration be available to the operator. Inspectors should destroy

old calibration charts or disk.

157
Executive Committee ATTACHMENT 1

PUBLICATION 14 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, TECHNICAL POLICY, CHECKLISTS, AND TEST PROCEDURES

I. Application Form

Standard application form specifying the information and performance data to be supplied by the manufacturer when

applying for type evaluation.

II. Evaluation Process Overview of application procedure, performance testing that will be required, procedure for assembling sample sets, and

performance tolerances.

III. Certificate of Conformance

Applications (grain types, moisture ranges, temperature ranges, etc.). Requirements for Use (approved calibration, auxiliary equipment, etc.), and Post-Evaluation Responsibility of the Manufacturer (i.e., on-going calibration development and

updates, inform NCWM of any changes in the instrument).

IV. Checklist of Design Features

Verify that the instrument meets design specifications in Handbook 44 code. V. Test Procedures

Detailed test procedures for performance tests. Format for reporting test results. NOTE: A type with a valid Certificate of Conformance may be reevaluated in order to encompass additional features, such

as the range of the measured quantity or the kinds of commodities that may be measured.

In most such cases, it will be sufficient to determine the validity of the added features: the evaluation(s) will not go through

the entire checklist, but will test the new features through their ranges of performance.

158
ATTACHMENT 2 TYPE EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS

FGIS Moisture Handbook - Chapter 2. Performance Requirements

A. Power Supply

B. Vibration

C. Storage Temperature D. Electromagnetic Susceptibility

E. Leveling

F. Life Test

G. Hardware Performance

1 . Accuracy

2. Warm-up Time

3. Stabilized Readout

4. Display Resolution H. Operational Performance

1 . Accuracy and Allowable Quality Limits

2. Reproducibility

3 . Precision

I. Sample Preparation Equipment (Auxiliary Equipment)

OIML Rec. No. 59 - Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds

A. Test for conformity with design requirements

B. Accuracy tests under reference conditions

C. Tests including the various influence quantities

1 . Temperature Variations

2. Impurities

3. Voltage (possibly frequency) Humidity

D. Influence of external disturbances

1. External magnetic fields Electro-magnetic radiations

Electrostatic discharges

Failure of the electrical power supply

159
Executive Committee

MEETING SUMMARY

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Moisture Meter Sector and NIR Wheat Protein Analyzer Sector June 10-12, 1992 The agenda for the meeting is listed below.

I. Goals for the Moisture Meter Sector

II. Handbook 44 Code

A. Specifications and Tolerances Committee Item 360-5

B. Minimum sample size C. Design specifications to reduce facilitation of fraud D. Acceptance tolerances

E. Calibration verification

III. Type Evaluation Criteria (Publication 14) A. Evaluation process

1 . Application requirements

2. Two-phase evaluation process

3. National calibration program

B. Checklist for compliance with Handbook 44 Code

C. Test procedures and tolerances

1 . Basic instrument tests 2. Accuracy, precision, and reproducibility tests

IV. Funding for the National Calibration Program

A. Calibration requirements for type evaluation approval

B. Funding long-term calibration support

V. Status of Equipment Currently Approved by the States and by FGIS

A. Models approved by the states B. Models approved by FGIS

VI. Scheduling Future Meetings

VII. Additional Issues Requiring Discussion

In addition to the items listed above, the group reviewed part of the Handbook 44 chapter drafted for Near-Infrared Grain

Analyzers. This review resulted in additional recommendations for changes to the Grain Moisture Meter chapter. These recommendations are presented below following discussion of Handbook 44 Code considerations for grain moisture meters. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I. Goals for the Moisture Meter Sector The goals of the committee were identified as follows:

This committee has responsibility for developing detailed test criteria for type evaluation testing of moisture meters.

Interpretation of Handbook 44 code and type evaluation test procedures developed by this committee will be incorporated

into Publication 14. Type evaluation test procedures must be supported by code in Handbook 44.

II. Handbook 44 Code Considerations

B. Minimum sample size

160
Executive Committee

Results of the Meeting

Sector members agreed that a minimum sample size should be specified for moisture meters. The minimum sample size

will be 100 g, 400 kernels or seeds, or the volume equivalent, whichever is smallest.

Discussion

There was some discussion that this requirement might not be needed. It was suggested that we let the manufacturer specily

the sample size, then test to see if an instrument meets type evaluation requirements using that size of sample. This raised concerns that it would then be necessary to prepare non-homogeneous test samples to test whether the sample size was

adequate. These samples would be inherently unstable and difficult to characterize. Concern was also expressed that some

single kernel moisture testers could be set to provide a moisture result based upon analysis of a single kernel. The group

agreed that a minimum sample size should be specified.

It was suggested that the recommendation for a minimum sample size be changed from 150 g to 100 g because some Motomco charts currently specify the use of a 100 g sample. The volume and kernel equivalents were suggested to accommodate low test weight grain and grains with small seeds, respectively. It was initially suggested that we put a requirement in Handbook 44 specifying a minimum sample size of 100 g or the equivalent, then specify in Publication 14 what we mean by "equivalent." This would force non-NTEP states to make their own interpretations of equivalence in enforcing Handbook 44 requirements. It was suggested that minimum sample size be included in Handbook 44 as a user requirement, again, creating problems for non-NTEP states trying to interpret Handbook 44. There was a recommendation

that reference equivalence charts be developed.

It was asked whether specifying a minimum samples size implies that an instrument should not provide a reading when the sample size is below the specified minimum. The question was expanded to include existing meters, i.e.. Should the Motomco 919 provide a reading on a 249 g sample? The committee agreed that the intent of the minimum sample size requirement was not to preclude a meter from indicating a result if the sample size is less than the specified minimum. The minimum sample size is a design requirement that should be verified as part of type evaluation. Ensuring that the appropriate

size sample is used in the instrument is the responsibility of the user.

C. Design specifications to reduce facilitation of fraud

Results of the Meeting The consensus was that calibrations and other non-metrological adjustments must be sealed. It was recommended that, for purposes of type evaluation, this requirement be adopted nonretroactively after 5 years. After 10 years, the requirement will be adopted retroactively in Handbook 44. This should allow sufficient time for manufacturers to make modifications to their instruments. In the interim, meters having provisions for sealing must be sealed.

Discussion As in previous discussion of this topic, the opinion was expressed that someone bent on fraud will find a way to cheat. Falsifying data or using incorrect sample weights were cited as examples of how this might be done. The response was that other requirements in Handbook 44 help to reduce fraud, e.g., samples being weighed must be visible to the customer. It was acknowledged that instrument design cannot eliminate all fraud, but it is reasonable to ask that instruments be designed

in such a way that fraud is not made easy. The sector feels it necessary to look at different levels of instrument adjustment and determine which can legitimately be made by the operator. Calibrations should be sealed, and that the operator should not be able to make bias adjustments. The goal is to minimize operator adjustment, with future requirements being that no operator adjustments are allowed. The sector recognizes that the NCWM will determine the dates for implementing recommendations on sealing instruments,

but has suggested realistic dates for manufacturers to have adequate time to design to future requirements. Related manufacturer questions are: (1) How long will it take to introduce a new product? (2) How long can current models be used?

(3) How long can the future version be used?

161
Executive Committee

D. Acceptance tolerances

Results of the Meeting The group agreed that current tolerances appear to be too stringent for certain grain types, oats in particular. The moisture meter subcommittee was tasked with recommending changes to bring Handbook 44 tolerances in line with those established

for type evaluation testing and verification of calibration adequacy.

E. Calibration verification

Results of the Meeting

It was agreed that UR 3. 10 adequately covers the requirement that only the most recent calibration and calibration constants be used. The current calibration identifier/number and the calibration constants, if appropriate, will be listed on the

certificate of conformance. The sector agreed that each calibration must be identified by a unique name and version number, and that inspectors must

be able to recall and verify the version of the calibration being used.

If instrument calibrations are digitally stored in an electronically alterable form, the instrument must make automatic

calibration checks. This requirement would be nonretroactive and effective immediately upon adoption for both type

evaluation and field enforcement of Handbook 44 code.

Discussion Concern was expressed over how inspectors will verify that the correct calibration is being used on devices where the calibration is stored on a disk in files that cannot be read by the user. Is identification of the calibration contained on the disk sufficient? Is it adequate to have the version number displayed when a calibration is selected on the instrument? A

similar question was asked regarding instruments where the calibration is transferred onto the instrument via a modem. How

do we verify that the correct calibration is being used? It seems necessary that calibrations be identified positively by a unique name or version number, and that inspectors be able to recall or verify the version being used, by viewing either the

actual calibration constants or the version number. Automatic calibration checks are different from audit trails, which are not being used to look at the integrity of numbers. A calibration check is something that the instrument needs to do automatically. The important consideration is that the instrument not give an erroneous answer if the calibration is corrupted. In fact, it was felt that the instrument should not give a moisture reading if the calibration has been corrupted. The instrument should provide an error code or other

indication that there is a problem. This may be difficult to check. In order to check this, type evaluation personnel would

need to corrupt a calibration and check to see that the instrument shows an error code. The manufacturer would have to provide procedures for checking this feature. It is recommended that this requirement be nonretroactive and adopted immediately for purposes of enforcing Handbook 44 code, and that all devices submitted for type evaluation meet this requirement. NIR Handbook 44 Chapter The sector agreed that the following changes apply to both the Moisture Meter Code and the Near-Infrared Analyzer Code:

1. The Grain Moisture Meter code should include a statement indicating that the minimum height of the digital characters used to indicate moisture content shall be consistent with OIML requirement 4.4.5. "Digital Indicating Devices." This requirement specifies a minimum character height of 10 mm.

2. In Section S. 1 .7. 1 .(a) of the Grain Moisture Meter code, "and over the frequency range of 59.5 to 60.5 Hz" should be changed to "at a nominal frequency of 60 Hz."

3. A constituent value (moisture or protein) should not be recorded or displayed when the constituent value is beyond

the operating range of the device or the calibration. Simply flashing the displayed constituent value is not in itself an adequate indication that the constituent range has been exceeded, and language indicating that this is an acceptable

indication shall be deleted from the Grain Moisture Meter code (S. 1 .6.2). Flashing the displayed constituent value

162
Executive Committee

is acceptable if this action is clearly defmed as an error indication. It is recommended that the requirement that constituent values not be recorded or displayed when the calibration range is exceeded be adopted nonretroactively

for type evaluation purposes after 5 years, and be adopted retroactively for purposes of Handbook 44 enforcement

after 10 years. This should allow sufficient time for manufacturers to make design changes. in. Type Evaluation Criteria (Publication 14) A. Evaluation Process

Results of the Meeting

1. The manufacturer shall provide an instrument equipped with all calibrations required for type evaluation testing and

subsequent field use. Calibrations will not be developed as part of type evaluation testing.

2. Instruments meeting tolerances for accuracy, precision and reproducibility for a test set representing a limited, 6%

moisture range will be approved for that grain type. The manufacturer will provide data supporting use of the meter

in the field over a wider moisture range. The certificate of conformance shall indicate both the moisture range

verified by type evaluation, and the full moisture range of the manufacturer supplied calibration.

3. Participation in the on-going national calibration program will be mandatory. Calibration adequacy will be reviewed

each year, and the calibration range on the certificate of conformance updated as appropriate. Manufacturers will be responsible for making calibration updates, and failure to make required updates shall result in revocation of the

certificate of conformance.

Discussion

Sector members did not feel that it is realistic to calibrate and type evaluate a moisture meter in a single harvest season. The manufacturer must be responsible for supplying a calibrated instrument and will be responsible for developing updated

calibrations as required. One concern with using manufacturer supplied calibrations is that the reference results used to develop the calibration may

not be in line with FGIS air oven results. The committee discussed whether or not manufacturers should be required to participate in a round-robin collaborative study with FGIS to demonstrate agreement between reference laboratories. Although there was not a lot of enthusiasm for this idea, the issue was not clearly resolved. The sector members did not agree to the second phase of the proposed two-phase evaluation process that would have allowed

evaluation over the entire calibration range. NCWM members would have to be assured that type evaluation over a 6%

moisture range is an adequate test of the calibration. Manufacturers' data is the key to demonstrating that the calibration

will perform adequately over the moisture range.

There was some discussion of what to do in the event that an instrument (or calibration) fails to perform adequately over

the 6% moisture range. It was generally agreed that the manufacturer should be supplied the test data and have an

opportunity to revise the calibration and resubmit the instrument with the new calibration. The manufacturer would need

to demonstrate that the entire calibration had been improved, and not just the portion of the calibration falling into the test range. A different test set would have to be used when the instrument is resubmitted for testing. The group agreed that participation in the national calibration program should be mandatory, with several related issues requiring further discussion. Criteria need to be developing for determining when a calibration update is required. It was

suggested that the criteria for updating calibrations be the same as that used by FGIS to update calibrations on their official instrument. This may not be possible because FGIS uses calibration data collected over a 3- to 5-year period, and similar data will not be available when the national calibration program is initiated. Questions were also posed regarding veritlcation

that calibration changes or updates have the desired effect.

Several members of the group indicated that the goal of uniformity could be best achieved if instruments are calibrated to agree with the FGIS official meter instead of the air oven reference method. The question was asked whether it would be

permissible to change a calibration to bring it into line with the FGIS official meter, even if this moved the calibration further away from the air oven reference. Trying to achieve agreement with the FGIS official meter may not be desirable because

163
Executive Committee

FGIS calibrations are periodically updated, and the best long term strategy is to achieve agreement with the air oven

reference method.

B. Checklist for compliance with Handbook 44 Code

Results of the Meeting Review of the checklist resulted in the following recommendations for revision to Handbook 44:

1. Digital display of moisture results should be required. It was recommended that this requirement take effect immediately upon adoption for purposes of type evaluation, and be adopted retroactively in Handbook 44 in 10

years.

2. Final readout must be in percent moisture content (wet basis) with no adjustment of the results required. Calibration or conversion charts will not be allowed. It was recommended that this requirement take effect immediately upon

adoption for purposes of type evaluation, and be adopted retroactively in Handbook 44 in 10 years.

Discussion The sector expressed concern over how to handle instruments that provide multiple measurements including "unapproved"

results, such as test weight, or instruments that measure moisture content for grain types not included in the type evaluation program. Several members felt that manufacturers should have the option of displaying this "unapproved" information on NTEP approved meters. It was suggested that the Executive Committee be consulted as to whether this information should be displayed on NTEP approved instruments. If not, does NCWM want to regulate measurement of these factors? Suggested revisions to the checklist include:

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud - Include recommendations discussed earlier regarding sealing calibrations and non-metrological

adjustments.

G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements - The intent of defining a zero indication is to enable the customer to identify the starting and ending point of a measurement. This requirement is only applicable for those meters that go to 0.00 before

a reading, and the wording should be revised to say

" If provided , the zero indication "

G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and Representation - Reference to this code item needs to be added to the checklist. (Question

- Can we verify that a digital value "rounds off" to the minimum unit that can be indicated or recorded? Does this mean

using intermediate results and calibration coefficients to calculate the final moisture as a check?)

G-S.5.2.3. Size and Character - Adopt the OIML minimum height requirement (10 mm) for displayed digits.

G-S.5.4. Repeatability of Indications - Remove this item from the checklist. Remove reference to analog indications from the checklist: S. 1.2.1 to S.1.2.3, S. 1.3.1 to S.1.3.5, and G-S.5.2.1.

S. 1.6.2. Operating Range - The committee discussed whether instruments should automatically indicate whether any

operating range has been exceeded, including test weight and operating temperature. There was no clear consensus on this issue.

S. 1.7.2. Power Interruption - Remove this item from the checklist.

S. 1 .9. Operating Temperature - The subcommittee was tasked with determining how to specify and verify operating ranges

for sample and instrument temperature. The group felt it will be necessary to develop tolerances for room temperature

accuracy, before acceptable performance at temperature extremes can be defined.

S.3.3. Conversion and Correction Tables - This requirement should be dropped from the checklist, but retained in Handbook

44. (The reasoning for retaining the requirement in Handbook 44 is that the moisture for some specialty crops are apparently determined using a conversion chart to adjust moisture results obtained on a fully automatic meter using the calibration for another grain type. The states may need this requirement to regulate non-NTEP seeds.)

164
Executive Committee

The sections "Digital Indications and Recording Elements" and "Design of Direct Reading Grain Moisture Meters" should

be combined.

C. Test procedures and tolerances

Results of the Meeting

1 . The sector endorsed subcommittee recommendations that a stable moisture Hard Red Winter wheat sample or the most consistent applicable grain be used to conduct tests verifying the effects of fluctuations in power supply, power

interruptions, storage temperature, temperature cycling, leveling, endurance (life test), warm-up time, operating temperature, and humidity. The subcommittee will continue with the development of basic instrument tests.

2. The sector agreed upon the 6 percent moisture ranges to be used for accuracy, precision, and reproducibility tests for the different grain types. The moisture ranges for com and rice were changed from 10-16% to 12-18%. The

moisture meter subcommittee will recommend tolerances for individual 2% moisture intervals.

rV. Funding for the National Calibration Program

A. Calibration requirements for type evaluation approval

Results of the Meeting

Sector members agreed that the manufacturers should be responsible for type evaluation costs. The manufacturers were

unwilling to commit to covering the cost of the first year of panicipation in the national calibration program without knowing

what the cost of the program will be.

Discussion

It was clarified that not all models of an instrument "type" need to be tested. Typically, the most sophisticated model in a model series is tested.

Costs associated with panicipation in the NTEP program were roughly estimated at $5,000 for type evaluation, and

51,000-2,000 per grain type per year for collecting calibration data. Concern was expressed that paying for the first year

of panicipation in the calibration program could exceed $20,000. Better estimates of costs are needed once the testing and

calibration programs have been more fully defined.

B. Funding long-term calibration support

Results of the Meeting

Fees need to be collected to support an on-going calibration program. There is general agreement that moisture meter users

will ultimately be charged for the calibration development phase of the NTEP approval program. It is unclear how such

charges can be assessed and collected. One difficulty faced by manufacturers in assessing a calibration fee is that calibrations

are not typically updated on an annual basis. Thus, user fees could not be uniformly and regularly assessed by simply

charging users for calibration updates. Many state Weights and Measures programs are not currently charging fees for field inspection of moisture meters. It was suggested that problems associated with assessing a user fee should be reported to the Executive Committee to see if there is any way that the NCWM could assess a calibration fee as part of a national program. One possibility is for NTEP to collect an annual maintenance fee on the certificate of conformance. In this instance, the maintenance fee would be collected from users instead of from the manufacturer. One key to supporting a national

calibration program appears to be collecting user fees for all meters used in commercial grain sales, regardless of whether

or not the instrument is NTEP approved. V. Status of Equipment Currently Approved by the States and by FGIS

Results of the Meeting

It was agreed that instruments currently approved by either the states or FGIS should not receive NTEP approval on the basis of a "grandfather" clause.

165
Executive Committee

VI. Scheduling Future Meetings

Results of the Meeting The next sector meeting was scheduled for October 5-7, 1992 in Chicago at a hotel near O'Hare airport. This meeting will concentrate on development of test criteria for moisture meters. NIR wheat protein analyzers will be addressed at subsequent

meetings. It was agreed that a meeting of the subcommittee will be arranged prior to the next sector meeting.

VII. Additional Issues Requiring Discussion

Results of the Meeting The following items were suggested for discussion at future meetings:

1. How does state enforcement fit into the program? i.e., Will national calibrations be checked using samples from

a specific state or location?

2. Coordinate activity with states to get more grain samples in to support this effort.

Participants June 10-12, 1992

^ Name Organization Jack Barber Dickey-john Corp.

Carroll Brickenkamp NIST

Randy Bums Arkansas Bureau of Standards Tina Butcher NIST

Dieter Curlis Perstorp Analytical, Inc. Cassie Eigenmann Dickey-john Corp. Dave Funk USDA/FGIS

Lowell Hill University of Illinois Charles Hurburgh Iowa State University Chuck Lowden Foss Food Technology Corp. Henry Oppermann NIST

Allison Pflug CSC Scientific Rich Pierce USDA/FGIS

Joseph Rothleder California Div of Measurement Standards Tom Runyon Seedburo Equipment Company

Fred Seeber Shore Sales Co., GEARS

Cheryl Tew North Carolina Dept of Agriculture Robert Wittenberger Missouri Weights and Measures

Richard Wotthlie Maryland Weights and Measures

166
Executive Conunittee

Meeting Summary

Subcommittee of the NTETC Moisture Meter Sector August 19-21, 1992

Attendees

1. 2.

3.4.

Jack Barber, Dickey-john

Cassie Eigeninann, Dickey-john Dave Funk, FGIS

Rich Pierce, FGIS

5.

6.7.

Cliff Watson, Consultant Bob Wittenberger, Missouri W&M

Will Wotthlie, Maryland W&M

The agenda for the meeting is listed below:

I Goals of the Meeting

II. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements for Instruments Operating at Room Temperature

III. Handbook 44 Tolerances

IV. Instrument Tests Using Hard Red Winter Wheat

V. Tolerances and Test Procedures to Verify Temperature Operating Ranges

VI. Tolerances for Calibration Performance

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The subcommittee reviewed the meeting agenda (Attachment 1) and discussed approaches to use in developing type evaluation

test procedures and tolerances for moisture meters. The group agreed on several basic issues. For example: Type

evaluation tolerances should be some fractional portion of Handbook 44 tolerances. Type evaluation tolerances for accuracy

should be consistent with tolerances developed for on-going calibration review. The consequences of failing basic instrument

tests should be more serious than the consequences for failing tests related to calibration adequacy, and test tolerances should

be developed accordingly.

There was extensive discussion on whether we should be testing basic instrument performance, or evaluating the performance

of the instrument and the calibration. This issue was previously discussed by the Sector, and the general feeling then was

that each calibration would need to be individually approved. A basic concern with having to evaluate both the instrument and the calibration is that it does not appear feasible to approve an instrument for all grains included in the NTEP program

in the first year. Discussion of this issue included how to handle "unapproved" calibrations on instruments having NTEP

approval for some grain types. It appears that full approval will be achieved gradually over a several year period. Given that the approval process will be lengthy, the subcommittee felt that this time would be most productive if instruments were enrolled in the on-going calibration program as soon as possible. It was suggested that instruments be enrolled in the

calibration program once they have been approved for use with several grains, and that the calibration data be used to approve the instrument for additional grain types. The following overall test procedures were developed to facilitate discussion of specific type evaluation and calibration requirements.

1 . The Sector should specify a group of grain types (at least 3) to be used in evaluating the calibration capability of

specific instrument models and basic measurement technologies. The grain types selected should be commercially

significant and should bracket the characteristics of the grain types included in the NTEP program. The suggested

test grains for dielectric moisture meters are: com. Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat, and soybeans.

2. For each specified grain, a manufacturer seeking NTEP approval must supply calibrations and calibration data demonstrating that an instrument model is capable of meeting accuracy, reproducibility, repeatability, and

temperature sensitivity specifications for each of three specified 2% moisture intervals, and that the calibration is "a proper fit" (to be defined) to the available calibration data over the full moisture range.

167
Executive Committee

3. Basic instrument performance will be tested for sensitivity to factors such as instrument temperature, humidity,

leveling, and power supply voltage using HRW wheat. 4 . The instrument will then be evaluated for accuracy , reproducibility , repeatability , and sample temperature sensitivity using each of the three selected grain types. If an instrument model meets specifications and tolerances for all three

grains, the model is "approved for grain moisture measurement" and will be accepted into the on-going calibration program. Failure to participate in the on-going calibration program would trigger the revocation of the certificate of conformance for that grain moisture meter.

5 . The first year following " instrument approval , " calibrations for additional grain types mcluded in the NTEP program

will be listed as "pending approval" based upon review of manufacturer supplied data. In order to be placed on

the "approved" list, a calibration must be shown to be "a proper fit" to available calibration data, and to yield prediction statistics that are "reasonable" for the grain type. After the initial year in the calibration program, NTEP

will review the data from the on-going national calibration program to determine whether the supplied calibration

is "a proper fit" to the available data.

6. If a calibration does not meet the (to be established) criteria for "a proper fit," the manufacturer shall develop a revised calibration that meets the criteria. Failure to do so within a specified time period shall result in the removal

of that grain type from the "approved calibration list" for the model. This is equivalent to revoking the certificate of conformance for the grain type. The subcommittee agreed that moisture meters failing to meet type evaluation test criteria for any of the three selected grains would fail type evaluation for all three grain types. There will be no partial instrument approval. The subcommittee then

discussed how to handle type evaluation of instruments not designed for use with all three selected grain types. One

suggestion was to approve two different classes of instruments. Class A for generic grain moisture meters approved as outlined above. Class B approval would be a limited approval applying only to certain grain types. Class B approval would

not be granted for an instrument capable of being used with com, HRW wheat, and soybeans. It is not intended that Class B approval provide an alternative approval route for instruments that do not make the grade under Class A testing. Only those grains tested annually by FGIS will be included in the NTEP program. The grains mcluded in the NTEP program may change as the FGIS program changes, and priorities are set to represent the most economically significant grain types.

n. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements for Instruments Operating at Room Temperature

Results of the Meeting The subcommittee agreed that moisture meters should be tested for accuracy, repeatability (precision), and reproducibility over a 6% moisture range for com (12-18%), Hard Red Winter wheat (10-16%), and soybeans (10-16%). Reasons for

selecting these three grains for testing include:

1. These grains are representative of the diverse grain types that will be evaluated, i.e., oil vs cereal, size, shape, and

chemical composition.

2. They are economically important grains, and the moisture ranges being tested are also economically significant.

3. These grains typically provide uniform results, which allows the development of meaningful and significant test criteria.

4. Samples are readily available and may be easily stored for these grain types and moisture ranges. Two instmments will be tested over a 6% moisture range using 10 samples selected from each 2% moisture interval. The

sample set will be screened using the FGIS official meter model and the air oven. Samples where the official meter model

disagrees from the air oven by more than the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance will be deleted and another sample selected

to replace it. No sample set will be used where the standard deviation of the differences between the FGIS official meter model and the air oven for the 10 samples in a moisture interval exceeds one-half the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance

168
Executive Comminee

minus 0.1, i.e., in the 12-14% inienal for com the standard deviation of the differences should not exceed (0.4 - 0.1) =

0.3. Three replicates wiU be run on each instrument for each sample, resulting in a total of 180 obser\'ations per grain tj'pe (2 instruments x 3 moisture inter\als x 10 samples x 3 replicates).

Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility tests will be conducted with the samples and instruments at room temperature. Room teiiq)erature is defined as 22 °C 4-/- 2 °C.

Accuracy. The two tests for accurac>' are bias (meter versus oven) and the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD)

between the meter and the air oven for each of the 2% moistm-e intervals. Each instrument will be tested individualh . S

Bias = n

where,

xi = average predicted moisture content for sample i (3 replicates)

ri = reference moisture content for sample /

n = number of samples per 2% moisture interval {n = lO)

SDD - n-l

where,

yi = xi-ri (see above)

>• = average of the yi

n = number of samples per 2% moisture interval (n = 10)

Tolerances for both of these tests will be one-half the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance for the appropriate 2% interval. Use the maximum acceptance tolerance for intervals where the tolerance changes with the moisture content, i.e., in the 16-18% interval for com use 1/2 x 0.05 x 18 = 0.45 for the tolerance. (Note that this assvmies that acceptance tolerances m Handbook 44 will be changed to equal maintenance tolerances.) Specific tolerances are:

Grain Type Moisture Range Tolerance Com 12 - 14% 0.40

14 - 16% 0.40

16 - 18% 0.45 HRW wheat 10 - 12% 0.35 and 12 - 14% 0.35 Soybeans 14 - 16% 0.35

Repeatabilitv. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the three replicates will be calculated for each sample in a 2 % moisture

interval and pooled across samples. Each instrument will be tested individually. The equation used to calculate SD is: where.

169
Executive Committee

SD

n 3 S S

In

Pij = predicted moisture for sample / and replicate j

Pi — average of the three predicted moisture values for sample i n = number of samples per 2% moisture interval (« = 10)

Tolerances for repeatability are 0.25 x the maximum Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance for the 2% moisture interval. Specific tolerances are:

Grain Tvpe Moisture Ranee Tolerance Com 12 - 14% 0.20

14 - 16% 0.20

16 - 18% 0.225 HRW wheat 10 - 12% 0.175 and 12 - 14% 0.175 Soybeans 14 - 16% 0.175

Reproducibility. The results for each of the three replicates will be averaged for each instrument using samples over the 6% moisture range and the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD) between instruments will be calculated using the following equation:

SDD .^1 {di-df n-1

where,

di = ~Pli-P2i

Pli = average of three replicates for sample / on instrument 1

P2i = average of three replicates for sample / on instrument 2 d = average of the di

n = number of samples in all three 2% moisture ranges («=30)

Tolerances for repeatability are 0.3 x the maximum Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance for the 6% moisture range.

170
Executive Committee

Specific tolerances are:

Grain Type Moisture Range Tolerance Com

HRW wheat

Soybeans

12 - 18%

10 - 16%

10 - 16%

0.27

0.21 0.21 m. fl[andbook 44 Tolerances

Results of the Meeting The subcomminee recommended that Handbook 44 tolerances be changed so that acceptance tolerances for all grains are set equal to the maintenance tolerances. The subcommittee recormnended that oats be grouped with com, rice, and sunflowers for purposes of applying Handbook

44 acceptance and maintenance tolerances.

Separate acceptance and maintenance tolerances do not seem applicable for moisture meters, and caimot be applied in the same way that they are to scales. A scale can be adjusted to provide a "correct" reading (zero error), but may then drift after adjustment and not provide the same accurate reading in the field. Thus, it makes sense that scales be adjusted to a more stringent acceptance tolerance initially, and then allow a wider maintenance tolerance to be used for field testing. Moisture meters cannot be adjusted to a zero error, because moisture content is not being measured directly and calibrations represent only the best fit of available data. The "error" in moisture measurement will differ for each grain sample

measured. The subcommittee considered developing Handbook 44 tolerances for three classes of grain instead of the existing two

classes. The general feeling was that this would be a big step that might be difficult to sell to the conference. This is a panicular concem because the data we have available suggests that some tolerances need to be widened.

There is some concem that tolerances are still not appropriate for all grains covered by Handbook 44. However, the maintenance tolerances for com, HRW wheat, and soybeans appear to be reasonable and should not prevent approval of

capable instmments. Com might be a possible exception. The subcommittee felt that it would be easier to make meaningful

changes to Handbook 44 tolerances once data from the on-going calibration program are available. It was noted that we

should be careful about making frequent requests to the conference for changes in Handbook 44 tolerances.

rv. Instrument Tests Using Hard Red Winter (HRW) Wheat

Results of the Meeting The subcommittee reviewed the tests and tolerances previously developed for using HRW wheat to test fluctuations in power

supply, storage temperature, and leveling. Test procedures were further defined and tolerances stated numerically instead of as a fraction of the acceptance tolerance. This latter step was taken because of the potential change in Handbook 44

acceptance tolerances. The committee recommended tests and tolerances for using HRW wheat to test for warm-up time, humidity effects, instmment stability, and instmment temperature sensitivity. All instmment tests will be conducted on each of the two

instmments submitted by a manufacturer. Power Supplv . A single HRW wheat sample with a moisture content between 12-14% will be dropped 10 times with the meter operating at a nominal voltage of 117 V. The same sample will be dropped 10 times with the meter operating at a

voltage of 100 V. The voltage level will then be increased to 130 V and the sample dropped 10 more times. Changes in bias and precision will be checked. Bias is defined as the change in the average moisture for 10 drops made at both the reference and the respective test voltages. The maximum allowable bias change from the reference is +1- 0.10. The maximum allowable standard deviation of 10 drops (precision), at any of the three voltage levels, is 0.10.

Discussion

171
Executive Committee

Storage Temperature . Storage temperature tests will be conducted as specified in the March 18-19, 1992, subcommittee

meeting summary. The maximum bias shift allowed for the average of 10 drops before and after temperature cycling was

changed to +/- 0.20.

Leveling . Tests for leveling will be conducted as specified in the March 18-19, 1992 subcommittee meeting summary. The

tolerance for bias was changed to -I-/- 0.10. Warm-up Time . The following tests procedures were suggested to check warm-up times recommended by the manufacturer.

If no warm-up time is recommended by the manufacturer, it will be assumed that accurate results will be provided immediately upon having the instrument powered on. The instrument will be powered off and stabilized at room temperature. The instrument will be powered on and after waiting

the specified warm-up time a single wheat sample will be dropped 10 times through the instrument. After waiting for a period of time equal to two times the manufacturer suggested warm-up time, the sample will be dropped 10 more times. The minimum waiting period before retesting the sample is one hour. Thus, for an instrument where no warm-up time is specified, the sample would be tested immediately upon the instrument being powered up and then again after 1 hour. The maximum allowable bias shift is O.iO for the average of 10 readings. Humidity . Each instrument (power on) will be placed in an environmental chamber at 20 °C and a relative humidity of 20%

for 16 hours. A single HRW sample will then be analyzed 10 times. The relative humidity will be raised to 90% (20 °C)

and, after the instrument has equilibrated at this humidity for 16 hours, the HRW sample will again be analyzed 10 times. A maximum bias shift of 0.20 is allowed between the average of 10 readings made at 20% relative humidity and those made

at 90% relative humidity.

Instrument Stability . HRW wheat samples will be used to test instrument stability over a minimum 4-6 week period. A set of three samples, one from each of the three 2% moisture intervals will be selected for testing. These samples may be a subset of the HRW test set for accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility tests. Each of the 3 samples will be dropped 5 times through each of the two meters prior to running any other type evaluation tests, particularly before running the storage temperature test. The average moisture content obtained for the 15 observations (3 samples x 5 replicates) will be recorded. The 3 samples will be retested once all other type evaluation testing has been completed (within 4 to 6 weeks). The maximum allowable bias shift over the 4 to 6 week period is 0.20.

Instrument Temperature Sensitivity . Instrument temperature sensitivity tests will be run using three HRW wheat samples, one selected from each of the 2% moisture intervals. Each sample will be cut into 3 portions for testing at room

temperature, at a "hot" temperature, and at a "cold" temperature. Both the sample and the instrument will be equilibrated

to the test temperature. (How long? 4 hrs?) (How many drops at each temperature level per sample? 3 drops?) The "hot" temperature is defined as the upper operating limit claimed by the manufacturer minus 4 °C. The "cold" temperature is defined as the lower operating limit claimed by the manufacturer plus 4 °C. Room temperature has been

previously defined as22°C-h/-2°C.

The maximum allowable moisture bias will be +/- 0.35 from the average moisture measured at room temperature. V. Tolerances and Test Procedures to Verify Temperature Operating Ranges

Results of the Meeting

Additional testing is required to verify that accurate results are provided when the sample and instrument are at different temperatures. This will be referred to as the sample temperature sensitivity test. The purpose of this test is to verily that the instrument provides accurate results when the difference in temperature between the sample and the instrument is 11 °C

(20 °F). The committee agreed that the sample temperamre sensitivity test should be conducted for com, HRW wheat, and

soybeans. Tests will be conducted with the instrument at room temperature and the sample temperature varying from room

temperature -h 11 °C to room temperature - 11 °C . Using our definition for room temperature of 22 °C, this means testing with the sample at 11 °C (52 °F) to 33 °C (91 °F). Both instruments will be tested. Two (2) samples will be selected from each of the three 2% moisture intervals for each of the three grains - com, HRW

wheat, and soybeans. Tests will be run for each grain (How many drops for each sample?) at both the hot and cold

172
Executive Committee

temperature extremes, and the overall bias for the ? observations (2 samples x 3 moisture intervals x J_ replicates) nm

at each temperature extreme must agree within the following tolerance

Note: The "?" refers to values that have not yet been determined. Com 0.45 Wheat 0.35 Soybeans 0.35

Discussion The subcommittee recommends that temperature adequacy be checked as part of the on-going calibration effort, and that temperature data be collected as part of the routine calibration effort. There was no discussion of applying tolerances to temperature data collected as pan of the calibration program. It is recommended that the test described above be the only

formal test for sample temperature sensitivity.

VI. Tolerances for Calibration Performance

Results of the Meeting

The subcommittee discussed the need to test calibration performance against established criteria at the following stages of

the type evaluation process: (1) evaluation of the calibration data supplied by the manufacturer with the application for type

evaluation, (2) evaluating instrument and calibration performance over the 6% moisture range for com, HRW wheat and

soybeans (discussed earlier), (3) initial calibration approval for grains other than com, HRW wheat, and soybeans, and (4) review of on-going calibration data collected as part of the national calibration program.

Calibrations would be approved if the bias of all samples in a 2% moisture interval does not exceed one-half of the Handbook

44 acceptance tolerance. Calibrations for com, HRW wheat and soybeans would be approved based upon type evaluation

testing over a 6% moisture range and manufacturer supplied data over the remainder of the calibration range.

Calibrations for other grains would be approved based upon data collected as part of the on-going national calibration program. Approval tolerances would again be one-half of the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance, and would be applied in 2% intervals over the range of available data. The grains to be included in the on-going calibration and NTEP moisture meter program are: Com

Dumm wheat Eastem White wheat Western White wheat Hard Red Spring wheat Hard Red Winter wheat

Hard White wheat

Soft Red Winter wheat

Sunflower Seed Sorghum

Soybeans Two-rowed Barley

Six-rowed Barley Oats Long Grain Rough Rice Medium Grain Rough Rice

Short Grain Rough Rice

Grain types may be added to or deleted from this list as economic importance of the various grains changes. Decisions by FGIS to add or remove grain types from the annual calibration review will affect which grains are included in the NTEP

program.

Tolerances used to require a change in "approved" calibrations will include the application of a 95% confidence interval to the maximum tolerance for each 2% moisture interval. The intent of applying the confidence interval is to avoid forcing

a calibration change based upon insufficient data. After only one year of data collection, the number of samples in some

intervals will be small and the confidence interval may be as large as the tolerance limit. In this instance, the calibration would have to be extremely poor before a calibration change would be mandated. After the instmment has been in the

calibration program for several years, the confidence interval should be reduced to approximately 0.05 and recommendations

can be made with greater cenainty. The latest 3 years of data will be used to make decisions regarding the need to make

a calibration update. The status of all calibrations will be listed on the certificate of conformance. The suggested categories are (1) approved,

(2) pending, (3) not approved, and (4) not available. The categories can be described as follows:

173
Executive Committee

Approved: Cora, HRW wheat, and soybean calibrations will be approved based upon performance over the 6% type evaluation moisture range and manufacturer supplied data. Continued approval requires acceptable performance as part of the ongoing national calibration effort.

Calibration data, collected as part of the national calibration program, must indicate that calibration performance meets the tolerances for each 2% moisture interval before additional grains will be approved. Continued approval again requires acceptable performance as part of the national calibration effort, i.e. , none

of the average differences between predicted and reference values for the respective 2% moisture intervals exceed 1/2 of the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance + the 95% confidence interval.

Pending: A new calibration would automatically be placed in this category.

This category also includes calibrations that have not yet met the criteria for approval, but that also have not performed badly enough to be listed as not approved. Such calibrations may be used on NTEP approved

meters. Not

Available: A calibration is not available for this grain included in the national calibration program. A calibration for

this grain type shall not be used on NTEP approved meters. Not Approved: The calibration does not meet the criteria for either "Pending" or "Approved" status, and has not been

revised by the manufacturer. Such calibrations shall not be used on NTEP approved meters. The subcommittee feels that a group, perhaps the Moisture Meter Sector, should meet each year to help make determinations regarding which calibrations need to be updated. This group would take into consideration unusual growing conditions when

making decisions related to calibration adequacy.

Discussion The subcommittee discussed whether manufacturers should be required to participate in a collaborative air oven study with FGIS. The consensus of the subcommittee was "no" due to the concern over manufacturer data that predated the collaborative study. This data might still be very meaningful to the calibration and could represent samples moisture ranges

that are difficult to obtain. This does not preclude voluntary collaborative studies between a manufacturer and FGIS.

174
Executive Committee ATTACHMENT 1

Subcommittee of the NTETC Moisture Meter Sector August 19-21, 1992

I. Goals of the Meeting The purpose of the meeting is to develop type evaluation test procedures for moisture meters and to establish corresponding tolerances.

II. Accuracy, precision, and reproducibility requirements for instruments operating at room temperature.

It is recommended that two instruments be tested over a 6% moisture range using 10 samples selected randomly from each 2% moisture interval. Three replicates will be run on each instrument for each sample, resulting in a

total of 180 observations (2 instruments x 3 moisture intervals x 10 samples x 3 replicates). Accuracy . Instrument inaccuracies may be reflected by either a large standard deviation of the differences (SDD)

between meter readings and the reference method, or a bias between the meter and the reference method. Test procedures may be developed with separate tolerances established for bias and SDD limits, or with a single tolerance established by setting an allowable bias and determining an appropriate confidence interval based upon

the SDD. A consideration favoring the first approach is that instruments with a high SDD should not be eligible for reevaluation without some modification, while a bias problem can be addressed by changing the calibration.

Precision and Reproducibilitv . It is recommended that the definitions of precision repeatability and reproducibility

in the document "Design Criteria and Operational Performance Specifications for Grain Constituent Measuring

Instruments Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy" be adopted. Tolerances need to be established for each grain type.

III. Handbook 44 Tolerances Do we want to:

- relate accuracy tolerances to Handbook 44 tolerances?

- recommend that acceptance tolerances be the same as maintenance tolerances in Handbook 44?

- regroup grain types within the tolerance classifications? (1) oats, sunflowers, rice, (2) com, sorghum, barley,

(3) soybeans and wheat

- suggest changes to Handbook 44 maintenance tolerances?

IV. Instrument tests using HRW wheat

Tolerances need to be established/revised for power fluctuation, storage temperature, and leveling tests recommended previously by the subcommittee.

Test procedures and tolerances need to be defined for warm-up time, humidity, and long-term stability/permanence. The subcommittee should consider developing operating temperature range tests using HRW wheat. This test would

be conducted as part of the initial type evaluation, with additional temperature testing required as the instrument

is evaluated for more grain types.

Tolerances and test procedures to verify temperature operating ranges. Should temperature operating ranges be specified by the manufacturer? In Handbook 44? In Publication 14? All of the above? Should an instrument provide an automatic indication if the temperature operating range is exceeded?

175
Executive Committee

Test procedures and tolerances are needed for use in verifying both accurate operation over the temperature range, and verifying that accuracy is maintained when the sample temperature is 20 °F higher or lower than the ambient

temperature.

VI. Tolerances for calibration performance What data does the manufacturer need to provide with the application for type evaluation? What tolerances will be used to verify calibration adequacy?

Will the same tolerances be applied to both manufacturer supplied data and calibration data collected as part of an on-going national calibration program?

176
Executive Committee MEETING SUMMARY

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Moisture Meter Sector October 5-7, 1992 The agenda for the meeting is listed below.

I. Goals for the Meeting

II. Review Sector Activities

III. Handbook 44 Code

A. Proposed wording for previously agreed to changes

1. Digital indications

2. Indicating when the moisture operating range is exceeded

3. Electric power supply frequency

4. Provision for sealing

5. Minimum sample size

6. Calibration integrity B. Proposed changes not yet resolved

1 . Tolerances for grain moisture meters

2. Operating temperature ranges

3. Establish two classes of moisture meters

IV. Type Evaluation Criteria (Publication 14) A. Review Handbook 44 requirements after an evening "hands on" session with different meter types B. Basic instrument tests

1. Basic tests using HRW wheat

2. Verifying temperature operating ranges - C. Basic instrument/calibration approval testing

1 . Basic instrument/calibration approval using com, HRW

wheat, and soybeans

2. Establish two moisture meter classes

3. Sample set selection

4. Accuracy, precision and reproducibility tests D. Instrument approval for additional grain types

1 . Grain types included in the NTEP program

2. Use data from the National Calibration Program to approve

calibrations for additional grain types

3. Establish a review committee to review aimual calibration data and recommend calibration updates

4. Use of moisture calibrations no covered by the NTEP

program

V. Funding for the Approval Program

A. Type evaluation costs B. Support for the National Calibration Program

VI. Enforcing Handbook 44 Code

A. State weights and measures activities to support the NTEP moisture meter program

1 . Procedures for updating calibrations on field instruments

2. Field check samples

3 . Collecting representative calibration samples

VII. Schedule Sector Activities A. Important deadlines

177
Executive Committee

B. Future meeting dates and locations

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sector members discussed the general topic of allowing test weight results to be displayed on NTEP approved moisture

meters. It was agreed that, for now, test weight features need to be disabled and sealed. The sector has little choice in this matter because there are no type evaluation test criteria for test weight. Manufacturers may want to approach NCWM

regarding the development of Handbook 44 code and type evaluation test criteria for test weight. The sector previously agreed that proposed revisions to Handbook 44 should be adopted immediately for purposes of type

evaluation, and that these items should be adopted non-retroactively in 5 years and retroactively after 10 years for purposes of enforcing Handbook 44. Attachment 1 outlines implementation requirements. m. Handbook 44 Code

A. Proposed wording for previously agreed to changes

Results of the Meeting

1 . It was agreed that Handbook 44 code should be changed to allow display and recording of moisture contents beyond

the operating range if the moisture result is accompanied by an appropriate error message. Moisture calibrations generally extrapolate well and grain moisture content is not a variable that can be controlled.

2. The sector decided not to specify a nominal power line frequency of 60 Hz instead of the current 59.5 to 60.5 Hz

test range. This allows harmonization with OIML requirements.

3. The recommendation on provisions for sealing was editorially changed to clarify that calibrations and metrological adjustments must be sealed. Audit trails will be specified as an alternative to sealing an instrument.

4. Minimum sample size shall be specified as 100 g or 400 kernels or seeds. No volume equivalent will be specified.

B. Proposed changes not yet resolved

Results of the Meeting

1 . Handbook 44 acceptance tolerances should be set equal to maintenance tolerances, and oats should be grouped with com, rice, sorghum, and sunflower seeds in Table 1.

2. Moisture results shall not be displayed or recorded when operating temperature ranges are exceeded because

temperature is a variable that can be controlled. The following minimum temperature ranges were specified.

Environmental temperature - 10 °C to 30 °C

Grain temperature - 0 °C to 40 °C

Difference between meter and - 10 °C

sample temperature

rv. Type Evaluation Criteria (Publication 14) A. Review Handbook 44 requirements after an evening "hands on" session with different meter types

Results of the Meeting

After the "hands on" session and review of the checklist, sector members agreed to the following changes to Handbook 44.

178
Executive Committee

1 . Meters shall be equipped with a commimications interface and software supporting the printing of ticket showing

information such as date, grain t>'pe, grain moisture result, customer identification, an calibration version

identification. Customers shall be provided with a printed ticket.

2. For purposes of type evaluation, moisture results need to be reponed to the nearest 0.01 percent.

3. Standard abbreviations should be adopted for indicating grain types and classes. It was suggested that FGIS

standard abbreviations be used in developing recommended changes to Handbook 44.

B. Basic instrument tests

Results of the Meeting The sector approved the recommendations made by the Grain Moisture Meter subcommittee for both the basic tests using HRW wheat and the tests for verifying temperature operating ranges. It was noted that detailed laboratory test procedures

still need to be developed.

C. Basic instrument/calibration approval testing

Results of the Meeting

1 . The subcommittees recommendation that basic instrument/calibration approval be based upon performance with com, HRW wheat, and soybeans over limited 6% moisture ranges was approved. Manufacturer data will be used

to verify calibration performance outside these moisture ranges. Instruments meeting all performance requirements

will be eligible for the National Calibration Program. Instruments not meeting performance requirements for all three grains will be failed.

2. Instruments not designed for measuring moisture contents of com, HRW wheat, and soybeans may be type

evaluated and approved based upon their performance with individual grains. Approved instmments would be

enrolled in the calibration program for that grain and others in the same "grouping." The 17 proposed NTEP grains were separated into the following seven groups.

- Com

- Dumm wheat, Eastem White wheat, Westem White wheat, Hard Red Spring wheat, Hard Red Winter wheat. Hard White wheat, and Soft Red Winter wheat

- Sunflower Seed

- Sorghum

- Soybeans

- Two-rowed Barley, Six-rowed Barley, and Oats

- Long Grain Rough Rice, Medium Grain Rough Rice, and Short Grain Rough Rice

3. The sample set will be screened using the FGIS official meter and the air oven. Samples where the official meter

disagrees with the air oven by more than the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance will be deleted and another sample

selected to replace it. No sample set will be used where the standard deviation of the differences between the FGIS

official meter model and the air oven for the 10 samples in a moisture interval exceeds one-half the Handbook 44

acceptance tolerance minus 0.1, i.e., in the 12-14% interval for com the standard deviation of the differences should

not exceed (0.4 - 0.1) = 0.3. Finally, any sample (within a 2% moisture interval) not within three standard

deviations of the mean for the test meter will be dropped before analysis of the data.

4. Accuracy, precision and reproducibility tests were basically adopted as recommended by the subcommittee. One

change was to allow the manufacturer to make a bias adjustment to the test results for the "accuracy" test. This

bias adjustment would have to be applied to across the calibration range.

D. Instrument approval for additional grain types

179
Executive Committee

Results of the Meeting

1. It was agreed that the following 17 grains types and classes should be included in the NTEP program: Com Sorghum Durum wheat Soybeans

Eastern White wheat Two-rowed Barley Western White wheat Six-rowed Barley Hard Red Spring wheat Oats Hard Red Winter wheat Long Grain Rough Rice Hard White wheat Medium Grain Rough Rice

Soft Red Winter wheat Short Grain Rough Rice Sunflower Seed

2. The subcommittee recommendation that calibrations for grain types not included in type evaluation testing be approved based upon data collected as part of the National Calibration Program. Tolerances will be one-half of

the acceptance tolerance and will be applied in 2% intervals over the range of available data. A minimum of 10 samples will be required for the 6% moisture ranges specified for type evaluation. A confidence interval will be

applied to tolerances for 2% moisture intervals outside the type evaluation range. An overall bias may be applied

to the calibration in making approval decisions. V. Funding for the Approval Program

/ A. Type evaluation costs

This item was not discussed due to time constraints.

B. Support for the National Calibration Program

Resuhs of the Meeting Dave Funk estimated the cost of collecting calibration for a single instrument model for the 17 NTEP grains at $12,500/year. This assumes that the samples and air oven results used for the FGIS utilized.

VI. Enforcing Handbook 44 Code

A. State weights and measures activities to support the NTEP moisture meter program

This item was not discussed due to time constraints. Vn. Schedule Sector Activities A. Important deadlines

This item was not discussed due to time constraints.

B. Future meeting dates and locations

Results of the Meeting The next meeting was scheduled for March 3-5, 1992 immediately following the GEAPS meeting in Phoenix.

180
Participants October 5-7, 1992 Name

Jack Barber Randy Bums

Tina Butcher Dave Funk Mike Hile Lowell Hill Michael van der Matten Don Muller ^ Henry Oppermarm . . . Allison Pflug Rich Pierce Joseph Rothleder .... Tom Runyon

Fred Seeber Cheryl Tew

Russ Tkachuk

Cliff Watson

Robert Wittenberger . Richard Wotthlie ....

Organization Dickey-John Corp. Arkansas Bureau of Standards NIST USDA/FGIS

Arkansas Bureau of Standards

University of Illinois Tecator (Sinar Technology) Bran+Luebbe NIST CSC Scientific USDA/FGIS

California Div of Measurement Standards Seedburo Equipment Company

Shore Sales Co., GEAPS

North Carolina Dept of Agriculture Canadian Grain Commission

Consultant Missouri Weights and Measures Maryland Weights and Measures

181
J'./cciitivc fJomrriittcc

October 5, 1992 f.KAIN MOISI (JHK MI/I KR SKC IOR

IrriplcrricritJitiori of Kcquircrnerits

'f?ic irnplcmcritation of nonretroactive requirements and the dates at which they will hecorne effective for the National 'fype

}'-valuation Program and State enforcement are summarized below.

f'irst, add a paragraph to tlie "Application" sectifni of tlic C/rain Mf^isturc Meter Code lliat will stale tfiat N'l !• I' will (jnly accept devices for type evaluation that wunply with the nonretroactive requirements scficdulcd to take effect on January 1, 1998. .State enforcement will be ba.sed upon the effective dates identifie<J with each requirement when specific dates are shown.

N'l I'J-* f'.valuatifjns Stale J-,nforcement Nonretroactive Requirements IJfective immediately. All devices

subrnittaJ for type evaluation must anuply with the nonretroactive

r(;fjuir(;rr)er)ts.

f jiforced when the effective date occurs, I.e., January 1, 1998*

TTiis will allrjw manufacturers to sell current models until January 1, 1998. These devices can be used until January

1, 2003, which IS the retroactive date

for the requirements. Retroactive Requirements Same as for nonretroactive rcfjuirements, since the requirements are the same.

All devices used after January 1 , 20t) ^ must f.oiiiply v/illi iIk; rcfjuirciiicnts that becoinc iclroaclivc as ol lliat date,

lis.scntially , no analog indications will be permitted on devices used after January 1 , 20(J'i.

N'ritP States are not to prohibit the sale of devices witliout N I I J' Certif icates of Conformance into commercial applications

until the nonretroactive rcquiremenLs lake effect.

*

182
Executive Committee MEETING SUMMARY

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Moisture Meter Sector March 3, 1993 The agenda for the meeting is listed below.

I. Goals for the Meeting

II. Handbook 44 Code

III. Handbook 44 Checklist

IV. Type Evaluation Test Criteria - Review

V. National Calibration Program

VI. Enforcing Handbook 44 Code

VII. Schedule Sector Activities

1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sector members reviewed issues agreed upon at previous meetings to ensure that these items are appropriately reflected in

(1) recommended changes to the Grain Moisture Meter's code in Handbook 44, (2) the checklist for verifying compliance

with Handbook 44, and (3) type evaluation test criteria.

II. Handbook 44 Code

Results of the Meeting To more clearly indicate that conversion chans will not be allowed, S.1.2. (e) should be revised to read "Moisture content

results shall be displayed and recorded as percent moisture content, wet basis."

Acceptable four letter abbreviations (S. 1.6.1) for the grain types and classes considered for type evaluation and calibration

are: Durum Wheat - DURW Com - CORN

Eastern White Wheat - EWW Soybeans - SOYB

Western White Wheat - WWW Two-rowed Barley - TRB

Hard Red Spring Wheat - HRSW Six-rowed Barley - SRB

Hard Red Winter Wheat - HRWW Oats - OATS

Soft Red Winter Wheat - SRWW Sunflower Seed (Oil) - SUNF

Hard White Wheat - HDWW Grain Sorghum - SORG

Long Grain Rough Rice - LGRR or Medium Grain Rough Rice - MGRR MILO

Short Grain Rough Rice - SGRR

These abbreviations represent minimum requirements for designating grain type.

The sector agreed that deleting the phrases "if equipped to record" and "if the meter is so equipped" from S. 1.6.1 and UR.3.4 (a), respectively, would make it clearer that a printer must be available for use with moisture meters, and that the customer must be provided with a printed ticket.

183
Executive Committee

The requirement for customer idemification on printed tickets (UR.3.4 (b)) should be dropped. Customer identification is the responsibility of the grain purchaser, and should not be a design requirement for grain moisture meters. It was clarified that "generated by the grain moisture meter system" does not include typing moisture results into a computer file in order

to provide a printed result. The sector agreed to the following editorial suggestions:

1 . Soft Red Winter wheat should be added to the list of grains considered for type evaluation and calibration.

2. In S. 1.6.1, "(such as Wheat or WHT, HRWW, etc.)" should be changed to "(such as Hard Red Spring Wheat or HRSW, etc.)," because a generic wheat classification is not currently being considered for type

evaluation and calibration.

3. "S.1.6.3. Value of Minimum Indication" should be changed to "S. 1.6.4. Value of Minimum Indication." m. Handbook 44 Checklist

Results of the Meeting The sector agreed that tolerances need to be applied to manufacturer specified temperature ranges when verilying that moisture content results are not displayed or recorded when operating (environmental), grain and temperature difference ranges are exceeded. Operating temperature can be difficult to measure using sensors incorporated into an instrument that

is generating heat. Grain temperatures can change rapidly, particularly with smaller grain samples. Heat exchange between

the grain and the sample cell makes temperature differences extremely difficult to determine. The recommendation is that the type evaluation laboratory apply a 5 °C tolerance when verifying that moisture results are not displayed when temperature

ranges are exceeded. It was suggested that this "tolerance" be discussed with the S&T Committee, i.e., we are proposing

to apply a tolerance not specified in Handbook 44 code. Depending upon the maximum manufacturer recommended temperature difference between the meter and the grain sample,

it may not be possible to conduct temperature difference checks at room temperature. Verification is possible by varying

laboratory temperature.

Discussion Concern was expressed that suppressing moisture results because of temperature differences between the grain and the meter,

especially if a 10 °C differential is specified, will be a problem for users. There is a conflict to provide both rapid and

accurate results. The group discussed whether an instrument capable of operating at extreme temperatures should have to meet requirements

for suppressing moisture results if the manufacturer can support claims that the instrument provides accurate results at these temperatures. There was interest in specifying temperature ranges beyond which instruments would not be required to suppress moisture results. It might not be possible to verify that moisture results are suppressed if an extremely wide

operating temperature range is specified, i.e., testing would probably not be possible at temperatures outside the range of

-10 °C to 45 °C. It was noted that field inspectors could challenge exaggerated operating temperature claims.

Concern was expressed that currently recommended type evaluation tests do not adequately test performance at extreme

temperatures, particularly when grain temperatures below 0 °C are specified. Instrument performance can be greatly affected for "frozen" grain samples when moismre contents are above 20%. Currently recommended type evaluation temperature

test criteria specify grain moistures below 18%.

rv. Type Evaluation Test Criteria

Results of the Meeting The sector agreed to the following clarifications and changes to type evaluation test criteria:

184
Executive Committee

1. Room temperature shall be defined as 22 °C +1-2 °C (68 °F to 75 °F). This is a more reasonable

laboratory temperature range to maintain than the 20 °C +1-2 °C (64.5 °F to 71.5 °F) agreed upon at the

last meeting.

2. Instruments will be adjusted to power supply test voltages for a period of 30 minutes prior to analyzing test samples. This will allow a check of thermal considerations such as overheating at higher line voltages.

3. To facilitate testing of instrument temperamre sensitivity, manufacturers shall provide a means of disabling

the instrument feature for suppressing the display of moisture results when temperature ranges are exceeded.

Sector members reviewed a summary of type evaluation test requirements that estimates the number of unique samples

required (122), the total number of instrument analyses (1218), number of instrument analyses between air oven moisture

verification tests (6-20), and the total number of air oven tests required (326). V. National Calibration Program

Results of the Meeting

It was agreed that a review committee should meet annually to review calibration results and make recommendations

regarding calibration updates. The existing Grain Moisture Meter sector would be a logical group to review calibrations. The sector recommended that the use of calibrations for non-NTEP grains be allowed on NTEP approved meters. Individual

states will be responsible for regulation and testing of calibrations for non-NTEP grains.

Discussion The issue of manufacturers using their own data to make calibration updates was examined. It was felt that manufacturers

should be encouraged to collect calibration data in addition to that collected in the national calibration program, especially

for samples at moisture extremes. A related question was whether companies would be able to use their own calibrations on NTEP approved meters. For

example, could Anheuser Busch develop and use a calibration for a specific barley variety? The review committee would

be expected to address these and other issues. Concern was again expressed over funding for the national calibration program. It was agreed that the type evaluation program would probably not be initiated unless a means of funding the calibration program were identified.

VI. Enforcing Handbook 44 Code

This issue was not discussed due to time considerations. Vn. Schedule Sector Activities

Results of the Meeting

Sector members discussed steps for initiating type evaluation testing. The following program benchmarks and tentative dates were projected:

1. Manufacturers signify their intent to submit an instrument for type evaluation testing - August 1993. Some

manufacturers indicated that the lack of specific cost information would make this a difficult decision.

2. Earliest date to submit applications for type evaluation testing - October 1, 1993. March 1, 1994, was

suggested as the latest date an application could be submitted and still allow participation in the calibration program for the upcoming year.

3. Check for compliance with Handbook 44 design requirements (checklist) - October 1993.

185
Executive Committee

4. Develop a detailed test protocol - November 1993.

5. Begin type evaluation testing - December 1993. These items need to be discussed further at the next meeting. The next meeting for the Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Wheat Protein Analyzer sectors was scheduled for August 17-19, 1993, in Kansas City. A noon-to-noon meeting format was suggested.

Discussion

It was noted that NTEP states cannot require an NTEP certificate until a testing program is in place. Thus, companies are not "forced" to seek immediate type evaluation approval.

Tina Butcher noted that a type evaluation issue currently before NCWM was the initiation of a $75/year maintenance fee on certificates of conformance. This issue will be voted on in July. She also noted that the fee for issuing or revising

certificates of conformance would probably be increased from $250 to $550. There was concern over whether this fee would

be assessed each time the attachment indicating calibration approval status was updated.

Participants March 3, 1993

Name Organization Anthony Abbate Motomco

Jack Barber Dickey-John Corp. Randy Bums Arkansas Bureau of Standards Tina Butcher NIST

Allen Butler Perten Instruments Carol Dickey Bran -I- Luebbe

Cassie Eigenmann Dickey-john Corp. Dave Funk USDA/FGIS

Charles Hurburgh Iowa State University Lowell Hill University of Illinois Michael van der Matten Tecator (Sinar Technology)

Allison Pflug CSC Scientific Rich Pierce USDA/FGIS

Scott Reed Perten Instruments Joseph Rothleder California Div of Measurement Standards Tom Runyon Seedburo Equipment Company

Bengt Sahlim Tecator James Steele ARS, USGMRL

Cheryl Tew NC Dept of Agriculture

Cliff Watson Consultant Richard Wotthlie Maryland Weights and Measures

Hiro Yamahira Kett Electric

186
Executive Committee MEETING SUMMARY

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee NIR Wheat Protein Analyzer Sector March 4-5, 1993 The agenda for the meeting is listed below.

I. Goals for the Meeting

II. Handbook 44 Code

III. Type Evaluation Criteria

IV. Status of NIR Analyzers Currently Approved by FGIS

V. Additional Issues Requiring Discussion

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The emphasis of this meeting was placed upon the development of code for an NIR Analyzer chapter in Handbook 44. Sector members recognized that this code must be applicable for existing NIR instruments, and provide clear guidelines for

the design of new NIR instruments. It was agreed that the next draft of a Handbook 44 chapter should reflect design requirements directed toward development of state-of-the-an instruments. Once the sector has agreed on these design

requirements, we can discuss ways of accommodating existing instruments.

Sector members reviewed proposed revisions to the Grain Moisture Meters code to determine which of these design requirements also should be applied to NIR wheat protein analyzers. Design requirements agreed upon at the initial meeting were also reviewed and compared to proposed requirements for grain moisture meters. Sector members previously recognized that NIR wheat protein analyzers can be separated into two basic categories - those instruments that analyze a ground sample and those that analyze a whole grain sample. Not all design requirements are applicable to both measurement

technologies, and Handbook 44 code will need to be developed accordingly.

II. Handbook 44 Code

Results of the Meetine

Sector members discussed and agreed to the following design requirements for NIR wheat protein analyzers.

1. A minimum sample size of 20 g shall be specified for both ground grain and whole grain NIR instruments. Comments: Concern was expressed that the sample size specified for moisture meters is unrealistically large for NIR protein analyzers. The 100 g sample size recommendation for moisture meters was based on the variability

in moisture content of individual com kernels. It was noted that the minimum sample size for wheat could be

smaller than that for grains having large kernels or seeds. (A subsequent check indicated that a 20 g wheat sample

consists of approximately 670 seeds, more than the minimum sample size of 400 seeds specified for grain moisture

meters.) It was also agreed that protein variation within a wheat sample probably would be less than the variation

in moisture.

2. NIR instruments shall have the capability of providing an audit trail indicating when changes were made in bias, slope, and calibration constants. A written explanation and record of bias and slope changes shall be a user requirement. Comments: It was agreed that frequent bias checks and adjustments will be required for NIR wheat protein

analyzers. This is a marked departure from the approach adopted for moisture meters where slope and bias values

are sealed and are not to be adjusted. There are two reasons for this difference in requirements. First, differences

187
Executive Committee

in protein values represent more dollars at the point of sale than a similar difference in moisture content. Second,

the moisture bands are larger (10 times?) than those for protein which should reduce the need for frequent moisture

bias adjustments.

Physical seals are not a meaningful security measure if frequent bias adjustments are needed. Use of an event counter may not provide meaningful information. One arbitrary change may be inappropriate, whereas weekly bias changes may be appropriate. The situation is further complicated because NIR instruments can be connected into a network where calibrations, slopes and biases can be updated via modem from a central computer. Security measures for NIR instruments are complex and probably will exceed those specified for Category 3 devices in the General Code.

Providing accurate protein results in the field typically requires implementation of an on-going quality control program. Good quality control programs should include documentation verifying that instrument adjustments were made in order to move into closer agreement with the reference method. It was agreed that maintenance of such

records should be a user requirement. Concern was expressed that a written log was not a meaningful security measure, that an instrument operator could write down anything they want.

3. Calibrations must be identified by a unique name or version number. Inspectors must be able to recall and verify calibration constants, names, or versions.

4. If calibration constants are digitally stored in an electronically alterable form, the instrument must make automatic

calibration checks to detect corruption of calibration constants.

5. The minimum height for the digits used to display protein values shall be 10 mm.

6. An instrument shall not display or record any protein value when the protein level of the grain sample is beyond

the operating range of the device, unless the protein representation includes a clear error indication (and recorded

error message with the recorded representation). Comments: A similar requirement was suggested for samples having moisture contents outside the range of moistures represented in the calibration. Protein calibration samples should cover a range of moisture contents in order to more accurately provide wheat protein values adjusted to a constant 12% moisture basis. This issue was

not resolved and requires additional discussion.

7. Digital display of protein results is required. Final readout must be in percent protein, adjusted to a constant 12%

moisture basis, with no further adjustment of the results required. Conversion charts will not be allowed. Comments: These items were discussed and resolved at previous meetings.

8. It was agreed that, as with moisture meters, acceptance and maintenance tolerances shall be equal. Five wheat

samples (for each wheat class) will be used to check instrument performance in the field. Test samples will be

selected such that the difference between protein values obtained using the FGIS standard reference method and an

official FGIS NIR wheat protein analyzer shall not exceed 0.3 for individual test samples or 0.15 for the average of 5 samples. Field tolerances shall be 0.6 for individual samples and 0.4 for the average of 5 test samples. Comments: It was noted that individual states use widely varying tests for moisture meters, and that clear, uniform

field test procedures should be established at the start of the new NIR program. Because of the possibility that results obtained on field test samples may be used to make bias adjustments, it was stressed that baseline values

established for test samples should agree closely with results obtained by FGIS. It was suggested that protein values

established for test samples assembled by the states should be verified by FGIS.

9. NIR instruments shall be equipped with a communication interface that permits interfacing with a recording device. The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type, protein result, and calibration version

identification. The ticket shall be generated by the NIR analyzer system. Comments: Previous concerns related to this requirement were based upon the fact that not all existing instruments have a communications interface. It was agreed that new instruments should have this design feature, and that the

188
Executive Committee

application of this requirement to existing instruments is a separate issue related to phasing in the new program.

It was previously agreed that a commimication interface should be required to facilitate collection of type evaluation

data.

It was clarified diat "generated by the NIR analyzer system" does not mean typing information into a computer in order to generate a printed result. The instrument must transmit data directly to a printer or automated accounting

system. Concern was expressed that this is an unreasonable requirement for grain elevators and that there would

be opposition to such a requirement. A similar requirement for grain moisture meters will be voted on by the NCWM at the July 1993 Annual Meeting.

10. Protein results shall not be displayed or recorded when operating temperature ranges are exceeded. The following minimum temperature ranges were specified. Whole grain analyzer.

Environmental temperature

Grain temperature

Difference between instrument and sample temperature Ground grain analvzer.

Environmental temperature

Grain temperature

Difference between instrument and sample temperature

10 °C to 30 °C

0 °C to 40 °C

10 °C

10 °C to 30 °C

Not applicable Not applicable

Comments: A wide range in temperatures is unusual for ground grain samples because grinding typically heats the sample. Thus, sample temperature is less of a concern with ground grain samples than it is for whole grain samples.

11. The value of the minimum indicated or recorded protein indication shall not be greater that 0.1 percent. For

purposes of type evaluation, the maximum value for the protein indication shall be O.OI percent.

12. NIR instruments should be capable of indicating the grain type using acceptable abbreviations consisting of up to four characters. Comments: Some existing meters use a numerical code when selecting calibrations. A decal identifying the calibration represented by each number is attached to the instrument. It was agreed that this arrangement would

not meet proposed code or type evaluation requirements. This is an example of where the adoption of Handbook

44 code may have to be phased to accommodate existing instruments. The following design requirements were previously agreed to by the sector, but were reviewed to ensure that the intent of

each requirement was clear.

13 Calibrations must be transferable between different instruments of a given model type. Comments: Allowable techniques for transferring calibrations have not been specified. It was generally agreed

that calibrations developed on a master instrument(s) must be "mathematically" transferable to other instruments. The intent of this requirement is to avoid approval of instrument model types where it is necessary to individually

calibrate each instrument within the model type.

14. The operator shall be able to verify either the calibration constants, a unique calibration name, or a unique

calibration version on location without the use of an auxiliary computer.

189
Executive Committee

Comments: Previously agreed to wording indicated that the operator should be able to load calibration constants and standardize the instrument on location without the use of an auxiliary computer. Because it is possible to download calibrations from a central computer to instruments in a system or network, it was agreed that the requirement for loading calibration constants should be dropped. The sector did not discuss whether this also applied to other "standardization" information such as slope and bias adjustments. It seems to be generally accepted by members of the sector that operators will need to make on-site wheat protein bias adjustments. Further

discussion of this issue is required.

15. Performance requirements shall be met with line voltage variations from 100 to 130 volts at 59.5 to 60.5 cycles per second.

16. It was agreed that warm-up requirements should be similar to those used for grain moisture meters. Requirements

for indicating over-temperamre conditions should be combined with requirements for warm-up time.

17. Instrument optics and electronics must be protected from exposure to dust by either sealing both areas or by

protecting them with a dust filtration system suitable for the removal of airborne dust. Comments: It was agreed that the requirement that instruments not overheat at 50 percent blockage of the filter within the operating temperature range be dropped. It was felt that identifying when a filter is 50 percent blocked with dust would be an extremely subjective determination.

18. Instruments that must be positioned to within 5 percent (approximately 3°) of an upright normal position to a level plane in order to meet performance specifications shall have a level indicator and leveling adjustments.

Sector members also reviewed Sections S.4, N.l - N.2, T.l - T.2, and UR.l - UR.IO of a draft of a Handbook 44 chapter

for Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers. Since most of the suggestions were editorial in nature, they will simply be incorporated

into the next draft and not documented in the meeting summary. Recommended procedures for field testing NIR analyzers

will be summarized for additional discussion at the next meeting. in. Type Evaluation Criteria

Results of the Meeting The sector agreed that basic instrument tests developed for grain moisture meters should be adapted for use in type evaluating NIR wheat protein analyzers. Basic instrument tests include power supply, storage temperature, leveling, warm-up time, humidity, instrument stability, and sample temperature stability. Comments: The sector discussed whether it was necessary to repeat basic instrument tests for NIR wheat protein analyzer

evaluations if similar tests have already been conducted during a grain moisture meter type evaluation. The general feeling was that this would be necessary because tolerances will probably be different and because instrument response might be

different for protein than it is for moisture. Depending upon test procedures, it might be possible to use one set of log data

for both moisture meter and wheat protein analyzer evaluations. This would not be possible if a different number of subsamples are used for different grain types or different constituents.

rv. status of NIR Analyzers Currently Approved by FGIS

This issue was not discussed due to time considerations. V. Additional Issues Requiring Discussion The next meeting for the Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Wheat Protein Analyzer sectors was scheduled for August 17-19, 1993 in Kansas City. A noon-to-noon meeting format was suggested. Items requiring additional discussion at that meeting

include:

1, Once a type evaluation program is in place, there are several questions relating to implementation of an on-going

standardization program that need to be addressed. What type of quality control program will be put in place? How will standard reference samples be assembled, distributed and used? Could this be done by service companies

190
Executive Committee

already in the business of supplying reference samples? How will the approximately 3000 NIR instruments

currently in use be handled? The use of non-NTEP calibrations on NTEP approved NIR wheat protein analyzers needs to be discussed. For

example, could a soybean protein and oil calibration be used on an instrument that is NTEP approved for determining wheat protein? Most sector members feel that an on-going calibration program should be required for NIR wheat protein analyzers. Items that need to be discussed and clarified are how this program would be structured, whether participation in the calibration program would be mandatory, and how the program would be funded.

Participants March 4-5, 1993 '

.

' Name Organization Jack Barber Dickey-john Corp. Randy Bums Arkansas Bureau of Standards Tina Butcher NIST

Allen Butler Perten Instruments Carol Dickey Bran-I-Luebbe

Cassie Eigenmann Dickey-john Corp. Dave Funk USDA/FGIS

Charles Hurburgh Iowa State University Lowell Hill University of Illinois Rich Pierce USDA/FGIS

Scott Reed Perten Instruments Joseph Rothleder California Div of Measurement Standards Cheryl Tew North Carolina Dept of Agriculture

Cliff Watson Consultant Richard Wotthlie Maryland Weights and Measures

191
Executive Committee

Summary of the Meeting

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Moisture Meter and Wheat Protein Technical Sectors August 17, 1993 Kansas City, Missouri

MOISTURE METER SECTOR

1. The code requirement limiting displayed results on NTEP approved meters to NTEP approved attributes was

discussed by the sector members. The restriction on test weight was the primary concern. Individual states will have responsibility for monitoring and controlling the displaying of test weight in the field, however, NTEP

approval requires a manufacturer's design that allows disabling and sealing of the test weight feature.

2. Displaying of other constituents values was also discussed by the sector. The recommendation that "NIR analyzers

that have been NTEP approved as grain moisture meters should be allowed to display constituent values such as protein, oil, and starch." was accepted by consensus.

3. Sector members requested more detail on the check list and test procedures that will be used in moisture meter type

approval. The most urgent concern on the part of the manufacturers was the procedure for testing temperature

limits. Dr. R. Pierce agreed to develop additional details.

4. Dr. R. Pierce reviewed the anticipated time sequence for type evaluation testing. Part of the time restriction is the approval of NTEP Laboratories. The criteria for use in approving the laboratory are not yet available, but it is anticipated that this decision will be made in the near future. Manufacturers present at the meeting were asked to provide an estimate of the number of meters to be submitted for type evaluation and the approximate date when

those submissions would be feasible. The information was treated as confidential and tabulation of the results indicated the possibility of as many as 12 models. Only one manufacturer anticipated submitting before March of

1994. A sample application form was circulated among the committee for comments. Following a brief discussion of items that would be required to be submitted in an application for type evaluation, it was agreed that the manufacturers would look over the application and respond in writing with any changes.

5. A discussion of the sealing and audit trail required on the moisture meter code was followed by a recommendation

that a change in wording was required and that change should be as consistent as possible with the recommendation coming from the wheat protein analyzer.

6. There was consensus that any additional changes in the moisture meter code, application forms, or test procedures, should be handled by mail.

7. Previous decisions about testing accessory equipment, such as scales and grinders, in NTEP approval of moisture meters were questioned. The members present had divergent views and interpretations of the previous action by

the committee, which was included in the handbook 44 code. Some felt that the device should be entirely operator independent, with weight and grinding internally controlled. Others understood the code to mean that scales and

grinders recommended by the manufacturer would be tested for accuracy as part of the NTEP procedures. While

everyone agreed that we should encourage manufacturers to go fully automatic, and prohibit an external scale and

grinder, the revised code currently does not require that. The cost of the accessory equipment, and the timing and

convenience of a fully automated system was thought to be a strong inducement for fully automatic whether or not

it was required for NTEP approval. A show of hands was requested for those wanting to change the code to require

fully automatic equipment. The vote was 11 to 5 in favor of changing the code. It was ruled that this did not

constitute a consensus, the code would be left as written.

8. The Moisture Meter Sector meeting was adjourned on August 18, and the Wheat Protein Analyzer Sector meeting was opened. The following actions were taken by the Wheat Protein Analyzer Sector. WHEAT PROTEIN ANALYZER SECTOR

1 . Dave Funk provided an overview of the sources of variation and the difficulty of maintaining consistent comparable

results among models, instruments and locations.

192
Executive Committee

2. There was a discussion of the robustness of FGIS samples, both with regard to moisture determination and wheat

protein analysis. It was concluded that the NTEP laboratory will seek to maintain as robust a set of samples as cost effectiveness will permit.

3. The committee reviewed the draft code for near infrared grain analyzers item by item. Minor editorial changes in wording were suggested, but the code was essentially approved in its current form by consensus of the committee. The provision in the proposed code requiring a means of security, such as an audit trail, was revised. That section

will be reworded and submitted for further consideration by the full committee prior to finalizing handbook 44 code.

4. Dr. R. Pierce identified actions still required for moisture meters; including 1) revision in the handbook 44 code;

2) type evaluation procedures, especially temperature test procedures; 3) distribution of a draft application form;

4) additional information related to publication 14. He agreed to distribute these materials by mail, by September

1, to the sector mailing list for comments.

5. The actions required for wheat protein analyzers included: 1) revision and editing of the handbook 44 code based on the discussion of the sector meeting; 2) distribution of the checklist for testing procedures for type evaluation;

3) developing basic test procedures for NIR analyzers, including accuracy calibrations; 4) a revision in the wording

relating to security and audit trails. Dr. R. Pierce agreed that this set of materials could be distributed by mail, by October 1

Next meeting date and location.

Alternative dates and locations were discussed by the members present. March 27 - 29 or March 28 - 30, were suggested

as preferable dates. Dr. Pierce was instructed to identify suitable conference facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada for those dates.

193
Executive Committee

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

Moisture Meter Sector March 28-29, 1994, Las Vegas, NV

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

I. Address Industry Concerns Expressed in Letters to the Sector and Others

1 . Cost-Benefit of Recommendations

2. Adoption of NTEP-Approved Meters by States and by FGIS

3. Retroactive Dates

4. Funding of National Calibration Program

5. Range of Temperatures and Moisture Contents of Commercial Meters

II. Review Handbook 44 Proposals from S&T Committee Interim Report and other Handbook 44 Issues

1. 356-1 S. 1.2.2. Digital Indications and Recording Elements: Information Sent to Printer

2. 356-2 S. 1.8. Level Indicating Means

3. 356-3 S.1.10. Operating Temperature; Allowance of 5 "C for Type Evaluation

4. 356-4 S.2.4. Determination of the Sample Quantity; Use of External Equipment with Grain Moisture Meters

5. 356-5 S.5.3. Calibration Transfer

6. 356-6 UR.3.4. Printed Tickets

7. Audit Trail Requirements (not in S&T Interim Report)

III. Review NTEP Checklist for Grain Moisture Meters

1. I. Basic Instrument Tests

2. II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity

3. III. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements Meeting Summary

I. Address Industry Concerns Expressed in Letters to the Sector and Others

Included in Appendix A are letter and other documents that express several concerns of device users. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the Grain Elevator and Processing Society (GEAPS) have expressed a concern that they

are not being heard within the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) or within the Sector. The Sector discussed how to communicate better with this segment of the weights and measures community. Although user members

from the NGFA and GEAPS were not able to attend this meeting, the Sector attempted to address these concerns and will forward the Sector member responses to NGFA and GEAPS with a cover letter from Sector Chairman Dr. Lowell Hill.

194
Executive Committee

1. Cost-Benefit of Recommendations No cost/benefit analysis has been conducted for any recommendation made by the NCWM. Rather than analyses, a consensus

for need is sought from affected parties. Sector members present indicated that they had heard very positive comments from

individual elevator operators and other users concerning the recommendations of the Sector. As far as the Sector members understand, the suggestion of a cost/benefit analysis indicates that the user groups represented by the NGFA and GEAPS do not believe that any changes in the commercial grain moisture measurement system are warranted. Other statements by these groups indicate that they question whether the new requirements put into the Handbook

44 Grain Moisture Meter Code will produce greater accuracy in grain moisture measurement.

TTie Sector members present agreed that automatic grain moisture meters are not expected to operate any more accurately than nonautomatic devices when compared in a laboratory setting, and operating the devices exactly as described by the meter

manufacturer. For nonautomatic devices this includes weighing, taking the temperature, applying test weight per bushel

corrections, and looking up meter readings to determine moisture content. However, in real world commercial settings, automatic meters improve the accuracy of the overall grain measurement system by reducing human errors. Non-automatic

meters take much more care and time to operate correctly, and, in the interest of reducing measurement times, are often operated so that accurate, consistent measurements are not achieved. Therefore, the Sector members present agreed that there will be a sizeable benefit to shift to automatic devices. Automatic devices significantly reduce the need for external manipulation and, consequently, they reduce human error.

In addition, the manufacturers present agreed that the resulting cost of automatic meters are not expected to be very much

greater than meters available presently that are automatic in operation; these automatic meters are very strong sellers in all segments of the grain trade. The Sector proposed and the NCWM adopted a reasonable phase-in period (10 years) in order to permit businesses to plan

their meter purchases as pan of their ordinary equipment improvements and replacements.

2. Adoption of NTEP-Approved Meters by States and by FGIS

The importance of uniform State enforcement of the new requirements added to the grain moisture meter code in 1993 was

emphasized. Concern was expressed that a leading grain State has threatened not to adopt these requirements. However, the new requirements initially apply only to devices accepted for type evaluation; a 5-year period has been provided in the new

code before all commercial devices sold must meet the new code. It will be extremely important for States to have adopted and to begin enforcement uniformly at that point, because of the noncompetitive situations which would exist if uniform

enforcement were not in place. Uniform adoption and enforcement of the new requirements is critical in ensuring that the program achieve improved accuracy of grain moisture measurements in the U.S.

Since the NCWM is a voluntary standards development organization, it has traditionally taken a longer time frame to accomplish uniformity among the States in a given area. The NCWM and its members must work towards a faster achievement of uniform adoption and enforcement in this area. The 5-year phase-in should provide the time to plan and implement an enforcement program. Meter Manufacturers had heard U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) representatives

at a national meeting say that FGIS would not be adopting a new meter. FGIS representative, David Funk, clarified that FGIS did intend to replace the official meter with an NTEP-approved device. As a result of discussions. Chairman Hill wrote the FGIS Acting Administrator concerning this issue and received verification that FGIS does intend to adopt a meter

or meters that have an National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Certificate of Conformance. See Appendix B for copies of this correspondence.

3. Retroactive Dates A concern expressed repeatedly by NGFA, GEAPS, and Sid Colbrook, Illinois Department of Agriculture is their opposition

to the requirement that all commercial meters be automatic (meeting the new code) by the year 2003. They would like to remove this date and let the non-automatic meters gradually phase out of commercial use as they become incapable of repair. Some Sector members expressed the belief that the marketplace will take care of itself in time. Others said that small farmer

concerns have not replaced their meters in 30 years and were unlikely to do so unless required. The Sector agreed to delay

the 2003 date to make it coincide with the retroactive dates that are proposedfor near-infrared protein analyzers. However,

195
Executive Committee

it was emphasized that no change in the moisture meter dates can be made this July, since no proposal for such a change was included on the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee's agenda at the Interim Meeting. In order to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to provide input, a proposal to change the date would have to be refmed and

presented by Nov. 1 , 1994, to the S&T Committee in order to be addressed at the NCWM Interim Meeting of January 1995.

4. Funding of National Calibration Program

Both NGFA and GEAPS have recommended that a national calibration program be delayed until funding can be found for

it. Sector members in attendance at the meeting expressed the opposite point of view, that is, that NTEP will not be able

to obtain funding for a program that does not exist. The program must be in place to fund. The Sector members believe that a national calibration program must be planned and executed without delay. A national calibration program is the only means to increase accuracy of the grain measurement system and potentially allow

the meter tolerances to decrease over time. With a core set of moisture samples with which all meter manufacturers can

establish their calibrations, offsetting biases will be reduced. NTEP and the national calibration program provide the only means possible that more than one meter could even be considered by FGIS as an official device.

In the Sector's agenda, three alternatives were listed:

1- Proceed with calibration as planned, temporary funding would be needed.

2- Waive participation requirements until funding is secured.

