Table of Contents

Page 

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

Past Chairmen of the Conference.........................................................................................................................................iv

Organization Chart ...............................................................................................................................................................v

General Session 

President’s Address – Richard F. Kayser, National Institute of Standards and Technology ....................................... GS - 1

Chairman’s Address – Ross J. Andersen, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets.......................... GS - 5

2003 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients.......................................................................................................... GS - 9

Standing Committee Reports 

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

Appendix A. Report on the Activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)..........BOD - A1

Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations (L&R)...................................................................................... L&R - 1

Appendix A. Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation.............. L&R - A1

Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T)...........................................................................S&T - 1

Appendix A. Prescription Scales-Counting Feature Test and Other Procedures.............................................S&T - A1

Appendix B. Developing Items (Item 360-3)..................................................................................................S&T - B1

Report of the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P)................................................................... A&P - 1

Appendix A. Appendix A. AMC Training Funds Report.............................................................................. A&P - A1

Appendix B. National Training Curriculum Outline (Draft)...........................................................................A&P - B1

Report of the Committee on The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) ...................................................... NTEP - 1

Appendix A. NTEP Status by State ...............................................................................................................NTEP - A1

Appendix B. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report .......................................................NTEP - B1

Appendix C. National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Sector......................................................................................NTEP - C1

Appendix D. National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer Sector.............................................................................NTEP - D1

Appendix E. National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Measuring Sector Annual Meeting...........................................................................................NTEP - E1

Appendix F. National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Weighing Sector Annual Meeting............................................................................................ NTEP - F1

New Chairman's Address..............................................................................................................................NCA - 1

Dennis Ehrhart, Arizona 

2003 Annual Meeting Attendees ........................................................................................................ ATTEND - 1

iii 
Abstract 

The 88th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held July 13 through 17, 

2003, at the John Ascuaga’s Nugget Hotel in Sparks, NV. The theme of the meeting was, “Moving Strategically into the 

Future.” 

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

portion of this publication, along with the addresses delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from 

government and industry. 

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

Pump Manufacturers Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, Associate Membership Committee, and Metrology 

Subcommittee. 

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

uniform laws, 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 metric units of measurement in all of its 

publications. In this publication, however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been 

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

commonly used in industry practice. Opinions expressed in non-NIST papers are those of the authors and not necessarily 

those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Non-NIST speakers are solely responsible for the content 

and quality of their material. 

Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pub. 1009, Pages 307 (May 2004) CODEN: NSPUE2 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 2004 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 
Past Chairmen of the Conference 

Conference Year Chairman

43rd 1958 J. P. McBride, MA 

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller, CA 

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford, FL 

46th 1961 R. E. Meek, IN 

47th 1962 Robert Williams, NY 

48th 1963 C. H. Stender, SC 

49th 1964 D. M. Turnbull, WA 

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH 

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS 

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA 

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 L. Thompson, MD 

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO 

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA 

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR 

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX 

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI 

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR 

70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA 

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI 

72nd 1987 Frank C. 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 

79th 1994 Thomas F. Geiler, MA 

80th 1995 James C. Truex, OH 

81st 1996 Charles A. Gardner, NY 

82nd 1997 Barbara J. Bloch, CA 

83rd 1998 Steven A. Malone, NE 

84th 1999 Aves D. Thompson, AK 

85th 2000 G. Wes Diggs, VA

86th 2001 L. Straub, MD

87th 2002 Ron Murdock, NC 

iv
National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc. 

Organization Chart

2002/2003 

Board of Directors 

Office Representation Name/Affiliation Term 

Chairman: R. Andersen, NY*

Chairman-Elect: D. Ehrhart, AZ* 

Past Chair/NTEP Committee Chair: L. Straub, MD* 

Treasurer: T. Geiler, MA

Active Membership/Northeastern: R. McGrath, MA 2004

Active Membership/Central: D. Onwiler, NE* 2005

Active Membership/Southern: M. Gray, FL* 2003

Active Membership/Western: M. Cleary, CA 2007 

At-Large: M. Pinagel, MI 2003

At-Large: D. Frieders, CA 2006

Associate Membership: D. Quinn, Fairbanks Scales 2004 

* National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) 

Committee Member

Honorary NCWM President: A. Bement, Jr., NIST Director

NCWM Executive Secretary: H. Oppermann, NIST Weights and Measures Division

BOD Advisors: B. Palys, CAE, Executive Director, NCWM Headquarters 

G. Vinet, Canada

NTEP Committee Technical Advisor: S. Cook, NIST Weights and Measures Division

Committees

Laws & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee 

Chair: D. Johannes, CA (2) Chair: R.W. Wotthlie, MD (1) 

Members: V. Dempsey, OH (1) 

J. Gomez, NM (4) 

E. Price, TX (4) 

J. Cassidy, MA (5) 

Members: C. VanBuren, MI (2) 

C. Cooney, OR (4) 

J. Kane, MT (3) 

M. Sikula, NY (5) 

Associate Member Rep: C. Guay, Proctor & Gamble Canadian Tech Advisor: T. Kingsbury