3- Require minimal calibration check as part of type evaluation, at the expense of the manufacturers. The concern of manufacturers at the Sector meeting was that if manufacturers paid for the first year of calibration information, they might lose their initial investment if funding for the long term was not found. The Sector agreed that eliminating participation requirements until funding is secured is not technically feasible. The calibration verification is more

important than the hardware evaluation in improving the accuracy of grain moisture measurement in the United States. The Sector agreed that the NCWM needed to pursue federal funding in concert with GEAPS, NGFA, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). The problem with delaying NTEP evaluation and the calibration program until federal funding is obtained is that the federal fiscal year begins October 1, 1994. Because of the low dollar

cost of operating a national calibration program compared to the costs of other Federal programs. Senator Daschle's staff member, Mr. Tom Buis, has not expressed optimism about the value of raising the issue to the Agriculture Committee. Although an opinion was expressed that NIST could fund this calibration program as a pass-through to FGIS, this was

generally dismissed by the Sector. Many sector members think that this program should be an agricultural initiative. At the departmental level of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the opinion is that this is a NCWM and NIST problem, not a USDA problem. Neither NIST nor USDA nor FGIS is permitted to go to Congress directly seeking funds. Initiatives can be advanced by working levels of each agency but take many months to compete with other worthwhile initiatives and nothing can be forwarded by an individual group without prior approval by all levels of the management chain and the Office of Management and Budget. Each agency is currently working on 1996 initiatives. The U.S. Congress has had the agencies' proposals for 1995 funding (which begins in October 1994) for many months. Another opinion expressed was that the calibration program has a relatively low dollar cost (between $70,000 and $125,000 per year for grain moisture meters), and

the USDA should be able to find that much for such a wonhwhile program. It was suggested that Chairman Hill contact

the NCWM Chairman, Tom Geiler and ask that Tom appoint a person to serve as the focal point for the funding issue. The Sector agreed that the third option should be implemented as an extension oftype evaluation testing prior to participation

in the calibration program. More specifically, a calibration should not be listed on the Certificate of Conformance until it has had its calibration bias checked using a set of 10 to 12 samples referenced to the FGIS air oven laboratory and the FGIS

official meter. The cost of the bias check on 13 NTEP grains is estimated at $1,300 per meter model. The bias check would

not eliminate the requirement forparticipation in the calibration program. The manufacturer has the option ofdeferring the release ofa calibration until after thefirst year ofparticipation in the calibration program. In that case, an initial bias check would not be required. The National Calibration Program is the only way that accuracy can be improved system-wide rather than for any individual meter. Only by providing a date that drives the marketplace to join in that system process, will substantial improvements

be realized.

196
Executive Committee

5. Range of Temperatures and Moisture Contents of Commercial Meters \GFA and GEAPS both state that the "maximum allowable moisture meter temperature difference is not operationally

feasible nor practically enforceable." The temperature requirements added to the grain moisture meter code in 1993 were

developed by consensus. The logic was that grain conditions that are under the operator's control (e.g., temperature) must

cause the display to blank if exceeded. When the limited parameters that are not under operator control (e.g., moisture

range) are exceeded, the moisture display must be accompanied by a warning. The Sector members commented that meter

users have two choices: either to buy a meter with a wider range of capability or change the measurement practices to conform with code restrictions. Each manufacturer will declare the operating limits of his design, including temperature

susceptibility, thereby informing the operator of the operational restrictions to maintain measurement accuracy. The joint letter of March 18 from NGFA and GEAPS to Chairman Hill also questions the limited moisture ranges in the type

evaluation protocol as "operationally impractical; panicularly during harvest season. " Neither the Handbook 44 requirements

nor the NTEP evaluation are intended to restrict the range of moisture contents provided by the manufacturer. In fact, 75

percent of U.S. com (the grain consistently noted with the highest moisture content at time of harvest) comes to the elevator within the range tested during type evaluation. The Sector emphasized that the proposed type evaluation and calibration programs in no way restrict the range of moisture contents declared by the manufacturer. The manufacturer can specify moisture ranges outside of those specified for the type evaluation and calibration programs. Moisture levels outside the limits specified by the manufacturer can be displayed, but must be accompanied by a warning message. n. Review Handbook 44 Proposals from S&T Committee Interim Report

Discussion and consensus positions will be transmitted from the Sector to the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting.

1. 356-1 S. 1.2.2. Digital Indications and Recording Elements: Information Sent to Printer

This is a clarification requiring date, grain type, moisture, and calibration version to be automatically transmitted. The Sector agrees with S&T Committee recommendations. The Sector notes that the information to be transferred represents a minimum. Eventually, NTEP should consider proposing

that means for automatic data collection for calibration data be required. One manufacturer's representative stated that if a meter failed the accuracy test, it would be useful to see the raw calibration data, to see whether it was a calibration or other

type of problem.

2. 356-2 S.1.8. Level Indicating Means

At its last meeting, the Sector agreed that means of leveling may be needed for some moisture meters. In response to input from the Sector, the S&T Committee is proposing incorporating a requirement for appropriate level adjustment mechanism

if the meter accuracy is affected by being out of level. In reviewing the S&T proposal, several manufacturer expressed

opposition to providing leveling adjustments. One Sector member said that it would be difficult to enforce a level requirement

without a level adjustment means, since it is difficult to get users to provide stable leveling means.

The Sector recommends that the requirement for a leveling adjustment be removed, and place the need to provide a level surface, if necessary, in the user's control. The Sector also recommends that the S&T Committee add a note to clarify that

the tolerance requirement to be applied during type evaluation is in Publication 14 and that the Sector recommends that units with level indicators be tested at the limits of the provided level indicator. Units without level indicators will be tested at a 5 percent slope. The Sector recommends that the word "applicable " be inserted before "tolerance requirement " arul a

footnote to the word "applicable " be added asfollows: "Applicable tolerances for type evaluation are specified in Publication

14. " The tolerances for type evaluation are much tighter than the tolerances specified in Handbook 44.

3. 356-3 S.1.10. Operating Temperature; Allowance of 5 °C for Type Evaluation

Since this item was withdrawn, no discussion was needed.

197
Executive Committee

4. 356-4 S.2.4. Determination of the Sample Quantity; Use of External Equipment with Grain Moisture Meters

The Sector agrees that weighing and taking the temperature of the grain should be automatic, in order to avoid any potential human error. The goal is to remove operator interaction that requires particular care to achieve an accurate reading. The

meter should not be required to automatically sense when an inappropriatelysized sample is offeredfor analysis but, one might

infer from the S&T recommendation that this is required. Most meters would have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between low test weight and an insufficient sample size; therefore, the operator should have to bring a sufficient sample size

to the meter to allow the meter to operate. The Sector recommends thefollowing to replace the Committee 's recommendation: The moisture meter system shall not require the operator to make a judgement of the precise volume, weight, or

temperature required to make an accurate moisture determination. External griruling, weighing, or sample

temperature measurement operations are not permitted. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998. To become

retroactive as of January 1, 2003.)

Grinding is a problem because of the moisture loss during grinding and the operation of transferring the ground sample to an appropriate sampling presentation device. The Sector is aware that some operator judgement will be needed, but the

specific quantities to be taken to the meter should not be critical to the final accuracy of the moisture determination. There

should be fairly broad boundaries in which the meter will still give accurate results. There should be a clear, indication that the required sample amount has not been provided to the meter. The Sector also recommends that the text accompanying the recommendation be revised. Modify the last sentence in the third paragraph to read: "While the intent of the NTETC Grain Sector and the NCWM is to more fully automate the process, questions have been raised concerning whether or not the language adopted in July 1993 actually achieve this goal, particularly related to the weighing or temperature measurement of the grain sample. " The Sector agreed that external temperature measurement (including the operator placing an attached probe in the sample) should not be allowed, because of the possibility of the operator neglecting to place the probe in the sample. The Sector also recommeruls modifying the last two sentence in the fourth paragraph as follows: "This requirement allows the operator to add a sufficient amount of grain

to the moisture meter to permit the measurement to be made but does not require the operator to measure a precise amount

of grain, not to require that a precise amount of grain must be measured into the meter. " When a sufficient amount of grain has been added, the meter must automatically extract the portion of the grain needed for the moisture determination. "

5. 356-5 S.5.3. Calibration Transfer The recommendation derives from requirements for near-infrared devices that are intended as moisture meters. The intent

is to test a device and have some guarantee that others will perform the same way.

In the course of reviewing this item, the Sector discussed the issue of making calibration changes to devices in the field. (See

also the additional discussion under III. 3. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements). Both discussions may

suggest the need for additions to the Handbook 44 code. One meter manufacturer representative asked that instrument calibration updates or biases be allowed during the harvest

season. This would allow updates in a crop year to reflect a more robust sample set. This prompted the question of whether

or not changes in bias could be made to a device knowing that this would create differences between this device and others

(that is, moving that device away from other devices in performance results). However, Sector members noted that if one

device is already not reading in the same range as other devices, the natural tendency would be to adjust the device to bring

it within the readings of the other devices. The Sector had previously discussed the possibility of establishing a subcommittee

to evaluate proposals and data to make changes. The Sector recognized the need to carefully evaluate changes which would make the performance of one meter different from others. One Sector member noted that there are two different technologies being discussed as moisture meters: a single variate (dielectric) meter and a multivariate (near infrared transmission, (NIRT))

meter. Another manufacturer's representative questioned the validity of permitting updates, suggesting that the need for frequent updates might indicate a technology that is not ready for a commercial environment. Another suggested that if a manufacturer can provide data to demonstrate that changes are warranted and the changes would bring the results more in

line with other devices, then the Sector should permit such changes. If the changes would take the meter farther from other models, then the changes should not be permitted. Another commented that pre-screening a set of test grain samples on a

dielectric meter will not necessarily adequately pre-screen grain for reasonable prediction on an NIR device. The Sector concluded that, except in rare instances, changes to the calibration bias and slopes must be justified and reviewed by the Sector or a subcommittee under the Sector.

198
Executive Committee

It was the consensus ofthe Sector that only the manufacturer or his designated service agency shall make calibration transfer adjustments on moisture meters and, except for instrument failure and repair, only at a prescribed period of time during the year. This will not preclude the possibility of the operator installing the manufacturer-specified calibration constants or

standardization parameters under the instruction of the manufacturer or his authorized agent. The Sector proposes that the "most recent calibration " includes the "most recent standardization parameters " specified by

the manufacturerfor the device. The Sector also asks the S&T Committee to consider proposing a requirement for the owner

of the instrument to maintain documentation showing that the standardization parameters in the device are those specified by the manufacturer or designated service agency and to make this documentation available for inspection by enforcement

personnel. The conditions that should apply to calibration updates during this first year of NTEP grain moisture meter evaluation were

discussed. Calibrations for pending grains may have to be installed in new NTEP meters this year even though the

calibrations may not be ready at the time that the devices are type evaluated. It was concluded that manufacturers do not have to provide supponing data for pending calibrations for NTEP grains during the first year of the program, but they must

provide data for the three NTEP grains to support calibration outside of the range tested by NTEP. Pending calibrations may be developed and installed during this first year. The device is not required to display the status of the calibration.

Sector members also noted that there needs to be established a national program for standardizing air ovens. In the meantime, it is very imponant that States contribute grain samples to FGIS so that a truly national sample set can be

constructed. David Funk, FGIS, reponed that under the proposed Calibration Maintenance and Review program, FGIS intended to supply manufacturers with meter vs. air-oven data, raw meter data, and the following data processing output: scatter plot of meter

vs. air-oven, bar chans of bias in 2% intervals, confidence limits for each 2% interval, and comparison of meter error vs. absolute limits. Manufacturers expressed interest in obtaining access to the FGIS SAS software program to duplicate the data analyses after calibration updates. FGIS will provide this software for the cost of reproduction. This will allow manufacturers to use calibration data other than that collected as pan of the NTEP program. Calibration data collection instruments will need to be checked against manufacturers' standard instruments at least annually. For specialty subsets of NTEP grains, such as high-oil com, the manufacturer may install special calibrations. It must be

clear when the special calibrations are to be applied. The installation of the special calibrations must be coordinated through

the manufacturer. It was noted that non-NTEP grains are to be addressed by individual weights and measures jurisdictions.

6. 356-6 UR.3.4. Printed Tickets The Sector maintains its position on this issue and agrees with the S&T Committee that insufficient evidence has been provided

for dropping the requirement for a printed ticket. Since grain moisture meters are not typically positioned or located to enable

the customer to easily observe the indications, the printed ticket provides the basic transaction information to the customer.

7. Audit Trail Requirements

The Sector recommends adoption of requirements for sealing and audit trails for moisture meters identical to those proposed

for NIR grain analyzers:

S.2.3. Provision for Sealing. - a. Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken, or for using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g.. audit trail available at the time of inspection as defined in part (b)), before any change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any mechanism.

b. If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of the device (e.g., slope, bias,

etc.) in normal operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form of the audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

- An event counter (000 to 999)

- the parameter ID,

- the date and time of the change, and

199
Executive Committee

- the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple calibration constants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants.) A printed copy of the information must be available through the device or through another on-site device. The

event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five (25) times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes

to be stored for each parameter.)

III. Review NTEP Checklist for Grain Moisture Meters

The following items refer to NCWM Publication 14, Grain Moisture Meters Code, dated March 22, 1994. The Sector reviewed this draft and made the following corrections to reflect changes previously agreed to by Sector members that inadvertently did not get incorporated into the test procedures.

1. I. Basic Instrument Tests Power Interruption. The Sector agreed that NTEP shall tentatively apply a 1 second interruption during the measurement

cycle. No moisture content shouldprint or display under a complete power interruption. Manufacturers agreed to check their instruments and let Dr. Pierce know whether or not the proposed 1 second interruption is acceptable. The Sector agreed that insufficient data was available to specify a realistic test for radio frequency interference testing be deferred until such data becomes available. The effect(s) of radio frequency interference on meter performance depends heavily on field conditions and influences present in the actual installation; however, a meter will probably behave the same in the laboratory as in the

field when subjected to a power interruption. The Sector also discussed the time required for initial Phase I type evaluation testing. Dr. Pierce indicated that he expects

a period of about 4 to 6 weeks for the testing cycle.

2. n. Sample Temperature Sensitivity The Sector agreed to change the description oftemperature test tolerances to apply to the difference in readings between room

temperature +/- delta T, where delta T is a minimum of 10 "C but may be a wider manufacturer-specified temperature

difference. Changes will also be made in the test procedure to reflect the procedures the Sector had agreed upon in October

1992. The tolerances established by the moisture meter subcommittee (and endorsed by the Sector) were based on referring "hot" and "cold" results back to room temperature. Before correction, the procedures applied this tolerance to the overall change between "hot" and "cold" results. The agreed upon procedure reads:

II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity

Additional testing is required to verify that accurate results are provided when the sample and instrument are at different temperatures. This will be referred to as the sample temperature sensitivity test. The purpose of this

test is to verify that the instrument provides accurate results when the difference in temperature between the sample and the instrument is 10 °C (or at a larger, manufacturer specified, difference). The sample temperature

sensitivity test will be conducted using com, HRW wheat, and soybean samples. Tests will be conducted with

the instrument at room temperature and the sample temperature varying from room temperature + JT

to room temperature - 4^2G- T . Two (2) samples will be selected from each of three 2% moisture intervals for each of the three grains - com, HRW wheat, and soybeans. Three analyses will be made for each grain sample at both the hot and cold temperature extreme, and the each of the three test temperatures. The overall bias for the 18 observations (2 samples x 3 moisture intervals x 3 replicates) mn at each the temperature extremes must agree with the room

temperature results within the following tolerances: Com 0.45 Wheat 0.35 Soybeans 0.35

200
Executive Committee

Test Procedure:

1. Analyze the room temperature samples on the test instruments (Room 1).

2. Condition samples to the cold temperature and run according to the test procedures outlined earlier, i.e., recondition to the cold temperature after each analyses and alternate tests between the two instmments (Cold).

3. Bring the samples to room temperature, and run the samples on the test instruments (Room 2).

4. Condition the samples to the hot temperature and run on the instruments (Hot).

5. Repeat step 3 to obtain another set of room temperature results (Room 3). COLD BIAS = Cold - ((Room 1 + Room 2) / 2) HOT BIAS = Hot - ((Room 2 + Room 3) / 2) The value of running air oven tests on the samples was questioned because of the expense. It was contended that if the meter

fails temperature tests, NTEP would not use the air oven results to validate the results. Dr. Pierce responded that if a manufacturer challenges NTEP results and there is no air oven to back up NTEP findings, NTEP would be forced to repeat

the tests at NTEP expense. Two Sector members reminded the others that NTEP must do the air oven tests before and after the power supply tests; otherwise one could not confirm that the results of the power supply test are a result of variation in power supply or a result of changes in the moisture of the sample. Several members expressed opposition to using reference meters to determine the moisture content. The consensus reached is that NTEP does not need air oven results for the sample

temperature sensitivity tests, since the meter should not be changed or altered by this test.

3. m. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements

The Sector emphasized that moisture meters should be stable enough to maintain calibrations throughout the year. However,

it was noted that the manufacturer may have to fine tune the calibrations at the time of submitting the device for type

evaluation. The calibration and standardization of devices so that they all match each other is done by the manufacturer, not

the user. However, this principle may be a problem to realize for near infrared transmission (NIRT) devices, since each

device will be slightly different based on the spectral analysis as seen by each device. Sector members question how a field

official will tell that adjustments that have been done are correct. The audit trail will only tell the inspector that something

has been done, but not whether the adjustments were correct. Since each device must be customized, a network is necessary

to manage the adjustments, and the user may need to part of the network.

For NIRT devices used as moisture meters, a secondary adjustment is required beyond initial standardization. When an

inspector tests a NIR device and it fails, a repair person could repair it by performing a slope and bias adjustment. At the present time, these devices are designed so that the user is expected to do these adjustments on a regular basis whenever they appear to be needed. The Sector members were asked whether or not user adjustments such as these should be permitted.

If the user must perform adjustments on a regular basis, the question arose of whether or not the requirement for the audit

trail could be modified to enable the adjustments to be tracked. This would provide an inspector with the means to determine

if the adjustments were appropriate. Present requirements for audit trails would not provide this information; however, they do allow the inspector to detect whether or not changes had been made.

Another problem is that if an inspector checks with one set of samples, the user might think that he must adjust to that set.

If the inspector comes back with another set of samples, the user again might be inclined to adjust to match that second set of samples. NIR device users should not make adjustments just to match a set of moisture samples. Adjustment should be made using standard sets of samples to determine the specific spectral slope and bias for that individual device. The

adjustments should be such that they will pull meter results toward all other meters. The basic calibration will be the same for each instrument within an NTR model line, but individual instruments may be

equipped with unique slope and bias values or even unique calibration constants reflecting standardization adjustments. With

remote access and remote diagnostics now available, the manufacturer can standardize the device over the phone and have

the audit trail reflect that operation. (However, NTEP is not really evaluating the calibration unless it is evaluating the device

with a given bias and slope set.) Each year, if the calibration is changed, each device must be adjusted to set a new slope and bias based on that new calibration and stored spectral data analysis. A decision that must be made is what are the limits

201
Executive Committee

of what the user is allowed to do and what can only the manufacturer do. One possibility is that the standardization process may require devices to be standardized at a central location. These rules would not apply to devices for which standardization parameters are not downloaded and for which no audit trail applies (e.g., for dielectric devices or if the NIR device is physically sealed for the year of operation).

Calibrations When issued, the Certificate of Conformance (CC) will declare that certain grain calibrations are "pending. " The meter must

pass tests on the three major grains in order to qualify for Phase II, the National Calibration Program. For grains other than

the three NTEP grains, except for the first year of the program, the manufacturer must submit data but the calibrations don't have to be loaded in the device at the time of type evaluation. During the first year of the program, manufacturers do not have to provide supporting data, but an initial bias check by the NTEP lab will be required before pending calibrations could be added to the Certificate of Conformance and used commercially. The justification for not requiring data is that these

calibrations were already being used commercially. To promote the goal of uniformity, manufacturers conceded that an

initial bias check (and adjustment if necessary) should be required before pending calibration were listed on the Certificate. However in future program years, pending calibrations will only be recognized if data is provided. For com, hard red winter wheat, and soybeans, a 6% moisture range must be supplied and verified. The manufacturer must

supply data to support the remainder of the calibration range. The manufacturer does not have to provide supporting data

for pending grain calibrations at the time of submission of his device this first year, and the pending calibrations may be

installed at any time during the year (assuming data has been submitted to NTEP at this later time). Manufacturers will pay

for the initial bias check for all pending calibrations prior to commercial use; initial estimates for this are $100/calibration check. The cost will be higher for devices requiring more test effort. The manufacturer may opt to wait until FGIS has

collected a year's data before issuing a pending calibration; however, the pending calibration cannot be used commercially

in the meantime. For specialty subsets of NTEP grains, such as high-oil com, the manufacturer may install special

calibrations. Clear instructions must be provided specifying when the special calibrations are to be used. In submitting an

application for type approval, the manufacturer must mark those grains on the NTEP list for which the device will never be used as "not available." The instmment display is not required to provide the status of the calibration. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Sector is planned for September 21-23, from 8 am Wednesday to noon Friday at the Embassy Suites

at LaClede's Landing, in St. Louis, MO. A sequence of meetings are planned on a regular basis in March and in September

of each year.

202
Executive Committee

June 14, 1994

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector March 29-30, 1994, Las Vegas, NV

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items

I. Review Handbook 44 Proposed Tentative Code from S&T Committee Interim Report

1. S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent.

2. N.1.1. Field Inspection

II. Review Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances

1. I. Basic Instrument Tests

2. II. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements

III. National Calibration Program

I. Review Handbook 44 Proposed Tentative Code from S&T Committee Interim Report

1. S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent. The Sector recommends the following revision of S.1.2..

Provision shall be made for selecting, displaving. and recording the type or class of grain and the constituent(s)

to be measured. The means to select the grain type or class and constituent(s) shall be readily visible and the type or class of grain and constituent(s) selected shall be clearly and definitely identified in letters (such as HRWW. HRSW. etc. or PROT, etc.) or numbers. The use of a number to select and display the class or type of Rrain and constituent(s) is permitted provided that the number is clearlv defined adjacent to the display. The following minimum letter abbreviations may be used. Longer than four-letter abbreviations are also

This recommendation will allow the use of a product/constituent number with a front-panel placard showing the corresponding calibration/constituent names. When abbreviations are used, a minimum of four letters, except for soft winter

wheat, are required, but the Sector recommends that longer abbreviations be permitted.

2. N.1.1. Field Inspection The Sector recommends the second paragraph be revised:

Constituent Wheat protein values shall be assigned to test samples by the Federal Grain Inspection Services

permitted: Durum Wheat

Hard Red Spring Wheat

Hard Red Winter Wheat

Soft Red Winter Wheat

Soft White Wheat

Hard White Wheat

DURW

HRSW

HRWW

SRWW

SWW

HPWW

(FGIS).

203
Executive Committee

In addition, the Sector recommends that N.l.be organized so that other grains and constituents may be added at a later date. For example, NIR is being used to test the oil content of soybeans. For example:

N.1.1. Field Inspection. - Whole grain samples shall be used as the official field inspection standards. Five samples per grain type or class shall be used to check instrument performance. Each sample will be analyzed

once. One of the samples will be analyzed an additional four times to test instrument repeatability. For ground

grain instruments, the ground sample will be repacked four times. A new grind is not required. Wheat protein values shall be assigned to test samples by the Federal Grain Inspection Sersice (FGIS). Tolerances

shall be applied to individual sample measurement, the average of individual measurements on each of the five

test samples, and the maximum difference (range) in results for five analyses on one of the test samples.

N.1.2. Standard Reference Samples. - N.1.2.1. Wheat. - Reference samples used for field inspection purposes shall be clean and selected to reasonable

represent the constituent range. Wheat protein values shall be assigned to test samples by the Federal Grain

Inspection Service (FGIS). These samples shall be selected such that the difference between wheat protein values obtained using the FGIS standard reference method and an official FGIS NIR wheat protein analyzer does not exceed 0.3 for individual test samples or 0.15 for the average of 5 samples. Wheat protein values for standard reference samples will be assigned by FGIS chemical reference laboratory to make the commercial and official systems equivalent to each other. n. Review Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances

1. I. Basic Instrument Tests Power Supply. Because these devices are used in more controlled environments than are the moisture meter, change the type evaluation power supply range from 105 to 129 V.Ifa device is submitted for evaluation as both a moisture meter and

a protein analyzer, the more stringent requirements for grain moisture meters (100 to 130 V) must be met. During the power supply tests, the test should be conducted so as to minimize the sample presentation differences, for

example, using sealed cells for ground-grain devices. The Sector also decided to use 10 analyses at each supply voltage level, and apply a tolerance on the bias and standard deviation of 0.10% protein.

Storage Temperature. The Sector decided that it is important to minimize sample presentation differences by careful sample

handling. Revise the last sentence under Storage Temperature as follows: The maximum bias shift allowed for he average of 10 drops sample analyses before and after temperature cycling

is 0.20% protein.

Leveling. The Sector decided that if a level indicator is provided, the device will be tested at the indicated limits ofthe level indicator rather than at a slope of 57c. There will be 10 tests at each orientation using a HRW sample. (This was the position taken by the Sector with respect to moisture meters.)

Retests. If a model fails a test, the manufacturer has the option to request a re-test (at additional cost) after correcting the

fault that caused the model to fail. The type evaluation laboratory has the option to perform additional testing if there is reason to believe that a model does not meet the intent of the specifications. If the manufacturer changes a calibration due

to afailure during the tests, all tests involving the obsolete calibration may be repeated at the discretion ofthe type evaluation

laboratory. The type evaluation laboratory may collect and provide spectral data during basic device tests or accuracy tests

if the collection does not significantly impact the performance of the tests. Repredictions of collected spectral data will not be accepted as evidence of passing a test. Warm-Up Time. The warm-up time is not necessarily a fixed time interval, but may be defined by a warm-up indication. The Sector decided that retest after warm-up will be at a minimum of 1 hour after the specified warm-up time or warm-up

indication appears.

204
Executive Committee

Instrument Stability. The Sector decided that these tests should use sealed samples ifpossible, over the ranges of 10-12%

("low"), 12-14% ("medium"), and 14-16% ("high") protein levels. The tolerance will be reviewed when data is available

to determine whether 0.20% protein is appropriate. Instrument Temperature Sensitivity: The Sector decided that the same protein levels of samples for instrument stability would be used for instrument temperature sensitivity, also using the most stable practicable sample presentation (sealed samples ifpossible). The samples themselves must be a different set for the instrument temperature sensitivity test than for

the instrument stability arui other tests where the sample temperature is not cycled. The Sector decided to eliminate the requirement to split the sample into three portions. The Sector agreed to a tolerance of 0.35 %o protein from the average

protein content at 22 °C. As a clarification for marking, the ambient temperature range does not have to be marked on the device, but must be provided

in the operating instructions. Sample Temperature Sensitivity. The Sector agreed that the test protocol should be the same as specified for moisture tests: Use a high (13-14%) and low (10-11%,) moisture sample for each of the three protein ranges (10-12, 12-14, and 14-16%>

protein). Evaluate the biases for the high moisture set and low moisture set separately. The sample temperature sensitivity

test does not apply to ground grain devices because the grinding process effectively equilibrates the sample temperature to the room temperature. The Sector will communicate with the Specifications and Tolerances Committee concerning basic device tests, including

humidity, device stability, and storage temperature, that have been devised to determine General Code conformance with requirements for permanence arui suitability for the operating environment. These tests are not specifically part of the proposed code. The requirements could be placed in Handbook 44 with a note that they should be performed in a laboratory

only under controlled coruiitions. At the present time, the requirements are incorporated in Publication 14. The Sector is aware that uniformity in test requirements needs to be maintained. The philosophy of what is required as a part of the code

to warrant type evaluation tests needs further clarification.

2, n. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements The question of whether the number of samples could be reduced from 50 to 25 was considered. Using 25 samples would

require some pre-selection of the samples, taking time and effort. Fifty randomly selected samples would not require that much more time. Unlike moisture content varying with exposure to the enviroimient, protein content in the samples will not vary. Both protein and moisture ranges will be from the sample stock, with moisture varying from 8 to 15%. A

recommended protein test range for each wheat class will be developed. Slope set range or FGIS calibration range for HRWW; HRSW; DURW; SVAV; HDWH; and SRWW.

Repeatability. Calculated values will be pooled within each wheat class: Revise first sentence: The Standard Deviation (SD)

of the three replicates of each 2% protein interval will be calculated for each sample in a 2% moisture interval and will be

pooled across samples for each class . Also revise the statements of tolerance values: Specifically, the tolerance is 0.15 for

all classes each class of wheat. Also: Specifically, the tolerance is 0.20 for all classes each class of wheat. in. National Calibration Program

The question of whether an annual calibration data collection or calibration checks were needed for wheat protein analyzers was explored. FGIS doesn't operate the same kind of program for protein as for moisture where 3-5 years of data are used

in a calibration analysis. FGIS currently reviews the data every 2-3 years and updates the calibration for a more robust

calibration. Manufacturers could use the annual calibration data supplied by FGIS to justify calibration changes. Whole

grain moistures for whole grain instruments would be a major part of program costs. It would be much simpler to deal with

moisture-basis-corrected protein values only. One manufacturer said that there is a real need for a centralized source of slope samples. A common set of slope samples

to standardize devices may be more significant that calibration updates. There should be a sufficient amount of samples

available for slope and bias calibrations. However, there is a need for validating new calibrations as well. FGIS noted that standardization charges are already being billed to individual users, they are paying for the adjustment to individual instruments on an instrument-by-instrument basis.

205
Executive Committee

The Sector questioned when type evaluation testing could begin if the NCWM adopted the proposed code as tentative at the NCWM Annual Meeting. Some manufacturers are anxious to begin and others are not. FGIS expects to be able to start testing shortly after the proposed code is adopted. FIGS will need to be authorized to conduct NTEP tests and will need

to assemble test samples. The Sector will need to review test procedures at the next meeting.

Meeting Attendees Name Affiliation Rich Pierce Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) Lowell Hill University of Illinois Robert D. Wittenberger Missouri Weights and Measures Randy Bums Arkansas Bureau of Standards Cheryl Tew North Carolina Dept. of Ag. Standards Division Rich Flaugh GSF, Inc. Chuck Lowden Foss Food Tech. Russ Tkachuk Canadian Grain Commission

Cassie Eigenmann Dickey-john Corp. David Funk FGIS Hugh Shown Dickey-john Corp.

Jack Barber JB Associates (for Dickey-john Corp.) Pontus Nobreus Perstorp/Tecator Hiro Yanahira Kett Electric Cliff Watson Consultant Will Wotthlie Maryland Weights and Measures

Allison Pflug CSC Scientific Co

Michael ven den Matten Sinar Technology

Tina Butcher National Institute of Standards and Technology Dominique LeGigan Star Partners

Jeff Martin Steinlite Corp

Joseph Rothleder California Department of Agriculture Sid Colbrook Illinois Department of Agriculture Charles Hurburgh Iowa State University

206
Laws and Regulations Committee

Final Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee

Barbara J. Bloch, Chairman

Special Assistant California Division of Measurement Standards

Reference Key Number 200 Introduction

This is the Final Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee for the 79th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and Committee Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by

the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting.

Table A identifies the items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item numbers

are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item number. Consent

calendar items are marked with a "VC." Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number are information items. The items marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. Items marked with a "W" generally will be referred back to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional development, analysis, and

input, or did not have sufficient support of the Committee to bring them before the NCWM. Table B identifies appendicies A-G, and Table C shows the voting results ft-om the 79th NCWM. Revisions proposed by the Laws and

Regulations Committee are shown in bold face print by crossing out what is to be deleted and underlining what is to be

added. New items are designated as such and shown in bold face print. Proposals presented for information are shown

in italic type unless otherwise identified as informational. This Report contains recommendations to revise or amend

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 130, 1993 edition, "Uniform Laws and Regulations,"

or NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods," Third Edition and Supplements 1 (1990), 2

(1991), and 3 (1992). "SI" means the International System of Units. "FPLA" means the Federal Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act. The section mark, "§," is used in most references to sections in the text and is followed by the section number and title, (for example, § 1.2. Weight.). The term "weight" appears in this report due to common commercial

usage; it here means "mass." Subject Series Handbook 130 - General 210 Series Uniform Laws 220 Series Weights and Measures Law (WML) 221 Series Weighmaster Law (WL) 222 Series Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law (EFIL) 223 Series Uniform Regulations 230 Series Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR) 231 Series Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation (MSCR) 232 Series Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) 233 Series Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies

for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices (VRSR) 234 Series Open Dating Regulation (ODR) 235 Series National Type Evaluation Regulation (NTER) 236 Series Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Regulation (EFR) 237 Series

Interpretations and Guidelines 238 Series Price Verification 239 Series NIST Handbook 133 - General 250 Series

207
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

210 NIST Handbook 130 - General 211

210-1 I Ensuring that the UPLR is Identical to Federal Regulations 211 223 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Law 211

223-1 I Revisions to the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law 211 232 Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities 211

232-1 V § 1.3. Butter, Oleomargarine, Margarine, etc. - Eliminate Size Restrictions 211 232-2 V § 1.4. Flour, Com Meal, and Hominy Grits - Eliminate Size Restrictions 212

232-3 I § 1.6. Fluid Milk Products and § 1.7. Other Milk Products - Eliminate

Size Restrictions 212

232-4 V Compressed Natural Gas When Sold as an Engine Fuel 213

232-5 I Standardized Size Descriptions for Shrimp 217

232-6 VC Basis Weight for Communication Paper 217

232-7 I 3.3. Machine-Vended Commodities 219 236 Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation 220

236- 1 I Revisions to the Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation 220 237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation 220

237- 1 V Fuel Quality Standard for Natural Gas 220

237-2 1 Revisions to the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation 220 238 NIST Handbook 130 - Interpretations and Guidelines 221

238- 1 VC Revisions to § 2.6.6. Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory 221

238-2 VC 2.6.8. FTC Commodities 221 240 Price Verification 221

240-1 I Examination Procedure for Price Verification 221

208
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

250 NIST Handbook 133 222

250-1 V Revisions to NIST Handbook 133 222

250-2 I Moisture Loss for Pasta 225

250-3 I Moisture Loss for Rice 225

250-4 VC Aerosol Products ~ Test Allowance for Foam Products 225

250-5 I Gray Areas for Meat and Poultry' Products 226

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

Appendix A: Draft of a Revised Uniform Regulation for National Type

Evaluation 236-1 227

Appendix B: Report of the Petroleum Subcommittee to the Laws and Regulations Committee 223-1 & 237-2 232

Appendix C: Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Law 223-1 240

Appendix D: Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants 237-2 243 Appendix E: Recommendations for a Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory' 238-1 251 Appendix F: Third Draft - Examination Procedures for Price Verification 240-1 259

Appendix G: 2.6.8. Commodities Under FTC Jurisdiction Under the FPLA and Exclusions 238-2 294

209
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No. House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

200 (Consent Calendar) 41 0 56 0 Passed

232-1 38 4 47 8 Passed 232-2 38 4 54 9 Passed 232-4 38 4 39 13 Passed

250-1 43 0 53 1 Passed 200 (in entirety) 43 0 60 0 Passed

237-1 41 0 54 0 Passed

210
Laws and Regulations Committee

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key Number) 210 NIST Handbook 130 - General

210-1 I Ensuring that the UPLR is Identical to Federal Regulations

Background: The Food and Drug Administration will publish final regulations on SI labeling following the Annual

Meeting. These regulations will be reviewed and additional changes made to NIST Handbook 130 (1994) to ensure that the NCWM Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulations are identical to Federal regulations, as required under the Fair Packaging and Labeling and Nutrition Labeling and Education Acts. A summary of the changes will be included in the introduction of NIST Handbook 130. 223 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Law

223-1 I Revisions to the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law

Background: At the Annual Meeting, Celeste Bennett, Subcommittee Chairperson and Motor Fuel Coordinator, Michigan

Department of Agriculture, presented a report on the activities and recommendations of the Petroleum Subcommittee.

(See Appendi.x B on page 232 for a discussion of the proposed revisions.) A draft revision of the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law is included in Appendix C on page 240. The Committee recommends that proposed changes be discussed at the regional weights and measures meetings, and that suggested changes and comments be sent to the Laws and Regulations Committee for consideration at the Interim Meeting in Januar>' 1995. 232 Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

232-1 V § 1.3. Butter, Oleomargarine, Margarine, etc. - Eliminate Size Restrictions

(This item was adopted.) Background: The National Association of Margarine Manufacturers (NAMM) requested that a 12-ounce container be added to the list of inch-pound sizes permitted for the packaging of Butter. Oleomargarine, Margarine, Butter-Like and'or Margarine-Like Spreads, in § 1.3(b). NAMM also requested that the section be amended to allow packages in excess of

1 pound to be sold in multiples of 1/4 pound rather than the 1 -pound multiples currently permitted. The reason stated

for this request was the changing demographics of the marketplace. The NAMM believes that the current requirements do not allow industry to respond flexibly to consumer preferences. Consumers keep large containers in their refrigerators

for a longer period of time than smaller ones, raising concern about product freshness. Consumers at club-type stores appear to prefer a wider variety of sizes in smaller increments than those permitted in § 1.3. The Committee recommends the elimination of size restrictions for these products for the following reasons: (1) the widespread availability of unit pricing reduces the need to limit sizes: (2) manufacturers of products subject to size limhations are at a disadvantage in providing their product in a variety of sizes that compete against other products; (3) package size restrictions limit the flexibility that manufacturers need to respond to consumer preference and the changing demographics of the marketplace: (4) requiring industry to continually request changes through the NCWM for package

sizes is time-consuming and hampers industry 's ability to respond to consumer preference; (5) enforcement of package

size requirements is difficult or impossible to justify, especially if the products are offered for sale in stores where unit pricing is available: (6) enforcement of specific sizes can limit competition and may hurt consumers more than help them;

(7) package proliferation is controlled by market factors, such as the cost of store shelf space, competition, and consumer

choice; and (8) consumers purchase millions of other products in hundreds of different sizes using only the net quantity

211
Laws and Regulations Committee

information declared on the package to perform value comparisons. The American Butter Institute and the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers support the Committee recommendation. Committee Recommendation: Remove the size restrictions from § 1.3., but retain the method of sale by weight.

1.3. Butter, Oleomargarine, Margarine, Butter-Like and/or Margarine-Like

Spreads. - Shall be offered and exposed for sale and sold by weight, per § 1.3.(a) or § 1.3.(b).

(a)SI Masses 125 grams, 250 grams, 500 grams^ 750 grams , or a multiple of 500 groms.

' (b) Inch - Pound Weights 1/4 pound, 1/2 pound, 1 pound, 1

- 1/2 pounds , or a multiple of 1 pound.

"Butter-like and/or margarine-like spreads" are those products that meet the Federal Standard

of Identity for butter or margarine and oleomargarine except that they contain less than 80% fat and may contain other safe and suitable ingredients. 232-2 V § 1.4. Flour, Corn Meal, and Hominy Grits - Eliminate Size Restrictions

(This item was adopted.) Background: The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) recommended that the size restrictions in § 1.4. Flour, Com Meal, and Hominy Grits be eliminated. The WWMA requested the action because the current requirements do not allow industry to respond to consumer preferences. The Committee recommends that the size restrictions for these products be eliminated for the same reasons listed in 232-1. Committee Recommendation: Remove the size restrictions from § 1.4. and retain the method of sale by weight.

1.4. Flour, Corn Meal, and Hominy Grits. - Wheat flour, whole wheat flour, graham

flour, self-rising wheat flour, phosphated wheat flour, bromated flour, corn flour, corn meal, and

"'''^'^ hominy grits, whether enriched or not, shall be packaged, kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or

sold only i n by weights, per § 1.4.(a) or § l.i.(b), provided SI sizes l ess than 1 kilogram or more than 50 kilograms and that inch - pound sizes l ess than 2 pounds or more than 100 pounds and

shall be permitted.

(a) SI Mass es 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 25, or 50 kilograms.

(b) Inch Pound Weights 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100 pounds. 232-3 I § 1.6. Fluid Milk Products and § 1.7. Other Milk Products - Eliminate

Size Restrictions

Background: The Western Weights and Measures Association recommended that the size restrictions contained in § 1 .6. Fluid Milk Products and § 1.7. Other Milk Products be eliminated. This recommendation is based on the same reasons

listed above in item 232-1. At the Interim Meeting, a representative of the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), which includes the Milk Industry Foundation and the International Ice Cream Association, requested that action on this agenda item be delayed until the Interim Meetings in January 1995. This delay was requested to allow for a thorough

industry-wide analysis of the issue. The issue of eliminating package size requirements for dairy products is of great interest to the member companies of the IDFA. The industry has operated within these parameters for many years and, as a result, has achieved substantial uniformity within the marketplace. The dairy industry believes that the system of standardized package sizes has assisted consumers not only in terms of value comparisons, but also in terms of familiarity of product use in home food

preparation, recipes, and portioning for consumption. In addition, uniformity in package sizes helps to control costs to

212
Laws and Regulations Committee

consumers by restricting capital expenditures for processors in terms of the additions or adjustments to processing, packaging, and distribution equipment which would be necessary to accommodate additional package size offerings. Such uniformity has not come without a price tag, however, and that price tag is largely a limitation on consumer choices. Consumers have not experienced the potential benefits of unrestricted package size selection for milk and ice cream

products. The industry is also aware that, for the most part, unit pricing "eliminates the need to limit sizes" to assist consumers in making value comparisons and also recognizes that competitive food products are not subject to similar

restrictions. Finally, some members of the IDFA believe that the elimination of the package size requirements could

enable their products to compete more effectively within the marketplace. The Committee agrees that a complete analysis of the issue should be conducted within a one-year time frame and the results of the study presented for review and

deliberation at the^Interim Meeting in January 1995. Comments on this proposal are solicited from consumer, trade groups, and other interested parties. 232-4 V Compressed Natural Gas When Sold as an Engine Fuel

(This item was adopted.) Background: This item was carried over from the 78th NCWM L&R Report. (See 232-7 on page 229 in the Report

of the 78th NCWM.) Following the NCWM Annual Meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, a Working Group was established

to develop a method of sale for compressed natural gas (CNG) sold at retail as an engine fuel. The Working Group is made up of weights and measures officials from Maryland, North Carolina, and West Virginia and representatives of the

U.S. Department of Energy, automobile manufacturers, natural gas distribution companies, CNG dispenser manufacturers, CNG station operators, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the American Automobile Association, the Society of

Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, Amoco, Conoco, and the American Petroleum Institute (API). The CNG

Working Group's recommendations to the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee are shown in italics. Background

The CNG Working Group considered the following factors in its discussions of this issue: (1) precedent in previous NCWM actions or decisions; (2) the need to ensure fair competition among companies; (3) potential for intentional and

accidental errors; (4) variations in energy content of fuels; (5) applicability of the requirements to other fuels; and (6) recognition of the need to provide consumers with a unit of measure that simplifies value comparison. It was also noted

that the NCWM has considered three different proposals for the method of sale of CNG: (a) joules, the unit of measure

for energy prescribed in the International System of Units; (b) mass; and (c) the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE).

At the 78th NCWM Annual Meeting, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) recommended that the Gasoline Gallon

Equivalent be adopted as the method of sale for CNG, and that it be based on a specific British Thermal Unit (Btu) energy

content. This proposal was extensively discussed at the Working Group meeting. Everyone acknowledged that the energy

contents of CNG and gasoline vary widely depending on source and the method of combination with other products. The

Working Group agreed that field verification of Btu content would be possible through documentation provided by CNG

suppliers. However, several people expressed concerns that following a paper trail would be a difficult and time- consuming process in most situations and probably impossible at locations where CNG is drawn directly from the wellhead. During the discussion, a proposal was made to eliminate the reference to Btu content of CNG and replace it with a fixed conversion factor based on mass. See Item 337-2 on page 322 under the Agenda of the S&T Committee in the Report

of the 78th NCWM under "Determination of Natural Gas Properties" for the research and background information used

to develop the conversion factor. The Working Group accepted this proposal and recommended that the NCWM adopt

the following definition as a national standard: The "Gasoline Gallon Equivalent" is defined as 5.660 pounds CNG

The Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) of 5.660 pounds CNG was obtained as described in detail in Item 337-2 on page 322 in the Agenda of the S&T Committee in the Report of the 78th NCWM under "Determination of Natural Gas

Properties" using reference values from the scientific literature and mean values from experimental testing.

213
Laws and Regulations Committee

The use of a standard GGE reduces or eliminates problems that would be encountered were the GGE based on the actual energy content of given samples of CNG, and weights and measures officials need not verify the Btu content of the CNG

at the dispenser level. The GGE will be a useful tool for consumers for comparing the value of CNG to other fuels. Many CNG vehicles are dual use and can use either CNG or gasoline. If the NCWM adopts this method of sale, consumers could compare the price of the GGE to the price of gasoline and make purchasing decisions based on similar

units of measure. Consumers would not purchase 1 gallon (231 cubic inches) of CNG, but would receive 5.660 pounds

of CNG with the approximate "equivalent energy" of a gallon of gasoline. In use, vehicles will travel approximately the same distance on the "gallon equivalent" of CNG as on a liquid gallon of gasoline. As another benefit, the quantity of mass to derive the "Gasoline Gallon Equivalent" can be easily verified by weights and measures inspectors. The Working Group recommended that the term "Gasoline Gallon Equivalent," and no other, be permitted to make it clear that the term

identifies a "derived" unit that is equivalent to a gallon of gasoline in terms of energy content, but is not actually a gallon of 231 cubic inches in volume. Working Group Recominendation for a Method of Sale:

1. The method of sale for retail sales of CNG as a vehicle fuel should be the "Gasoline Gallon

Equivalent (GGE).

2. A national conversion factor for the GGE should be defined as 5. 660 pounds of CNG.

3. CNG dispensers should display three items of information: (I) total sale price (in dollars); (2) amount of CNG in GGE in this sale ; and (3) unit price per GGE (in dollars/GGE) (see Figure 1). A

separate mass display for consumers may be provided, but should not be required.

4. The conversion factor should be stated on the customer indications of CNG dispensers for use in verification purposes and consumer information. See Figure 1 for an example.

Note: The labels would not need periodic revision because the 5.660 lb factor would be fixed.

5. Mass should be used to verify the accuracy of a device. The Working Group discussed environmental and safety issues concerning CNG handling procedures (e.g., it is known

that test cylinders are sometimes vented to the atmosphere, which could result in fires). It is believed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no specific regulation requiring the return of CNG test product to storage although air quality can be preserved only by eliminating venting to the atmosphere. Working Group Recommendation:

Product handling instructions should be included in an Examination Procedure Outline to discourage

the practice of expelling CNG to the atmosphere. A User Requirement should be added to NIST

Handbook 44 specifying that provisions must be made for returning product used in testing to storage

at all retail CNG locations.

• A proposal to require a display on dispensers to indicate the total mass of a sale, in addition to the other displays, was

discussed by the Working Group. The majority of the members of the Working Group did not support the proposal. The

concern centered on whether requiring devices to have an additional display for mass would help consumers and be worth

the cost. Requiring a consumer display was not supported because: (1) the information would not aid consumers in value comparison without equivalent information for other types of fuels; (2) display of mass may be unnecessary for calibration or verification because inspectors can use the result of the total GGE value multiplied by 5.660 pounds to obtain the amount of CNG dispensed in pounds; and (3) it would increase the initial and maintenance costs of the dispenser.

• The Working Group agreed to defer development of a "Diesel Gallon Equivalent" until the issues related to the "Gasoline Gallon Equivalent" were decided by the NCWM and agreed to meet again if additional work is necessary.

214
Laws and Regulations Committee VEHICULAR NATURAL OAS

$3.75

Total Sale

5.00

Gasoline

Gallon Equivalent

1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent is Equal to 5.66 lbs. of Natural Gas.

This quantity of Natural Gas delivers ap- proximately the same amount of energy to your vehicle as a typical gallon of gasoline. $0,749

Price per Gasoline

Gallon Equivalent

Figure 1. Dispenser Consumer Display Dispenser Test Procedure

Figure 2 illustrates how a field test of a CNG Dispenser is conducted. A test cylinder is placed on a scale and the scale

is set to zero. Then 5 GGEs are dispensed into a test cylinder and the mass of the delivered amount is calculated. Dispenser Certification Procedure

• Dispense & weigh natural gas $ 3.75 Total Sale

5.00 GGE

0.749 $/GGE

Figure 2. Illustration of a CNG Dispenser Test

215
Laws and Regulations Committee

Calculations

1 . Calculate the mass of indicated volume of the delivery (5 GGEs in Figure 2) by multiplying the total GGEs delivered times 5.660 pounds: 5 GGEs X 5.660 lb per GGE = 28.30 lb

2. The measuring error, in percent, for the device is determined by subtracting the calculated mass of the indicated delivery (28.30 lb) from the actual mass of the CNG delivered into the test cylinder (28.54 lb in Figure 2): 28.54 lb (actual mass of delivered CNG) - 28.30 lb (mass of 5 GGEs) = 0.24 lb The device error in percent is computed by dividing the error in mass by the actual mass delivered:

0.24 (device error in pounds) 28.54 lb (actual mass of delivered CNG) = 0.84 percent

If the device in this example is a mass-flow meter, the allowable maintenance tolerance is ± 2 percent; therefore, the CNG

dispenser would pass. Other Comments

The Committee believes that there should be a single value of 5.660 pounds of CNG for the GGE across the country. Adoption of different values on a State-by- State or regional basis should be avoided. The proposed value of 5.660 pounds

of CNG value for the GGE was established using the average energy content of thousands of samples of natural gas from

across the country, and on information on the energy content of gasoline from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Thus, comments received from some ftiel suppliers and weights and measures officials correctly indicated that the natural gas available in some areas has a much higher energy content than natural gas found in other regions or from different sources. For example, the Committee heard from a supplier of liquefied natural gas (which is vaporized and dispensed

as CNG) who requested that the NCWM exempt liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the 5.660-pound value. This request was based on the fact that LNG is a cleaner ftiel that contains more energy. Several people told the Committee that LNG

was equivalent to a "premium natural gas ftiel." One firm asked the Committee to consider a value of 5.3 pounds of CNG

for the GGE if the product was vaporized from LNG. Thus, NCWM adoption of the value of 5.660 pounds of CNG for the GGE may have a negative economic impact on the natural gas industry in some areas of the country. However, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, and industry representatives that may be impacted by this recommended value stated at the Annual Meeting that, in spite of these concerns, it is in their industry's best interest to go forward with the adoption of the GGE with the 5.660-pound value so that a single method of sale for CNG is established. As the industry implements the method of sale and the marketplace matures, the impact of the method of sale (and the 5.660-lb value) can be monitored, and the need for any changes identified. Further work can be initiated with the NCWM, appropriate Federal agencies, and industry to address issues that may include the need for additional values for different "grades" of CNG, or further refinement of the 5.660-pound value. Committee Recommendation: Accept the recommendations of the CNG Working Group and adopt a method of sale for CNG:

2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel

2.27.1. Definitions

2.27.1.1. Natural Gas. ~ Natural gas means a gaseous fuel composed primarily of methane that is suitable for compression and dispensing into a fuel storage container(s) for use

as an engine fuel.

216
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.27.1.2. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). -- Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means

0.678 kilogram of natural gas.

2.27.1.3. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). - Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE)

means 2.567 kilograms (5.660 pounds) of natural gas.

2.27.2. Method of Retail Sale and Dispenser Labeling

2.27.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. - All natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale and sold at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be in terms of the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or

gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE).

2.27.2.2. Dispenser Labeling. — All retail natural gas dispensers shall be labeled with

the conversion factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and

conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have either the statement "1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas" or "1 Gasoline Gallon

Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas" consistent with the method of sale used.

If this item is adopted, the method of sale will be added to the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation. 232-5 I Standardized Size Descriptions for Shrimp

Background: The National Fisheries Institute, Inc. (NFI), a trade association, has requested that the Uniform Method of

Sale of Commodities Regulation include requirements that specify standardized size descriptors for shrimp sold from bulk

or in package form. The requirement would apply only when the seller includes a size claim in connection with

advertising shrimp for sale from bulk or in labeling packaged shrimp. The size descriptors suggested by NFI include 14 terms associated with a specific "count-per-pound." The terms used to describe sizes ranged from "extra small" (if more

than 90 shrimp weigh a pound) to "super colossal" (when 9 shrimp or less weigh a pound). NFI members request action because many sellers use inconsistent size declarations which can confiise or mislead consumers. The Western Weights and Measures Association and the Committee do not support the NFI recommendation because the proposal includes too many terms that would probably not provide meaningful information to consumers. The Committee

believes that the goal of the NFI could be partially achieved if retailers included a "count-per-pound" declaration whenever

they use size descriptors in advertisements, on package labels, or in conjunction with bulk sales. The Committee believes

that a required count-per-pound statement along with a size declaration may help consumers to compare values. The

following method of sale is presented for review over the next year and will be reconsidered at the Interim Meeting for the 80th NCWM in January 1995. Comments and suggestions are solicited.

1.5.3. Size Descriptors for Raw, Shell-On Shrimp Products — If size descriptor terms for shrimp (e.g., small, medium, large, or colossal) are used on packages, advertisements, or on signs when

offering shrimpfor salefrom bulk, a statement ofcount-per-kilogram, ifsold by kilogram, or count-per- pound, if sold by pound, shall be included adjacent to the size descriptor (e.g., medium-large, 31-40 shrimp per pound). 232-6 VC Basis Weight for Communication Paper

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: A question has been raised regarding proper and accurate labeling of "communication" paper, such as bond, mimeo, xerographic, or fan-folded computer paper. Due to the changing marketplace and consumer practices, these products are moving into more and more retail sales outlets. It has become necessary to alter label formats from the

traditional methods, which were understood by the business users, to a format that complies with the Fair Packaging and

217
Laws and Regulations Committee

Labeling Act and is not confusing or deceptive to the retail consumer. Some paper manufacturers made these conversions when they added the SI declarations, which will be required on consumer products in 1994. The issue deals with the "basis weight" declaration portion of the label statement. The word "weight" in the term appears

to be a net quantity statement, but is not; it is the category or identity statement of a certain grade of product. This is the target to which a paper manufacturer runs the paper machine. Several factors involved in papermaking cause the basis weight to fluctuate greatly even though the equipment is set to a given number. Variations may be due to the fiber used (hardwood and softwood fibers do not react in the same way), coating consistencies, variations in speed of the equipment

used, and/or the amount and type of recycled fiber. It has been shown over the course of papermaking manufacturing

history that, due to these variations, paper weight grades such as "24-lb paper" or "20-lb paper" can be held to an accuracy of ±5 percent of that target. New technologies, new equipment, and new processes today allow some of the newer

machinery to control the accuracy of the paper grade within a slightly tighter tolerance than ± 5 percent, but a great number of paper machines still cannot control the accuracy of the grade closer than ± 5 percent. The need for this ±5 percent variation is also related to the accuracy of the test method for determining basis weight. The

precision and bias described in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Method D 646 for "Grammage of Paper and Paperboard" indicates that the repeatability within a laboratory is 0.94 percent, and

reproducibility of results between laboratories is 2.84 percent.

Industry has made the following recommendation to the weights and measures jurisdiction that raised this issue:

1. The statement of the net quantity of contents for these products that should appear in the lower 30 percent of the

principal display panel should indicate the sheet size and count contained in the package. The rationale is that buyers are only concerned with purchasing a paper product which is functional for their end use. Consumers want to know how

many sheets are in a package and the size of those sheets. They are not purchasing "20 lb of paper" or "21 lb of paper," they want "X" number of sheets of "Y" size. It should be noted at this point that a lower basis weight does not necessarily equate to lower quality or price. Depending upon the location and type of materials used and energies required to manufacture paper products, a 20-lb product might in fact be superior in quality to and higher in price than a 22-lb paper. The proposal includes a requirement that the basis weight declared on the label be that specified by the original paper

manufacturer.

2. The "basis weight," "grain direction," "color," "brightness level," etc., are all items of information about the product

that relate to the suitability of the paper for particular applications and should, therefore, appear elsewhere on the label since this information truly only identifies the product category in the package. The Western and Southern Weights and Measures Associations believe that the two issues should be addressed separately and recommend that the NCWM:

define "communication paper" as packaged bond, mimeo, spirit duplicator, xerographic, and other papers, including cut-sized office paper and computer paper.

adopt a Method of Sale for communication paper requiring packages to have a declaration of

quantity of sheet size and count and a statement of identity that would include a basis weight

determined in accordance with ASTM test methods. The statement of identity may also include

grain direction, color, brightness, and hole-punch information. work with the paper industry to develop a verification method to determine if the basis weight

declared as part of the identity statement is accurate. At the 79th Annual Meeting, Chairman Bloch asked Robert G. Atkins, Chief, Los Angeles County Consumer Protection Bureau, and Richard L. Davis of the James River Corporation, to work with NIST to develop a field test procedure that can be used by field inspectors to determine if a basis weight declared as part of an identity statement is accurate. Committee Recommendation: Adopt the following method of sale for packaged communication paper and work with

the paper industry to develop a test method to verify a declared basis weight:

218
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.28. Communication Paper

2.28.1. Definitions

2.28.1.1. Communication Paper. - "Communication paper" means packaged bond, mimeo, spirit duplicator, xerographic, and other papers, including cut-sized office paper and

computer paper.

2.28.1.2. Basis Weight. ~ "Basis weight" as used in this regulation for labeling means

the grade, category, or identity of the paper determined according to the latest version of American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Method D 646 for "Grammage of Paper and Paperboard." Basis weight is used as a standard of identity and is not considered a net weight declaration.

2.28.2. Method of Retail Sale and Labeling

2.28.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. -- All packaged communication paper kept, offered, or exposed for sale and sold at retail shall be sold in terms of sheet length and width and count.

2.28.2.2.

includes: Labeling. ~ Communication paper in package form shall bear a label that

(a) a declaration of quantity, in terms of sheet length and width and count, in the lower 30

percent of the principal display panel.

(b) a declaration of identity including the basis weight, and may include such other information

as grain direction, color, brightness, printed lines, and hole punch information. Due to the

variation in basis weight in manufacturing and analysis, the basis weight declared on the label

shall correspond to the basis weight declared by the original manufacturer.

Background: This recommendation is to amend (c) in § 3.3. Machine Vended Commodities to exempt firms from having

to indicate a statement of responsibility on a vending machine at a location where the responsible party is available to resolve any monetary discrepancies for consumers. The amendment will bring the section into agreement with Paragraph G-UR.3.4. in the General Code of NIST Handbook 44, which was amended at the 78th NCWM to include this exemption

(see Item 310-3 UR.3.4. Responsibility, Money-Operated Devices in the Report of the 78th NCWM 1993, page 292). Section 3.3. was originally intended to apply to equipment installed either in unattended sites or those where the identity of the party responsible to correct any problems is not readily apparent. The L&R Committee believes that a statement of responsibility is not needed in situations where the responsible party is readily known and available. The purpose of

this item was to bring Section 3.3 in NIST Handbook 130 into agreement with G-U.R. 3.4. in the General Code of NIST

Handbook 44. Comments received on this item at the 79th Annual Meeting suggested additional changes that could not be made before consulting with the S&T Committee. It was changed from a voting issue to an information item so that the suggested amendments can be considered in cooperation with the S&T Committee at the 1995 Interim Meeting. Committee Recommendation: Amend § 3.3.(c) as follows:

3.3. Machine-Vended Commodities. - All vending machines dispensing packaged

commodities shall indicate:

(a) product identity;

232-7 I 3.3. Machine-Vended Commodities

(This item was changed to an information item at the 79th Annual Meeting.)

219
Laws and Regulations Committee

(b) net quantity; and

(c) name, address, and telephone number of party responsible for the vending machine. This requirement does not apply to devices at locations where employees are present and responsible

for resolving any monetary discrepancies for the customer.

(d) The requirements for product identity and net quantity can be met either by display of the package or by information posted on the outside of the machine. 236 Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation

236-1 I Revisions to the Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation

Background: The Western Weights and Measures Association recommended revisions to the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation to incorporate several of the policies and guidelines adopted by the NCWM Executive Committee and appearing in NCWM Publication 14. A draft revision of the regulation is included in Appendix A on

page 227 for review and comment. The L&R Committee plans to incorporate the comments received into a second draft, which will be reviewed at the Interim Meeting for the 80th NCWM in January 1995.

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation

237-1 V Fuel Quality Standard for Natural Gas

(This item was adopted.) Background: See Item 232-4, under the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation. The CNG Working Group

discussed the need for a fuel quality standard for CNG to establish limits on water content. Excessive levels of moisture

in CNG may affect metering accuracy and can reduce engine performance and service life. Another concern is that excessive water may reduce the usefiil life of some high-pressure storage containers used on vehicles. At the Working

Group's meeting, the status of fuel standards for CNG used as an automotive fiiel was reviewed by Robert E. Petsinger, President, CNG Services of Pittsburgh. Mr. Petsinger reported that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) "Recommended Practice for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel," J 161 6, would be balloted by SAE and might be

referenced in vehicle owner's manuals in the near future. If adopted, SAE J1616 would be published in 1994. He also reported that the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is at least 2 years away from the development of

a fuel quality standard for CNG.

Committee Recommendation: The Petroleum Subcommittee should work with SAE and ASTM to develop a fuel quality standard for CNG when sold as a vehicle fuel. This standard should be included in the Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation.

220
Laws and Regulations Committee

237-2 I Revisions to the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Automotive Lubricants Regulation

Background: Celeste Bemiett, Subcommittee Chairperson, Motor Fuel Coordinator, Michigan Department of Agriculture, presented the Pettoleum Subcommittee's recommendations for revisions to the Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation. Discussion of the recommended changes is contained in a draft revision of the regulation that is included in the report of

the Pettoleum Subcommittee's activities in Appendix B on page 232. The draft revision of the Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels, Pettoleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants is Appendix D on page 243. The Committee recommends

that proposed changes be studied and discussed at the regional weights and measures meetings and that comments be sent

to the L&R Committee for consideration at the Interim Meeting in Januar> 1995. 238 NIST Handbook 130 - Interpretations and Guidelines

238-1 VC Revisions to § 2.6.6. Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Lubricants Laboratory-

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: Celeste Bennett. Subcommittee Chairperson, Motor Fuel Coordinator, Michigan Department of Agriculture, presented the Petroleum Subcommittee's proposed revisions to the Recommendations for a Basic Engine Fuels, Pettoleum

Products, and Lubricants Laborator>- in Appendix E on page 251. The Committee recommends adoption of the Pettoleum Subcommittee recommendations. Committee Recommendation: Adopt the Petroleum Subcommittee's revisions to the Recommendations for a Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory in Appendix E on page 25L

238-2 VC 2.6.8. FTC Commodities

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: The Committee believes that the information contained in Appendix G relating to commodities under

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jurisdiction under the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act should be added to the

Interpretations and Guidelines Section of NIST Handbook 130. This information was originally published in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 108, Weights and Measures Labeling Handbook (1971), which is out of print. The

information will help weights and measures officials and manufacturers identify commodities subject to FTC jurisdiction and those that are only subject to State regulation. Committee Recommendation: Add a new section 2.6.8. Commodities Excluded From FTC Jurisdiction as shown in Appendix G

to the Interpretations and Guidelines Section of NIST Handbook 130. 240 Price Verification 240-1 I Examination Procedure for Price Verification

Background: See Appendix F on page 259 for a detailed report of the Working Group on Price Verification. The

Committee recommends that the Examination Procedure for Price Verification be field tested by jurisdictions and that comments, suggestions, and reports on the findings resulting from its use be forwarded to the Committee so that the Examination Procedure can be considered at the Interim Meeting in January 1995.

221
Laws and Regulations Committee

The L&R Committee sincerely appreciates the comments received on the third draft of the Examination Procedure Outline. The comments will be considered and, where possible, incorporated in a fourth draft that will be published by October

1, 1994. The fourth draft will serve as the basis of discussions at the 1995 Interim Meeting which will include a joint meeting of the L&R Committee and the Price Verification Working Group.

250 NIST Handbook 133

250-1 V Revisions to NIST Handbook 133

(This item was adopted.) Background: This was Item 240-2 in the Report of the 78th NCWM, 1993, page 236. In the NCWM's petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 9, 1992, States requested an exemption from preemption under

Section 403 A(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act so that they could continue to use NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods," for testing foods for the accuracy of their quantity declarations. The Food and Drug Administration had not responded to the petition at the time of the Annual Meeting. The FDA may deny

the States' petition, hence the Committee recommended several changes to Handbook 133 so that FDA can consider adopting the handbook itself, and the States and FDA can then use the same test methods to enforce accurate net contents of packages. The Handbook 133 Working Group was formed under the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee in January 1993. One objective of the Working Group was to devise sampling plans that would meet the needs of FDA and other agencies

that had already adopted Handbook 133. Current Handbook 133 sampling plans were developed based on 10 packages

in a sample. These differ from those proposed (but never adopted) by FDA in 1980 using sample sizes based on 12 packages, convenient for sampling cases of boxed or canned commodities. In discussions over the years, FDA

representatives expressed the need to retain the basis of 12 packages (the number of packages typically contained in a box

or case of product) and to provide a sampling allowance at all levels of test. The Working Group focused on the request

for a sampling allowance as described by the Food Industry Task Force in a June 4, 1993, letter. (Copies are available from the Office of Weights and Measures.) At its second meeting on November 2, 1993, the Working Group unanimously agreed to the following recommended

changes to NIST Handbook 133 to facilitate possible adoption by FDA in response to the NCWM petition dated November

9, 1992. The Working Group and the Committee have submitted these recommendations to FDA for its use in establishing NIST Handbook 133 as the standard for FDA and State and local weights and measures officials for verifying the quantity

declarations on foods and, indirectly, on drugs and cosmetics. The goal is to achieve, to the maximum extent possible, national standardization in net contents inspection procedures among the various Federal, State, and local jurisdictions in order to facilitate trade between the States, permit fair competition among businesses, and provide uniform and sufficient protection to all consumers in commercial weights and measures practices. The changes recommended here will address most of the concerns expressed over the current practices in Handbook 133 and should, if accepted by the NCWM and FDA, help to both smooth and speed the process of achieving a single national standard for determining the net contents of packaged foods. The sampling plan proposed below is based on the 1980 net weight proposal by FDA; it includes a slight modification of sample sizes and a new row with a sampling correction factor. The plan allows one package to exceed the individual package limits set by the Maximum Allowable Variations (MAV) in HB133 when the sample size is 48 and the lot size

is more than 3,200 packages. The Committee also agreed that a statistical correction for small sample sizes or small

inspection lots should be recommended. The statistical correction factor suggested in the following sampling plan is based on approximately 97 percent confidence limit (one-sided t test). It was the consensus of the Working Group and Committee that the sampling plans should be required by all agencies for official action at retail, wholesale, and point of

packaging.

222
Laws and Regulations Committee

Committee Recommendations: Based on the recommendation of the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group and comments received at the public hearings at the Annual Meeting, the Committee recommends that NCWM adopt the following revisions to NIST Handbook 133.

Delete the finite population correction The f factor corrects for the fact that sampling probabilities are based on the assumption that the population from which

a sample is drawn is infinite in size; the f factor generally affects the results by less than 10 percent when the sample is less than 20 percent of the lot. The f factor assumes that what is available for inspection is the total inspection lot. Since many packages at retail may already have been sold, the benefit of doubt will be shifted towards the packager by

eliminating the f factor.

Adopt Table 1. Sampling Plans as amended to include sample correction factors for lots of 2 to 5 packages. If only one package is available for inspection the Maximum Allowable Variation (MAV) is applied. Table 1. Sampling Plans

1

1

->z

1 4 5 Lot Size (N) oaiii|jiv \J 1 1 cciiuii Factor

(2/Vn)

Number of Minus Package

Errors Allowed

to Exceed the MAV

Tare Sample

Size

1 1 MAV Glass and

Aerosol Containers

All Other

Containers

2 2 1.414

3 3 1.154 4 4 1.000

5 5 .8944

6 6 .8165

2 2

7 7 .7559 0

8 8 .7071 9 9 .6667 10 10 .6325

11 11 .6030

12 to 250 12 .5774 0 251 to 3,200 24 .4082 0 More than 3,200 48 .2887 3 Sample Error Limit = sample standard deviation x sample correction factor

Adoption of this proposal does not change the status of NIST Handbook 133 (Third Edition), tare procedures, or gray areas on meat

and poultry products under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture, or alter the tare procedures used to determine the drained weight of food products, or the definition of tare (e.g., that tare includes brine if the brine is not consumed

with the food)

223
Laws and Regulations Committee

Tare

The Committee recommends dry tare (or used dry tare) for inspection purposes, determined using the alternative tare procedures

in HB133 for all official actions whether at point of pack or at retail. The Committee also agreed to increase the initial tare sample

size for glass and aerosol containers for lots containing more than 25 1 packages to ensure that the wide weight variability common

to this type of packaging is taken into account during the tare determination process (see Column 5 in Table 1 . Sampling Plans

for details).

• Adopt the Alternative Tare Procedure as the primary tare determination procedures for all products. The following information will follow the table of sampling plans.

" Tare sample packages are kept in the order in which their corresponding random numbers were

obtained. The random tare sample is the "initial tare sample" and is selected from the random sample. Used dry tare weights are determined by emptying, cleaning, drying (if necessary), and weighing all packaging materials. The range of tare weights (RJ and range of net weights (RJ are determined for the

initial tare sample to within 0.01 lb.

R^/R, is computed and this value is used to look up the value in Table 2.7 and determine if additional packages must be opened to determine tare. Additional tare packages are measured as necessary. Package

errors are determined for the tare sample and for the rest of the sample by comparison with the nominal

^ gross weight. Other Comments

Maximum Allowable Variations The Committee considered the status of the current MAV's to determine if work could be undertaken to revise them based on

current information. The MAV's contained in NIST Handbook 133 were based on thousands of samples tested at the packing plant,

at wholesale and at retail, of actual packaged products, food and nonfood, meat, poultry, random weight packages, gardening

products, over-the-counter drugs, paper products, stationery goods, hardware items, etc., labeled by weight, volume, count, capacity,

etc. The only criterion applied to package samples was that the average of the sample had to equal or exceed the labeled net

contents. The standard deviations of packages as found were collected and plotted looking for qualitative differences in the product,

for example, easy-to-pack versus hard-to-pack. No correlation was found except that the limits of the standard deviations increased

as the net contents increased. An enveloping curve was constructed around these standard deviations. These curves became the MAV's. The original data upon which the MAV's were based were collected in the 1970's, and packagers have become more

sophisticated in their ability to reduce packaging variations. The Working Group and the Committee agreed that limited resources prevent the NCWM from undertaking revisions to the MAV's at this time. However, the Committee is recommending that the number of packages allowed to exceed the MAV's in a sample be reduced in Table 1 for the reasons just described. The Committee has also recommended that FDA adopt the following MAV tables from NIST Handbook 133:

• Table 2-8 "MAV's for an Individual Package Labeled by Weight"

• Table 2-9 "MAV's for an Individual Package Labeled by Volume - Liquid or Dry"

• Table 2-10 "MAV's for an Individual Package Labeled by Count"

• Table 2-1 1 "MAV's for an Individual Package Labeled by Length or Area" NIST Handbook 133 Working Group

The following weights and measures officials represent the National Conference on Weights and Measures on the NIST Handbook

133 Working Group:

• Barbara J. Bloch, Working Group Chairman, State of California

• Ross J. Andersen, State of New York - for the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

224
Laws and Regulations Committee

' • Barbara DeSalvo, State of Ohio - for the Central Weights and Measures Association

• Thomas Coleman, State of Maryland - for the Southern Weights and Measures Association

• Patrick Nichols, Director, Alameda County Weights and Measures, California - for the Western Weights and Measures Association

' Packagers are represented by the Industry Weights and Measures Task Force that is comprised of nine trade associations including

the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the American Bakers Association, the American Frozen Food Institute, the Food Marketing

Institute, the National Fisheries Institute, International Dairy Foods Association, the National Food Processors Association, the

1 National Pasta Association, and the Snack Food Association. 250-2 I Moisture Loss for Pasta

Background: See Item 240-5 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990, page 107; Item 240-4 in the Report of the 76th NCWM,

1991, page 219; Item 240-4 in the Report of the 77th NCWM, 1992, page 154, and Item 240-3 in the Report of the 78th NCWM,

1993, page 237, for background. A field study protocol has been developed by the National Pasta Association (NPA) for nationwide study to determine the moisture losses on various pasta products in different packaging materials. The study will be

used to develop a gray area proposal for pasta products which lose moisture to the atmosphere. The Committee will continue to work closely with the members of the NPA and State weights and measures officials on this project. The following moisture loss allowances are requested by the National Pasta Association and are based on published studies (and additional information) that were conducted using guidance provided by the Food and Drug Administration:

Moisture Loss Allowances for Pasta When packaged in fiberboard boxes 5 percent of labeled net weight When packaged in flexible packaging 3 .2 percent of labeled net weight 250-3 I Moisture Loss for Rice

Background: This was Item 240-7 in the Report of the 76th NCWM, 1991, pages 221-222, and Item 240-5 in the Report of the 77th NCWM, 1992, page 154. The Rice Millers Association (RMA) has requested the Conference address the moisture loss of packaged rice in a manner similar to flour, that is, to establish a gray area for packaged rice. A field study protocol has been

developed by RMA for a nationwide study to determine the moisture losses of various rices in different packaging materials. The

Committee will continue to work closely with the members of the RMA and State weights and measures officials on this project. 250-4 VC Aerosol Products ~ Test Allowance for Foam Products

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: See Item 240-6 in the Report of the 78th NCWM, 1993, page 238. Additional information can be found in Item 240-6 in the Report of the 76th NCWM, 1991, pages 220-222, and Item 240-8 in the Report of the 77th NCWM, 1992, page 155. At the Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed the results of the studies conducted by weights and measures officials in Maryland

and California and the Gillette Company laboratories to determine if a proposal to eliminate the test allowances for foam aerosol products (Table 3-2) in NIST Handbook 133 should be presented to the NCWM. The studies, which compared the NIST Handbook

133 procedures to the consumer use test, indicate that the results are comparable if the aerosol containers are not overshaken. Based

on these studies and comments received at the Interim Meeting from a representative of the Gillette Company, the Committee recommends that: Committee Recommendation:

(1) Delete the test allowances (Table 3-2 Test Allowances for Foam Aerosol Products in Appendix B) for foam aerosol products from NIST Handbook 133, and

225
Laws and Regulations Committee

(2) amend the directions for shaking in § 3.11.4. Exhausting the Aerosol Container to read that the container should be shaken 5 times unless there are other instructions on the label. The Committee extends it appreciation to the weights and measures officials in Maryland and California, the Gillette Company,

and the members of the Chemical Specialty Manufacturers Association for their participation in and support of these studies. 250-5 I Gray Areas for Meat and Poultry Products

Background: See Item 240-7 on page 239 in the Report of the 78th NCWM for background on this issue. The Committee will report on the status of this work at the Interim Meeting. Parties interested in participating in these studies should contact the Committee's Technical Advisor at the Office of Weights and Measures. The Committee is planning to initiate studies in several of the following categories during 1995:

• Ice-packed bulk poultry/

• Cured pork products (hams, shoulders, and loins)

• Cured beef products (corned beef, corned beef brisket, and tongues)

/ • Raw meat products (chopped beef, ground beef, hamburger, and beef patties)

• Ham patties, chopped ham, pressed ham, and similar products

• Dry salami and other meat or poultry products that lose moisture to the atmosphere

B. Bloch, California, Chairman

S. Rhoades, Arizona

L. Straub, Maryland

S. Millay, Maine

R. Gunja, Kansas City, Kansas

B. Bloch, Califomizi, Chairman, NIST Handbook 133 Working Group

E. Heffron, Michigan, Chairman, SI Working Group

C. Bennett, Michigan, Chairperson, Petroleum Subcommittee

G. Jorowski, Consumer Products Branch, Technical Advisor

G. Vinet, Legal Metrology Branch, Canada, Technical Advisor

K. Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor

G. Coleman, NIST and Maryland Weights and Measures, Technical Advisor Committee on Laws and Regulations

226
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix A

Draft of a Revised Uniform Regulation for National Type

Evaluation

1. Background 2. Intent

The Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation

is a necessar\ adjunct to recognize and enable

participation in the National Type Evaluation Program

administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Regulation specifically authorizes: type evaluation; recognition of a National

Institute of Standards and Technology "Certificate of Conformance" of type; the State Measurement

Laborator>' to operate as a Participating Laboratory, if authorized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology under its program of accreditation of

State Measurement Laboratories; and the State to charge fees to those persons who seek type evaluation of weighing and measuring devices.

The intent of this regulation is to encourage all States

to use the National Type Evaluation Program, as ap- proved by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, as their examining procedure.

3. Status of Promulgation

The table beginning on page 5 (in Handbook 130) shows the status of adoption of the Uniform

Regulation for National Type Evaluation.

227
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table of Contents

Section Page

1. Application 229

2. Definitions 229

2.1. Certificate of Conformance 7^ 229

2.2. Director 229

2.3. National Type Evaluation Program 229

2.4. "One-of-a-Kind" Device 229

2.5. Participating Laboratory 229

2.6. Remanufactured Devices 229

2.7. Repaired Devices 229

2.8. Type 229

2.9. Type Evaluation 229

2.10. Commercial and Law-Enforcement Equipment 229

3. Certificate of Conformance 229

4. Certificate of Conformance;

Specific Requirements 230

5. Participating Laboratory and Agreements 231

6. Unlawful Acts 231

7. Revocation of Conflicting Regulations 231

8. Effective Date 231

228
Laws and Regulations Committee

Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation

Section 1. Application

This regulation shall apply to all classes of devices and/or equipment covered in National Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44. Section 2. Definitions

2.1 Certificate of Conformance . -- A

National Tvpe Evaluation Program Certificate of Conformance issued by the Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology establishing that the commercial weighing and measuring device, based on

testing, meets the requirements ofNational Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44;

2.2 Director. -- means the of the department of ,

2.3. National Type Evaluation

Program. -- A program of cooperation between

the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

the States, and the private sector for determining, on

a uniform basis, conformance of a type with the relevant provisions of National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.

2.4. One-of-a-Kind Device. - A device manufactured for sale that has been categorized and

tested as a "one-of-a-kind" device. If the manufacturer constructs an additional device or

devices, the device is no longer considered to be

"one-of-a-kind." This definition also applies to any

device that has been determined to be a "one-of-a-kind" device by a weights and measures

jurisdiction in one state and the manufacturer decides

to manufacture and install the device in another state. In this case, the manufacturer must request an NTEP

evaluation on the device through the normal

application process, unless NTEP has already decided

that such evaluation will not be conducted.

2.5. Participating Laboratory. ~ Any State Measurement Laboratory that has been accredited by

the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in accordance with its program for the Certification of

Capability of State Measurement Laboratories, to conduct a type evaluation under the National Type

Evaluation Program.

2.6. Remanufactured Devices. - Devices

to which an overhaul or replacement of parts has been

performed so the device can be installed in a new

location.

2.7. Repaired Devices. ~ The maintenance or replacement of parts for devices to remain or return

to service in the same location.

2.8. Type. - A model or models of a particular measurement system, instrument, or element 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.

2.9. Type Evaluation. - The testing, examination, and/or evaluation of a type by a

Participating Laboratory under the National Type

Evaluation Program.

2.10. Commercial and Law-Enforcement

Equipment. ~ (a) Weighing and measuring equipment commercially used or employed in establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or articles for distribution or consumption, purchased, offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in computing

any basic charge or payment for services rendered on

the basis of weight or measure, (b) Any accessory

attached to or used in connection with a commercial weighing or measuring device when such accessory is so designed that its operation affects the accuracy of

the device, (c) Weighing and measuring equipment

in official use for the enforcement of law or for the

collection of statistical information by government

agencies.'^"^'-^""^^''' Section 3. Certificate of Conformance

The Director shall require any weight or measure, or any weighing or measuring instrument or device to have a Certificate of Conformance prior to its installation or use for commercial or law enforcement

purposes. Note 1: The section is identical to G-A. 1., § 1.10, General Code, National Institute ofStandards

229
Laws and Regulations Committee

and Technology Handbook 44 for definition of

"commercial" and "law enforcement equipment.

Section 4. Certificate of Conformance; Specific Requirements.

(1) No person shall sell a commercial weighing or measuring device unless a Certificate of Conformance

has been issued for the device, except when the device is exempted by this section.

(2) No person shall use a commercial weighing or measuring device unless a Certificate of Conformance

has been issued for the device prior to use, except when the device is exempted by subsection (3), (4), or

(5) of this section.

(3) Commercial weighing or measuring devices in service prior to , 19_, which meet the

specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements of National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44 shall be exempt from

meeting the requirements for the Certificate of Conformance.

(4) Commercial weighing or measuring devices in service prior to ^ 1 removed from service by the owner or on which the department has issued a removal order after , 19_, and returned

to service at a later date shall be modified to meet all specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements of National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44 as adopted by the

Legislature, on the date of the return to service. Such

commercial weighing and measuring devices shall not be required to have a Certificate of Conformance.

(5) Commercial weighing or measuring devices in service prior to , 19 , which are remanufactured, modified, or upgraded after such date

shall meet all specifications, tolerances, and other

technical requirements of National Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44 adopted by

the Legislature on the date of the modification or upgrading. Such commercial weighing and measuring

devices shall not be required to have a Certificate of Conformance.

(6) Devices in service prior to , 19_, that are

still in use and are no longer being manufactured may

be sold to another jurisdiction, provided that the device meets current requirements as of the date of

installation in the new jurisdiction; however, no NTEP Certificate of Conformance is required.

(7) "One-of-a-kind Devices" do not require an NTEP

Certificate of Conformance. However, if the manufacturer decides to make an additional device or

devices, the device will no longer be considered to be

"one-of-a-kind" and an NTEP evaluation must be

conducted on the device. For scales, any load cells and electronic indicators must have an NTEP

Certificate of Conformance.

(8) Repaired devices:

(a) With an existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance will not have their Certificate of Conformance invalidated, provided that replacement

parts are consistent with the design and quality of the

original parts. Repaired devices without an NTEP

Certificate of Conformance will not be required to have an NTEP evaluation.

(b) For scales, if load cells are repaired by other than

the original manufacturer or the manufacturer's

authorized agent, then the Certificate of Conformance

for the load cell does not apply to the repaired load

cells.

(c) Replacement of metrologically significant mechanical parts with parts of a different design

invalidates the original Certificate of Conformance.

(9) Remanufactured Devices:

(a) If a device with an existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance is remanufactured by the original equipment manufacturer or authorized agent using

original equipment parts, no additional evaluation is required, and the original Certificate of Conformance

applies, provided that the remanufacturing process does not modify the design of the device. If a device without an existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance

is remanufactured by the original equipment

manufacturer, or authorized agent, the device must be

submitted to NTEP for evaluation.

(b) If a device with or without an existing NTEP

Certificate of Conformance is remanufactured by a remanufacturer (e.g., a company other than the OEM

or authorized agent), the device must be marked with

the remanufacturer' s name, model designation, nonrepetitive serial number, and the qualifier for the

serial number as required by G-S. 1 , General Code of Handbook 44. A device considered by the manufacturer to be a typical example of the remanufactured devices overhauled by the remanufacturer must be submitted to NTEP for evaluation.

230
Laws and Regulations Committee

(10) Copies of Devices:

If a company copies the design of a device made by

another company that has a Certificate of Conformance for the device, the Certificate of Conformance does not apply to the model that is a copy. The company that copied the device must get

its own type evaluation on the device.

(11) Scale or Weighing System Components

If a person buys NTEP load cells and an NTEP

indicating element and then manufactures a scale or weighing system from the parts, the complete device must be submitted for type evaluation. Section 5. Participating Laboratory

and Agreements

The Director is authorized to:

(1) Operate a Participating Laboratory as part of the National Type Evaluation Program. In this regard,

the Director is authorized to charge and collect fees

for type evaluation services.

(2) Cooperate with and enter into agreements with any person in order to carry out the purposes of the

act. Section 6. Unlawful Acts

It shall be unlawful for any person to:

(1) Use any commercial weighing and measuring

device in a commercial application unless a

Certificate of Conformance has been issued for such

device unless exempt in Section 4.

(2) Sell any weighing and measuring device for use

in a commercial application unless a Certificate of Conformance has been issued for such devices unless exempt in Section 4. Section 7. Revocation of Conflicting

Regulations

All provisions of all orders and regulations heretofore

issued on this same subject that are contrary to or

inconsistent with the provisions of this regulation, and

specifically , are hereby revoked.

Sections. Effective Date

This regulation shall become effective on . Given under my hand and the seal of my office in the City of on this day of , 19_.

231
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix B

Report of the Petroleum Subcommittee

to the Laws and Regulations Committee

Celeste Bennett, Chairperson Motor Fuel Coordinator, Michigan Department of Agriculture Summary

Even though the work of the Subcommittee has not been completed, the Subcommittee recommends that the Laws and Regulations Committee review and endorse the many revisions to the Fuel Law and Fuel Regulation, as appended, for States to use to update

their own requirements. Rather than delay the entire law or regulation until standards are developed for biodiesel, E85, M85, etc., or until certain other controversies are resolved, the Subcommittee submits the attached documents to be considered by the Laws

and Regulations Committee at its Interim Meeting, January 1994. The Subcommittee proposes that the Laws and Regulations Committee consider recommending to the NCWM a:

• revision to the Uniform Law;

• revision and great expansion to the Uniform Regulation;

• revision to the Laboratory Guide; and

• new Field Sampling Guide. Questions for the Laws and Regulations Committee:

It is not apparent to the Subcommittee how the Laborator>' and Field Sampling Guides should be made available in publication form. Perhaps they can be added to Handbook 130, or be made available as separate publications.

Drafts of the Laboratory and Field Sampling Guides are being revised and will be distributed for review and comment when

complete.

In addition, the Subcommittee recommends that the Laws and Regulations Committee determine whether further clarification or

standardization of terms could be incorporated into the sections on Administrative and Civil Penalties of all the uniform laws (see

II.A.2. below). Further work for the Subcommittee includes: Resolve oxygenate labeling. Uniform Regulation: Paragraph 3.1. on labeling all oxygenates is unresolved at the present time.

- Add lubricant standards. Uniform Law and Regulation; If the States agree that lubricant standards should be incorporated

in the law and regulation, a new mix of technical and industrial sector participants will need to be formed for work to begin

in this area.

- Urge the development and adoption of national standards for a wide variety of alternative fuels. Subcommittee members

must interface with technical standards development organizations to assist in development of standards that can be adopted by State quality fuel programs for alternative ftiels including:

Reformulated Gasoline

Biodiesel Compressed Natural Gas M85 Fuel Methanol

232
Laws and Regulations Committee

Ml 00 Fuel Methanol ^

E85 Fuel Ethanol

Liquefied Natural Gas

These fuels are defined in Section 1 of the revised regulation, but national standards have not yet been formulated for them. The Subcommittee had originally added these fuels to Section 2 of the revised regulation as headings with the note "Pending. No standard specification yet available" but has chosen to delete the headings for simplicity in the current revision. It is the

intention of the Subcommittee to cover alternative fuels as soon as recognized standards are available.

tt- Resolve LPG standards issue. The Subcommittee has been made aware that:

1 . contracts for all wholesale propane sales reference GPA 2 140, "Liquefied Petroleum Gas Specifications and Test Methods," and that the provisions of GPA 2140 are identical with ASTM D 1835; and

2. the Subcommittee must investigate whether engine or vehicle manufacturers require the use of HD-5, warn the driver to switch if driveability problems ensue, or in any other way recommend the use of HD-5. The specifications removed until

this issue could be clarified are shown shaded below.

2.8. Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases shall meet ASTM D 1835, "Standard Specification for Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases" (identical to Gas Processors Association 2140, "Liquefied Petroleum Gas Specification and Test Methods").

Note: Grade "Special-Duty Propane" (propane HD-5) is required in most spark-ignition engines. L Background

The Petroleum Subcommittee was established in 1992 under the Laws and Regulations Committee to represent the interests of those

States with petroleum quality programs, and to continuously improve the motor fuel law and regulation in Handbook 130. Public

sector membership includes its Chair, Celeste Bennett, Ml; Barbara Bloch, CA, representing the Western Region; N. David Smith, NC; Eric Hamilton, FL; and Randy Jennings, TN; all representing the Southern Region; Ron Hayes, MO, representing the Central Region; and Charles Gardner, NY, representing the Northeastern Region. John Bartfai, NY; David Lazier, CA; Neil Blickman,

Federal Trade Commission; and Bruce Kolowich, Environmental Protection Agency; are also public sector members. From the

private sector, Jim Williams, American Petroleum Institute (API); Fairman Thompson, South Point Ethanol; Jim Steiger, American

Automobile Manufacturers Association; William Scheller, Scheller& Associates; Bob Reynolds, Downstream Alternatives; David

Phillips, National Gas Vehicle Coalition; Robert Petsinger, CNG Services of Pittsburgh; Jim Peeples, Informafion Resources; Dan

Moenter, Marathon Oil; Marilyn Herman, Herman & Associates and Renewable Fuels Association; Lew Gibbs, Chevron Research & Technology; Win Gardner, Mobil Oil; Bob Furey, General Motors Research and Development Center; Bill Butterbaugh, National Propane Gas Association (NPGA); Wayne Becker, Inspectorate America Corporation; Syd Andrews, Consultant; and, Christopher Dyson, Public Citizen; are also members. Several Subcommittee members are officers in ASTM Committee D-2 on Petroleum

Products and Lubricants. Other members bring significant experience and expertise in other major standards development

organizations, including the Society of Automotive Engineers, and in critical regulated industries. The National Conference is indebted to these dedicated contributors to needed quality standards and regulations.

At its first meeting in 1992, four work groups were established: (1) a Law Work Group to review, and revise where necessary,

the Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law; (2) a Regulation Work Group to expand the scope of the Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation;

(3) a Laboratory Work Group to update the guide for Petroleum Quality Laboratories; and (4) a Field Sampling Work Group to provide a new guide in sampling, field testing, and safety for field inspection personnel. The discussion below focusses on the Law and Regulation. Appendix C contains the recommended revised law; Appendix D the regulation. Appendix E contains the recommendations of the Laboratory Work Group.

233
Laws and Regulations Committee

II. Summary of Proposals by the Subcommittee to the Laws and Regulations Committee

A. Revision of Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law — See Appendix C on page 240

1. Amend title, add definitions, remove registration of all fuels, and add administrative and civil penalties The Law Work Group is chaired by Eric Hamilton, FL, with members N. David Smith, NC, Bill Butterbaugh, NPGA, and Jim

Williams, APL The drafts of this Work Group were reviewed in detail at two meetings of the fiill Subcommittee. As a result of

their deliberations, it is recommended that the Law be broadened in scope to include all engine fuels, including gases as well as

liquids, and other petroleum products and lubricants: its new title should be "Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law." (The term "engine fuel" is recommended to replace "motor fuel" in order to be technically

accurate; internal combustion engines are not motors.) The Subcommittee recommends that an expanded list of definitions should be added, and the law should be updated and patterned after the Uniform Weights and Measures Law by incorporating

administrative, civil, and criminal penalties sections. Finally, the requirement to register all fuels was modified to only require

registration of special fuels that have no ASTM standards applying to them, such as racing fuels, or agricultural, off-road fuels. The recommended revision is appended.

2. Clarification of Penalties Sections in All Laws

At Law Work Group and full Subcommittee meetings, the administrative, civil, and criminal penalty provisions of the Uniform

Weights and Measures Law were discussed. There appears to be confusion between the differing States' terminology and meaning

of a civil penalty and a civil action and the wording in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law. At both the Federal and State

levels, civil penalties are levied by an administrative agency. A respondent who does not agree to the charges or the penalty may

request an administrative hearing. Once the respondent has exhausted administrative appeals and if the civil penalty has been

upheld, the agency may file a civil action to collect the penalty as with any other lawful debt. In most cases, once administrative appeals have been exhausted, the respondent opts to pay the civil penalty rather than incur additional court costs when the agency

initiates court action to collect the penalty. These points may need clarification in the Uniform Laws, both the Weights and Measures and Engine Fuels Laws. In addition, it may be necessary to include other types of penalties explicitly, such as suspension of product registration or other actions. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that the Laws and Regulations Committee

review and clarify those penalty sections of all the laws in Handbook 130. See the minor editorial revisions made to the Subcommittee's Engine Fuel Law Draft.

B. Revision of the Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation — See Appendix D on page 243

1. Addition of needed definitions The Regulation Work Group is chaired by Ron Hayes, MO. Other members include Randy Jennings, TN, Marilyn Herman, Herman & Associates, on behalf of the Renewable Fuels Association, and Win Gardner, Mobil Oil Corporation. Recommendations

from the Work Group and the Subcommittee are to greatly expand the regulation to include many more definitions, (for example,

antiknock index, aviation fuels, cetane index, fuel oil, lead substitute, reformulated gasoline, substantially similar) and to make other

parts of the regulation clearer to enforcement agencies as to specific requirements. Most significant recommendations are discussed

separately below.

2. Paragraph 2. /. Volatility Standards for Gasoline Blended with Ethanol

In an effort to direct the Subcommittee away from revisiting ethanol-gasoline issues which had already been extensively covered by the Conference, some members were advised upon their appointment that gasoline-ethanol labeling issues would be outside the scope of the Subcommittee. Paragraph 2.1. was examined by the Regulation work group as part of its responsibility to expand

the regulation. The public sector members recommended at the April 1993 meeting that this section be revised. This secfion was

discussed extensively at the April 1993 meeting with differing proposals on how to update it. A vote was taken to ascertain which

proposal was acceptable to the Subcommittee members. Despite a consensus vote, this item was not fully resolved at the April meeting. The Conference Chairman and the Executive Secretary asked the Subcommittee to clearly identify what was wrong with

the existing standard, explain how the proposed revisions solved any identified problems, and sufficiently document the rationale behind the recommendation for change. All decisions needed to be explored sufficiently to persuade the L & R Committee and

234
!j Laws and Regulations Committee

1

other Conference members that a change was needed and would be beneficial. The entire issue was reviewed at the October

meeting. The public members of the Regulation Work Group articulated their reasons for believing that the existing paragraph needed

revision: (1) Gasoline volatility standards are one factor contributing to satisfactory automobile driveability: too high a volatility often leads to vapor lock and other driveability problems. This paragraph, as written in the present regulation, appears to exempt

gasoline ethanol blends from volatility standards, but is not clear as to which volatility measurements are exempted, nor that certain

volatility requirements are imposed by the EPA. (2) The base gasoline used to blend with ethanol is required to meet all ASTM

standards. However, State regulators often do not have access to the base gasoline in order to ensure its quality, making this requirement unenforceable. Moreover, industry and State technical representatives explain that base gasolines that do not meet ASTM specifications in some measurement areas can, when blended with ethanol, meet all of the ASTM specifications. EPA allows the Reid vapor pressure of gasoline ethanol blends to be 1.0 pound per square inch higher than the ASTM limh for other ftiels during certain periods of the year. For States that are considering adopting engine ftiel requirements, EPA requirements must be folded into other standards that the States would require to be met. The State representatives on the Regulation Work

Group unanimously felt that, in order to ensure good driveability with gasoline-ethanol blends, similar limits should be set on the vapor pressure of gasoline ethanol blends all year round. The ethanol industry representatives agreed that this clarification for gasoline-ethanol blends could be added to NCWM recommendations without harm to their industry and would indeed ensure good

driveability for fuels that met these standards. Although the States admitted that they rarely test the quality of base gasoline, petroleum industry representatives agreed to limits on the base gasoline when it was available for quality testing. Finally, there

is the question of whether requirements imposed by States in order to comply with the Clean Air Act are indeed included in the

"rules, regulations, and Clean Air Act waivers of the U.S. EPA." The Subcommittee agreed that these State Implementation Plans were constructed in order to comply with EPA requirements, and therefore were inferentially under EPA requirements. The

Subcommittee decided to clarify this question. At its meeting in Ann Arbor, the Subcommittee revised Section 2.1 of the Uniform

Regulation as follows.

2.1 Spark Ignition Motor Fuel Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends' (as defined in this regulation) shall meet the following requirements :

2.1.1. The most recent version of ASTM D 4814, "Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel," except that volatility standards for unleaded gasoline blended containing up to 10 p

ercent^ with 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 (which includes rules promulgated by the State)^. , and further provided that tho gasoline used in the bl end meets the volatility specifioationG of ASTM for the area and season in which the blend is sold-r In addition, either:

2.1.1.1. The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet the requirements of ASTM D 4814^ or

2.1.1.2. The blend shall meet the requirements of ASTM D 4814^ or

2.1.1.3. The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet all the requirements of ASTM D 4814 except distillation, and the blend shall meet the distillation requirements of the ASTM specification^ and

2.1.2 4v4t In no case shall a blend of gasoline and ethanol exceed the ASTM D 4814 vapor pressure standard by more than 1.0 psi^ The following footnotes explain why other changes and additions were made. See the footnotes in the recommended revision above.

'"Spark-Ignition Motor Fuel" was changed to "Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends" to be consistent with definitions in the proposed regulation. The definition "Engine Fuel" includes gaseous fuels.

^"...up to 10%" is not specific enough. In VOC control periods (June 1 - Sept. 15 and for some states from May 1 to Sept. 15), EPA imposes gasoline volatility limits on all gasoline sold in the U.S. and limits the volatility waiver to 9 - 10 vol% ethanol as provided for in Section 21 1(h) of the Clean Air Act and the agency's Phase 1 and 2 volatility regulations that predated passage of the Clean Air Act. For all other times of the year, EPA does not regulate the volatility of any gasoline-ethanol blend, except

235
Laws and Regulations Committee

that the terms of the Section 211(f) "Gasohol" waiver apply. Including the complete EPA rules would make the document too complex and lengthy. ^Recommended to clarify that State Implementation Plans are also considered part of the requirements under the Clean Air Act. ''Removed so that the following subparagraphs could be added to clarify fuel requirements that apply.

^This is the same requirement as the original, that the base gasoline meet ASTM standards; in addition, two other possibilities have

been added with the word "or" that are intended to recognize current blending practices and provide more flexibility to the blender while still helping to protect the driving public from one possible source of serious driveability problems.

^This requirement, if met, provides the greatest uniformity since all ASTM volatility parameters would be met.

'This subparagraph permits distillation properties of the base gasoline to be outside of ASTM standard boundaries, as long as the

final blend of gasoline and ethanol meets the distillation limits set by ASTM.

*This paragraph is the most important clarification for State engine fuel quality laboratories since it specifies tolerances in vapor

pressure for the final gasoline-ethanol blend.

This recommendation was accepted by the Subcommittee attending the meeting as maintaining the main body of the original version, and satisfying the specific needs of the Public Sector. After the meeting in Ann Arbor, some Subcommittee members

questioned the complexity of the above language and recommended a simplified version. This version was accepted by the Subcommittee by mail ballot.

2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends (as defined in this regulation) shall meet the following requirements:

2.1.1. The most recent version of ASTM D 4814, "Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel," except that volatility standards for unleaded gasoline blended with 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 (which

includes rules promulgated by the State). If gasoline is blended with ethanol, it shall be blended under one of the following options:

2.1.1.1. The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet the requirements of ASTM D 4814, or

2.1.1.2. The blend shall meet the requirements of ASTM D 4814, or

2.1.1.3. The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet all the requirements of ASTM D 4814 except distillation, and the blend shall meet the distillation requirements of the ASTM specification.

2.1.2. In no case, shall a blend of gasoline and ethanol exceed the ASTM D 4814 vapor pressure standard by more

than 1.0 psi.

3. Section 3. Labeling and Method of Sale Issues

i. Additional Labeling Requirements and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Octane Rule The FTC amended its Octane Certification and Posting Rule to include alternative liquid engine fuels including, among others, methanol and ethanol. References to this new rule have been included in the proposed revision to the regulation. The amended

Octane Rule, which went into effect on October 25, 1993, requires sellers of alternative liquid fuels to determine, certify, and post an "automotive fuel rating" consisting of the common name of the fiiel along with a disclosure of the amount, expressed as a minimum percentage by volume, of the principal component of the fuel. These new posting requirements extend to all liquid engine fuels except diesel fuel. (Copies of the final rule are available fi-om the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th

Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, 202-326-2222; contact Neil Blickman at 202-326-3038 for technical

details.)

236
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Subcommittee also recommends specific identity labeling for diesel fuel (for example, 1-D), aviation turbine fiiels (referencing National Fire Protection Association Standards), aviation gasoline (Grade lOOLL, for example), fuel oils (for example, No. 5), kerosene (incorporated from the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities), liquefied petroleum gas (for example,

"special-duty propane"), compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

a. Prohibition against those terms that imply a certain antiknock index (octane) Many consumers and regulatory agencies have complained about marketers using terms such as "super" or "premium" to describe gasoline or gasoline blends that have relatively low antiknock indices. Other marketers use other terms in misleading ways, such

as naming an 87 antiknock index (octane) gasoline "plus" because there is an 86 octane available at the retail site. Many States regulate the terms that can be applied to gasolines in order to provide some minimum protection to the potential purchaser. Several

alternatives were considered. One solution that was offered was to require that the antiknock index be posted wherever the fuel was advertised. However, this alternative was discarded when the costs of revised signage were considered; the Subcommittee

decided it was not reasonable to impose large costs on every marketer because a few used deceptive names. When the issue of whether to limit the names selected was initially discussed, the petroleum industry representatives on the Subcommittee expressed

their industry's desire not to interfere with any company's marketing prerogatives. Weights and measures representatives pointed

out that misrepresentation of a product is prohibited, but that uniform requirements should be formulated that are clear enough for

all States to adopt and enforce uniformly. As mentioned earlier, many States already limit terms that may be used with certain antiknock indices. Therefore, Lew Gibbs, Chevron, constructed a table that the Subcommittee agreed was a minimum standard. This table does not eliminate fanciful names such as "lite," "silver," or "gold." However, it is applicable across the nation in all geographical regions:

It is prohibited to use specific terms to describe a grade of gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend unless it meets the minimum antiknock index shown in the following table. Minimum Antiknock Index Term ASTM D 4814 Altitude Reduction Areas IV and V

All Other ASTM D 4814 Areas

Premium, Super, Supreme, High Test 90 91 Midgrade, Plus 87 89

Regular Leaded 86 88

Regular, Unleaded (alone) 85 87

The Subcommittee rejected requirements that the antiknock index be posted on the advertising (street-side) sign, or that the antiknock index be made part of the grade name (such as "Ajax Supreme 93") since these requirements would add additional costs

to all marketers, not just to those abusing the public's purchasing habits.

|| Hi. Labeling of Leaded and Lead Substitute Fuels The Subcommittee spent some time on the distinctions that must be made between lead substitute and leaded fuels. It spent less time on appropriate labeling and standardization definitions for leaded fuels since these will be phased out by regulation as of 1995.

Since the soonest that the NCWM could act on the Subcommittee's recommendations (assuming that the Laws and Regulations Committee chooses to recommend the subcommittee's work) would be July 1994, and the recommendations would take effect January 1, 1995, the Subcommittee decided to focus its energies on other priorities even though States have had some problems

with leaded fuels. Requirements for lead labeling and nozzle size are addressed.

4. Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks

I A new section is recommended clarifying the amount of water to be permitted in storage tanks of liquid engine fuels. A proposal

I to require a "suitable filter" on each dispenser meter inlet or discharge line for fiiels containing alcohol was rejected by the Subcommittee when its members reviewed responses to a survey of state agencies and information from gas pump manufacturers on the cost and possible difficulties that would be encountered if filter retrofitting were required. It is the opinion of the

237
Laws and Regulations Committee

Subcommittee that the objective of the regulation should be to maintain the quality of the fuel, not to dictate how the private sector should achieve compliance.

C. Laboratory and Field Sampling Guides The Laboratory Work Group revised "Recommendations for a Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory." The Work Group is chaired by Eric Hamilton, FL, and members are William Scheller and Wayne Becker. Tom Hudson,

Inspectorate Corporation, and Michael Steffey, NM, also contributed to the guide. The Subcommittee recommends that the L&R

Committee publish these guides as part of its Interim Report and find a mechanism for broad distribution to enforcement agencies. The Subcommittee will continue to update and refine these guides as part of its ongoing responsibilities. This draft appears as Appendix E. The Field Sampling Work Group drafted a Field Sampling Guide for sampling and testing, with major emphasis on inspector and

public safety. The Work Group is chaired by Charles Gardner, NY, with members, Barbara Bloch, CA, and Neil Blickman, FTC.

David Lazier, CA, also contributed substantially to the guide. The Field Sampling Guide is being developed and will be distributed separately for review and comment.

III. Future Work

A. Section 3.1 Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend Labeling

This section currently requires that all engine fuel containing 1% or more by volume of any oxygenate or combination of

oxygenates be labeled with the specific type of oxygenate (but not the amount). Oxygenates are chemical compounds containing

carbon, hydrogen and oxygen that are added to gasoline to provide oxygen to meet wintertime state programs as well as boost the octane of gasoline without requiring the addition of lead. Present recommendations of the NCWM require documentation to be

fiimished throughout the marketing chain that a particular fiiel contains oxygenates over 1% by volume so that the retailer can label the dispensers.

Labeling of ethanol blended fiiel (gasohol) originated either to advertise the use of ethanol or due to the insistence of automobile

manufacturers. It is contended that the label laws were lobbied in most state legislatures on that basis. However, methanol blends were especially difficult to keep blended, and the methanol was especially hard on certain elastomeric components of the vehicle. I Because both ethanol and methanol tend to separate from the gasoline in the presence of water, and because some older engines I and fuel systems may experience problems from certain elastomers breaking down in the presence of these alcohols, manufacturers of automobiles and small engine suggest that the vehicle or engine owner switch from gasoline-alcohol blends if driveability problems are encountered. In addition, specific aircraft have been issued FAA supplemental type certificates for the use of

automotive gasoline that meets ASTM D 4814 specifications and that does not contain alcohol. A vehicle owner cannot follow I the manufacturer's advice (or the FAA certification in the case of aircraft) unless the engine fuel is labeled. > Many of the issues applying to alcohols apply to MTBE as well. Specifically, some older vehicles and equipment may experience minor problems. Some fluorocarbon products, such as Viton, deteriorate from exposure to MTBE and several vehicle manufacturers recommend a switch from MTBE blends if driveability problems are experienced. A vehicle owner cannot follow the manufacturer's advice unless MTBE is labeled. (See Reports of the 75th and 76th NCWM.)

Thus, the NCWM expanded its recommendation to label all oxygenates added to gasoline in amounts more than 1% by volume. L Due to the varying chemical composition of these oxygenates, the labeling trigger (1% by volume) translates to varying mass j amounts of oxygen, depending on the specific type of oxygenate. For clean air purposes, gasoline containing some kind of

oxygenate is now required during part of the year in many parts of the United States Many of these oxygenates are more like j gasoline than ethanol in their chemical properties, and do not have as much potential of separating from the gasoline in the presence of water (although blends containing MTBE can have higher moisture content) or of affecting flexible components of the vehicle. » Many of the oxygenates are forms of ethers, however, and some purchasers have complained of the odor and have questioned the

^ potential health effects of the oxygenate, although this was not the reason that the labeling requirements for MTBE and other g oxygenates were added in 1991.

Today, oxygenates including ethanol, methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), ethyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (ETBE), tertiary amyl methyl

ether (TAME), and di-isopropyl-ether (DIPE) are added at the refinery or terminal. To complicate matters, the product retained

238
j Laws and Regulations Committee

!

(called "heel") in any refinery blend tank during the process may contain a different oxygenate than subsequent batches. Also,

terminal and service station storage tanks are usually never completely emptied. Therefore, new deliveries of fuel mix with the

fiiel which remains in the tank. Thus, with so many different oxygenates in use today, a very general pump label may be all that can be provided.

In addition, the 1 percent by volume trigger for labeling does not coincide with 0.35 percent by mass oxygen content (or more than

0.15 percent by mass if methanol is the only oxygenate) which is recommended to define gasoline-oxygenate and gasoline-alcohol blends in ASTM D 4814. It had been selected originally as the amount that could be practically measured by State enforcement

I agencies without question as to whether the amount was "trace."

jl At the present time, the Subcommittee believes that more information is needed from both the public and private sector to evaluate

j whether this paragraph needs modification. Questions include:

j 1. How many States have adopted, or intend to adopt Paragraph 3.1. from the Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation requiring that all

I oxygenates be labeled?

( 2. For those States that have adopted the requirement, how do they" enforce it? What measurements do they make? What

documentation do they use to ensure that proper labeling is in place? What labeling do they consider proper when many

different types of oxygenates may be present?

3. For those States that have not adopted the requirement, why haven't they?

• 4. What kind of documentation do petroleum marketers provide in custody transfer in those States that require all oxygenates to be labeled? Do marketers have evidence of problems with documentation and labeling? The Subcommittee plans to canvass its private sector members and to conduct a survey of the State petroleum programs. It will use its findings to determine whether to modify this paragraph at a fiiture time.

B. Alternative Fuel Standards Still Needed

The Regulations Work Group plans to add ASTM or other national technical standards when they become available for engine fuels including biodiesel, CNG, and others.

C. Controversy Concerning Requiring HD-5 for LPG

The Subcommittee has been made aware that it must investigate whether engine or vehicle manufacturers require the use of HD-5,

warn the driver to switch if driveability problems ensue, or in any other way recommend the use of HD-5. The specifications

j removed until this issue could be clarified are shown shaded below:

I

I 2.8. Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases shall meet ASTM D 1835, "Standard Specification for Liquefied Petroleum

' (LP) Gases" (identical to Gas Processors Association 2140, "Liquefied Petroleum Gas Specification and Test Methods").

Note: Grade "Special-Duty Propane" (propane HD-5) is required in most spark-ignition engines.

D. Customer Feedback

' A survey that was sent to the States earlier this year stated: "It is proposed that the Uniform Law be expanded to cover brake fluid,

I coolants, etc." TTie States were asked whether the Uniform Law and Regulation should be expanded to brake fluid and coolants

"as a high priority." Since the question was not as specific as the information needed by the Subcommittee, a new questionnaire

1 will be generated. Many States consider the regulation of motor oil to have high priority, but brake fluid and coolants to be low

j priority. The Subcommittee needs to verify that States need the law and regulation expanded to include lubricants. Also, there

' appears to be recent interest in recycling antifreeze; this may generate the need to impose quality specifications for coolants.

239
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix C

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law

Section 1. Purpose

There should be uniform requirements for engine fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants among the

several States. This Act provides for the establishment of

quality specifications for these products.

Section 2. Scope

The Act establishes a sampling, testing, and enforcement program, provides authority for fee collection, requires

registration of engine fuels, and empowers the State to promulgate regulations as needed to carry out the provisions of the Act. It also provides for administrative,

civil, and criminal penalties. Section 3. Definitions As used in this act:

3.1. Engine Fuel. ~ means any liquid or gaseous

matter used for the generation of power in an internal combustion engine.

3.2. Director. -- means the of the Department

of and designated agents.

3.3. Person. ~ means an individual, corporation, company, society, association, partnership, or governmental entity.

3.4. ASTM. ~ means the American Society for Testing and Materials, a national voluntary consensus standards organization formed for the development of standards on

characteristics and performance of materials, products, systems, and services, and the promotion of related knowledge.

3.5. Petroleum Products. -- means products obtained from distilling and processing of petroleum

(crude oil), unfinished oils, recycled oils, natural gas

liquids, refinery blend stocks, and other miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds.

3.6. Automotive Lubricants. -- means any material interposed between two surfaces that reduces the friction or wear between them.

3.7. Engine Fuel Designed for Special Use. - means engine fuels designated by the Director requiring

registration. These fuels normally have no ASTM or other

national consensus standards applying to their quality or

useability; common special fuels are racing fiiels and those intended for agricultural and other off-road applications.

3.8. Sold. ~ means kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or

sold.Section 4. Administration, Adoption of Standards, and Rules

The provisions of the Act shall be administered by the

Director. For the purpose of administering and giving

effect to the provisions of this Act, the specification and

test method standards set forth in the most recent edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards and supplements

thereto, and revisions thereof, are adopted except as amended or modified as required to comply with Federal and State laws by the Director. When no ASTM standard

exists, other generally recognized national consensus

standards may be used. The Director is empowered to write rules and regulations on the advertising, posting of

prices, labeling, standards for, and identity of fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants and is authorized to establish a testing laboratory. Section 5. General Duties and Powers

The Director shall have the authority to:

5.1. Enforce and administer all the provisions of this Act by inspections, analyses, and other appropriate actions.

5.2. Have access during normal business hours to all places where engine fuels, petroleum products, and

automotive lubricants are kept, transferred, offered, exposed for sale, or sold for the purpose of examination,

inspection, taking of samples.

240
Laws and Regulations Committee

and investigation. If such access shall be refused by the owner or agent or other persons leasing the same, the Director may obtain an administrative search warrant from

a court of competent jurisdiction.

5.3. Collect, or cause to be collected, samples of engine

fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants marketed in this State, and cause such samples to be tested or analyzed for compliance with the provisions of this Act.

5.4. Define engine fuels for special use and refuse, revoke, suspend, or issue a stop-order if found not to be

in compliance and remand stop-order if the engine fuel for special use is brought into full compliance with this Act.

5.5. Issue a stop-sale order for any engine fiiel, petroleum product, and automotive lubricant found not to be in compliance and remand stop-sale order if the engine

fuel, petroleum product, or automotive lubricant is brought

into full compliance with this Act.

5.6. Refuse, revoke, or suspend the registration of an engine fuel, petroleum product, or automotive lubricant.

5.7. Delegate to appropriate personnel any of these

responsibilities for the proper administration of this Act. Section 6. Registration of Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use

All engine fuels designed for special use must be

registered with the Director. Such registration shall include:

6.1. Name, brand, or trademark under which the fiiel will be sold.

6.2. Name and address of person registering the engine

fuel.

6.3. The special use for which the engine fiiel is designed.

6.4. Certification, declaration, or affidavit stating the

specifications which the fuel will meet upon testing.

Section 7. Inspection Fee

There shall be a fee of $ per appropriate unit of measure on all products covered under the scope of this Act 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:

8.1. Represent engine fiaels, petroleum products, or automotive lubricants in any manner that may deceive or tend to deceive the purchaser as to the nature, price, quantity and/or quality of such products.

8.2. Fail to register an engine fuel designed for special

use.

8.3. Submit incorrect, misleading, or false information

regarding the registration of an engine fuel designed for special use.

8.4. Hinder or obstruct the Director in the performance

of the Director's duties.

8.5. Represent an engine fuel, petroleum product, or automotive lubricant that is contrary to the provisions of

this Act.

Section 9. Administrative and Civil Penalties Any person who violates any provision of the Act or

regulations promulgated thereto may be subject to administrative action, civil action, and civil penalty.

9.1 Administrative Hearing: The Director or his/her designee shall be authorized to conduct an administrative hearing and, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, may assess a civil penalty of

(a) not less than $ nor more than $ for a

first violation,

(b) not less than $ nor more than $ for a second violation within 2 years from the date of the first violation, and

(c) not less than $ nor more than $ for a

third violation within 2 years from the date of the first violation upon the finding of a violadon of any provision of this Act. The decision of the director shall be subject to appropriate

judicial review.

241
Laws and Regulations Committee

9.2 A civil action may be brought by the Director in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover a civil penalty of:

(a) Not less than $ nor more than $ for a first violation;

(b) Not less than $ nor more than $ for a second violation within 2 years from the date of the first violation;

(c) Not less than $ nor more than $ for a third violation within 2 years from the date of the first violation; Any person who by himself or herself, by his or her

servant or agent, or as the servant or agent of another person commits any of the acts enumerated in Section 8 may be subject to a civil penalty. Any civil penalty collected under this Act shall be

transmitted to the State Treasurer, who shall credit the same to the ftmd.

Section 10. Criminal Penalties

10.1 Misdemeanor. Any person who violates any

provision of this Act or regulations promulgated thereto

shall be guilty of a Class misdemeanor, and upon

conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $ nor more than $ , or imprisonment for not

less than nor more than , or both fine and

imprisonment. 10.2 Felony. Any person who intentionally violates any provision of this Act or regulations promulgated

thereto or is convicted under the misdemeanor provisions of this section more than three times in a 2-year period

shall be guilty of a Class felony, and upon

conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $ nor more than $ , or imprisonment for not

less than nor more than , or both fine and

imprisonment. Section 11. Restraining Order and Injunction

The Director is authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for a restraining order, or a temporary or permanent injunction, restraining any person from violating any provision of this Act.

Section 12. Severability Provisions

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 13. 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 14. Citation

This Act may be cited as the "Engine Fuels, Petroleum

Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Act of

Section 15. Effective Date

This Act shall become effective on

242
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix D

Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive

Lubricants

1. Definitions

1.1. ASTM. -- The American Society for Testing and

Materials means the national voluntary consensus

standards organization formed for the development of

standards on characteristics and performance of materials, products, systems, and services; and the promotion of

related knowledge.

1.2. Antiknock Index (AKI). -- means the arithmetic average of the Research octane number (RON)

and Motor octane number (MON): AKI = (R0N+M0N)/2. This value is called by a variety of

names, in addition to antiknock index, including: Octane

rating. Posted octane, (R+M)/2 octane.

1.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. -- means the automotive fuel rating required under the amended Octane

Certification and Posting Rule (or as amended, the Fuel Rating Rule), 16 CFR Part 306. Under this Rule, sellers of liquid automotive fuels, including alternative fuels, must determine, certify, and post an appropriate automotive fuel rating. The automotive fuel rating for gasoline is the antiknock index (octane rating). The

automotive fuel rating for alternative liquid fuels consists of the common name of the fuel along with a disclosure of the amount, expressed as a minimum percentage by

volume, of the principal component of the fuel. For

alternative liquid automotive fuels, a disclosure of other components, expressed as a minimum percentage by

volume, may be included, if desired.

1.4. Automotive Gasoline, Automotive

Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend. -- means a type of fuel suitable for use in spark-ignition automobile engines and

also commonly used in marine and non-automotive

applications.

1.5. Aviation Gasoline. ~ means a type of gasoline

suitable for use as a fuel in an aviation spark-ignition

internal combustion engine.

1.6. Aviation Turbine Fuel. - means a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel in an aviation gas turbine internal combustion engine.

1.7. Base Gasoline. ~ means all components other than ethanol in a blend of gasoline and ethanol.

1.8. Biodiesel. ~ means a blend consisting of diesel

fuel and a substantial amount of esterified animal fats and/or vegetable oil(s).

1.9. Cetane Index. ~ means an approximation of the cetane number of distillate diesel ftiel, which does not

contain a cetane improver additive, calculated from the density and distillation measurements.

1.10. Cetane Number. ~ means a numerical measure of the ignition performance of a diesel fuel obtained by comparing it to reference ftiels in a standardized engine test.

1.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). - means

natural gas which has been compressed and dispensed into

fuel storage containers and is suitable for use as an engine

f\iel.

1.12. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. ~ means "ethanol"

(see below.)

1.13. Diesel Fuel. ~ means a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel in a compression-ignition (diesel)

internal combustion engine.

1.14. Distillate. - means any product obtained by

condensing the vapors given off by boiling petroleum or

its products.

1.15. EPA. - means the United States Environmental

Protection Agency.

1.16. E85 Fuel Ethanol. - means a blend of

denatured fuel ethanol and hydrocarbons, wherein the ethanol portion is nominally 85 percent (85%) by volume,

suitable for use as a fuel in spark-ignition internal combustion engines.

1.17. Engine Fuel. ~ means any liquid or gaseous

matter used for the generation of power in an internal combustion engine.

1.18. Ethanol. - also known as "Denatured Fuel

Ethanol," means nominally anhydrous ethyl alcohol meeting ASTM D 4806 standards. It is intended to be

blended with gasoline for use as a fuel in a spark-ignition

internal combustion engine. The denatured fiiel ethanol is

243
Laws and Regulations Committee

first made unfit for drinking by the addition of Bureau-of- Alcohol, -Tobacco, -and- Firearms-(BATF)-approved

substances before blending with gasoline.

1.19. Fuel Oil. ~ means a refined oil middle

distillates, heavy distillates, or residues of refining, or blends of these, suitable for use as a fuel for heating or power generation, the classification of which shall be

defined by ASTM D 396.

1.20. Gasoline. — means a volatile mixture of liquid hydrocarbons generally containing small amounts of

additives suitable for use as a fuel in a spark-ignition

internal combustion engine.

1.21. Gasoline-Alcohol Blend. ~ means a fuel consisting primarily of gasoline and a substantial amount

(more than 0.35 mass percent oxygen, or more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen if methanol is the only oxygenate) of one or more alcohols.

1.22. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend. - means a fuel consisting primarily of gasoline along with a substantial amount (more than 0.35 mass percent oxygen, or more

than 0.15 mass oxygen if methanol is the only oxygenate) of one or more oxygenates.

1.23. Kerosene. ~ (or "Kerosine") means a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel for heating or

illuminating, the classification for which shall be defined by ASTM D 3699.

1.24. Lead Substitute. - means an EPA- registered gasoline additive suitable, when added in small amounts

to fuel, to reduce or prevent exhaust valve recession (or

seat wear) in automotive spark-ignition internal combustion engines designed to operate on leaded fuel.

1.25. Lead Substitute Engine Fuel. - means, for labeling purposes, a gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend

that contains a "lead substitute."

1.26. Leaded. ~ means, for labeling purposes, any

gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend which contains more

than 0.013 gram lead per liter (0.05 gram lead per U.S.

gallon). NOTE: EPA defines leaded fuel as one which

contains more than 0.0013 gram phosphorus per liter (0.005 gram per U.S. gallon), or any fuel to which lead or phosphorus is intentionally added.

1.27. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). - means

natural gas that has been liquefied at -126.1 °C (-259 °F) and stored in insulated cryogenic tanks for use as an engine fuel.

1.28. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). - means

a mixture of normally gaseous hydrocarbons, predominantly propane, or butane, or both, that has been

liquefied by compression or cooling, or both to facilitate storage, transport, and handling.

1.29. Low Sulfur. - means low sulfur diesel fuel that meets ASTM D 975 (e.g.. Grade Low Sulfur No. 1-D or Grade Low Sulfur No. 2-D) standards. Diesel fuel containing higher amounts of sulfur for off-road use is defined by EPA regulations.

1.30. MlOO Fuel Methanol. - means anhydrous

methyl alcohol, generally containing small amounts of

additives, suitable for use as a fiiel in a compressionignition internal combustion engine.

1.31. M85 Fuel Methanol. - means a blend of anhydrous methyl alcohol and hydrocarbons, in which the methanol portion is nominally 85 percent by volume.

1.32. Motor Octane Number. ~ means a numerical indication of a spark-ignition engine fuel's resistance to knock obtained by comparison with reference

fuels in a standardized ASTM D 2700 Motor Method

engine test.

1.33. Oxygen Content of Gasoline. ~ means the percentage of oxygen by mass contained in a gasoline.

1.34. Oxygenate. - means an oxygen-containing,

ashless, organic compound, such as an alcohol or ether, which can be used as a fuel or fuel supplement.

1.35. Reformulated Gasoline. ~ means a volatile mixture of liquid hydrocarbons and oxygenates meeting

the reformulated gasoline requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and suitable for use as a fuel in a spark-ignition internal combustion engine.

1.36. Research Octane Number. ~ means a numerical indication of a spark-ignition engine fuel's resistance to knock obtained by comparison with reference

fuels in a standardized ASTM D 2699 Research Method

engine test.

1.37. SAE. - means the Society of Automotive

Engineers, a technical organization for engineers,

scientists, technicians, and others in positions that cooperate closely in the engineering, design, manufacture,

use, and maintainability of self-propelled vehicles.

244
Laws and Regulations Committee

1.38. Substantially Similar. - means the EPA's

"Substantially Similar" rule, Section 211 (f) (1) of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7545 (f) (1)].

1.39. Total Alcohol. - means the aggregate total in volume percent of all alcohol contained in any fuel defined in this Chapter.

1.40. Total Oxygenate. -- means the aggregate total

in volume percent of all oxygenates contained in any fuel defined in this Chapter.

1.41. Unleaded. — in conjunction with "engine fiiel" or "gasoline" means any gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend to which no lead or phosphorus compounds have

been intentionally added and which contains not more than 0.013 gram lead per liter (0.05 gram lead per U.S. gallon) and not more than 0.0013 gram phosphorus per liter (0.005 gram phosphorus per U.S. gallon).

2. Standard Fuel Specifications

2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends

(as defined in this regulation) shall meet the following

requirements:

2.1.1. The most recent version of ASTM D 4814,

"Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel," except that volatility standards for unleaded

gasoline blended with 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 (which includes rules promulgated by the State). If gasoline is blended with ethanol, it shall be blended

under one of the following options:

2.1.1.1. The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet the requirements of ASTM D 4814, or

2.1.1.2. The blend shall meet the requirements of ASTM D 4814, or

2.1.1.3. The base gasoline used in such blends shall meet all the requirements of ASTM D 4814 except

distillation, and the blend shall meet the distillation requirements of the ASTM specification.

2.1.2. In no case, shall a blend of gasoline and ethanol exceed the ASTM D 4814 vapor pressure standard by more than I.O psi.

2.1.3. Minimum AKI. - The AKI shall not be less than the AKI posted on the product dispenser or as

certified on the invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation;

2.1.4. Minimum Motor Octane Number. - The minimum motor octane number shall not be less than 82

for gasoline with an AKI of 87 or greater;

2.1.5. Minimum Lead Content to Be Termed

"Leaded". ~ Gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends

sold as "leaded" shall contain a minimum of 0.013 gram

of lead per liter (0.05 gram per U.S. gallon);

2.1.6. Lead Substitute Gasoline. - Gasoline and

gasoline-oxygenate blends sold as "lead substitute" gasoline shall contain a lead substitute which provides

protection against exhaust valve seat recession equivalent

to at least 0.026 gram of lead per liter (O.IO gram per U.S.

gallon).

2.1.6.1. Documentation of Valve Seat

Protection. — Upon the request of the director, the lead substitute additive manufacturer shall provide

documentation to the director that demonstrates that the treatment level recommended by the additive manufacturer

provides protection against exhaust valve seat recession equivalent to or better than 0.026 gram per liter (0. 1 g/gal)

lead. The director may review the documentation and

approve the lead substitute additive before such additive is blended into gasoline. This documentation shall consist

of:

2.1.6.1.1. Test results as published in the Federal

Register by the EPA Administrator as required in Section

21 1(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act; or

2.1.6.1.2. Until such a time as the EPA Administrator

develops and publishes a test procedure to determine the

additive's effectiveness in reducing valve seat wear, test results and description of the test procedures used in comparing the effectiveness of 0.026 gram per liter lead and the recommended treatment level of the lead substitute additive shall be provided.

2.1.7. Blending. - Leaded, lead substitute and

unleaded gasoline-oxygenate blends shall be blended

according to the EPA "substantially similar" rule or an EPA waiver for unleaded fuel.

2.2. Diesel Fuel shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 975, "Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel

Oils."

245
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.3. Aviation Turbine Fuels shall meet the most

recent version of ASTM D 1655, "Standard Specification

for Aviation Turbine Fuels."

2.4. Aviation Gasoline shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 910, "Standard Specification for Aviation Gasoline."

2.5. Fuel Oils shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 396, "Standard Specification for Fuel Oils."

2.6. Kerosene (Kerosine) shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 3699, "Standard Specification for Kerosine."

2.7. Ethanol intended for blending with gasoline shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 4806, "Standard

Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending

with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel."

2.8. Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases shall meet ASTM D 1835, "Standard Specification for Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases" (identical to Gas Processors Association 2140, "Liquefied Petroleum Gas Specification and Test Methods"). Section 3. Classification and Method of

Sale of Petroleum Products 3.L General Considerations

3.1. L Documentation. -- When gasoline; gasoline- oxygenate blends; reformulated gasoline; M85 and Ml 00

fuel methanol; E85 and El 00 fuel ethanol; liquefied petroleum (LP) gases; compressed natural gas; liquefied natural gas; biodiesel; diesel ftiel; kerosene; aviation gasoline; aviation turbine ftiels; or, fuel oils are sold, an

invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper or other documentation, must accompany each delivery other than

a retail sale. This document must identify the quantity, the name of the product, the particular grade of the product, the applicable automotive fiiel rating, and

oxygenate type and content (if applicable), the name and

address of the seller and buyer, and the date and time of

the sale. Documentation must be retained at the retail establishment for a period not less than 1 year. 3.L2. Dispenser Labeling. ~ All retail dispensing

devices must identify conspicuously the type of product,

the particular grade of the product, and the applicable automotive fliel rating.

3.1.3. Grade Name. ~ The sale of any product under any grade name that indicates to the purchaser that it is of

a certain automotive fuel rating or ASTM grade shall not be permitted unless the automotive fuel rating or grade

indicated in the grade name is consistent with the value and meets the requirements of Section 2, Standard Fuel

Specifications.

3.2. Automotive Gasoline and Automotive

Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends

3.2.1. Posting of Antiknock Index Required. -

- All automotive gasoline and automotive gasoline- oxygenate blends shall post the antiknock index in accordance with applicable regulations, 16 CFR Part 306

issued pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act,

as amended.

3.2.2. When the Term "Leaded" May Be

Used. ~ The term "leaded" shall only be used when the

fuel meets specification requirements of paragraph 2.1.5.

3.2.3. Use of Lead Substitute Must Be

Disclosed. - Each dispensing device fi-om which

gasoline or gasoline oxygenate blend containing a lead

substitute is dispensed shall display the following legend: "Contains Lead Substitute." The lettering of this legend

shall not be less than 12 millimeters (1/2 inch) in height and the color of the lettering shall be in definite contrast

to the background color to which it is applied.

3.2.4. Nozzle Requirements for Leaded Fuel. ~ Each dispensing device from which gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blends that contains lead in amounts

sufficient to be considered "leaded" gasoline, or lead

substitute engine fuel, is sold shall be equipped with a nozzle spout having a terminal end with an outside diameter of not less than 23.63 millimeters (0.930 inches).

3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms. ~ It is prohibited to use specific terms to describe a grade of gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend unless it meets the minimum

antiknock index requirement shown in the table below:

3.2.6. Method of Retail Sale - Type of Oxygenate Must be Disclosed. - All automotive

gasoline or automotive gasoline-oxygenate blends kept,

offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at retail containing at least 1 percent by volume of any oxygenate or combination of oxygenates shall be identified as "with" or "containing" (or similar wording) the specific type of

oxygenate(s) in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read "contains ethanol" or "with MTBE/ETBE." This

246
Laws and Regulations Committee

information shall be posted on the upper 50 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). (Amended 1991)

3.2.7. Alternative Liquid Fuel Labeling. -

Dispensers dispensing M85 or Ml 00 fuel methanol or £85

or El 00 fuel ethanol shall post the alternative fuel rating.

3.2.8. 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, a declaration of any oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations of at least 1 percent by volume 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 engine fuel before blending. (Amended 1991) [Labeling issues still under discussion by Subcommittee.]

3.3. Diesel Fuel

3.3.1. Labeling of Grade Required. -- Diesel Fuel shall be identified by grades No. 1-D, No. 1-D (low

sulfur). No. 2-D, No. 2-D (low sulfur), or No. 4-D. Each

retail dispenser of diesel fuel shall be labeled according to the grade being dispensed except the words "low sulftir" are not required.

3.3.2. Location of Label. -- These labels shall be

located on the upper 50 percent of the dispenser front

panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the drivers

position, in a type at least 12 millimeter (1/2 inch) in height, 1.5 millimeter (1/16 inch) stroke (width of type).

3.4. Aviation Turbine Fuels

3.4. L Labeling of Grade Required. - Aviation

turbine ftiels shall be identified by Jet A, Jet A-1, or Jet B.

3.4.2. NFPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. - Each dispenser or airport fuel truck dispensing

aviation turbine fuels shall be labeled in accordance with

the most recent edition of National Fire Protection Association NFPA 407, "Standard for Aircraft Fuel

Servicing." NFPA 407, 1990 Edition: Section 2-3.18 Product Identification Signs. Each aircraft fuel servicing

vehicle shall have a sign on each side and the rear to

indicate the product. The sign shall have letters at least 3 inches (75 mm) high of color sharply contrasting with its background for visibility. It shall show the word "FLAMMABLE" and the name of the product carried, such as "JET A," "JET B," "GASOLINE," or "AVGAS."

(NOTE: Refer to the most recent edition.)

3.5. Aviation Gasoline

3.5. L Labeling of Grade Required. Aviation

gasoline shall be identified by Grade 80, Grade 100, or Grade lOOLL.

Minimum Antiknock Index Term ASTM D 4814 Altitude Reduction

Areas IV and V

All Other ASTM D 4814 Areas

Premium, Super, Supreme, High

Test 90 91

Midgrade, Plus 87 89

Regular Leaded 86 88

Regular, Unleaded (alone) 85 87

247
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.5.2. NFPA Labeling Requirements Also Apply. ~ Each dispenser or airport fuel truck dispensing

aviation gasoline shall be labeled in accordance with the most recent edition of National Fire Protection Association NFPA 407, "Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing." NFPA 407, 1990 Edition: Section 2-3.18 Product

Identification Signs. Each aircraft fuel servicing vehicle

shall have a sign on each side and the rear to indicate the product. The sign shall have letters at least 3 inches (75 mm) high of color sharply contrasting with its background

for visibility. It shall show the word "FLAMMABLE"

and the name of the product carried, such as "JET A," "JET B," "GASOLfNE," or "AVGAS." (NOTE: Refer to the most recent edition.)

3.6. Fuel Oils

3.6.1. Labeling of Grade Required. - Fuel Oil

shall be identified by the grades of No. 1, No. 2, No. 4

(Light), No. 4, No. 5 (Light), No. 5 (Heavy), or No. 6.

3.7. Kerosene (Kerosine)

3.7.1. Labeling of Grade Required. - Kerosene

shall be identified by the grades No. 1-K or No. 2-K.

3.7.2. Additional Labeling Requirements. -- Each retail dispenser of kerosene shall be labeled as 1-K

Kerosene or 2-K. In addition, No. 2-K dispensers shall display the following legend:

3.7.2.1. "Warning - Not Suitable For Use In Unvented

Heaters Requiring No. 1-K."

3.7.2.2. The lettering of this legend shall not be less than

12 millimeters (1/16 inch) in height by 1.5 millimeters (1/16 inch) strokes; block style letters and the color of

lettering shall be in definite contrast to the background

color to which it is applied.

3.8. Fuel Ethanol

3.8.1. How to Identify Fuel Ethanol. - Fuel

ethanol shall be identified by the capital letter E followed by the numerical value volume percentage. (Example: E85)

3.8.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. ~ Each retail dispenser of fuel ethanol shall be labeled with the capital

letter E followed by the numerical value volume percent denatured ethanol and ending with the word "ethanol." (Example: E85 Ethanol)

3.8.3. Additional Labeling Requirements. ~

Fuel Ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fiiel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.9. Fuel Methanol

3.9.1. How Fuel Methanol is to Be Identified. ~ Fuel methanol shall be identified by the capital letter M

followed by the numerical value volume percentage of

methanol. (Example: M85)

3.9.2. Dispenser Labeling. - Each retail dispenser of fuel methanol shall be labeled by the capital letter M

followed by the numerical value volume percent and

ending with the word "methanol." (Example: M85

Methanol)

3.9.3. Additional Labeling Requirements. ~

Fuel Methanol shall be labeled with its automotive fiiel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.10. Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gas

3.10.1. How LPG is to Be Identified. - Liquefied petroleum gases shall be identified by grades Commercial Propane, Commercial Butane, Commercial PB

Mixtures or Special-Duty Propane.

3.10.2. Labeling Requirements for Retail Dispensers. ~ Each retail dispenser of liquefied Petroleum gases shall be labeled as "Commercial

Propane," "Commercial Butane," "Commercial PB

Mixtures," or "Special-Duty Propane."

3.10.3. In addition, grades of commercial propane, commercial butane, commercial PB mixtures shall also be

labeled "MAY NOT BE SUITABLE AS AN ENGINE

FUEL." Grade special-duty propane shall be labeled "SUITABLE AS AN ENGINE FUEL."

3.10.4. Additional Labeling Requirements. - Liquefied Petroleum Gas shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.10.5. NFPA Labeling Requirements also apply. (Refer

to NFPA 58.)

3.11. Natural Gas

3.11.1. How Natural Gas Is to Be Identified. -

- Natural gas shall be identified by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or by Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

248
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.11.2. Labeling the Retail Dispenser. -- Each

retail dispenser of natxiral gas shall be labeled as "Compressed Natural Gas" or "Liquefied Natural Gas."

3.11.3. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel

3.11.3.1. Definitions

(a). Natural Gas. ~ Natural gas means a gaseous fiiel composed primarily of methane that is suitable for compression and dispensing into a fuel storage container(s)

for use as an engine fuel.

(b) . Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). -- Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kilogram of

natural gas.

(c) . Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). -- Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 2.567 kilograms

(5.660 pounds) of natural gas.

3.11.3.2. Method of Retail Sale and Dispenser

Labeling

(a) . Method of Retail Sale. — All natural gas kept,

offered, or exposed for sale and sold at retail as a vehicle

fuel shall be in terms of the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE).

(b). Dispenser Labeling. ~ All retail natural gas

dispensers shall be labeled with the conversion factor in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and conspicuously displayed on the face of

the dispenser and shall have either the statement "1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of

Natural Gas" or "1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas" consistent with the method of sale used.

3.11.4. Additional Labeling Requirements. -- Natural Gas automotive fuel shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306.

3.11.5.NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52 for CNG and NFPA 57 for LNG.)

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Gas, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. - No water phase greater than 6 millimeters (1/4 inch) as determined by an appropriate detection paste, is allowed

to accumulate in any tank utilized in the storage of

gasoline-alcohol blend, aviation gasoline, and aviation turbine fuel.

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, GasolineEther, and Other Fuels. Water shall not exceed 50

millimeters (2 inches) in depth when measured with water

indicating paste in any tank utilized in the storage of

biodiesel, diesel, gasoline, gasoline-ether blends, and

kerosene sold at retail except as required in section 4.1.

4.3. Product Storage Identification

4.3.1. Fill Connection Labeling. - The fill connection for any petroleum product storage tank or

vessel supplying engine-fuel devices shall be permanently,

plainly, and visibly marked as to the product contained.

4.3.2. Declaration of Meaning of Color Code. -

- When the fill connection device is marked by means of

a color code, the color code shall be conspicuously

displayed at the place of business.

4.4. Volume of Product Information. ~ Each

retail location shall maintain on file a calibration chart or

other means of determining the volume of each regulated product in each storage tank and the total capacity of such

storage tank(s). This information shall be supplied immediately to the Director. Section 5. Condemned Product

5.1. Stop Sale Order at Retail. - A stop sale order may be issued to retail establishment dealers for

fuels failing to meet specifications or when a condition

exists that causes product degradation. A release from a Stop Sale order will be awarded only after final disposition has been agreed upon by the Director. Confirmation of disposition shall be submitted in writing on form(s) provided by the Director and contain an

explanation for the fuels' failure to meet specifications. Upon discovery of fuels failing to meet specifications, meter readings and physical inventory shall be taken and

reported in confirmation for disposition. Specific

variations or exemptions may be made for fuels designed

for special equipment or services and for which it can be

249
Laws and Regulations Committee

demonstrated that the distribution will be restricted to those uses.

5.2. Stop Sale Order at Terminal or Bulk

Plant Facility. ~ A stop sale order may be issued when products maintained at terminals or bulk plant

facilities fail to meet specifications or when a condition

exists that may cause product degradation. The terminal

or bulk storage plant shall immediately notify all customers that received those product(s) and make any

arrangements necessary to replace or adjust to specifications those product(s). A release from a Stop

Sale order will be awarded only after final disposition has been agreed upon by the Director. Confirmation of

disposition of products shall be made available in writing

to the Director. Specific variations or exemptions may be made for fuels used for blending purposes or designed for special equipment or services and for which it can be demonstrated that the distribution will be restricted to those uses. Section 6. Product Registration

6.1. Special Engine Fuels. -- All special engine

fuels that do not meet ASTM specifications or standards addressed in Section 2 shall be registered with the Director on forms prescribed by the director 30 days prior to when

the registrant wishes to engage in sales. The registration form shall include all of the following information:

6.1.1. Business name and address(es).

6.1.2. Mailing address if different than business address.

6.1.3. Type of ownership of the distributor or retail dealer, such as an individual, partnership, association,

trust, corporation, or any other legal entity or combination

thereof

6.1.4. An authorized signature, title, and date for each

registration.

6.1.5. Product brand name and product description.

6.1.6. A product specification sheet shall be attached.

6.2. Registration is subject to annual renewal.

6.3. Re-registration is required 30 days prior to any

changes in Section 6.1.

6.4. The director may decline to register any product which actually or by implication would deceive or tend to

deceive a purchaser as to the identity or the quality of the engine fiiel.

6.5. The registration is not transferable. Section 7. Test Methods and Reproducibility Limits

7.1. ASTM Standard Test Methods referenced for use

within the applicable ASTM Standard Specification shall be used to determine the specification values for enforcement purposes.

7.2. Reproducibility Limits:

7.2.1. AKI Limits. - When determining the antiknock index (AKI) acceptance or rejection of a

gasoline sample, the AKI reproducibility limits as outlined

in ASTM D 4814 Appendix XI shall be acknowledged for enforcement purposes with the exception outlined in 7.2.4.

7.2.2. The reproducibility limits of the ASTM standard

test method used for each test performed shall be acknowledged for enforcement purposes, except as indicated in 7.2.1. and 7.2.4.

7.2.3. Dispute Resolution. -- In the event of a

dispute over a reported test value, the guidelines presented

in the most recent version of ASTM D 3244, "Standard

Practice for Utilization of Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications," shall be used to determine the acceptance or rejection of the sample.

7.2.4. When Enforcement Action May Be

Taken. - The Director may initiate enforcement action

in the event that, based upon a statistically significant number of samples, the average test result for products sampled fi-om a particular person is greater than the maximum or less than the legal limits (specification

value), posted values, certified values, or registered values.

250
Laws and Regulations Committee

Recommendations for ; Petroleum Products, and

Introduction The engine fuel testing laborator\' is an integral element of

an engine fuel inspection program and is generally developed to satisfy the testing requirements as described

in the laws and rules of the regulating agency. This document outlines the basic facets of an engine fuels testing laboratory and can be used as a model to initiate or upgrade an engine fuels testing program. Since a fuels testing program is of little value unless recognized

standards and methods are utilized, this description of a model laboratory has been developed under the assumption

that the universally recognized American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards and test methods

have been incorporated into the laws, rules, and policies of

the regulating agency.

This document provides sufficient information to investigate costs associated with the development of a model fuels testing laboratory. Information pertaining to

facility needs, recommended ASTM test procedures, test equipment, and the number of personnel required for

staffing has been included. Hidden costs associated with

the unique working environment of laboratories are often overlooked during initial evaluations; therefore, sections have also been included dealing with quality assurance,

safety, and hazardous materials.

Laboratories may be required to perform additional analyses outside the purview of consumer regulations, e.g., analyses pertaining to environmental regulations or tax fraud investigations. This document will not address those

areas specifically; however, information presented here may assist in the determination of general costs and

requirements.

State Operated or Contract The decision to operate a State testing laboratory, to enter

into a contractual agreement with a private fuels testing laboratory, or to have a hybrid of the two depends on a

variety of factors: the scope of the program, funding

sources, political climate, etc. 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 Motor

Fuel Task Force assembled in 1984 concluded that a program testing 6,000 samples per year (500 samples per month) is the minimum level to justify building and

equipping a fuels testing laboratory.

iix E

a Basic Engine Fuels, Lubricants Laboratory

This estimate remains a valid guideline for determining

the practicality of the initial investment for a fuels testing laboratory. However, consideration must be given to the time required for a laboratory to complete the analyses. The value of any inspection program is diminished if laboratory turnaround time is so great that the product is consumed before the results of an analysis are known. If a contract laboratory is chosen, analysis time should be

given consideration during negotiations to ensure an

effective program; likewise, a State-owned laboratory should be assured the proper resources, e.g., a full staff and well maintained instruments, to be able to meet a

satisfactory turnaround time. Laboratory Facility A fuels testing laboratory requires a unique building designed to accommodate laboratory instruments ranging from a delicate gas chromatograph 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 be capable of withstanding the forces of an explosion. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 45, "Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using

Chemicals," should be reviewed with contractors to ensure minimum standards are met.

Special considerations should be given to the following:

1 . Sufficient ventilation to ensure that workers are not unduly exposed to gasoline fiimes 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 ASTM/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 extinguisher, eyewash stations, etc.

251
Laws and Regulations Committee

7. Automatic fire extinguishing system for laboratory

areas. The extinguishing system's design should

include considerations regarding the susceptibility of

laboratory instruments to damage when exposed to water or dry chemicals.

8. An adequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system to handle excess heat generated by

distillation instruments and octane engines.

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.

1 1. Automatic hydrocarbon monitors to warn of critical accumulation of explosive vapors.

Several fixed equipment items are necessary for the laboratory's operation, including:

.

1. Air compressor and piping of sufficient size to supply the entire laboratory's needs.

2. Gas and water piped to all areas of the laboratory.

3. Storage area for excess fuel after analyses. Depending on the number of samples, this may

consist of a properly ventilated storage area with 55-

gallon drums to several 500-gallon storage tanks. (Larger tanks may be needed if they are to supplement the program's vehicle's needs.) The size of the laboratory will depend upon the needs of

the agency and the scope of the fuels testing laboratory. The following space listing is for a small laboratory capable of testing approximately 6,000 samples per year. Some space requirements, such as those for octane testing, may seem large, but it is strongly recommended that two

additional engine foundations be installed during initial construction.

1 . Offices, bathroom facilities, conference room, etc. (as required). No space requirements are listed as this must be determined by the user based on program

needs and local building codes.

2. Octane laboratory - designed for four engines (75 m^

[800 ft'])

3. General laboratory (70 m' [750 ft^])

4. Distillation laboratory 37 m' [400 ft'])

5. Shipping and receiving (includes preparation area for empty sample containers) (37 m' [400 ft'])

6. Flash point laboratory (19 m' [200 ft'])

7. Shop area (23 m' [225 ft'])

8. Storage for supplies (23 m' [225 ft'])

9. Secured, cooled, and ventilated sample and flammable storage area (23 m' [225 ft']). (Insulation and a dedicated ventilation and cooling system

should be considered for this room.)

Total square footage (exclusive of item 1) ~ 300 m'

(3,225 ft'). Including offices, bathroom facilities, hallways, etc., the total building size may exceed 372 m'

(4,000 ft').

Tests and ASTM Tests Procedures

Carefiil consideration should be given to the selection of

laboratory test procedures since these selections will affect instrument costs, number of personnel, timeliness of

samples, and confidence in results. As previously mentioned, ASTM specifications and test methods are universally recognized standards for engine fuels and

should be the primary choice for test procedures. The ASTM Subcommittee D 02 on Petroleum Products and

Lubricants is responsible for developing engine fuel specifications and is generally comprised of representatives

fi-om the petroleum industry, automotive manufacturers, and regulating agencies. TTiis representation ensures that

test procedures have been reviewed by each segment of

the testing community and laboratory results obtained

utilizing these procedures will be widely accepted. New instrumental methods are often introduced to

facilitate testing engine fuels. Chemical methods have

been devised to replace or screen physical methods which may enhance efficiency by reducing staff or analysis time

necessary to perform physical methods. These methods

are normally devised for a controlled environment, such as a processing plant, where the chemical components of the samples are generally known and a correlation between the chemical components and physical parameters may be drawn with confidence. A new laboratory is cautioned to

reft-ain from investing in this instrumentation and the laboratory expertise necessary to perform the test procedure until the test procedure has been approved

through ASTM. Screening methods have been employed

252
Laws and Regulations Committe

by State laboratories to maintain or increase sample

coverage. Screening procedures are a deviation of

accepted ASTM procedures; certain sections of a procedure may be excluded or modified, such as chilling a sample to the appropriate temperature or accurately timing a distillation analysis. When a screened sample

exceeds an predetermined parameter, the sample is analyzed using the proper ASTM procedure. Screening should be discouraged as a means to increase sample

coverage. Strategies, such as selective sampling and

testing, should be employed as a means for effective regulation.

Following are references to ASTM fiiel specifications and

testing procedures which form an effective nucleus for an

engine fuels testing laboratory with consumer regulatory

responsibilities. ASTM test methods listed here do not

necessarily exclude other ASTM procedures that are designed for the purpose and that give comparable results. While kerosene is typically not used as an engine fuel, the

test procedures are very similar to the diesel test procedures; therefore, many States include kerosene in their jurisdiction for fuels testing. The significance of

each of these analyses is included in the ASTM

specifications. Asterisks after test methods indicate a

preferred method due to cost or ease of implementation. Spark Ignition Engine Fuel

SpeciflcatioDS

1. Distillation

2. Octane (Antiknock Index) Research Motor

3. Vapor Pressure Dry Method

Automatic Method

Mini Method

4. Oxygenate Content

5. Sulfur Content X-Ray Spectrometry Microcoulometry X-Ray Fluorescence

6. Lead Content

7. Workmanship

D 4814 D 86

D 2699 D 2700

D 4953 D 5190 D 5191 D 4815

D 2622 D 3120 D 4294 D 3237 D 5059 D 4814

Diesel Fuel Specifications D 975

1. Flash Point D 93

2. Distillation , D 86

3. API Gravity D 1298

4. Sulfur Content X-Ray Spectrometry D 2622 X-Ray Fluorescence D 4294 *

5. Cloud Point D 2500

6. Water and Sediment D 1796 Kerosene Specifications D 3699

1. Flashpoint D 56

2. Distillation D 86

3. Sulfur Content X-Ray Spectrograph D 2622 X-Ray Fluorescence D 4294 *

4. Color D 156

5. Water and Sediment D 1796

Aviation Gasoline D 910

1. Distillation D 86

2. Water Reaction D 1094

3. Freezing Point D 2386

4. Knock Characteristic D 2700

Aviation Turbine Fuel D 1655

1. Flashpoint D 56

2. Distillation D 86

3. Water Reaction D 1094

4. Freezing Point D 2386

Laboratory Equipment and Supplies

Scientific instrumentation is typically more expensive than

initially anticipated even when one has experience purchasing equipment. ASTM has recently approved

253
Laws and Regulations Committee

methods utilizing automated instruments which may prove

to be a better long-term investment when the costs of

operating personnel are included. Octane Testing

1 CFR Research Method Engine $106,000

1 CFR Motor Method Engine 106,000

1 Fuel Blending System 4,000 Humidity controller for CFR engines 2,000 Complete set of tools 5,000

Lift for removing cylinders 2,500

Supplies, spare parts, etc. 25,000

Total $250,500

Distillation Testing 2 Explosion proof refrigerators (18 cu ft) $5,500

1 Mercury Barometer 350

2 Mechanically refrigerated 4-unit distillation apparatus 8,000

1 Temperature-controlled baths 2,000

Total $ 15,850

Note: Automated distillation units ($20,000 each) may be

substituted for the manual distillation units. The increased

cost can be justified by a reduced staff and increased

precision of the instruments. Vapor Pressure (RVP) Testing

1 Grabner $13,000

1 McCleod Gauge 300

1 Vacuum Pump (2-Stage) 350

Total $13,650

Sulfur Testing

1 X-Ray fluorescence analyzer $25,000

Total $25,000 Oxygenate Testing

1 Gas Chromatograph $30,000

Total $30,000 Lead Testing

1 Atomic absorption instrument $22,000

Total $22,000

Diesel-Kerosene Testing

2 Tag-closed cup flash testers $3,000

2 Pensky-Martens flash testers 5,000

10 Hydrometers for API gravity 250

1 Sayboh chronometer for color test 1,800

1 Cloud/Pour Point Apparatus 8,000

Total $18,050

Miscellaneous Items

100 Sample cases for sample

transportation $14,000

1,200 Sample containers 4,000

1 Oven for drying sample

containers (glass) 3,500

1 7.6 liter/hour water still 4,000

1 Analytical balance 3,000

2 Bottle Washers 4,000

Total $32,500 Information Management System No recommendations are made for an information management system. However, it should be noted that an

information management system is an effective tool to manage data and statistical information when devising sampling strategies and when measuring the general

effectiveness of a program.

254
Laws and Regulations Committee

Minimum requirements for an information management

system include a database server and database adequate to handle sample biographical and analyses information. A

means to network technicians and staff to the information

is necessary to facilitate transfer of information. Considerations for software security and equipment

securit>' (limited access to the database server) should be

given to ensure the integrity of the data. Many departments have established information management centers which are consulted for this information. Generally, these departments have a

particular protocol for developing an information management system.

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 $250,500

Distillation Testing 15,850 RVP Testing 13,650

Sulfur Testing 25,000 Oxygenate Testing 30,000 Lead Testing 22,000

Diesel-Kerosene Testing 18,050 Miscellaneous Items 32,500

Information Management System (as needed)

Office Equipment and Supplies (as needed)

Total $407,550 Annual Operating Expenses (excluding 120,000

expenses)

Quality Assurance/Quality Control The previous sections have addressed structural aspects of

an engine fuels testing laboratory: building requirements,

testing procedures, and analytical instruments. The management system for a laboratory is as unique as the

structural requirements. Quality assurance/quality control programs were originally devised to give statistical verification of analytical results; however, they are now

evolving to become the standard management model for

laboratories. Chain of custody procedures, sample

retention procedures, sample distribution procedures, and

documentation of each step has been integrated into the

quality assurance program.

The petroleum industry, as well as many other industries, has recently shown an inclination toward the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) model quality assurance program, ISO 9000, which provides guidelines

for implementation of a quality system. ISO 9000

addresses fundamental issues of a quality system including

the responsibilities of management, necessary

documentation, provisions for internal and external audits, personnel requirements, environmental considerations, equipment suitability, traceability, and record keeping. ISO/IEC Guide 25, "General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories," provides an overview of the requirements for an ISO 9000

quality system. There is no accreditation program

specifically for State engine fuels testing laboratories and ISO 9000 accreditation is currently quite expensive; however, the ISO 9000 is an excellent model to use in developing a management system.

Regulatory agencies, the regulated industry, and consumers must have confidence in analytical results obtained from

the testing laboratory. Statistical verification of obtained

results will come through performing tests on internal quality assurance samples (standards, duplicates, spikes,

etc.) and exchanging samples with other laboratories. ASTM operates a National Exchange Group (NEG) to

distribute fuels among participating laboratories and

provides a statistical report of the results. There are three subgroups of the NEG: the Motor Fuel Exchange Group,

the Diesel Fuel Exchange Group, and the Aviation

Gasoline Exchange Group. Ofthree 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 3 months

but is not bound to run special tests. The fee for members

or for quarterly participants is $150 per year. The NEG

will provide a means for assessment of quality at the

national level. There are also regional groups which

provide similar quality assessment exchange programs:

Appalachian, Atlantic, Great Lakes, Mid-Continent,

Northwest, Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain, Texas

Regional Groups and LA Gulf Coast, Sabine, and Texas

City-Houston Subgroups. In addition, ASTM has

established the Interlaboratory Crosscheck Program which

is an exchange program covering an expanded range of

test procedures. If a laboratory is required to perform the

full set of ASTM tests listed in the specifications for gasoline, diesel, and aviation gasoline, this particular program will be useful in collecting pertinent quality assurance information.

255
Laws and Regulations Committee

Safety Program A laboratory can be an extremely hazardous work

environment, so safety must be integrated into all operations of a laboratory. The Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) established a requirement

effective January 1. 1991. for laboratories to develop a Chemical Hygiene Plan (29 CFR 1910.1450). The

guidelines for the Chemical Hygiene Plan were left intentionally general so that an organization's plan could be customized for unique situations in individual

laboratories. The Chemical Hygiene Plan details an

organization's responsibilities for safety training, supply and maintenance of safety equipment and personal

protective equipment, monitoring employee's exposure

level to hazardous chemicals, medical consultation and

examination, and availability of documents addressing

safety procedures and emergency response. The Chemical Hygiene Plan is required to be reviewed annually which

provides a fomiat to plan and track improvements.

Reference documents are an essential part of an effective

safety program. Safety procedures should accompany and complement testing procedures to ensure an employee is performing functions in an acceptable manner. Emergency

response manuals address hazardous or potentially hazardous situations. Proper procedures for handling large

spills, evacuation of work areas, and employees who have

been overexposed to hazardous materials are typically found in the emergenc> response manual. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) contain pertinent information regarding the hazards of chemicals and the necessar>' precautions. These documents should be distributed to employees or located in an easily accessible location.

Coordination with local fire and hazmat departments is essential to ensure rapid emergency response. A chemical

inventor, and a diagram of the laboratory space is often requested by these departments to expedite their response. Periodic review of the chemical inventory will ensure unnecessary chemicals will be disposed of in a timely manner. The most effective safety tool is thorough training of emplo>ees. Each new employee should be trained with

the Chemical H> giene Plan. safet>' procedures, emergency

response manual, and MSDS's. Subsequent review

sessions should be scheduled to ensure familiarity of

individual responsibilities and actions. Educational videos

are available specitlcally addressing laborator>' safety which can assist in the training process. Hands-on training should be utilized to demonstrate the proper use of fire extinguishers, fire blankets, and other safety equipment in the laboraton, . An effective safety program will produce

aware employees who can suggest enhancements to improve the safety of the laboratory.

Personal safety equipment should be provided to all laboratory personnel. Eye protection, lab coats/aprons, and gloves will provide minimum protection. If the use of a fume hood is not practical and an employee is exposed to petroleum or other chemical fumes, organic

respirators should be provided to minimize exposure. Determination of which equipment is necessary for handling particular chemicals can be found in the MSDS

accompanying the chemicals.

General laboratory safety equipment should be considered during the design or selection of a building. In addition

to a good ventilation system, fume hoods should be

provided where practical to isolate fumes from the

laboratory. Due to the explosive nature of gasoline, even

safety equipment needs to be evaluated for safety; for example, explosion-proof motors should be installed to evacuate fumes from a hood. Eyewash stations, fire extinguishers, emergency showers, and fire blankets should

all be placed strategically for maximum protection.

In the event of a spill or fire, several safety items will prove useful. Activated charcoal, sold under a variety of names, is effective for absorbing small petroleum spills with the added benefit of quickly reducing vaporization. Other companies offer pads to quickly absorb spills. Similar products are offered to neutralize and adsorb acids and bases. Safety signs should be posted at the entrance of each laboratory room listing possible hazards and

restricted activities (e.g.. No Smoking, Flammables, Eye

Protection Required, etc.). These signs assist visitors and emergency response personnel to identify hazards quickly. Hazardous Waste

Engine fuels testing laboratories generate small quantities of hazardous waste. Used oil from CFR engines and

waste chemicals from various analyses must be stored and

disposed in an appropriate manner. The majority of

regulations for storage, disposal, and documentation of

hazardous materials may be found in EPA's SARA Title

111, 40 CFR 1 500. Additional regulations and permits may

be required by State, county or municipal agencies. Familiarity with the regulations will be advantageous when

considering the design of the laboratory. Specific expenses related to hazardous waste disposal will often be

determined by local regulations and the availability of

hazardous waste handlers.

256
Laws and Regulations Committee

Personnel The staffing requirements for an engine fuels testing laboratory will be dependent on the number of samples,

the number of tests performed on the samples, and the

testing instruments chosen. The staff recommended here

will be suitable for a laboratory with moderate automation

(auto-sampler for the gas chromatograph, automated RVP

instrument, etc.) running approximately 6,000 to 8,000 samples per year.

1 Laboratory Administrator

2 Chemists

2 CFR Engine Operators

2 Laboratory Technicians

1 Clerk The laboratory administrator should have strong management skills and familiarity with laboratory operations and chemical techniques. The administrator's responsibilities include the development and

implementation of the quality assurance program, safety program, and hazardous waste program, as well as providing guidance for the daily operations of the

laboratory. The chemists should have a strong chemistry background

and familiarity with instrumental techniques. In addition

to normal analytical responsibilities, chemists should assist with the review of analytical results by technicians. Chemists also can assist in the development and

implementation of the quality assurance, safety, and

hazardous waste programs. The engine operators are the most difficult positions to

fill. The ideal operator will have petrochemical

experience with a mechanic's background since the majority of the engine maintenance will be performed by

the operators. The petroleum industry estimates approximately 5 years of engine operation is necessary to develop an expertise. To expedite this process, engine

operators should periodically attend training workshops.

Laboratory technicians should have laboratory experience and a familiarity with scientific methods. Cross training of these individuals is an effective means of maintaining

an even workflow through the laboratory. Concluding Note

There is no better way to understand the complexities of

testing than to visit a state with an active program.

Several States, such as Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, Washington, and Tennessee (a contractual laboratory) have

active programs and are willing to host tours of their

facilities. Interested parties are encouraged to make such

a visit.

References:

John E. Nunemaker, "Planning Laboratories: A Step by

Step Process" American Laboratory March 1987, 19(4),

104-112.

Jery Koenigsberg, "Building a Safe Laboratory Environment" American Laboratory June 1987, 19 (9), 96-106.

257

Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix F

Third Draft - Examination Procedures for Price Verification

This draft is based on comments received at the 1994 Interim Meeting by the Laws and Regulations Committee of the National Conference of Weights and Measures Acknowledgments

The National Conference on Weights and Measures Price Verification procedures are being developed with the cooperation of

weights and measures officials from the following jurisdictions who provided background materials, test procedures, and guidance

that aided in its development: the Cit\ of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the City of Seattle, Washington, the States of Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky, California, North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Mexico, Tennessee, Hawaii, Alaska, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, Nebraska, Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois, and Oklahoma. We especially appreciate the technical advice and guidance provided by J. Alan Rogers, Program Manager, Virginia Weights and Measures, and members of the field staff of the Virginia Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Section. Special acknowledgement

goes to Randy St. John, Jr., Vice President of the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association, and the members of PFMA's Scanning

Certification Board of Advisors for permission to use materials from its "Scanning Certification Program Operations Manual." The

weights and measures members of the NCWM Working Group on Price Verification include:

Barbara J. Bloch, Chairman

Special Assistant, California Division of Measurement Standards

Barbara J. DeSalvo, Weights and Measures Supervisor, Ohio Department of Agriculture

representing the Central Weights and Measures Association

Patrick E. Nichols, Director, Weights and Measures, Alameda County Weights and Measures, California

representing the Western Weights and Measures Association Tom Coleman, Program Manager, Maryland Weights and Measures

representing the Southern Weights and Measures Association; and

Ross J. Andersen, Assistant Director, New York Bureau of Weights and Measures

representing the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

Also represented are: Allan Nelson, Director of Weights & Measures

Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection

Graesanto Berbano

U.S. Department of Agriculture Ed Price, Director for Consumer Programs

Texas Department of Agriculture

James H. Eskew, Program Manager for Metrology Labs Texas Department of Agriculture Dean Ely, District Supervisor Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

Gerry A. Jorowski Canadian Consumer & Corporate Affairs

Gilles Vinet Canadian Legal Metrology Branch

259
Laws and Regulations Committee

Bob Alviene Morris County Weights and Measures, New Jersey

, . : - ..:{ \^ ^ Lanny Arnold

Kentucicy Weights & Measures Dean Ely Pennsylvania Weights & Measures

j

' Edward C. Heffron Michigan Weights & Measures Anthony Lori Morris County Weights & Measures, New Jersey

,

. Kathleen A. Thuner

, Sealer of Weights and Measures County of San Diego, California

Caroline O. Shoenberger Commissioner, City of Chicago

Department of Consumer Services

Isabel R. Esparza

Assistant Commissioner, City of Chicago

Department of Consumer Services

Patricia Jackowiak Deputy Commissioner, City of Chicago

Department of Consumer Services

Daniel M. Downing

Consumer Service Investigator, City of Chicago

Department of Consumer Services

Other public and private sector representatives include: David McCorkle, President

Peter Larkin Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association Vice President, State Government Relations The Food Marketing Institute Randy St. John, Vice President Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association

Jennifer Colman

Manager, State Government Relations Deidre Adams, Staff Planner The Food Marketing Institute International Business Machines Corporation

Judith Kozacik, VP Research John W. O'Gorman

The Food Marketing Institute NCR Corporation Myron Meche Thomas V. Brady, Technical Director National Retail Federation Uniform Code Council Kenneth L. Army Ronald C. Goodstein Vice President Operations/Finance Assistant Professor of Marketing

National Retail Hardware Association John E. Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA

260
Laws and Regulations Committee

Mary Bach Consumer Advocate

Murrysville, Pennsylvania Mary S. Moore

D'Agostino Food Stores David Richman, VP Quality Assurance

Giant Food, Inc.

Brent C. Scott The Kroger Company - Atlanta Tom Mertes Safeway Stores, Inc.

William Pool Wegman's Food Stores Bob Johnson Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.

Garth Aasen

Telepanel Systems Inc. Ray Ahlgren

Supervalu Inc.

Jamie L. Bedard Hook-SupeRx Inc.

Steve Davis Merchant Data Service

Ellyn DePauw

Kmart

Linda Doherty New Jersey Food Council Doug Etzel NCR Corporation

John Fayad NCR Corporation

Jan Charles Gray

Ralphs Om P. Gupta Digicomp Research Corp. Mark Hoffman NCR Corporation

Chuck Huebner

Electronic Retailing Systems International

Paul Kenefick JC Penney

Dennis Krueger NCR Corporation

Joe Lembo

State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection

Jim Logie

National Retail Federation

Susan Lowe

Safeway Stores Inc.

Faye Nelson Kmart Edward E. Newman IBM Corporation

Lois Rasnake

North American Association of Inventory Services

Robert C. Ricketson Digicomp Research Corp.

Kai Robertson The Food Marketing Institute Donald Schoen RTG Telxon Alan L. Torbit Super* Fresh Inc. Peggy S. Rochette

National Grocers Association

Bill V.'hite The Kroger Company

Paul Zalon

Nestle USA

Jack O" Mai ley BASS Inc.

Jennifer Keehan

Manager, State Programs

International Mass Retail Association

261
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table of Contents

I. Background, Findings, and Purpose 263

11. Scope of Work 265

III. Uniform Law for Price Accuracy 267

IV. Price Verification Procedure for Retail Food Stores 268 L Scope 268

2. Test Notes 269

3. Materials and Equipment 269

4. Definitions 146

5. Opening the Inspection 272

6. Inspection 273

7. Test Procedures 273

A. Part I. Single Stage - (Automated) Test Procedure 274

B. Part II. Two Stage - (Manual) Test Procedure 278

C. Part III. Test Procedure for Conducting Test Purchases and for Verifying Manually Entered Prices 281

8. Documentation of Findings 281

9. Evaluation of Results 282

10. Post Inspection Tasks 282

11. Accuracy Requirements and Enforcement 283

12. Follow-up Activities 287

13. Appendices 288 Appendix A. Model Forms 289, 290, 291

References 292 |

262
Laws and Regulations Committee

I. Background, Findings, and Purpose

, The National Conference on Weights and Measures organized the Price Verification Wori<ing Group as a subgroup under the NIST

j Handbook 133 Working Group to respond to nationwide public concern about price accuracy in retail stores. National television

' and newspaper stories published throughout 1993 accused both retailers and State/local weights and measures officials of failing

i to ensure that posted prices match advertised and "scanned" prices, and they called for tougher standards. Some reports cited large

j numbers of pricing errors predominantly in favor of the retailer. The focus of attention of several studies and news stories was

directed towards U.P.C. scanning devices even though there is evidence to show that pricing errors are just as likely to occur in stores that use price look-up codes, item pricing, manual key entry, or any other method used to enter prices into a cash register.

Organizational Meeting To address this issue, the NCWM invited State and local weights and measures officials, representatives of all major retail trade organizations and retailers from all classes of trade to participate in a Working Group on Price Verification, chaired by Barbara

J. Bloch. Special Assistant, Division of Weights and Measures, State of California. Members of the Food Marketing Institute, National Retail Hardware Association, the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association, seven supermarket companies, and weights and measures officials from several States and Canada attended the first Working Group meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, on June

9-10, 1993. Presentations on scanner and bar code technology, State and local price verifications activities, and industry efforts

to ensure price integrity were made by several participants. Based on comments received at the first meeting, the first draft of an "Examination Procedure for Price Verification" was developed and distributed for review and comment. Second Meeting

The second meeting was held in Baltimore, Maryland on November 3-4, 1993. Several presentations were made during the first day of the meeting including an "Update on the PFMA Scanner Certification Program" by Randy St. John. Jr., Vice President, Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association (PFMA) and "Price Verification in Texas," Edwin Price, Director, Weights and Measures

- Texas Department of Agriculture. Other presentations included "The Retailers Advanced Price Integrity System" by Steve Davis, VP, Merchant Data Services, and "Hand-held Scanning Devices" by Donald Schoen, VP, Retail Management Systems/Telxon. Ken Butcher gave a presentation on the first draft of the "Examination Procedure for Price Verification." The results of

discussions of the comments received on the first draft were incorporated in this second draft. Uniform Standards for Shelf Price Labels. - A subgroup under the Price Verification Working Group was formed to determine

if there is a need to develop voluntary standards for printed shelf price labels to ensure clarity and accuracy. Dean Ely, Pennsylvania Weights and Measures, was named Chairman of the subgroup. The subgroup was also to determine whether standards

for electronic shelf labels are needed so this new technology can be accepted for use in all jurisdictions.

Presentations made at the meeting focused on electronic shelf labels. Chairman Dean Ely discussed the need for clear and accurate

shelf labels and introduced a wide range of speakers who introduced the group to the emerging technology of electronic shelf price

labels. Presentations were made on "Shelf Label Standards in the PFMA Certification Program" by Randy St. John Jr., VP PFMA,

and "Shelf Label Accuracy" by Bob Ricketson, Digicomp Research Corporation. The subject of "Electronic Shelf Labeling Technology and Applications" was presented by Deidre Adams, Staff Product Planner, IBM Corp., and Garth Aasen of Telepanel. Other presentations on this subject were made by Doug Etzel, Product Manager, and Mark Hoffrnan, Director, Human Factors Engineering, of NCR and Charles J. Huebner of Electronic Retailing Systems International. NCWM Interim Meeting

The Working Group on Price Verification made a presentation on its work to the Laws and Regulations Committee at the Interim Meetings in Bethesda, Maryland on January 12, 1994. The meeting included a presentation by Mary Bach, a consumer advocate who voiced public concern about the accuracy of retail prices, and Professor Ronald C. Goodstein of UCLA, who reported on his academic studies into the U.P.C. scanner accuracy issue. Industry presentations included an update on the Pennsylvania Food

Merchants Association's "Scanner Certification Program" by Randy St. John, Jr., and Jan Charles Gray of Ralphs Grocery Company

addressed the negative publicity for retailers which resulted from the media stories on scanner accuracy. Peter Larkin, Vice

President of Government Relations for the Food Marketing Institute presented industry comments on the draft Examination

Procedure for Price Verification and expressed support for the work that the NCWM had accomplished in developing uniform test

263
Laws and Regulations Committee

procedures. A technical presentation and equipment display on hand-held scanning devices was provided by Jack O'Malley of BASS Inc. Based on the oral and written comments received on the second draft at the Interim Meeting the Laws and Regulations Committee

will make the report and recommendations of the Price Verification Working Group information items and carry them over for

field testing and study by the NCWM. A third draft of the Examination Procedure for Price Verification will be included in the Interim Meeting Report. The L&R Committee will ask weights and measures officials to field test the Examination Procedure over

the next year in order to evaluate its effectiveness. The Laws and Regulations Committee will make a presentation on the recommendations and activities of the Price

Verification Working Group before the 79th National Conference on Weights and Measures on July 12, 1994, in San Diego,

California. Background: The Price Verification Working Group studied information obtained fi-om a survey of weights and measures

jurisdictions from across the countr>, as well as academic, government, and industry studies dating back to 1965, media stories, and news articles, and made the following findings: From information received from weights and measures jurisdictions, the Working Group found that:

• At least 20 States have developed and use formal procedures that provide sampling and inspection guidelines to ensure that inspections are uniformly and routinel> conducted. Twelve more States responded that they have only sketchy or informal test procedures or policies to guide their inspectors.