Canadian Tech. Advisors: B. Lemon 

D. Hutchinson 

NIST Tech. Advisors: J. Williams

R. Suiter 

NIST Tech. Advisors: T. Coleman Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices

S. Cook (for Uniform Natl. Working Group

Type Evaluation Regulation) Chair: C. Skonberg, United Parcel 

Service

NIST Tech. Advisor: R. Suiter 

Administration & Public Affairs Committee Metrology Committee

Chair: S. Hadder, FL (2) Chair: S. Sumner, NM

Members: K. Deitzler, PA (3) 

C. Fiksdal, CA (2) 

C. Bennett, MI (4) 

Vacancy (TBD) 

Associate Member Rep: C. Kloos, Colgate-Palmolive 

Vice Chair: 

Members: 

M. Harwitz, WI 

L. F. Eason, NC 

D. Newcombe, ME

J. Rothleder, CA

J. Torres, PR 

NCWM Safety Liaison: C. Gardner, NY NIST Tech Advisor: V. Miller 

Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment Program

Chair: S. Colbrook, IL

NIST Tech Advisor: L. Sebring 

v 
Committees (cont’d) 

Nominating Committee Legislative Liaison 

Chair: A. Thompson, AK Chair: T. Geiler, MA

Members: R. Andersen, NY

D. Ehrhart, AZ

L. Straub, MD

J. Truex, OH

R. Davis, Georgia Pacific 

G. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc.

Members: W. Corey, American 

Frozen Foods 

Credentials Committee Appointed Officers 

Chair: (TBD) Parliamentarian: A. Thompson, AK 

Members: (TBD) Chaplain: M. Belue, TN

(TBD) Sergeants-At-Arms: (TBD)

Coordinator: L. DiTizio, NCWM

Headquarters 

Presiding Officers: R. Andersen, NY 

G. Buendel, WA 

C. Fulmer, SC

R. Hayes, MO 

M. Coyne, MA 

Associate Membership Committee

Chair: D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo (1) 

Vice Chair: W. Sveum, Kraft Foods North America (1) 

Secretary/Treasurer: M. Galletta, Nestle, USA (4) 

Members: J. Baker, Pier 1 Imports (5) 

C. Frye, International Dairy Foods Association (1) 

V. Orr, ConAgra Refrigerated Prepared Foods (3) 

G. Lameris, Hobart Corporation (5) 

S. Langford, Cardinal Scale Manf. Company (3) 

A. Nelson, NW Associates (2) 

R. Murnane, Jr., Seraphin Test Measures (4)

Regional Weights and Measures Association Contacts 

For Membership Information

Northeastern Weights and Measures Assn. (NEWMA): K. Deitzler, PA (717) 787-9089

kdeitzler@state.pa.us 

Southern Weights and Measures Assn. (SWMA): W. Sutton, NC (919) 733-3313

Winston.Sutton@ncmail.net

Central Weights and Measures Assn. (CWMA): R. Osterkamp, OK (605) 773-6031

renee.osterkamp@state.sd.us

Western Weights and Measures Assn. (WWMA): C. Cooney, OR (503) 986-4677 

ccooney@oda.state.or.us 

vi
National Type Evaluation Program 

Technical Committees

Weighing Sector Measuring Sector

Chair: D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo Chair: R. Tucker, Tokheim Corporation

Technical 

Advisor:

S. Cook, NIST Technical 

Advisor:

R. Suiter, NIST

Public Sector 

Members: 

R. Andersen, NY 

W. Bates, GIPSA 

A. Buie, MD

T. Butcher, NIST 

C. Carter, OK 

G. Castro, CA 

C. Cotsoradis, KS 

G. W. Diggs, VA 

J. Kane, MT 

D. Onwiler, NE 

D. Parks, CA 

G. Shefcheck, OR

J. Truex, OH

L. Turberville, AL

J. Vanderwielen, GIPSA 

W. West, OH

R. Wyckoff, OR 

E. Klawis, Canada 

Public Sector 

Members:

R. Andersen, NY 

T. Butcher, NIST 

J. Butler, NC

G. Castro, CA 

S. Hadder, FL 

T. Kingsbury, Canada

S. Malone, NE

C. Nelson, CA

W. West, OH 

R. Wotthlie, MD

Private Sector 

Members: 

R. Jimenez, Transportation 

Technology Center 

J. Elengo, Contractor

R. Feezor, Norfolk Southern Corp. 

W. GeMeiner, Union Pacific RR 

D. Hawkins, Thurman Scale Co. 

J. Hughes, Weigh-Tronix, Inc. 

D. Krueger, NCR 

G. Lameris, Hobart Corp. 

S. Langford, Cardinal Scale Mfg. 

T. Luna, Scales Unlimited, Inc. 

L. E. Luthy, Brechbuhler Scales 

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Assn. 

J. Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc. 