- For those States that have documented procedures, the definition of a "good" inspection result ranges from 90 to 100 percent accuracy on sample sizes ranging from 10 to 300 packages. Most procedures do not provide guidance for inspectors to "balance" inspections between "sale" and "nonsale" items, commodities offered for sale fi-om bulk, or fi-om meat counters where

coded prices are generated by scales in the store. Some jurisdictions also look at the total monetary value of overcharges on

the sample lot or individual packages and consider this factor in their judgement of what constitutes a good or bad inspection.

- Only a few States provide specific guidance to inspectors on inspection frequency and when to target price accuracy

inspections for the most effective use of inspector time.

- The type, degree, and timing of enforcement actions or follow-up inspections vary widely across the country. Some States

limit their actions to requiring immediate correction of the prices found to be incorrect, while other jurisdictions have guidelines

for follow-up inspections and subsequent enforcement action based on the level of inaccuracy found on follow-up inspections. At least one State and several cities have the authority to require item pricing by firms with high inaccuracy rates on

consecutive inspections.

- Some States report that they focus their price inspections on food stores because they lack resources to expand their efforts beyond establishments where they conduct other inspections for net contents and scale accuracy. This situation exposes food

retailers to increased scrutiny and legal action for having price errors on the packages inspected, while other types of retailers are not held to the same standard. This may be a nationwide problem; one State reported an inaccuracy rate of 3.8 percent

for supermarkets and an 8 to 1 1 percent inaccuracy rate in hardware and convenience stores.

• Some jurisdictions reported compliance rates of 98 to 100 percent, but indicated that they only conduct inspections in response

to consumer complaints. On the other hand, several officials indicated that they had never received complaints about stores that had a history of poor compliance. This is consistent with experience weights and measures officials have had in other areas of

enforcement.

• Some weights and measures programs report that they are unable to perform this type of inspection or increase current activities to include all types of retail stores because of dwindling resources and budgets. This is unfortunate because it provides fertile ground for accidental or intentional fraud that harms consumers and reputable business people alike. The Working Group believes

that this problem will increase unless there is legislative and financial support for weights and measures programs to conduct routine inspections to ensure accurate pricing.

264
Laws and Regulations Committee

• There was overwhelming support from State Weights and Measures Directors for development of a NCWM examination

procedure for price verification, and the majority agreed that it should be a priority issue on the agenda of the Laws and

Regulations Committee. Other Findings:

- Errors in pricing are often the result of simple human error. Regardless of their cause, pricing errors hurt consumers and business

alike. Stores lose profits on undercharges and consumers lose on overcharges, and inaccurate prices fioistrate value comparisons. Overcharges and undercharges are believed to be primarily caused by poor pricing practices and ineffective management control, not intentional acts to defraud consumers. However, those retailers with poor price integrity have not had strong incentives to improve their pricing practices.

- Some studies indicate that error rates on manually entered prices may range from 6 to 15 percent. Pricing errors may occur on

any transaction so inspection programs must include procedures that would allow manual price entries to be validated by the store and tested for compliance by the regulatory agency.

- One of the major frustrations to consumers that the media stories identify is the failure of some stores to correct pricing errors promptly. One news story reported that as many as ten purchasers had reported to a store's personnel that they had been

overcharged on some products without the prices being corrected. This has led a few regulatory agencies to impose stringent enforcement action when the same pricing errors are found on a follow-up visit.

- Results from at least one study tested the assumption that prices are more likely to be correct several days into a sale because

the store would have had ample opportunity to identify and correct the errors. Results from the study indicate that the day of

purchase has little impact on errors. Tliis indicates that stores involved in this study have no validation or correction procedures once prices are supposedly changed.

- Failure to use random sampling techniques, nonuniform test procedures, and/or small sample sizes result in misleading information

regarding the overall accuracy of prices in retail stores. These factors combine to hide the economic impact of pricing errors on consumers and business (e.g., it would be misleading to conclude that a store with 40,000 items overcharges on 4,000 items if the statement was based on a 10 percent error found on a sample of only 10 sale priced items.)

- Accuracy tests conducted in jurisdictions that require item pricing indicate that errors in price accuracy range from 4 to 7 percent. This indicates that the former general practice of applying a price to every package, widely replaced by scanner technology, suffers from high or higher rates of error than the scanner technology. Based on its findings, the Working Group is especially concerned that consumer confidence in business and government will be damaged if positive action is not taken on a nationwide basis. Confidence in business is eroded by press reports of poor pricing

practices in what were thought to be reputable stores, and eroded in government when the public cannot take for granted that all State and local agencies are involved in working with retailers to ensure pricing accuracy.

Investigations conducted by State and local weights and measures officials, (though some are limited in scope and all are based

on a variety of test procedures) and reports published in magazines, other media and television, along with other studies, indicate

that the accuracy of retail prices should be a nationwide concern and the establishment of programs that ensure the accuracy of

prices in all retail stores should be a national priority.

II. Scope of Work

The Working Group identified the following issues to be addressed:

1. Ensure Equal Coverage of all Types of Retail Stores. - All types of retail stores, including grocery, hardware, general merchandise, drug, automotive supply, convenience, and club stores, should be routinely inspected for price accuracy.

2. Uniformity.- Nationally recognized test procedures should be developed and used in all jurisdictions. All jurisdictions should

be urged, and industry asked, to support adoption of standards to ensure that inspections are conducted uniformly across the country.

Tliese test procedures should include:

265
Laws and Regulations Committee

• Procedures for determining and selecting samples (number of items checked). Procedures should allow inspectors to use manual

techniques or hand-held scanning devices to conduct inspections.

• "Randomized" sampling to reduce inspection time and ensure unbiased results.

• Guidelines to identify groups of merchandise to be checked, including sale, non-sale, advertised specials, cents-off, direct deliver}-, bulk, price look up and end-aisle displays.

3. Prioritize Development of Procedures. - A basic procedure appropriate for retail food stores should be developed and modified

to fit the pricing and merchandising practices of other retail stores. The following priorities were established:

1. Food Stores

2. General Merchandise Department Stores

3. Drug and Convenience Stores

4. Hardware & Automotive Supply Stores

5. Other Retail Stores

4. Inspection Reports.- Model inspection reports should be developed for use to promote the collection of uniform, consistent

data.

5. Compliance Criteria.- Define "error," "violation," and other terms specific to this t>pe of inspection and recommend accuracy

requirements.

6. Frequency of Inspection/Reinspection.- Determine guidelines for conducting follow-up inspections and for conducting surveys

to identify problem stores.

7. Model Legislation.- Amendments to the Uniform Weights and Measures Law may be needed to ensure that retail price

verification is conducted according to uniform standards and procedures.

8. "Good Pricing Practices". - Industn. should be encouraged to develop and follow "good pricing practices," such as maintenance of data integrity, update of price changes in a timely manner, cross-checks, and communication.

"Price Verification" versus "Scanner Accuracy": The Working Group does not believe that there is a problem with scanning

devices or computers. The Working Group agreed to term this t\-pe of inspection "price verification" to make it clear that it is not

solely a "scanner"-related issue.

III. Uniform Law for Price Accuracy

Comments received on the first and second drafts of the "Examination Procedure for Price Verification" (First Draft), indicate that the current wording in Section 16. Misrepresentation of Pricing is effective and has been used in numerous legal actions with no

reported problems. Therefore, no changes are recommended. Jurisdictions considering legislation in this area may wish to adopt

Section 16, presented below.

Section 16. Misrepresentation of Pricing No person shall misrepresent the price of any commodity or ser\ice sold, offered, exposed, or advertised for sale by

weight, measure, or count, nor represent the price in any manner calculated or tending to mislead or in any way

deceive a person.

Inspection Authority Comments on the First Draft received from several jurisdictions expressed concern that the scope and requirements of their laws would not permit them to conduct a price verification inspection on any product sold by other than weight or measure. Another

266
Laws and Regulations Committee

concern was lack of authorin to conduct inspections of prices if a store's point-of-sale system is not attached to a scale or measuring device. To address these concerns, the Working Group recommends amendments to the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to ensure

that weights and measures programs in State and local governments have the authority to conduct retail price verification inspection

in all types of stores on a routine basis according to uniform standards and procedures. This recommendation is based on similar requirements contained in the Weights and Measures Laws of the States of Virginia, Massachusetts, and California.

I. Proposed amendments to the Uniform Weights and Measures Law: Add a new requirement to Section 12 to give the State Director of Weights and Measures authority to adopt uniform test procedures

to verify advertised prices, test "point-of-sale" devices, and conduct inspections.

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director The Director shall:

(q) \ erify advertised prices, price representations, and point-of-sale systems, as deemed necessary, to (a) determine

the accuracy of prices and computations and the correct use of the equipment, and (b) if such system utilizes scanning or coding means in lieu of manual entr>, the accuracy of prices printed or recalled from a database. In carr>ing out the provisions of this section, the director shall (1) employ recognized procedures, such as are des- ignated in .National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 130, "Price Verification," (2) issue necessary

rules and regulations regarding the accuracy of advertised prices and automated systems for retail price charging

(referred to as "point-of-sale systems") for the enforcement of this section which shall have the force and effect of

law, and (3) conduct investigations to ensure compliance. Add the following definition to Section 1. Definitions. -

Point-of-sale system. - A point-of-sale system includes cash registers or devices and systems capable of recovering

stored information related to the price of individual retail items.

II. Penalties Comments received on the first and second drafts indicate that the penalties already contained in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law have proven effective in formal enforcement actions relating to price verification violations. A majority of the comments

strongly supported the use of civil penalties, consent agreements, or other administrative remedies to resolve violations. At least two jurisdictions report that they also recover the cost of investigations as part of consent agreements. Several people suggested

that consent agreements could be used to require a store to have full-store pricing audits conducted on a frequent basis (reports could be sent directly to the jurisdiction for review) for a period of time. This approach would save resources for jurisdictions and immediately improve price accuracy in the store. The Working Group recommends that jurisdictions that do not have authority to impose civil penalties under their current law adopt

Section 23. Civil Penalties in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law. The blank spaces are provided to allow jurisdictions who

adopt the section to set monetar>' values according to State or local requirements. Section 23 is presented below for information.

Section 23. Civil Penalties. - Any person who, by himself or herself, by his or her servant or agent, or as the servant or

agent of another person, commits any of the acts enumerated in § 22 may be subject to a civil penalty.

23. L Civil Action. — A civil action may be brought by the director in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover a

civil penalt> of: (a) not less than S nor more than S fcr a first violation, (b) not less than $ nor more than $

for a second violation within 2 years from the date of the first violation, and (c) not less than S nor more than $ for

a third violation within 2 years from the date of the first violation.

23.2. Administrative Hearing.- The director or his/her designee shall be authorized to conduct an administrative hearing

and, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, may assess a civil penalty of (a) not less than S nor more than $_

267
Laws and Regulations Committee

_ for a first violation, (b) not less than $ nor more than $ for a second violation within 2 years from the date of the

first violation, and (c) not less than $ nor more than $ for a third violation within 2 years from the date of the first violation upon the finding of a violation of any provision of this Act. The decision of the director shall be subject to appropriate judicial review. Any civil penalty collected under this Act shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the fund.

II. Other Comments

Few weights and measures officials, consumers, or industry representatives supported NCWM adoption of requirements (1) to establish voluntary requirements for shelf tags, (2) extend weights and measures supervision to include cash registers not attached

to weighing and measuring devices, (3) or require retailers to provide consumers with materials to mark or verify prices on their own initiative while they shop. The Working Group agreed that the focus of recommendations from the group should allow weights and measures programs and

retailers to focus their resources and efforts on ensuring that price representations agree with the prices charged at the checkout

counter. Therefore, the Working Group did not propose additional regulations in these areas. IV. Examination Procedure for Price Verification in Food Stores

1. Scope

This Examination Procedure outlines the steps for conducting price verification inspections in a wide variety of stores, including those that use Universal Product Code (U.P.C.) scanners and price-look-up code entries at the checkout counter as the primary means for pricing. A special test procedure is included for test purchases and for verifying manually keyed entries. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that consumers are charged the correct price for the items purchased.

This Examination Procedure for Price Verification provides weights and measures administrators with the tools, guidance, and background information, as well as uniform test procedures and enforcement practices, to enhance the economic well-being of consumers and retail businesses in the jurisdiction. By implementing these procedures in cooperation with industry, weights and

measures officials will help to restore and maintain consumer confidence in retail pricing practices and technologies, such as scanners, for the benefit of consumers and the business community alike. The control that good management maintains to avoid price misrepresentation is essential for ensuring its "store pricing integrity" -

- that is, ensuring that all prices advertised or marked in the store consistently match prices on file in the computer system or are keyed in accurately by register operators. This requires management to understand its legal obligations and make a full commitment to "price integrity." Management must also be willing to commit sufficient resources throughout the organization to meet these obligations. No general assumptions can be made about the accuracy of price in any type of retail store. Every store must be considered on

a case-by-case basis because the "accuracy" of prices in a store depends on the policies, practices and procedures implemented by

the personnel and management at each location. The evaluation of the "accuracy" of prices must be based on the verification of all pricing methods used in the store, not just the accuracy of "scanner" prices. Stores that use "scanners" may also use price-look-up codes and manually entered prices to charge

^or items. These procedures provide sampling procedures and compliance criteria that are suitable for use in a wide variety of food

scores (procedures for other types of stores will be based on this outline) and utilizes a combination of "randomized" and/or

"stratified" sampling to reduce bias in the selection process while ensuring that specific groups of items are included in the inspection sample. This approach will ensure that the test results provide an overall picture of a store's pricing practices. As stated above, price accuracy is dependent on the control and procedures followed in each individual store. Therefore, routine inspections are necessary to ensure that control of price accuracy is maintained. As with other weights and measures inspection

activities, enforcement agencies should build a history of compliance for each store based on the inspection results and an evaluation of management commitment to compliance and control as shown by the level of supervision and training provided for employees.

268
Laws and Regulations Committee

The enforcement procedures recommended for price verification follow the historic weights and measures approach of working

with regulated firms to achieve voluntary compliance through an "inform, warn, action" process to enforcement actions. This approach has proven effective in gaining high levels of compliance with other laws relating to accuracy in commercial

measurements.

2. Test Notes

Safety and Health - You must follow safe work practices when conducting inspections to avoid personal injuries or property damage. Be aware of and follow safety or health rules in effect at the inspection site and be especially sensitive to the safety and

health of consumers encountered during the inspection process. Special care should be taken when handling perishable or frozen foods (to avoid defrosting frozen products or allowing dairy products to warm to room temperature) and when working in food

areas such as the deli, meat room, or bakery.

Confldentiality of Findings - Avoid making statements concerning the results of price verification tests to consumers or unauthorized employees of the store. This is important because liability for your jurisdiction might result if the reputation of the

store is harmed by improperly released information. Inspection findings are confidential and are not final until the results are confirmed and discussed with the store's manager or other representative. Any request from the public for the results of the inspection should be referred to your supervisor.

3. Materials and Equipment

The following equipment is recommended for use in conducting the inspections described in this outline:

• Calculator . '

'•

• Inspection Report

• Copy of laws and regulations governing the inspection '

• Hand-held counter or Price Verification Tally Sheets (used to tally the number of items sampled)

• Post-It Notes'" (100 count pad), [38 mm x 50 mm (1.5 x 2 in)] for marking items with price and aisle location for easy

restocking or in following up on errors that may be found

• 1 lb (or 1 kg) test standard

• merchandise cart (if required) Other equipment and materials provided by the store when available:

• Current newspaper advertisement or store sales brochures

• Hand-held scanning device(s) for verifying price accuracy. TTiese include portable scanning devices that either store the item information for later comparison with the store's point-of-sale database; are loaded with the prices stored in the point-of-sale data base for quick retrieval, or devices in direct FM radio contact with the point-of-sale database. These units display the price and

other product information immediately. Stores are not required to have this type of equipment or to make it available for your

use. However, many stores use this type of equipment to help them maintain price integrity and many have indicated that they

will voluntarily make it available for use in price verification testing. Studies indicate that stores that use this type of equipment

have lower error rates. Comments received from weights and measures officials expressed concern about using this type of equipment. Most of these concerns can be eliminated through exposure to and use of a hand-held scanning unit. With just a few minutes of instruction and

explanation you will find the equipment accurate, reliable, and very useful. Several jurisdictions already use this equipment and

consider it an essential tool to enhance both the accuracy and speed of the verification process. The Working Group will make

a concerted effort to provide technical information on this equipment at both State and Regional Weights and Measures Association

meetings. If you are using a hand-held scanning device and find an error, you can take the item in question to a register and have

it scanned to confirm the error so that there is no question that the item would have been incorrect at the time of purchase by a consumer. (Notes: prices on more than 200 items can be verified in less than 1.5 hours with these devices. Equipment suitable

for one store cannot be easily used in another, so jurisdictions cannot purchase equipment for use in all inspections.)

269
Laws and Regulations Committee

As more and more jurisdictions have tried out the draft procedures they have commented that stores are offering to let inspectors use the hand-held scanning devices with either sampling plan to reduce inspection time. The use of the hand-held devices in the inspection is encouraged as more and more stores are turning to these devices to help them maintain price integrity.

4. DeHnitions

"Cents-Off' Representation. - Any printed matter consisting of the words "cents-off or words of similar import (e.g., 15% off, bonus offers, 2 for 1 or 1 cent sales, etc.) placed upon any consumer package or placed upon any label affixed or adjacent to such

package, stating or representing by implication that it is being offered for sale at a price lower than the ordinary and customary

retail selling price.

Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) Item. - An item delivered to the store, and usually priced, by route salespeople (e.g., milk, beer or

soft drinks, bread, snack foods such as potato chips).

Displays.-

Aisle Stacks or End-of-AisIe Displays. - Displays located in fi-eestanding units or attached at the end of or adjacent to a

tier of shelves.

Tie-in Displays. - Displays of complimentary products at locations in a store.

Multiple Displays. - Displays of the same product at several locations in a store. Enforcement Actions. - Lower levels of enforcement actions. - Include increased frequency of tests, stop-sale or correction orders issued by

inspectors, administrative hearings, warning letters and other notifications of noncompliance. Higher levels of enforcement actions. - Include the issuance of citations, imposing civil or administrative penalties, and

criminal prosecution under misdemeanor or felony statutes.

Inspection Frequency. - Normal Inspection Frequency. - An inspection that is made at the usual or customary time interval used by an enforcement agency. Inspections can be conducted during the normal business hours of the store. Stores under this fi-equency should be inspected for price accuracy on a semi-annual or annual basis.

Increased Inspection Frequency. - Inspections made more often than the usual or customary time interval, usually as a follow-up to a prior history of problems. Inspections can be conducted during the normal business hours of the store. Stores under this fi-equency should be inspected for price accuracy on a quarterly, bi-monthly, or more fi-equent basis. Term of Increased Inspection Frequency. - When a store has been placed on an increased inspection fi-equency, it shall remain at that fi-equency until such time as there are two consecutive inspections with errors at Level One (e.g., 98% or higher accuracy) not including the two follow-up inspections conducted according to the following recommendations.

Special Inspection. - An inspection that is made as a follow-up to a prior inspection, to investigate a complaint, or to respond to a serious level of inaccuracy.

Note: After a price verification program has been in place for a period of time and a database is established, procedures can be developed to randomly select stores for inspection and target inspections on areas of low levels of compliance to increase the effectiveness of the program.

Inspection Lot. - The group of items available for testing. (In some stores this can range fi-om 10,000 to 70,000 items.) Not-on-File Item. - Items scanned or keyed at a cash register and not found in the database. Items not-on-file are not errors.

270
Laws and Regulations Committee

,1

I Notification of Noncompliance. - A written notice given to a store describing the violations of the law that were found to exist. The notice can include information on the action that you intend to take or specific corrective action that is required to be implemented and may include deadlines for compliance. This information should also be sent to the firm's president or chief

j executive officer.

Price Look-Up Code (PLU). - A pricing system where numbers are assigned to items or commodities and the price is stored in computer memory for recall when the numbers are manually entered by a clerk. PLU codes are used with scales, electronic cash

registers, and point-of-sale systems. PLU codes vary from business to business and may not be consistent for the same product.

Stores that use point-of-sale scanners may use manually entered prices or PLU codes in 15 percent or more of their transactions.

' Store-Coded Iterti. - The application of U.P.C. codes to items in the store. Scales in the meat, deli and other departments generate

j U.P.C. labels that include product identity and price information that is read by point-of-sale scanners.

'i Prices. - These definitions apply to this procedure only and do not affect the provisions of any other procedure. Misrepresented Price. - A price is misrepresented when the price charged is different than the price at which the item is offered, exposed, or advertised for sale, or different than the price on the item, shelf label or sign.

Price Charged. - The price charged for an item and either displayed on the automated device or on the receipt issued by

the device, whether the item is scanned and voided, actually purchased, or the device is computing or recording while in a training or inspection mode.

Overcharge. - An overcharge exists when the price charged for an item is more than the lowest advertised, quoted, posted, or marked price. Undercharge. - An undercharge exists when the price charged for an item is less than the lowest advertised, quoted, posted, or marked price.

Intentional Undercharge. - An undercharge that occurs when store lowers the price in the database in anticipation of

selling the item at the reduced cost. Undercharges found within 24 hours of the price change are not counted as errors. This procedure is used by some stores to avoid overcharging consumers while shelf or item price tags are changed.

Pricing Coordinator. - The individual designated by the store to control and maintain "pricing integrity" in the store (also called

a "scanner coordinator").

Pricing Integrity. - Ensuring that the computer price file and/or the price charged to consumers at a cash register is the same price

that is marked on the product, in an advertisement, and/or the shelf tag. Merchandise Group. - A group of products identified under a common heading for inspection purposes only (e.g., "advertised

sale" items, "end-of-aisle" items, "direct delivery" items, or "cents-off items).

Sample. - The group of items selected for testing purposes from the inspection lot.

Scanner. - An electronic system that employs a laser bar code reader to retrieve product identity, price and other information stored

in computer memory. Scanner technology provides an accuracy of 99.9 percent or better. Stock-Keeping Unit (SKU). - A system of product identity and pricing similar to PLUs.

Stop-Sate Order. - An official document placing off-sale a package or amount of any commodity which is offered or exposed for

sale in violation of the law.

Universal Product Code (U.P.C). - Generally defined as a unique symbol that consists of a machine readable code (vertical bars of varying thickness) and human-readable numbers. U.P.C.s are incorporated into package graphics or are applied with tags or

labels. The U.P.C. symbol typically found on items in stores is a 12-digit identification of the individual product.

271
Laws and Regulations Committee

Structure of the Universal Product Code Number

0 "1 2345"67890'" 5

Number

System

Character

Manufacturer

Identification Number

1 678901

The UPC Number

Yi

Item Number

I

Check

Character

The 12-digit number is divided into three parts. The first is a six-digit Manufacturer Identification Number that is assigned by the Uniform Code Council (UCC). This is followed by a 5-digit product item number assigned by the manufacturer or seller to identify a specific product and package size. Each of the 5-digit codes is a non-repetitive number unique to the product it identifies. The

final digit is a check digit that is used by the computer system to check the accuracy of the entire U.P.C. number whether entered by an operator or read by a scanning device. U.P.C. codes can also be generated for random weight packages by price computing

scales. U.P.C. symbols must meet the standards established by the UCC in order for them to "scan" accurately. The size and

clarity of the print and clear area surrounding the symbol are a few of the factors that affect accuracy. The UCC is administered by a board of governors, which consists of representatives from various industries including food retailing, distribution, and manufacturing. The UCC issues codes and answers technical and other related questions. For more information

contact the Uniform Code Council, Inc., 8163 Old Yankee Road, Suite J, Dayton, Ohio 45458. Telephone: 513-435-3870.

5. Pre-Inspection Tasks

Prior to conducting an inspection it is recommended that you contact the store management, identify yourself, state your affiliation, and explain the purpose of your visit. Offer to explain how the test will be conducted, how errors are calculated, and how the

results will be evaluated. Determine if there are any special health or safety rules that should be followed. If requested, provide

the manager with information on the laws authorizing the inspection activity and the name, address and telephone number of your

supervisor in case questions arise concerning your visit or findings that you provide in your report.

• Invite the store manager, pricing coordinator, or other representative to participate in the inspection if they are available.

• Determine if the store has a hand-held scanning device available for use in the inspection. If one is available, request instruction on how to operate it properly. In some stores the "pricing coordinator" may offer to operate the scanning device and participate

in the inspection, which is acceptable.

• If a manual inspection procedure is being followed, advise the manager that you will restock the merchandise selected for testing. Some stores managers want their own personnel to reshelve the items, which is acceptable. Determine which cash register should

272
Laws and Regulations Committee

, be used to conduct the inspection. Arrange to have the register set up so that the items will not be included in sales records and

avoid access to cash drawers.

• Inspection activities should be conducted in a manner that does not disrupt the normal activities of the business or interfere with

i consumers who are shopping or checking out.

• If you intend to conduct a manual test, determine if the store allows direct-store-delivery (DSD) items to be priced by a delivery person. Identify the types of items priced in this manner so that they can be included in the sample.

6. Inspection

In addition to conducting a price verification test, you should perform the following inspections:

• Determine if customer displays on point-of-sale systems conform to NIST Handbook 44, General Code, User Requirement, 3.3 Position of Equipment. - "A device equipped with a primary indication element and used in direct sales shall be so positioned that

its indications may be accurately read and the weighing and measuring operation may be observed from some 'reasonable' customer

position." NIST Handbook 44 defines "point-of-sale system" as "an assembly of elements including a weighing element, indicating element, and a recording element, (and may be equipped with a 'scanner') used to complete a direct sale transaction." At locations using scanners, the importance of consumer access to the cash register display of product information and price cannot

be overstated. If consumers cannot verify prices as the items are being scanned, they must wait until the transaction is completed

(e.g., they must pay by cash or check) before they receive the receipt so they can confirm the prices charged for the items.

• Verify the accuracy of information provided on cash register receipts.

• Shelf Labels (optional inspection based on local requirements) - Conduct this inspection if your jurisdiction has specific laws or

regulations relating to shelf labels, unit pricing, or other pricing requirements.

7. Test Procedures

Application: These procedures may be used to conduct inspections of a store whether the store uses scanners, automated price look- up registers, or where a clerk manually enters the prices.

Notes on Sampling Plans

• For Normal or Increased Inspection Frequency Inspections - Follow the test procedures described in Part I, II, or III.

• For Special Inspections - Follow the test procedures described in Part 1 or II, or use the procedures in Part III "Procedure for Conducting Test Purchases and for Verifying Manually Entered Prices," and include the individual items identified as a result of

a consumer complaint or as a follow-up to specific errors found on previous inspections.

Stratified Sampling by Merchandise Group (e.g., selecting samples of items on sale, "cents-off specials, manager specials, or end-of-aisle items): This method is used in connection with the sampling plans described below, but it is not the sole basis

for sample collection because (1) a specific list of predetermined items does not look at the store as a whole. Experience shows

that price errors can occur on any item in a store. Errors occur on regular and sale items, but no particular merchandise groups

of items are consistently found in error. (2) Focusing on specific items consumes excessive time to search the store unless you

are investigating a complaint or following up on a prior history of noncompliance. (3) It is difficult to create a list of groups that would be found in all stores or is easily identifiable. (4) It is possible after successive visits for store personnel to know ahead of

time that you will only focus on specific groups.

273
Laws and Regulations Committee

"Randomized" Sampling A "randomized" approach is used because all items from the inspection lot in the store have an equal chance of being included in the sample. This approach is recommended because it (1) reduces bias and saves time since you do not have to decide which items

to select; (2) you are guided to select items both horizontally and vertically along the shelves to avoid the common practice of

selecting items only at eye-level; (3) it is more representative because the sample items more closely reflect the population; and

(4) it is simple to use.

Field experience shows that the "randomized" sampling procedures described below provide good results. The sample will include

a wide variety of items, including those with regular and reduced prices and others identified as being susceptible to frequent

inaccuracies in some circumstances. The term "randomized" is used since the procedures are not truly random. A purely random

approach would be too time consuming and impractical for everyday use. Samples of certain merchandise groups are collected in the first stage of the two-stage manual sampling plan described in Part II because the intent of this plan is to be sure to focus on merchandise groups that have been identified as potential areas for errors. Most inspectors will prefer to utilize the "randomized" sampling techniques in Part 1 as a simple way to conduct a thorough

inspection of a wide range of merchandise groups. Sample Size

Three factors were considered in determining sample size - the inspection lot size (number of items for sale in a food store), degree of accuracy required, and time constraints. Different sample sizes are used depending on whether manual procedures are followed

or whether a hand-held scanning device is available for your use in the inspection.

Part I. Single-Stage (Automated) Test Procedure

This method involves the use of a hand-held scanning device that may display the price, identity, and other information on the product, permitting immediate verification of the price.

This test procedure has several benefits including: (1) It is more effective in its coverage and is simpler to do because you select items by count following a systematic pattern throughout the store. (2) The larger sample size ensures that a wider range of items

are tested, which provides increased scrutiny, hence confidence in the results is improved. (3) The results can be evaluated for accuracy as well as providing sufficient information for computing the ratio of overcharges to undercharges. Sample Size: A sample size of at least 200 items is used. A larger sample size is recommended if time and resources permit.

Test Procedure - No test procedure will work perfectly in every retail store arrangement. You must modify the plan to fit the differences unique to each store while following the minimum sample size and randomized selection procedures in this outline. Typically, with a sample size of 200 items, 4 or 6 items from each side of every aisle will be selected. Since store sizes differ, this number will vary,but samples will be taken from a wide variety of items (and merchandise groups) from locations throughout

the store. Experience shows that the sample will include regular and sale priced items, manager specials, direct delivery, and endof-aisle items due to the sheer size of the sample.

Note: See Detailed Illustration of the Randomized Sampling Procedure on Page 277. The specific steps of the randomized sampling procedure are:

1 . Count the number of aisles and stand-alone displays in the store which carry products that are to be tested:

• Stand-alone counters and displays or whole departments (e.g., bakery or seafood, etc.) are grouped together and counted

as an "aisle" to be sampled.

• Ends of aisles are considered as a single, separate "aisle" and tested separately (see item 8).

274
Laws and Regulations Committee

2. The number of groups (e.g., 31) is divided into the sample size (200 items) to determine the number of items to be sampled

from each side of each aisle (e.g., 7 items).

3. Start in any convenient location in the store on the top shelf of either side of a randomly selected aisle. Begin with the first item starting from the front or back of the store, count 15 items horizontally along the top shelf The 15th item is the first item

selected. Only select one item from each brand or product (if they are the same size and price) from a display that has two or more

packages of the same product, size and price sitting side by side.

4. Check the price with the hand-held scanner and count the item using a hand counter or tally sheet. If the item is incorrect, record the name, description, and price of the product along with any other information (e.g., the product is on sale, location for easy relocation to verify the error, etc.). If the device uses a "batching" file, sample the items and have the store's price coordinator download the files to the computer and obtain a printout of the discrepancies for follow-up. Some jurisdictions require inspectors

to document that items will be mispriced at the checkout. If you want to confirm and document that the error will occur at the checkout, take the item to a register and have it scaimed and obtain a receipt.

5. From the first item sampled, drop down one shelf to the item most directly below and count 15 items in the same direction and

sample that item. After the number of items to be selected for each aisle are selected, go to the next aisle and start on the next

shelf either down or up from where the previous sample was selected and count 15 items and sample the 15th item until the required number of samples is selected. If you have sampled an item on the bottom shelf and have more items to test on the aisle, simply go back up one shelf This will create a "zigzag" trail up and down the side of the aisle.

Note: Randomness can be increased by starting on different shelves or at the midpoint, or rear of an aisle during an inspection, or by starting at different locations in a store on subsequent inspections. Always start at a different location on subsequent

inspections of a store.

6. This procedure is repeated for all aisles, end-of-aisle, or stand-alones or displays. -

7. When these areas are completed, PLUs and store-coded items are sampled. Be sure to include items on display outside the store

if they are available (e.g., bark mulch and gardening items).

Note: To maintain "randomness" do not searchfor obvious pricing errors. IJ you do see pricing errors, have them corrected. The sample should not include more than one of the same item from the same display. If a sample item is out of stock, the next item

is picked. Be sure to include at least 5-10 Price Look Up (PLU) and store-coded Items in the 200-item sample. Usually, these items do not have to be removed from the produce, bulk foods section, or deli display for use in this procedure. You can use the hand-held

scanner or record the identity and item price designated at the product sales display of the items from the different department

(produce, bakery, deli), if available, for price comparison through either the PLU programmed in the department scale or at the

point-of-sale system. Have the PLU entered in the scale '> or point-of-sale system (or have "store-coded" items scanned) and record the price and compare it with the sale displayed price. Record any errors ^\ When checking "store-coded" items from the meat or other departments, remember that a "U.P.C. symbol" on a random weight label is read by a scanner to obtain

the total price and identity. The price is not stored in the point-of-sale database.

Note I: Some scales or point-of-sale systems do not display or record the unit price associated with the PLU unless a weight is on the scale. For these types of devices a one pound standard is placed on the scale load receiving element. Some systems

automatically deduct tare so check to make sure that this does not affect the price indication.

Note 2: When errors are found during a PLU check, the manual entry must be verified to assure that the error was not caused

by a keying mistake.

Detailed Illustration of the Randomized Sampling Procedure

The following figures illustrate how the randomized sampling procedures could be implemented in a food store. The example is based on a sample size of 200 items in a store that has a total of 3 1 areas or ("aisles") from which samples are to be taken. The

275
Laws and Regulations Committee

procedure provides general instructions that allow the flexibility needed to adjust the sample to fit the store layout. To simplify

the selection process, areas of the store and stand-alone displays can be grouped together as an "aisle" to be sampled. The following breakdown of "aisles" is illustrated in figure 1.

Total "aisles" - 3 1 . ,

1 - All of the shelves and displays in the produce section are grouped as a single "aisle." 28 - The 13 aisles (26 rows of shelves), the counters along the back of the store and the deli/bakery and cash register area are counted as "aisles."

1 - The "end-of-aisle" displays at the front and back of the store are grouped as a single "aisle."

1 - The "stand-alone" displays and "promotion" counters in the center of the meat and dairy department aisles are grouped for sampling as a single "aisle."

Divide 200 by 3 1 to determine how many "samples" to take from each "aisle" or "group."

200/3 1 = 6.45 which is rounded up so that 7 items are taken from each "aisle." Sample Selection from the Aisles

Figure 2 illustrates how the items are taken from an aisle with 6 shelves of products. The use of a specific "count," such as "selecting the 15th item," simplifies the sample selection process. The example shows the process starting on the top shelf left-hand comer, but the procedure can be further "randomized" by varying the starting point to other shelves, and to other points in the aisle, and to other counts (such as every 20th item). The "zigzag" pattern which results increases the randomness of the sample and helps ensure that the prices on a wide variety of merchandise groups are verified.

276
Laws and Regulations Committee

Figure 1. Illustration of the Randomized Sampling Procedure.

277
Laws and Regulations Committee

Figure 2. Sample Selection from the Aisles. Evaluation of Results on 200-item sample:

See Section 9 for guidance on wliicli errors are considered violations and refer to the accuracy and enforcement guidelines

in Section 1 1

.

Part II. Two-Stage (Manual) Test Procedure

Inspection Procedure: Select the packages and either (1) take them to a checkout terminal for scanning, (or use a handheld scanner), or (2) record the product identity, U.P.C. number, and shelf price for each package on an inspection report and then manually enter the U.P.C. numbers in a register.

Note: Thefollowing sampling procedures have been evaluated in field applications andprovide good results. With only

briefpractice an inspection following either of the procedures can be completed in less than 1-1/2 hours. Sample Size: This test procedure is a two-stage sampling plan (50 initial items/100 total items) that begins with an initial sample of 50 items.

Test Procedure: Select at least 50 items using the prescribed sampling procedures. Record a brief identification of the

item, its price and aisle location on a post-it note and affix it to the item, or record the same information on an inspection

report (e.g., a brief item description, shelf or advertised price [unless an item price label is affixed], and aisle location). The aisle location makes it easy to locate the product if errors are found and in returning the items to the shelf after the inspection is complete. As the items are selected, use the "Price Verification Tally Sheet" to keep track of the number

of items you have collected. (See Appendix A - Model Forms. The "Model Price Verification Report" included in this draft was prepared with the idea that you will only record information on the items found with price errors, not all of the items tested. This approach reduces paperwork and saves time.) To continue the inspection, take the items to a register (or use a hand-held scanner), verify the prices by either scanning

the items or entering a PLU code into the register and printing a tape receipt. The prices "charged" at the register are then compared to the advertised price of each item. An alternative test procedure for large or perishable items is to record the

identity, U.P.C. Code, location, and price and manually enter them into the register to verify the price. However, this method is subject to recording and key entry errors.

278
Laws and Regulations Committee

Accuracy Requirement One error is permitted on a 50-item sample. If only one error is found and verified, the inspection is complete at this point. If more than one error is found and verified, 50 additional items are collected using the randomized sampling

procedures and tested.

Two-stage sampling plans provide a time-effective means to quickly check the price accuracy of items offered for sale. While you are free to decide which aisle to start with, aisles which contain perishable items (e.g., frozen and dairy foods) should be sampled last if you take packages from coolers or freezers to a checkout counter so the products are not damaged by warming.

It is also acceptable to limit your sample collection to 25 items at a time to make it easier to keep track of the items, or sample from only 3 to 5 aisles in larger stores. This reduces the inspection lot size and inspection time. Much of the time

savings is achieved by reducing the amount of your time devoted to walking around the store collecting and returning packages.

First Stage Sample Selection ~ 50 items

Based on comments received on the First Draft, the Manual Test Procedure section has been modified to permit the use of either a "randomized" or a combined "randomized/stratified" sampling plan. Either of the sampling plans is appropriate

for initial or follow-up inspections. The combined plan, using the "randomized/stratified" approach may be preferred for use in initial inspections (e.g., the first time you inspect a store, in stores that have just implemented scanning, in stores

that have had high error rates on particular groups of items in past inspections, or in responding to consumer complaints

involving particular groups of items). Follow either of these methods for the First Stage:

• "Randomized Sampling Plan". — Obtain a "randomized" sample of 50 items. Use the "randomized" sampling

procedures described above and select 50 items. This method will most likely result in a sample that includes sale, direct store delivery, regular priced and other items. It is the speedier of the two-stage test methods because you do not have

to spend time looking for particular merchandise groups in different parts of the store; or

• "Stratified Sampling Plan". — Select 50 items from the merchandise groups. This procedure is most effective if used

during the initial inspection of a store. It allows you to focus attention on specific merchandise groups to determine if errors are occurring in any of the groups where errors are thought to occur more frequently (e.g., sale and direct delivery

items). If there is an insufficient number of items in any merchandise group, or if the group of items is not available, increase the number of "randomized" items selected to obtain a total 50 items. As marketing practices evolve these groups may change as well. You can substitute "other" or new merchandise groups for any of the ones listed below (e.g., you may have identified errors in the "health and beauty aids" section or on "manager specials" during a previous inspection

so samples from these groups could be substituted for any of the groups listed below.) You should select items from these merchandise groups as randomly as possible. A "Price Verification Tally Sheet" in Appendix A is provided for you to use with the test procedures to keep track of the number of items selected.

First Stage - 50 items. Use the "randomized" sampling procedures to select the following items. The "randomized"

sampling plan described in Part I simplifies the sampling process and ensures that the samples are collected from a wide

variety of locations in the store.

• 25 - "Regular Priced" items. Select 1 or 2 items at random from different shelves on each aisle or display case or limit your sampling to shelves in 2-3 aisles, and

• 25 - Items. Select a total of 25 items but include no more than 5 from any one of the following merchandise groups:

279
Laws and Regulations Committee

• "Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD)" items. If the store allows vendors to price DSD items, include those items in the sample.

• "End-of-Aisle" or "Tie-in-Display" items. This group can include both regular and sale price items.

• "Advertised Sale" items. Use the store's sales brochure, or newspaper advertisements to identify sale items. If you select "advertised" sale items, be sure to verify that the shelf or item price matches the price stated in the brochure or newspaper.

• "Special" items. This includes any item with a reduced price (e.g., items on "special" including "cents-off' or "percentage off items, 2-for-the-price-of-l specials, manager and in-store specials, or discontinued items.) Items

typically discounted on a percentage basis included a manufacturer's product line, greeting cards, magazines or books.

• "PLU" items. This includes both regular and sale priced items offered in the produce, bakery, or bulk food

departments and over scales at the direct sale counters. For direct service departments (e.g., produce, deli, specialty meats, etc.), select products at random (include some sale or special prices) and enter the code in the scale<^"^°" " to verify that the coded price matches the advertised price'^**

"^""^

• "Store-coded" items. This includes items offered in the produce, bakery, or meat departments that have labels with the U.P.C. symbol generated by scales and printers in the store. For store-coded items, scan the item and

determine if the total price and identity on the label are accurately read by the point-of-sale system. When

checking "store-coded" items from the meat or other departments, remember that a "U.P.C. symbol" on a random

weight label is read by a scanner to obtain the total price and identity. The price is not stored in the point-of-sale database.

• "Other" items. This category is included to provide flexibility in the selecting a sample so that "seasonal" items, or products unique to the store or local market, can be included. Both regular and sale priced items can be

included under this category.

J^ote 1: Some scales or point-of-sale systems do not display or record the unit price associated with the PLU unless a

weight is on the scale. For these devices a one pound standard is placed on the scale load receiving element. Some

systems automatically deduct tare, so check to make sure that this does not affect the price indication. Note 2: When errors are found during a PLU check, the manual entry must be verified to assure that the error was not caused by a keying mistake.

After the items are scanned or codes entered (e.g., by you or a clerk at a register), a comparison is made between the advertised price and the displayed or receipt price. Any price differences must be double checked to confirm that a

violation exists. Instead of checking the items against the displayed indications, it is faster to scan or key in the codes on all items and then compare the prices with the register tape. Evaluation of Results on 50 items:

See Section 9 for guidance on which errors are considered violations:

• One violation is permitted on a 50-item sample. If only one violation is found and verified, the inspection is complete. Second Stage

• If more than one violation is found and verified, collect 50 more items using the randomized sampling procedures and

tested for a total sample size of 100 items. If errors were found in any specific merchandise group (or groups) of items

(e.g., direct-store-delivery items, PLU Codes, or specials), the additional 50 items should include additional samples of

those merchandise groups. Do not include more than 5 items of that group or groups.

280
Laws and Regulations Committee

Evaluation of Results on 100-item sample

See Section 9 for guidance on which errors are violations and refer to the enforcement guidelines in Section 1 1

• 98 percent accuracy is required on the 100-item sample (two violations are permitted on a 100-item sample). If more

than two violations are found and verified, the store does not meet the accuracy guidelines in Section 11. Part III. Test Procedure for Conducting Test Purchases, Investigation of Consumer Complaints, and for Verifying Manually Entered Prices

This procedure may be used to (1) investigate consumer complaints, (2) determine if a store has corrected a pricing error

after being notified by a consumer or inspector that an error occurred, or (3) determine if clerks who enter prices manually

are making correct key entries.

Note: When verifying keyed price entries, store management is not typically notified of the test until the items have been

totaled and the transaction completed.

• Precautions should be taken to ensure that the clerk is not aware that the test purchase procedure is being

conducted. Do not raise questions concerning any errors that you observe and do not offer any information if asked the price of an item in cases where the item price is illegible or the item is not on file.

• Use the "randomized" sampling procedures to select a sample of 10-50 items that includes regular and sale priced items, PLU or SKU items, and advertised specials from various departments in the store. It is acceptable

to purchase only one or just a few items if you are responding to a complaint concerning a specific item. Typically, it is best to pick two items from each aisle and include several groups of items. Record the name and

identity of the product, as well as the labeled or advertised price, for each item.

• Proceed through a check-out as if you were a regular customer and pay for the purchases. Obtain the original

sales receipt, move to an out-of-the-way location and compare the price charged with the labeled or advertised

price for each item. Record the time of day, lane number, and identify the cashier. Before leaving the store, determine if any errors have occurred. Identify yourself to the store management and inform the representative

that a test purchase has been conducted and report the results. (In most cases the store will credit back all of the items and refund the test purchase money.) Record the information on the test report form and determine the cause of the error (e.g., was it operator error, mislabeling of the item, or incorrect price sign?). Return all items to the place where you collected them. Perishable goods should be returned as quickly as possible.

Alternative Procedure - Consumer Complaints Consumer complaints can also be investigated by using any of the test procedures described above or by only verifying

the price of the item or items listed in the complaint. If the complaint is valid, you can limit your inspection to just the items described in the complaint or conduct one of the full test procedures. Evaluation of Results: The errors for items tested using this test method should be evaluated according to sections 9 and 1 1

8. Documentation of Findings A Model Price Verification Report is contained in Appendix A. The form was developed so that you only have to record

the items found with price errors.

• Record all errors and provide information on the cause if determined. Indicate if the errors are considered violations,

if stop-sale orders were issued, or if the violation was corrected.

• Important comments should always be noted on the test form (e.g., warnings, violations ordered corrected).

281
Laws and Regulations Committee

• Document signage violations and take appropriate enforcement action.

• Cash register receipts of all items must be kept and attached to the inspection report as evidence.

• Printed advertisements and sales flyers must be kept and attached to the inspection report when errors are found in these

categories.

9. Evaluation of Results

Every error must be verified and, if possible, its cause determined so that you can judge whether the store is following good pricing practices. If good pricing practices are in place, the store will maintain "price integrity." The prices advertised in the store will not be reliable if pricing procedures appropriate for the operational practices of the store are not followed. An error found to result from of any of the following causes shall not be considered a violation for enforcement purposes:

• Any intentional undercharge that is found within 24 hours of the time that the price was reduced in the store's database if documentation or other confirmation of the date and time of the price change is provided to you at the time of the inspection.

• Any error caused by a nonstandard U.P.C. symbol if the store takes immediate action to eliminate the symbol

problem by defacing the symbol and pricing or relabeling the merchandise so that the correct price is charged. The store must notify the manufacturer of the U.P.C. of the error and advise the inspection agency in writing of

the action the manufacturer has taken to correct the symbol. This type of error is rarely encountered, but it has been known to occur. Typically the product will not scan at all or the scanner reads the code and provides price information for another product.

• Any error caused by a mistake made in an newspaper or printed brochure by a printing firm, or other media in an advertisement, if the store places a sign adjacent to the item indicating that a mistake occurred in the advertisement.

• Any error obviously caused by a price label that is missing or that has fallen off the shelf or item or has obviously been relocated by an unauthorized person.

Not-on-File Item. - Items scanned or keyed at a cash register and not found in the database. Items reported not-onfile are not errors.

It is recommended that you work with the store's pricing coordinator or representative to identify the cause of any error and make note of the problem/cause on the inspection report. This does not change the finding of the report but will help

to identify problems relating to staff errors, failure to follow through on established store pricing procedures, data entry

errors, or failure of management to provide correct written data, etc. Overcharge and undercharge errors found are considered in enforcement actions. The supporting information detailing the problem/cause will help with enforcement

decisions as well as in-house monitoring of the pricing of products.

10. Post-Inspection Tasks A meeting should be held with the store manager or authorized representative.

• If you removed items from display, ensure that items are returned to their proper location on the store shelves.

• Have the inspection report completed prior to the conference and be prepared to briefly summarize your findings and recommended actions.

• Explain any violations noted on the report and explain the nature of each error if any were found.

282
Laws and Regulations Committee

• Explain any notice of noncompliance issued and be sure the individual acknowledges that they understand what

corrective action is expected if any.

• If necessary, describe the implications of the accuracy level found during the inspection and advise the firm of the action

that you intend to take. If an increased inspection frequency is called for due to the accuracy level found during the

inspection, advise the firm that reinspections will be made, but do not indicate when they may occur.

• Provide a copy of your report to the representative.

• Return borrowed safety and health items or test equipment, if any was used to conduct the inspection.

11. Accuracy Requirements and Enforcement

• Errors should be corrected or (if the correction cannot be made immediately) stop sale orders issued before you leave

the business.

Note: Ifthe errors are not corrected in your presence, afollow-up inspection can be made later in the day or thefollowing day to determine if the store corrected the error. Ifa storefails to correct the error at that point, higher level enforcement

action should be taken.

• Enforcement action may be initiated at any time in the inspection process based on the facts of the individual case (e.g., consumer complaints are found to be valid, gross monetary overcharges of 50 percent or more of the advertised price of

an item, an accuracy rate of 95 percent or less on any inspection conducted in accordance with this Examination

Procedure, or the overcharge to undercharge ratio exceeds 3/1). Enforcement

• Lower levels of enforcement include increased inspection frequency, stop-sale or correction orders, or the holding of

administrative hearings conducted by the agency making the inspection.

• Higher levels of enforcement include warning letters, the imposition of civil or administrative penalties, referral of the case to the district attorney or attorney general for prosecution, or the issuance of a citation.

• Compliance is based on the accuracy found on a price verification examination conducted according to one of the procedures specified above. Accuracy: Laws require 100 percent accuracy in pricing. It is not the intent of the Working Group to set a "tolerance" on price accuracy. Nothing in this procedure should be construed or interpreted to prohibit any jurisdiction from enforcing

its laws. The "accuracy" guidelines contained in this procedure are based on the same logic that governs other weights and measures enforcement efforts. The "theory of tolerances" explained in the Fundamental Considerations of NIST

Handbook 44 provides a solid foundation for the approach taken in this procedure. The theory or principle, paraphrased

for use in price verification, would say that "price errors are minimized so that the permitted number of errors are

sufficiently small that there is no serious injury to either the buyer or seller, yet not so small as to make compliance or enforcement costs disproportionately high." Comments received on the first draft suggested accuracy requirements from 95 to 100 percent. The recommendations for 95 and 100 percent accuracy were not accepted because available information indicates that neither meets the "principle" mentioned above. Information is available to show that retail food stores can meet a 98+ percent accuracy requirement

using current technology and "pricing practices" commonly used in many food stores. This requirement also recognizes

that enforcement agencies have limited resources to conduct price verification inspections. Indeed, it is difficult to envision any jurisdiction devoting the amount of time it would require to achieve or maintain a 99 or 100 percent level of compliance in thousands of retail stores. Also, several jurisdictions indicated that they thought it would be very difficult to convince prosecutors to accept the volume of cases that would be generated, or a court system to undertake the caseload,

that would result if a "zero tolerance" approach to price verification is adopted.

283
Laws and Regulations Committee

It is apparent from information collected from jurisdictions and industry across the country that some stores with "best pricing practices" achieve levels of 99+ percent accuracy in the correct price. Unfortunately, these are exceptions and not

the rule at this time. At the second meeting new information was provided by a retail inventory firm that conducts "wall- to-wall" price verification inspections of food stores (100 percent of the items in the store are tested in 5-6 hours using

a crew of 6-8 people using hand-held scanning devices). The firm has conducted over 3,000 inspections involving more

than 50 million items. The results reported at the meeting indicated that only 1 of the 3,000 stores inspected had an accuracy of 99 percent (this store reported that they devoted 200+ hours of labor to price accuracy per week). Typically, other food store inaccuracies ranged from 8-12 percent on tests of 100 percent of the items though some with no price auditing programs had errors up to 25 percent. A compliance guideline that provides for some level of error (for example, not recommending enforcement action if the inspection revealed 98 percent accuracy) would not be a legal definition of compliance with the law. Rather, it is a

practical administrative guide to allow jurisdictions to focus attention on serious violations (e.g., the thousands of stores

that might have accuracies of 92 to 75 percent. This approach is realistic because it recognizes that 100 percent accuracy, though possible, may not be obtained at a reasonable cost to the store or government agency enforcing the law. Inform-Warn-Action. ~ Historically, weights and measures officials have effectively achieved voluntary compliance

with laws relating to accurate net contents through the "inform, warn, and action" process. This approach cannot be

codified because law enforcement agencies must have wide flexibility to effectively regulate the marketplace.

Experience shows that the inform-wam-action approach is also appropriate for use in price verification inspections. The

process begins with an initial inspection and includes an educational ftinction to ensure that stores understand the legal requirements and their responsibilities. The consequences of noncompliance are explained in addition to the procedures

that will be used to measure compliance. When violations are found, the second step is to conduct a follow-up inspection

to determine if compliance has been obtained voluntarily. If compliance is not obtained, further educational steps are taken or warnings are issued to repeat violators to make them aware that legal action could be taken if noncompliance

continues. The second step allows the official an opportunity to evaluate the action taken by the firm to correct violations, and provides the official the chance to resolve violations caused by ignorance of the law or poor communication. The

third step, a higher level of enforcement action, is taken if reinspection reveals a failure by the store to take steps that eliminate the violations. Accuracy Guidelines Compliance determinations based on a percentage of errors found in the items tested, the ratio of overcharges to undercharges, and the difference in inaccuracy rates found between "regular" and "sale" priced items are the most useful

criteria for consumers, business, and weights and measures officials to use in evaluating the "pricing integrity" of any

store. Overcharges and undercharges must be considered errors in taking lower level enforcement actions since (1) either type of error misrepresents the price of the item. (2) The occurrence of any error in a randomized sample may indicate poor pricing practices that would result in errors on other items sampled from the inspection lot. (3) The ratio of

overcharges to undercharges (e.g., on a sample of at least 200 items or the combined results from several inspections) may

indicate systematic problems with the store's pricing practices.

• Any level of enforcement action may be appropriate for overcharges (e.g., civil penalties may be imposed for overcharges).

• Enforcement action for monetary errors on individual items, errors on items tested in response to complaints, or errors found on follow-up inspection of items ordered corrected, should be taken independently from any sample, giving

consideration to the magnitude of the violation, corrective action by the establishment, and any other relevant information. Computing Sample Errors The following formulas are used to determine sample error and the overcharge to undercharge ratio:

1. Adjust the total sample by subtracting any items or errors specified in Section 9.

284
Laws and Regulations Committee

Sample Error

2. Divide the number of errors by the sample size to obtain the error in percent.

For example: a sample of 200 items is tested: 1 not-on-file item and 3 overcharges and 1 undercharae are foimd. 200 items - 1 not-on-file item = 199 items

Total errors = 4

4 errors h- 199 items = 2 percent sample error.

Ratio of Overcharges to Undercharges (used on large sample sizes and in follow-up activities)

3. Total the overcharges undercharges

3 overcharges 1 undercharge = 3 to 1 ratio Accuracy

For a store to "pass" a single inspection.

• the accurac\ of the sample must be 98 percent or higher; and

• on larger sample sizes (e.g.. 1000 packages) the number of overcharges and undercharges must not exceed a 1 1 ratio when at least 10 under- and overcharge errors are found in a large sample size (see Section 12. Follow-up Activities for guidance in applying this requirement to single inspections and in follow-up activities); or

• when manual test procedures are used, only one violation is found in the initial sample of 50 items. Enforcement levels:

1. Level One - If price accuracy is 98 percent or higher on a sample of 50 or more items (and the overcharge to undercharge ratio on large sample sizes does not exceed 11) and the store is on a normal inspection frequency:

• A notice of noncompliance is issued on any violations, and the store is kept on its normal inspection frequency.

• If the store is on increased inspection frequency, the store remains on this frequenc\ until its inspection results conform

to Terms of Increased Inspection Frequency.

2. Level Two - If price accuracy is less than 98 percent on a sample of at least 50 items (and the overcharge to undercharge ratio on large sample sizes does not exceed 11) and the store is on normal inspection frequency:

• A notice of noncompliance is issued, and the store is placed on an increased inspection frequency.

• A second inspection should be conducted within 25 business days. If the price accuracy does not meet Level One, a warning notice is issued.

• A third inspection should be conducted within 45 business days. If the price accuracy does not meet Level One. formal enforcement action is taken if the overcharges exceed 2 percent of the sample.

If the store is on increased inspection frequency, a warning notice should be issued and the store reinspected within 25

business days. If the price accuracy does not meet Level One, higher levels of enforcement action should be taken if overcharges exceed 2 percent.

285
Laws and Regulations Committee

Examples for the 100-item sample size:

a. If 100 items are tested and 3 overcharges are found in the sample, the error rate is 3 percent. In this example higher

levels of enforcement action would be taken.

b. If 100 items are tested and 3 overcharges and 2 undercharges are found, the error rate on the sample is 5 percent, but overcharges are 3 percent. In this example higher levels of enforcement action would be taken.

c. If 100 items are tested and 2 overcharges and 3 undercharges are found, the error rate is still 5 percent, but overcharges

are 2 percent of the sample. In this example higher levels of enforcement action would not be taken. Terms of Increased Inspection Frequency - When a store has been placed on an increased inspection frequency, it shall remain at that frequency until such time as there are two consecutive inspections with errors at Level One (e.g., 98 percent

or higher accuracy.) Higher Levels of Enforcement Action

Overcharges and undercharges are used to determine lower levels of enforcement actions, but higher levels of enforcement

action (e.g., fines or penalties) are taken only on the overcharges found in the sample (e.g., when the overcharges exceed

2 percent on the sample). A store's history of total error rates, the difference in inaccuracy rates found between "regular" and "sale" priced items, and the ratio of overcharges to undercharges are used as evidence of poor pricing practices to support formal action.

Examples:

a. If 200 items are tested and 5 overcharges are found in the sample, the error rate is 2.5 percent. In this example higher

levels of enforcement action would be taken.

b. If 200 items are tested and 5 overcharges and 3 undercharges are found, the error rate on the sample is 4 percent, but overcharges are 2.5 percent. In this example higher levels of enforcement action would be taken.

c. If 200 items are tested and 2 overcharges and 6 undercharges are found, the error rate is still 4 percent, but overcharges

are 1 percent of the sample. In this example higher levels of enforcement action would not be taken.

286
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table of Price Errors - This table shows the percentage of errors in different sample sizes:

Price Errors and Percentage Sample Size 10 30 50 100 150 200 250 300

1 10% 3% 2% 1% 0.67% 0.50% 0.40% 0.33%

2 20% 6% 4% 2% 1.33% 1.00% 0.80% 0.67%

3 30% 10% 6% 3% 2.00% 1.50% 1.20% 1.00%

4 40% 13% 8% 4% 2.67% 2.00% 1.60% 1.33%

5 50% 16% 10% 5% 3.33% 2.50% 2.00% 1.67%

6 60% 20% 12% 6% 4.00% 3.00% 2.40% 2.00%

7 70% 23% 14% 7% 4.67% 3.50% 2.80% 2.33%

8 80% 26% 16% 8% 5.33% 4.00% 3.20% 2.67%

9 90% 30% 18% 9% 6.00% 4.50% 3.60% 3.00%

10 100% 33% 20% 10% 6.67% 5.00% 4.00% 3.33%

11 36% 22% 11% 7.33% 5.50% 4.40% 3.67%

12 40% 24% 12% 8.00% 6.00% 4.80% 4.00%

13 43% 26% 13% 8.67% 6.50% 5.20% 4.33%

14 46% 28% 14% 9.33% 7.00% 5.60% 4.67%

15 50% 30% 15% 10.00% 7.50% 6.00% 5.00%

12. Follow-up Activities

Effective price verification programs require top management support and involvement so that early definition of the program's objectives and desired benefits can be identified and incorporated into the enforcement agency's work plans and budget. Measurement of pre- and post-implementation performance must be used to calculate whether the scope and

implementation of the program is adequate and whether payback has been achieved. Price verification inspections that reveal errors must be the subject of follow-up action to ensure that the management of the store fiilfills it obligations to ensure accurate prices. Failure to follow up on documented violations wastes the investment of valuable inspection resources and does not provide the public with good service or protection. To ensure adequate control and follow-up, a database should be established in each jurisdiction that provides information on every store including:

• Date of inspections

• Accuracy level and sample size used in the inspection

• Error rates for "regular" and "sale or specially priced" items (if maintained)

• Ratio of overcharges to undercharges. - As the history of store compliance develops, the number of overcharges and

undercharges can be evaluated to determine if systematic errors or other problems exist. A 1/1 ratio should be maintained when at least 10 errors are found over several inspections or in a single large sample size (e.g., the results of several 100-

or 200-item inspections collected over a period of time or 1000 packages in a single lot).

287
Laws and Regulations Committee

The ratio of 1 overcharge to 1 undercharge criterion is an indicator of the store's pricing practices. A store with good

pricing control may be expected to make random errors in pricing. The ratio will rarely be exactly 1/1 (e.g., in 10 errors, 5 overcharges and 5 undercharges), but would likely vary slightly either way over several inspections. The randomized

sampling procedures and larger sample sizes contained in this outline will allow weights and measures officials to evaluate

the results of the inspections with more confidence. If a store has a high ratio of overcharges to undercharges (e.g., 2/1,

3/1), it will serve as a strong indicator that the store is not following good pricing practices, but enough errors must be

present in order to make this determination. (Consider the example of 12 pricing errors consisting of 8 overcharges and

4 undercharges: the ratio of overcharges to undercharges is 2 to 1. Similarly, 10 pricing errors consisting of 6 overcharges and 4 undercharges corresponds to a ratio of 1 .5 to 1 ; since all decimal values are truncated to whole numbers,

1 .5 is truncated to 1 , and the ratio becomes 1 to 1 .) The 1/1 ratio criteria should be applied to any sample size if at least 10 errors are present. For example, if 1000 packages

are tested and 10 packages are found in error, the sample has an accuracy of 99 percent. However, if 9 of the 10 errors are overcharges (i.e., a ratio of 9/1), the store should be considered to have poor pricing practices or other problems; if 100 packages are tested and a 90 percent accuracy is found, 10 items in error not meeting the 1/1 ratio can be used as evidence of poor pricing practices in compliance action.

13. Appendices

• Appendix A - Model Forms

1 . Sample Tally Sheet; this form is used to keep track of the number of samples tested.

2. Model Inspection Form: this form is used to document violations and record findings. A completed sample is provided.

288
Appendix A. Model Forms - Price Verification Tally Sheet

le" lay" 1. Aisle Location

1. Identity

1. Sh

1. 1

of

Ais or In

Disp 2. 2. 2. 2.

3. 3. 3. 3.

"End "Tie 1

4. 4. 4. 4.

5. 5. 5. 5.

6. 6. 6. 6.

u. i

o B 7. 7. 7. 7. 7 8. 8. 8. 8. ^ -§o 9. 9. 9. 9. (J

10. 10. 10. 10.

11. 11. 11. 11.

12. 12. 12. 12.

tern 13. 13. 13. 13.

14. 14. 14. 14. «

15. 15. 15. 15.

ised 16. 16. 16. 16.

Adverti 17. 17 17. 17.

18. 18 18. 18.

19. 19 19. 19. 20. 20. 20. 20.

21. 21. 21. 21. C z_ o _« 22. 22. 22. 22.

i/i "G E ^ 23. 23. 23. 23. B ^ 24. 24. 24. 24.

25. 25. 25. 25.

26. 26. 26. 26.

27. 27. 27. 27.

:ct :

live tern 28. 28. 28. 28. C o —

29. 29. 29. 29.

30. 30. 30. 30.

31. 31. 31. 31.

32. 32. 32. 32.

33. 33. 33. 33.

34. 34. 34. 34.

35. 35. 35. 35.

36. 36. 36. 36. iB

37. 37. 37. 37.

38. 38. 38. 38. •b

39. 39. 39. 39.

ily

Sele 40. 40. 40. 40.

41. 41. 41. 41.

"Random 42. 42. 42. 42.

43. 43. 43. 43.

44. 44. 44. 44.

45. 45. 45. 45.

46. 46. 46. 46.

47. 47. 47. 47.

48. 48. 48. 48.

49. 49. 49. 49.

50. 50. 50. 50.
Appendix A Model Forms - Price Verification Report

Page of Inspection: 1st 2nd 3rd Complaint: Frequency: Normal Increased Type: Stratified Automated Randomized

Location of Test (Store Name, Address, County, Zip Code) Date: Telephone:

Manager: Inspection Lot Size:

Identity, Brand Name Number of Ite Tis, Size, Location in Store, or U.P.C.Code Offered

Price

Price Charged

Price Errc

In Cents _

1.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

2.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

3.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

4.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

5.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

6.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

7.

Stop Sale Issued o Corrected Comments:

8.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

Comments/Remarks:

Report Acknowledgement

Name/Title Undercharges

Inspector

Evaluation of Results: Sample - Not on File = Adjusted Sar

t Errors -i- Adjusted Sample = Error i Accuracy % Ratio: Overcharges

Time In: Time Out:
Appendix A Model Forms - Price Verification Report Page of section: 1st 2nd 3rd Complaint: Frequency: Nomial Increased Type: Stratified Automated Randomized

1

ation of Test (Store Name, Address, County, Zip Code) Date: Telephone:

Manager: Inspection Lot Size: r

Identity, Brand Name Number of items, Size, Location in Store, or U.f'C.Code Offered

Price

Price ChargedPrice Error

in Cents ± r

-jStop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

*Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

1

is op Sale Issued Corrected Comments: h

s op Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

s op Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

s op Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

1 s op Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

] s op Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

tmments/Remarks:

iIcport Acknowledgement

^tme/Title idercharges

spector Time In: Time Out

Evaluation of Results: Sample- Not on File = Adjusted Sample

Errors * Adjusted Sample = Error in %

Accuracy % Ratio: Overcharges
REFERENCES

Sylvia Chase, ABC Phmetime, "Supermarket Scanners", April 8, 1993. "About the Universal Product Code," Uniform Code Council, Inc., Dayton, OH. Mary Bach, "To Consumers, Billion-Dollar Overring is Just Plain Fraud," Tri-State Food News. Mary Bach, "Sometimes, the Biggest Thief in a Store Goes "Blip, Blip, Blip"," Tri-State Food News. Mary Bach, "Scanning Certification Program a Big Step Toward Building Trust," Tri-State Food News. July 1993. Doug Bartholomew, "The Price is Wrong," Information Week, September 14, 1992, pp 26-37. Food Marketing Institute, "Guide to Scanning," The Research Division, FMI, Washington, DC, 1980. Food Marketing Institute, "Trends in the United States: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket 1993," The Research

Division, Washington, DC, 1993. Food Marketing Institute, "Price Verification: Ensuring Accuracy at Store Level," January 1994

Steve Davis, "Retailers Advanced Price Integrity System," Merchant Data Service, November 1993.

Kristine M. Gabe, "Supermarket Checkout Accuracy: Scanning Versus Electronic Checkout Systems," master's thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, January 1982.

Michael Garry, "Scanners: Error Control," Progressive Grocer, June 1993, pp. 105 - 108. Ronald C. Goodstein, "U.P.C. Scanner Pricing Systems: Are They Accurate?," John E. Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA, April, 1993, Revised July, 1993. Ronald C. Goodstein, "U.P.C. Scanner Pricing Systems: Can They Be Made More Accurate?," John E. Anderson Graduate

School of Management, UCLA, November, 1993. Ronald C. Goodstein, "U.P.C. Scanner Pricing Systems: A Review of Research and Managerial Implications," John E. Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA, December, 1993. Mark Green, "The Scanner Scam: Report on the Need for a Stronger Item Pricing Law," report from the City of New

York Department of Consumer Affairs, 1991. Kevin Grier (ed), "PDR Notes," Processing, Distribution and Retailing Newsletter, Issue 101. Ministry of Agriculture and

Food, Ontario, Canada. May 4, 1993. Edward M. Harwell, "Checkout Management," Chain Store Publishing Corporation, New York.

Joan Koenig (ed). U. S. Department of Commerce, NIST Handbook 130: Uniform Laws and Regulations, "Packaging and Labeling Regulation," pp. 103-108; "Unit Pricing Regulation," pp. 97 - 102. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1994 edition.

Julie Kramer, News Producer for WCCO Television in Minneapolis, Minnesota. "Dimensions" (news story on price accuracy in retail stores). Air date: February 10, 1994.

Irene Malbin, "Computerizing Supermarket Checkout," FDA Consumer, November 1975.

Vanessa O'Connell, "Don't Get Cheated by Supermarket Scanners," Money, April 1993, pp. 132-138.

292
Odonna Matthews, Giant Food Inc., "Letter to the Editor," The New York Times." July 2, 1975. Henry V. Oppermann (ed), U. S. Department of Commerce, NIST Handbook 44: Specifications, Tolerances, and Other

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. DC. 1994

edition.

Pennsylvania Food Merchants' Association, Scanning Certification Program Operations Manual.

City of Philadelphia, PA, "Title 9 Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions": Chapter 9-1700, "Use of Electronic Scanners For Customer Checkout," August 6, 1992.

Charles Tooker (ed). New York State Weights and Measures Association News Letter, August-September, 1993. 427th

Edition. Uniform Code Council, Inc., U.P.C. Implementation Guide: How to Develop and Maintain a Top Quality U.P.C., Dayton, OH, December 1991.

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, A Report on the Use of Uniform Bar Codes in the Commonwealth, House Document 20. November 1990. Thomas K. Zaucha, "Supermarket Automation—U.P.C. and the Computerized Checkout Counter." National Association of Food Chains, Washington, DC, pp 83 - 104.

"Price Verification Survey" - National Conference on Weights and Measures, April 1993.

293
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix G

2.6.8. Commodities Under Federal Trade Commission Jurisdiction Under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and Exclusions.

2.6.8. Commodities Under Federal Trade

Commission Jurisdiction under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and

Exclusions.

This list indicates ttie commodities and commodity

groups that are not within the scope of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act administered by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The following codes appear with each commodity and designate

the reason that the particular commodity has been

excluded. BATE - designates commodities subject to laws administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. CI (Commission Interpretation) - designates those categories that have been excluded by the Commission in the light of legislative history of the

definition of "consumer commodit) ." By applying

this deflnition to individual commodities, the Commission has more narrowly applied the latter term and set forth a list of items that do not meet

the criteria of consumer commodities. On occasion

the Commission is requested in both a formal and

informal manner to consider individual products and to determine their status relative to the

definition of "consumer commodity" as it is used

in the Act. EPA - designates commodities subject to the Federal Environmental Pest Control Act of 1972

administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

following categories: meat or meat products, poultry or poultry products, or tobacco or tobacco

products.

It may be of some help in ascertaining whether a

particular product is or is not included within the FPLA definition of "consumer commodity" and

thus subject to FTC jurisdiction under that Act, to refer to the following definition:

". . . Any article, product, or commodity of any kind

or class which is customarily produced or distributed for sale through retail sales agencies or

instrumentalities for consumption by individuals, or

use by individuals for purposes ofpersonal care or

in the performance of services ordinarily rendered

within the household, and which is usually consumed or expended in the course of such use.

By applying these criteria to the particular product in question and then reviewing the list of excluded commodities, the observer will be able, in most instances, to determine the status of the item. In the event, however, that the observer is unable

to ascertain whether a particular commodity' is covered or excluded from FTC jurisdiction, contact FTC for an opinion. Commodities Included Under

FTC Jurisdiction

1. Soaps and Detergents

a. Powder, fiakes, chips, etc. b. Liquid

c. Paste, cake, or tablet FDA - designates those commodities which are

subject to regulation by the Food and Drug

Administration either under the portion of the FPLA administered by that agency or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. (Section 10(a) (3) and Section 7 of the FPLA). Following the code FDA will be a letter further designating the commodity as either a food (F), drug (D), cosmetic

(C), or device (DV). USDA - designates those commodities excluded from jurisdiction by Section 10(a) of the FPLA

and represents a commodity within one of the

2. Cleaning Compounds

a. Liquid

b. Powder

c. Paste or cake

3. Laundry Supplies

a. Conditioners and softeners, ironing aids,

distilled water.

b. Sizings and starches

c. Bluings and bleaches

d. Pre-soaks, enzymes, etc.

294
Laws and Regulations Committee

4. Cleaning Devices

a. Sponges

b. Steel wool, scouring, and soap pads

c. Chamois

5. Food Wraps

a. Plastic and cellophane

b. Wax paper and paper

c. Foil

6. Paper Products

a. Toweling

b. Napkins, table cloths, and place mats

c. Facial tissues

d. Bathroom tissues

e. Disposable diapers

f. Crepe paper

g. Other, e.g., shelf paper, wrapping paper, eye glass tissues, etc.

7. Waxes and Polishes

a. Powder

b. Liquid

c. Paste and cake

d. Other, e.g., polish impregnated cloths, scratch removers, etc.

8. Household Supplies

a. Matches

b. Candles and holders

c. Toothpicks

d. Cordage (string, twine, rope, clothes line,

etc.)

e. Drinking straws

f. Lighter and propane torch fuel, flints, pipe cleaners, etc.

g. Household lubricants

h. Picnic supplies

i. Sand paper and emory paper

j. Charcoal briquets, chips, logs, etc.

k. Dyes and tints

1. Camera film and photo supplies m. Protective fabric sprays

9. Containers

a. Paper (plain, waxed, or plastic coated)

b. Foil

c. Plastic or styrofoam

10. Air Fresheners and Deodorizers

a. Potpourri Commodities Excluded from

FTC Jurisdiction ADHESIVE TAPE (FDA-D) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (BATF)

ALUMINUM CLOTHESLINE (plastic clothesline with a steel core) (CI) ANTIFREEZE (CI) ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS AND PARTS (CI) AUTOMOTIVE ACCESSORIES (floor mats, seat covers, spare parts, etc.) (CI) AUTOMOTIVE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS (auto

polish, wax, and finish conditioner, rubbing

compound, tire paint, chrome polish, gasoline

additives, etc.) (CI) BATH OIL AND BUBBLE BATH (FDA-C) BICYCLE TIRES AND TUBES (CI) BOOKS (CI) BOTTLED GAS (cooking or heating) (CI) BRUSHES (bristle, nylon, etc., including hair- brushes, toothbrushes, hand and nail brushes,

paint brushes, etc.) (CI) BROOMS AND MOPS (glass, floor, and dish mops, etc.) (CI) "BUG PROOF" SHELF PAPER (EPA) CANDLE HOLDERS (without candles) (CI) CAMERAS (CI) CHINAWARE (CI) CHRISTMAS LIGHT SETS (replacement or other

bulbs sold separately are not excluded) (CI) CIGARETTE LIGHTERS (CI) CLOTHESPINS (CI) CLOTHING AND WEARING APPAREL (socks,

gloves, shoelaces, underwear, etc.) (CI) COMPACTS AND MIRRORS (CI) COSMETICS (Defined by Section 201(i) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as "(1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied

to the human body or any part thereof for

cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or

altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended

for use as a component of any such articles; except

that such term shall not include soap.") (FDA-C) COTTON PUFFS (Sterilized) (FDA-D) CRYSTALWARE (CI) DETERGENT BAR WITH ANY DRUG OR

COSMETIC CLAIM (If the observer experiences

295
Laws and Regulations Committee

difficulty in ascertaining whether or not a given product is a soap or a detergent, contact the manufacturer or FDA.) (FDA-D or C) DECORATIVE MAGNETS (CI) DEVICES (Defined by Section 201(h) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as "instruments, apparatus, and contrivances, including their components, parts, and accessories, intended (1) for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or

other animals; or (2) to affect the structure or any

function of the body of man or other animals." This category includes trusses, syringes, arch

supports, etc.) (FDA-DV) DIARIES AND CALENDARS (CI) DISINFECTANTS (EPA) DRUGS (Defined by Section 201(g) (1) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as "(a) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopeia, official Homeopathic

Pharmacopeia, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (b) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or

other animals; and (c) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of

the body of man or other animals; and (d) articles intended for use as a component of any articles specified in clause (a), (b) or (c); but does not include devices or their components, parts, or

accessories.") (FDA-D)

DURABLE ARTICLES OR COMMODITIES (CI) EPA COVERED PRODUCTS (Products subject to regulation under the Federal Environmental

Pesticide Control Act that is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.) (EPA) FINGERNAIL FILES (CI) FLOWERS, FLOWER SEEDS, FERTILIZER,

AND FERTILIZER MATERIALS, PLANTS OR

SHRUBS, GARDEN AND LAWN SUPPLIES (CI) FOOD (Defined by Section 201(f) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as "(1) articles used for food and drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components

of any such article.") (FDA-F) FOUNTAIN PENS, MECHANICAL PENCILS,

AND KINDRED PRODUCTS (ball point pens, lead pencils, and lead refills, etc.) (CI) GARDEN TOOLS (hose, trowels, grass clippers,

etc.) (CI) GERMKILLING OR GERMPROOFING

PRODUCTS (EPA)

GIFT TAPE AND TIES (ribbon, tape, etc.) (CI) GIFT WRAPPING MATERIAL (decorative wrapping foil, paper, cellophane, etc.) (CI) GLASSES AND GLASSWARE (disposable plastic glasses are not excluded) (CI) GLOVES (of any type) (CI) GREETING CARDS (CI) HAIR COMBS, NETS, and PINS (FDA-DV)

HAND TOOLS (CI) HANDICRAFT AND SEWING THREAD (yarn,

etc.) (CI) HARDWARE (extension cords, thumb-tacks, hose

clamps, nails, screws, picture hangers, etc.) (CI) HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES, EQUIPMENT, OR

FURNISHINGS, INCLUDING FEATHER AND

DOWN-FILLED PRODUCTS, SYNTHETICFILLED BED PILLOWS, MATTRESS PADS AND PATCHWORK QUILTS, COMFORTERS,

AND DECORATIVE CURTAINS (CI) INK (CI) INSECTICIDES (insect repellents in any form,

mothballs, etc.) (EPA) IRONING BOARD COVERS (CI) JEWELRY (CI) LAMBS WOOL DUSTERS (CI) LUGGAGE (CI) MAGNETIC RECORDING TAPE (reels, cassettes, and cartridges.) (CI) MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS (USDA)

METAL PAILS (CI) MOTOR OIL (including additives. Household

multi-purpose oil is not excluded.) (CI) MOUSE AND RAT TRAPS (CI) MOUTHWASH (FDA-D)

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS (CI) PAINTS AND KINDRED PRODUCTS (wallpaper,

turpentine, putty, paint removers, caulking and

glazing compounds, wood fillers, etc. Note, however, that bathroom caulking materials, patching plaster, spackling compound, and plastic wood are not excluded. In the event of

uncertainty, contact FTC.) (CI) PAINTINGS AND WALL PLAQUES (CI) PET CARE SUPPLIES (CI) PEWTERWARE (CI) PHOTO ALBUMS (CI) PICTURES (CI) PLASTIC BUCKETS AND GARBAGE CANS

(CI)

296
Laws and Regulations Committee

PLASTIC TABLECLOTHS, PLASTIC PLACE

MATS (CI) PLASTIC SHELF LINING (CI) PRE-MOISTENED TOWELETTES (FDA-C) POLISHING CLOTHS (polishing cloths that are impregnated with polish or chemicals (silicone,

etc.] are not excluded.) (CI) POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS (USDA)

RUBBER GLOVES (CI) RUBBING ALCOHOL (FDA-D) SAFETY FLARES (CI) SAFETY PINS (CI) SANITARY NAPKINS (FDA-D or C) SCHOOL SUPPLIES (rulers, crayons, paper,

pencils, etc.) (CI) SELF STICK PROTECTIVE FELT TABS (CI) SEEDS OF ALL KINDS (USDA)

SEWING ACCESSORIES (needles of any type, thimbles, kindred articles, etc.) (CI) SHAMPOO (FDA-C or D) SHOELACES (CI) SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION (CI) SILVERWARE, STAINLESS STEELWARE, AND PEWTERWARE (CI) SMOKING PIPES (CI) SOAP BARS WITH A DRUG CLAIM (including any claim for removing facial blemishes, etc. Refer to Detergent Bars for further discussion in this area.) (FDA-D) SOAP DISHES (CI) SOUVENIRS (CI) SPORTING GOODS (CI) STATIONERY AND WRITING SUPPLIES

(looseleaf binders, paper tablets, etc.) (CI) TEXTILES AND ITEMS OF WEARING

APPAREL (cloth laundry bags, towels, cheese

cloth, shoe shine cloths, etc.) (CI) TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS (pipes,

cigarettes, etc.) (BATE - USDA)

TOOTHPASTE (FDA-D) TOYS (CI) TYPEWRITER RIBBON (CI) WIRE OF ANY TYPE (CD

WOODENWARE (CI)

297
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Report of the

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Jack Y. Jeffries, Chairman Consumer Protection Administration

Division of Standards

Florida 300 Introduction

This is the Final Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee for the 79th National Conference on Weights

and Measures. This report is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and Committee

Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting.

Table A identifies the items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item number. Consent calendar items are marked with a "VC." Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number

are information items. The items marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. Items marked with a "W"

generally will be referred back to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or did not have sufficient support of the Committee to bring them before the NCWM.

The attached Report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44, 1994 Edition, "Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices." Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by crossing e«t what is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive

are printed in italics. Entirely new paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to the handbook are designated as such and shown in bold face print.

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

all of its publications; however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed

in this publication as they were submitted and may therefore contain references to inch-pound units. Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

General Code

310-1 V G-UR.4.6. Testing Devices at a Central Location 302

310-2 VC Definition of Security Seal 303

310-3 I User-Programmable Software; Manufacturer-Modified Software 303

310-4 I G-UR. 1.3. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment 304

298
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

Scales Code

320-1 1 Unattended Vehicle Scales: S.l. 14., UR.3. 10., Definition 306

320-2 V Concentrated Load Capacity: S.6.5., S.6.5.I., Definition 308

320-3 1 N.2.1. Weight Recertification Time Interval 309

320-4 V N.3. and Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads 310

320-5 VC UR.1.5. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment 312

320-6 W UR.3.7. Minimum Load on a Vehicle Scale 312

320-7 I Criteria for Automatic Weighing Systems 314

320-8 VC S.6.3., Table S.6.3.(b) Counting Scales 314 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems

321 I N.3.3.1. Minimum Test Loads for Simulated Load Tests 315 Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

330-1 VC S.2.1. Vapor Eliminators on Loading Rack Meters 315

330-2 VC S.5.I., S.5.2., UR.4.1., and UR.4.2., Totalizers and Sealing of

Totalizers 316

330-3 I T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems; Accuracy of

the Temperature Sensor 318

330-4 I T.4. Repeatability Tolerances 320 Vehicle-Tank Meters Code

331- I VC S.I. 1.3. Value of Smallest Unit 321 331-2 W Table 1. Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters Except Milk Meters, Agri-Chemical Meters, and Mass Flow Meters 322

331-3 VC UR.2.2. Ticket Printer; Customer Ticket 322 Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

332- 1 I T.3. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems; Accuracy of the Temperature Sensor 323 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

334-1 I S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation 324

299
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page Milk Meters Code

335-1 VC Diversion of Measured Product 326 Mass Flow Meters Code

337-1 V S. 1.2.2. Units of Measure for Natural Gas When Sold as an Engine

Fuel 327

337-2 VC T.2. and T.3. Tolerances 330

337-3 VC UR.3.3. Ticket Printer; Customer Ticket 332 337-4A V Tentative Status of the Code 332 337-4B V S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction 333 Taximeters Code

354-1 1 UR.3.1. Units for Time, Distance Intervals, and Money Values 334 Grain Moisture Meters Code

356-1 V S. 1.2.2. Digital Indications and Recording Elements; Information Sent To Printer 335

356-2 V S. 1.8. Level Indicating Means 336

356-3 W S.1.10. Operating Temperature; Allowance of 5 °C for Type

Evaluation 336

356-4 V S.2.4. Determination of the Sample Quantity; Use of External Equipment with Grain Moisture Meters 337

356-5 V S.5.3. Calibration Transfer 337

356-6 1 UR.3.4. Printed Tickets 338 Other Items

360-1 I Volume Measuring Machines for Shipping Charges 339 360-2A V Proposed Code for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers 339 360-2B V NIR Grain Analyzers; Nonretroactive and Retroactive Dates 345

360-3 I OIML Report 346

300
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table B

Voting Results

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Results Reference Key ]^o. Yes No Yes No

300 (Consent Calendar) 46 0 73 0 Passed

310-1 40 6 66 8 Passed 320-2 43 2 72 0 Passed 320-4 34 12 48 22 Passed

33^-1 33 13 46 19 Passed

3

3 ^-4

47 0 73 0 Passed 33"-4B 32 12 48 16 Passed

356-1 45 0 64 0 Passed 356-2 40 0 65 0 Passed 356-4 (Motion to Consider Amendment) 42 0 45 4 Passed 356-4 (Motion to Amend) 31 15 26 34 Failed 356-4 (Original Itemj 41 3 62 0 Passed 356-5 45 0 57 0 Passed 360-2A 42 0 57 0 Passed 360-2B 25 13 24 31 Failed 300 (in entirety) 44 0 68 0 Passed

301
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Details of All Items General Code

310-1 V G-UR.4.6. Testing Devices at a Central Location

(This item was adopted.)

Source: County of San Diego, California; Western Weights and Measures Association Recommendation: To address problems that have been encountered when devices must be removed from service

to permit transporting them to a central location for test, and to recognize centralized testing of devices normally

transported for use, add a new paragraph G-UR.4.6., (a) and (b), to read as follows: G-UR.4.6. Testing Devices at a Central Location. -

(a) When weighing or measuring devices in commercial service must be removed from service to permit

testing at a central location with appropriate facilities, or when the official with statutory authority

requires commercial devices that are routinely transported for the purposes of use (e.g., vehicle-tank meters and scales transported to and used in seasonal markets) to be brought to a central location

for testing, then the dealer or owner of the devices shall provide transportation of the devices to and

from the test location.

(b) When the request for the removal of and delivery to a central test location involves devices used in submetering, the owner or operator shall not interrupt the utility service to the customer or tenant

except for the removal and replacement of the device. Provisions shall be made by the owner or operator to minimize the inconvenience to the customer or tenant. All replacement or temporary

meters shall be tested and sealed by a weights and measure official or bear a current, valid approval

seal prior to use.

Discussion: The submetering of commodities such as water, electricity, and hydrocarbon vapors is a common

practice in many parts of the country and falls under the jurisdiction of State and local weights and measures

agencies. Some weighing and measuring devices require specialized standards, test equipment, or controlled conditions for checking the accuracy of the device. For example, as a practical matter, vapor meters and water

meters must be removed from service, transported to a central location, and tested where appropriate facilities and

environmental conditions facilitate accurate testing. Enforcement officials have encountered problems with device owners or operators, particularly in mobile home parks, who refuse to remove the meters for testing or who interrupt

utility service and threaten tenants for making complaints to weights and measures authorities. The paragraph is recommended to clarify the responsibilities of the device owner or operator.

In addition to the devices mentioned above, this requirement applies to devices that are transported as part of the normal use of the device, such as vehicle-tank meters and scales (often portable) used in seasonal or periodic markets

(e.g., scales used in farmers' markets). The weights and measures official may require that devices that are routinely transported as part of their use be brought to a central location for test. The application of this requirement is to be limited to testing to determine compliance with Handbook 44 as part of the routine field enforcement programs

of State and local jurisdictions; the Committee does not intend for this requirement to apply to the testing of scales

installed in fixed locations (i.e., where devices are not moved in normal use although they may be portable). The

requirement is not intended to apply to devices used in a fixed location when testing is to determine compliance with

the influence factors requirements or to determine conformance with the design and performance of the original device submitted for type evaluation.

302
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

310-2 VC Definition of Security Seal

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: E.J. Brooks Company

Recommendation: To indicate that a physical wire security seal is not limited to lead-and-wire seals, amend the

definition of security seal to read:

security seal. A load and wire uniquely identifiable physical seal, such as a lead-and-wire seal or

other type of locking seal, a pressure-sensitive seal sufficiently permanent to indicate reveal its removal, or similar device apparatus attached to a weighing or measuring device for protection against or indication of access to adjustment. (Also see "approval seal. ")( 1.10]

Discussion: Due to the health and environmental concerns regarding the use of lead, manufacturers offer security

seals where the locking mechanism is made of plastic instead of lead. Although the definition does not preclude the use of plastic and wire security seals, some users of security' seals interpret the definition as limiting them to lead- and-wire seals. The Committee believes that any type of security seal that effectively indicates that it has been broken or removed when scalable parameters have been accessed is acceptable as a security seal and may be used. 310-3 I User-Programmable Software; Manufacturer-Modified Software

Source: Carr>'0ver Item 310-4

Discussion: NTEP policy states that device manufacturers are to notify NTEP of any significant metrological changes to a device. NTEP will then determine with the manufacturer whether or not any part of the modified

device requires further type evaluation. Weights and measures officials have experienced situations where the software has been changed, but the weights and measures representative for the company has not been informed of

the change. In other cases, a type evaluation on systems using scales with NTEP Certificates of Conformance have

been found to operate differently from the scales originally submitted for type evaluation; in one case, the modified

software was not compatible with the equipment with which it was originally tested. The software used in weighing and measuring devices is continually under development and revision. Weights and

measures officials are concerned that the software evaluated during type evaluation is often changed before the devices are put on the market, or the software may be changed after the device enters production. Some software

is written with flexibility to permit the user to customize the metrological operations of the software to the business

operation.

Potential problems include:

1. revisions to software made by the manufacturer after the type evaluation:

2. different software offered on the same hardware, but for different applications;

3. software prepared by a software company to allow changes by the user when run on personal computers; and

4. software that is written specifically to facilitate modification by the user to customize the software to individual needs and preferences. The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) explored different ways to respond to the concerns of weights and

measures officials. Changing software is vital to the industry, enabling it to respond to the changing needs of

customers. The scale manufacturers report that software is being written more frequently in a modular format, which

lends itself to controlling changes to software and reducing unintentional changes to the metrological portion of the software. This approach to writing software permits code to be marked to alert subsequent programmers that the

particular software relates to weights and measures regulatory control and should not be changed without adequate

consultation. The SMA reported the following as its position regarding software. SMA endorses the voluntary principle in software/firmware development that any metrologically

significant code is to be marked or stored separately for easy identification. When the marked code is

303
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

modified in a metrologically significant way, NTEP is to be notified to determine if reevaluation is necessary. The scope of this statement does not include any object code produced from the above source. However,

final software used in type evaluation of the end product should be traceable to the source. The complete

device remains subject to type evaluation.

Note: For purposes of this recommendation, "code" is defined as any source (human readable)

software. The Committee was advised that "object code" refers to code that has been through a compiler, but cannot be changed by the user. The S&T Committee endorses the SMA statement regarding the goals for program design and identifying the mefrologically significant portion of the software. The Committee believes that, in addition to this approach, weights and measures officials need more extensive examination procedure outlines and field manuals to identify to the inspector those critical features and device operations that must be checked in the field on each device to ensure the proper set-up and operation of the device. Many device parameters and features are selectable at the time of

installation, but some are more critical than others. The most critical of these parameters and features should be checked during routine field inspections. 310-4 I G-UR.1.3. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment

Source: Carryover Item 330-8

Discussion: Devices based upon differing technologies are used to measure the same products in the same wholesale and retail applications. Consequently, weights and measures officials must examine the suitability of equipment

based upon the limits of inaccuracy (tolerance) that should be permitted for any given application. The specific codes define the performance (accuracy) required for a specific device technology or measurement application (for example, specific tolerances are stated for mass flow meters, retail motor-fuel dispensers, etc.); however, without

further guidance, different tolerances are permitted in the same application. Item 330-8 in the 1993 S&T Committee

report should be referenced for background information. The Committee believes that work should continue to develop suitability of equipment requirements to promote the

correct selection of equipment in different applications. Progress has been made on this issue over the years. The Committee requests that industr>' and regional weights and measures associations continue to study the following recommendations for possible adoption to the General Code. Liquid-Measuring Device Suitability in the General Code and Other Codes The Committee recommends the following user requirement and the table (on the next page) for study over the next

year. G-UR.1.3. Liquid-Measuring Devices. - To be suitable for its application, a liquid-measuring device shall satisfy the criteria in Table G-UR.1.3. for the specific application in which the device is used. The minimum delivery for any meter application shall be 100 divisions. The smaller tolerances for the acceptance and maintenance tolerances in Table G-UR.1.3. and the tolerances stated in the specific codes

are used in the applications stated in Table G-UR.3.I. (See next page.) To be considered suitable for a given application, the Committee believes that a liquid-measuring device must be

accurate to at least the level specified in the table on the following page. It is proposed that the smaller of the two

tolerances (the tolerance specified for the technology or the application tolerance) apply to a liquid-measuring device

installed in a specific application. The changes to the General Code are recommended because the table spans several

specific codes for liquid-measuring devices. A marking requirement may also be needed to identify the accuracy

that a particular device is expected to meet.

304
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table G-UR.1.3. Suitabilit>- of Equipment Criteria for Liquid-Measuring Devices

Application or Commodit>

(Applicable to liquid measuring devices and mass flow meters) Maximum Division

Value' (d^J

Application tolerance Acceptance

Tolerance Maintenance

Tolerance Loading rack meters Refined petroleum products 1.0 L (1 gal) 10 kg (20 lb) 0.2% 0.3%

High volume motor-fuel

dispensers (maximum discharge flow rates greater than 1 00 L or 25 gallon per minute)

Average delivery > 80 L

"

(20 gal)

(e.g.. Truck refueling)

0.1 L (0.1 gal)

1 kg (2 lb) 0 2% 0 3%

Vehicle-tank meters Home heating oil, gasoline,

diesel fuel

0.1 L (0.1 gal)

1 kg (2 lb)

0.20,0 0.3%

Milk and other food

products

1 L (1 gal) 10 kg (20 lb) 0.2% 0.3%

Small volume motor-fuel

dispensers (Analog)

Average deliverv < 80 L

(20 gal)

(e.g., automobile refueling, motorboats)

0.01 L {0.01 gal*)

0.1 kg (0.2 lb) 0.3% 0.5%

Small volume motor-fuel

dispensers

(Digital)

Average delivers < 80 L

(20 gal)

(e.g.. automobile refueling, motorboats)

0.01 L

0.01 gal

0.1 kg (0.2 lb) 0.3% 0.5%

Agri-chemical liquid u. 1 L {V. I gal

)

1 kg (2 lb) 0.3% 0.5% LP Gas Motor fuel and vehicle- tank-meter deliveries

0.1 L (0.1 gal)

1 kg (2 lb) 0.6% 1.0%

Other deliveries 1 L (1 gal) 10 kg (20 lb) LP Gas (other than motor fuel and vehicle-tank meter

deliveries). Anhydrous ammonia

1 L (1 gal) 10 kg (20 lb) 0.6% 1.0%

Mass flow meters Compressed natural gas as an engine fuel 0.001 GGE

0.01 GLE

(0.001 kg

U.UUI lu)

1 .5% 2.0%

Cr\ogenic liquid meters 1 L (1 gal) 10 kg (20 lb)

1 .5% 2.5%

Ail other metering applications

1 L (1 gal) 10 kg (20 lb) 0.2% 0.3%

0.01 L (0.01 ga!)

0.1 kg (0.2 lb) 0.3% 0.5%

0.001 L (0.001 gal) 0.01 kg (0.02 lb) 0.6% 1 .0%

The tolerances apply to all temperatures, pressures, and flow rates as well as for all liquids specified by the manufacturer.

*.\onretroaclive in terms of neM- models of devices for measuring motor fuels. Mass units appl> to only mass flow meters.

305
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Item 337-5 for mass flow meters should be referenced to see a related approach to this concept. A significantly smaller tolerance for agri-chemical meters has been included in the table for discussion purposes. Over the years comments have suggested that the agri-chemical meter tolerances should be smaller based upon the high cost of the products. The Committee is considering a separate item in its 1995 agenda to change the tolerances for agri- chemicals to an acceptance tolerance of 0.3 percent and a maintenance tolerance of 0.5 percent.

1 Scales Code

320-1 I Unattended Vehicle Scales: S.1.14., UR.3.10., Definition

Source: Carryover Item 320-10

Discussion: An increasing number of unattended vehicle scales are used for commercial transactions and for determining the axle loads of highway vehicles. Many jurisdictions are faced with applying current Handbook 44

requirements to these devices, but apply different requirements based upon their interpretations of Handbook 44. The definition of "direct sale" was changed in 1993 to recognize transactions using automated of customer-operated

devices to be direct sale transactions.

In 1992, the SMA submitted its recommendations for requirements for unattended vehicle scales, recommending the following:

Definition: unattended vehicle scale. Axle, full, or multi-platform scale which is available for use without the presence of the owner/user.

Features: The scale shall provide an indication that the scale is at "zero" and stable or ready to weigh. If this indication is not present, any weighing operation shall be inhibited.

All weight data must be recorded unless the displayed weight completes the transaction.

There must be an indication when the weighing operation is completed.

Notes: I. Since the scale owner has chosen to have the scale unattended, he must provide for his own interest through the use of gates, barricades, sensors, etc.

2. If the scale is driver-operated, it is the driver's responsibility to see that his vehicle is correctly positioned on the scale. The S&T Committee believed that additional requirements should apply and developed requirements in addition to those submitted by the SMA. In its report for the 1993 Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee recommended several new requirements for unattended vehicle scales. (See Item 320-10 in the 1993 S&T report.) The main differences of the two proposals are summarized below. SMA Recommendations S&T Committee Recommendations

The scale must provide a "zero" indication, which may

be as simple as a traffic light. S.1.1 was amended in 1993 to allow alternative indications of zero, but the zero indication must be

defined under G-S.6. Marking.

306
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

SMA Recommendations S&T Committee Recommendations

Printer is required only if the weight display does not complete the transaction. A printer is required and a weight ticket must be

issued. The weighing operation shall be inhibited if the printer is not functioning. The ticket must include

the scale location, time and date of weighing, and cost of the weighing service if a fee is charged. The owner has the responsibility to ensure that the weighing operation is properly executed and has the option to provide gates, sensors, etc., to protect his or her interests for vehicle being correctly positioned on

the scale; the vehicle driver has the responsibility of

properly positioning the vehicle on the scale platform.

The scale must incorporate gates, sensors, etc., to verify that the vehicle is properly loaded before the weighing operation can be performed.

A weight display visible to the driver is not required;

the weight information may be stored in memory and

invoiced directly to the other party of the transaction. The driver is not to be considered the "agent" of the other party.

Under General Code G-UR.3.3., a weight display for

the driver is required.

The SMA and individual scale manufacturers oppose the proposed S&T changes. The Western reported that the S&T

proposal appeared to conflict with sections 10.(12) and 1 1. (a)(2) of the Uniform Weighmaster Law and may also

violate individual State weighmaster laws. Section 10.(12) requires a public weighmaster to sign the weight

certificate resulting from the weighing operation; section 1 1 .(a)(2) specifies that a public weighmaster shall enter only

the measurement values personally determined, which would effectively prohibit the use of unattended vehicle scales

in applications where public weighmasters are required. SMA Position The SMA gave a presentation at the 1994 Interim Meeting to explain its position and provide examples to illustrate applications where they believed the proposed requirements were impractical and unnecessary. The major issues are whether or not (1) a weight display should be required, (2) a printer (and printed weight tickets) should be required, and (3) safeguards should be required to ensure that the vehicle is properly positioned on the scale platform for weighing. SMA reported that many different output devices are in use today on unattended vehicle scales. These include cut- bar ticket printers, scoreboard displays, computers systems, remote video display terminals, traffic lights, traffic gates, and other devices. SMA reported that many scales do not have weight displays for the driver because the driver may

be an independent hauler who does not represent either the buyer or the seller. It was reported that many of these unattended scales are installed in locations and environments where customer displays would be subject to severe conditions and damage. It is the scale manufacturers' position that the drivers do not need a weight display since

the customer is billed, often electronically, hence the weight display is an unnecessary expense. Similarly, a printer

is an unnecessary expense since the weights for transactions will be transmitted to the other party in the transaction by invoice or electronic billing. A printer will be difficult to maintain in an operable condition: experience suggests

that drivers intentionally damage and destroy printers despite the efforts of businesses to protect the equipment. S& T Concerns

Weights and measures officials must reconcile the facts that a vehicle driver is generally considered the agent for the party who does not own the scale; that many of these transactions are considered direct sales under the definition

in Handbook 44; and that General Code paragraph G-UR.3.3. requires a customer weight display. If an independent

driver is not considered to be the agent for the party who doesn't own the scale, then a clarifying interpretation may

be needed to distinguish when a truck driver represents the second party in a direct sale transaction and when the

driver does not. The SMA proposal would allow scales not to have a weight display, which conflicts directly with

307
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

G-UR.3.3. If this type of transaction is interpreted to be an indirect sale, then a customer weight display is not required and the printed ticket is sufficient; however, there is concern that in transactions normally considered a

direct sale, the customer is not provided with sufficient information to verify the transaction and safeguard against fraudulent operations. To provide the party who does not own the scale with sufficient information to verify the weighing operations on an unattended scale, the Committee considered that the printed record for each weighing

operation would be an effective method by which the invoice or electronic billing could be verified. The SMA brought up numerous points that should be addressed. The Committee has looked at this issue for several years without making substantial progress. At this point, the Committee considers this issue to be of low priority. If weights and measures officials feel strongly that more effort is warranted, then the regional weights and measures

associations should continue to develop this issue. Unless greater interest is demonstrated by weights and measures

officials, the S&T Committee will likely discontinue work on this issue. 320-2 V Concentrated Load Capacity: S.6.5., S.6.5.I., Definition

(TTiis item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-13; Mettler-Toledo, Inc. Recommendation: Amend the definition of the concentrated load capacity to read:

concentrated load capacity (CLC). A capacity rating of a vehicle, axle-load, or livestock scale, specified by the manufacturer, defining the maximum load concentration for which the weighbridge

is designed. In the case of vehicle and axle-load scales, it is the maximum axle-load concentration

(for a group of two axles with a centerline spaced 4 feet apart and an axle width of 8 feet) for which

the weighbridge is designed as specified by the manufacturer. The concentrated load capacity rating

is for both test and use.|2.20|

Discussion: The main objectives of defining the concentrated load capacity and requiring its marking are (I) to advise the scale user of the maximum loads that can be accurately weighed on the scale and (2) to establish a uniform method of rating the axle-load capacity of a scale to provide a consistent basis for competition among

companies.

History: The recommendation to change the definition of concentrated load capacity (CLC) is another effort to achieve a universal understanding that the CLC is to be equal to the maximum axle load for which the manufacturer

has designed the scale and which may be routinely weighed on the scale as part of normal use. When this issue was

first addressed by the Committee in 1987, there was a concurrent issue regarding the acceptable concentration of test loads on a scale without damaging the scale platform. The concern in 1987 (Item 320-6) was that the rating of section capacity did not reflect the actual amounts that could be accurately weighed when placed anywhere on the scale platform. Additionally, there was interest in relating the

scale capacity to the section capacity and the number of sections in the scale. As a result of further study with the

industry, the S&T Committee in 1988 recommended a definition of "concentrated load capacity" to replace the use of section capacity and related the nominal capacity of a scale to the CLC and the number of sections (Item 320-5A). When designing a scale, the manufacturer must decide what axle loads are to be weighed and for which vehicles and

their axle configurations. The Committee wanted the concentrated load capacity to apply to both the axle loads of

vehicles and the test loads that could be applied anywhere on the scale; hence, the Committee included the last sentence of the definition, which reads "This capacity rating is for both test and use." To respond to the concern

that test loads up to the CLC be adequately distributed on the scale platform to avoid damage to the platform, a test pattern for block weights was developed to ensure that the load would not be excessively concentrated (Item 320-5B). The prescribed test pattern was incorporated in the Scales Code test note N. 1.3.4. The different ways loads are applied to a scale create different stresses within the weighbridge; the force per unit area is much less for the prescribed test pattern than for a loaded vehicle on wheels.

308
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

In 1991 the definition was changed again to further clarifv' that the CLC is to reflect the axle load for which the scale

is to be used. The following sentence was added to the defmition of the CLC: "In the case of vehicle and axle-load

scales, it is the maximum axle-load concentration for which the weighbridge is designed as specified by the manufacturer." The Committee considered including a statement regarding the different types of vehicles and axle configurations that could be weighed, but the reference was deleted at the Annual Meeting in 1991. Group of Two Axles Provides Basis for Comparisons

For the 1994 Interim Meeting, the Committee received a proposal to relate axle loads and the different vehicle axle configurations through the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B and an "r factor." The Committee received a second proposal suggesting that a separate definition for a dual axle rating be added to Handbook 44 and that the definition of CLC be modified so that it applied to only the test of a scale. The

Committee opposed a separate definition for a dual axle rating because it had always intended for the CLC and axle- load ratings to be the same. However, since the definition of CLC did not address the various axle configurations,

the Committee decided to specify in the definition that the CLC is to be established based upon a group of two axles with a specific spacing. This is an effort to provide a consistent basis for manufacturers to rate their scales. The

axle spacing is for rating the scale with its CLC; it does not restrict the types of vehicles that may be weighed on

the scale provided that the loading does not exceed the corresponding axle load weights computed from the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B (see below).

Other Axle Configurations The Committee concluded that the r factor had merit, but decided not to include it in Handbook 44 due to concern

that it may be too complex for field enforcement and the ratings would be difficult to assess. However, the r factor may be a basis for scale purchasers to compare CLC ratings for vehicle scales and to relate the CLC to the types of vehicles and axle configurations that will be weighed by the scale owner. Since the r factor and the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B establishes a way to convert axle ratings for groups of more than two axles to an equivalent rating for a group of two axles, the Committee decided to specify that the CLC

be based upon a group of two axles with the specified spacing. Consequently, scale companies may use the r factor

to relate the CLC rating to vehicles with other axle configurations to aid the scale purchaser to select the appropriate

scale for the application. To make the relationship of the r factor available for comparison purposes, the relationship of the r factor and the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B is stated below.

Scale Load Limits. - The manufacturer shall specify the scale load limits for consecutive vehicle axles according to the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B, as modified by the "r" factor":

where W is the maximum load in pounds carried on any group of two or more consecutive axles;

r is the factor assigned by the manufacturer that specifies the maximum load; L is the distance in feet between the first and last axle of that group; and N is the number of axles of that group, where N > 2.

For a single axle, the weight limit is W = r x 20.000. 320-3 I N.2.1. Weight Recertification Time Interv al

Source: Southern Company Services

Discussion: The Committee received a proposal to specify a recertification time interval for "in-place" test weights.

In-place test weights are installed and stored indoors at the location of the scale and are moved in only a vertical direction when raised and lowered to test the scale. Because these weights are stored indoors, they are not subject

309
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

to the wear and abuse of weights transported from location to location and which are often used in environments that could change the mass of the test standards. The proposal suggested a 5-year recertification period for in-place weights and a method to assess when weights would have to be tested more frequently. The Committee supports the concept of an extended recertification period for stationary weights that are protected from the elements, but does not believe the recertification period should be stated by the Conference or placed in Handbook 44. The recertification is a policy decision to be made in each jurisdiction based upon the assessment of

its weights and measures laboratory program and requirements for the registration of service agencies. 320-4 V N.3. and Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Illinois; California; Western Weights and Measures Association Recommendation: Amend Table 4 to state the minimum test weights and test loads as shown on the following

page.

Discussion: In July 1993 the S&T Committee added Item 320-15 to its report to respond to requests to delay the change of N.3. to a mandatory status. Numerous State and local jurisdictions have reported that the government

agency and scale service companies within their jurisdictions are unable to comply with the minimum values required

effective January 1, 1994. On the other hand, several other jurisdictions have reported that they and scale service companies within their jurisdictions have purchased new equipment and modified other equipment to meet the test requirements. Some jurisdictions that have not been able to purchase or modify equipment have indicated that they

will take two test trucks to scales in order to meet the test requirements. The Committee concluded that changes should be made to Table 4 to reflect current practices and to make the mandatory requirements more practical by reflecting common practices. Additionally, the Committee recommends

adding a note regarding safety that will serve as a "grandfather clause" to circumvent the need to modify buildings

to accommodate the larger amount of test weights that became mandatory for large capacity scales as of January 1, 1994. The explanatory notes were changed to clarify the application of the weights specified in the table. A brief summary of the changes is provided. Recommended Changes to Table 4 The capacity of scales in the first capacity range was increased from 50 to 150 kg (100 to 300 lb) because most

officials carry enough weight to test these scales to capacity. If officials do not now carry sufficient weights to test 300-lb scales to capacity, then the Committee believes that they should in order to be able to test these scales to capacity. The second range of capacities in Table 4 (151 to 1500 kg) were changed to be more practical in the amount of test weights required, particularly since the upper limit of the scale capacity was raised to 1 500 kg (3 000 lb). The

percentage of test weights needed as a function of the scale capacity was reduced from 50 percent to 25 percent.

In addition, the maximum test load required for these scales has been reduced to 75 percent since some larger scales may not be used to capacity. The test note in the far right column now applies to this range of scale capacities because the required minimum test load is below the capacity of the scale (to 75 percent of capacity). The third range of scale capacities (1501 to 20 000 kg) had the lower limit changed to coincide with changes made

to the second range. The total amount of test weights required as a percentage of scale capacity was also reduced

to reflect practical considerations. The specific minimum quantity of test weights (500 kg or 1 000 lb) was increased (from 250 kg or 500 lb) due to the increase in the lower limit of the scale capacities.

For the large capacity scales (capacities greater than 20 000 kg or 40 000 lb), the minimum amount of test weights

required was retained as 12.5 percent of capacity or 5 000 kg (10 000 lb). The Committee believes that the specified amounts of test weights and test loads are needed as a minimum to conduct an adequate test on large capacity scales.

310
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Minir Table 4. Test Weights and Test Loads Loads'

Device capacity

mmimums

(in terms of device capacity) Test weights (greater oO

Test loads'* (where practicable)

0 to 50 150 kg

(0 to 400 300 lb) +05% 100%

51 to 500 kg

(101 to 1 000 lb 151 to 1 500 kg

(301 to 3 000 lb)

504- 1 501 to 20 000 kg

(4-004 3 001 to 40 000 lb) 20 001 kg+

(40 001 lb+)

50% or 50 kg

(100 l b) 25% or 150 kg

(300 lb) 75%

25^ 250 kg

(500 lb) 12.5% or 500 kg

(1 000 lb) 50%

12.5% or 5 000 kg

(10 000 lb)

Test weights to dial face capacity,

1 OOOd, or test load to used capacity, if greater than minimums

specified During initial verification, a scale should be tested to capacity. 25%- 25%

'If the amount of test weight in Table 4 combined with the load on the scale would result in an unsafe

condition, then the appropriate test load will be determined by the official with statutory authority. *The term "test load" means the sum of the combination of field standard test weights and any other

applied load used in the conduct of a test using substitution or buildup test methods. Not more than three

substitutions shall be used during substitution testing, after which the tolerances for strain load tests shall be

applied to each set of test loads. ^The scale shall be tested from zero to at least 12.5% of scale capacity using known test weights and then to

at least 25% of scale capacity using either a substitution or strain load test that utilizes known test weights

of at least 12.5% of scale capacity. Whenever practical, a strain load test should be conducted to the used

capacity of the scale. When a strain load test is conducted, the tolerance applies only to the known test load. Exce pt for railway track scales, th e minimum test of a class III L s cal e s hall consist of one test from zero to at l ea s t 25% of th e scal e capacity and th en one stra i n load test to at l east th e used capacity of th e dev i ce. Each test i s to be conducted using a known test load of at l east 25% of sca le capacity. Thi s test load may be comprised entirely of t est weights or a combination of a test weights equal to at l east 12.5% of s ca le capacity and a s ubstitut i on l oad. (Amended 1988, 1989)

Since many companies and States have upgraded their equipment to meet these minimum requirements, the Committee believes that the Conference would compromise its credibility by reducing this requirement. However,

the Committee was made aware that the vehicles used to transport 25 000 lb of test weight have a gross weight, when empty, of approximately 27,000 lb, which precludes using the empty truck as part of a substitution test to achieve a test load of 25 percent of scale capacity (for vehicle scales with a capacity of 200 000 lb). Since the Committee still advocates that large capacity scales be tested through the first 25 percent of the weighing range (in

311
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

addition to testing to the used capacity of the scale), a test note was added for the test load to indicate that a strain load test may also be used to satisfy this requirement when testing large capacity scales. The last change to Table 4 deals with safety and "grandfathering" scales inside buildings that utilize in-place weights

to test the scale. Since safety must be a prime consideration when testing any scale, the minimum test load requirements must be modified whenever unsafe conditions would exist during the test of a scale. In these cases, the weights and measures official will decide when safety considerations preclude adding the minimum required amounts of test weights and test loads. Under this safety consideration, it is the intent of the Committee to effectively exempt existing installations of scales, normally hopper scales, from the minimum test weights requirement if the structure of the building would have to be modified to support the additional amount of test weight mandated by N.3 and Table 4. The structural limitations of the building are considered to be a safety issue and would exempt existing installations from the minimum test weight requirement. The minimum test load requirement should still be satisfied, because the scale and building are designed to weigh loads up to the capacity of the scale. 320-5 VC UR.1.5. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-7 Recommendation: The Committee believes that additional criteria are needed to aid in determining the suitability of equipment for specific applications. These guidelines are recommended for use, but will not appear in Handbook

44. In response to comments the Committee has received, the Committee has revised the language to limit the guidelines to class III scales only. The Committee recommends that the following be adopted as guidelines to help

select the correct scale for a given application or assess the appropriateness of scales already installed.

Suitability of Division Value for Loads Weighed To be suitable for its application, a class III scale shall have a division value such that the requirements of the following table are satisfied for the minimum and average loads weighed on the

scale.

Range of Scale Capacities Average Net Load Minimum Net Load

Capacities up to and including 1000 kg (2500 lb) average net load > 100

J

Table 8 applies Capacities greater than 1000 kg

(2500 lb) average net load > 500J

320-6 W UR.3.7. Minimum Load on a Vehicle Scale

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Oregon; Western Weights and Measures Association Recommendation: Eliminate the net load requirement of 50d and return to the gross load requirement of 50d by

changing UR.3.7. to read:

UR.3.7. Minimum Load on a Vehicle Scale. - A vehicle scale shall not be used to weigh »«t gross

loads smaller than 50d.

(a)lOd when weighing scrap material for recycling,

312
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b)50d for all other weighing. As used in this paragraph, scrap materials for recycling shall be limited to ferrous metals, paper

(including cardboard), t extil es, plastic, and glass.

Discussion: A waste management company as a vehicle scale to weigh all trucks dumpmg solid waste at landfills. The company reported that a significant number of customers dispose of solid waste in quantities less than 1000 lb. The minimum net load to be weighed on a vehicle scale (excluding scrap metal for recycling) is 50d, or 1000 lb when using vehicle scales with 20-lb divisions. It wishes to charge customers for the actual weight of the waste dumped, but charges minimum fees for quantities less than 1000 lb due to the minimum load requirement. The company submitted an analysis showing that it could obtain additional revenue if the higher rate-per-ton fee were

used for loads up to 1000 lb instead of applying the minimum charge. The Committee considered whether to add another exemption to UR.3.7. for the weighing of solid waste at landfills or perhaps remove the minimum net load requirement in its entirety. The Committee does not like the idea of

adopting a requirement and then having an extensive list of exemptions. The Committee is concerned that continual granting of exemptions will lead to additional requests. Several States have reported that the minimum load requirement for vehicle scales has been preempted by State legislative action. The Committee also questioned whether or not jurisdictions are actively enforcing this requirement. The Committee concluded that the most effective way to deal with this issue was to recommend removal of the minimum net load requirement. The Committee encourages industry and weights and measures officials to study

this proposal and provide comments if they do not agree with the recommendation and if they would rather see a

list of exemptions maintained for this requirement. Changing the minimum load requirement to clearly apply to net loads has been a controversial issue over the years. The history of the issue is presented for reference.

History The 1000-lb minimum load for vehicle scales was adopted in 1937. The requirement applied specifically to gross

loads, although consideration was also given to minimum net loads. The main motivation for the 1937 discussion was the relationship of the minimum tolerance to the gross load, primarily as it related to weighing bags of coal on

a vehicle scale. The errors due to rounding to the nearest division were not considered.

In the early 1980s, the scale industry considered adoption of OIML criteria for scales. These criteria included recommended minimum loads for scales of different accuracy classes. The minimum load requirements were based upon both the tolerance applicable to the scale and the error associated with rounding weight values to the nearest

scale division. The maximum effect of the round-off error can be computed by dividing ±0.5d by the gross load

in divisions, then converting to a percentage of the gross load. For example, an error of ±0.5d at 20d represents 2.5 percent of the load being weighed; for a load of lOd, the round-off error can be as large as 5 percent of the load. The recommended minimum load on a class III scale is 20d, which can have a potential round-off error of ±0.5d

or 2.5 percent. In 1984 the Conference adopted recommended minimum load criteria for scales marked with an accuracy class. The requirements were part of the revision to the Scales Code tolerances which took effect in 1986. The issue of a minimum net load on vehicle scales was first addressed by the NCWM in the 1987 S&T Report (Item 320-24). Because the net weight on a vehicle scale is determined by performing two weighing operations, both of which are rounded to the nearest division, the maximum potential round-off error is ±ld. Consequently, a minimum

net load that is greater than 20d can be justified. For example, a minimum net load of 40d would give the same 2.5 percent potential error on a net load for a vehicle scale as for a single weighing operation on a class III scale at 20d. (Note that if tare is taken to the internal resolution of the scale rather than to the displayed resolution of the scale, as on a computing scale, then the potential round-off error relative to the net load remains at ±0.5d. Because vehicle

scales must have mathematical agreement of gross, tare, and net weights, the gross and tare weights must be rounded

to the displayed division.) The minimum net load requirement was adopted in 1988 (Item 320-17) and was expressed

as 50d.

313
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The exemption for scrap material for recycling was adopted in 1992. The justification was based upon the cost of

handling the material compared to the value of the scrap and the desire to facilitate recycling to reduce waste and

pollution. 320-7 I Criteria for Automatic Weighing Systems

Source: Carryover Item 320-12

Discussion: The Working Group on Automatic Weighing Systems has held two meetings and has made great progress in defining the scope of devices for which type evaluation criteria are being developed. Specific design

specifications have been identified to recognize the needs of the users of these systems. Test procedures are being developed and tolerances for static and dynamic testing are near completion. Specific recommendations for changes

to Handbook 44 to address a broad scope of automatic weighing systems (including those systems referred to as "checkweighers") are expected next year. The primary objective is to assist the U.S. Department of Agriculture and

the companies they regulate regarding devices used to determine or verify the net contents of packaged products. Consideration may ultimately be given to devices for other applications, such as scales in conveyor lines to check

or determine shipping rates for packages. 320-8 VC S.6.3., Table S.6.3.(b) Counting Scales

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-11 Recommendation: The Committee recommends that counting features be permitted on commercial scales provided

that the count feature is identified as "not legal for trade." Amend note 13 of Table S.6.3.(b) to read:

13. A scale designedfor a special application rather than general use shall be conspicuously marked

with suitable words visible to the operator and customer restricting its use to that application, e.g., postal scale, prepack scale, weight classifier, etc. * When a scale is installed with an operational counting feature, the scale shall be marked on both the operator and customer side with the statement, "The counting feature is not legal for trade." [*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

Discussion: The SMA examined the possibility of developing criteria for counting scales. Since other countries permit counting features to appear on commercial scales without specific criteria, the SMA recommends that counting

features be allowed on approved weighing systems with a permanent label stating that the counting feature has not been approved for use in trade. The S&T Committee is concerned that the counting feature not be used

commercially. If there are no specific criteria for issues such as selecting an appropriate sample size, the variation of the individual weight of the objects to be counted, accuracy tolerances for the count, and the representation of

displayed information, then there can be no criteria and procedures with which to assess the performance of counting

scales. Consequently, the Committee recommends that specific language be placed on scales installed in commercial

applications to indicate clearly that the counting feature is not to be used for commercial trade. If this change is adopted and the count feature is permitted to appear on commercial devices, controlling the use of the counting

feature will be left to enforcement.

314
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems

321 I N.3.3.1. Minimum Test Loads for Simulated Load Tests

Source: Southern Company Services; Southern Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: The Committee reviewed the proposal to define parameters for conducting simulated load tests on belt conveyor scales. The following language has been adopted by the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) Committee 34.

N.3.3.1. Minimum Test Loads for Simulated Load Tests. - The simulated load test shall be conducted

using test weights equal to at least 60 percent of the static scale capacity without the use of multiplying

levers. The test weights may be placed on the belt or directly on the weighbridge under the belt. The methods of conducting simulated load tests and the amount of test weight applied to the belt-conveyor scale vary

greatly. The proposal describes the manner in which the load is to be applied to the belt-conveyor scale and would

eliminate the use of multiplying levers to obtain an effective test load. Applying weight directly to the weighbridge

or to the belt more accurately reflects actual use. It should be noted that this proposal would not prohibit the use of electronic calibration to check the electronics of the belt-conveyor system in addition to the simulated load test. The issue of electronic calibration is a separate issue from that of the simulated load test. The Committee did not have sufficient technical justification for making a decision on this item. Moreover, the Committee questioned whether or not it is necessary for Handbook 44 to specify procedures and parameters for simulated load tests, which are not considered official tests; only materia! tests are official tests. The test notes for simulated load tests were removed from the Belt-Conveyor Scales Code in 1989 partly because they were not official

tests. At that time the Committee decided that any simulated load test recommended by the manufacturer could be

used to monitor the performance of the scale.

If technical justification is provided, the Committee will reconsider whether or not parameters for simulated load tests are needed to more accurately monitor the on-going performance of belt-conveyor scales. In the absence of this information, the Committee made this an information item and does not intend to pursue the issue unless additional

justification is provided. Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

330-1 VC S.2.1. Vapor Eliminators on Loading Rack Meters

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Shell Oil Recommendation: The Committee recommends adding a new paragraph S.2.1.1. as follows:

S.2.1. 1. Vapor Elimination on Loading Rack Meter Systems.

(a) A loading rack metering system shall be equipped with a vapor or air eliminator or other automatic means to prevent the passage of vapor and air through the meter unless the system is designed or operationally controlled by a method, approved by the weights and

measures jurisdiction having control over the device, such that air and/or vapor cannot

enter the system.

315
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) Vent lines from the air or vapor eliminator (if present) shall be made of metal tubing or

other rigid material.

History: The Liquid-Measuring Devices Code (LMD) currently requires that all liquid-measuring devices be equipped with a vapor or air eliminator or other automatic means to prevent the passage of vapor and air through

the meter. Comments have been received that many loading rack terminals are designed to eliminate the presence of vapor or air in the system. Internal or external floating pans are often used to prevent the addition of vapor to the product supply. Companies also use internal floating suction lines designed with an elbow to keep the suction pipe below the liquid level. The systems are designed to keep a positive suction head to prevent vaporization of the

liquid at the pump, and companies use centrifugal pumps specifically designed to avoid collection of vapor. Piping

is designed to ensure that temperature changes permit liquid to flow fi-eely in or out of the tank. Comments indicated that requiring air eliminators is an unjustified cost since other steps have been taken to prevent

the introduction of vapor into the measurement system. Moreover, air eliminators introduce a risk (especially in unmanned operations) of discharging product to the environment, thereby causing pollution. The Committee recognized that jurisdictions require air eliminators because it is not typically feasible to verify that other means are effective; however, the effectiveness of the air eliminators and the associated piping is not typically

verified by weights and measures. The Committee believes that alternatives to requiring an air eliminator should be permitted provided that alternative means are automatic in operation. The Committee agreed that any alternative means should be reviewed and approved by the weights and measures jurisdiction having authority over the system. The Committee decided to delete the term "effective" since the alternative means must be effective in order to satisfy the requirements of the paragraph. The Committee will develop guidelines to assist jurisdictions in evaluating the effectiveness of means alternative to an air eliminator for preventing the passage of vapor and air through the meter. Representatives from Canada's Legal Metrology Branch have provided a copy of the minimum criteria established by their agency for assessing these systems. The Committee plans to forward the Canadian guidelines to the regional weights and measures associations

for additional input on appropriate criteria. After finalizing the guidelines, the Committee will present them to the NCWM for use by jurisdictions to assess systems for compliance with S.2.1.1. 330-2 VC S.5.I., S.5.2., UR.4.1., and UR.4.2., Totalizers and Sealing of

Totalizers

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NCWM S&T Committee Recommendation: In September 1993, the S&T Committee recommended that weights and measures jurisdictions delay enforcement of Liquid-Measuring Devices Code paragraphs S.5.I., S.5.2., UR.4.1., and UR.4.2. until the NCWM had another opportunity to review the Handbook 44 language in July 1994. Based on the number of questions surrounding this issue, it is apparent that the adopted language is not adequate to ensure consistent interpretation in the weights and measures community. To ensure consistency and to ensure that the intent of the NCWM is clear, the Committee believes that requirements adopted for totalizers on retail motor-fiiel dispensers must be modified. The Committee recommends modifications to paragraph S.5.I., UR.4.1., and UR.4.2.

as follows:

S.5.1. Totalizers for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. - Retail motor-fuel dispensers shall be equipped with a nonresettable totalizerfor to cumulatively register the quantity delivered through the metering device. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1995. To become retroactive January 1, 199X.1

Delete paragraphs S.5.2.; UR.4.1.; UR.4.2.

316
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

History: At the 78th Annual Meeting in July 1993, the NCWM voted to include several paragraphs relating to

totalizers on retail motor-fuel dispensers in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code of Handbook 44. Since then a number of questions were raised concerning the language adopted for totalizers, the intent of the NCWM in adopting

that language, and how the requirements would be interpreted and enforced by weights and measures officials, particularly when a dispenser has both an electronic and a mechanical totalizer. A memorandum dated September 21, 1993 was sent to State weights and measures directors by Mr. Jack Jeffries, Chairman, NCWM S&T Committee, outlining some of the concerns. The S&T Committee recommended that the regional weights and measures associations address the issue of what constitutes an acceptable physical security seal for mechanical totalizers, and discuss whether or not the requirement should be made retroactive at a later date. In

his letter, Mr. Jeffries also reviewed the following questions and provided responses from the S&T Committee and

weights and measures officials.

Issues Regarding the Sealing of Totalizers

1) If a device is equipped with both electronic and mechanical totalizers, must both totalizers meet

requirements for sealing? (For example, if the electronic totalizer is non-resettable, must the mechanical

totalizer also be capable of being sealed?) The language adopted in paragraph S.5.1. requires that retail motor-fuel dispensers (RMFDs) be equipped with

a nonresettable totalizer. This does not specify whether the totalizer must be mechanical or electronic; therefore, either type would be acceptable.

Paragraph S.5.2. requires that a mechanical totalizer on a device must be equipped with provisions for sealing. This would apply to any mechanical totalizer on a device, regardless of whether or not the device is equipped

with a nonresettable electronic totalizer. Since the requirements for electronic and mechanical totalizers are

in separate paragraphs, both must be satisfied if both types of totalizers are present. Therefore, technically, the answer to the question posed is yes; however, the S&T Committee did not consider the case when dispensers

are equipped with both an electronic and mechanical totalizer. The Committee stated in its report that one or

the other is acceptable. The Committee believes that the intent of the NCWM was to require dispensers to have

at least one sealable or non-resettable totalizer; the Committee believes that having one scalable or nonresettable

totalizer would satisfy weights and measures officials.

2) What criteria must be met by an electronic totalizer in order for it to be considered "nonresettable"?

It is the opinion of the S&T Committee that it should not be possible to reset the totalizer in the normal

operating mode or through a programming or setup mode that is accessible through a security code or password.

(If the totalizer can only be reset by a process that erases all dispenser programming or by replacing the main

printed circuit board, the totalizer would be considered to meet the requirements. This is consistent with the

five philosophies for sealing noted in the 1992 final report of the S&T Committee.) The totalizer information must be retained in the event of a power failure and, if equipped with a battery back-up, must not lose its information if the battery is disconnected; this method of operation is similar to that required for retaining audit

trail information.

3) Would an audit trail be acceptable for an electronic totalizer? Under General Code paragraph G-S.8. and LMD Code paragraph S.2.2., the minimum form of audit trail specified for RMFDs would be interpreted as being acceptable for monitoring changes to an electronic totalizer. This means that an electronic totalizer on a RMFD equipped with two event counters may be resettable if one

of the event counters increments each time the totalizer is reset. Weights and measures officials may not be

comfortable with this situation for a totalizer that is not intended to be reset to zero.

317
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

4) What is considered to be an acceptable method for sealing a mechanical totalizer? Weights and measures officials currently recognize the use of such physical security seals as lead-and-wire,

plastic-wire, and destructible pressure-sensitive. Mechanical totalizers on some RMFDs have been sealed in the past using an epoxy substance to prevent tampering with the totalizer connections; the epoxy seal is not

typically imprinted with a mark which could be used as a means to determine whether or not someone has tampered with the totalizer connections. Many gasoline tax or revenue divisions have historically accepted the epoxy seal for sealing mechanical

totalizers. Now that requirements for totalizers have been included in Handbook 44, it will be necessary for weights and measures to determine whether or not seals such as the epoxy seal are acceptable for this purpose.

Initial reactions have indicated that some weights and measures officials are unwilling to accept epoxy seals since they do not provide evidence of tampering as is provided by other types of physical security seals. Other

weights and measures officials have indicated willingness to accept the epoxy seal for the purpose of sealing only totalizers (i.e., epoxy is not acceptable on adjustment mechanisms or other scalable parameters), provided

that their gasoline tax or equivalent department would be satisfied with this type of security seal.

Sealing Compared With "NonResettable" Requirements At the Interim meeting, the Committee reviewed, in addition to its own original proposal, a proposal from the Western Weights and Measures Association. The Committee also reviewed a proposal from the Northeastern and

Southern Weights and Measures Associations; the Measuring Sector of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee indicated their support for this proposal. The S&T Committee agreed to recommend adoption of the

latter proposal rather than its original proposal. The Committee recognizes that some jurisdictions strongly believe that totalizers should be sealed. The Measuring

Sector expressed concerns that the provision to require sealing is too broad. There are many differing opinions on what constitutes an acceptable means of sealing a totalizer, including the type of security seal (e.g., wire seal or epoxy) and at what point(s) the seals must be placed. S&T Committee members also noted that physical limitations

in the design of a retail motor-fiiel dispenser make it difficult to access the components of the totalizer which might

need to be sealed and also make it difficult to seal the device in such a way that routine operation of the device will not destroy the seal. S&T Committee members also noted reports fi-om some tax revenue agencies indicating that sealing the totalizer did not provide significant benefit. No specifications are defined for totalizer capacity and the information collected from them may be of limited value; even totalizers with a capacity of 999,999 units can "roll over" in a week in a busy service station. The Measuring Sector expressed the opinion that, without additional specifications, totalizers should not be sealed; the only requirement should be that a totalizer be "nonresettable." The S&T Committee agreed with the Measuring

Sector's assessment that additional specifications for totalizers would not be of sufficient benefit to justify the time and effort that would be required for their development. The Committee noted that there are different interpretations of the term "nonresettable." The Committee agreed that the intent of the term is to indicate that the totalizer cannot be reset by use of a push button. The Committee

recognizes that it is possible to reset a totalizer by other than a push button (e.g., mechanically turning the totalizer backward with a drill hooked to the cable); however, if means other than a push button are required to reset the

totalizer, then the totalizer is considered nonresettable. 330-3 I T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems; Accuracy of the Temperature Sensor

Source: Carryover Item 330-5

Discussion: The Committee is retaining this item as an informational item to allow additional time for data to be

collected on the use of small volume provers. The issue of compact provers was discussed at the October 1993

318
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

meeting of the National T>pe Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector. Mr. Tim Scott, Brooks

Instruments, is working on a project to compare the performance of a small volume prover with that of a conventional neck-t>pe prover. It is expected that some of the difficulties that might be typically be encountered

in the testing of temperature compensating systems when using a compact prover might be obsei-ved during this testing. It is noted that these devices are currently accepted for use in routine field tests, and for use in NTEP

evaluations; Mr. Scott seeks eventual NCWM acceptance through the NCWM Metrologists' Group. The Committee would appreciate additional input to develop and resolve this issue, particularly information on how

accurately the temperature of the product used in the test can be determined and how the lag time in the response of the temperature probe is addressed. The S&T Committee originally specified the tolerance for automatic temperature compensating systems in terms of

the meter test results for compensated and uncompensated runs because the location of the temperature probe in many

loading rack systems is often at a considerable distance from the meter. In addition, many installations do not have

a thermometer well adjacent to the temperature probe that can be used to compare the accuracy of the system

temperature probe to a reference thermometer. The normal test draft for the application of the tolerance is a necktype, large volume prover. The Committee received comments indicating that the tolerance expressed in T.2.3.4. is not practical when small volume provers are used. The Committee understands the term "small volume prover" to refer to a compact prover

rather than to a neck-t\ pe prover of a smaller capacitv'. Due to the small size of the test draft when small volume

provers are used, the tolerance as a percentage of the test draft is too small to be used to check the accuracy of the temperature probe. The Committee was asked to consider expressing the tolerance for a temperature probe in degrees, such as 1 °C (2 °F), particularly when small volume provers are used to test meters, and to consider

specifying all tolerances for automatic temperature compensating systems as a temperature value instead of a deviation in the test results for the compensated and uncompensated test results. Some members of industr>- expressed opposing views to these comments, indicating that evaluating the performance

of the temperature probe alone and permitting a tolerance of 2 °F is excessive, indicating that the proposal would

inappropriately relax the tolerances. Comments at the Interim Meeting indicated that it is reasonable to specify a tolerance for the temperature probe, but the variance should be no more than 0.5 °C or 1 °F. During the discussion, it was pointed out that the temperature taken by a small volume prover is not representative of the temperature of the entire delivery': it represents only the temperature of the product at a given time during the

delivery. The performance of the probe represents only part of the overall performance of the measuring system. Consequently, it was stated that the application of the tolerances as currently written is inappropriate for small volume provers and should be changed as proposed. The American Petroleum Institute has provided to the S&T Committee four sections from its Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards to assist the Committee in its understanding of the design and use of small volume provers. The Committee has received input concerning tvpical sizes of small volume provers and has identified t\pical configurations used in the applications addressed by paragraph T.2.3.4. The Committee also received information from Mr. Chuck Michell. Shell Oil Company, concerning the potential difference in product temperature if the temperature probe for the metering system is not adjacent to the meter. He

noted that API Chapter 7.2. indicates "Where it is impractical to mount the temperature sensor in the meter, it should

be installed either immediately downstream or upstream of the meter... Where several meters are manifolded in parallel, one temperature sensor located in the total liquid stream is acceptable,... providing the temperature agrees within 1.0 °F of the meter temperature." The Committee is considering the addition of a definition for small volume prover as follows. It is noted that small volume provers may be used in a wider variety of applications and available in more configurations than specified

in this definition; the definition limits the scope of the term for the purposes of reference in Handbook 44.

319
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

small volume prover. - A stationary or portable testing device (prover) that has a known volume between

detectors of less than 100 gallons, provides for less than 10,000 direct pulses from the meter during a

single pass of a displacer between detectors, and is used to test the performance of meters with a discharge

rate in excess of 300 gallons per minute. The small volume prover measures product in a dynamic state and typically uses pulse-interpolation or similar techniques to achieve high resolution. Small volume

provers are sometimes referred to by the trade name "compact prover." The Committee is also considering modifying T.2.3.4. as follows to address the application of tolerances when a small volume prover is used.

T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - Except for tests performed usins a small volume

prover, the difference between the meter error for results determined with and without the automatic

temperature compensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.2 percent of the test draft for mechanical automatic temperature compensating systems; and

(b) 0. 1 percent of the test draft for electronic automatic temperature compensating systems. The results of each test shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.J When testing is performed using a small volume prover, the temperature probe shall be accurate to within

+0.5 °C (1 °F). 330-4 I T.4. Repeatability Tolerances

Source: Accurate Metering Systems Recommendation: Concern has been expressed that the repeatability tolerance for vehicle tank meters is too

restrictive when acceptance tolerance applies. As an example, on a 405-gallon indication applying acceptance

tolerance, a device must repeat within 40% of ±0.492 gallons, which is 45.5 cubic inches. As an alternative, a proposal was made to modify existing paragraphs or add new paragraphs as appropriate in all codes in Section 3.0

to specify repeatability requirements as follows: The repeatability for multiple tests conducted at approximately the same flow rate shall not exceed 40

percent of the maintenance tolerance. The Southern recommended modifying only paragraph T.4. of the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code (VTM) to exempt

milk-measuring systems:

T.4. Repeatability. - (Except for Milk-Measuring Systems) When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the range of the test results for the flow rate shall not exceed 40 percent of the applicable tolerance.

Decision: The Committee believes that the tolerances are acceptable as currently written. The Committee does not

feel that sufficient data has been submitted to justify changing the current repeatability tolerances; no data has been

provided to indicate how closely devices in the field are repeating or the extent to which current repeatability tolerances are being exceeded. The Committee has heard concerns from some weights and measures officials that the repeatability tolerance for liquefied petroleum gas meters might be too stringent on small (e.g., 25-gallons) test drafts. However, no data has been provided to support an acceptable alternative. The Committee is maintaining this as an informational item; however, it will be withdrawn from the Committee's

1995 agenda unless additional information is provided to support changes to the tolerances. Additional background

information on the issue is provided below.

320
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

In 1992, the NCWM adopted repeatability tolerances for tests conducted at approximately the same flow rate. Paragraphs were added to the LMD Code (for retail and wholesale devices), the VTM Code, and the LPG and NH3

Code. A repeatability requirement was added to the tentative Mass Flow Meters Code as a separate item. The

addition of repeatability tolerances to the other codes in Section 3.0 was not discussed.

It has been noted that the repeatability tolerances adopted in 1992 are not identical for all devices; the repeatability tolerances are summarized below:

Retail Meters: "40 percent of the maintenance tolerance" Wholesale Meters, VTMs, LPG & NH3 Meters: "40 percent of the applicable tolerance" Mass Flow Meters: "0.2 percent of the measured quantity" The S&T Committee had recommended the larger "40 percent of the maintenance tolerance" for retail devices in recognition that tests of retail motor-fuel dispensers were typically performed using 5-gallon test measures. Applying 40 percent of acceptance tolerance would result in an unreasonably small tolerance of r/2 cubic inches. The

Committee felt that the readability of the prover and conditions in the field were not adequate to ensure application of the tolerance with a high degree of confidence. The Committee recommended "40 percent of the applicable

tolerance" for other devices because the Committee felt that other devices should be able to easily perform within

these limits. The repeatability tolerance for mass flow meters is based on the OIML requirements for these devices. Vehicle-Tank Meters Code

331-1 VC S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calender.)

Source: Southern ^ • Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.1.3. as follows:

S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit. - The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery, and recorded

delivery if the meter is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) 0.5 L (4-pt 0.1 gal) or 0.5 kg (1 lb) on milk-metering systems and on meters with a rated maximum flow rate of 500 L/min (100 gal/min) or less used for retail deliveries of liquid fuel for domestic use, or

(b) 5 L (1 gal) or 5 kg (10 lb) on other meters.

Discussion: Paragraph S.1.1.3. currently restricts the division size of a vehicle-tank meter (VTM) used for retail deliveries of liquid fuel for domestic use to 0.5 L (1 pint) or less. Devices included in the Handbook definition for a retail device include those devices used for single deliveries of less than 380 liters (100 gallons) and retail deliveries of motor fuels to individual highway vehicles. Concern has been expressed that the division size of VTMs commonly used in airports have been found to be larger than 0.5 L (0.1 gal). In view of the reference to "fuel for domestic use," the Handbook does not clearly require the smaller division size on these devices. However, the size of the delivery for these devices is often less than 380 liters (100 gallons). Similar ambiguity exists for VTMs used to fuel (non-highway) construction vehicles where the delivery is less than 380 liters (100 gallons), but the fuel is not for domestic use. The Committee agrees that a

division size greater than 0.5 L is not suitable for these applications. The Committee also agreed that the reference

to 1 pint should be deleted and the closest gallon equivalent indicated instead (i.e., 0.1 gal); the Committee believes

that this is more appropriate since most devices indicate in terms of decimal gallons.

321
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

331-2 W Table 1. Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters Except Milk Meters, Agri-Chemical Meters, and Mass Flow Meters

(This item was withdrawn.) Source: Western Background: The Committee reviewed a proposal to replace Table 1 Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters Except Milk Meters, Agri-Chemical Meters, and Mass Flow Meters in the Vehicle-Tank Meters (VTM) Code with the tolerances specified for wholesale devices in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. The proposal was intended to provide consistency between the two codes, for ease of use, and to recognize that the same meter can be used in both

applications. The tolerance structure of the VTM Code provides a tolerance of a fixed number of cubic inches for

all test drafts and an additional number of cubic inches based on the indicated amount. The LMD Code specifies a tolerance strictly as a percentage of the indicated amount. Both tolerance structures result in a tolerance that varies according to the indicated amount. A comparison of tolerances for the same make and model of meter used in both applications (LMD and VTM) show

that the LMD Code is tighter for maintenance tolerance than the VTM Code for a 380 liters (lOO-gallon) draft, but

the opposite is true for a 3000-liter (800-gallon) draft. For acceptance tolerance, the LMD Code is less stringent than the VTM Code for both a 380-liter (lOO-gallon) draft and a 3000-liter (800-gallon) draft.

Decision: The Committee believes that the tolerances are acceptable as currently written and, consequently, has withdrawn this item from its agenda. The Committee is concerned that the proposed change would lead to relaxed

tolerances for a large number of applications covered by the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code. Many tests are run above 380 liters (100 gallons) and the tolerances for tests drafts in this range would be larger than the tolerances specified

for these drafts in the current code. Devices in the field meet the current tolerances, and the Committee feels that insufficient data or other technical justification has been submitted to justify raising the tolerances. The Committee noted that many regions may be interested in seeing the tolerances in this code expressed in terms of a percentage; the Committee is willing to consider changing the tolerances to a percentage of the test draft, if they are more consistent with the magnitude of the tolerance currently included in the VTM code.

331-3 VC UR.2.2. Ticket Printer; Customer Ticket

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Petroleum Marketer's Association of America (PMAA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.2.2. as follows:

UR.2.2. Ticket Printer; Customer Ticket. - Vehicle-mounted metering systems shall be equipped

with a ticket printer which shall be used for all sales where product is delivered through the meter. The ticket printer shall be used for all sales; a A copy of the ticket issued by the device shall be left with the customer at the time of delivery or as otherwise specified by the customer. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1995. To become retroactive as of January 1, 1999.]

Discussion: In 1992, the NCWM voted to add paragraph UR.2.2. to require a ticket printer on VTMs and to ensure

that customers receive a printed ticket for the transaction. The paragraph recognizes that most customers are not

present during a delivery from a VTM and are entitled to receive timely information about the details of the

transaction. PMAA expressed concern that the language adopted in UR.2.2. could be interpreted as imposing unnecessary

restrictions on bulk deliveries of product. For example, "bulk drops" of product in which the entire truck load of

product is dropped at a single location are often made to retail service stations. The service station is provided with

a copy of the loading ticket printed by the meter at the loading terminal. It was noted that UR.2.2. could be

322
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

interpreted to require all deliveries (including what would typically be a drop delivery) to be run through the meter; running the entire load through the meter would require more time than the drop delivery. An additional point of concern raised by PMAA was the requkement to leave a copy of the ticket with the customer

at the time of the delivery. Examples where leaving the ticket is not practical include deliveries to rental properties where the landlord has asked to have the ticket left elsewhere or mailed, and rural deliveries to farm tanks where

there is no building in which to leave the ticket. In its previous discussions on this issue, the S&T Committee felt very strongly that the customer is entitled to receive a copy of the ticket for every transaction; this includes budgetbilling customers, who should have a record of individual deliveries to compare with the periodic invoice. If a customer specifically requests to have the ticket mailed or left at other than the delivery location, the Committee

recognized that an exception may be made at the discretion of the weights and measures jurisdiction. The Southern

felt ver>' strongly that this was not intended to be a blanket exception extended to all customers, but an exception

to address specific instances where the customer requests a variation fi-om the normal practice of leaving the ticket

at the delivery site. Some jurisdictions were satisfied with the language as currently written; the S&T Committee agrees that the current language does not require ever>' deliver)' to be made through the meter mounted on the truck. However, the S&T

Committee believes that modifications to the existing language are needed to ensure that the paragraph is interpreted and applied consistently by all jurisdictions. The Committee also believes that the proposed changes will help to ensure that the paragraph is applied as originally intended by the NCWM.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

332-1 I T.3, Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems; Accuracy of the Temperature Sensor

Source: Carryover Items 332-1 and 330-5 Recommendation: See Item 330-3 for background discussion on the liquid-measuring devices issue corresponding

to this item. The Committee is considering modifying paragraph T.4. of the LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Code

as follows to address the application of tolerances when a small volume prover is used. The Committee is also considering the addition of a definition for a small volume prover as specified in LMD Item 330-3.

T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - Except for tests performed using a small volume

prover, the difference between the meter error for resuUs determined with and without the automatic temperature-compensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.5 percent of the test draft for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems; and

(b) 0.25 percent of the test draft for electronic automatic temperature-compensating systems. The results of each test shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. When testing is performed using a small volume prover, the temperature probe shall be accurate to within

plus or minus 0.5 °C (1 "F).

323
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

334-1 I S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation

Source: Carryover Item 334-1; Compressed Gas Association; Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

Discussion: In 1992 the following proposal was submitted to reverse the action taken in 1991 which required cryogenic metering systems to be equipped with automatic temperature or density compensation systems and to

inhibit the meter system operation if the ATC system fails.

S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation. - If a device is shall be equipped with automatic means for adjusting the indication and/or recorded representation of the measured quantity of the product,

it shall to indicate and/or record in terms of: kilograms or pounds; liters or gallons of liquid at the normal boiling point of the specific cryogenic product; or the equivalent cubic meters (cubic feet) of gas

at a normal temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) and an absolute pressure of 101.325 kPa (14.696 psia). Whan

a compensator system malfunctions, the indicating and recording elements may indicate and record in uncompensated volume if the mode of operation is clearly indicated, e.g., by a marl(cd annunciator, recorded statement, or other obvious means.

[*Nonrctroaetive as of January 1, 1992] CGA Position Mr. Lionel Wolpert, representing the Compressed Gas Association (CGA), gave a presentation at the 1993 Interim Meetings in support of rescinding the mandatory use of automatic temperature-compensating systems on cryogenic metering systems, contending that automatic compensation is a design requirement.

It is the CGA position that the requirements for automatic temperature or density compensation for the meters is unnecessary, restrictive, and costly from both operational and maintenance perspectives. Other methods are available

to ensure consistency in meeting the tolerances. The CGA contends that the tolerances specified in the Code can be and are being met using meters that do not have temperature or density compensation. The Code should be a performance standard, not a design manual. The Compressed Gas Association reports that a narrow pressure range exists for trailers to pump discharge their lading (the most common delivery mode). This range is mandatory in order to prime and retain the pump prime

during transfer, yet not exceed the pressure rating of the trailer as maintained by the pressure relief valve. These

operating parameters limit the maximum temperature of the cryogenic product being delivered and metered. Approximately 75 percent of the 1900 cryogenic meters in commercial use in the United States are not compensated

for temperature or density. The cost of replacing or modifying present metering systems to incorporate temperature

or density compensation ranges from $600 to $3000 per meter. Maintenance costs also increase due to additional instrumentation and hardware. Much of this maintenance cost is due to the rigors of road vibration, particularly for the temperature sensor. Committee Concerns The Committee analyzed the data provided in Mr. Wolpert' s presentation along with the report of the meter testing conducted by the State of California. Two points were major considerations to the Committee, as follows:

Point 1: The California data indicate a much higher rejection rate for non-temperature-compensated meters (34

percent) than for temperature-compensated meters (9 percent). The CGA did not have the California comments prior

to the Interim Meetings and was unable to assess and explain such a large difference in rejection rates in the California data. The Committee concluded that temperature-compensated meters appeared to have greater accuracy than uncompensated meters.

324
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The CGA has since responded to the California comments, indicating that it believes that higher rejection rate of

nontemperature-compensated meters is due to the age of the meters and the lack of maintenance performed on them. The CGA noted that temperatiire-compensated meters are a fairly recent introduction, first available around 1989,

in contrast to non-temperature-compensated meters, which have been available for over 18 years.

In a recent letter, California responded that it does not have data to verify the ages of the meters rejected or ^proved. However, they indicate that temperature-compensated meters have been approved and in service in California since 1977. They also note that it is common practice for device users to rebuild older cryogenic meters

rather than replace them; the rebuilding keeps only the original exterior metal casing and electronic housings.

California also noted that active, regular enforcement, such as its program for cryogenic meters, helps to ensure

regular maintenance, whether voluntary and routine or enforced due to rejection of a meter.

Point 2: This point is based upon the effects of pressure on the accuracy of the measurement, as provided by

Mr. Wolpert in his presentation. The variation of pressure from 5 to 25 psig changes the liquid volume correction

factor from approximately -1.5 percent to 2.3 percent. The CGA contends that, since this is less than the meter

tolerance, automatic temperature compensation should not be required. The S&T Committee noted that the acceptance tolerance on cryogenic meters is 1.5 percent; the maintenance tolerance is 2.5 percent. Since the effect of pressure (and therefore temperature) can have an effect greater than the acceptance tolerance, automatic

temperature compensation can certainly be justified. The fact that the liquid volume correction varies over almost

the entire range of the maintenance tolerance means that there is little provision for meter error. Consequently, the Committee was not persuaded that the requirement for a mandatory temperature or density compensating system

should be deleted.

In response to this point, the CGA noted that the accuracy data presented at the 1993 Interim Meetings was an example for extreme cases where the liquid-saturated pressure could vary. The extremes ranged from 5 psig up to the Department of Transportation limit of 25 psig for a nonspecification trailer (cryogenic trailers fall into the nonspecification category). The ranges were selected to illustrate that even with these extremes in liquid temperature,

the maintenance tolerance of the code would be met. The CGA recognizes that the meter should be calibrated at the normal operating pressure of the meter (typically 15 psig); the acceptance tolerance applied minimizes calibration maintenance for the meter.

California expressed concern in its recent letter that calibrations are often performed at the temperature of the product

at the time of calibration. For deliveries made at other product temperatures, California is concerned that delivery

errors may exceed tolerances. In addition, the data in the extreme examples of 5 psig to 25 psig would assume that the meter error is zero. California's experience indicates that saturation pressures in excess of those specified in UR.2.7. are not uncommon in normal operations encountered by its field inspectors. The Committee agreed in July 1993, the CGA will have to provide additional information to justify further consideration of its proposal to rescind the requirement adopted in 1991. The Committee is reluctant to propose

changes to the requirements which were adopted in 1991 until information can be provided to indicate that changes

are warranted. The CGA arranged for test demonstrations in Baltimore in November 1993 and in Virginia in December 1993, to gather additional data to present to the S&T Committee. Representatives from the S&T Committee, Maryland

Weights and Measures, and NIST were present to witness the testing and discuss the concerns of the CGA. At the

1 994 Interim Meeting, the CGA expressed concern that some of the data gathered at the S&T demonstrations was

tainted. The S&T Committee wants to see data that is not questionable. The Committee wants to see data witnessed by weights and measures officials, preferably members of the Committee. In order to enable the Committee to adequately address the issue, the data should include a wide range of variables, including (where possible): a range

of pressures from 10 psi to 23 psi with ATC activated and with ATC deactivated; fast tests and slow tests; and a range of temperatures. The Committee agreed to leave this as an informational item to give the CGA and other

interested parties an opportunity to provide additional input.

(See also Items 334-1 and 334-2 in the 1991 the S&T Committee final report for additional background information.)

325
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Milk Meters Code

335-1 VC Diversion of Measured Product

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Accurate Metering Systems Recommendation: The scope of this proposal was originally intended to apply only to mass flow meters used to dispense milk; however, the language developed for the proposed paragraph did not limit its application to mass flow

meters. In reviewing the proposed language, the Committee agreed that it is appropriate to extend the scope of its original proposal to milk meters which use other types of metering technology. Since such language would require

that adequate safeguards be provided to prevent diversion of measured product, the Committee also believes these provisions should be extended to devices covered by the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. Modify paragraph S.3.1. as follows:

S.3.1. Diversion of Liquid to be Measured. - No means shall be provided by which any liquid can

be diverted from the supply tank to the receiving tank without being measured by the device. 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 passage of liquid through any such

outlet during normal operation of the measuring system.

If the status of the Mass Flow Meters Code is changed to a permanent code, the provisions of the Mass Flow Meters Code will apply to mass flow meters used to deliver milk. Since the language proposed by the Committee in S.3.1.

is not limited to Mass Flow Meters, the paragraph will remain in the Milk Meters Code and will apply to other types of metering technologies used to deliver milk. If the proposed changes to paragraph S.3.1. are adopted by the NCWM, the Committee plans to recommend in 1995 that the NCWM consider incorporating similar language in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code.

Discussion: When incorporating a Coriolis-type mass flow meter into a receiving or load-out system for milk

product, milk derivative, or food product, the air must be thoroughly purged prior to beginning the measurement.

Coriolis-type mass flow meters become unstable during transition from an empty tube to a full tube. Concern has been expressed that it is not possible to achieve consistent measurement on start-up from an empty system. It is noted that other types of metering technology, such as positive displacement meters, must satisfy the same conditions; however, it has been suggested that the accuracy of other types of technology are not affected by the start-up conditions as significantly as the mass flow meter.

Sanitary systems, such as those used to measure milk, must be cleaned out and washed at least once per day. In addition, the system must be emptied and refilled between successive loads of different products, such as condensed skim milk and cream. Consequently, a typical milk metering system must frequently make the "empty" to "full" transition as part of its normal operation.

It has been proposed that an outlet for purging or draining the system be permitted, with the condition that effective means be provided to prevent passage of liquid through this outlet during normal operation. A meter must not

register or record product while the manually controlled outlet diverts measured product. The proposal would enable

the system to circulate product until the metering system is full of product, at which time normal metering operation could be initiated. Another advantage of this provision would be that unmetered product remaining in the system

could be salvaged by running it back into the receiving tank. The tentative Mass Flow Meters Code recognizes the effects on mass flow meter performance of transitioning from

an empty to a full system. Paragraph S.4.1. of the Mass Flow Meters Code currently includes language similar to that suggested above for addition to the Milk Meters Code.

326
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The intent of paragraph S.3.1. is to prevent product from being diverted after the measurement. Diversion of measured product bases the sale upon an amount other than actually received by the purchaser. If means are provided to prevent diversion from occurring during normal system operation, the intent of paragraph S.3.1. would

be satisfied. In order to ensure that the intent of the paragraph is satisfied during all normal deliveries, it is necessary

to stipulate that the "effective means" (e.g., interruption of meter regisfration) must also be automatic in operation and interlocked with the operation of the meter. This ensures that the meter will not indicate or record quantity values while the manual outlet is in operation. During the Interim Meeting, the Committee noted that there are similar concerns for mass flow meters falling under

the Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) Code. As with the Milk Meters Code, the LMD Code does not now include language corresponding to paragraph S.4.1. of the Mass Flow Meters Code. The Committee agreed that a change

similar to that proposed for the Milk Meters Code would be appropriate for the LMD Code. Mass Flow Meters Code

337-1 V S. 1.2.2. Units of Measure for Natural Gas When Sold as an Engine

Fuel

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 337-2, Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition Recommendation: The Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee and the S&T Committee are coordinating their actions regarding the method of sale of compressed natural gas (CNG) when sold as an engine fuel. The L&R

Committee establishes the method of sale for CNG sold as a motor fuel, but the S&T Committee must establish the

specifications for the equipment used to sell CNG as a motor fuel. Assuming that the L&R Committee

recommendation to sell CNG on the basis of a gasoline liter equivalent and a gasoline gallon equivalent will be

accepted by the NCWM, the S&T Committee recommends the following changes to the Mass Flow Meter Code.

If the Mass Flow Meter Code is not adopted as a full code, then the requirements (if adopted) will be added in appropriate places to the Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices Code. Add the following definitions to Handbook 44.

natural gas. A gaseous fuel, composed primarily of methane, that is suitable for compression and

dispensing into a fuel storage container(s) for use as an engine fuel. [3.37]

gasoline liter equivalent (GLE). Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kilograms of natural

gas. 13.37)

gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 5.660 pounds of natural

gas. [3.37] Add a new paragraph S.1.2. to require that CNG dispensers be of the computing type and that an indication of mass

be available.

S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers. - Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a compressed natural gas dispenser used to refuel vehicles shall be of the computing type and shall indicate the quantity, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery. The dispenser shall display

the mass measured for each transaction either continuously on an external or internal display

accessible during the inspection and test of the dispenser, or display the quantity in mass units by

using controls on the device. Add a new paragraph S.1.2 1.1. to require quantities of CNG sold as an engine fuel to be indicated in units of

gasoline volume equivalents, renumber current S.1.2., S.1.2. 1., S. 1.2.2., S. 1.2.3. and S. 1.2.4. respectively.

327
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.1.2.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel. - When compressed natural gas is dispensed as an engine fuel, the delivered quantity shall be indicated in "gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) units" or "gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) units" (see definitions). Amend paragraph S.1.2.3.(b) to specify the maximum division value that may be used for gasoline volume

equivalents, such that money values will be computed to one cent values. Hence, whole dollar amounts will not be

skipped for unit prices up to at least $10 per GGE and at least $4 per GLE.

S.1.2.3. Maximum Value of Quantity-Value Divisions.

(a) The maximum value of the quantity-value division for liquids shall not be greater than 0.2 percent of the minimum measured quantity.

(b) The maximum value of th e quantity- value division for vapor - measuring devices s hall not

exceed 0.01 lb (0.01 kg) when measuring product a s a retail motor fu eli For dispensers of compressed natural gas used to refuel vehicles, the value of the division for the gasoline liter equivalent shall not exceed 0.01 GLE; the division for gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) shall not exceed 0.001 GGE. The maximum value of the mass division shall not exceed 0.001 kg or

0.001 lb. Add a new paragraph S.5.1. to require that the gasoline volume equivalent units be defined in mass units and marked

on the face of the dispenser.

S.5.1. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor. - A device dispensing compressed natural gas shall have either the statement "1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is Equal

to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas" or "1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is Equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas" permanently and conspicuously marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method

of sale used.

Discussion: See Item 232-4 in the Laws and Regulations Committee Report for the related issue addressing the method of sale of CNG as an engine fuel.

Last July, the weights and measures community seemed inclined to require CNG dispensers to indicate quantities

in mass units; however, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) took a unified position opposing the use of mass

units. They stated that the use of mass units would not be meaningful to consumers and would not facilitate value comparisons with gasoline. Both the L&R and S&T Committees agreed to study this issue over the following year. A meeting was held on September 1, 1993, to discuss the method of sale of CNG as an engine fiiel. The NGVC

is uniformly behind the concept of selling CNG based upon the "gasoline gallon equivalent." The average energy

content of gasoline is approximately 1 14,000 BTUs per gallon. The BTU content of gasoline varies with the brand and blend of the product and from season to season. Similarly, the BTU content of natural gas varies regionally across the country and varies with the source of supply. Attempting to establish and maintain a precise conversion between the energy content of gasoline and natural gas and to maintain and verify' the relationship was considered

to be an unrealistic task at the retail level. The NGVC opposed the sale of CNG in mass units in that it would not help the consumer and would detrimentally affect public acceptance of this alternative fuel. The question regularly posed was, "How does the sale of CNG in mass units help the consumer?"

Defining the GLE and GGE on the basis of mass would enable weights and measures officials to test the CNG

dispenser gravimetrically. Since most CNG dispensers currently installed use mass flow meters to measure the product, the dispenser could be tested by converting the GGE indication to mass units by multiplying the GGE

quantity by 5.660 Ib/GGE. The NGVC opposed adding a separate display in mass units for the purposes of test because the conversion factor would be fixed by this relationship. However, weights and measures officials were

interested in having either a separate display of mass (which could be hidden behind a removable panel) or having

a button on the dispenser that would momentarily switch the display from GGE to mass units. Such a display

328
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

enables weights and measures officials to verify the conversion factor used in the device between routine performance

tests.

Item 337-2 in the 1993 S&T Committee report should be referenced to understand the basis for the relationship of

1 GLE being set equal to 0.678 kg of CNG and 1 GGE being set equal to 5.660 lb of CN'G.

Discussion of the Changes

Definitions: The definition of natural gas limits the scope of these device requirements to devices used to sell natural gas as a motor fuel. The objecfive is to limit the use of the GLE and GGE to the sale of CNG as a motor fuel, that is. these units may not be used when nararal gas is sold for an> other purpose. The definitions of GLE

and GGE define these marketing units in terms of mass.

S. 1 .2. Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers: The Committee wants to ensure that CNG dispensers available for use by the general public are of the computing t>p€. Although Handbook 44 does not explicitly require gasoline dispensers available to the general public to be of the computing t>pe, computing-t>-pe dispensers have been

used for so long that the\ are now considered required under suitabilit\- of equipment. Additionally, the Committee recommends that a displa> of mass units be required on the dispenser so that the accuracy of the conversion factor berv^een mass and gasoline volimie equivalents can be checked at any time without actually jjerforming a meter test and that mass units are made available when meter accuracy is checked. The indication of mass ma\ be in a separate display or in the customer's quantit\' display by pressing a button or other convenient mechanism available to the weights and measures official. The button or the display may be on the outside of the device or inside the cabinet of the device.

S. 1.2. 1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel: This paragraph specifies that all CNG sold as an

engine fuel shall be indicated in gasoline volume equivalents as defined in the definition section of Handbook

44. To provide consumers with a uniform method of sale (as established by the L&R Committee), all CNG

dispensers must indicate in the same units. The GLE and GGE appear to be useful to facilitate taxing this engine fiiel in the same manner as gasoline and diesel fuel. A CNG dispenser indicating in only mass units would not be acceptable under the L&R recommended method of sale and this specification.

S.l_2.3. Maximum Value of Quantit> -Value Divisions: Handbook 44 does not require gasoline dispensers to compute to e\er>- one cent value, but the oil companies and service stations apparently want consumers to be

able to make purchases to ever\ whole dollar amount. To prevent the problem of inadequate computing

capabilit> in CNG dispensers, the Committee recommends adding this requirement so manufacturers of these dispensers will be aware of the potential problem and, thereby, prevent an enforcement problem from occurring

at a later date. Since CNG is aheady priced as high as S.89 per GGE (including taxes), prices in excess of

SI. 00 per GGE are possible in the foreseeable future.

S.5.1. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor Since new marketing units have been created

for the sale of CNG as an engine fuel, it is important that the consimier be able to relate the marketing units

to standard measurement units. Because these units are defined in mass units, these mass equivalents must be marked on the face of the device.

329
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

337-2 VC T.2. and T.3. Tolerances

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Carryover Item 337-5 Recommendation: To respond to the criticism that the mass flow meter tolerance provides an unfair advantage to mass flow meters used in the same applications as other types of meters, it is proposed that the tolerances specified

in paragraphs T.2. and T.3. be replaced by a new paragraph T.2. and accompanying table of accuracy classes for different applications. Make the repeatability tolerances for mass flow meters consistent with the repeatability tolerances for other metering devices addressed in other specific codes by amending the current paragraph T.4. (and renumbering it as T.3. below). The tolerance for liquid retail motor-fuel devices is specified as 40 percent of the maintenance tolerance, whereas the remaining devices have a tolerance of 40 percent of the applicable tolerances. To aid in determining the suitability of equipment of a meter for different applications, the accuracy class to which

a meter is expected to perform shall be marked on the device. Add a new subparagraph (e) to S.5. and renumber

the subparagraphs that follow.

S.5. Markings. - A measuring system shall be legibly and indelibly marked with the following information:

(a) pattern approval mark (i.e., type approval number);

(b) name and address of the manufacturer or his trademark and, if required by the weights and

measures authority, the manufacturer's identification mark in addition to the trademark;

(c) model designation or product name selected by the manufacturer;

(d) nonrepetitive serial number;

(el the accuracy class of the meter as specified by the manufacturer consistent with Table T.2.;*

(e) (li maximum and minimum flow rates in pounds per unit of time; ^ (g) maximum working pressure;

(g) (h) applicable range of temperature if other than -10 °C to +50 °C;

(h) £i} minimum measured quantity; and

(i) (]} product limitations, if applicable. [*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1995] Amend paragraph T.2. by replacing contents and adding a new table T.2. to include reference to "liquefied compressed gases" in Accuracy Class 2.5. Cryogenic Meters as follows:

T.2. Tolerances. - The tolerances for mass flow meters for specific liquids, gases, and applications are listed in Table T.2. Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Mass Flow Meter Applications Accuracy

Class Application or Commodity Being Measured

Acceptance

Tolerance Maintenance

Tolerance

0.3

Loading rack meters, vehicle-tank meters, (excluding LP Gas) home heating oil, milk and other food products, large capacity motor-fuel dispensers (maximum discharge

flow rates greater than 100 L or 25 gallon per minute), all other liquid applications not shown in the table where the minimum

delivery is at least 700 kg (1500 lb)

0.2% 0.3%

0.5 Small capacity (retail) motor-fuel dispensers, agri-chemical liquids, all other liquid applications not shown in the table 0.3% 0.5%

330
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Accuracy

Class

' Application or Commodity Being Measured

Acceptance

Tolerance Maintenance

Tolerance

1.0 Anhydrous ammonia, LP Gas (including

vehicle tank meters) 0.6% 1.0%

2.0 Compressed natural gas as a motor fuel 1.5% 2.0%

2.5 Cr>ogenic liquid meters, liquefied compressed gases other than LP Gas 1.5% 2.5%

Delete paragraph T.3. and renumber paragraphs T.4. and T.5. as T.3. and T.4., respectively.

Delete the subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed paragraph T.3. and set the repeatability tolerances consistent with the repeatability tolerances in the other codes applicable to the devices listed in Table T.2. Replace the subparagraphs with new subparagraphs (a) and (b) to read:

TT4r T.3. Repeatability. - When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the range of the test results for the flow rate shall not exceed: —0.2 percent of th e measured quantit)' for liquid measurement; and

(^)

0.6 pe rcent of the measured quantity for vapor measurement

(a) 0.2 percent for retail liquid motor fuel devices; and

(b) 40 percent of applicable tolerance for all other devices listed in Table 2. The tolerance currently specified in paragraph T.5. for the type evaluation of liquid-measuring devices is 0.3 percent; tolerances in the proposed Table T.2. are as small as 0.2 percent. To avoid a conflict with the tolerances in the proposed Table T.2. and paragraph T.5., amend paragraph T.5. to read:

T.5. Type Evaluation for Liquid-Measuring Devices. - For type evaluation examinations, the

tolerance values shall be 0.3 pe rcent. This tolerance shall apply under the following conditions:

(a) with any one liquid within the range of liquids

(b) at any one liquid temperature and pressure within the operating range of the meter, and

(c) at all flow rates within the range of flow rates.

Discussion: One of the main objections last July to changing the mass flow meters code from a tentative to a full code was that the 0.5 percent tolerance specified for mass flow meters in all applications would give the mass flow

meters an unfair advantage over other types of meters used in the same application. The suitability of equipment

table for liquid measuring devices would have eliminated this problem, but the table recommended by the S&T

Committee was changed to an information item in 1993. In an effort to remove the crificism that the mass flow- meters are given an unfair advantage due to the tolerance, it is proposed that the tolerances which currently apply

to mass flow meters in other codes should be incorporated into the mass flow meters code. This table takes the

tolerances for the suitability of equipment table and incorporates them into the code; the maximum division values have not been included since that is part of Item 310-4. To identify if the correct meter has been installed in an application and to ensure that the correct tolerance is applied, the Committee recommends that the meter be marked with one of the accuracy classes designated in Table T.2. Since the manufacturer designates the tolerance to which the meter has been designed, the inspector will know which

tolerance to apply. To be suitable for an application, the accuracy class must be equal to or of higher accuracy for the application listed in Table T.2. The tolerance corresponding to the accuracy class designated by the manufacturer

shall be applied to the meter, regardless of the tolerance specified in Table T.2. for the application. Hence the manufacturer will have to explicitly declare the tolerance that the meter is expected to meet. In this way, the device

user and the weights and measures official can expect the meter to perform within tolerance for at least the normal

331
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

test interval for meters that may be used in the same application. The objective of this marking requirement is that chronic bad performance will be avoided and excessive maintenance will not be necessary to obtain meter performance with the specified tolerance limits. Comments received at the Interim Meeting indicated general support for the approach of establishing meter classes.

It was also noted that the NTETC Measuring Sector discussed and supported the use of a similar approach in defining

criteria for suitabilitv' of equipment at its meeting in October 1993.

It should be noted that the tolerances for agri-chemical products are significantly less than that allowed in the Liquid- Measuring Devices Code. Over the years the Committee has received comments that the tolerances for agri-chemical

liquids are too large, based upon the high cost of the products. If the proposed tolerances for agri-chemical liquids

is controversial, the Committee will consider removing it from the table or using the existing tolerances to remove

objections. 337-3 VC UR.3.3. Ticket Printer; Customer Ticket

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Office of Weights and Measures Recommendation: Add a new paragraph UR.3.3. and renumber current UR.3.3., UR.3.4., and UR.3.5. to apply to vehicle-mounted metering systems as follows:

UR.3.3. Ticket Printer; Customer Ticket. - Vehicle-mounted metering systems

shall be equipped with a ticket printer which shall be usedfor all sales where

product is delivered through the meter. A copy of the ticket issued by the

device shall be left with the customer at the time of delivery or as otherwise

specified by the customer. [Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1995. To become retroactive as of January 1, 1999.

J

Discussion: When the Mass Flow Meters Code is changed from a tentative to a permanent code, references to mass

flow meters in the other codes will be deleted. The addition of paragraph UR.3.3. is proposed to make the Mass

Flow Meters Code consistent with requirements for vehicle-mounted metering systems in the Vehicle-Tarik Meters and LPG & Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Codes. During review of this issue at the Interim Meeting, the Committee modified the recommendation to make the proposed language consistent with the proposed

changes to the language in paragraph UR.2.2. of the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code (see Item 331-3). 337-4A V Tentative Status of the Code

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 337-5 Recommendation: Remove the tentative status of the code and make it a permanent code in HaDdbook 44.

If the NCWM votes to establish the Mass Flow Meters Code as a permanent code, all references to mass flow meters will be removed from the other Handbook 44 codes. Consequently, the Committee plans to editorially amend the application sections of other Handbook 44 Codes which currently reference mass flow meters to include the following: A.X. This code does not apply to:

(x) mass flow meters (see Sec. 3.37. Code for Mass Flow Meters)

332
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Discussion: Numerous requirements were adopted last July to permit the code to apply to retail motor-fuel

dispensers using mass flow meter technology, such as for compressed natural gas. Other added requirements have

not been incorporated into the specific codes that now apply to mass flow meters. The recommendations in Items 337-2 and 337-3 aim to remove what are believed to be the last major objections to making the Mass Flow Meter

code a full code in Handbook 44. During the Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee noted objections that have been raised concerning the discrepancy between the tolerances specified in the tentative Mass Flow Meters Code and the tolerances specified in the LMD

Code for devices used in the same application. Comments indicated that these concerns would be resolved if the tolerance structure were revised as described in Item 337-2.

337-4B V S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction

(This item was adopted.) Based upon comments received, add the following as a new Item 337-4B to address volume-measuring devices used

to measure compressed natural gas as an engine fuel.

Recoininendation: To recognize volume-measuring devices being used to measure Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

as an engine fuel consistent with the requirements of the Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices Code and to permit time for these devices to be modified to incorporate automatic density correction, the Committee recommends

that S.3.6. be amended to read:

S.3.6. Mass Flow Meters Automatic Density Correction.

(a) 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.

(b) Volume-measuring devices with automatic temperature compensation used to measure natural gas as a motor vehicle engine fuel shall be equipped with an automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density, both for the temperature and composition of the product. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1995. To become retroactive as of January 1, 1999.)

Discussion: In the absence of a permanent Mass Flow Meters Code, requirements for mass flow meters have been

adopted into several codes for measuring devices. The requirements of the Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring

Devices Code have been applied to devices used to measure CNG. This code permits volume measuring devices to indicate in units of volume, but the method of sale for CNG is currently being considered by the NCWM to be the gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). The GGE is based upon mass units, hence, the automatic correction for changes

in composition of the natural gas is needed to promote more accurate measurement. To provide time to incorporate automatic density correction for these devices, subparagraph (b) is added as a nonretroactive requirement. During the time volumetric devices are used to measure compressed natural gas as a motor vehicle engine fuel, corrections for changes in product density due to changes in composition will have to be

entered manually. It is the owner/user responsibility to maintain the device within tolerance at all times. Subparagraph (b) will become retroactive as of January 1, 1999.

333
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Taximeters Code

354-1 I UR.3.1. Units for Time, Distance Intervals, and Money Values

Source: Carryover S&T Item 354-1 Recommendation: The Committee has been asked to consider the addition of a paragraph to specify that taximeter

rates be based on and programmed to increment in equal money values and at tenths of kilometers or miles as follows:

UR.3.1. Units for Time, Distance Intervals, and Money Value. The display of a taximeter shall be programmed to increment in uniform whole cent money values, at 0.1 kilometer (or 0.1 mile)

intervals for distance, and at uniform time intervals. The uniform intervals for distance and time apply to both the initial and subsequent intervals. The Committee is returning this issue to the regional associations for review and asks that the affected industry study

this issue. Based upon discussions with industry, the regions must provide specific recommendations by November 1

,

1994, to the S&T Committee, the Committee will omit this item from its 1995 agenda.

Discussion: Based on comments received during the Interim meeting, the Committee decided to change the title of

the item and the proposed paragraph. The Committee hopes the revised title will help to emphasize that this paragraph does not establish the value of the rates which can be set on a meter; the paragraph only specifies that a meter must have equal increment sizes for the money value, distance interval, and time. This change applies to both

the initial and subsequent intervals for distance and time, but the Committee recognizes that the initial money interval may differ from the subsequent money intervals. The Committee also received comments that taxicab drivers are reluctant to handle pennies; therefore, they do not want fares which result in total amounts ending in other than five-cent increments. The recommended requirement

specifies distance rates in 0.1 km or 0.1 mile intervals. If taxicab companies want to avoid fares requiring pennies, then the rates must be in integer multiples of $0.05. Since Handbook 44 currently allows any distance to be used

for taxicab rates, to increase rates a jurisdiction or taxicab company could change the distance increment without changing the monetary value of the rate. For example, the rate of $.25 per 1/15 mile might be changed to $.25 per 1/17 mile. Language from the 1993 final S&T report is included below for reference as background material. No additional comments on this issue have been received by the Committee. Both the Western and Southern regional associations included this item on their agendas and both regions voted to adopt the language suggested above. At those meetings, comments indicated that value comparison by consumers is a concern as indicated by complaints received by specific weights and measures jurisdictions. It was also noted that specifying rate increments for taximeters is consistent with precedents in other codes, such as the Scales Code, where the permissible increments are limited to

I, 2, or 5; this paragraph makes no attempt to specify the monetary rate which can be charged. Background

The Taximeter Code requires that rates be stated and conspicuously displayed in the cab, but does not provide for uniformity in units of distance. Modem electronic taximeters are capable of computing at a multitude of rates. Both

the amount and distance of registration units can be changed without restriction. This has led to a proliferation of

distance rates which are confusing to customers. Some examples of rates currently in use are listed below.

$2.00 first 5/37 mile then $.25 each 5/37 mile $2.00 first 1/15 mile then $.25 each 1/15 mile $2.00 first 1/7 mile then $.25 each 1/7 mile $2.00 first 1/9 mile then $.25 each 1/9 mile

334
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The above rate schedules inhibit value comparison and are not "readily understandable by the ordinary passenger"

as required by UR.3. Additionally, it can create difficulty in testing a meter on a measured-mile course because there may not be a change in the fare corresponding to tenths of a mile or to the 1-mile increment marked on most

measured-mile courses. (See illustration below, which is based upon the first rate structure listed above. The top numbers represent distance in miles; the dollar amounts represent the fare amount corresponding to the distance.)

0 5/37 10/37 15/37 20/37 25/37 30/37 35/37 40/37 $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 i $3.00 $3.25 $3.50 $3.75

T1 mile

The Committee heard conflicting positions on this issue. In opposition to the information presented by the Western, some comments indicated that the proposed change to the units for rate increments will not help the consumer to make value comparisons. It was suggested that consumers do not make value comparisons among taximeter rates, hence requiring the information to be presented in only these units would not solve the raised concerns. In response

to this statement, comments indicated that some weights and measures jurisdictions have received complaints from consumers who do make value comparisons and to whom the choice of which taxicab company to use is an economic

decision. Comments also indicate that jurisdictions that use a measured-mile course for testing have experienced

difficulty in testing meters programmed with unusual rates because the distances at which the fare changes does not correspond to a fixed increment.

It was argued that establishing fixed increments for rate changes was not within the domain of weights and measures

jurisdictions since weights and measures jurisdictions do not typically establish taxi fares. This argument was raised

in 1990 (Item 354-4) when paragraph S.2.1. Initial Time and Distance Intervals was adopted by the NCWM. In response to these comments, it was noted that the proposed requirement does not set the amount of the rate, simply

the size of the money value division. It was further noted that precedence exists in other Handbook 44 codes where

the maximum/minimum values of the units of measurement and money value have been established. For example,

Scales Code Paragraphs S.I.8.I.M. and S. 1.8.1., Money-Value Graduations specify the permissible value of the graduated intervals representing money-values on a computing scale.

Grain Moisture Meters Code

356-1 V S.1.2.2. Digital Indications and Recording Elements; Information Sent To Printer

(This item was adopted.)

Source: NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.2.2. (c) as follows:

(c) Meters shall be equipped with a communication interface that permits interfacing with a recording element and transmitting the date, grain type, grain moisture results, and calibration version

identification.

Discussion: At its last meeting, the Grain Sector noted that paragraph S.1.2.2. requires a meter to be equipped with

a communication interface; however, there is no reference to the information that the meter should be able to communicate to the recording element. The Sector believes that language should be added to clarify the minimum

335
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

information intended to be communicated in such an interface. The S&T Committee emphasizes that this does not

require the printer to be integral with the grain moisture meter; the printer may be an auxiliary printer or the printer

for a computer may be interfaced to the grain moisture meter. Based on comments received at the 1994 Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee made minor changes to the Grain

Sector's proposal to make the language consistent with the language in Grain Moisture Meters Code paragraphs

UR.3.4.(b). 356-2 V S.1.8. Level Indicating Means

(This item was adopted.)

Source: NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.8. as follows:

S.L8. Level Indicating Means. A meter shall be equipped with a level indicating means level indicator and leveling adjustments if its performance is changed by an amount greater than the absolute value of the acceptance applicable tolerance when the meter is movedfrom a level position and zeroed in to a position that is out of level in any upright direction by up to 5 percent (approximately 3 degrees). The level-indicating means shall be readable without removing any meter parts requiring a tool. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, I989J

Discussion: At its meeting last fall, the NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector suggested that means of making

leveling adjustments to a moisture meter are needed for those meters required to have a level indicating means. However, the Sector reviewed the language at its March meeting and reversed itself by suggesting modified language

to S.1.8. The S&T Committee reviewed the proposed language and, with the exception of deleting the requirement

for leveling adjustments, accepted the language of the Sector, which appears in its recommendation. The S&T Committee believes that if a grain moisture meter requires a level indicating means, then the meter should

also be equipped with a means to level the meter. The Committee believes that a requirement for a leveling adjustment should be a design requirement for the meter to ensure that appropriate means are consistently provided

with the device. The Committee is receptive to reducing the out-of-level limit that is specified for grain moisture meters if the Sector

believes that a smaller value is appropriate and justified. The Committee asks the Sector to evaluate the issue and

suggest possible changes to the limit for an out-of-level condition, assess the effect of out-of-level conditions on the accuracy of grain moisture meters, and provide justification for any recommendation it may provide regarding the leveling means and the limit for out-of-level performance. 356-3 W S.1.10. Operating Temperature; Allowance of 5 °C for Type

Evaluation

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector

Discussion: The NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector asked the S&T Committee to consider adding a note to paragraph S.1.10 to clarify how testing should be performed to determine compliance with operating temperature

requirements. Based on additional comments received at the Interim Meeting and further review of the issue, the Committee agreed that the procedure pertains to type evaluation testing, not routine field enforcement, and is more

appropriately addressed in NCWM Publication 14. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn the item.

336
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

356-4 V S.2.4. Determination of the Sample Quantity; Use of External Equipment with Grain Moisture Meters

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association Recommendation: Add the following paragraph to the Grain Moisture Meter Code:

S.2.4. Determination of Quantity and Temperature. - The moisture meter system shall not require the operator to judge the precise volume or weight and temperature needed to make an accurate moisture

determination. External grinding, weighing, and temperature measurement operations are not

permitted. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2003.1

Discussion: In July 1993, the NCWM adopted a number of changes to the Grain Moisture Meters Code which were

proposed by the NTETC Grain Sector. The objective of many of these changes was to phase out meters requiring operator manipulation in favor of instruments that make the grain moisture measurements automatically, thus eliminating many operator-dependent variables.

In the 1993 final report of the S&T Committee, it was also noted that NTEP will accept for type evaluation only

those devices for which the moisture measurement process and the presentation of the moisture value is automatic (some operator actions would still be needed). These requirements were adopted as a step towards the ultimate goal of automating grain moisture measurements (that is, without operator involvement in the measurement process). The Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the NCWM recognized that operator-dependent processes in the moisture

determination can facilitate inadvertent, as well as intentional, fraud. While the intent of the NTETC Grain Sector and the NCWM is to automate the process more fully, questions have been raised as to whether or not the language adopted in July 1993 actually achieves this goal, particularly as related to the weighing and temperature measurement

of the grain sample.

It is acknowledged that some operator action will be needed on the new generation of meters. However, the extent

to which the operator is involved in the moisture determination has been questioned. For example, it is anticipated

that the operator must pour the grain sample into the meter; however, questions have been raised as to whether or not any preparation of the grain samples, such as weighing or grinding (both of which can introduce potential errors

into the process), should be permitted. Grinding is not considered acceptable because the process can affect the moisture content of the sample. This requirement means that the operator shall add a sufficient amount of grain to the moisture meter to permit the measurement to be made; however, the design shall not require the operator to measure a precise amount of grain.

In its discussion of this issue at the Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee recognized that the intent of the NCWM

is to phase out meters which introduce operator-dependent variables into the moisture determination process as part of improving accuracy of the commercial grain measurement system. 356-5 V S.5.3. Calibration Transfer

(This item was adopted.)

Source: NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector Recommendation: Add a new paragraph S.5.3. as follows:

S.5.3. Calibration Transfer. - The instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures

shall permit calibration development and the mathematical transfer of calibrations between

instruments of like models.

337
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Note: Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated service agency may make

calibration transfer adjustments on moisture meters and, except for instrument failure and repair, only at a prescribed period of time during the year. This does not preclude the possibility of the operator installing the manufacturer-specified calibration constants or standardization parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or his designated service agency.

Discussion: At its last meeting, the NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector recognized that language is needed to specify that calibration transfer be possible. An identical requirement is included in the proposed Near Infrared Protein Analyzers Code. 356-6 I UR.3.4. Printed Tickets

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: The following proposal was submitted to the Central Weights and Measures Association for consideration. The Central reported that the proposal received mixed comments. Some supported the item as proposed; others felt that a printed ticket should be provided as a deterrent to fraud; others indicated that the

capability to add a printer should be required; however, the printer itself should not be mandatory. The proposal was to delete part (b) of paragraph UR.3.4. as follows:

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets.

(a) Printed tickets shall be free from any previous indication of moisture content or type of grain or seed

selected.

(k)—The customer shall bo given a printed ticket showing the dale, grain type, grain moisture results, and

calibration version identification.—The ticket shall bo generated by the grain moisture motor system. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuarys 1, 1998. To become retroactive as ofJanuary 1, 2003.]

In July 1993 the NCWM voted to require that a customer be given a printed ticket which is generated by the grain measurement system (not necessarily by the meter itself). This requirement was added to recognize that conditions during a typical grain moisture transaction, although of significant financial concern to the customer, do not usually enable the customer to observe the moisture measurement process. Moreover, this requirement was added to reduce

the errors that may occur in transcribing displayed information to a written record and to ensure that the customer

always receives written verification of the transaction information with some means to tie it to the customer's specific transaction. The proposal suggested deleting the portion of paragraph UR.3.4. stipulating that the customer receive a ticket, noting

that for most grain moisture measuring devices the operator currently writes the moisture results legibly on the ticket. Concern was expressed that supplying a ticket printer will unnecessarily increase the cost of a grain moisture meter.

It was also noted that existing equipment evaluated by NTEP will need to be altered in the field. Since the information to be printed on the ticket has not been specified in the code, a ticket printer is not needed.

In reviewing this issue at the Interim Meeting, Committee members noted that many farmers want a printed receipt

to verify the specifics of the transaction, particularly the moisture indicated by the metering system and the type of

grain. The Committee agreed that it is not always practical or possible foir customers to observe the information displayed by the grain moisture meter for their transaction. The Committee also noted that the printer does not have

to be an integral part of the moisture meter; the information only has to be provided by a printer in the grain moisture measuring system. It was also noted that equipment currently in the field has not been evaluated by NTEP

and will not be. Only equipment meeting the new requirements will be accepted for evaluation by NTEP.

The Committee maintains the position that the system should print the information; the information should not be

handwritten or printed with a device separate from the grain moisture measuring system. The Committee has not received sufficient justification to warrant reversing the decision made by the NCWM in 1993. The Committee is

338
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

maintaining this informational item to allow for additional information to be submitted; however, the item will be withdrawn from the Committee's 1995 agenda unless additional information is provided to support making changes

to this paragraph. Other Items

360-1 I Volume Measuring Machines for Shipping Charges

Source: Carryover Item 360-1

Discussion: Different equipment technologies are used to measure the volume of unpackaged objects and containers

to determine shipping charges. The designs are quickly becoming established for these machines, the use of which

is rapidly increasing. These systems often incorporate scales. Presentations on these devices were given by

Quantronix, Inc. at the 1992 Interim Meetings and by Toledo Scale at meetings of the Western and the Southern Weights and Measures Associations. At the 1 993 Interim Meeting, the Executive Committee approved the formation of a working group to address the development of a code, routine field test procedures, type evaluation criteria, and type evaluation test procedures for these devices. The work group met in June 1993, October 1993, and January 1994. At its January 1994 meeting,

the work group agreed to change its name to "Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices" to more accurately reflect the scope of its activities.

Significant progress has been made in the development of proposed requirements for these devices. The work group

has based its work on a draft document prepared by the Canadian Legal Metrology Branch, comments provided to the S&T Committee by Toledo Scale and Weigh-Tronix, and existing Handbook 44 requirements for related equipment. The work group plans to recommend that the NCWM consider adopting these requirements in the form

of a separate Handbook 44 code; the group anticipates that the code will be ready to submit to the S&T Committee

by November 1994 for possible consideration by the NCWM in 1995. The work group held its fourth meeting Columbus, OH in April 1994, and will hold its next meeting in San Jose, CA in August 1994. Companies and individuals interested in participating in this work group or in receiving copies of the meeting summaries should contact OWM.

360-2A V Proposed Code for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers

(This item was adopted.)

Source: NCWM National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Near Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector

Discussion: In 1991 the NCWM established two sectors to the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee to address grain measuring equipment: the Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the Near Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector. The efforts of these sectors were initially concentrated in identifying proposed changes to the Grain Moisture Meters Code and developing type evaluation test procedures; the proposed criteria developed in this area were adopted by

the NCWM at its July 1993 meeting. The sector members have now focused their attention in establishing criteria and test procedures code for near infrared grain analyzers; the proposed code for near infrared grain analyzers is the product of this effort. Based on comments received at the Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee made minor modifications to the proposed

code in the following areas: (1) The reference to "customer indication" was deleted in paragraphs S.1.1. (c) and

UR.2.3.(b). (2) The headings in Table 1 were modified. Recommendation: Incorporate the following as a tentative code into Handbook 44 to address Near Infrared Grain

Analyzers. Note that the specifications are nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000, and to become

retroactive as of January 1, 2005.

339
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Tentative Code - Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers

This tentative Code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be enforced. The

requirements are designed for study prior to the development and adoption of a final Code for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers.

A. Application

A.l. - This code applies to near-infrared (NIR) grain analyzers; that is, devices used to indicate the constituent values

(other than moisture content) of grain using near-infrared reflectance or transmittance technology. These instruments may analyze either whole grain or ground grain samples. The code consists of general requirements applicable to

all NIR analyzers and specific requirements applicable only to certain types of NIR analyzers, grain types, or grain

constituents.

A.2, - This code does not apply to devices used for in-motion measurement of grain constituent values.

A.3. Type Evaluation. - The National Type Evaluation Program will accept for type evaluation only those devices

that comply with the nonretroactive requirements scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2000. State enforcement

will be based upon the effective dates identified with each requirement when specific dates are shown.

A.4. - See also Sec. 1.10; General code requirements.

S. Specifications

S.l. Design of Indicating, Recording, and Measuring Elements.

5.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements.

(a) Analyzers shall be equipped with a digital indicating element.

(b) The minimum height for the digits used to display constituent values shall be 10 mm.

(c) Analyzers shall be equipped with a communication interface that permits interfacing with a recording element and transmitting the date, grain type or class, constituent values, and calibration version

• identification.

(d) A digital indicating element shall not display, and a recording element shall not record, any constituent value before the end of the measurement cycle.

(e) Wheat protein content shall be recorded and displayed as percent protein reported on a constant moisture

basis of 12 percent wet basis.

(f) An analyzer shall not display or record any constituent value that is beyond the operating range of the device unless the constituent value representation includes a clear error indication (and recorded error message with the recorded representation). [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.

J

5.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent. - Provision shall be madefor selecting, displaying, and

recording the type or class of grain and the constituent(s) to be measured. The means to select the grain type or class and constituent(s) shall be readily visible and the type or class of grain and

constituent(s) selected shall be clearly and definitely identified in letters (such as HRWW, HRSW, etc or PROT, etc) A symbol to identify the display of the type or class ofgrain and constituent(s) selected

is permitted provided that it is clearly defined adjacent to the display. Meters shall be capable of

indicating the grain type using a minimum offour characters. Minimum acceptable abbreviations are

listed in Table S.1.2. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive January 1, 2005.]

340
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Add a new Table S.1.2. as follows: Table S.1.2. Grain Types Consideredfor Type Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations Grain Type Minimum Acceptable Abbreviation Durum Wheat DURW

Hard Red Spring Wheat HRSW

Hard Red Winter Wheat HRWW

Hard White Wheat HDWW

Soft Red Winter Wheat SRWW

Soft White Wheat SWW

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

5.1.3. Operating Range. - An analyzer shall automatically and clearly indicate when the operating range of

the device has been exceeded. The statement ofthe operating range shall be specified in the operator 's manual and shall operate as follows:

(a) The ambient temperature range over which the analyzer may be used and still comply with the applicable requirements shall be specified. The minimum temperature range shall be 10 to 30 °C. No constituent value may be displayed when the temperature range is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be

displayed when the temperature of the analyzer is outside its specified operating range.

(b) The constituent range shall be specified for each grain or seedfor which the analyzer is to be used. A

constituent value may be displayed when the constituent range is exceeded if accompanied by a clear indication that the constituent range has been exceeded.

(c) For whole grain analyzers only, the temperature range shall be specifiedfor each grain or seedfor which an analyzer is to be used. The minimum temperature range for each grain shall be 10 to 30 °C. No

constituent value may be displayed when the temperature range is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be displayed when the temperature of the grain sample exceeds the temperature range for

the grain. The requirements of this subsection (c) are not applicable to ground grain analyzers.

(d) For whole grain analyzers, the maximum allowable difference in temperature between the instrument environment (ambient temperature) and the sample for which an accurate constituent determination can

be made shall be specified. The minimum temperature range shall cover at least 10 °C. No constituent value may be displayed when the maximum allowable temperature difference is exceeded. An appropriate

error message shall be displayed when the difference between the ambient temperature and the sample

temperature exceeds the specified difference. The requirements of this subsection (d) are not applicable

to ground grain analyzers. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

5.1.4. Operating Temperature

(a) An analyzer shall not display or record any usable values until the internal operating temperature

necessary to meet tolerance requirements has been attained, or the analyzer shall bear a conspicuous

statement adjacent to the indication stating that the analyzer shall be turned onfor a time period specified by the manufacturer prior to use.

341
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) If an instrument does not meet tolerance requirements because there is an upper internal operating temperature limit that could be exceeded when operating within the ambient temperature range specified by the manufacturer, then a means of sensing and indicating an over-temperature condition must be

provided. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January I, 2000. To become retroactive as of January I, 2005.]

S.1.5. Design ofMeasuring Elements. - The display shall permit constituent value determination to both 0.01 percent and 0. 1 percent resolution. The 0. 1 percent resolution is for commercial transactions; the 0.01 percent

resolution is for calibration purposes only, not for commercial purposes. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

S.2. Design of NIR Analyzers

S.2.L Minimum Sample Size. - Analyzers shall be designed to measure constituent values of representative

size grain samples. The minimum allowable sample size used in analysis shall be 20 g. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary I, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

5.2.2. Electric Power Supply.

5.2.2.1. Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency. - An analyzer that operates using alternating current must perform within tolerance requirements over the line voltage range 100-130 volts and over the frequency range of 59.5 to 60.5 Hz. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

5.2.2.2. Power Interruption. - A power interruption shall not cause an indicating or recording element

to display or record any values outside the applicable tolerance limits. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

5.2.3. Level Indicating Means. - Analyzers shall be equipped with a level indicator and leveling adjustments

if its performance is changed by an amount greater than the tolerance requirement when the instrument is moved from a level position into a position that is out of level in any upright direction by up to 5 percent (approximately 3 degrees). The level-indicating means shall be readable without removing any instrument parts requiring a tool. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

5.2.4. Environmental Conditions. - Instrument optics and electronics must be protectedfrom exposure to dust by either sealing these areas or by protecting them with a dust filtration system suitable for the removal of

air-borne grain dust. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 2000. To become retroactive as ofJanuary 1, 2005.]

5.2.5. Calibration Transfer and Verification.

5.2.5.1. Calibration Transfer. - The instrument hardware/software design, andcalibration procedures shall permit calibration development and the mathematical transfer ofcalibrations between instruments oflike models. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

5.2.5.2. Calibration Version. - An instrument must be capable ofdisplaying either calibration constants, a unique calibration name, or a unique calibration version number for use in verifying that the latest version of the calibration is being used to make constituent determinations. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

342
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.2.5.3. Calibration Corruption. - If calibration constants are digitally stored in an electronically alterableform, the analyzer shall be designed to make automatic checks to detect corruption ofcalibration

constants. An error message must be displayed if calibration constants have been electronically altered. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

S.2.6. Provision for Sealing.

a. Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be

broken, or for using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g., audit trail available at the time of

inspection as defined in part (b)), before any change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any mechanism.

b. If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of the device (e.g., slope,

bias, etc) in normal operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form of the audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

- an event counter (000 to 999).

- the parameter ID,

- the date and time of the change, and

- the new value ofthe parameter (for calibration changes consisting ofmultiple calibration constants, the calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants). A printed copy ofthe information must be available through the device or through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five (25) times the number of

scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be storedfor each parameter.

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January I, 2000. To become retroactive as of January I, 2005.]

5.3. Accessory Equipment. When the operating instructions for a NIR analyzer require accessory equipment

separatefrom and external to the analyzer, such equipment shall be appropriate and completefor the measurement.

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as ofJanuary I, 2005.]

S.3.1. Grinders. - The make and model ofgrinder usedfor ground grain NIR analyzers must be specified by

the manufacturer and required as auxiliary equipment in the determination ofconstituent values for applicable grain types. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as ofJanuary 1, 2005.]

5.4. Operating Instructions and Use Limitations. - The manufacturer shall furnish operating instructions for the device and accessories that include complete information concerning the accuracy, sensitivity, and use ofaccessory equipment necessary in obtaining a constituent value. Operating instructions shall include thefollowing information:

a. name and address or trademark of the manufacturer;

b. the type or design of the device for which the operating instructions are intended to be used;

c. date of issue;

d. the kind or classes of grain or seedfor which the device is designed to measure constituent values; and

e. the limitations of use, including but not limited to constituent range, grain or seed temperature, kind or class of grain or seed, instrument temperature, voltage and frequency ranges, electromagnetic interferences, and

necessary accessory equipment. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005

343
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

N. Notes

N.l. Testing Procedures.

N.1.1. Field Inspection. - Whole grain samples shall be used as the official field inspection standards. Five samples per grain type or class shall be used to check instrument performance. Each sample will be analyzed

once. One of the samples will be analyzed an additional four times to test instrument repeatability. For ground

grain instruments, the ground sample will be repacked four times. A new grind is not required. Wheat protein values shall be assigned to test samples by the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS). Tolerances shall be applied to individual sample measurements, the average of individual measurements on each of the five test samples, and the maximum difference (range) in results for five analyses on one of the test samples.

N.1.2. Standard Reference Samples, Wheat. - Reference samples used for field inspection purposes shall be

clean and selected to reasonably represent the constituent range. These samples shall be selected such that the difference between wheat protein values obtained using the FGIS standard reference method and an official FGIS NIR wheat protein analyzer does not exceed 0.3 for individual test samples or 0.15 for the average of

5 samples.

T. Tolerances

T.l. To Underregistration and to Overregistration. - The tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to errors of under registration and errors of overregistration.

T.2. Tolerance Values. - Acceptance and maintenance tolerances shall be equal. Tolerances for individual samples and the average for five samples are shown below:

Type of Grain

Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances for NIR

Wheat Protein Analyzers

Individual SamplesAverage for Five Samples Range for Five

Retests Durum Wheat, Hard Red Spring Wheat, Hard Red Winter Wheat, Hard White Wheat, Soft Red Winter Wheat, Soft White Wheat

0.60% 0.40% 0.40%

UR. User Requirements

UR.1. Installation Requirements. The NIR analyzer shall be installed in an environment within the range of temperature and/or other environmental factors specified in the operating manual. UR.2. User Requirements.

UR.2.1. Operating Instructions. - The operating instructions for the NIR analyzer shall be readily available

to the user, service technician, and weights and measures official at the place of installation. It shall include

a list of accessory equipment if any are required to obtain constituent values, and the type or class of grain to be measured with the NIR analyzer.

UR.2.2. Other Devices not used for Commercial Measurement. - If there are other NIR analyzers on the premises not used for trade or determining other charges for services, these devices shall be clearly and

conspii uously marked "Not for Use in Trade or Commerce."

344
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.2.3. Printed Tickets. -

(a) Printed tickets shall befreefrom any previous indication ofconstituent or grain type selected. The printed

ticket shall indicate constituent values reported on a constant moisture basis.

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type or class, constituent results, and

calibration version identification. The ticket shall be generated by the near-infrared grain analyzer

system. [Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.] UR2.4. Grinders. - Place grinders in a separate room from the NIR analyzer to avoid instioiment contamination. If a separate room is not available, the grinder may be in the same room with the NIR analyzer provided the grinder is not placed within 1 meter of the air intake on the NIR. UR2.5. Sampling. - Samples shall be obtained by following appropriate sampling methods and equipment. These include, but are not limited to grain probes of appropriate length used at random locations in the bulk, the use of a pelican sampler, or other techniques and equipment giving equivalent results. The sample shall be taken such that it is representative of the lot.

UR.2.6. Level Condition. - If equipped with a level indicator, an analyzer shall be maintained in a level condition.

UR.2.7. Operating Limitation. - Constituent determinations shall not be made when the difference in temperatures between the grain sample and the instrument environment (ambient temperature) exceeds manufacturer recommendations.

UR.2.8. Slope and Bias Adjustments. - A written explanation and record of bias and slope changes shall be

maintained. The log shall indicate the date and magnitude of changes in bias and slope constants and shall show that these changes were made to bring the instrument into closer agreement with the reference method. 360-2B V NIR Grain Analyzers; Nonretroactive and Retroactive Dates

(This item failed.)

Source: This item was added as a new item during the July 1994 annual meeting of the NCWM.

Language for Vote: The Committee has listened to the requests to delete the nonretroactive and

retroactive dates contained in Near Infrared Grain Analyzers Code. Without taking a position on whether

to retain or delete the dates, the Committee is willing to allow the Conference to vote on whether or not

to retain the dates in the NIR Grain Analyzers Code. The Committee provides the following changes for a vote:

Delete all nonretroactive and retroactive dates in the Near Infrared Grain Analyzers Code. Amend A.3. to read:

A.3. Type Evaluation.- The National Type Evaluation Program will accept for type

evaluation devices designed to comply with this code.

Discussion: There have been questions as to why this tentative code contains nonretroactive and rettoactive dates. The nonretroactive dates are included in the code for the same reasons that they are used in other codes, namely, NIR

grain analyzers which will fall under this code when it becomes effective, are already in use. Nonretroactive dates

are included to recognize devices that were manufactured and installed (consistent with G-A.6.) and to allow those

devices to continue to be used without modification until the requirements become retroactive.

345
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The nonretroactive dates are also included to inform manufacturers and users of NIR grain analyzers that they either manufacture or own, of the time schedule with which the equipment must comply. This information is necessary

for informed decisions regarding the implementation dates for code requirements. Since the NTEP evaluation of

these meters will take time and involve an on-going calibration program, it is reasonable that only those devices that meet the nonretroactive requirements be accepted for type evaluation. In this way, purchasers of NIR grain analyzers

will have some assurance that the devices they purchase will continue to be acceptable when new design requirements become retroactive. The retroactive dates are included to inform device owners of when they must update their equipment to meet the new requirements and be interfaced with the on-going calibration program. The retroactive requirements establish a deadline by which the calibrations in all NIR grain analyzers used commercially are to be updated to the national

calibration program. This is consistent with the wishes of Congress expressed in the 1990 Farm Bill to improve the accuracy of grain measurement and more closely align NIR grain analyzers used for wheat protein analysis with the

official USDA FGIS system. Since NIR grain analyzers are heavily software driven, the most critical aspect of

updating these devices is to update their software-based calibrations. The Committee provides this item for a vote to respond to the apparent wishes of the voting members of the NCWM.

The Committee is not recommending a position on this item, but presents it for a vote to permit the Conference to establish its position on the nonretroactive and retroactive dates. 360-3 I OIML Report

The following information was provided by Mr. O. K. Wamlof Standards Management Program, NIST, on OIML

activities of significant importance to the NCWM.

The reorganization of the work program of OIML into Technical Committees (TC) and Subcommittees (SC), the

International Recommendations (R) published, and their respective work projects (p) is listed below. If anyone is not a member of a U.S. National Working Group and wishes to participate in the work or desires information concerning the status of any of the work projects listed, please contact me at (301) 975-4026. STRUCTURE OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE (TC) 8 "INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING QUANTITIES OF FLUIDS"

(responsibility Switzerland) SCI Static volume measurement France SC2 Static mass measurement Australia SC3 Dynamic volume measurement (liquids other than water) Germany SC4 Dynamic mass measurement (liquids other than water) USA

SC5 Water meters United Kingdom SC6 Measurement of cryogenic USA

SC7 Gas metering Belgium SC8 Gas meters Netherlands

Responsibility for reviewing existing Recommendations (R) and Documents (D) and for developing projects (p) TC8 INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING QUANTITIES OF FLUIDS

R4 Volumetric flasks (one mark) in glass R22 International alcoholometric tables R29 Capacity serving measures R40 Standard graduated pipettes for verification officers R41 Standard burettes for verification officers

346
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

TC8 EVSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING QUANTITIES OF FLUIDS

R43 Standard graduated glass flasks for verification officers R45 Casks and barrels R63 Petroleum measurement tables R96 Measuring container bottles pl Laboratory volume measures: Automatic pipettes p2 Measurement and calculation of compressibility factors of gases P3 Methods and devices for verification of measuring instruments for quantities of liquids: standard capacity measures p4 Methods and devices for verification of measuring instruments for quantities of liquids: pipe provers p5 Revision of R63

SCI: Static volume measurement

R71 Fixed storage tanks. General requirements R80 Road and rail tankers R85 Automatic level gauges for measuring the level of liquid in fixed storage tanks R95 Ships' tanks- General requirements

pl Revision of R85

p2 Installations for gauging road and rail tankers

SC2:

I Static mass measurement

pl

I Static direct mass measurement of quantities of liquid

SC3: Dynamic volume measurement (liquids other than water) R5 Meters for liquids other than water with measuring chambers R27 Volume meters for liquids (other than water). Ancillary equipment R57 Measuring assemblies for liquids other than water fitted with volume meters. General provisions R67 Measuring assemblies for liquids other than water fitted with volume meters. Provisions specific to particular assemblies R86 Drum meters for alcohol and their supplementary devices

pl Revision of R5, R27, R57, R67, and R77

p2 Revision of R86

p3 Testing procedures for pattern examination of fuel dispensers for motor vehicles SC4: Dynamic mass measurement R105 Direct mass flow measuring systems for quantities of liquids pl 1 Revision of R105

SC5: Water meters R49 Water meters (intended for the metering of cold water) R72 Hot water meters D4 Installation and storage conditions for cold water meters

347
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

SC5: Water meters D7 The evaluation of flow standards and facilities used for testing water meters pi 1 Revision of R49 and R72

SC6: Measurement of cryogenic liquids R81 Measuring devices and measuring systems for cryogenic liquids (including tables of density for liquid argon, helium, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen)

pi 1 Revision of R81

SC7: Gas metering

pl Measurement of quantities of gas distributed by pipeline p2 Gas calorimetry

SC8: Gas meters R6 General provisions for gas volume meters R31 Diaphragm gas meters R32 Rotary piston gas meters and turbine gas meters pl Correctors of gas volumes

P2 Vortex meters P3 Revision of R6

p4 Revision of R3

1

p4 Revision of R32

Note: "Revision" includes compilation and/or completion in view of application to the OIML Certificate System,

etc.STRUCTURE OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE (TC) 9 "INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING MASS AND DENSITY"

(responsibilitv' U.S.) SCI Nonautomatic weighing instruments Germany & France SC2 Automatic weighing instruments U.K. SC3 Weights U.S. SC4 Densities Vacant

Responsibility for reviewing existing Recommendations (R) and Documents (D) and for developing projects (p) TC9 INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING MASS AND DENSITY

R60 Metrological regulation for load cells R74 Electronic weighing instruments pl 1 Revision of R 60

1 SCI Nonautomatic weighing instruments

| R76 Nonautomatic weighing instruments

|

348
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

SC2 Automatic weighing instruments R50 Continuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (belt weighers) R51 Checkweighing and weight grading machines R61 Automatic gravimetric filling machines R106 Automatic rail weighbridges R107 Discontinuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (hopper weighers)

Pl Revision of R 50

p2 Revision of R 51 p3 Revision of R 61 p4 Revision of R 106 p5 Revision of R 107

SC3 Weights

Rl Cylindrical weights from 1 gram to 10 kilograms of medium accuracy class R2 Rectangular bar weights from 5 kilograms to 50 kilograms of medium accuracy class R20 Weights of accuracy classes E,, Ej, F,, F^, & M,, from 1 mg to 50 kg R25 Standard weights for verification officers R33 Conventional value of the result of weighing in air R47 Standard weights for testing of high capacity weighing machines R52 Hexagonal weights, ordinary accuracy class, from 100 g to 50 kg

pl Weights of Classes E„ F„ F^, M„ M^, & M3 (consolidation of R 1, 2, 20, & 25)

SC4 Densities R22 International alcoholometric tables R44 Alcoholometers and alcohol hydrometers and thermometers for use in alcoholometry

pl Density values of aqueous sucrose solutions p2 Revision of R 22

Jack Y. Jeffries, Florida, Chairman

R. Kelley, New York City, NY

R. Murdock, North Carolina

R. Suiter, Nebraska

G. West, New Mexico

R. Marceau, Canada, Technical Advisor

T. Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor

H. Oppermann, NIST, Technical Advisor Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

349
Education Committee

Final Report of the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

James D. Harnett, Chairman

Sealer of Weights and Measures Orange County, California

Reference Key Number 400 Introduction

This is the Final Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs for the 79th Aimual

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.

Included in the report are recommendations for changes in the name, scope, and mission of the Committee. The

Executive Committee has identified public outreach and administrative excellence as priorities for the NCWM as it moves

into the next century; consequently, the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs plans to change

its organization and method of operation to allow it more time to focus on these important areas (see Appendix J and

Items 402-9 and 404). The Committee's role will be to provide leadership in the development of uniform, quality weights and measures services in the areas of effective program management, education, and public relations; however, its success

will depend on the implementation of its recommendations by members of the Conference.

Table A identifies all of the items contained in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number.

Voting items are marked with a "V" after the item number. Consent calendar items are marked with a "VC." Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number are information items. The items marked with a "W" have been

withdrawn.

Table B lists the appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee's items and the report in entirety.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page 401 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities 352 402 National Training Program (NTP) 353

402-1 I NTP Status Report 353

402-2 I Regional Training Activities 355

402-3 I NTP Survey 355

402-4 I Module Revisions 356

402-5 I Revision of Retail Computing Scales Module 356

402-6 V Redesign of the NTP's Training on Scales 359

402-7 V Awarding of Additional CEU's for Completion of Revised Modules 359

350
Education Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

402-8 I Certification of NTP Trainers 361

402-9 I Weights and Measures Administration Module 361 402-10 I Development of a Field Test Manual 362

402-11 VC Participation by Other Countries in the NTP Certification Program 362

402-12 VC NTP Record Keeping Requirements 362

402- 13 W Expansion of NTP Registry 363 403 Administration 363

403- 1 I Enforcement Actions 363 404 I Consumer Affairs 363 405 I Safety 364

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A. NTP Certification Summary 402-1 366

B. NTP Registry Summary of Activity 402-1 369

C. Summary of the Results of the NTP Survey of State Weights and Measures Directors 402-3 378

D. Proposal to Restructure the NTP's Training on Scales 402-6 393

E. Letter from lACET on the Awarding of Additional CEU's 402-7 394

F. Request for Resources to Complete and Maintain Module 23, Part II 402-9 396

G. Proposed Changes to the NCWM Uniform Administrative Procedures for Certification of Weights and Measures Officials 402-11 399

H. Correspondence on Safety Issues 405 402

I. Draft of Proposals to L&R and S&T Committees

Concerning Enforcement Actions 403-1 411

J. Report on the Special Meeting of the NCWM Committee

on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs 404 414

351
Education Committee

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No. House of State Representatives Yes No

House of Delegates

Yes No

Results

402 (Consent Calendar) 49 62 Passed

402-6 47 0 64 Passed

402-7 402 (in entirety)

46 0

45 0

66 0

67 0

Passed

Passed

Details of All Items

(in order of Reference Key Number) 401 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities The Committee reviewed and discussed the following:

1 . The final report of the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee to the 36th Annual Technical Conference of the Western Weights and Measures Association (September 1993).

2. The final report of the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee to the 48th Annual Conference

of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (October 1993).

3. The final report of the Education Committee to the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA Interim Meeting, September 1993).

4. The final report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs to the Central Weights and Measures Association (April 1994).

5. The final report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs to the 21st Annual

Conference of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (May 1994). The positions that the various regional groups have taken on specific items in this report are noted as part of the discussion of the items. The Committee would like to thank all of the regional associations for their inputs.

352
Education Committee

402 National Training Program (NTP)

402-1 I NTP Status Report

The status of the funds remaining under the second grant provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) to the NCWM for the development of training materials for weights and measures officials is as follows (as of June 30, 1994): Net outlays to date: S 83,858.22

Total imliquidated obligations: (money committed to contractors) Total outlays & unliquidated obligations: 83,858.22

Total grant funds authorized: 180,000.00

Unobligated balance of funds: 96,141.78 (money available for future module

development) The first grant (totaling S5 15 , 1 89) was closed out in 1992. The current status of work accomplished or in progress under

the first and second grants is given in Table D on the next page. NCWM Certification Program

The Committee reviewed the status of the NCWM's certification program for weights and measures officials. Current program statistics indicated that only about a third of those who successfully completed NCWM courses for which

certification is available had been awarded NCWM cenificates. The Committee was concerned that the number is not

higher. It was recognized that, in some cases, individuals take NCWM training in areas that do not currently fall within

their specific work responsibilities; therefore, they may not need to be certified as being able to perform in the field the procedures covered by a particular module. However, the Committee would like to encourage States to complete the module training process and ensure that inspectors receive NCWM certification whenever possible. Field certification does not have to be conducted by the individual who teaches a module class. Jurisdictions that use an outside trainer to present modules can use their own staff members to certify inspectors. The individuals who certify inspectors need to be knowledgeable in the particular procedure that was covered by the module for which certification is sought; however,

they do not themselves have to be certified or approved by the NCWM.

A summary of current participation in the NTP Certification Program is provided in Appendix A. NTP Registry The NTP Registry serves as a permanent record of NCWM courses or NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM)

metrology courses successfully completed and Continuing Education Units (CEU's) earned under the NTP. A summary

of information in the Registry is found in Appendix B. The figures in Appendix B on the growth of the NTP Registry

indicate a slight increase in the number of new entries processed in 1993 as compared to 1992 (from 309 to 373, a 20%

increase).

353
Education Committee

Table D

Grant Accomplishments Status Report*

(As of 6/30/94)

Module Subject Status No.

1 Mechanical Computing Scales Information from this module was incorporated into Module 2. 2 Electronic Computing Scales The revision of this module was completed, and copies were mailed to State Weights and Measures Directors. 4 Medium-Capacity Scales First version of module and one revision completed.

5 Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales First version of module and one revision completed. 6 Meat Beams and Monorail Scales Project completed.

7 Livestock and Animal Scales Project completed.

8 Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers First version of module and one revision completed.

10 Package Checking Project completed.

13 Hopper Scales The development of this module has been postponed until a review of resources and priorities can be completed.

19 Loading-Rack Meters Project completed. 20 Vehicle-Tank Meters Project completed.

21 LPG Liquid-Measuring Devices Project completed. 22 Commodity Regulations Project completed.

23 Intro to W & M Regulation Project completed. 23A Weights and Measures Admin. II The Committee is planning to initiate a working group to develop a portion of the module. 24 Introduction to NIST Handbook 44 Project completed. 27 Electronic Weighing and Project completed. Measuring Systems

*Grant funds were also used to reformat Modules 2, 10, 7, and 27 so that they would be compatible with hardware and software used by the NCWM.

354
Education Committee

402-2 I Regional Training Activities

In 1992, the NCWM Executive Committee allocated $15,000 to be divided among the four regional weights and measures

groups to support regional training activities. The Education Committee was asked to manage the distribution of the funds. The deadline for requesting the funds was December 31, 1993; as of that date, only $2,812.60 of the $15,000

had been requested and only $431.85 had been spent. At the Interim Meeting, the Education Committee asked the Executive Committee for an extension of the request deadline; however, the Executive Committee said that because of

the regional groups' apparent lack of interest in spending the funds, it had zeroed out the remaining grant funds in 1994. The Executive Committee indicated that the funding requested by the Central Weights and Measures Association prior

to the December 31 deadline would be made available. , .

In March 1994, the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) requested and received $1,074.75 as reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with the presentation of a class on NCWM Module 10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods. CWMA had requested NCWM funds for this class prior to the Conference's December 31, 1993, deadline. In addition to providing training in Module 10, the class was intended to give a trainer from the central region experience in presenting a module in order to help him meet the requirements of NCWM's trainer

certification program. 402-3 I NTP Survey

In November 1993, the Education Committee distributed a survey to State Weights and Measures Directors to help in reassessing the NCWM's National Training Program. The purpose of the survey was to determine what changes the Directors would like to see in the NTP so that the program would better serve their training needs now and in the future. A second survey was sent to weights and measures trainers to get their opinions on the types of changes that are needed.

Results of the State Directors survey and some preliminary results from the trainers survey were reviewed at the Interim Meeting. The final results of the trainers survey were reviewed at the 79th Annual Meeting. See Appendix C for a summary of the 31 responses received from State Directors and 23 responses received from trainers. The responses to the State Directors survey and the trainers survey indicate that a high priority of the NTP should be

the redesign of the existing training modules to eliminate duplication, making them shorter and more efficient to present

(this was the first choice of Directors, second choice of trainers). Based on this finding, the Committee proceeded with

its plans to propose a restructuring of the NCWM's scales training (see Item 402-6).

According to the State Directors survey, the second highest priority is the development of videos on device examinations.

(This is sixth in the list of trainers priorities.) The Committee discussed at length how videos could be incorporated into the NTP. It was decided to pursue the possibility of experimenting with amateur videos developed by weights and

measures jurisdictions as a lower cost alternative to using professional videos (which can cost from $15,000 to $30,000

for a 15-minute video). Six State Directors noted on the survey that their jurisdictions might be able to develop videos of device inspections. The Committee plans to find out exactly what type of help these Directors might provide and what

it would cost. The Committee would also like to pursue whether Associate Members could help by developing short videos to introduce weights and measures officials to the types of devices and device features covered in the modules. The modules currently use slides to show officials what the devices look like and how they are used, but a video that showing how specific features operate would be much more effective. At the Annual Meeting, it was reported that the NCWM had made arrangements with the State of Virginia for the development of two videotapes on device inspections

in return for some NCWM publications. One video on the inspection of retail motor-fuel dispensers has been completed

and another on the inspection of retail computing scales is in progress. The third highest priority selected by State Directors (the first priority of those responding to the trainers survey) was

updating the existing modules. The Committee explored ideas for using new resources to aid in the revision of the modules, such as asking NCWM-certified trainers and regional weights and measures association education committees

for help in reviewing and updating modules. The Committee also considered ways of encouraging individuals who teach modules to provide a marked copy of the module or a list of changes recorrunended to the NTP. In addition, the establishment of working groups or a subcommittee under the Education Committee for the purpose of updating modules was mentioned and is under consideration.

355
Education Committee

The Committee does not foresee any problems in getting volunteers to help revise modules. A number of individuals and groups have already contributed to the revision process. In addition, two State Directors responding to the NTP

survey indicated that their jurisdictions could assist the NCWM in updating modules. The problem is that few people have the time or the resources to handle the entire revision process (see sununary of the module revision process on the next page); therefore, some tasks usually remain to be completed by OWM staff or outside contractors. For example,

if volunteers do not have computer software and hardware compatible with that used by the NIST Office of Weights and

Measures, or if they are not skilled in using them, someone else must enter changes into the existing computer files. Also, some revisions involve changes to illustrations or visual aids; therefore, access to resources to make these changes

is necessary to do a complete revision. In addition, some volunteers are not comfortable with writing chapter objectives and developing appropriate quiz and examination questions to reflect changes and additions in the module. Even

relatively complete revisions prepared by volunteers must be given policy and editorial reviews to ensure that they are consistent with established NTP formats and NCWM policies and procedures. Because of the limited resources within OWM, revisions prepared by volunteers sometimes must be put aside until time can be found to review or complete them. Anticipated additions to the OWM staff may help to reduce the backlog of

revision projects. The Committee will continue to look for new ways to accomplish its objective of providing more

timely revisions of the modules.

402-4 I Module Revisions

Revisions of Module 7, Livestock and Animal Scales; Module 21, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices; and Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems, are underway. A summary of the revision status of all published NCWM training modules is shown in Table E on page 357. (See items 402-3 and 402-5 for additional information on module revisions.)

402-5 I Revision of Retail Computing Scales Module

The results of the field test of the Module 2 revision by State of Connecticut weights and measures officials were

discussed by the Committee at the Interim Meeting. The final version of the revision was distributed to State Weights

and Measures Directors in June 1994.

In addition to the usual updates of the technical information and references, the module includes the following significant changes:

• Information from Module 1 on mechanical retail computing scales has been incorporated into Module

2, which previously covered only electronic computing scales. • Instructors will be permitted to delete up to 6 hours (1 class day) from the presentation of the module

by eliminating material that has already been covered in other module classes. As a result, the course can now be taught in 25 hours or 4 days rather than the 62 hours (10 days) required to present Modules

1 and 2 separately. • Instructions are provided for presenting the module in shorter increments of time over a longer time

period (for example, two classroom sessions a week over a 3-week period).

356
Education Committee

Training Module Revision Process

1. Review the following and make appropriate changes in the Inspector's and Instructor's Manuals: -comments received since publication of the module

-changes made to related modules

-changes made to Handbook 44 since the module was published or last revised

2. Check each Handbook 44 definition and requirement cited in the module with the current edition of Handbook

44 for editorial changes (some modules have over 100 handbook references - not counting definitions).

3. Make sure that the sources are noted for module definitions that are not from NIST Handbook 44 (for example, H-130, SMA, or other).

4. Evaluate each quiz (usually one at the end of each chapter) and final examination (two in each module) and

clarify questions, change format of questions, add questions to address new information added to the module, and make other changes to the tests and their answer sheets as necessary.

5. Evaluate each slide and drawing in the module to be sure that it is clear and up to date and make changes where

necessary. Add new visuals to illustrate changes to the module or enhance the instruction in the module where

appropriate.

6. Add explanations, enhancements, and safety information to module text where needed.

7. In each Chapter, review the Chapter Objectives, the list of definitions to learn, and the chapter summary to determine if they are still appropriate and then make any changes needed.

8. In device modules, review and make appropriate changes to the Examination Procedure Outlines in the module,

including changes to the Handbook 44 references and the safety information.

9. In device modules, check tolerance worksheets or sample reporting forms in the text, quizzes, and examinations

to see if they are correct and up to date and make any needed changes or add new examples.

10. Review field training checklists to be sure that they are up to date and include safety requirements.

1 1 . Review introductory material and the Continuing Education Unit information and make any changes needed; add

a new Acknowledgements section for the revision. Each Major Change Made to a Module May Affect the Following:

Inspector's Manual Instructor's Manual

Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter Objectives Chapter Objectives One or more pages of text One or more pages of text Figures Quizzes Chapter summary Final Examinations EPO's Slides or other visuals Index Definitions Definitions Appendices

Appendices Field Training Checklist

Field Training Checklist

357
Education Committee

Table E

Module Revision Status

(As of 6/30/94)

Module

27

1

10

Date of Publication

1/28/85

11/20/85

11/29/85

2/26/86

7/14/86

10/17/86

10/31/86

4/3/87

5/27/87

8/5/87

6/22/88

5/18/89

6/8/90

7/18/90

6/14/93

Date of Last Rev

10/86

11/86

9/90

5/94

9/90

12/91

12/91

10/92

6/93

Rev Stat* Comments U The module is in the final stages of revision. W Information from this module has been incor- porated into Module 2. R The Committee is plaiming to split the module

into two segments. The NCWM NIST Hand- book 133 Working Group will assist in the revision of the module. N The latest revision of Module 2 was sent to the

States in June 1994. N

N

NN

U The changes resulting from the field test of the

draft revision of this module have to be made. U Tina Butcher and Dick Whipple of OWM and

Will Wotthlie of Maryland W&M have pre- pared a draft revision of the Inspector's Manual of this module.

*Key to module revision status abbreviations: N = No revision planned in 1994, U = Revision is underway, R

Revision is planned for 1995, W = Withdrawn 7/1/93.

358
Education Committee

402-6 V Redesign of the NTP's Training on Scales

(This item was adopted.) The results of the surveys to reassess the NTP and set priorities for the future (see Item 402-3) indicated that the top

priority of the program should be the redesign of the modules to eliminate duplication, making them shorter and more

efficient to present. The Committee decided to begin this process by restructuring the NCWM's training on scales, which now consists of five modules describing how to conduct official examinations of: retail computing scales, mediumcapacity scales, vehicle and axle-load scales, meat beams and monorail scales, and livestock and animal scales. Since each module was originally planned as a stand-alone training course for new weights and measures inspectors without any previous training and would contain all that the inspectors need to know to conduct an official examination for that type of scale, the five modules contain some of the same or similar information. Consequently, individuals who took two or more scales modules had to cover some material more than once. We now are looking at ways to reduce class time and make the training process more efficient; therefore, the Education Committee is plarming to eliminate as much duplication as possible. In addition, the Committee wants to reduce classroom time by making greater use of self-study programs, and to simplify the updating process for the training materials by limiting the reprints of Handbook 44 requirements and reducing duplicative discussions of requirements. With these objectives in mind, the Committee is proposing to restructure the NTP scales training as described in Appendix D. In summary, the restructured scales training would consist of two self-study courses: the existing Module

24, which is an introduction to NIST Handbook 44 that includes a detailed description of the requirements in the Handbook's General Code, and a new module on the Scales Code in H-44, which would address the reason for and an

interpretation of each requirement in the Code. Individuals would be required to successfully complete these modules

before getting credit for taking any of the modules on conducting official examinations of specific categories of scales or receive certification in any of the specific scale categories. (This does not necessarily mean that individuals would

have to take the introductory modules prior to taking one of the specific scales modules, although that is the recommended way to structure the training.) The modules on how to conduct an official examination on specific categories of scales would be designed for presentation in a classroom and would include hands-on demonstrations and practice sessions. The specific scales modules would include Examination Procedure Outlines (EPO), but would no longer include reprints of all paragraphs from Handbook 44 that are referenced in the EPO (since these paragraphs would have been covered in the self-study modules). Anyone needing to refresh his or her memory on the exact wording of a Handbook paragraph would be

instructed to look it up in the Handbook. It is envisioned that the inspection portion of the specific scales modules would

be structured like a checklist to indicate exactly what an official needs to examine on the types of devices covered by the module.

402-7 V Awarding of Additional CEU's for Completion of Revised Modules

(This item was adopted.)

Last year, the Committee initiated a policy of awarding additional Continuing Education Units (CEU's) to individuals who retake a module course following a major revision of the module. It was the Committee's intention to initiate the policy begirming with the revision of NCWM Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales, because the extensive nature of

this revision raised questions about whether additional CEU's could be given for retaking a module. The Committee's

plan was to give additional CEU's for retaking Module 5 and Module 4, Medium-Capacity Scales (another major revision

that was published about the same time as Module 5), and then to review each new revision to determine whether it was

significant enough to justify giving additional CEU's. Some concerns were raised by the Central Weights and Measures

Association (CWMA) concerning the implementation of the new policy. CWMA members wanted the NCWM to award CEU's to individuals any time they retook a module, whether or not the module had been revised. Preliminary

discussions with the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (lACET), the organization that establishes the criteria for awarding CEU's, indicated that lACET was not in favor of the policy proposed by CWMA.

In response to a request from the NCWM, lACET recently issued a formal written policy statement on the awarding of CEU's for retaking a course, which was reviewed at the Interim Meeting. See Appendix E for a copy of lACET's

359
Education Committee

response. At the Interim Meeting, the Education Committee reevaluated its overall policy on CEU's taking into account CWMA's

comments and the results of the NTP training surveys. The issues addressed, a summary of some of the factors considered, and the Committee's position on each issue are shown below. Committee Recommendation: The Education Committee proposes that the NCWM adopt the policies on CEU issues recommended below:

Issue 1: Should additional CEU's be awarded?

Factors: - lACET says that, in general, they do not reconmiend the practice; however, in some instances it may be appropriate.

- The majority of State Directors responding to the NTP Survey said additional CEU's should be

given (23 yes, 6 no, 2 don't know). Committee

Recommendation: Continue with plans to award additional CEU's.

Issue 2: If additional CEU's are awarded, under what circumstances should they be given?

Factors: - State Directors Survey results:

1 . When an individual retakes a course that has been substantially revised since the last time the course was taken. (18 votes)

2. When an individual retakes any course that has been revised, even if only a few changes have

been made. (2 votes)

3. Any time an individual retakes a course, whether or not the course has been revised. (3 votes)

4. Any time an individual retakes a course after a specified period of time, whether or not the course has been revised. (17 votes) What period of time: 5 years (5 votes)

3 years (4 votes) 2 years (3 votes) 4 years, 3-5 years, 3-4 years, 4-5 years, 90 days (1 vote each)

- lACET identifies two circumstances under which it is appropriate to award additional CEU's:

1 . When an individual retakes a course that has been substantially revised since the last time the course was taken.

2. When periodic updates are needed to ensure that an individual retains certain skills. Committee

Recommendation: Additional CEU's will be awarded when an individual retakes a course that has been

significantly revised since the last time the course was taken and any time an individual retakes a course after a 5-year period, whether or not the course has been revised.

Issue 3: When should any policy to award additional CEU's take effect? Factors: - It should begin with the Module 5 revision and apply to module revisions published about the same

time and any new module revision. (Committee's original position.)

- It should be retroactive and cover all revised modules. (Central's position.)

- It should apply only to new module revisions. Committee

Recommendation: The policy should be retroactive and cover all revised modules.

Issue 4: How should "significant revision" be defined? Factors: - The Central and the Southern Weights and Measures Associations suggested that any module that is completely republished and is given a new effective date should be considered a "significant revision."

- The original interpretation was that a "significant revision" was more than just a simple update of the paragraph references from Handbook 44 (the NCWM Uniform Administrative Procedures for

Certification of Weights and Measures Officials require State certifying officers to ensure that certified

360
Education Committee

individuals receive annual updates on any applicable Handbook 44 changes), but included major

additions of new requirements or major changes to tolerances or marking requirements or a combination

of these. Committee

Recommendation: Any module that is completely republished and is given a new effective date will be considered

a "significant" revision. If only change pages are issued or if the module is republished without a new effective date, the revision will not be considered "significant."

402-8 I Certification of NTP Trainers A status report was presented on the NTP Certification Program for Trainers. As of January 1994, the following 10

individuals had been awarded certification: Kenneth S. Butcher, NIST/OWM; Barbara J. DeSalvo, OH; Frank W.

Forrest, CT; Paul Peterson, USDA/P&SA; Thomas M. Stabler, IWM; Don E. Stagg, AL; Richard C. Suiter, NE; Jose A. Torres, PR; James A. Vanderwielen, USDA/P&SA; and Kenneth A. Wheeler, OH.

The education committees of the regional weights and measures associations are encouraged to identify possible candidates

for cenification within their regions and consider ways to assist these individuals in obtaining certification, such as mailing them copies of the application form and offering them advice and assistance in filling out the form.

402-9 I Weights and Measures Administration Module

This was item 402-9 in the Committee's Report to the 78th NCWM; see that report for additional information on this subject. The Education Committee submitted a request to the Executive Committee for resources to complete and

maintain the Weights and Measures Administration Module, Part II, which is an administrative manual for weights and

measures administrators and supervisors that will contain information on how to organize, administer, justify, and

maintain a regulatory weights and measures program. Part I of the module, which is a self-study course that provides

an introduction to regulatory weights and measures programs in the United States, was published in 1993. The Committee requested $60,000 ($15,000 a year for 4 years) to complete the remaining 12 chapters of the module

(three chapters have already been written) and $10,000 a year after the completion of the module to cover the cost of module maintenance and the development of new chapters as necessary. (See Appendix F for a copy of the request, which includes a history of the Education Committee's efforts to complete the weights and measures administration module.) The funds were to be used to pay a professional writer and weights and measures jurisdictions for development

of the chapters in the module.

In the NTP survey. State Weights and Measures Directors rated completion of the second part of the administration module fifth in the list of NTP priorities and third in the list of priorities for the use of the remaining grant funds from

NIST. Although completion of the module is a high priority, the Committee feels that work should not continue until a commitment is made for funds, not only to develop the module, but to maintain it. The Executive Committee asked the Education Committee to determine priorities for all of its areas of responsibility as defined in the NCWM Bylaws in order for the Executive Committee to assess where and when money should be spent. (See Item 404.) At its special meeting in April 1994, the Committee decided to develop sections of this manual using working groups

consisting of NCWM active and associate members. One or more groups will be established each year. The plan is to develop the repon of the working group into a section or chapter of the administrative manual. The goal of the Committee is to use the information gathered by the working groups to develop criteria that could be used to certify weights and measures jurisdictions. The first topic selected is "Program Evaluation." The working group will be asked

to identify and define critical information that weights and measures jurisdictions should collect to show the impacts of

their programs and make decisions about the allocation of resources.

361
Education Committee

402-10 I Development of a Field Test Manual

Bill Braun and Tom Stabler of the Institute for Weights and Measures met with the Committee and gave a status report on their plans to develop a Field Test Procedures Manual that could be used by new and untrained weights and measures

officials and service/industry persoimel. Mr. Stabler gave the Committee a draft of a section of the manual that covered

a field test procedure for bench/counter scales with a scale division of 0.005 pound. Committee members were asked

to review the draft and send their comments to Mr. Stabler. The Committee will follow the progress of the field test manual and evaluate how it might relate to the restructuring of the scales modules. At the NCWM Annual Meeting, Bill Braun gave the Committee a second draft of the first section of IWM's field test manual for comment. 402-11 VC Participation by Other Countries in the NTP Certification Program

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Last year the Committee asked for comment on a proposal to permit other countries to participate in the Certification Program of the National Training Program. At the present time, individuals from other countries who participate in training module courses sponsored by Certification Program participants may receive CEU's for successfully completing

a course, but are not eligible to receive NTP certification. The Committee reviewed the comments on this issue that were

received from the regional weights and measures associations and found no opposition to permitting other countries to participate in the certification program, provided they sign a Letter of Agreement with the NCWM and follow the requirements of the NTP.

Committee Recommendation:

Revise the NCWM "Uniform Administrative Procedures for Certification of Weights and

Measures Officials" as shown in Appendix G to permit other countries to participate in the

Certification Program, provided they sign a Letter of Agreement with the NCWM and promise

to adhere to the NCWM's procedures and train officials in accordance with the NCWM's training modules.

Revisions proposed by the Committee are shown in Appendix G by highlighting information to be added and crossing e«t what is to be deleted.

402-12 VC NTP Record Keeping Requirements

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

States must sign a Letter of Agreement with the NCWM that stipulates adherence to the requirements of the "Uniform

Administrative Procedures for the Certification of Weights and Measures Officials" (see Appendix G) in order to participate in the NCWM Certification Program. These procedures state that it is the responsibility of the State Certifying Officer to establish a training file on each State official who participates in NCWM training courses. The

procedures also describe the type of information that must be kept in the file. The Committee was asked by a State training officer for guidelines on how long the required information must be kept.

It reviewed the list of required information and decided that some changes were needed to clarify what had to be included

in the file. In addition, the Committee decided to use the International Association for Continuing Education and

Training's definition of a permanent record (namely, a period of at least 7 years) as the basis for the NCWM's

requirements.

362
Education Committee

Committee Recommendation: Replace item V.A.3. in the Uniform Administrative Procedures with the following:

3. Establish a training file on each participant to include:

a. For each NCWM course completed: the course number, the dates of the

course, the participant's score on the final examination, the date on which

the jurisdiction applied for certification of the participant, and the date that the certification certificate was received;

b. A copy of all NCWM Certificates of Completion received by the participant;

c. Copies of the participant's Field Evaluation Forms;

d. Copies of the Request for Individual Certification Forms sent to the NCWM

on behalf of the participant; and

e. Copies of all Certification Certificates received by the participant. These records must be maintained for a period of at least 7 years. 402-13 W Expansion of NTP Registry

(This item was withdrawn.) The feasibility of expanding the NTP to include courses developed by State and local weights and measures jurisdictions was discussed. The Committee considered a program that would make it possible for a jurisdiction to develop a course

for its inspectors and then submit it for approval to the NCWM. The NCWM would determine if the course met

established criteria, and, if so, the course would be officially recognized, CEU's would be awarded to participants taking

the course, and records of completion of the course would be maintained in the NTP Registry. Although Committee members recognized the benefits of such a program, they felt that the NTP did not have the resources to administer the program at the present time; therefore, this item was withdrawn.

Jurisdictions that would like to award CEU's to participants in their training programs, can contact the Education Committee's Technical Advisor to get information on the requirements for establishing a CEU program.

403 Administration

403-1 I Enforcement Actions

This was Item 404 in the Committee's Report to the 78th NCWM (see that report for additional background information). The Committee reviewed feedback from the regional weights and measures groups on a proposal to change the current guidelines with regard to enforcement actions (such as those in the Fundamental Considerations Appendix in Handbook

44) to reflect current practices and to establish standard definitions for such terms as "rejected," "rejected for repair," and "condemned," which have different meanings in different jurisdictions. Specific wording for the proposed changes

to NIST Handbooks 130 and 44 were discussed at the 1994 NCWM Annual Meeting (see Appendix I). Copies of the proposed changes will be forwarded to the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R) and Specifications and

Tolerances Committee (S&T) for consideration.

404 I Consumer Affairs

With the proposed disbanding of the NCWM's Liaison Committee, the Education Committee has been asked to take on

additional responsibilities in the areas of consumer and public affairs. The Committee discussed how it could respond

to these new responsibilities and determined that it needed help to address the new activities and develop a more

aggressive consumer/public affairs program. A request for the establishment of a subcommittee for this purpose was

given to the Executive Committee. It was envisioned that the subcommittee, to be composed of both weights and

measures officials and associate members, would take on projects such as the following:

363
Education Committee

Publicizing Weights and Measures Weeic and helping to keep NCWM Publication 7, Weights and Measures Week Guide, up to date Keeping the Getting What You Pay For brochure up to date and perhaps having it translated into Spanish Developing additional consumer and retailer brochures on weights and measures related topics such as price verification, metric labeling, and unit pricing Maintaining contacts with consumer groups and encouraging their involvement in Conference activities as needed Developing sample news releases on weights and measures topics for distribution to the States Writing portions of Part II of the Weights and Measures Administration Module that relate to consumers, such as the section on complaint handling. The Executive Committee asked the Education Committee to look at all of its responsibilities in the areas of education,

administration, and consumer affairs and then develop a management plan for addressing those responsibilities, which

might include recommendations for the creation of new working groups or subcommittees needed to help the Committee

reach its goals in each area of responsibility. Money was allocated for a special meeting of the Education Committee

in the spring of 1994 to develop the management plan. The special meeting was held in April 1994. As a result of the meeting, the Committee is requesting a change in its name and scope and a new mission statement to reflect a broadening and refocusing of its activities. It was suggested,

for example, that the term "consumer affairs" was too narrow in scope because it represents only one segment of the NCWM's constituents. It was felt that the term "public affairs" is more comprehensive and highlights the need to establish and maintain contacts with more of the groups that impact or are impacted by actions of the Conference. (For

a full report of the meeting, see Appendix J.) At the end of the special meeting, the Committee identified tasks that needed to be undertaken prior to the NCWM

Annual Meeting. In the area of public affairs, plans were made to publicize issues to be addressed at the Annual

Meeting. Subsequent to the meeting, key issues were identified (e.g., price verification, CNG method of sale. Handbook

133 changes) and press releases and cover letters were sent to major publications in the subject areas. The Technical Advisors for the EA&CA and L&R Committees also met with concerned industry associations to seek their help in publicizing NCWM issues. During the Annual Meeting, the Committee decided that its focus for the next 6 months will be on developing information

for decision makers and, in particular, on developing a strategy for State Weights and Measures Directors to use in meetings with legislators. Members of the Committee met with Susan Grant, Executive Director of the National Association of Consumer Agency

Administrators (NACAA), at the Interim Meeting to learn more about her organization and see if they could identily areas of mutual interest. The Committee is evaluating how it might work with NACAA to achieve common goals.

405 I Safety

Charles Gardner, the NCWM Safety Liaison, reported that NIST had received clarification from the U.S. Department

of Transportation (DOT), Research and Special Programs Administration, concerning the applicability to weights and

measures officials of the hazardous materials training requirements that were published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 49, Part 172, Subpart H. DOT says that the training requirements do not apply to State and local weights and measures officials transporting hazardous materials in government vehicles because such transport is not considered

to be "in the furtherance of commerce. " However, the training requirements do apply to private companies that are hired by weights and measures jurisdictions to perform some of their functions. (See Appendix H for a copy of DOT's letter.) Although the DOT requirements do not apply, the Education Committee urges State and local jurisdictions to establish

their own hazardous materials training programs if they do not currently have such programs.

364
Education Committee

Mr. Gardner said that he had received a reply to the letter he sent to Timothy Gerrity of the Health Effects Research

Laboratory of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offering the NCWM's assistance in helping EPA find weights and measures jurisdictions that could gather information, collect evidence, or conduct tests on potential health

effects of motor fuels and motor fuel additives. Dr. Gerrity stated that he may contact the NCWM if assistance is needed

in a study EPA is doing on the health effects of MTBE; in any case, he said he would send a copy of the completed study

to Mr. Gardner. (See Appendix H for a copy of Mr. Gardner's letter and Dr. Gerrity's response.) Mr. Gardner also noted that he had received information from Max Gray, Chief of the Florida Bureau of Weights and

Measures (and member of the Education Committee), on a study conducted by the State Division of Safety on employee

exposure to lead in the metrology laboratory. The study found that no serious problem existed in the laboratory and that, through some simple housekeeping improvements, the potential for exposure to lead could be minimized. (See Appendix H for a copy of Mr. Gray's letter and the attached study report.) The Education Committee discussed the feasibility of serving as a clearinghouse for the collection and publication of

reports of accidents involving State and local weights and measures officials. Mr. Gardner said he would develop a draft of a form for collecting this information. The draft form was reviewed by the Committee at the Annual Meeting.

J. Hameli, Orange County, California, Chairman

B. DeSalvo, Ohio M. Gray, Florida

B. Martell, Vermont

E. Price, Texas

C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY, Safety Liaison

J. Koenig, NIST, Technical Advisor Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs

365
Education Committee

366
Education Committee

Certification Summary

(As of June 30, 1994)

Total No. Total Module Number

. state ofCertif. No. of

People 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 - 10 •19 20 21

.\L 43 24 14 12 5 12 AK 19 10 7 1 10 AZ 28 28 28 AR 129 42 20 19 10 9 40 12111 16 3 CO 7 7 7 CT €5 23 15 19 2 3 15 ^

^^^^^ 6 3 2 DE 5 5 5 DC 4 3 3 1 PL 88 70 6 8 3 7 2 33 16 6 7 GA 29 24 4 17

lA 1 1 1 TD 8 8 6

IL 17 17 8 9 IN 29 29 29 KS 28 15 7 7 4 1 LA 9 9 8 ! m

MD 64 34 27 4 33 MI 38 13 8 11 13 6 MN 15 15 15 MO 32 31 13 19 MT 7 7 7 NE 35 19 2 7 15 11 NV 11 9 1 1 8 1 NH 32 8 6 5 5 2 6 II

NM 20 15 1 9 10 NC 39 34 20 19 ND 3 3 3 OH 139 70 38 17 15 9 45 9 6 OR 54 16 16 15 5 10 6 1 1 PA 77 41 26 4 7 18 : 18 4 PR 93 45 32 33 28 SD 28 13 7 12 8 1 TN 40 29 5 6 29 UT 66 17 16 15 6 4 13 11 1 VT 19 8 4 2 1 3 7 I 1 VI 6 6 6 VA 2 2 2 WA 21 16 5 15 WI 3 3 3 Other P&S* 40 32 6 13 21

otals 1,393 801 75 246 69 144 13 104 421 181 19 84 36

'ackers and Stockyards Administration

367
Education Committee

I

1 Module Certification

(Percentage of Total)

MOD 4 5%

Data as of 6/30/94

368
Education Committee

Appendix B

COo

3

us is

2i

•a -I

.£P o «

-a ^

§

o o

.2 .2 .2 a -o -a p ^ o o t (L> i3 i: B -B B B

On O ^ (N CO — <N <N <N (N ^ _o _cj _a) _4J <u <u a a 3 p 3 3D •o -o -a -a -a -a o o o o o o o S S S S S S S

OO 00 C/3 60 60 ?^

Io o

C3 J 2 .§

•a

M O

(U <L> >

Di S > S J

'5"333'333'3 00000000

is s SP in

00 5! r IN, 2 TO 3: ° ^ Em 2 in

r- to 00 CO

eg €0 CO

c3

csCM

<o

eg 0

T-

<N

<o c\4 0

0 <D 0

s

eg — c0 by

ined

- XIEz 0 ^ ? OJ CO »—

lis

Tra 3

•a0

00 0 OJ « iO 0 CO g ^ CO CO

idus <o CO >

Indi

To

to 0 eg :: $2 00 ^ <n ^ U in i0

OJ 004

r- <0

•<3-

CM 10 <M 0CM

OJ 0 CO

0 O) CO

W

_i< < <

<0 0

0

369
Education Committee

Totals i8 o 5 00 <o J5 «0

. ^ CO

an IS ?

05 in CO 40

_

IN. COmC\J CM CO N. CO CO CM <o o

CM

CO o <o m

N. COJm CM m

^ CD

CM m <o OJ CM O)

<NI <o CO OJ CO CD CO O CO n

OJ «)

cno mCM -o w

CM CM CO red

- by

1

° CO CO

OJ CO

<M

CM in

lO

CM

CM

CD CO

in CM

lals

Train 3o

CO

<M <o Csl o CO N- 00o CO m<o

CM COCO ?^ *0

CM

CD CO CM in cm:

vidL £0 CO CO CO

c <o

To

in in CO CO o•CO CM CO CO

<r 04 If) CM CM m

CM cn

<v

CO<M om lO CM CM (D

CD CO tn

CM :

CO CO O

Sw

UJ5

Q s Z toS O H

2

in > X -3 2

2

>-2 O

2

Q2 X

o o o

<

a. a E O

370
Education Committee

^ ^ ^ ^5 g s " N 8

to cn

^ CO

O

CO to in

(N <M

^ > I 5

371
Education Committee

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY

SUMMARY OF METROLOGY SEMINAR ACTIVITY

(As of June 30, 1994)

Courses Listed in the Registry: No. 201, Basic Metrology I No. 202, Basic Metrology U

No. 203, Intermediate Metrology No. 204, Advanced Metrology

201

individuals Trained by Course

Course Mo. 202 203 204 ALAK

AZCO

CT

1

15

, ;5 tI

1

6

2

2.;:.-;::.,,:::

22

OE

FL 3 3 " ga y

HI 11111111111^:.

ILIN KS

2 2 iiiiiiiiliil

3

2

2:1

43 ; |; 7

5

3

1 1 1 KYMEWD

MA

2

2

2

4 . 419:1

2

4;K|| 3

2

6|ii||

1 lllllllllli;! m

MSMO

NV

rillll

1 1

1 1 NYNC

2 2

5 2

4

12

2 no

OH 1 1 OK 1 1 2

372
Education Committee

Individuals Trained by Course

Course Ho.

State PA

201 502 203

1 1 PR 2 2 5

Rl 1 3 4 SD 2

TN 1 2 3 TX 3 3 1 7

VA 2 2 2 6 WV 2 2 4 Wl 2 2 Other 7 7 Canada 1 Totals 52 56 43 ,,..,2 153

373
Education Committee

374
Education Committee

Entries in NTP Registry

By Module

Entries

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 27

Module Number

Number of entries

Data as of 6/30/94

375
Education Committee

S ^ ^ « c

S <J §

2 I

2| S 8 S 8 5

8 ^ S S g' S 8 lo «j- c <o> a>

8 8 8

-- io cn

» 8 e ^

^ O 2

' to o^5

fO CD -r-

»- <N

<M CJ CO

376
Education Committee

Continuing Education Units (CEUs) Awarded

By the National Conference on Weights and Measures For Attendance at OWM Metrology Seminars

(June 30, 1994)

Course No. of Participants 1990 1991 i9m9 Grand

No.* CEUs** Total Total Total : Total , : Totals

201 3.60 52 9720 54.00 720 2S.80 187.20 202 3.50 57 101.50 52.50 17.50 28.00 199.50 203 3.10 42 49.60 40.30 34.10 6.20 130.20 204 2.50 2 5.00 5.00

Totals 153 248^0 146.80 58.80 68.-00 521.90

* Course No. 201: Basic Metrology I Course No. 202: Basic Metrology II Course No. 203: Intermediate Metrology

Course No. 204: Advanced Metrology

** One CEU is equivalent to 10 contact hours of participation in an organized continuing education

experience imder responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified instruction.

377
Education Committee

Appendix C

Summary of the Results of the NTP Survey

Of State Weights and Measures Directors

Total Responses: 31

Introduction - The purpose of this survey is to obtain information that will help the Conference plan the future direction of the National Training Program. It begins with questions on the current program in order to assist you in assessing what you like or do not like about what is now in place.

It then asks for your views on how the program could be improved so that we can better serve your training needs now and in the fiiture. Part I - Current Program - The following questions are intended to assess your views on the existing training modules and programs

of the NTP. Modules

1 . How would you rate the overall usefulness of the NCWM Training Modules to your Weights and Measures Program? (Circle your answer.)

1 2 3 4 5 Not useful No opinion Very useful OVERALL RATING: 4.2

2. How does your jurisdiction use the NCWM training modules? (Circle all that apply.)

a. As the basis for classroom or self-study training of weights and measures officials. N=25

b. As reference materials for inspectors. N=24

C. As models for courses developed by the jurisdiction. N=6

d. Parts are copied and distributed to inspectors or the public in response to inquiries about policies or procedures.

e. As a basis for registration of service personnel. N=2

f. Other (please specify): Comments: "Integrate selected slides, test questions, diagrams into existing training program."

for new employees."

g. Do not use the modules. N=l

3. Using the table on the page 4, please rate each published training module on its usefulness (how well it meets your jurisdiction's needs for training

in the subject area), adequacy of content, and appropriateness of length. (Check the appropriate box in the table to indicate your rating. If you

are not familiar with a particular module or a certain aspect of the module, leave the appropriate boxes blank.)

4. What do you like best about the modules? Summary of comments: The modules provide uniform, structured training that follows a logical learning sequence. They also consolidate comprehensive information on a specific subject in one manual and provide a useful, flexible training tool for inspectors. They are very understandable and study quizzes help you check your progress. In addition, they are good reference sources.

5. What do you like least about the modules? Summary of comments: Some of the illustrations are usually poorly drawn and there are not enough pictures of

actual devices. Some modules are too lengthy and too technical. Modules are not updated quickly enough. There

is duplication of information.

N=9

"Self-study courses

378
Education Committee

Length

too

short Ol

about right 00 00 ON 00 NO

loo long ON m OI OJ Ol

c

(UC

- o

not

enough

detail

about right 00 On.

too exten- sive On

Uscfuhiess

vcr>'

useful IT) 04 IT) 'J- ir, ruseful 00 00 ON 00 00 o

not

useful 04 OJ

Module 1

Mod

2,

Retail

Computing

Scales

Mod

4,

Medium-Capacity

Scales

Mod

5,

Vehicle &

Axle-Load

Scales

1

Mod

6,

Meat

Beams &

Monorail

Scales

1

Mod

7,

Livestock

&

Animal

Scales

1

Mod

8,

Retail

Motor-Fuel

Dispensers

Mod

10,

Checking

the

Net

Contents

of

Packaged

Goods

Mod

19,

Loading-Rack

Meters

Mod

20,

Vehicle-Tank

Meters

1

Mod

21,

LPG

Liquid-Measuring

Devices

1

Mod

22,

Commodity

Regulations

1

Mod

23,

Intro,

to

W&M

Regulation

j

Mod

24,

Intro,

to

NIST

Handbook

44

Mod

27,

Intro,

to

Elect.

W&M

Systems

379
Education Committee

CEU's

6 . The Conference now awards Continuing Education Units (CEU's) to individuals who successfully complete the classroom portion of the training modules. The CEU is a nationally recognized measure of noncredit continuing education learning experiences. How would you rate the overall importance of CEU's to the individuals who take module training in your jurisdiction: (Circle your answer.)

1 N=4 2N= 7 3N=5 4 N=7 5 N=8

Not important No opinion Very important OVERALL RATING: 3.3 Summary of comments: The comments ranged from "Most of the time, it makes no difference to the person" and "The CEU's mean very little, but the availability of a transcript and records mean a lot" to "The CEU's are the rewards for aduU students."

7 . It costs the Conference $3 to record CEU's for individuals each time they take a module class (the total aimual cost to the NCWM averages about

$2,000). CEU's serve three major purposes: 1. they provide recognition for individual effort and achievement, 2. they help the NCWM keep

track of which courses are being used, and 3. they are quality control measures that let instructors know how much time is needed to adequately cover a specific course. Do you think the cost of awarding CEU's is justified by the benefits to the NCWM, the individuals concerned, and your training program? (Circle your answer.) Yes N=16 No N=4 Don't know N=ll

8. Would your jurisdiction be willing to pay the $3 per person cost to have your officials awarded CEU's? Yes N=10 No N=13 Don't know N=8

9. Do you require individuals to obtain a certain number of CEU's in order to retain their jobs, get promotions, or for any other reason? (If you

answer "yes," please describe your requirements below.) Yes N=3 No N=28 Don't know N=0

Requirements: Two States said that they did not require individuals to complete a certain number of CEU's, but

that successful completion of the modules helps promotion potential. One State said new employees must complete

three selected modules during 1 year's probation, but the number of CEU's was not considered. Another State said

it has a continuing education requirement. One other State commented that CEU's are necessary to be a higher grade inspector.

10. Do you feel additional CEU's should be awarded to people who take an NCWM module more than once?: Yes N=23 No N=6 Don't know N=2

If "no," please explain: Comments: "Not unless the module has been significantly revised. " "You should only earn CEU's once for each

course, not each time it is taken." "Perhaps not full credit in all cases." "Time used to retake a course could be expended on another module."

380
Education Committee

If "yes." please indicate when you think additional CEU's should be given: (Circle all that apply.)

a. When an individual retakes a course that has been substantially revised since the last time the course was taken. N= 18

b. When an individual retakes any course that has been revised, even if only a few changes have been made. N=2

C. Anytime an individual retakes a course, whether or not the course has been revised. N =3

d. Anytime an individual retakes a course after a specified period of time, whether or not the course has been revised. What period of time would you recommend?: N=17

90 DAYS N = l 2 YEARS N = 3 3 YEARS N = 4 4 YEARS N = l 5 YEARS N = 5

3-4 YEARS N = l 3-5 YEARS N = l 4-5 YEARS N= l

e. Other: Comments: "If they feel CEU's are important; even an experienced W&M official needs a refresher course." "Continuing education is to learn what we don't know, whether it be from forgetting, never having the information

before, or pan of a learning progression." "'Updated' modules that reflect general Handbook 44 changes." "Only

after NCWM Education Committee reviews it."

11. Do you think the Conference should discontinue the awarding of CEU's and instead provide some other form of recognition? (Circle your

answer.) Yes N = 7 No N = 12 Don't know N = 12

If "no." please explain: Comments: "CEU's provide recognition for successful completion of a module. Current system is adequate."

"It is good recognition of accomplishment." "Is it all that necessary to issue/track CEU's?" "CEU's are well

established and recognized as units of achievement by most forms of education."

If "yes." please indicate the type of recognition would you prefer, if any: Comments: "A certificate for personnel file." "NCWM or NIST certificate." "Trainer certification to inspect or test."

Certification of Weights and Measures Officials (Circle your answer to the following questions; feel free to add comments below any

question.)

12. How would you rate the importance of NCWM certification to your weights and measures staff members?

1 2 3 4 5 Not important No opinion Very important OVERALL RATING: 4.1

13. How would you rate the importance of the NCWM certification program to your weights and measures program?

1 2 3 4 5 Not important No opinion Very important OVERALL RATING: 4.0

14. Do you think the NCWM should continue its certification program for weights and measures officials?

Yes N= 29 No N = 0 Don't know N = 0

381
Education Committee

15. Do you feel the certification program could be improved? (If you answer "yes," please explain below.) Yes N = 10 No N-4 Don't know N= 17 Coinments: "By attempting to shorten existing modules (in some cases) or allowing the training to be given one day per month; or some other such schedule." "There is always room for improvement, but I further believe we need to certify the entire Weights and Measures program. In other words, not only certify inspectors, but the

entire jurisdiction." "I believe it continues to get improved." "Make it easier for individual self-study, at least department-wide self-study." "What does 'Certification' mean? Does it carry legal recognition such as registered nurse or professional engineer? If not, it needs to mean something to be of great benefit." "Monitor program so

certification means the same thing in all States. Assist States who don't have someone to do certification." Trainer Certification (Circle your answer to the following questions: feel free to add comments after any question.)

16. Trainers who meet certain basic criteria may be certified by the NCWM as being qualified to teach NCWM training modules. How would you

rate the importance of the NCWM trainer certification program?

1 2 3 4 5 Not important No opinion Very important OVERALL RATING: 4.0

17. Do you think the NCWM should continue its certification program for trainers? Yes N = 23 No N = 2 Don't know N = 6 Comments: "Yes, but in somewhat of a related fashion. I see no need for the Education Committee to formally

vote on the trainer's qualifications." "If economically feasible."

18. Do you think you would ever use the services of one of the certified trainers on the NCWM's Trainers List, which is made up of individuals who have volunteered to assist jurisdictions in presenting NCWM training modules? Yes N=24 No N=3 Don't know N=4

Comments: "Yes, however, I would still be concerned unless I had other information to make a decision on an individual trainer." "Cost is a major consideration."

382
Education Committee

Part n - Future of the NTP - The following questions are intended to assess your views on the future direction of

the NTP.

19. The NCWM has received a number of suggestions for changes in NTP publications or programs. Your help is needed in putting priorities on

those suggestions. Please indicate what you think the priorities for the NTP should be by ranking the following in order of priority - 1 being

the highest priority: No. 1 b. 2.03 Redesign modules to eliminate duplication so that they are shorter and more efficient to present. No. 2 f. 2.4 Develop videos on device examinations. No. 3 a. 3.36 Update existing modules. No. 4 h. 3.6 Develop field manuals that would include such information as expanded Examination Procedure Outiines, tolerance tables, and sample forms or worksheets. No. 5 C. 3.6 Complete the Weights and Measures Administration Module, Part II, which is an Administrative Manual

for administrators and supervisors that provides in-depth information on how to organize, manage, and

justify a regulatory weights and measures program. No. 6 e. 5.3 Develop short courses on technical subjects such as: ISO 9000, checking milk, electronic components - scales and pumps, CNG - LPG,

specific electronic associated equipment, load cells, UPC scanner inspection, vapor

elimination test, wt. substitution. No. 7 g. 5.8 Develop video courses on: All modules; Module 8; small capacity scales and gasoline meters; Modules 2, 5, 8, 10; scales, petroleum meters, hopper scales, livestock, and truck scales; LMD's,

package weighing, VIM, HD scales. No. 8 i. 5.8 Develop correspondence courses on: Electronics (Module 27), Handbook 44, commodity regulations; interstate W&M

cooperation; scales, liquid-measuring devices; all modules. No. 9 d. 6.8 Develop new modules such as: Taximeters; hopper scales; voluntary registration of servicemen & serv. co.; jeweler's and precious metals devices; metrication; Batch plant, belt scales; UPC; moisture

meters. No. 10 j. 7.0 Other: (please specify) Two-day module instructions; alternative test procedures; develop videos on

investigation of fraud and fraudulent operation of weighing/measuring devices and

special inspection equipment and techniques.

383
Education Committee

20. The NCWM has less than $100,000 left of the grant funds provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the development

of new training materials. How would you like to see the NCWM spend the remaining funds? (Please list your top three priorities below. If you would like to put one of the items listed in question 19 in your list of priorities, just enter the letter of the item in the appropriate blank

below.)

a. Top priority: B (Redesign modules to eliminate duplication) N=17

b. Second priority: A (Update existing modules) N= 12

c. Third priority: C (Complete W&M Administration Part II) N=12

21 . The following are different methods of delivery of training. Which methods would you prefer to use to deliver training in your jurisdiction? (Please put a "1" by your first choice, a

"2" by your second choice, etc.)

a. 1.6 Classroom training with an instructor. d. 3.2 Correspondence courses.

b. 2.6 Self-study courses (written text). C. 4.5 Computer-based training.

C. 2.3 Self-study courses (video tapes). f. Other:

Other: Field training with instructor; a combination video and written text; classroom training including field training with instructor.

22. Existing NTP training modules take from 2 days to 5 days to present. What do you think is the maximum amount of time that should be spent on any single training program? (Circle the letter next to your answer.)

a. Idayorless N=l d. 4 days N= 9

b. 2 days N= 2 e. 5 days N=l

C. 3 days N=14 f. Other: 2 or lesS = 1 2-3 = 1 Other: "Give consideration to offering training once a month, etc. once modules have been shortened as much as possible."

23 . What type of assistance could your jurisdiction provide to help the NCWM in the development and maintenance of its training programs? (Circle

the letter next to your answer.)

a. Update modules. N=2

b. Develop videos of device inspections for modules. N= 6

C. Develop short courses. N=3

d. Field test modules. N=16

e. Other: N= 4

f. None N= 3

384
Education Committee

Appendix C (contd.) Summan of the Results of the NTP Survey

Of Weights and Measures Trainers

Total Responses: 23

Introduction - The purpose of this survey is to obtain information that will help the Conference plan the future direction of the National Training Program. It begins with questions on the current program in order to assist you in assessing what you like or do not like about what is now in place.

It then asks for your views on how the program could be improved so that we can better serve your training needs now and in the future.

Part I - Current Program - The following questions are intended to assess your views on the existing training modules and programs of the NTP.

Modules

1. How would you rate the overall usefulness of die NCWM Training Modules to your jurisdiction? (Circle your answer.) N= 23

1 2 3 4 5 Not useful No opinion Ver)' useful OveraU Rating: 4.7 Summary- of comments: The modules are the key to umfonnit>\ They are useful to experienced inspectors as well

as new inspectors. They complement field training.

2. How does your jurisdiction use the NCWM training modules? (Circle all that apply) N=23

a. As the basis for classroom or self-study training of weights and measures officials. N=21

b. As reference materials for inspectors. N=18

C. As models for courses developed by the jurisdiction. N= 5

d. Parts are copied and distributed to inspectors or the public in response to inquiries about policies or procedures. N=10

e. Other (please specify ): Summary of comments: Periodically used as in-house refresher courses. Parts are copied for service companies. Pans are used in the exam that inspectors must pass to reach the highest inspector level. EPO's are copied and

distributed to inspectors and service companies.

f. Do not use the modules.

3. Using the table on the next page, please rate each published training module on usefulness to your jurisdiction (how well it meets your

jurisdiction's needs for training in the subject area), adequacy of content, and appropriateness of length? (Check the appropriate box in the table

to indicate your rating. If you are not familiar witfi a particular module or a certain aspect of the module, leave the appropriate box blank.)

4. What do you like best about the modules? N=21 Summary- of comments: The modules provide formal training that is uniform, comprehensive, flexible, and easily understood. The Handbook 44 references are useful and are explained in an easy to understand manner. Safety

is an imponant pan of each module. The modules cut down on the amount of preparation needed to provide

training.

385
Education Committee

a

U o

o

•3 rt* 2 CLh

386
Education Committee

5. What do you like least about the modules? N=18 ,

' Summary of comments: The modules need to be updated more regularly. They include too much duplication. They are too long. Information presented is sometimes superfluous and important points are not always

adequately stressed. Inclusion of Handbook 44 references makes inspectors think they have to memorize them; we want to get used to referring to the latest Handbook. Some areas (such as tolerance worksheets) need more

explanation.

6. What type of visual aids do you prefer to use when you teach a class? (Put a

"1" by your first choice, a

"2" by your second choice, etc.) N = 22 No. 1 b. 1.6 Overheads No. 4 c. 3.4 Flipcharts No. 2 d. 2.4 Videos No. 5 e. 3.5 Other: Personal overheads, chalk board, demonstration No. 3 a. 2.5 Slides equipment and materials (scales, meters, packages,

etc.), actual equipment in the field.

7. How would you rate the overall usefulness to you of the Instructor's Manuals that are supplied with NCWM Training Modules? (Circle your answer.) N= 19

1 2 3 4 5 Not useful No opinion Very useful Overall Rating: 3.5 Summary of comments: Very limited use. Some manuals were very useful and some were incomplete. You

only need to read them once. Modules are taught using the Inspector's Manual

8. How do you feel the Instructor's Manual could be improved? N=7 Summary of comments: Less formality. It should follow the order of the Inspector's Manual. It should be

replaced with a lesson plan to be used with the Inspector's Manual. It should include suggestions for demonstrating specific operations such as discrimination test, AZT test, air eliminator test, etc. More history and background to share, different from Inspector's Manual. Tidbits, suggestions of things to do to enhance

learning and quizzes.

CEU's

9. The Conference now awards Continuing Education Units (CEU's) to individuals who successfully complete the classroom portion of the training modules. The CEU is a nationally recognized measure of noncredit continuing education learning experiences. How would you

rate the overall importance of CEU's to the individuals who take module training in your jurisdiction: (Circle your answer.) N= 23

1 2 3 4 5 Not imponant No opinion Very important Overall Rating: 3.4 Summary of comments: Comments ranged from "I know of no one who has ever used them" to "In many

jurisdictions - no CEU's - no attendance." Most people seemed to feel that some form of recognition is important. It was suggested that CEU's would be more valuable if jurisdictions used them for job advancement and salary increases.

387
'.«see die iKft ienli».

mn^tt
Education Committee

Certificatioii of Weights and Measures Officials (Circle your answer to the following questions; feel free to add comments below any question.)

12. How would you rate the importance of NCWM certification to individuals in your jurisdiction? N= 19

1 2 3 4 5 Not important No opinion Very important Overall Rating: 4.0 Summary of comments: It is important to me and the inspectors - evidently low priority on the State and

administrative levels. We frame the cenificates and present them formally. From what I hear, the cities would like the State to be more active in cenifying their programs and persons involved in weights and

measures.

13. How would you rate the importance of the NCWM certification program to your weights and measures program? N= 19

1 2 3 4 5 Not important No opinion Very important Overall Rating: 4.2 Summary of comments: Would like to see mandatory cenification. In my State it is a requirement for advancement in grade. The guidance and certification should be there to foster uniformity amongst the States.

It adds credibility to the program and prevents its demise and privatization.

14. Do you think the NCWM should continue its certification program for weights and measures officials? N=19

Yes N-I7 No Don't know N=2

15. Do you feel the certification program could be improved? (If you answer "yes, " please explain below.) N=12

Yes N = 8 No N-2 Don't know N = 2 Summary of comments: Would like to see NCWM adopt mandatory certification and the certifying officer should be a "certified trainer" within the regional association pertinent to the person being certified. To certify inspectors just because they passed a module is not enough. There needs to be continual monitoring on annual

or semi-annual basis of inspector. If the inspector leaves current job or job category for a number of years, then comes back to old job, is he still certified? Need to have annual evaluation updates to maintain

certification. Certify State programs, not just training. More recognition of benefits is needed. The program

needs to be "sold" to jurisdictions and individuals. Experienced inspectors should be permitted to self-study any module and take the exam; field evaluation must follow. After major revisions require re-certification.

I think the work group on privatization should change its name and work with education, or other appropriate

parties, to develop further enhancements to requiring certification.

Trainer Cenification (Circle your answer to the following questions; feel free to add comments after any question.)

16. Trainers who meet certain basic criteria may be certified by the NCWM as being qualified to teach NCWM training modules. How would you rate the importance of the NCWM trainer certification program? N = 19

1 2 3 4 5 Not important No opinion Very important Overall Rating: 4.4

389
Education Committee

17. Do you think the NCWM should continue its certification program for trainers? N= 19 YesN=16 NoN=2 Don't know N=l

1 8 . Have you applied for certification or do you plan to apply for certification in the future? (If you answer "No , " please explain why below .

)

N=18

YesN = 13 NoN=3 Don't know N=2

Part n - Future of the NTP - The following questions are intended to assess your views on the future direction of the NTP.

1 9 . The NCWM has received a number of suggestions for changes in NTP publications or programs. Your help is needed in putting priorities on those suggestions. Please indicate what you think die priorities for the NTP should be by ranking the following in order of priority - - 1 being the highest priority: N=19

a. 2.9 Update existing modules. N= 18

b. 2.3 Redesign modules to eliminate duplication so that they are shorter and more efficient to present. N= 19

C. 4.0 Complete the Weights and Measures Administration Module, Part II, which is an Administrative Manual for administrators and supervisors that provides in-depth information on how to organize, manage, and justify a regulatory weights and

measures program. N= 15

d. 4.1 Develop new modules such as: N= 8 Summary of comments: Mass flow meters, testing taxi meters, hoppers and auto bulkweighing systems,

grain test equipment, petroleum product sampling.

e. 4.8 Develop short courses on technical subjects such as: N= 3 Summary of comments: Statistics; safety in the field; individual testing procedures or equipment; new

technology which has been introduced into the marketplace but not addressed by NCWM; NTEP; package

inspection of aerosols, count, etc.; load cells/scale electronics; the existing modules; tolerance applications,

testing procedures; scaimer testing; CNG.

f. 4.0 Develop videos on device examinations to supplement the modules. N= 16

g. 4.6 Develop video courses on: N= 9 Summary of comments: Vehicle scale inspections and HB 133 package inspections; field safety procedures;

testing of livestock, truck, and hopper scales; all modules; explaining the changes to HBs 44, 130, 133.

h. 3.6 Develop field manuals that would include such information as expanded Examination Procedure Outlines, tolerance tables, and sample forms or worksheets. N= 16

i. 4.7 Develop correspondence co.urses on: 4.7 Summary of comments: All modules; NCWM amendments (annually); gasoline station testing/store scale

testing; for service agencies; Modules 22, 23, 24, and 27; history of weights and measures past, present, now.

j. 7.0 Other: (please specify) N= 4

390
Education Committee

Summary of comments: Develop a procedural manual to cover all device testing and package weighing. Develop modules designated "beginner," "intermediate," and "advanced," that are designed so they are readily modifiable for each of the designated groups. Develop computer training courses. Hire additional persons

to work with the education committee and State directors in developing, reviewing, certifying and setting goals and standards in weights and measures programs - they should have a travel budget to be able to visit the

States and evaluate current programs and make suggestions, work with trainers on doing training, but not do

official training themselves. Maintain Module 6 as an active module!

20. The NCWM has less than $100,000 left of the grant funds provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the development of new modules or module revisions. How would you like to see the NCWM spend the remaining funds? (Please list your

top three priorities below. If you would like to put one of the items listed in question 14 in your list of priorities, just enter the letter of the item in the appropriate blank below) N=19

a. Top priority: A (Update existing modules) N=4 C (Complete W&M Administration Part U) N=4

B (Redesign modules to eliminate duplication) N=3

F (Develop videos on device examinations) N = 1

b. Second priority: H (Develop field manuals) N=6

A N = 2 BN= 2 C N = l EN= 1

I N = l

c. Third priority: CN= 3 FN=3

A N=l

HN=1

JN=1

21. The following are different methods of delivery of training. Which methods would you prefer to use to deliver training in your

jurisdiction? (Please put a "1" by your first choice, a "2" by your second choice, etc.) N= 21

a. 1.1 Classroom training with an instructor. N= 19 d. 3.7 Computer-based training. N= 14

b. 2.7 Self-study courses. N=17 e. 2.3 Other:

c. 2.8 Correspondence courses. N= 15 Comments: Field training

22. Existing NTP training modules take from 2 days to 5 days to present. What do you think is the maximum amount of time that should be spent on any smgle training program? (Circle the letter next to your answer.) N= 18

a. 1 day or less d. 4 days N=4

b. 2 days N=2 e. 5 days N=4

c. 3 days N=7 f. Other: 2-4 Days N= l

391
Education Committee

23. What suggestions do you have for improving the NCWM training modules or the services of the National Training Program? N=9

Comments:

Appoint a national trainer "cheer leader" with direct monthly contact with State jurisdictions, long range

combined-jurisdiction training events (combining expenses and benefits), develop more modem instructional techniques, methods, content, and equipment. Need to have more follow-up to the field training. I think it would be a good idea to have field audit problems

as part of the certification process assigned to the inspectors. This could either be at the end of modules or on annual basis. This could be similar to lab problems that are part of the metrology training. The problems would have to be evaluated by someone at NIST or the Education Committee for correctness. Develop checkoff lists, in more detail, for the instructors. I believe it is imperative for us to have a better means of checks and balances to maintain the integrity of the NTP. Have several people who can periodically audit a State or local jurisdiction's training program. (Either within the regional association or NCWM.)

More direct communication with students who have recently completed a module. Develop videos.

Streamline modules so they are easier to update. Identify trainers in the States and use them as resources for updates, info, etc. Assist States with training program and trainer development. The slides of equipment need updating. Field examination can be difficult to arrange and could be substituted with classroom slides, video, or (better) simulator equipment.

I think we need to get help from States that are willing to lead in education and training. With funds miming

out, we need to develop some revenue sources to continue the work that was begun. I believe a small tax on

vehicle fuels should be established, and the funds collected should be given to NCWM for use in maintaining

training of inspectors nationwide.

392
Education Committee

Appendix D - Proposal to Restructure the NTP's Training on Scales

Objective: To make the National Training Program's training on the examination of various types of scales more

efficient to present by eliminating duplication of information, to reduce classroom time by making greater use of self- study programs, and to simplify the updating process for the training materials by limiting the reprints of Handbook 44

requirements. Components: The components of the restructured program would be as follows:

1 . Existing Module 24, Introduction to NIST Handbook 44

• Self-study module

• Provides an introduction to the training program, describes the format and content of Handbook 44, explains

the requirements in the General Code, and covers the basic principles behind the establishment of tolerances

• Requirements of the General Code would be reprinted in this module, but not reprinted in the specific device

training programs

• Completion of this course would be made a prerequisite to taking any other NTP training on devices

2. New Module on the Scales Code in Handbook 44

• Self-study module

• Would provide an introduction to the Scales Code and explain the basic principles behind the various requirements

• Would explain the tolerance structure in the Scales Code and possibly introduce the concept of tolerance worksheets; it would also provide a detailed description of the marking requirements

• Requirements of the Scales Code would be reprinted in this module, but not reprinted in the specific device

training programs

• Completion of this course would be made a prerequisite to taking any of the specific scales training programs

3. Revised Training Programs on Specific Types of Scales or Classes of Scales

• Classroom training with an instructor

• Would describe how to conduct an official examination of particular types of scales (such as retail computing

scales, livestock and animal scales, vehicle and axle-load scales, etc.) or a class of scales (Class III scales. Class HI L scales, etc.)

• Would include one or more examination procedure outlines

• Would include hands-on practice of testing procedures

• Requirements of the General and Scales Codes of Handbook 44 would be referenced in these programs but would not be reprinted; Handbook 44 could be used to look up exact wording of requirements if necessary

• Completion of tolerance worksheets and repon forms for the specific scales covered by the module will be

part of the training program

• Training could be supplemented with videos of inspection and test procedures

• Student's manual could be structured as a field manual for use after the class Cost: Deliverables and Estimated costs are:

• New Scales Code Module - 528,000

• Revised Device Modules - 322,000 per module (3 to 5 modules needed)

• Minor revision to Module 24 - No contractor cost - Revision to be done by OWM

393
Education Committee

Appendix E - Letter from lACET on the Awarding of

Additional CEU's

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

AT CHAPEL HILL

DivisioQ of Ewemi] Affairs tad

Coaununity HcaUh Service School of PuWk Hcahh

The University of North OroUaa « Chipd HQJ CBf 7400, Roieiua HiH Outpd Kin. NiC 27599-7-<00 October 19, 1993

Ms. Joan A. Koenig

NIST

Office of Weights and Measures

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Dear Joan: Recently you requested a clarification from the International Association for QDntinuing Education and Training regarding the practice of awarding CEUs to individuals taking a course more than one time. It is lACETs position that CEUs

should only be awarded when the lACET criteria and guidelines have been met,

and tiiat includes making sure that the participant has satisfactorily met the requirements for complying tiie course. When such requirements have been met,

diere would appear to be no reason, educationally, for the individual to repeat tiie course soon after taking it for the first time. Generally speaking, lACET does not recommend awarding CEUs more than once to a participant for convicting the same course. However, there are certain exceptions under which CEUs might be awarded more than once to the same

individual for completing a course two or more times. The first exception occurs if the course content has changed significantly, ev^ tiiougji the title of the course may remain the same. For example, a course entitled "Legal Update" may have its content changed quite often while retaining the same course title. A second exertion may relate to the time elapsed since the course was last taken. Thae are certain sldlls which may be needed by a partidpant even though

they are rarely used Thus, periodic updates may be essential, even though the

content of what is taught is not new. For example, the maintenance of certain life saving skills and procedures are essential for many participants. To remain

competent may require periodic updates with the same course content

394
Education Committee

Joan Koenig

October 19, 1993

Page 2

In each of these two examples, it would be appropriate to offer CEUs more than once to participants repeating the course. However, as a rule, lACET does not recommend awarding CEUs more than once to a participant for completing a

continuing education or training program

I hope this adequately responds to the question you raised. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

If you have further questions regarding the awarding of CEUs, please contact

the lACET national office in Washington, D.C (i02-842-4668) or feel free to caU me directly at (919-966-3309). You may also wish to review a copy of the lACETs new CEU Criteria and Guidelines. Please caU the lACET office to ord^

a copy of this publication if you do not already have it Warm regards.

Sincerely,

Richard M. House, MPH, EdD

Oiair, lACET CEU Committee

/kg

cc: Grover Andrews, President lACET

CEU Committee Members

Carolyn Freeland, Executive Director

395
Education Committee

Appendix F - Request for Resources to Complete and

Maintain Module 23, Part II

The NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs (Education Committee) hereby requests $60,000 (approximately $5,000 per chapter) to complete the remaining 12 chapters of Module 23, Part II, Weights and Measures Administration. In addition, following the completion of the module, the Committee requests $10,000 per year

to ensure upkeep of the module (including the addition of new chapters and the updating of existing chapters). The

Education Committee requests these additional funds for the training program because the remaining grant funds from NIST are insufficient to both develop the module and ensure adequate maintenance, which is essential to ensure the usefulness of the module. We propose to develop three chapters a year for 4 years; therefore, the annual expense to the Conference is estimated

to be approximately $15,000 per year for 4 years and then $10,000 per year thereafter for maintenance. Background

Early in the development of the National Training Program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM), the Education Committee identified a need to publish a training manual for weights and measures

administrators that would describe how to establish and maintain a successful weights and measures program. The model

for the training program was National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology - NIST) Handbook 82, Weights and Measures Administration, which was last issued in 1962. Handbook 82 was a comprehensive manual that covered the history, organization, and administration of weights and measures programs in the United States. It had served as a very useful document for new and experienced weights and measures officials, but was significantly out of date by the time the NTP was established.

In 1984, the NCWM contracted with a training development organization to prepare a training module on the basics of

weights and measures administration. This project was one of three training programs included in the first contract (not counting an earlier contract that had been canceled) issued by the NCWM after receiving a grant from NIST for the development of training materials for weights and measures officials. Two drafts of the proposed module on weights and measures administration were prepared, but the module was never published because it had become clear that the contractor was not knowledgeable enough about current administrative practices in weights and measures jurisdictions

to write the kind of up-to-date, comprehensive, substantive module that was needed. The next attempt to complete development of the module involved assigning chapters from the contractor's last draft to

staff in the NIST Office of Weights and Measures to review, correct, and update. However, the loss of experienced staff and heavy work loads in other areas resulted in the cancellation of the project and a decision to try to find another outside

contractor (or contractors) to continue work on the module. The Education Committee assessed the initial efforts to develop the administrative module and decided that the project might have a greater chance of succeeding if it was broken up into more manageable pieces. Members of the Committee

identified parts of the module that should be written, or at least drafted by, one or more individuals with extensive experience in or knowledge of regulatory weights and measures activities. They felt that other parts of the module could be written by training specialists with little or no background in weights and measures because of the general nature of

the subject matter and the existence of sufficient written background material on the subjects. The Committee then divided the proposed module into two parts: Part I on the history, organization, and role of weights and measures programs that could serve as an introduction to regulatory weights and measures activities in the United States and Part

II that would be in the form of an administrative manual and would provide comprehensive information on how to plan, develop, and maintain a regulatory weights and measures program.

Part I was intended to be used by anyone who wanted to become more knowledgeable about the weights and measures system in the United States; it was designed to contain those portions of the module that the Committee felt could be

written by training specialists with the help of written background material provided by the NCWM. Part II was intended

to be used by weights and measures administrators and supervisors; it was designed to contain the specific "how-to"

396
Education Committee

information that had to be obtained directly from weights and measures professionals. Detailed outlines of the contents of Pans I and II were prepared by the Education Committee during a special meeting in 1990 (see Attachment A for the

outline of Part II). Once the project was separated into smaller pans, there was progress on the administrative module (which had been

designated Module 23). A State metrologist volunteered to develop the Chapter on Metrology in Part II of Module 23; he worked with the State Metrologist's Group and OWM staff to complete a draft of the Metrology Chapter. About the same time, the Education Committee's Technical Advisor attended a seminar on the development of administrative manuals. Using information from the seminar as a guide, she designed an administrative manual format for Part II of Module 23 (see Attachment B for an example of the format). The Metrology Chapter was put into the new format and

a draft was distributed at the NCWM Annual Meeting in 1992.

Negotiations were started with a retired State weights and measures director to complete the remaining portions of Part

II of the module. When these negotiations failed because of the retired official's health problems, volunteers were sought from the weights and measures community to write chapters of Part II of the module. No volunteers were found; however, a member of the Education Committee who was retiring from his government position, offered his services

as a contractor. After he retired, the Committee contracted with him to complete Module 23, Part II. He finished two

chapters of the Module, but then asked the Committee to cancel his contract because of other commitments.

In 1992, the NCWM contracted with a training development organization to write Part I of Module 23. The module was

designed as a self-study course that could be used by weights and measures office staff, inspectors, and administrators

to gain a better understanding of regulatory weights and measures activities in the United States. Part I of Module 23 was published in 1993.

Current Status of Project

As noted above, three chapters of Module 23, Part II have been completed. The Chapters cover functions of a weights and measures program, structure of a weights and measures program, and metrology. Approximately 12 chapters remain

to be written. At present, the NCWM does not have a contractor working on Part II.

In the spring of 1993, a freelance technical writer was recommended to the Committee. The Committee contacted her and described the project. She expressed an interest in assisting the Conference in completing Part II. The Education Committee was seriously considering contracting with the technical writer to develop a chapter or two of the module to determine whether she could produce the type of material needed when the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) expressed concerns about the existing training modules and requested changes in the format and scope of a number of the modules. They also asked the Committee to explore alternatives to traditional classroom training as represented by the training modules. Because of dwindling grant funds for use in developing training materials, the Committee was reluctant to launch a new project when it was not clear whether the existing training materials were

meeting current and future needs. The Committee decided to go back to the NCWM membership to reassess their needs and priorities for training materials. A survey has been distributed to State Weights and Measures Directors to obtain

this information. Other surveys of instructors and weights and measures inspectors are planned. At the 1993 NCWM Annual Meeting, Education Committee members reviewed the status of Module 23, Part II, and

decided that, to ensure the success of the project, a commitment was needed from the Executive Committee not only for the resources to develop the administrative manual but also for the funds to maintain it. It was felt that even if Conference members identified completion of Module 23, Part II, as their top priority in the surveys to be conducted by

the Conference, the remaining grant funds from NIST would not be sufficient to both complete the module and adequately maintain it over time; therefore, the Committee agreed to go forward with this request for resources.

397
Education Committee

Approach

If the Committee receives the requested funds, it will use them to contract with both weights and measures professionals and a technical writing specialist (or specialists). Past experience has shown that the direct involvement of the weights and measures community is critical to the success of the project; however, few jurisdictions have the resources available

to volunteer free help to assist the Conference in writing chapters. The money allocated by the Conference could be used

to establish small contracts with State or local jurisdictions to write complete chapters of the module or outline the technical information for the chapter, which would then be written by a writing specialist. At least one State has said

that it might be able to provide a video explaining the technical information if someone else organized the information an4 wrote the chapter. In order to ensure consistency in format and presentation, all chapters will have to be edited by

the writing specialist. In some cases, it may be possible for the writing specialist to write a complete chapter if he or

she can interview weights and measures specialists by telephone to get the needed input from the weights and measures community. The availability of the funds for writing chapters of Module 23, Part II, will be announced to all NCWM members and

proposals will be requested. Any resulting proposals will have to be approved by the Education Committee. Once a proposal is approved, a contract will be written between the Conference and the individual or group submitting the proposal. If no proposals are received, the NCWM will contact recommended groups and individuals to see if they would

be willing to develop a chapter as outlined by the Committee. The material prepared by the weights and measures

specialists will be given to the writing specialist, who will complete the chapter as specified in a contract with the Conference.

398
Education Committee

Appendix G

Proposed Changes to the National Conference on Weights and Measures Uniform Administrative Procedures

for Certification of Weights and Measures Officials

I. Purpose

These procedures provide a mechanism by which the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM)

may certify the competence of weights and measures officials to inspect and test weighing and measuring devices and to verify the net contents of packaged goods in accordance with the uniform laws and regulations adopted by the NCWM.

II. Goals

The goals of the program are twofold:

1 . to encourage uniform enforcement of weights and measures laws and regulations within the NCWM member

jurisdictions, and

2. to provide national recognition of weights and measures officials who successfully complete training under

the NCWM's National Training Program, through issuance of an NCWM certificate and awarding of Continuing Education Units (CEU's).

III. Award of Certificate A certificate will be awarded to each individual who: (1) successfully completes a National Training Program module for which certification is offered and (2) is recommended for certification by an state organization's

certifying officer, who is the person designated by the organization to be responsible for its compliance with the requirements of the NCWM's certification program and to serve as the contact with the NCWM. Certificates

will be awarded only to individuals in states organizations having a current Letter of Agreement with the NCWM.

The certificate will be verified by the signatures of the state official in the organization who is responsible for weights and measures enforcement and the Chairman of the NCWM

IV. Letter of Agreement

States Organizations wishing to participate in the NCWM certification program must sign a "Letter of Agree- ment" (NCWM Form No. 7a or b) stating that they will train officials in accordance with and utilizing the NCWM's training modules and adhere to the "Uniform Administrative Procedures for Certification of Weights

and Measures Officials." Signed Letters of Agreement should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the NCWM,

who will have the Conference Chairman countersign the agreement. A copy will be returned to the designated

state certifying officer designated by the organization.

V. Procedures

A. Responsibiliues of the state certifying officer:

1. Provide training in accordance with the instructor's manual in each individual training module.

399
Education Committee

2. Submit information on all individuals successfully completing NCWM training courses to the NCWM's

National Training Program Registry. Upon an individual weights and measures official's successful completion of a training module for which certification is available, submit the name of the official and attest that the official has completed the required training and is fully qualified to perform the procedures within

the specific module.

3. Establish a training file on each participant to include:

a. schedule of training;

b. test scores;

c. evaluation of training;

d. letter to the NCWM Executive Secretary requesting participant's certification;

e. copy of cenificate issued by the NCWM; and f copy of the information sent to the National Training Program Registry.

4. Make information in the training file available to representatives of the NCWM Committee on Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs upon request.

^

5. Submit by January 15 of each year an annual report on the jurisdiction's training activities during the previous calendar year to the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs. The repon

shall include:

a. Attestation that all training records are current and in accordance with the "Uniform Administrative Procedures for the Certification of Weights and Measures Officials."

b. Attestation that training was provided in accordance with the instructor's manual for each module for which a certificate was issued.

c. Names and titles of individuals performing training.

d. Attestation that individuals holding certification with respect to an individual module have received information on any changes in the module in the previous calendar year.

e. Number of individuals receiving training during the past calendar year and number of individuals receiving certificates during the past year.

B. Responsibilities of the Executive Secretary of the National Conference on Weights and Measures:

1 . Issue an NCWM Certificate signed by the Conference Chairman for each weights and measures official for whom he or she receives an attestation of successful completion of a module from the panicipating

jurisdiction's certifying officer.

2. Maintain, in alphabetical order of participating jurisdictions, a roster to contain the name of the certifying

officer for each jurisdiction and the name of each official who has received certification identifying the modules for which he/she has been certified.

3. Submit a report to the NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs at the interim meeting each year that lists the participating jurisdictions, the certifying officers, and the number of

certificates that were issued in the previous calendar year.

C. Responsibilities of the NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs:

1. Review the annual reports of the certifying officers to assure compliance with these procedures.

400
Education Committee

2. Request Office of Weights and Measures staff and officers and standing committee members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures who are visiting participating jurisdictions to review files and

procedures and report any variances to the Committee.

3. Instruct the Executive Secretary to remove a jurisdiction from the active list of participating jurisdictions and

withhold issuance of all cenificates whenever the Committee determines that the jurisdiction fails to comply

with the requirements of the certification program.

4. Report annually to the NCWM on the status of the certification program.

401
Education Committee

Appendix H - Correspondence on Safety Issues

aSDepadment

ofTranspOftotion

400 Seventh Street. S.w.

Washington. O.C. 20590 Research and

Special Programs

Administration NOV h \m

Kr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp

Chief, Office of Weights and Keasures

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institrute of Standards

and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Dear Mr. Brickenkamp:

This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1993 regarding applicability of

hazardous materials training requirements to State and local weights and

measures officials

.

A "person" is defined in § 171.8 as any legal entity that offers hazardoxis materials for transport "in commerce" or transports hazardous materials "in

the furtherance of commerce." Hazardous materials transported by government

entities in government vehicles is not considered transport "in the

furtherance of commerce" under that definition. Therefore, the training

requirements in 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart H would not apply to State and local

weights and measxires officials transporting hazardous materials in government

vehicles

.

You also point out that in a few cases, weights and measures jurisdictions

have contracted private companies to perform some of their functions. Under

these conditions, the private company employees must be trained in accordance

with 49 era. Part 172, Subpart H. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely,

Delmer F. Billings \J

' Chief, Regulations Development

Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

402
Education Committee

UNfTEO STATES ENMRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NO 2771

OFFlCeOF

fteSEAfiOt AMD DeveUDPWENT

November 4. 1993

Charles Gardner, Director Bureau of Weights and Measures

County of Suffolk North Count/ Complex, Building 340

Hauppauge, New York 11788

Dear Mr. Gardner: Thank you for your letter of October 20, 1993, offering your assistance in Identifying weights and measures jurisdictions that could gather information on

potential health effects of motor fuels and motor fuel additives, EPA's Office of Research and Development is In the final stages of completing assessments on MTBE

health effects and we are developing research plans for the future. Should a need

arise to gather the kinds of information that you offered, we may be in contact with

you. When the ORD report on MTBE is completed, I will send a copy to you. Once

again, thank you for your offer.

Sincerely,

403
Education Committee COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

Robert J. Gaffney

SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTTVE COUhfTY EXECUnVETS OFFICE OF CITCZEN AFFAIRS MARY A. FALLON

ORECTOR

NORTH COU^fTY COMPUEX. BUDG. 3*0 , HAOPPAUGC N.Y. 1 1 786

<51€J 8S3-4600

October 20, 1993

Timothy Gerrity, Ph.D.

Health Effects Research Laboratory/ORD MD-50

U.S. EPA

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Dear Sir:

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) is sponsored

by the U. S, Department of Commerce's National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) in response to the statutory

responsibility of NIST for "cooperation with the states in securing

uniformity of weights and measures laws and methods of inspection."

The vast majority of weights and measures regulation in the United

States is the responsibility of the individual states. Part of that

responsibility requires that all dispensers used for the sale of

motor fuels must be inspected and tested for accuracy by weights

and measures officials.

Serious concerns have been raised in the past few years concerning

the deleterious effects that certain components of motor fuels

(benzene, lead, etc.) have on the safety and health of those who

are required to work in close contact with motor fuels.

I am the Director of Weights and Measures for Suffolk County, New

York, and the Safety Liaison officer for the NCWM. As the NCWM

Safety Liaison officer, I work under the guidance of the NCWM

Education Committee. At our last annual meeting in July, 1993, we discussed an article that appeared in the June 1993 issue of

National Petroleum News about health complaints on oxyfuels. It was mentioned that the EPA "...has undertaken a cooperative study to

find out more about the health effects of burning oxygenates in

gasoline.

On behalf of the NCWM, I offer our assistance in helping you find

weights and measures jurisdictions that could gather information,

collect evidence, or conduct tests concerning this potential

problem- Also, we would like very much to be kept apprised of the

404
Education Committee

progress of the study and any results that come from it. I may be

contacted through Joan Koenig at NIST, who is the Technical Advisor

for the Education Committee, Her number is 301-975-4007. You may

also contact me directly at 516-853-4621.

Very truly yours

Charles Gardner^ Director

Bureau of Wts. & Measures

405
Education Committee

Florida Department of Agriculture & Gjnsumer Services BOB CRAWORD, Commissioner

Picas* Respond To: 3 125 Conner Boulevaxd

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

August 31, 1993

Mr. Charles A. Gardner, Director

Suffolk County Weights aind Measures

County Center North, Building 340

Hauppage, New York 11788 Dear Charles:

Earlier this yeeor, we contacted our State Division of Safety

concerning the use of lead in the metrology lab for adjusting and

sealing weights. Since there had never been any lead exposure

testing performed in the lab, the safety officials treated the

situation as potentially disastrous and conducted a very thorough

and comprehensive evaluation of the situation.

The final results indicated that there was not a serious

problem, and through some simple housekeeping improvements the

potential for exposure to lead could be minimized.

Attached is a copy of the report for use in the NCWM Safety

Files. If you need any additional information, please let me

know. Sincerely,

BOB CRAWFORD

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE

Max! Gray, Chief X J Bxireau of Weigh£sr and Measures 904/488-9140

MG/dk

Attachment

THE CAPrrOL • TAJXAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800

406
Education Committee

August 27, 1993

Rorida Department of Labor and Employment Security

Diviaon of Safety RECEIVED

AUG 3 0^995 fSEQlEUM iKS£EC33PN

Lawton Chiles Governor

Shiriey 0. Gooding

Secfdary

Ms. Nancy Fischer, Safety Coordinator Department of Agriculture and Consiuner Services Diviaon of Standards 3125 Conner Blvd., Building 1

Tallahassee, FL 32301 Dear Ms. Fischer: Hiis report provides the results of an Occupational Health Survey conducted at the Weights and Measures Laboratory on August 5, 1993. This survey was performed by State of

Florida safety and health specialist Ariene Ealy and Roger Loomis. The survey was conducted by request from Ms. Nancy Fischer, Safety Coordinator, to provide results of an- -ongoing Lead evaluation initiated by Division of Safety

representatives. This survey addressed concerns r^arding employee exposure to lead in

the large mass area, shipping/receiving area, and old melting room due to the periodic

punching, handling, installing and melting of lead by employees. As stated by Max Gray,

Chief of Bureau of Weights and Measures, the melting operation has been discontinued. During the time of the survey there was one employee responsible for the punching

operation and two ^ployees responable for the handling and installing of seals into weights. Air sampling was conducted at this time to determine if the requirements of the OSHA Lead Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1025, were applicable to employee lead exposures.

Full-shift air samples, punch operation air samples, and additional wipe samples were

taken.

FINDINGS: Following is a chronology of activities and results conducted in the Weights and Measures Laboratory:

1. Wipe samples were taken on April 23, 1993, to detennine the presence of lead contamination throughout the laboratory. Contamination was suspected due to a

lead melting and pouring operation being conducted without adequate engineering

controls or personal protective equipment (PPJE). Sample results ranged from

4.9micrograms(ug) to 4990ug.

2. Cleaning activities consisting of sweeping and dry cleaning were reportedly initiated

to remove the contamination.

2003 Apalachee Paftway. Pariway Building. Suite 33Q. Tallahassee, FL 32301 (304) 922-(]246

407
Education Committee

3, Wipe samples were taken on August 5, 1993, to evaluate the effectiveness of the

cleaning acti^ties. Lead sample results ranged from 14ug to 360ug of lead.

4, Personal air sampling for lead was below the 8-hour action level (ALr) of 30ug/ni'

(microgram/cubic meter).

5, Air samples were also analyzed for aluminum because of the 'paint removal from

1000 lbs, weights. Aluminum was below the S-hour ISmg/m' (milligram/cubic meter) PEL. Air sample results ranged from .Olmg/ni' to .02mg/m?.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. A written lead program is not required at this time because the employees 8-hour

exposure level is below the action level 30ug/m', Changes in future work procedures would requu^ you to conduct additional air monitoring to access employee

exposures,

2. 29 CER 1910.1025(h), Housekeeping requires that all surfaces be as free as

practicableof aoaunulationsof lead. Vacuuming Is the preferred method of meeting

this requirement, and the use of compressed air to clean floors and other surfaces

is absolutely prohibited. Dry or wet sweeping, shoveling, or bruling may not be

used except where vacuuming or other equally effective methods have been tried and

do not work. Vacuums must be used and emptied in a manner which minimizes the

reentry of lead into the workplace,

3. After each punch operation, a continous residue clean-up practice diould be

instituted.

If I can be of any assistance, please call me at (904) 488-3489.

Sincerely,

Ariene M, Ealy

Safeiy & Health Specialty Enclosure

*

408
Education Committee

WBPE/AIR SAMPLE RESULTS

Lab# TYPE OF

SAMPLE

LOCATION OF SAMPLE ANALYTE OF

SAMPLE

RESULTS OF

SAMPLE

405541 Old Wipe

Sample Near lead punch used for

sealing cast iron weights

Lead) Inorganic 4,9 ug/Samp

405542 Old Wipe

Sample

Hand piece and dial of phone

Lead, Inorganic 4990 ug/Samp

405543 Old Wipe

Sample

6" section of guard rail Lead, Inorganic 67 ug/Samp

405544 Old Wipe

Sample Water Fountain Lead, Inorganic 25 ug/Samp

405545 Old Wipe

Sample Bottom plate hydrulicpunch

Lead, Inorganic 18,4 ug/Samp

405546 Old Wipe

Sample

Grinder shield Lead, Inorganic 120 ug/Samp

405547 Old Wipe

Sample

Worktable with grinder Lead, Inorganic 1100 ug/Samp

405546 Old Wipe

Sample

Respirator in room with sink Lead, Inorganic 1200 ug/Samp

405549 Old Wipe

Sample

Coffee machine in room

with sink Lead, Inorganic 2340 ug/Samp

422593 New Wipe

Sample

Water fountain top left front comer - Shipping/Receiving

Lead, Inorganic 45 ug/Samp

422594 New Wipe

Sample

Table with bench grinder,

left comer - Shipping/Receiving

Lead, Inorganic 14 ug/Samp

422595 New Wipe

Sample

Left guardrail, top front adjacent to stairs - Shipping/Receiving

Lead, Inorganic 140 ug/Samp

422596 New Wipe

Sample

Loading dock, right comer - Shipping/Receiving

Lead, Inorganic 360 ug/Samp

409
Education Committee

Lab# TYPE OF

SAMPLE

LOCATION OF SAMPLE ANALYTEOF

SAMPLE

RESULTS OF

SAMPLE

422597 New Wipe

Sample

Center woricbench top

under telephone - Shipping/Receiving

Lead, Inorganic 21 ug/Samp

422598 New Wipe

Sample Rear right comer

workbench by exit door - Shipping/Receiving

Lead, Inorganic 13 ug/Samp

422599 New Wipe

Sample

Center of workbench next

to bench grinder - Preparation Room

Lead, Inorganic 330 ug/Samp

422600 New Wipe

Sample

Right side of sink area - Old Smelting RoomLead, Inorganic 87 ug/Samp

422601 New Wipe

Sample

Table prep right comer - Large Mass AreaLead, Inorganic 260 ug/Samp

422588 Air Sample Punch operation, paint

removal operation - Shipping/Receiving

Aluminum

Lead, Inorganic

.02 mg/m^ ^ 8,6 ug/m^ *

422590 Air Sample Punch operation - Shipping/Receivingj Dock

Area

Aluminum

Lead, Inorganic

,02 mg/m^ * 10 ug/m^*

422591 Air Sample Handling and installing seals into weights, paint

removal - Large Mass

Area

Aluminum

Lead, Inorganic

,01 mg/m^ * 8,0 ug/m^*

* Permissible Exposure Limit(PEL)

Aluminum 15mg/m^

Lead 50ug/m^

410
Education Committee

Appendix I Draft of Proposals to L&R and S&T Committees Concerning Enforcement Actions (Agenda Item 403-1)

Proposals for L&R Committee:

Proposal #7; Amend Section 1.1 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law (UWML) to specify that weights

and/or measures, as used in this law, are those that are used commercially and those that are used for law

enforcement, and add the definition for "commercial weighing and measuring equipment" that is given in paragraph G-A.l. of the General Code in NIST Handbook 44: LI. Weight(s) and (or) Measure(s). - The term "weight(s) and (or) measure(s)" means all commercial

weighing and measuring equipment, including weights and measures of every kind, instruments and devices for weighing and measuring, and any appliance and accessories associated with any or all such instruments and

devices , and weighing and measuring equipment in official use for the enforcement of law or for the collection of statistical information by government agencies.

1.13. Commercial Weighing and Measuring Equipment. ~ The term "commercial weighing and measuring

equipment" means weights and measures and weighing and measuring devices commercially used or employed

in establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or articles for

distribution or consumption, purchased, offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in computing any

basic charge or payment for services rendered on the basis of wefgfat or measure.

Justification: As currently worded, the definition of weights and/or measures includes all weights and measures of

every kind, including such devices as measuring cups, bathroom scales, carpenter's tapes, wristwatches, etc. Weights and Measures officials are aware of the intent of the definition and the law, but some non-weights and

measures people (such as auditors and lawyers) have different interpretations resulting in confusion and problems.

Proposal #2: Amend Section 12, paragraph (i) of the UWML to make it clear that the director has the authority, but is not required, to inspect weights and measures kept, offered, or exposed for sale:

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director The director shall:

(i) Have the authority to inspect and test weights and measures kept, offered, or exposed for sale.

Justification: The current wording, as interpreted by potentially influential non-weights and measures officials, places

a burden and responsibility on the director to inspect weights and measures kept, offered, or exposed for sale. In most cases, workload demands prevent any inspection or testing of devices that are kept for sale until they are sold and installed in a commercial application. Also, much of the inspection portion of the examination of a device kept or exposed for sale would generally be wasted effort anyway since the final installation is often critical to a device's

correctness and performance. Additionally, it is all but impossible to test many devices kept or offered for sale, such

as livestock and vehicle scales and many liquid-measuring devices, without incurring the expense of installing them.

Proposal #3: Amend Section 12, paragraph (1) of the UWML to more accurately reflect the enforcement actions taken by most jurisdictions today:

411
Education Committee

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director The director shall:

(1) Approve for use, and may mark, such weights and measures as are found to be correct, and shall reject and order to be corrected, replaced, or removed and mark as rejected such weights and measures as are found

to be incorrect. Weights and measures that have been rejected may be seized if not corrected within the time

specified or if used or disposed of in a manner not specifically authorized. The director shall remove from

service condemn and may seize the weights and measures found to be incorrect that are not capable of being made correct.

Justification: The only definition of "reject" found in NCWM documents appears in Section 5.2 of the Fundamental

Considerations Appendix in Handbook 44. That section states that if the official finds a device "that does not conform to all official requirements, he is required to reject it and prohibit its use until the device is brought into proper conformance." A survey of weights and measures officials indicates that when most jurisdictions find a device that fails to meet

certain official requirements (such as marking requirements; access for testing; or even small out of tolerance errors, especially those in favor of the customer) they allow a reasonable amount of time for the owner to bring the device

into conformance before prohibiting its use and possibly putting the owner out of business. The survey also indicated that many jurisdictions have different definitions of "condemn," many of which conflict with the implied definition of "condemned" found in sections 6 and 7 of Fundamental Considerations, that is, "permanently out of service." Replacing the word "condemned" with "remove from service" allows for flexibility in a jurisdiction's actions and use of terminology.

Recommendations for the S&T Committee related to the above L&R proposals:

Proposal: Rewrite, or amend, sections 5.2., 6.1., and 7.1. of the Fundamental Considerations (Appendix A) in Handbook 44 to more accurately reflect actual enforcement actions in most jurisdictions, provide flexibility in establishing jurisdictional enforcement policies, and bring material into agreement with the above L&R proposals. The following is a preliminary draft that can be considered:

5. Correction of Commercial Equipment

5.2. When Corrections Should be Made. - The One of the primary duties of a weights and measures official has one official duty, is to determine that equipment is or is not suitable for commercial use. If a device conforms to all legal requirements, the official "marks" or "seals" it to indicate approval. If it does not conform to all official requirements, the official he is required to reject it and prohibit its use until take action that will assure that the device is brought into proper conformance, corrected within a reasonable period of time. Devices that have

performance errors resulting in possible serious economic injury to either party in a transaction should be prohibited from use immediately and not allowed to return to service until necessary corrections are made. The official should

consider all information available in determining the most appropriate action, including (but not limited to) the costs of commodities measured on the device, the frequency of use, and the overall impact of the immediate enforcement

action. Some officials contend that it is justifiable for the official to make minor corrections and adjustments if there is no

service agency nearby or if the owner or operator depends on this single device and would be "out of business" during the repair of if the use of the device was prohibited until repairs could be made.

412
Education Committee

Before adjustments are made at the request of the owner or his or her representative, the official should be confident

that the problem is not due to faulty installation or a defective part, and that the adjustment will correct the problem. H€ The official should never undertake major repairs, or even minor corrections, if services of commercial agencies

are readily available. The official should always be mindful of conflicts of interest before attempting to perform anv

services outside the normal device examination and testing duties.

6. Rejection of Commercial Equipment

6.1. Rejection and Condemnation. - The uniform Weights and Measures Law contains a provision stating that the

director shall reject and mark rejected order to be corrected such weights and measures as he finds found to be

incorrect. Weights and measures that have been rejected may be seized if not corrected within a reasonable time or

if used or disposed of in a manner not specifically authorized. The director shall condemn remove from service and may seize weights and measures found to be incorrect that are not capable of being made correct. (No change to the remaining portion of Section 6.1)

7. Tagging of Equipment

7.1. Rejected and Condemned. - It will ordinarily be practicable to tag or mark as rejected each item of equipment

found to be incorrect and considered susceptible of proper reconditioning. ,and this should always be done unl ess the

repairs are to begin immediately. However, it can be considered justifiable to not mark as rejected incorrect devices capable of meeting acceptable performance requirements that have been allowed to remain in service for a reasonable

time until minor problems are corrected since marks of rejection may tend to be misleading about a device's ability to produce accurate measurements during the correction period. tThe tagging of equipment as condemned or with a

similar label to indicate that it is permanently out of service is not recommended if there is any other way in which

the equipment can definitely be put out of service. Equipment that cannot successfully be repaired should be

dismantled, removed from the premises, or confiscated by the official rather than merely being tagged as "con- demned.

Justification (for changes to Fundamental Considerations): Some of the changes are to reflect proposed changes to the UWML, which uses the terms "reject," "condemn," and "mark as rejected" without defining them. These

sections of the Fundamental Considerations are where these terms are described or defined. Most jurisdictions use

these terms, but there is little uniformity as to their meaning or the policies containing them. Also, there is little interest in developing standard, uniform definitions of these for various reasons.

Flexibility in the definitions and enforcement policies is needed because of the great number of Handbook

requirements that have little or no effect on the actual ability to accurately measure (i.e., marking requirements). Weights and Measures programs, as with most government programs, are under closer scrutiny than ever before by

the political bodies that authorize them. Rigid policies that immediately remove devices from service and possibly

put customers out of business for failure to meet minor requirements are often considered unreasonable by

lawmakers. Assuring equity in the marketplace can be accomplished while still allowing reasonable flexibility in enforcement actions.

413
Education Committee

Appendix J Report on the Special Meeting of the NCWM

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs In Tallahassee, FL, April 8-10, 1994

At the NCWM Interim Meeting in January 1994, the Executive Committee asked the Committee on Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs (CEA&CA) to hold a special meeting to discuss an expansion and redirection of

the CEA&CA's responsibilities as a result of the disbanding of the NCWM Liaison Committee and changes in the

priorities of the Conference. CEA&CA was requested to review all areas of responsibility that had been assigned to it under the NCWM Bylaws, with particular attention to the areas of administration and public outreach programs, and to develop a management plan for accomplishing its highest priorities. The meeting of the CEA&CA took place in Tallahassee, FL, on April 8 to 10. The following individuals took part in the meeting: Education Committee Members: James Harnett, Orange County, CA, Chairman; Maxwell Gray, FL; Barbara DeSalvo, OH; Edwin Price, TX; Bruce Martell, VT; Joan Koenig, Technical Advisor

Executive Committee Members: Thomas Geiler, NCWM Chairman and Chairman of the NCWM Privatization Work

Group; Darrell Guensler, former NCWM Chairman and Chairman of the NCWM Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century; Carroll Brickenkamp, Chief of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures and NCWM Executive Secretary

Associate Membership Committee Members: Christopher Guay, Procter & Gamble Co., Chairman; Richard Davis, James River Corp., Member of the NCWM Liaison Committee The meeting began with a presentation by Carroll Brickenkamp, who provided some background on the mission of the Committee and described the four areas of responsibility assigned to the CEA&CA:

a. education and training of weights and measures officials, b. promotion of weights and measures principles and techniques among the general public and the users of weighing

and measuring devices,

c. development and recommendation of administrative procedures and public relations programs, and

d. identification of commercial weights and measures practices and problems that are of concern to consumers.

In addition, she noted that the Executive Committee is proposing that the following responsibility be added to the Bylaws

for all Standing Committees:

liaison with Federal agencies. State agencies, and other groups or organizations on issues within the purview of

the Committee. This role entails explaining, advocation, and coordinating Conference positions, recommendations, and needs before Federal Government agencies, consumer groups, the associate NCWM membership,

domestic and international standards organizations, industr}', trade associations, and others. The goals are to provide and solicit information, develop a spirit of cooperation, and promote uniformity with the activities and

standards of the NCWM.

Dr. Brickenkamp's presentation was followed by remarks from the other representatives of the Executive Committee and

those from the Associate Membership Committee on the current and future needs of the NCWM in the CEA&CA's areas of responsibility. The representatives described a need for the Conference to develop outreach programs for consumers,

trade associations, device users, and State legislatures. They also noted a need for an emphasis on building and

maintaining quality weights and measures programs at the State and local level. In addition, it was suggested that the Committee delegate responsibility for development and maintenance of the training modules to work groups so that it will have more time to focus on other areas of responsibility. The establishment of more partnerships with industr}' in all areas of the Committee's responsibility was also recommended.

414
Education Committee

A discussion on the need to update the scope and objectives of the Committee in light of the current needs of the Conference resulted in the following recommendations that will be forwarded to the Executive Committee for consideration at the 1995 Interim Meeting: Proposed New Name of Committee: Administration and Public Affairs ** Draft Mission Statement: Provide leadership to develop and implement uniform, quality weights and measures services in the areas of: effective program management,

education,., and pubUc relations. **

Proposed Revision of Committee Scope in the NCWM Bylaws: The Committee on Administration and Public Affairs annually presents a report for Conference action. Its scope embraces all matters dealing with:

1. development and recommendation of administrative procedures;

2. education and training of weights and measures officials;

3. promotion of weights and measures principles and techniques among users of weights and measures

devices and the general public; and

4. liaison with Federal agencies, State agencies, and other groups or organizations on issues within the pur\iew of the Committee. This role entails explaining, advocating, and coordinating Conference

positions, recommendations, and needs before Federal Government agencies, consumer groups, the

associate NCWM 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 and standards of the NCWM.

The proposed modifications are not intended to represent a major change in the scope of CEA&CA; instead, they reflect a shift in focus away from module maintenance and development to the broader area of administration and from consumer

affairs to the wider sphere of public affairs. Education will continue to be an important part of the Committee's mission; however, other areas that were put aside while the Committee concentrated on the development of the National Training Program will now be given more attention. The CEA&CA's Technical Advisor, Joan Koenig, made a presentation on a series of matrices that had been developed

representing the Committee's four current areas of responsibility. For each area, the matrix listed a series of possible

projects and activities that could be undertalcen by the CEA&CA. The meeting participants discussed the relative importance and feasibility of the various items. They then put priorities on each project and activity and regrouped them

under headings representing the responsibilities in the proposed revision to the Committee's scope. The results are shown

in Figure 1.

415
Education Committee

Objective: Development & Recommendation of Administrative Procedures

1 Prioritize administrative issues 2 - Select one or more administrative themes per year and establish a working group to study the issue and prepare a report

3 Develop chapter for Administrative Manual

4 - Develop a set of standards for w&m programs

Objective: Education & Training of W&M Officials

1

- Enhance the training delivery system

2 - Redesign/update the existing training modules

3

- Develop other types of training products (e.g., video courses, field manuals, executive

training)

4 - Develop training programs for servicepersons

5

- Develop new modules

Objective: Promote W&M Principles and Techniques

1

- Develop background materials for specific groups (e.g., legislators, media)

2 - Prepare model news releases and articles

3

- Attend/participate in/sponsor conferences for industry

Figure 1. Committee Objectives and Priorities

In setting priorities in the area of education and training, the Committee took into account the results of the recent survey

it had conducted on the future direction of the National Training Program. The Committee did not identify specific

priorities under the objective dealing with liaison because it was felt that the liaison objective was not actually separate and distinct from the other objectives, but rather it was an essential factor in achieving the other objectives.

After listing priorities, the CEA&CA began identifying tasks and developing an action plan to accomplish those tasks. The initial part of the plan covered tasks that the Committee wanted to undertake prior to the NCWM Aimual Meeting

in July.

416
Education Committee

One of the first actions was to select an administrative issue to be addressed by an NCWM Working Group over the next

year. The meeting panicipants agreed that an issue of great importance to the v/eights and measures commimity is "Program Evaluation." The need for pursuing this topic had been identified by the Privatization Work Group. They recommended that the Conference explore what needs to be collected in the future by any weights and measures

jurisdiction to help in establishing priorities and measuring effectiveness. The Program Evaluation Work Group will be

asked to build on the work done by the Privatization Work Group and establish the foundation for a national weights and

measures information network. To initiate the work group and get started on some additional key objectives prior to the Aimual Meeting, the following

tasks were identified:

- Develop a mission statement, scope, and objectives for the Program Evaluation Work Group and identify possible candidates to participate in the project

- Formally request the establishment of the work group

- Arrange for publicity for key issues to be discussed or decided at the NCWM Annual Meeting.

- Begin interviewing State officials to determine their traming delivery problems and needs and what they are doing in the area of public outreach

- Develop a repon of the special meeting and include recommendations to the Executive Committee for changes

in the name and scope of the Committee as well as a new mission statement to be included in the NCWM

Bylaws

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee will proceed with the development of its work plan. Expansion and updating of

the work plan will be a continuing process. The Committee believes its role is to provide leadership and direction in the areas within the scope of its responsibilities, but it will be up to weights and measures jurisdictions to use the administrative guidance, training materials, and public

relations materials produced under the Committee's direction in order to achieve the NCWM's goals. Regional weights and measures associations and individual States should look at the proposed changes to the Committee to assess what these changes mean to them. For example, promoting weights and measures principles and techniques should be a concern

of all NCWM members. The development of articles for the media, developing briefing papers for businesses or for

State legislatures, and attendance at or panicipation in industry conferences are activities that all NCWM members can

take part in to spread the word about Conference programs and policies.

417
Metrology Report Metrology Report

The 1994 NCWM Metrology meeting included reports from all of the regional metrology groups that have met during

the past year. A thorough review of past and present metrology projects was conducted and all possible current projects

are described here. Working sessions were held to review the draft NIST Handbook 143 and a new document that will address the measurement control needed for advanced weighing designs. A number of additional presentations were made,

including one by Al Tholen on "NVLAP Accreditation of the State Laboratories" and one by Dr. Lev Issaev on

"Metrology in Russia." Regional Group Reports NEMAP: Mike Dynia (CT)

Last meeting: September 27 - October 1, 1993.

This was one of the largest NEMAP meetings, with 23 attendees, and included Dave Morgan (LMB, Canada). It was

hosted by Ohaus Corporation, in Florham Park, NJ. Rhode Island was the only State not represented. Additional

participants included metrologists from Ohaus, Wyeth-Ayerst, Troemner.

Current round robins:

1) two 50-lb weights previously used in MidMAP;

2) one 5 -gal test measure; and

3) one 100-g weight kit used in SWAP last year. Randy Crosser (Ohaus) is doing an excellent job of coordinating the round robin schedules and keeping them on track by

using formal project planning and control software. Mike Dynia (CT) is the NEMAP statistical analyst and has enlisted the support of additional NEMAP members to act as assistants to handle collection of data and analysis of results. Peter Millvan (PA) will assist with item number 1, Ray Cioffi (VT) will assist with item number 2, and Ron Balaze (MI) will

assist with item number 3. The 1993 topics included the following: Mike Dynia (CT): Overview of ISO 9000 Task Force Committee report, review of Technical Criteria for accreditation of mass and volume laboratories; Peter Millvan (PA): Gap Analysis; Georgia Harris (NIST): Ensuring Accuracy and Traceability of Weighing Instruments, Laboratory

Accreditation, Internal Auditing, Writing and Assessing a Laboratory Quality Manual, Technical Management of the Weights and Measures Laboratory; and Mike Dynia (CT): Round robin analysis.

Tours: The group toured the Ohaus metrology laboratory and the manufacturing facility. Next meeting: The next NEMAP meeting will be hosted by Ron Balaze and the Michigan Department of Agriculture

in Lansing, Michigan, September 19 - 23, 1994. MIDMAP: Bob Wittenberger (MO)

Last Meeting: August 1 - 6, 1993. The meeting was hosted by Bob Hollis and Tom Mathews of the Iowa Department of Agriculture in Des Moines, lA. All States except Missouri were present. Additional participants included Rice Lake Weighing Systems members.

Current round robins:

1) one 31 -lb weight kit used in SWAP last year; 2) one 100-g weight kit used in SWAP last year; and

3) special 1-kg weights including aluminum standard (used in SWAP this year).

418
Metrology Report

1993 Topics: Georgia Harris (NIST): Ensuring Accuracy and Traceability of Weighing Instruments, Laboratory

Accreditation, Internal Auditing, Writing and Assessing a Laboratory Quality Manual, Technical Management of the Weights and Measures Laboratory; Steve McGuire (IL): Overview of ISO 9000 Task Force Committee Report, review of Technical Criteria

for accreditation of mass and volume laboratories; Bruce Adams (MN): Group presentations; and Bruce Adams (MN), Mike Pinagel (ND), and Mike Rockford (IL): Round robin analysis.

Tours: The group toured the Iowa metrologv' laboratory. Next meeting: The next meeting will be held jointly with SWAP, October 10 - 14, 1994, in Kansas City, MO. WRAP: Joe Rothleder (CA)

Last meeting: May 15 - 20, 1994. The 1994 WRAP meeting was hosted by Kelly Moody and Matt Crandall of the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures in Scottsdale, AZ. All States and Los Angeles County were represented at the meeting.

Current round robins:

1) two 1-lb standards for: a) precision comparison of avoirdupois standards

b) 1-kg crossover from metric standards

1 994 Topics: Intermediate Metrology Seminar, plus 1994 regional topics on Control Charts and Uncertainties, and round robin analysis.

Tours: The group toured the new Arizona metrology laboratory. Next meeting: The next meeting will be held May 14 - 19, 1995, in Cheyenne, WY. SWAP: Ken Fraley (OK)

Last meeting: October 3 - 8. 1993. The last meeting was hosted by Billy Sullivant, Charlie Kirspel, and Randy Bums of the Arkansas Bureau of Standards

in Hot Springs, AR. All States were represented at the 1994 SWAP meeting. Additional participants included

metrologists from Los Angeles County, Arizona, North Carolina, Missouri, and Denver Instruments.

Current round robins:

1) one 100-g weight kit; 2) special 1-kg weights including aluminum standard (also used in MidMAP this year); and

3) grain moisture for rice and wheat.

1993 Topics: Georgia Harris (NIST): Ensuring Accuracy and Traceability of Weighing Instruments, Laboratory- Accreditation, Internal Auditing, Writing and Assessing a Laboratory Quality Manual, Technical Management of the Weights and Measures Laboratory; Kelly Moody (AZ), L.F. Eason (NC): assisted with technical presentations; Herb Eskew (TX) and Ken Fraley (OK): Continuous improvement through round robin participation and the effects of thermal equilibrium on mass measurements;

Karl Herken (KS): Round robin analysis; and ISO 9000 Task Force: The SWAP meeting ended with the Task Force meeting starting and many of

the SWAP meeting attendees were able to participate in both meetings.

Tours: The group toured the Arkansas metrology laboratory.

419
Metrology Report Next meeting: The next meeting of SWAP will be held jointly with MidMAP, October 10 - 14, 1994, in Kansas City, MO. SEMAP: L. F. Eason (NC)

Last meeting: April 10 - 15, 1994. The last meeting of SEMAP was hosted by Mike Kramer and Milt Hargrave of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Richmond, VA. All States were represented at the 1994 SEMAP meeting. Additional

participants included metrologists from Texas, Duke Power, and Hi-Tech, Inc..

Current round robins:

1) two 1-lb standards for precision comparison of avoirdupois standards 1994 Topics: Kelvin Boone (MS): Software Quality Assurance; Martin Coile (GA): Environmental instrumentation survey results; Barry Smith (FL): Round robin analysis; Herb Eskew (TX): Continuous improvement through round robin participation and the effects of

thermal equilibrium on mass measurements; Georgia Harris (NIST): Control Charts, Uncertainties, mass code calibrations; Tim Scott (Brooks Instruments): Presented technical information and a video regarding small volume

provers and an SOP developed for laboratory testing of the device; and An NCSL Region 3 section meeting was arranged on Friday at the same location, so many participants were able to attend the SEMAP meeting and the NCSL meeting.

Tours: The group toured the Virginia metrology laboratory. Next meeting: The next meeting of SEMAP will be held April 23 - 27, 1995, in Raleigh, NC. CaMAP: Jose Torres Ferrer (PR)

Last meeting: February 7 - 11, 1994. The last meeting was held at the University of Puerto Rico in Mayaguez, PR and was coordinated by Jose Torres Ferrer. The 1994 participants included the government laboratories of Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Trinidad-Tobago, Ecuador, Barbados, Grenada, Dominican Republic, St. Lucia; industry participants were from B & C Calibration, Wesley-Jessen, National Standards of Puerto Rico, and Advanced Instruments Sales and Service. Additional participants were from Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Oklahoma, and Sartorius. The group hosted an NCSL section meeting on Friday which included

additional participation by Abbott Laboratories and PACO PR, Inc.. Mr. Ralph Bertermann (Abbott Laboratories) attended and is the current NCSL President. Round robins:

1) one 1-kg, 500-g, and two 200-g standards; continuation of mass round robin

2) liquid-in-glass thermometer round robin (continuation of one conducted in the States); and

3) one 20-liter volumetric test measure.

Topics: Ken Fraley (OK): CaMAP round robin analysis; Jose Torres Ferrer (PR): GMP 1, SOP 3, GMP 3, SOP 19, 21 on mass and volume measurements; Ken Fraley (OK): Continuous improvement through round robin participation and the effects of thermal

equilibrium on mass measurements; and

Georgia Harris (NIST): Statistics, Control Charts.

Jose Torres Ferrer provided Spanish translation and facilitated discussion for those topics presented in English. Both

languages were used for all topics. Next meeting: The next meeting of CaMAP will be held February 6 - 10, 1995, at the University in Mayaguez, PR.

420
Metrology Report Work Project Status and Development A memorandum will be sent from the Office of Weights and Measures to determine the interest and support for the following projects as discussed by the metrologists at the meeting. Develop a calibration interval guideforfield standards. Laboratory staff handle numerous questions regarding appropriate

calibration intervals for field standards as well as for standards submitted for calibration by industn,'. Guidelines are legally required in the case of voluntary registration programs or are anecdotal and unwritten. The NCSL has a recommended

practice on calibration intervals, with statistical guidelines for determining what is best for each item or type of item to be periodically calibrated. The laboratories would like a guide based on practice, using data collected through

reverificaiion when items are routinely submitted for calibration. For example, a number of jurisdictions have data^to support how often cast iron field standards should be tested. Data are available to show that jurisdictions van,' the

calibration interval for 50-lb test weights between 6 months and 5 years depending on care and maintenance of the equipment; however, in most cases the calibration interval (1 or 2 years) for Class F test weights is dictated by legal requirements. Laboratories are also routinely asked how often a 100-g weight kit should be tested, but there are no hard and fast rules, particularly because these weights are generally not covered by legal requirements. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for use of sensitivity weights on electronic balances. The double substitution procedure as documented in NIST Handbook 145 uses a sensitivity weight to calibrate the optical scale of the balance in the observational range. This was a necessity on equal-arm or single-pan mechanical balances due to calibration of the

scale divisions or the inaccuracy and drift of the optical scale. With newer electronic balances available, a number of

laboratories have been testing the stability of the calibration and have found that the value of the scale divisions are often more stable than sensitivity weights; however, this is not always the case. A test procedure for evaluating an electronic balance and a double substitution procedure, modified to eliminate the need for sensitivity weights, must be documented

for laboratories to adopt these new procedures. Examination Procedures Outline (EPO) for gravimetric testing ofmeters (e.g. motor oil). A number of metrologists have

been developing procedures for gravimetrically testing meters in the field. Draft procedures have been developed in several jurisdictions, but no formal EPO has been recognized. Brochure for users of analytical balance services (what should they look for in service). A concern was raised by the metrologists in 1993 regarding the number of scale companies that purchase Class 1 mass standards and go into the business of calibrating laboratory balances and precision mass comparators with no training or experience in this area. The applications and requirements needed for anal>tical balances are different from and more stringent than those required

for Class III commercial devices and should be a concern for the user. Metrologists recommended that a brochure be developed to advise the user on how to select appropriate service companies for Class 1 and Class II balances and scales.

Study operating characteristics of mass flow meters. An interest was expressed in 1992 regarding a study of mass flow- meters and appropriate test procedures in the laboratory. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for weighing designs such as those in Technical Note 952. The laboratories that have participated in Advanced Mass training have found a need to have an SOP developed for typical weighing designs such as those found in NIST Technical Note 952. The procedures are described in the Technical Note, but an SOP is not

available. With a requirement similar to eliminating the use of sensitivity weights on the newer electronic balances, a documented procedure must exist for the laboratory to comply with documentation requirements. Develop guide for laboratory software verification and validation. Interest has been expressed in software verification and validation for quite some time. Data sets have been used to test programs in the laboratory, but have not been fully developed. Two committees in NCSL are working on developing a recommended practice for software verification and

validation in the metrology laboratory. Additionally, the topic has been discussed at some of the 1994 regional metrology

meetings. A formal guide for software quality assurance is to be developed for use by ttie laboratories, perhaps in cooperation with NCSL committees rather proceeding independently.

Implement changes necessary to incorporate small volume provers into field practices. Tim Scott, of Brooks Instruments, has given presentations at the 1994 SEMAP meeting and at the NCWM meeting in San Diego. A number of companies

in the petroleum industry use small volume provers to test meters rather than open neck type provers. Tim Scott has developed an SOP to test small volume provers in the laboratory by working with L. F. Eason (NC), Mike Cook (FL),

421
Metrology Report and Barry Smith (FL). Mr. Scott has also been working to develop a Handbook 105 for small volume provers. Field

testing has also been coordinated to compare results between the small volume provers and open neck provers. Assistance

to review draft documents and implement recommendations is needed to recognize small volume provers as a viable, and

perhaps recommended, alternative to open neck provers. Review training modules as developed by the National Training Program for consistency with laboratory processes. Concerns have been raised by the metrologists that training modules for field staff should be reviewed by metrologists

to make sure that the EPO and training procedures are consistent with procedures used to test standards in the laboratory. An example is the pour and drain requirements for the 5-gallon test measures. A significant amount of testing has been done by the metrologists in round robins to show that the 30-second pour followed by a 10-second drain is extremely

important in achieving consistent and accurate results. The procedure must carry through to the field applications to avoid

inaccurate test results. Develop guidelines for the "best" operation of nev,> electronic balances. New electronic balances are replacing many of

the older single-pan mechanical balances in the laboratories. Guidance given to the metrologists on how to get the best

results has varied significantly. Compiling the numerous recommendations and experience into a general guideline to be used in training and in the laboratories is needed. Dr. Walter Kupper (Mettler) facilitated a discussion regarding this issue and indicated his support for developing recommendations. Develop an accreditation program for weights and measures programs. A new NCWM work group on "Program

Evaluation" has been started to carry over the work of the Task Force on the 21st Century and the Privatization Work

Group. Details of the goals and objectives have yet to be worked out, but may eventually include a recommendation for accrediting the overall weights and measures program similar to the laboratory accreditation program. Metrologists can play an important role in the development and implementation of such a program. This activity was also one of the recommendations of the ISO 9000 Task Force.

Prepare recommendations to update NIST Handbook 130 regarding laboratory and accreditation issues. A number of

sections in the model laws need to be updated consistent with the laboratory accreditation program. Many State laws

indicate that the laboratory must be "certified" or that measurements must be made by a "certified" laboratory. Laboratories are accredited rather than certified. Additionally, NlST's National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) will accredit laboratories that are not part of the legal metrology system, and recommendations must

be made regarding those laboratories. This activity was one of the recommendations of the ISO 9000 Task Force. Conduct laboratory tests on levels to be used on volumetric provers. Handbook 105-3 is being updated and the American

Petroleum Institute (API) has requested that NIST study the specifications and requirements for the levels used on test measures and provers as a part of the 105-3 update. Prepare recommendations to adopt all 105-series handbooks for field standards into NIST Handbook 44. A number of new 105-series handbooks are being developed for LPG provers, timing devices, and thermometers used in legal metrology

applications. Older 105-series handbooks are being updated. A request was made to formally reference these

specifications and tolerances in Handbook 44. ISO 9000 Task Force Status Report

Brochure. A brochure was developed based on the "ISO 9000 Brainstorming Sessions" held at the 1993 regional metrology meetings in conjunction with the NCWM ISO 9000 Task Force. Copies of the brochure were distributed at the meeting and will be circulated to laboratories in the State Laboratory Program. Updated Criteria. The ISO 9000 Task Force participated in the review of drafts of the updated NIST Handbook 143 and

presentations of technical criteria at all 1993 regional metrology meetings. No additional work was planned for the task

force. Items of continuing concern were presented in the 1993 annual report and to the Executive Committee for further

action.

422
Metrology Report Working Sessions Handbook 143 Draft A draft of NIST Handbook 143 Program Handbook was distributed for review and comment. A working session was held

to review Sections 3 and 4. Copies of the draft have been circulated to all State laboratories for additional comment

specifving that attention should be addressed to Sections 3 and 4.

Sections 5 and 6 are identical to NVLAP Handbook 150 and incorporate ISO Guide 25 and the newly adopted ANSI/NCSL Z 540-1-1994 standards for calibration laboratories. These are the nationally and internationally recognized

standards for accreditation of calibration laboratories. Advanced Mass System Criteria Draft Ken Frale>- (OK) presented a draft document on the Advanced Mass System for State laboratories. This document is being developed to provide uniformit\- for both the State laboratories and the NIST Office of Weights and Measures when

establishing and reviewing measurement control data, uncertainties, accuracy, and traceability when using advanced

weighing designs and the NIST Mass Code. Ken has been working ver>' closely with the Office of Weights and Measures

to develop this guide. An updated draft will be circulated for additional review and comment during the next year. Miscellaneous Items

Steve McGuire (IL): State Calibration Laborator>' Assessments a paper presented at NCSL Annual Workshop and Symposium in Chicago; Tim Scott (Brooks Instruments): Small Volume Prover presentation on calibration procedures and draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Handbook 145; Dr. Lev Issaev (Committee of the Russian Federation for Standardization, Metrology and Certification, Gosstandart of Russia): presentation on Metrology in Russia (his written presentation found in the front of this Annual report); Jim Akey (WI): presentation of data regarding instabilit>- of 50-lb cast iron test weights maintained in the

laboratory; Georgia Harris (NIST): Demonstration of Automated Environmental Data Collection, new systems and software developed by Andy Walker (Lab Wizard software) and hardware developed by Brian Fitzpatrick (Hi-Tech); Al Tholen (NVLAP): presented information regarding NVLAP accreditation of State legal metrology laboratories (which has been circulated to laboratories); and NIST Awards were presented by Dr. Peter Heydemann to metrologists who have provided "training" and

"assessment" technical services to the NIST Office of Weights and Measures in support of State Laborator.- Program objectives. These included the following individuals:

Training

Jose Torres (PR)

Martin Coile (GA) Tom Schafer (ID) Bruce Adams (MN)

Ron Balaze (MI)

Assessments

L. F. Eason (NC)

Kelly Moody (AZ)

Steve McGuire (IL) Rick Calkins (Rice Lake Weighing) Mike D\-nia (CT) Ken Fraley (OK)

423
L. K. Issaev

Russian Metrology Under The New Legislation

L. K. Issaev Vice President, Gosstandart of Russia

At all times in the past, metrology in Russia was of State concern from the IX century. The first scientific body in the

field of metrology was established by law (Depot of Standard Weights and Measures) in 1842 in St. Petersburg. Now, there are more than one billion measuring instruments and devices, as well as many measurement systems in the country. For verification and calibration purposes, there are more than 9 million working measurement standards and 500

reference measurement standards traceable to 117 State primary measurement standards. Many of the 7,000 types of

certified reference materials approved at the State level are used for verification and calibration. The assurance of

uniformity of measurement is supported by 2,600 technical documents, including approximately 500 standards. Throughout the Russian Federation, there are 10 metrological research institutions with their State measurement standards and 100 weights and measures laboratories within the territorial bodies of the Gosstandart of Russia. The territorial bodies are responsible for the supervision of a product's compliance with the mandatory requirements of

standards, as well as for regional metrological supervision and control with the help of the State Inspectors. These

institutions and territorial laboratories represent the State Metrological Service; in addition, more than 30,000 enterprises and organizations have their own metrology services.

In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, all State measurement standards. System of Units, and Time

Scale are subjects of the Federal Competence. In April 1993, a law on the assurance of measurement uniformity passed through the Russian Parliament and was adopted by the President.

This law establishes the legal basis for the assurance of measurement uniformity in the Russian Federation, regulates the

relations between the State administrative bodies and persons and juridical bodies, and also aims to protect citizens from

the negative consequences of incorrect measurement results.

State administration of the activities related to the assurance of measurement uniformity in the Russian Federation is carried out by the Committee of the Russian Federation for Standardization, Metrology, and Certification (the Gosstandart of Russia). These responsibilities include the following:

- Inter-regional and interbranch coordination of activities for providing measurement uniformity;

- Submission of proposals to the Government concerning permitted units of measurements;

,

, - Establishment of regulations for the production, approval, conservation, and application of measurement

standards;

- Establishment of principal metrological requirements for measuring instruments, methods of measurement; and measurement results;

- Execution of State metrological control and supervision;

- Control of the observance of international treaties concerning the recognition of test and verification results for measuring instruments;

- Administration of the activities to be carried out by the State metrological service and other State services concerned with the assurance of measurement uniformity;

424
L. K. Issaev

- Participation in the activities of international organizations concerned with the assurance of measurement

uniformity. The Gosstandart of Russia approves normative documents on the assurance of measurement uniformity; these documents

establish the legally binding metrological regulations and norms in the territories of the Russian Federation. The International System of Units, approved by the General Conference for Weights and Measures, and recommended

by the International Organization of Legal Metrology, is admitted for use in the Russian Federation.

Characteristics and parameters of products for exportation, including measuring instruments, may be expressed in units of measurement that are established by the customer. The State measurement standards are the exclusive Federal property and are subject to approval and supervision by the Gosstandart of Russia. The State metrological service includes State scientific metrological centers and State metrological service bodies of the Republics that are part of the Russian Federation, autonomous regions and districts, territories, and cities of Moscow and

St. Petersburg. The Gosstandart of Russia is also in charge of the administration of the State service of time and frequency, the State service of certified reference materials and the State service of standard reference data. The State scientific metrological centers are responsible for development, improvement, maintenance, and application of

State measurement standards, as well as for development of standards on the assurance of measurement uniformity. The

State metrological service bodies shall execute State metrological control and supervision to check the observance of

metrological regulations and standards in various domains:

- Health services -

- Environmental protection ,

- Assurance of labor safety

- Commercial transactions • "

- State accounting

- Assurance of State defense

- Geodetic and hydrometeorological activities

- Bank, taxation, customs, and postal operations

- Mandatory certification of products and services

- Measurements performed on the basis of mandates by juridical and State executive bodies

- Registration of national and international sports records.

In the areas covered by the State metrological control and supervision, measuring instruments are subject to mandatory

testing with a view to their type approval.

425
L. K. Issaev

Decisions concerning measuring instrument type approvals are made by the Gosstandart and attested by a certificate of

type approval whose validity period shall be fixed at the time of its issue. Type approvals are recorded in the State

register of measuring instruments kept by the Gosstandart. An authorized mark shall be applied to approved measuring instruments, and operational documentation and information on type approvals is printed in the official publications of the Gosstandart of Russia. Measuring instruments subject to State metrological control and supervision are verified by the State metrological service bodies during their production or repair, importation, and use. Only verified measuring instruments are allowed for sale or for rent. The list of the measuring instruments that must be verified is approved by the Gosstandart of Russia. The State metrological control and supervision is accomplished by officials of the Gosstandart of Russia referred to as State Inspectors for the assurance of measurement uniformity. These inspectors are responsible for duly fulfilling their

official obligations in keeping with the legislation of the Russian Federation. Measuring instruments that are not subject to verification may be subject to calibration during their production or repair, importation, sale, rent, and use; this shall be carried out by metrological services of persons or juridical bodies using measurement standards traceable to the State measurement standards. The Prime-Ministers of the Member States of the Community of Independent States (CIS) signed the "Agreement on

coordinated policy in the fields of Standardization, Metrology and Certification" on March 13, 1992. Through this agreement, members of the CIS have obtained essential advantages for their producers and for mutual trade in a common

economic space. All the previous Republics of USSR, except Bahic Republics, formed the CIS. Russia is a member of

CIS. At the intergovernmental level, it was agreed to recognize and to maintain use of the previous State Standards (norms) of the USSR (GOST) and State Measurement Standards of the USSR (etalons); it was also decided to maintain the uniformity of the measurements for time and frequency.

In 1991, the majority of East European countries (ex-CMEA members) set up a new metrological body known as COOMET.

Gosstandart of Russia, as the successor to the Gosstandart of the USSR, actively participates in international bodies such

as the Metric Convention, OIML, ISO, and lEC.

426
Resolutions Committee

Report of the Resolutions Committee

Bruce Martell, Chairman

Chief, Consumer Assurance Division Vermont Department of Agriculture

Reference Key No.

700 GENERAL

The resolutions committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures to those who contributed their time and talents toward the arrangements for the conduct and success of this 79th Annual Meeting. Special votes of thanks are extended:

( 1 ) to Henry Voss, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, for his welcoming remarks in which he indicated his support of the work of the Conference, and all of weights and measures;

(2) to Brian Bilbray, Supervisor of the First District, Board of Supervisors, County of San Diego, for his welcoming

remarks in support of the work of the Conference, and of weights and measures in general;

(3) to Sergeants at Arms, Robert Keadle, Monterey, California, and William Korth, Ventura County, California;

(4) to Dr. Peter Heydemann, Director of Technology Services of the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST), for his remarks to the membership and for continuing the NIST partnership with NCWM for the future; to Dr. Heydemann for his vision for the future of weights and measures and his expressions of NIST commitment

to strengthen its partnerships with business. Federal, State, and local governments in the area of weights and

measures;

(5) to the San Diego Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division, for the extraordinary assistance

in preparation for and conduct of the 79th Annual Meeting, particularly the work of Kathleen Thuner, Sealer for the City of San Diego, along with her staff;

(6) to our international speakers, Paul Allen, Chairman of the U.K."s Institute of Training Standards Administration, and L. K. Issaev, Vice President, Gosstandart of Russia, for their informative and enlightening presentations;

(7) to Mary Bach for her entertaining and informative presentation on scanner inaccuracies and their impact on

consumers;

(8) to Ron Goodstein for the presentation covering his research on the accuracy of U.P.C. Pricing Systems;

(9) to Tom Geiler, Chairman, and the officers and appointed officials of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for their assistance and service toward progress on national issues;

(10) to committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and presenting their reports; to the subcommittees and work groups for their discerning and appropriate recommendations;

(11) to regulatory officials of State and local jurisdictions for the advice, interest, and support of weights and measures

administration in the United States;

427
Resolutions Committee

(12) to representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and Conference work, most especially the support of training demonstrated by the granting of 22 scholarships of $500 each for inspector training; to the associate membership organization for the hospitality exhibited in sponsored social functions; particularly Chris Guay, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Procter & Gamble Company, for arranging the outstanding excursion to the San Diego Zoo for the enjoyment of Conference members and their guests;

(13) to the staff of the Doubletree Hotel-Horton Plaza for their assistance and courtesies, all of which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the delegates within their fine facilities; and

(14) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and its 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, especially to Ann Turner, Elizabeth Loveless, Michele Krebs, and Lynn Sebring for their professional and hospitable conduct of the administrative operations of the meeting.

B. Martell, Chairman, Vermont

C. Fulmer, South Carolina W. Lagemann, Delaware

R. Philmon, Illinois

J. Silvestro, Gloucester County, New Jersey

J. Mindte, NIST, Coordinator Resolutions Committee

428
Nominating Committee

Report of the Nominating Committee

Allan M. Nelson, Chairman

Director, Weights and Measures Department of Consumer Protection Cormecticut

Reference Key No. 800

The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the Hyatt Regency, Bethesda, Maryland, and nominated

the persons listed below to be officers of the 80th Conference. In the selection of nominees from active membership,

consideration was given to professional experience, qualifications of individuals. Conference attendance and participation, and other factors considered to be important. The following slate of officers was selected by unanimous vote of the Nominating Committee: CHAIRMAN-ELECT: Charles A. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York VICE-CHAIRMEN: Fred P. Clem, Columbus, Ohio Dean F. Ely, Pennsylvania

Darrell A. Guensler, California Danny Willis, Kentucky EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Bruce Adams, Minnesota

Barbara J. Bloch, California TREASURER: Charles A. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York

A. Nelson, Connecticut, Chairman

S. Colbrook, Illinois C. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York M. Gray, Florida

S. Rhoades, Arizona

G. Shefcheck, Oregon

N. David Smith, North Carolina Nominating Committee

429
Auditing Committee

'V

Report of the Auditing Committee

Robert Gunja

Standards Administrator, Kansas City Kansas

Reference Key No. 900

The Auditing Committee met on Sunday afternoon, January 9, 1994, during the NCWM Interim Meeting, for the purpose of reviewing the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer, Charles A. Gardner; Ann H. Turner, Weights and Measures Coordinator, was also in attendance. The Auditing Committee finds the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer to be in accordance with Conference

procedure and correct.

R. Gunja, Kansas City, Kansas, Chairman

J. H. Eskew, Texas

R. Kalentkowski, Connecticut

J. Mindte, NIST, Coordinator Auditing Committee

430
Treasurer's Report

Treasurer's Report

Trail Balance as of 12/30/93 Income Accounts

411.1 Annual Registration $32,450.00

411.2 Interim Registration $8,050.00

412.1 Government Member Fees $56,595.00

412.2 Associate Member Fees $60,620.00 413 Interest $1,484.33 416.6 Other - Industry CEU $3.00 416.9 Other - Miscellaneous $0.00

481.3 Recepts/Meeting Rooms $581.81

481.4 Joint Outing $1,665.00

482.1 NTP Modules $1,870.00 482.2A NCWM Publication 5 $10,325.00 482.2B NCWM Publications (Other) $2,757.00

482.3 Videos - Sales $2,073.30 482.4 Handbook 133-3rd Edition 1,408.00 483.1 NTP Operations $2,000.00

483.2 CoC Maintenance Fees $86,600.00 484 NTP Seminar $0.00

484.1 Advanced Metrology $0.00 485 Promotions $0.00 486 Grain Moist.Coop Agreement $13,624.29 Total Income $282,106.73

431
Treasurer's Report

Trial Balance as of 12/30/93 Expense Accounts

511 - Annual

511.1 Hotel/Food Services $17,084.07

511.2 Equipment/AV/Supplies $108.13

511.3 Personnel/Photo $930.57

511.4 Print/Copy $1,379.85 511.5 Awards $1,341.66 511.6 Treasurer Committee Expenses $691.76

511.7 Print Announcement $6,431.40 511.9 Miscellaneous $3,885.44 Total 511 $31,852.88 512 - Interipi

512.1 Hotel/Food Services $5,796.78

512.2 Equipment/Personnel/Printing/Misc. $1,053.95

512.3 Executive Committee $4,177.30

512.4 Laws and Regulations Committee $3,062.60

512.5 Specificatons and Tolerances Committee $3,760.60 512.6 Education Committee $4,198.12 512.7 Liaison Committee $0.00

512.8 Other & Task Forces $1,625.20 512.9 Print Agenda $2,913.40 Total 512 $26,587.95 513 - Committee Meetings

513.1 Executive Committee/Board of Govoners $5,685.56

513.2 Laws and Regulations Committee $11,975.37

513.3 Specifications and Tolerances Committee $7,129.93 513.4 Education Committee $3,075.51 513.5 Liaison Committee $0.00

513.6 NTETC $11,183.94

513.7 Annual $2,766.50 Total 513 $41,816.81 514 - Task Forces/Specific Committees

514.1 Privatization Task Force $8,018.61 514.2 Checkweigher Group $3,004.42

514.3 OlML $0.00

514.4 FPLA - Metric Work Group $411.00

514.5 USA/Canada Work Group $10,864.01

514.6 Petroleum Sub-Committee $10,570.42

514.7 ISO 9000 Task Force $3,395.80 Other $1,664.46 Total 514 $37,928.72

432
Treasurer's Report

515 Chairman/Chairman-Elect

515.1 Chairman S8. 106.41 515.2 Chairman-Elect S6.338.37

515.3 Chairman Breakfasts S991.47

Total 515 S15,436.25 516 - Administration

516.1 Equipment Supplies Stationen.- S 438.88

516.2 Contracts Personnel S39.1 19.14 516.3 Mail P.O. Box S155.00

516.4 Treasurer's Bond SO.OO

516.5 Bank Charges S58.74

516.6 National Training Program SI. 190.00 516.9 Miscellaneous S236.66

Total 516 S41,198.42 517 - Printing/Publications

517.1 Membership Sl.308.00

517.2 NCWM Publications - Member S 12.744.90

517.3 Consumer Pamphlet 514,074.56

517.4 Handbooks and Videos SO.OO 517.9 Miscellaneous SO.OO Total 51" S28.127.46 518 - Train-the-Trainers

518.1 Train-the Trainers SIOO.OO

518.2 Training $688.85

Total 518 S~88.85 581 - Special Events

581.1 .A.nnual SO.OO

581.2 Interim SO.OO

581.3 Recepts Meetings SO.OO

581.4 Joint Outing SO.OO Total 581 SO.OO 582 - Publications

582.1 Modules SI 53. 50 582.2A NCWM Publication 5 Sll.-83.10 582.2B NCWM Publication (other) SO.OO

582.3 Videos S3.923.30

582.4 Handbook 133 3rd Edition S5.049.00 Total 582 S20,908.90

433
Treasurer's Report

583 1 NTEP Operations $210,00

583.2 CoC Maintenance $0,00 584 NTP Seminars $0.00 585 Promotions $0.00 586 Grain Equipment Coop Agreement $7,599.75 Total Expenses $252,455.99

Associate Account 512,748.29 NCWM Bank Balances EAB $101,010.42

Start of Year Balance $99,747.36 Signet $314.84 Income $282,106.73 CD "1 $28,072.84 Expenses $252,455.99 CD -2 $0.00

Current Balance $129,398.10 Current Balance $129,398.10

434
Treasurer's Report Grant Account

1993

Beginning Balance Deposits Payments

|

[ Closing Balance

$4,566.95 $22,088.05

(Interest = $88.05) $22,663.50 $3,991.50

435
New Chairman Truex

New Chairman's Message

Thursday, July 21, 1994 James C. Truex

Acting Chief, Division of Weights & Measures Ohio Department of Agriculture "Quality Partnerships and Programs through Education"

I would ask that Tom Geiler please remain at the podium. Also, if Charlie Gardner would join us at the podium for the remainder of the session.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this past twelve months traveling the country with Tom Geiler. Those of us who have known Tom for many years have known through his comments that he believes in the NCWM and is completely dedicated to

its cause. I can personally tell you, in all honesty, that he did not disappoint any of us with his drive to make the successes and mission of the Conference known. From the man on the street, to the Director of NIST, to the U.S. House

of Representatives, he highlighted the NCWM as a fair system that works. He even wrote President Clinton a letter on

behalf of the Conference.

He's a Massachusetts Democrat which means he has an opinion on everything that he's not afraid to express. Tom, on

behalf of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, please accept this Certificate of Appreciation for your

dedicated leadership as Conference Chairman. Well done my friend. Thank you.

I've asked your Chair-Elect, Charlie Gardner to join me at the podium. Charlie and I have been friends for many years. He is one of those people who is respected and liked by everyone. 1 congratulate the Conference for electing Charlie to the position. Bill Corey has been elected Chairman of the 94/95 Associate Membership Committee. Bill had to fly home

this morning or he would be at the podium with us. We know Bill Corey to be a hard-working friend of the Conference and a dedicated individual. Bill, Charlie, and 1 will work for the Conference in a partnership mode this next year. Let

us here from you.

I think every Chairman-Elect feels compelled to review reports of previous Conferences. I am no different. In doing so,

I noticed that Chairmen like to use inspirational quotes from personalities like Yogi Berra and John F. Kennedy. Well, I'm going to keep it a little closer to home. Some very good advice, observations, questions and inspirational comments

have been stated by NCWM Chairmen during their addresses. I'd like to take the time to restate a few. by Fred Gerk (1989) "Keep your pants pulled up and don't talk with your mouth full." by David Smith (1991) ' "Eating grits can make you famous." Time to get serious. by Ken Simila (1979)

"Equity is on the move. Will we be alive when we get there? That 1 don't know." by Ed Heffron (1982)

(talking about the NCWM and NBS) "The wisdom of this relationship was probably

not fully envisioned when in January 1905 seven States and the District of Columbia

met in Washington." by Darrell Guensler (1988) "We must learn to cope with Federal preemption issues which relate to weights and

436
New Chairman Truex

measures." by John Bartfai (1989) "Without enforcement, NTEP becomes another transparency." by David Smith (1990) "As we prepare for the 21st Century, I feel that the National Conference must take stock of itself and plot a course of where we want to go or others will surely plot that course for us." by Sid Colbrook (1991) "The adoption of the Conference standards benefits manufacturers, packagers, other members from industry, weights and measures officials, but most importantly, it benefits all consumers." by Allan Nelson (1992) . - "NC WM partnership with industry is an area that I believe needs further development.

Industry is, and has consistently been, a valued partner of the NCWM."

by Tom Geiler (1993) "The coming together of regulatory officials, device manufacturers, device users, and consumer representatives for the purpose of developing laws and regulations which

will work for all parties concerned, is a proven winner. Our process is one which can and should stand as a model regulatory function." Some thought provoking words from knowledgeable and successful Chairmen. One last bit of advice from Fred Gerk in his 1989 address, "if all else fails - lower your standards."

I have chosen the theme "Quality Partnerships and Programs through Education" for the 80th National Conference on

Weights & Measures. 1 think that the membership of the NCWM works as a partnership. NIST, the States, industry

associations, W&M officials, industry representatives, the LMB of Canada, and other interested individuals, work together

as a partnership towards a goal of equity in the marketplace. We need to continue to improve on the quality of our

partnerships and our weights and measures programs to meet today's challenges. Education is a key to improvement. As 1 stated, 1 have spent considerable time reviewing published Conference reports in planning for the 80th Conference. You've already heard a sample of the advice I noted from former Chairmen. I also carefully combed the reports of the "Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century", the "Privatization Work Group", and the report of this year's special meeting of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs. Some very professional W&M people

contributed to information contained in the reports. Therefore, I decided not to try and reinvent the wheel, rather to take

their advice and the advice of many others in this room in deciding what issues to emphasize.

I plan to place emphasis on the following areas:

1 . Developing training vehicles to deliver training to W&M jurisdictions and industry on NTEP administration, field enforcement of NTEP, new packaging and labeling requirements, new package checking procedures, the NTP Modules, etc. We have some of the cargo (training modules and other material) but we do not have all the vehicles (trainers) needed to deliver the cargo.

2. Work towards the development of an improved electronic communications and

information system - a computer network for the W&M community.

3. Study the feasibility of a uniform training program and certification requirements for W&M jurisdictions. Should W&M have a training curriculum? Should W&M

establish minimum training requirements? ISO 9000 and other QA programs are

437
New Chairman Truex

requesting W&M laboratories and inspectors to produce certifications, certificates and

other documents of traceability. Should W&M establish minimum program

standards and/or a means of program certification? It's time to deal with these

questions.

4. Establish a "Cost Benefit Work Group" to assist W&M jurisdictions in establishing

priorities, measuring effectiveness, evaluating their own programs, and justifying their own programs. What is the cost benefit of W&M programs to consumers? What is the cost benefit of W&M to industry?

5. Further the effort to build OIML testing capabilities into NTEP.

6. Work with industry to lay the foundation to deal with the "production meets type"

issue.

Other issues on the Conference agenda that may need significant study and attention:

1. Device software and computer interfaces. The plans I have just outlined are just words. I plan to address them in greater detail at the regional conferences. I sincerely pledge to you that my goal is to be able to report some progress and successes as part of my "State of the Conference Address" during the 80th NCWM in Portland, Maine next July.

I will now announce my committee appointments for the 80th NCWM. To have the opportunity to make these appointments is a privilege. A privilege I took very seriously. I started with a long list of names put together by myself and my peers. The appointees consist of a mix of experience and qualified new, energetic, young blood. The following

individuals have agreed to help Charlie Gardner and me guide the NCWM.

Specifications & Tolerances Committee Laws & Regulations Committee

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

Resolutions Committee

Credentials Committee

Auditing Committee

Daryl Brown, Iowa

5 -year term

Karl Angel, West Virginia 5-year term

Richard Greek, San Luis Obispo

County, California 5-year term Clayton Davis, Maine

3-year term

Jerry Bane, Iowa

3 -year term David Wallace, Colorado

3 -year term Angie McCoy, City of Columbus, Ohio

3 -year term Cosmo Insalaco, Fresno County, California

3 -year term Monty Hopper, Kern County, California 3-year term

438
New Chairman Truex

Budget Review Committee

Nominating Committee

Ciiaplain Parliamentarian

Assistant Treasurer

Sergea n ts-at-Arms

Associate Membership Committee

Chair: Vice Chair:

Secretary: Treasurer: Members:

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation Weighing Sector Measuring Sector

N. David Smith, North Carolina

continues with a 1-year term Harvey Lodge, Cargotec

continues with an extended

2-year term

Darrell Guensler, California

3 -year term Dave English, Measurement Systems International

4-year term

(All 1-year terms) Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Steve Malone, Nebraska George Shefcheck, Oregon

Darrell Guensler, California N. David Smith, North Carolina Lou Straub, Maryland

William Lagemann, Delaware Ken Simila, Oregon

Fred Clem, City of Columbus, OH

Daniel Newcombe, Maine

Conrad Brown, Maine

Bill Corey, American Frozen Foods

Richard Davis, James River Corp.

Jennifer Colman, Food Marketing Institute Tom Stabler, Mettler-Toledo

Chris Guay, Procter & Gamble

Paul Zalon, Nestle USA

Gale Prince, The Kroger Co. Bob Fuehne, Ralston Purina

Bill Braun, WHB Resources Dave Quinn, Fairbanks Scales

David Hawkins, Thurman Scale William West, Ohio

(replaces J. Truex)

1 know 1 speak for myself, Charlie Gardner, Bill Corey, Carroll Brickenkamp and her staff, and all committee members when 1 say, we'll do our best to serve you well. Thank you again for this opportunity.

439
List of Participants NCWM 79th Annual Meeting

July 17-21, 1994 San Diego, California

List of Participants

Adams, Bruce

Metrologist MN Div of Weights & Measures 2277 Hwy 36

Roseville, MN 55113

Telephone: 612-639-4010 FAX: 612-639-4014

Andrews, Ted M.

Quality Assurance Manager WAWA Inc 260 Baltimore Pike Wawa, PA 19063

Telephone: 215-358-8180 FAX: 215-358-8784

Baker, John A. Merchandise Admin Manager

Pier 1 Imports 301 Commerce Suite 600

Fort Worth, TX 76161-0020

Telephone: 817-878-8306 FAX: 817-332-5727 Adams, Deidre

Staff Product Planner IBM Corp

2020 Yonkers Rd Dept G68 Bldg 602

Raleigh, NC 27604

Telephone: 919-301-7106 FAX: 919-301-7145

Angell, Jr., Karl H.

Acting Director WV Weights & Measures 570 MacCorkle Ave West

St Albans, WV 25177

Telephone: 304-722-0602 FAX: 304-722-0605

Bane, Jerry L. Chief Wgts & Meas Bureau

lA Dept of Agriculture H A Wallace Bldg Des Moines, I A 50319

Telephone: 515-281-5716 FAX: 515-281-6800 Akey, James H.

State Metrologist WI Dept of Agriculture PO Box 7883 4702 University Ave(05)

Madison, WI 53707-7883

Telephone: 608-267-3510 FAX; 608-266-1560

Albery, Debra

Public Affairs Director Safeway Inc 2750 S Priest Drive

Phoenix, AZ 85282

Telephone: 602-894-4129 FAX: 602-929-8224

Allen, Anthony Paul Chairman ITSA & Co Trading Std ITS A

19 Cranedown

Lewes East Sussex, BN7 3NA

Great Britain Telephone: 273-475-877

Alston, Norman A. Manager P D Meter Sales Daniel Flow Products Inc 9720 Old Katy Rd PO Box 19097

Houston, TX 77224

Telephone: 713-827-3857 FAX: 713-827-3880

Alvlene, Robert

Assistant Superintendent Morris Co Wghts & Meas PO Box 900 Wghts & Meas Dept

Morristown. NJ 07963

Telephone: 201-285-2955 FAX: 201-285-6075

Arrlngton, Robert D. Program Mgr Wghts & Meas WA Dept of Agriculture PO Box 42560

Olympia, WA 98504-2560

Telephone: 206-902-1856 FAX: 206-902-2086

Atkins, Robert

Bureau Chief Wghts & Meas

Los Angeles Co Dept of Agr

11012 S Garfield Avenue

South Gate, CA 90280

Telephone: 310-940-8922 FAX: 310-861-0278

Ayers, Kenton D. Marketing Specialist USDA Packers & Stockyards Adm

9550 Micron Avenue Suite D

Sacramento, CA 95827

Telephone: 916-551-1142 FAX: 916-551-1146

Bach, Mary

Consumer Advocate 3908 Princess Ct PO Box 377

Murrysville, PA 15668

Telephone: 412-327-6969

Bair, James A.

Vice President

Millers National Federation 600 Maryland Ave SW Suite 305W

Washington, DC 20024

Telephone: 202-484-2200 FAX: 202-488-7416

23514 Baran, Artie 3053), Attorney i Milberg Weiss Bershed

| 600 West Broadway 1800

j San Diego, CA 92101 | Telephone: 619-231-1058

j Bartfai, John J. 2] 28799 Director NY Bureau of Wghts & Meas

1 Winners Circle Albany, NY 12205

Telephone: 518-457-3452

j FAX: 518-457-4780

j Bayless, Steven L. 11613 28731 Inspector II San Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

320 East D Street Ontario, CA 91762

Telephone: 714-387-2140

, FAX: 714-387-2143

Beilke, Robert J. 3037( 30202 Metrologist I

[ Southern CA Edison , 7300 Fenwick Lane

Westminster, CA 92683 i Telephone: 714-895-t)702 i FAX: 714-895-0686 ! 14355 ; Bell, Doyle D. 72 ^

Inspector

j Delaware Co Weights & Measures Room 208 County Building Muncie, fN 47305

, Telephone: 317-747-7714 i

440
I

ii

) Bell, Irving 'Governmental Relations 'Coca-Cola Co

: I Coca-Cola Plaza AUanta, GA 30313

Telephone: 404-676-2623

I FAX: 404-676-8265

! Bellows, Kris Scanning Project Coordinator Smart & Final '^700 S Boyle

' Vernon, CA 40058

Telephone: 713-584-7825

Beiue, F. Michael

President Belue Associates iPO Box 701 2004 Liberty St »;Bonham, TX 75418

Telephone: 903-583-9082 FAX: 903-583-8949

Bennett, Celeste MFQ Investigations Food Div Ml Dept of Agriculture ^PO Box 30017

-Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-373-1060

!FAX: 517-373-3333

Bennett, Edward L. Jnspector Ventura Co Wghts & Meas

800 S Victoria Avenue

Ventura, CA 93009

Telephone: 805-654-2442 FAX: 805-648-9212

Bennett, James

Scientist Hunt-Wesson

'1645 W Valencia Drive

i^ullerton, CA 92634

I Telephone: 714-680-2136

!?AX: 714-680-2525 Berumen, Robert

Senior Inspector

Iventura Co Wghts & Meas

j«00 South Victoria Avenue

.Ventura, CA 93009

Telephone: 805-654-2445

Blacik, Michael

director vfN Div of Weights & Measures

J2277 Highway 36

•1st Paul, MN 55113-3800

iFelephone: 612-639-4010

,-AX: 612-639-4014

IiBIoch, Barbara J. jspecial Assistant 'lA Measurement Standard

5500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

felephone: 916-387-4241 -AX: 916-387-4260

1

i.

List of Participants 4473 Bloomer, Thomas

Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2192 FAX: 619-565-7046 30543 Braaten, Glenn

Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123

Telephone: 619-694-2769

691 Brahos, Dean

City Sealer Hammond Weights & Measures 649 Conkey Street Hammond, IN 46324

Telephone: 219-853-6377

Brasher, William D. 9286 Production Support Specialist Southern Co Services Inc PO Box 2625 Bin B266

Birmingham, AL 35202

Telephone: 205-877-7653 FAX: 205-877-7288

Braun, William H. 7813 Sole Proprietor William H Braun Resources 5743 Jeffrey Place

Fairfield, OH 45014-3524

Telephone: 513-829-2106/9892 FAX: 513-829-2501

Brewster, Richard 30544 Amoco Production Co

4334 NW Expressway Oklahoma City, OK 73116

Telephone: 405-848-0472 FAX: 405-848-0693 Brickenkamp, Carroll S. Chief Office of Wts & Meas

5000 NIST

Bldg 101 A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4005 FAX: 301-926-0647

Brister, James A. 8924 Inspector Ventura Co Wghts & Meas

800 S Victoria Ave

Ventura, CA 93009

Telephone: 805-654-2445 FAX: 805-648-9212 Brown, Mark C. 7004 Agr & Standards Biologist III Sutter Co Weights & Measures

142 Garden Highway Yuba City, CA 95991

Telephone: 916-741-7500 FAX: 916-741-7510

4185 Bruce, Robert

Chief Weights & Measures

National Metrology Canada

301 Laurier Ave West 5th Fl Ottawa, KIA 0C9

Canada

Telephone: 613-952-2625 FAX: 613-952-1736 22195

Brucker, Norman R.

Regional Scale Inspector Burlington Northern Railroad 4105 N Lexington Ave Ste 300 Arden Hills, MN 55126-6181

Telephone: 612-490-6090

202 FAX: 612-490-6017 Brumbaugh, Robert T.

President Systems Associates Inc 1932 Industrial Dr

Libertyville, IL 60048

4417 Telephone: 708-367-6650 FAX: 708-367-6960

Buccelli, Mark

Regional Supervisor MN Div of Weights & Measures 2277 Highway 36

St Paul, MN 55113 2983 Telephone: 612-639-4010 FAX: 612-639-4014

Burns, Jr., Charles A. Chief Inspector Birmingham Wghts & Meas

City Hall Rm 207 710 N 20th St Birmingham, AL 35203 20538 Telephone: 205-254-2246 FAX: 205-254-2925

Butcher, Kenneth S. Weights & Measures Coordinator NIST

Bldg 101 A617

239 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3991 FAX: 301-926-0647

Butcher, Tina G.

Physical Scientist NIST

Bldg 101 A617

9690 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2196 FAX: 301-926-0647

Carl, Frank E. Director Sacramento Co Wghts & Meas

4137 Branch Center Rd

24019 Sacramento, CA 95827

Telephone: 916-366-2003 FAX: 916-366-4150

441
List of Participants

Carlsen, Stacy K.

Director

Sutter Co Weights & Measures

142 Garden Highway Yuba City, CA 95991 ; Telephone: 916-741-7500 FAX: 916-741-7510

Carroll, Charles H.

Assistant Director MA Division of Standards One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

Telephone: 617-727-3480 , FAX: 617-727-5705

Carson, Kim

Asst Dir Standards & Labeling

IntematI Dairy Foods Assn

1250 HStNW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-296-4250 FAX: 202-331-7820

Carter, Charles D. Prog Adm Agr Resources PICS OK Dept of Agriculture 2800 N Lincoln Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298

Telephone: 405-521-3864 x261 FAX: 405-521-4912

Carter, John R. Agr & Stds Inspector IV

Tulare Co Dept of Agriculture 2500 Burrel Avenue

Visalia, CA 93291

Telephone: 209-733-6391 FAX: 209-625-0624 Casanova, Max C. Mgr Cust Serv Ramsey Products Ramsey Technology Inc 501 -90th Avenue NW

Minneapolis, MN 55433

Telephone: 612-783-2659 FAX: 612-780-1537

Castro, Gary

Measurement Standards Spec II CA Measurement Standards 8500 Fruitridge Road

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-387-4257 FAX: 916-387-4260

Chappell, Samuel E. Standards Management NIST

Bldg 101 A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4024 FAX: 301-963-2871 Chohamin, John

12 Yates Dr

East Brunswick, NJ 08816

Telephone: 908-257-4840

105 Chow, Kai-Cheung

Los Angeles Co Dept of Agr

11012 Garfield Ave

South Gate, CA 90280

Telephone: 310-940-8931

Clark, Buddy

Inspector 4393 Hamilton Co Wghts & Meas

1890! Eagletown Road

Westfield, IN 46074

Telephone: 317-896-9001

Clark, Melvin Computer Specialist NIST

25532 Bldg 101 A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4406 FAX: 301-975-0647

Claussen, Richard H.

Director

Porter Co Weights & Measures 9838 1401 N Calumet Courthouse Rm 105

Valpariso, IN 46383-3195

Telephone: 219-465-3585

Clay, Christine County Inspector Lake Co Wghts & Meas

2293 North Main Street 12362 Crown Point, IN 46307

Telephone: 219-755-3680 FAX: 219-755-3064 Clem, Fred P. Senior Inspector Columbus Weights & Measures

50 W Gay St 362 Columbus, OH 432 1 5-282

1

Telephone: 614-645-7397 FAX: 614-645-6675

Coe, Patricia C.

Consultant Washington Gas

6801 Industrial Road

13568 Springfield, VA 22151

Telephone: 703-750-4410 FAX: 703-750-4441

Colbrook, Sidney A. Wghts & Meas Bureau Manager

IL Dept of Agriculture PO Box 19281 801 E Sangamon Ave

1 06 1 0 Springfield, IL 62794-928

1

Telephone: 217-782-3817 FAX: 217-524-7801

Cole, Billy Service Manager

Precision Weight Scale Co Inc 33 Highview Road

30499 Sellersville, PA 18960

Telephone:

30551 Coleman, G. Thomas

Program Mgr Wghts & Meas MD Dept of Agriculture 50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790

1865 FAX: 410-841-2765

Collins, Belinda

Acting Director of Stds Srvcs NIST

Bldg 101 Rm A603

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

30456 Telephone: 301-975-4000 FAX: 301-963-2871 Colman, Jennifer Mgr State Government Relations Food Marketing Institute 1100 NW Loop 410 Ste 756

San Antonio, TX 78213

103 Telephone: 210-366-8782 FAX: 210-366-0198 Cook, David A.

Operations Quality Manager

Kraft General Foods Inc

1 Kraft Court 21366 Glenview, IL 60025

Telephone: 708-646-4406 FAX: 708-646-6842 Cook, Steven E. Program Supervisor CA Measurement Standards 8500 Fruitridge Rd

169 Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-387-4241 FAX: 916-387-4260

Corey, Jr., William J. Secretary American Frozen Foods 366 Benton Street 30465 Stratford, CT 06497

Telephone: 203-378-7900 FAX: 203-386-8676

Cotsoradis, Constantine V. Weights & Measures Coordinator NIST Weights & Measures Prog

Building 101 Room A617

47 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Telephone: 301-975-4405 FAX: 301-963-0647

Craft, Lenord

Agr Commissioner Sealer Tulare Co Weights & Measures 2500 Burrel Avenue

18969 Visalia, CA 93291-4584

Telephone: 209-733-6391 FAX: 209-733-6568

442
List of Participants

Trandall, Rich

-enior Inspector an Diego Co Dept of Agr

555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 an Diego, CA 92123-1292

elephone: 619-694-2778 AX; 619-565-7046

30545 Davis, Clayton F. Director ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station 28 MDA

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841 FAX: 207-287-7548

25 DeSalvo, Barbara J. Supervisor Weights & Measures OH Dept of Agriculture 8995 East Main St Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-866-6361 FAX: 614-866-4174

:ribb, Carl W.

cale Equipment Specialist xDOT Equipment Services

.225 S 22nd Avenue

hoenix, AZ 85009

elephone: 602-255-8399 AX: 602-258-5193

294 Davis, Cynthia Agr Stds Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg B

San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2778 FAX: 619-565-7046

Dickenson, Janice K.

Inspector II San Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

777 E Rialto Ave

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

Telephone: 714-387-2140 FAX: 714-387-2143

Titzer, Charles F. -spector .artholomew Co Wghts & Meas

•nty Off Bl-Rm 305 440-3Rd St olumbus, IN 47201

elephone: 812-379-1507

^AX: 812-379-1765

163 Davis, Gerald E. System Supvr Scale Insp Conrail 2001 Market St #10 B

Philadelphia, PA 19101-1410

Telephone: 215-209-1620 FAX: 215-209-4943

Diggs, G.W. (Wes)

Superv VA Weights & Measures VA Weights & Measures

1 100 Bank St PO Box 11 63 Room 402

Richmond, VA 23209

Telephone; 804-786-2476 FAX: 804-786-1571

'rosser, Randall R.

ietrology Engineer

•haus Corp

9 Hanover Rd

lorham Park, NJ 07932-0900

telephone: 201-377-9000 'aX: 201-593-0359

Davis, Richard L. Mgr Product Safety&Compliance James River Corp

1915 Marathon Ave PO Box 899

Neenah, WI 54956-0899

Telephone: 414-729-8174 FAX: 414-729-8089

3806 Dobyns, Loren

Predictive Maintenance Mgr

Thunder Basin Coal Co PO Box 406

Wright, WY 82732

Telephone: 307-939-1300x372 FAX: 307-939-1300

J.'roy, Jeffrey R.

' ispector II

I »range Co Wghts & Meas

I 010 S Harbor Blvd

naheim, CA 92805

14-447-7100

elephone: 714-447-7100 AX: 714-774-2741

royle, Benny D.

ispector III an Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

77 E Rialto Ave

an Bernardino, CA 92415-0970

elephone; 714-387-3348 AX: 714-387-2143 ummins, Millard jEO

hurman Scale Co

339 Refugee Rd. olumbus, OH 43207

elephone: 614-443-9741 AX: 614-444-8333

:aDiels, A. Raymond

irector Industry Stds & Rel T & T Global Systems

700 S Patterson Blvd ECD-2

ayton, OH 45479

elephone: 513-445-1310 AX: 513-445-1933

405 De ZIEL, George N. Manager Purchasing Dept Yamato Corporation PO Box 60159

Colorado Springs, CO 80960-0159

Telephone: 719-527-1500 FAX: 719-282-0942

DeFiesta, Angel S. 7824 Sr Engineering Specialist Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Road

Fairfax, VA 22037

Telephone: 703-849-5331 FAX: 703-849-6790

Delperdang, James

10422 Inspector II Riverside Co Wghts & Meas PO Box 1480

Riverside, CA 92502-1480

Telephone; 909-275-3030 FAX: 909-276-4728

Delperdang, Marianne

343 Quantity Control Spec II CA Measurement Standards 169 E Liberty Ave

Anaheim, CA 92801

Telephone: 714-680-7896 FAX: 714-449-7249

10862 Dudley, William F. Lake County Weights & Measures 2293 North Main Street Crown Point, FN 46307

Telephone: Dumont, Rollin

President 30221 Southwestern Scale Co

2535 W Broadway

Phoenix, AZ 85041

Telephone; 602-243-3951 FAX; 602-243-0435 Duncan, Clyde L. President 8268 Deka Scale Inc 5655 Opportunity Dr Suite 30

Toledo, OH 43612

Telephone; 419-478-5001 FAX; 419-478-4633

Duval, Sandra R. Govt Relations Analyst 9785 CA Grocers Assn 906 G Street Suite 700

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone; 916-448-3545 FAX; 916-448-2793

Dyas, David

Supervising Inspector Kern Co Wghts & Meas

1116 E California Ave

Bakersfield, CA 93307

Telephone: 805-861-2418 FAX: 805-324-0668

443
List of Participants

Dynia, Michael

Metrologist CT Dept of Consumer Protection Rm G-17 State Off Bldg 165 Capitol

Hartford, CT 06106

Telephone: 203-566-5230 FAX: 203-566-7630

7196 Eubanks, James J. Instrument Supervisor Southern California Gas Co PO Box 3249 ML72IA

Los Angeles, CA 90051-1249

Telephone: 310-806-5909 FAX: 31-806-4835

Floren, Kurt

Supervisor Quantity Control Los Angeles Co Wghts & Meas

11012 Garfield Avenue

South Gate, CA 90280

Telephone: 310-940-8941 FAX: 310-861-0278

Eason, L.F. Metrologist Standards Division NC Dept of Agriculture PO Box 27647 Dept SD

Raleigh, NC 27611

Telephone: 919-733-4411 FAX: 919-733-8804

3886 Everitt, Paul

Inspector Weights & Measures

Seattle Licences & Cons Affs 805 S Dearborn Street

Seattle, WA 98134

Telephone: 206-386-1998 FAX: 206-684-8286

Flores, Ronald

Measurement Standards Spec II CA Measurement Standards 8500 FruiU-idge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-387-4255 FAX: 916-385-4260

Eckhardt, Steve K. Product^arket Manager

Micro Motion Inc 196 South Brown Road

Long Lake, MN 55356-9134

Telephone: 612-475-0067 FAX: 612-475-2779

Farr, Robert W.

Assistant Director San Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

777 E Rialto Ave

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

Telephone: 909-387-2140 FAX: 909-387-2143

7012 Fonger, Robert L. Technical Service Rep

Bennett Pump Co

2740 Wood Street Muskegon, Ml 49443

Telephone: 616-733-1302 FAX: 616-739-8832

Eldridge, William P. Director Wghts & Meas Division MS Dept of Agr & Commerce PO Box 1609

Jackson, MS 39215-1609

Telephone: 601-354-7080 FAX: 601-354-6001

33 Fecht, John

Grain Warehouse Director NE Public Service Commission

300 The Atrium 1200 N Street Lincoln, NE 68508

Telephone: 402-471-3101 FAX: 402-471-0254

25782 Fraley, Ken L.

Stds Tech Ultra Prec Insp Dir OK Bureau of Standards 2800 N Lincoln Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Telephone: 405-521-3864 x370 FAX: 405-521-4912

Ellsworth, Elizabeth A. H.

Deputy Director Santa Barbara Co Wghts & Meas

1050 Vista Del Pueblo #5

Santa Barbara, CA 93101-4838

Telephone: 805-681-5600 FAX: 805-681-5603

Feezor, Robert K.

Superintendent Scales Norfolk Southern Corp

Building Box 142 99 Spring Street Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: 404-527-2538 FAX: 404-527-2769

1200 Fuehne, Robert

Quality Assurance Specialist Ralston Purina Co

Checkerboard Square - 4RN

St Louis, MO 63164

Telephone: 314-982-2916 FAX: 314-982-4072

Ely, Dean F.

District Supervisor PA Dept of Agriculture 332 Washington Avenue

Jersey Shore, PA 17740

Telephone: 717-327-3560 FAX: 717-327-3563

9648 Feinland, Sy SMTS

Pimey Bowes Inc

1 Parrot Dr

Shelton, CT 06484

Telephone: 203-925-5211 FAX: 203-925-5333

7048 Fulmer, Carol P. Assistant Commissioner SC Dept of Agriculture PO Box 11280

Columbia, SC 29211

Telephone: 803-737-20! FAX: 803-737-2068

Engler, Paul B.

Retired CA Citrus Quality Council 1575 S Valley Vista Dr Ste 130 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3914

Telephone: 909-861-1340 FAX: 909-861-2161

7553 Fields, Donald W.

Sup Agr Standards Specialist Fresno Co Wghts & Meas

1730 S Maple

Fresno, CA 93702

Telephone: 209-488-3510 FAX: 209-488-3679

7669 Fussey, David A. VP Engineering Revere Transducers Inc 5172 Windover Rd

Yorba Linda, CA 92686

Telephone: 714-739-1991 FAX: 714-522-0931

Eskew, James H. Coord for MetrologyAVts & Meas TX Dept of Agriculture 119 Cumberland Rd

Austin, TX 78704

Telephone: 512-462-1441 FAX: 512-475-1642

3435 Fitzurka, Martin D. Deputy Sealer

Imperial Co Wghts & Meas

150 S Ninth St

El CenU-o, CA 92243

Telephone: 619-339-4314 FAX: 619-353-9420

Gardner, Charles A.

Director Suffolk Co Wghts & Meas

County Center N Bldg 340

Hauppauge, NY 11788

Telephone: 516-853-4621 FAX: 516-853-4578

444
List of Participants

'iardner, Charles H.

I -esident

I iraphin Test Measure

) Indel Ave

1 ancocas, NJ 08073

elephone: 800-573-6322

800-373-6322

' <eiler, Thomas F.

' irector amstable Consumer Affairs 0 Box 2430 230 South Street jannis, MA 02601

elephone: 508-790-6251

4^X: 508-778-2412

)660 Gould, John

Director-Inspection Service American Meat Institute 1700 N Moore Street Rm 1600

Arlington, VA 22209

Telephone; 703-841-2400 FAX: 703-527-0938 219 Gow, Roland Mgr Environmental Affairs Questar Corp PO Box 45433

Salt Lake City, UT 84145

Telephone: 801-534-3594 FAX: 801-534-5131

Guay, Christopher B. Regulatory Affairs Manager

Procter & Gamble Co

11450 Grooms Road

Cincinnati, OH 45242

Telephone: 513-626-2222 FAX: 513-626-1907 Gudgel, Dennis

Deputy Director Merced Co Weights & Measures 2139 W Wardrobe Avenue

Merced, CA 95340

Telephone: 209-385-7431 FAX; 209-385-7439

eMeiner, William G.

anager-Weights and Measures

tiicago & North Western RR

,65 N Canal Street hicago, IL 60606

Elephone: 312-559-6133 AX: 312-559-6149

«rber, Victor L.

Cetrologist 'Y Dept of Agriculture !19 Carey Avenue

I heyenne, WY 82002-0100

°lephone; 307-777-6586 AX: 307-777-6593

libson, Dennis

spector III jnta Barbara Wghts & Meas

D Box 162

oleta, CA 93116-0162

-•lephone: 805-681-5600

\X: 805-681-5603

ilmour, Steven

eputy Sealer

inta Clara Co Wghts & Meas

i53 Berger Dr Bldg Ul I'm Jose, CA 95112

-•lephone: 408-299-4701 ^X: 408-286-2460

lionfriddo, Vernon

spector

(«n Diego Co Dept of Agr

|05 Overland Ave Bid 3

in Diego, CA 92123-1292

:lephone: 619-694-2778

\X: 601-565-7046

'codstein, Ph.D., Ronald C.

,5St Professor of Marketing

l'. Anderson Grad School UCLA

(5 Hilgard Avenue

3S Angeles, CA 90024-1481

:lephone: 310-825-7246

562 Gray, Jan Charles

Senior Vice President Ralphs Grocery Co PO Box 54143

Los Angeles, CA 90220

Telephone: Gray, John R.

!455 Supervisor Weights & Measures OH Dept of Agriculture 8995 E Main St Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-866-6361 Gray, Maxwell H. Chief Weights & Measures

'840 FL Dept of Agr & Cons Services 3125 Conner Blvd Lab 2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 904-488-9140 FAX; 904-922-6655

Greek, Richard D. Agr Commissioner Sealer )427 San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-781-5910 FAX: 805-781-1035

Gregory, Larry

Design Engineer

!193 Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Road Rm 7W323

Fairfax, VA 22037-0001

Telephone; 703-849-6206 FAX; 703-849-5645

Grenier, Michael F. Supervisor II )203 NH Dept of Agriculture PO Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302-2042

Telephone; 603-271-3709 FAX; 603-271-2361

Grosso, Robert L. Inspector 111 Orange Co Wghts & Meas

1010 S Harbor Blvd Anaheim, CA 92805

Telephone; 714-447-7100 FAX; 714-774-2741

Guensler, Darrell A.

Assistant Director CA Measurement Standards 8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-387-4241 FAX: 916-387-4260 Guidry, Lee

Senior Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2778 FAX; 619-565-7046 Gunja, Robert

Standards Administrator Kansas City KS Wghts & Meas

701 North 7th St Rm 612

Kansas City, KS 66101

Telephone: 913-573-5080 FAX; 913-573-5005

Gutierrez, Felipe

Inspector II Los Angeles Co Wghts & Meas

11012 Garfield Ave

South Gate, CA 90280

Telephone: 213-940-8941 Hadyka, Paul

Industrial Specialist USDA/FGIS PO Box 96454 1400 Independence Ave

Washington, DC 20250-6454

Telephone: 202-720-0262 FAX: 202-720-1015 Hahn, Steven R.

Inspector 111 Orange Co Wghts & Meas

1010 S Harbor Blvd Anaheim, CA 92805

Telephone: 714-447-7100 FAX: 714-774-2741

445
List of Participants

Hamilton, James T. Manager Quality Assurance Anheuser-Busch Inc 15800 Roscoe Blvd Van Nuys, CA 91406-1379

Telephone: 818-908-5481 FAX: 818-908-5692

Handley, Hugh

Sealer Kings Co Wghts & Meas

680 Campus Dr

Hanford, CA 93230

Telephone: 209-582-3211 x2831 FAX: 209-582-5251

Hankel, Melvin C. Manager Engineering Support

Liquid Controls Corp

105 Albrecht Drive Lake Bluff, IL 60044-9951

Telephone: 708-295-1056 x302 FAX: 708-295-1089 Hannigan, Philip G.

Technical Assistant Scale Manufacturers Assn

932 Hungerford Dr #36

Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone; 301-738-2448 FAX: 301-738-0076

Hanssen, Paul

President Workplace Training 520 North Arm Drive Orono, MN 55324

Telephone: 612-472-2564 FAX: 612-472-2564

Harnett, James D. Agr Commissioner & Sealer Orange Co Wghts & Meas

1010 S Harbor Blvd Anaheim, CA 92805-5597

Telephone: 714-447-7110 ¥AX: 714-774-2741

Harris, Georgia

Metrologist Office Wts & Meas NIST

Bldg 101 A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4014 FAX: 301-926-0647

Hayes, Ronald G.

Fuel Quality Program Adm MO Dept of Agriculture PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Telephone: 314-751-2922 FAX: 314-751-8307

12365 Hays, John U.

Director AZ Dept of Weights & Measures 9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone: 602-255-521 lExt2962 FAX: 602-255-1950

2901 Hazarian, Emil

Metrologist Los Angeles County W & M

11012 Garfield Ave

South Gate, CA 90280-7598

Telephone: 310-940-8931 FAX: 310-861-0278 9094 Heck, David K. Mgr Mkt Legislation & Regs Chevron USA Products Co

575 Market St Room 2236

San Francisco, CA 94105-2856

Telephone: 415-894-0910 FAX: 415-894-5038 25712 Heffron, Edward C.

Director Food Division Ml Dept of Agriculture PO Box 30017

Lansing, Ml 48909

Telephone: 517-373-1060 FAX: 517-373-3333 9724 Hendrix, Jan

Inspector III San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way Suite D

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-549-5910 FAX: 805-546-1035 7774 Herken, Karl

State Metrologist KS Weights & Measures 2016 SW 37h Street Topeka, KS 66611-2570

. Telephone: 913-267-0278 FAX: 913-267-2518 9324 Herman, Marilyn J. President Herman & Associates 2300 M St NW Suite 800

Washington, DC 20037

Telephone: 202-775-1630 FAX: 202-293-3083

9061 Hey, Robert E. Operations Sys & Dev Coord Wal Mart Stores Inc 702 SW 8th Street Bentonville, AR 72716-8048

Telephone: 501-273-6876 FAX: 501-273-4857

23425 Heydemann, Peter

Director of Technology Svcs NIST

Bldg 221 A363

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4500

Hile, James Michael 30406 Director AR Bureau of Standards 4608 West 61st St

Little Rock, AR 72209

Telephone: 501-324-9680 FAX: 501-562-7605

Hinton, James

11242 Senior Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2778 FAX: 619-565-7046

Hizer, Cresswell A. 2452 Director IN Commodity Whse Licensing 150 West Market Ste 416 ISTA Ctr

Indianapolis, FN 46204

Telephone: 317-232-1356 FAX: 317-232-1362 Hlutkowsky, Roman

9650 Manager Technology Development Roadway Package System PO Box 108

Pittsburgh, PA 15230

Telephone: 412-262-6041 FAX: 412-262-7311

Hochstetler, Herman R. 2320 Inspector Elkhart Co Wghts & Meas

117 N 2nd Room 107 Goshen, IN 46526-3231

Telephone: 219-535-6472 FAX: 219-533-4431

Holland, Frances P. 9091 Regulatory Affairs Schlumberger Technologies 825 Greenbriar Circle #M

Chesapeake, VA 23320-2638

Telephone: 804-366-4400 xl62 FAX: 804-424-2746 Holmes, Susan L. 25800 Quality Engineer Manager

Jerome Foods Inc 34 N 7th Street Barron, WI 54812

Telephone: 715-537-3131 Hopper, Monty H.

Director Kern Co Weights & Measures

1116 East California Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93307

Telephone: 805-861-2418 FAX: 805-324-0668

3018('

254581

5855

22303 it

1 1 132 A

446
List of Participants

. tioran, Michael A.

Administrator rN Weights & Measures

J330 W Michigan St

'ndianapolis, IN 46206

Telephone: 317-633-0350 |pAX: 317-633-0776

Hostetler, Ronald J. Denver Region Scale Inspector Burlington Northern Railroad 201 N 7th

_incoln, NE 68501

Telephone: 402-473-4336

,pAX: 402-473-4313 k

Huff, Richard M.

V ice President Electronics

i^niversal Epsco Inc

I ,J494 Ellsworth Ind Dr Box 93544

Adanta, GA 30318

Telephone: 404-351-2740 FAX: 404-351-2899

Hull, Thomas

I Sat'l Sales Manager

! ^ricer Inc

I 1 804 North Naper Blvd

I \aperville, IL 60563

telephone: 208-505-5815 .Humphreys, Roy

Director

; vlO Dept of Agriculture

! 1616 Missouri Blvd

1 !cfrerson City, MO 65102-0281

Telephone: 314-751-4316 =AX: 314-751-0281

Hunter, Jr., Francis R.

nspector III vionterey Co Wghts & Meas

Box 402

^ebble Beach, CA 93953

Ifelephone: 408-758-3876

' AX: 408-422-5003

{(nsalaco, Cosmo C. Agr Commissioner Sealer =resno Co Wghts & Meas

1730 South Maple

'resno, CA 93702

Telephone: 209-456-7510 ^AX: 209-456-7379

elssaev, L. K.

Vice-President jzomm of Russian Fed Standards p

Leninsky Prospect

IVloscow, 117049

•Russia Telephone: 7-095-236-7560 AX: 7-095-237-60

8153 Izmirian, Carnig

Engineering Manager DVCO Fuel Systems Inc 702 W 48th Ave Unit J Denver, CO 80216

Telephone:

Jacob, Sam

9662 Specialist Shell Oil Co PO Box 100 Deer Park, TX 77536

Telephone: 713-246-7379 FAX: 713-246-7936

Jacobs, Elise 10608 Deputy District Attorney

Riverside DA Office 4075 Main Street Riverside, CA 42501

Telephone: 909-275-3493 Jamora, Joseph W.

Chief Inspector 30537 Los Angeles Co Wghts & Meas

11012 Garfield Ave

South Gate, CA 90280

Telephone: 213-940-8926

Jeffries, Jack Y. Consumer Protection Adm

30272 FL Division of Standards 3125 Conner Blvd Room 133

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 904-487-2634 FAX: 904-922-8971

Jennings, Randy F. Petroleum Administrator 7783 TN Dept of Agriculture PO Box 40627 Melrose Station Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0147 FAX: 615-360-0335

Jex, Glen H.

Chief

107 ID Bureau of Wghts & Meas

2216 Kellogg Lane

Boise, ID 83712

Telephone: 208-334-2345 FAX: 208-334-2170

Jimenez, Gerard

Inspection Field Supervisor 3829 AZ Dept of Weights & Measures 9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone; 602-255-5211 FAX: 602-255-1950

Joelson, Mark R. General Counsel

Gasoline Pump Mfg Assn

1 800 M Street N W

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: 202-467-7240 FAX: 202-467-7176

25724 Johannes, Dennis

Program Supervisor CA Measurement Standards 8500 Fruitridge Road

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-387-4241 FAX: 916-387-4260 30252

Johnson, Gordon W.

Principal Regulatory Engineer

Gilbarco Inc 7300 West Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27420

Telephone: 910-547-5375 FAX: 910-547-5516

30531 Johnson, Jean M.

Marketing Associate American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005-4070

Telephone: 202-682-8227 7727 FAX: 202-682-8222

Johnson, Robert L. Director Work Methods Winn Dixie Stores Inc 5050 Edgewood Ct

Jacksonville, FL 32254-3699 2199 Telephone: 904-783-5239

Johnson, Ted F. Director of Marketing

Sensortronics Inc 677 Arrow Grand Circle Covina, CA 91722

Telephone: 818-331-0502

10648 FAX: 818-332-3418

Joines, Debbie A.

Sr Design Engineer Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802-1859

Telephone: 410-546-6699 7260 FAX: 410-548-6913

Jones, Belva W.

Associate Director

Nat'l Assn of Margarine Mfg

1101 15th StNW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-785-3232 3035 FAX: 202-223-9791

Jorowski, Gerry A. Program Officer Consumer Prod

Industry & Science Canada Off

50 Victoria St Place Du Portage I Hull Quebec, KIA 0C9

Canada

4238 Telephone: 819-953-3645 FAX: 819-953-293

447
List of Participants Kammerer, Mike

Vice President Ecogas Corp 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway

Austin, TX 78730

Telephone: 512-338-9874 FAX: 512-338-4569

Koenig, Joan A. Weights & Measures Coordinator NIST

Bldg 101 Rm A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4007 FAX: 301-926-0647

Kushnir, Dan

Sales Manager

Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Ave

Rancocas, NJ 08073

Telephone: 800-573-6322 FAX: 800-373-6322

Keadle, Robert L. Sealer Monterey Co Dept of Agr

120 Wilgart Way

Salinas, CA 93901

Telephone: 408-758-3876 FAX: 408-422-5003 Keehan, Jenny L. Manager State Programs

Internal' 1 Mass Retail Assn

1901 Pennsylvania Ave Ste 1000

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: 202-861-0774 FAX: 202-861-4588

Keilty, Michael J. Custody Transfer Manager

Micro Motion Inc 7070 Winchester Circle Boulder, CO 80301

Telephone: 303-530-8231 FAX: 303-530-8209

Kelley, Robert B. Deputy Director Chief W&M

NYC Dept of Consumer Affairs 42 Broadway 8th Floor New York, NY 10004

Telephone: 212-487-4328 FAX: 212-487-4314

Kelly, Thomas W.

Retired Food Council 737 Evergreen Parkway

Union, NJ 07083

Telephone: 908-686-2960 Kimura, Wayne K.

Inspector I Kern Co Weights & Measures 800 S. Victoria Ave.

Ventura, CA 93309

Telephone: 805-861-2418 FAX: 805-324-0668

Kloos, Chip

Lab Manager-R & D

Hunt-Wesson Inc 1645 W Valencia Dr

Fullerton, CA 92633-3899

Telephone: 714-680-1098 FAX: 714-449-5166

22318

11672

228

Kohut, Jim

Manager of Approvals

Kraus Industries Ltd 204 Day Street Winnipeg Manitoba, R2C L

Canada

Telephone: 204-988-1234 FAX: 204-654-2881

Kopczynski, Ted

Product Marketing Manager

Hardy Instruments Inc 3860 Calle Fortunada San Diego, CA 92123-1825

Telephone: 619-535-8200 FAX: 619-546-9449

Korth, William H. Manager

Ventura Co Wghts & Meas

800 S Victoria Ave #1750

Ventura, CA 93009

Telephone: 805-654-2446 FAX: 805-645-2630

Krebs, Michele NIST

Bldg 101 A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone:

Krejci, David James

Executive Vice President Grain Elevator & Processing 301 Fourth Ave South

Minneapolis, MN 55415-0026

Telephone: 612-339-4625 FAX: 612-339-4644

Krueger, Dennis Manager Industry Standards Scanner Business Unit AT&T

2651 Satellite Boulevard

Duluth, GA 30136-5810

Telephone: 404-623-7743 FAX: 404-623-7827 Kupper, Walter E. Director Tech & Reg Affairs Mettler-Toledo Inc PO Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520-0071

Telephone: 800-638-8537 x88( FAX: 609-443-5972

3930

Lagemann, William 7976

Administrator Wghts & Meas DE Dept of Agriculture 2320 S Dupont Hwy

Dover, DE 19901

Telephone: 302-739-4811 x37 FAX: 302-697-6287 Lammers, Leon 28830

Vice President Engineering Weigh-Tronix Inc 1000 Armstrong Dr PO Box 1000

Fairmont, MN 56031

Telephone: 800-533-0456 FAX: 517-238-4195 Lamoke, Mary Pat 30538

Marketing Manager

Pricer Inc 1804 North Naper Blvd

Naperville, IL 60363-8800

Telephone: 708-505-5814 FAX: 708-505-4232 Land, Robert L. 187

Director Anderson Weights & Measures PO Box 2100 120 E 8th St Anderson, IN 46011

Telephone: 317-646-9839 FAX: 317-646-5668

Layaye, Edouard 30309

Director San Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

777 E Realto Avenue

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

Telephone: 714-387-2136 FAX: 714-387-2143

Lazier, David 7934

Branch Chief CA Measurement Standards 8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-387-4241 FAX: 916-387-4260 Le Feuvre, Richard M. 7796

Deputy Sealer II Orange Co Wghts & Meas

1010 S Harbor Blvd Anaheim, CA 92805

Telephone: 714-447-7100 FAX: 714-774-2741

448
List of Participants ^ahy, Tom

rector of Engineering Lake Weighing Systems 0 West Coleman PO Box 272

;e Lake, WI 54868

Jephone: 715-234-9171

^X: 715-234-6967

'•Caire, Jr., Robert A.

anager Quality Assurance

esto Products Co

« N Perkins St

.pleton, WI 54914-3133

Hephone: 414-739-9471 iX: 414-738-1458

^-hman, Herb

pector

IS Angeles Co Wghts & Meas

€12 Garfield Avenue

luth Gate, CA 90280

•lephone: 310-940-8931

slie, George H.

oduct Engineer

teder Root Co

1 Ave at Bums Crossing

I toona, PA 16602

I Jephone: 814-696-8140

ikX: 814-695-7605

*esey, Philip T.

'lief Inspector

I s Angeles Co Wghts & Meas

012 Garfield Ave

I uth Gate, CA 90280

I

iephone: 213-940-8936

I tcklin, Keith W.

I ;x Supt & Conagra Com

j'ain Elev & Processing Soc

I ) Box 640

1 chison, KS 66002

iephone: 913-367-3251

t'iX: 913-367-3826

»dge, Harvey M.

Jgotec Inc

\'i Broadway

.anton, OH 43558

iiephone: 419-825-2331

|iX: 419-826-8439

•pez, Robert

ipector 1 n Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

' 56 Sierra Way Suite D

, n Luis Obispo, CA 93401

(iephone: 805-549-5910 kx: 805-546-1035

;ird, Chris

JiLine Connecting Point jAutrey

ine, CA 92718

Iephone: 714-472-9000 Ext352

25890

Lori, Anthony

Superintendent Morris Co Wghts & Meas PO Box 900

Morristown, NJ 07963

Telephone: 201-285-2955 FAX: 201-285-6075

Loveless, Elizabeth

Secretary NIST

BIdg 101 A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4004 FAX: 301-926-0647

Loyd, Jr., Forrest Joe

Sr Mgr Eng Matis & Scales CSX Transportation Inc 500 Water St J350

Jacksonville, FL 32202

Telephone: 904-359-1024 FAX: 904-359-7476

Lucking, HI, William A.

Inspector Ventura Co Wghts & Meas

800 S Victoria Ave

Ventura, CA 93009

Telephone: 805-654-24425 FAX: 805-648-9212

Lunceford, David

Regional Laboratory Manager

Inchcape Testing Services 7305 South State Road 69 Mt Vernon, IN 47620

Telephone: 812-838-9546

Lupro, Barbara

Taxi Cab Administrator San Diego MTDB

1255 Imperial Ste 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490

Telephone: 619-231-1466 MacKenzie, Stephen

Inspector II San Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

777 E Rialto Avenue

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

Telephone: 714-387-2140 FAX: 714-387-2143 Makowski, Ona R.

Technical Manager

Anheuser Busch Inc 2922 South Bdway Bldg 82-2

St Louis, MO 63118

Telephone: 314-577-2197 FAX: 314-577-2116 Malone, Steven A.

Director NE Div of Wghts & Meas

Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall South

Lincoln, NE 68509

Telephone: 402-471-4292 FAX: 402-471-3252

Marceau, Renald

Senior Program Officer Legal Metrology Branch

301 Laurier Ave West 5th Fl Ottawa, KIA 0C9

Canada

Telephone: 613-952-2629 FAX: 613-952-1736

Marcouiller, Sheryl A.

Senior Food & Drug Counsel

Kraft General Foods Inc 250 North Street N2-1

White Plains, NY 10625-2758

Telephone: 914-335-3242 FAX: 914-335-5713 Marino, Patrick

Technical Service Manager New Brunswick Intematl Inc 76 Veronica Ave

Somerset, NJ 08873

Telephone: 201-828-3633 FAX: 201-828-4884

Martell, Bruce

Supervisor Consumer Assur Div VT Dept of Agriculture 116 State St Drawer 20

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901

Telephone: 802-828-2436 FAX: 802-828-2361 Martus, Robert

Inspector 11 San Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

777 E Rialto Avenue

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

Telephone: 909-387-2140 FAX: 909-387-2143

Massey, Vernon Lee

Sealer Shelby Co Weights & Measures

157 Poplar Suite 402 Memphis, TN 38103

Telephone: 901-576-3920 FAX: 901-576-3796

Massie, Thomas D

Division of Enforcement

Federal Trade Commission

6th and Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: 202-326-2982 FAX: 202-326-3259

Matthys, Steven A.

Inspector II San Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

777 E Rialto Ave

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

Telephone: 909-387-2140 FAX: 909-387-2143

449
List of Participants

Mattia, Michael A.

Director Risk Management

Institute for Scrap Recycling

1325 G Street N W Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20005-3104

Telephone: 202-737-1770 FAX: 202-775-9109

Michel, Tom

Meas Stds Spec III CA Measurement Standards 8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-387-4259 FAX: 916-387-3158

Moreno, Louis G.

Director Cumberland Co W & M Cons Prot 788 East Commerce St Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Telephone: 609-453-2204 FAX: 609-453-2206

2218.;

McCarty, Robert F. Vice President-Marketing Custom Technical Services Corp

60788 Southgate Rd PO Box 39

Cambridge, OH 43725-0039

Telephone: 614-439-7400 FAX: 614-439-7778 McCoy, Angelique

Inspector Columbus Weights & Measures

50 West Gay Street Columbus, OH 43215-2821

Telephone: 614-645-7397 FAX: 614-645-6675 McGuire, Stephen E. Metrologist Wghts & Meas

IL Dept of Agriculture POBox 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-785-8480 FAX: 217-524-7801 McKaige, Stuart Pitney-Bowes

1 Parrot Dr

Shelton, CT 06484 ; Telephone: FAX: 203-925-3955 McKay, David O.

Supervisor Weights & Measures UT Dept of Agriculture 350 N Redwood Rd

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Telephone: 801-538-7158 FAX: 801-538-7126 Meche, Myron

Legislative Representative

National Retail Federation 325 7th StNW Ste 1000

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: 202-783-7971 FAX: 202-737-2849 Mendonca, Alexandre C. Marketing Director ELC Security Products Inc 530 Eleventh Avenue

San Diego, CA 92101-7220

Telephone: 619-234-9203 FAX: 619-234-0523

8438

Michell, Jr., Charles W.

Staff Loss Control Rep

Shell Oil Co PO Box 2463 OSP 2272

Houston, TX 77252

Telephone: 713-241-0455 FAX: 713-241-1139

Millay, Stanley K. Weights & Measures Supervisor ME Dept Agriculture MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841 FAX: 207-287-7548

Millspaugh, Lance C.

Inspector III San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way Suite D

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-549-5910 FAX: 805-546-1035

Mindte, Joan

Training Coordinator NIST

Bldg 101 A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4003 FAX: 301-926-0647 Moody, Kelleen K.

Metrologist AZ Dept of Weights & Measures 9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone: 602-255-521 lExt2229 FAX: 602-255-1950 Moore, Charles W.

Inspector Madison Co Wghts & Meas

Govt Center 16 E 9th St Box 15 Anderson, IN 460161

Telephone: 317-641-9662 FAX: 317-641-9486

Moreillon, James M.

Inspector Floyd Co Wghts & Meas

1203 Westwood Lane New Albany, IN 47150

Telephone: 812-948-5351

Moriora, Marynn

OnLine Connecting Point

8 Autry

Irvine, CA 92718

Telephone: 714-472-9000

Morris, Colin

Regional Manager West Coast

Inchcape Testing Services PO Box 90847 Long Beach, CA 90809-0847

Telephone: 310-494-4999 FAX: 310-494-4498

Morrison, Stephen F. Chief Deputy Sealer San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way Suite D

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-549-5910 FAX: 805-546-1035

Mosse, Charles H.

Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Avenue

San Diego, CA 90123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2778 FAX: 619-565-7046

Motz, Randy Alan

General Manager

Scale People Inc 10101-K Bacon Dr

Beltsville, MD 20705-2102

Telephone: 301-595-5880 FAX: 301-595-0816 Mousseau, Robert

Regional Manager

Canadian Grain Commission Room200 401 St Nicholas Montreal Quebec, H2Y 2P5 Canada

Telephone: 514-283-3873 FAX: 514-283-7699 Muckerheide, Lynn A.

Director Marketing & Sales ConAgra Grocery Products Pkg

9 ConAgra Drive Omaha, NE 68102-5009

Telephone: 402-595-4453 FAX: 402-595-4489

25891,1

2600^^

30523

30496!

450
List of Participants

•rlurdock, Rooald D. Togram Mgr Meas Sec Stds Div

«C Dept of Agriculture

'O Box 27647 Dept SD

_aleigh, NC 27611

elephone: 919-733-3313

lAX: 919-715-0524

Nichols, Phil G.

Regional Manager WWIB Transportation Services 906 Olive St Suite 450

St Louis, MO 63119

Telephone: 314-231-1919 FAX: 314-231-0044

Olsen, Ted

Senior Inspector San Diego Co Dpt AgAVts & Meas

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2778 FAX: 619-565-7046

lurray, Larr>'

'hief Engineer

ayne Div-Dresser Industries 24 W College Ave PO Box 1859

alisbury, MD 21802-1859

."elephone: 410-546-6690

:'!AX: 301-548-6913

Nicol, Nicki

President & CEO

Nicol Scales Inc PO Box 222288

Dallas, TX 75222-2288

Telephone: 214-428-8181 FAX: 214-428-8127

Onwiler, Don

Moisture Tester Inspector NE Public Service Comm

PO Box 94927 1200 N St Ste 300

Lincoln, NE 68509

Telephone: 402-471-3101 FAX: 402-471-0254

iuse, Donald R.

)irector nyo & Mono Co Wghts & Meas

07 West South Street

tishop, CA 93514

elephone: 619-873-7860 AX: 619-872-1610

•ieary, Mike

account Manager

JnLine Connecting Point Autry

rvine, CA 92718

"elephone: 310-337-7800 EXT2 10

•kelson, Allan M.

director Weights & Measures

IT Dept of Consumer Protection 65 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

"elephone: 203-566-4778

•AX: 203-566-7630

•ielson, Charles

./leas Stds Spec III 2.\ Measurement Standards

-.500 Fruitridge Road

.Jacramento, CA 95826

I 'elephone: 916-387-4250 AX: 916-387^260

\ii'ewsome, William R

i-lead Deputy City Attorney

iian Diego Attorney's Office

1.200 Third Avenue Ste 700

|;an Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: 619-533-5500 =AX: 619-533-5504

'Sichols, Patrick E.

pirector Weights & Measures Alameda Co Wghts & Measures

1533 Fifth Street 'Dakland, CA 94607-4189

'felephone: 510-268-7343 AX: 510-444-3879

4050 Nielsen, Dawn

Agr Commissioner Sam Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overiand Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92124

Telephone: 619-694-2762

Never, Neal J. 25894 VP Marketing

Nover-Engelstein Assc 2077 Grand Street Scotch Plains, NJ 07086-1338

Telephone: 609-489-1817 FAX: 609-489-1817

2515 Nyberg, Thomas

Supv Agr Standards Specialist Fresno Co Wghts & Meas

1730 S Maple

Fresno, CA 93702

Telephone: 209-456-7510 FAX: 209-456-7379

10077 O'Bryan, Oral "Pete" R. QA Manager

Foster Farms PO Box 457

Livingston, CA 95334-9900

Telephone: 209-394-7901 x4610 FAX: 209-394-6913

30526 O'Connor, Thomas

Director Technical Service National Grain & Feed Assn

1201 New York Ave NW Suite 830

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-289-0873 FAX: 202-289-5388

110 Oakes, Bryan

Vice President Engineering

Structural Instrumentation 4611 S 134th Place Tukwila, WA 98168

Telephone: 206-244-6100 FAX: 206-246-7195

Oppermann, Henry V. Deputy Chief Office Wts & Meas NIST

Bldg 101 A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4008 FAX: 301-926-0647

Papageorge, Thomas A. Head Deputy District Atty San Diego Atty's Office 201 N Figueroa St Rm 1600 San Diego, CA 92677

Telephone: 213-580-3305 FAX: 213-580-3399

Parent, Claude

7 Eastwood Drive

Orinda, CA 94563

Telephone: 510-376-5697

Pearce, David J. NGV Business Mgr

Sulzer USA Inc 2901 Wilcrest #450

Houston, TX 77429

Telephone: 713-780-4200 FAX: 713-780-2848

Peeples, James E. Director Legislative Affairs Information Resources Inc 1925 N Lynn Street Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 22209

Telephone: 703-528-2500 FAX: 703-528-1603

Pekor, James S. Manager-Energy Services

Equitable Gas Co

Allegheny Center Mall Suite 2000

Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5352

Telephone: 412-442-3106 FAX: 412-442-3155

Penn, Louis

Assistant Commissioner

Dept Licensing & Cons Affs

1 Sub Base Room 205

St Thomas, VI 00802

Telephone: 809-774-3130 FAX: 809-776-0675

451
List of Participants

Penn, Tom

Project Manager

Target Stores 33 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402

Telephone: 612-370-8428 FAX: 612-334-6416

Peterson, Paul L. Chief USDA Packers & Stockyards Adm

14th & Independence SW Rm 3414 S Washington, DC 20250

Telephone: 202-720-3140 FAX: 202-690-2173

Phillips, David

Director of Technology

Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition 1515 Wilson Blvd Ste 1030

Arlington, VA 22209

Telephone: 703-527-3022 FAX: 703-527-3025

Phillips, DeVern H.

State Sealer KS Weights & Measures 2016 SW 37th St Topeka, KS 66611-2570

Telephone: 913-267-4641 FAX: 913-267-2518

Phillips, Jim

Deputy Inspector Delaware Co Weights & Measures County Bldg 100 West Main Room 20

Muncie, IN 47305

Telephone; 317-747-7714

Philmon, Richard L. Program Coordinator

IL Dept of Agriculture 801 E Sangamon Ave

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-782-3817 FAX: 217-524-7801

Pierce, Richard

Leader Type Approval Group USDA FGIS

10383 N Executive Hills Blvd

Kansas City, MO 64153

Telephone: 816-891-0449 FAX: 816-891-8070

Pinagel, Michael S. Chief Inspector/ Metrologist ND Public Service Commission

State Capitol Bldg 12th Floor Bismarck, ND 58505-0480

Telephone: 701-224-3337 FAX: 701-224-3337

25954 Pittman, Cathryn F. Technologist TN Dept of Agr Wghts & Meas

440 Hogan Rd PO Box 40627

Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0159 FAX: 615-360-0194 248 Plann, Dennis C. Deputy Agr Commissioner Sealer Fresno Co Wghts & Meas

1730 S Maple

Fresno, CA 93702

Telephone: 209-456-7510 FAX: 209-456-7379 24693 Porter, Alan

Program Manager Wghts & Meas WI Dept of Agriculture 801 W Badger Road Box 8911 Madison, WI 53708

Telephone: 608-266-7244 FAX: 608-266-7205

10619 Price, Edwin J. Director for Consumer Programs TX Dept of Agriculture PO Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

Telephone: 512-463-7607 FAX: 512-475-1618 28854 Price, Richard B.

Sealer Butte Co Weights & Measures 316 Nelson Avenue

Orovilie, CA 95965-3302

Telephone: 916-538-7381 FAX: 916-538-7594 9168

Prince, Gale Manager Regulatory Compliance

Kroger Co

1014 Vine St

Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100

Telephone: 513-762-4209 FAX: 513-762-4372 13794

Proctor, Francine

Consulting Editor

California Grocers Assn 906 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: 916-448-3545 22299 Quinn, David W.

Vice President Heavy Cap Mkt

Fairbanks Scales 821 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106

Telephone: 816-471-0231 Ramonette, Rich

Vice President/Real Estate Hughes Family Markets 14005 Live Oak Avenue

Imidale, CA 91706

Telephone: 818-836-6080 FAX: 818-856-6020

2403 Rasberry, Stanley D.

Dir Office of Measurement Svcs NIST

Physics Building A- 354

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4861 Raymond, William J. 10816 Director of Operations Accurate Metering Systems Inc 1651 Wilkening Road

Schaumburg, IL 60173

Telephone: 708-882-0690 FAX: 708-882-2695 Regan, Claire 8752 Director of Scientific Affs Grocery Manufacturers of Amer

1010 Wisconsin NW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20007

Telephone: 202-237-9900

Reinfried, Robert A.

Technical Assistant 2434 Scale Manufacturers Assn

932 Hungerford Drive #36

Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone: 301-738-2448 FAX: 301-738-0076 Retrum, Stanley C.

Staff Engineer 7644 Shell Oil Co

777 Walker-TSP1132

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: 713-241-1794 FAX: 713-241-7166 Rhoades, Sharon

Chief Enforcement Officer 10651 AZ Dept of Wghts & Meas

9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone: 602-255-521 lExt2963 FAX: 602-255-1950

Richter, Peter J. Grocery Products Manager

30529 Cargill Inc 715 E 13th St Wichita, KS 67214

Telephone: 316-292-2230 FAX: 316-292-2233

Robertson, Kenneth L.

1 1509 Operations Systems Director Wal-Mart Stores Inc 702 SW 8th Street Bentonville, AR 72716

Telephone: 501-273-4033 FAX: 501-273-4857 30522 Robinson, John J. Sr Assistant Vice President Assn of American Railroads 50 F St NW Suite 6200

Washington, DC 20001

Telephone: 202-639-2204 FAX: 202-639-2930

26003

30497

452
I List of Participants

Coeper, Glen

Manager Government Compliance

'ens Companies Inc

18 Michillinda Avenue

^cadia, CA 91007-6300

elephone: 818-821-3758

.AX: 818-821-7929

Santos, Luis F. Inspector II Div Wghts & Meas

VI Dept Licensing & Con Affs Golden Rock Shopping Center

Chistiansted St Croix, VI 00820

Telephone: 809-773-2226 X 25 FAX: 809-778-8250

5332 Silvestro, Joseph

Superintendent Consumer ProtectionAVgts & Msr

152 N Broad St Box 337 Woodbury, NJ 08096

Telephone: 609-853-3358 FAX: 609-853-2770

Cogers, David F.

-letrolog) Lab Supervisor

riartin Marietta Energy Systems

'O Box 2003

)ak Ridge, TN 37831-7219

elephone: 615-574-8353

iAX: 615-574-5037

12838 Saum, Brett Meas Stds Specialist III CA Measurement Standards 2550 Mariposa St Rm 3044

Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: 209-445-5403 FAX: 209-445-5268

1503 Siraila, Kendrick J. Adm Meas Stds Div OR Dept of Agriculture 635 Capitol Street N E

Salem. OR 97310-0110

Telephone: 503-373-0964

F.AX: 503-378-6525

togers, J. .\lan rjgram Manager

'A Weights & Measures Bureau 0 Box 1 163 Rm 402

.ichmond. VA 23209-1163

elephone: 804-786-2476

.AX: 804-786-1571

Cosario-Fred, Edmundo

'cchnician .Aid uerto Rico Consumer Affairs •O Box 41059 Manillas Station

.anturce, PR 00940

elephone: 809-724-5153

.\X: 809-726-6570

Cothleder, Joseph

Tincipal State Metrologist Measurement Standards

I 500 Fruitridge Rd

acramento, CA 95826

elephone: 916-387-4256

..AX: 916-387-4260

toussy, Sonia

»gente de Programme

ndustry & Science Canada Off

I 1 Laurier Ave West 5th Floor

'Jnawa. K.1A0C9

'anada

."elephone: 613-952-4285

AX: 613-952-1736

tyhanych, Marty

Ir.vestigator

|.anta Cruz Co Wghts & Meas

"5 Westridge Drive

\ atonsville, CA 95076

; elephone: 408-454-2620 AX: 408-763-8234

ialerno, Albert E.

('resident .yracuse Scale Co Inc 58 Solar St

..racuse, NY 13204

i "elephone: 315-476-9696

•AX: 315-476-3743

9374 Schaffer, Dennis

Marketing Product Manager TEC America Inc 4401 A Bankers Circle AUanta, GA 30360

Telephone: 404-449-3040 FAX: 404-449-1152 9077 Scott, Timothy \V. Engineering Manager

Brooks Instrument Division PC Box 450

Statesboro, GA 30458

Telephone: 912-764-5471 FAX: 912-764-2538

3495 Scrivener. Thomas F. President

Frazier Precision Instrument 925 Sweeney Dr

Hagerstown, MD 21740

Telephone: 301-790-2585

Searcy, Vicki 12899 Director Wghts & Meas KY Dept of Agriculture 106 West 2nd Street Frankfort, KY 40601

Telephone: 502-564-4870 FAX: 502-564-5669

Sebring, Lynn NIST

11905 Bldg 101 A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20855

Telephone:

Seeber, Fred

Shore Sales Co Inc Airport Industrial Park

Paxton, IL 60957

12232 Telephone: 217-379-4702 FAX: 217-379-3995

Sehgel, Herbert

Chief Supervisor NJ Weights and Measures

1261 US Route 1 & 9 South

Avenel, NJ 07001

Telephone: 908-815-4840

3911 Simpkins, Curtis E. Inspector Grant Co Wghts & Meas

418 South Adams St Grant Co Complex

Marion, IN 46952

Telephone: 317-668-8871 xl70

Skonberg, Carl M.

3780 United Parcel Sen ice-Res & Dv

51-53 Kenosia Avenue

Danbur}', CT 06810-7317

Telephone: 203-731-6376 FAX: 203-731-6340

Skuce, John C. Manager Mechanical Engineering 15&19 Smith Meter Inc PO Box 10428

Erie, PA 16514-0428

Telephone: 814-898-5405 FAX: 814-899-3414 Smart, Bret S. S0090 Program Advisor LA Reg Office Federal Trade Commission

1 1000 Wilshire Blvd Ste 13209

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Telephone: 310-575-7974 FAX: 310-575-7406

Smith, Arthur L. ?3996 President

Retirees Group Western W & M

4020 American River Drive Sacramento, CA 95864

Telephone: 916-489-6186

5177 Smith, Martin R. Product Analyst Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646-8800

Telephone: 803-223-1212 FAX: 803-223-0341 6043

Smith, N. David

Director Standards Division NC Dept of Agriculture PO Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

Telephone: 919-733-3313 FAX: 919-715-0524

453
List of Participants

Smith, Robert M.

Sr Electronic Engineer Smith Meter Inc 1602 Wagner Avenue

Erie, PA 16514

Telephone: 814-898-5000 FAX: 814-899-3414

Stubbleneld III, James

Vice President Tren-Fuels Inc 701 Brazos Suite 520

Austin, TX 78701

Telephone: 512-320-1421 FAX: 512-320-1422

13980 Thuner, Jeffrey Supervising Spec Investigator CA Div of Measurement Stds 169 East Liberty Avenue

Anaheim, CA 92801

Telephone: 714-680-7896 FAX: 714-449-7249 Smoot, Rob R.

Senior Engineer Metro 600 N E Grand Avenue

Portland, OR 97232

Telephone: 503-797-1689 FAX: 503-797-1795

Suiter, Richard C. Agr Inspector Supervisor NE Div of Wghts & Meas PO Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall S

Lincoln, NE 68509

Telephone: 402-471-4292 FAX: 402-471-3252

2368 Thuner, Kathleen A. Agr Comm Sealer Wghts & Meas

San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2741 FAX: 619-565-7046

Snider, Dwain

Program Administrator

Missouri Weights & Measures PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630

Telephone: 314-751-5639 FAX: 314-751-0281 Solomona, Silimusa

Inspector IV AS Dept of Legal Affairs PO Box 7 Pago Pago, AS 96799

Telephone: 684-633-5647

Sperling, Gilbert P. General Counsel

Katten Muchin Davis & Dombroff

1025 Thomas Jefferson St Ste 700

Washington, DC 20007-5201

Telephone: 202-625-3626

Stabler, Thomas M.

Manager Weigiits & Measures

Mettler-Toledo Inc PO Box 1705 Columbus, OH 43216

Telephone: 614-438-4548 FAX: 614-438-4995

Stephans, William

Supervising Stds Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2778 FAX: 619-565-7046

Straub, Louis E. Chief Weights & Measures MD Dept of Agriculture 50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790 FAX: 410-841-2765

Strawn, Chuck

Director of Marketing Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald Road Greemwood, SC 29646-8800

Telephone: 803-942-2247

28852 Szyndrowski, Chester

Inspector East Chicago Wghts & Meas

1102 W 151 Street East Chicago, IN 46312

Telephone: 219-397-3409 Tanner, Michael J. 3 1 89 Director Merced Co Wghts & Meas

2139 Wardrobe Avenue

Merced, CA 95340-6495

Telephone: 209-385-7431 FAX: 209-385-7439 25575 Tholen, Albert D. Chief Lab Accreditation Prog NIST

Bldg 411 Div 214

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4017 FAX: 301-926-0647 3119 Thompson, Aves D. Chief AK Div of Measurement Stds 12050 Industry Way Bldg O

Anchorage, AK 99515

Telephone: 907-345-7750 FAX: 907-345-6835

13615 Thompson, Bradley Merrill

Partner Baker & Daniels 300 N Meridian St Ste 2700

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Telephone: 317-237-0300 FAX: 317-237-1000 6248 Thompson, Merrill S. Attorney Baker & Daniels PO Box 8500 Main Street Bridgeton, IN 47836

Telephone: 317-548-2211 FAX: 317-548-2214 22148

10302 Tillson, John M.

Director Consumer Prot Div MS Dept of Agriculture PO Box 1609

Jackson, MS 39215-1609

Telephone: 601-354-7063 FAX: 601-354-6001

146

Tonini, Daryl E. Technical Director Scale Manufacturers Assn

932 Hungerford Drive #36

Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone: 301-738-2448 FAX: 301-738-0076 232

Tovey, Michael

President

Interface Incorporated 7401 E Butherus Dr

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Telephone: 602-948-5555 FAX: 602-948-1924

10201

Traettino, Robert M.

Vice President of Quality Liquid Controls Corp

105 Albrecht Drive Lake Bluff, IL 60044-9951

Telephone: 708-295-1056 x300 FAX: 708-295-1089 329

Truex, James C.

Acting Chief Wghts & Meas OH Dept of Agriculture 8995 E Main St Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-866-6361 FAX: 614-866-4174

590 Tucker, Richard Manager Dept of Authorities Tokheim Corporation PO Box 360

Ft Wayne, IN 46801

Telephone: 219-470-4610 FAX: 219-482-5036

454
List of Participants

•urner, Ann H.

heights & Measures Coordinator

id Conf on Wts & Meas D Box 4025

aithersburg, MD 20885

ilephone: 301-975-4012 KX: 301-926-0647

236 Wallace, David R. Chief Meas Standards Section CO Dept of Agriculture 3125 Wyandot St Denver, CO 80211

Telephone: 303-866-2845 FAX: 303-866-2836

4475 Weeth, George E. Agri Comm Sealer of W & M

San Franciso Co Wghts & Meas

501 Army Street # 109-A San Francisco, CA 94124

Telephone: 415-285-5012 FAX: 415-285-8776

W'assenhove, Greg

;aler anta Clara Co Wghts & Meas

S53 Berger Dr Bldg 1 an Jose, CA 95112

Elephone: 408-299-4701 KX: 408-286-2460

illicana, Daniel

55t Dir em Co Wghts & Meas

16 E California Ave

akersfield. CA 93307

;lephone: 805-861-5418

inet, Gilles .'ogram Officer

egal Metrology Canada

01 Laurier Ave West 5th Floor t^wa, KIA 0C9

enada

ilephone: 613-952-2628 \X: 613-952-1736

lorraittag, Thomas

ab Manager Black Mesa

ommercial Testing & Eng Co O Box 474

ayenta, AZ 86033

ilephone: 602-677-5006

OSS, Harold

icretary of Food & Agr A Dept of Agriculture !20 N Street jjcramento, CA 95814

ilephone:

'aggoner, Dana

oduct Manager

llettler-Toledo Inc 0 Collegeview Road

I'esterville, OH 43081

l^lephone: 614-841-5046 AX: 614-841-5100

alker, William G.

rade District Manager

•,oss Laboratories ^ Clifford Road

'jdbury, MA 01776-3410

dephone: 508^3-3089

AX: 508^43-0069

I' all III, David J. Marketing Representative

aybolt Inc

ijO Swenson Drive

enilworth, NJ 07033

elephone: 908-245-3100 AX: 908-245-5828

9798 Walz, Don

Retail Inspector SD Weights & Measures Box 459

Parkston, SD 57366-0459

Telephone: 605-928-7267 FAX: 605-773-6631

30541 Warnlof, Irene B. Retired Wts & Meas Official 9705 Inaugural Way

Gaithersburg, MD 20879-2014

Telephone: 301-926-8155

Warnlof, Otto K.

11941 Manager Technical Services NIST-Standards Mgt Program

Bldg 101 A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4026 FAX: 301-975-2128 Watson, Clifford A.

Consultant 13774 249 NE 71st Warrensburg, MO 64093

Telephone: 816-429-1311 FAX: 816-429-1311 Watson, Steve M.

Marketing Manager

30549 Sartorius Corporation

131 Heartland Blvd Edgewood, NY 11717-8315

Telephone: 603-425-6439 FAX: 603-425-6439 Webb, Ernie 24220 Sr Agr Stds Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Avenue

San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2778 FAX: 619-565-7046 Weber, Richard H. 23528 Metrology Lab 3M Co

1185 Wolters Blvd

Vadnais Heights, MN 55110

Telephone: 612-733-2674 FAX: 612-736-7325 Weddig, Lee

4635 Executive Director National Fisheries Institute 1525 Wilson Blvd Suite 500

Arlington, VA 22209

Telephone: 703-524-8883 FAX: 703-524-4619

8382 Welt, Sandra

Inspector San Bernardino Wghts & Meas

301 E Rt View

Barston, CA 92311

Telephone: 619-256-4861 West, Gary D. 7145 Director Stds & Consumer Serv NM Dept of Agriculture PO Box 30005 Dept 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

Telephone: 505-646-1616 FAX: 505-646-3303 233

Willhite, Roberta Y.

Inspector II San Bernardino Co Wghts & Meas

777 E Rialto Ave

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

Telephone: 909-387-2140 FAX: 909-387-2143

16558

Williams, Curtis

Director Fuel Oil Laboratory OA Dept of Agriculture

State Oil Lab 5235 Kennedy Rd

Forest Park, GA 30050

Telephone: 404-363-7597

16216 FAX: 404-363-7694

Williams, Richard T. Agr Stds Inspector San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Avenue

San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2758 30532 FAX: 619-565-7046

Williams, Robert G.

Standards Administrator TN Dept of Agr Wghts & Meas PO Box 40627 Melrose Station Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0109 684 FAX: 615-360-0194

Willis, Danny

Ex Dir Agri-Business Standards KY Dept of Agriculture 106 West 2nd Street Frankfort, KY 40601

Telephone: 502-564-4696

15320 FAX: 502-564-5669

455
List of Participants

Wilson, James

Div Director Fuels & Meas GA Dept of Agriculture

Agriculture BIdg Capitol Square

Atlanta, GA 30334

Telephone: 404-656-3606 FAX: 404-656-9380 Wing, Andrea A. Coord of Prod & New Tech

Texaco Refining & Mkt Inc 10 UCP 4th Floor

Universal City, CA 91608

Telephone: 818-505-2576 FAX: 818-505-2435 Winrow, Tim

Regional Lab Manager

Inspectorate 24426 S Main St Ste 703

Carson, CA 90745

Telephone: 310-835-4017 FAX: 310-835-4631

Wittenberger, Robert

Metrologist MO Dept of Agriculture PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Telephone: 314-751-3440 FAX: 314-751-0281 Woody, Timothy

Supervisor Agr/Stds Specialist Fresno Co Dept Agr

1 730 S Maple Avenue

Fresno, CA 93702

Telephone: 209-456-7510

Wotthlie, Richard W.

Supervising Insp Wghts & Meas MD Dept of Agriculture 50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790 FAX: 410-841-2765

Yaffe, Theodore H.

Program Manager US Postal Service 8403 Lee Highway

Mejrifield, VA 22082-8101

Telephone: 703-280-7055 FAX: 703-280-8402

Yelle, A. Courtney

Chief Sealer Bucks Co Wghts & Meas

50 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901

Telephone: 215-348-7442 FAX: 215-348-2019

28611 Yurek, Richard S. 3153

Technical & QA Coordinator

Saybolt Inc 400 Swenson Drive

Kenilworth, NJ 07033

Telephone: 908-245-3100 FAX: 908-245-2747

25511 Zaion, Paul 7312

Director Regulatory Affairs Nestle USA

100 Manhattanville Rd

Purchase, NY 10577

Telephone: 914-251-3487 FAX: 914-251-3600 26005 Zards, Andrew A. 1344

Specialist Facilities Engineer Amoco Oil Co

200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: 312-856-4073 FAX: 312-856-3401

91 Zarling, Kevin 26504

Assistant Genera! Counsel TX Dept of Agriculture 1700 North Congress Avenue

Austin, TX 78701

Telephone: 512-46J-7450 FAX: 512-463-7723 30535 Zulfugarzade, Eldar 25766

Guest Researcher

Russia

c/o NIST Adm 101 6th Floor

Gaithersburg, MD 25766

Telephone: 301-975-4412 FAX: 301-963-2871

10872

16354

456

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards & Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300 FORWARDING & RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

SPECIAL FOURTH CLASS-RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID NIST

Permit No. G195