O. Warnlof, Consultant

W. Young, Emery Winslow Scale 

Private Sector 

Members: 

R. B. Beahm, Krohne, Inc. 

F. M. Belue, Belue Associates

M. Buttler, Emerson Processes/Micro

Motion 

R. Cooper, Actaris Neptune 

M. Forkert, Tuthill Transfer Systems 

P. Glowacki, Murray Equipment 

P. Goodier, Syltone 

M. Hankel, MCH Engineering Assoc. 

D. Hoffman, TopTech Systems 

G. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc.

M. Keilty, Endress & Hauser 

D. Krueger, NCR 

D. Long, RDM Industrial Electronics 

W. Mattar, The Foxboro Co. 

A. Noel, Neptune Technology 

C. Numrych, Liquid Controls

T. Poulter, Syltone

D. Resch, FMC Measurement 

Solutions

M. Roach, Verifone, Inc.

J. Skuce, FMC Measurement Solutions 

B. Traettino, Liquid Controls, LLC 

O. Warnlof, Consultant

vii 
National Type Evaluation Program 

Technical Committees (cont’d) 

Belt Conveyor Scales Sector Grain Moisture Meter Sector and 

Near-Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector

Chair: TBD Chair: C. Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corp.

Technical 

Advisor:

S. Cook, NIST Technical 

Advisors:

G. Diane. Lee, NIST

J. W. Barber, J. B. Associates

Public Sector 

Members:

A. Buie, MD

T. Butcher, NIST 

L. Turberville, AL

Public Sector 

Members:

Canadian Grain Commission 

R. Burns, AR 

T. Butcher, NIST 

D. Onwiler, NE 

S. Colbrook, IL*

R. Pierce, GIPSA 

J. Rothleder, CA

C. Tew, NC 

R. Wittenberger, MO

Private Sector 

Members: 

R. Dietrich, Kaskaskia Valley Scale 

R. Jimenez, Transportation 

Technology Center, Inc. 

K. Knapp, Milltronics 

L. Marmsater, Merrick Industries 

B. Ripka, Ramsey Technology, Inc. 

P. Sirrico, Thayer Scale - Hyer 

Industries, Inc. 

D. Tonini, SMA 

T. Vormittag, Sr, Commercial Testing

& Engineering Co. 

O. Warnlof, Consultant

Private Sector 

Members: 

J. W. Barber, J. B. Associates 

J. Bair, Millers National Federation

M. Clements, The Steinlite Corp. 

C. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State University 

D. Krejci, Grain Elevator & Processing 

Society* 

A. Lundstedt, Cognis QTA

T. O'Connor, National Grain & Feed

Assn. 

T. Runyon, Seedboro Equipment 

F. Seeber, Shore Sales Co.,

Grain Elevator & Processors Society 

*Grain Moisture Meter Sector only 

viii 
General Session 2003 Final Report

President’s Address 

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Sparks, Nevada 

July 15, 2003

“Addressing the Challenges” 

Dr. Richard F. Kayser, Director, Technology Services 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Introduction

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon representing NIST Director Dr. Arden Bement. Dr. Bement regrets that he was 

unable to participate in the meeting this year. He greatly enjoyed participating last year and meeting the leaders of the

NCWM. He appreciates the critical role that industry and the regulators play in the U.S. commercial measurement 

system. 

The complex infrastructure of the commercial measurement system is something that most consumers take for granted.

We are fortunate that this infrastructure has functioned so well over the years; however, the economic slowdown and the

budget crises facing many states are forcing major changes in many weights and measures programs, frequently in the 

form of budget cuts and staff and program reductions. 

Many programs are being asked to find their own sources of revenue. But weights and measures programs have always 

had difficulty competing for funds with education, health care, welfare, and law enforcement. In this post 9/11 era, 

weights and measures must also compete for funds with Homeland Security. 

And nor has industry been immune to the economic downturn. Many companies have been downsizing for years to

increase their competitiveness, but the economic slowdown has reduced even further their ability to participate in 

meetings and activities not considered to have a direct positive effect on the bottom line. 

The NCWM theme for this year, “Moving Strategically into the Future,” is very appropriate in these challenging times.

We all need to reassess our goals and our approaches to achieving those goals, and to set a course for improvement 

despite the budget constraints we all face. The NCWM has focused its activities on the strategic objectives it developed 

several years ago. As Ross Anderson pointed out in his letter of invitation to this meeting, the NCWM is facing some

fundamental changes in its approach to the National Type Evaluation Program, the use of international standards, and the 

structure of the NCWM itself. 

As has been the case many times in the past, both NIST and the NCWM have many parallel issues as they move

“strategically into the future.” I’d like to touch on several of those issues. After that, I’ll talk briefly about Challenges and

Goals before concluding. 

Parallel Issues 

The same conditions that are creating budget cuts in state and local weights and measures programs are also resulting in a

stagnant budget for NIST. We in weights and measures, both in state and local government and at NIST, must explain and

demonstrate the importance of our programs and the value we add to our partners and customers. Like NCWM, NIST as a 

whole is also reviewing its programs and has identified a set of strategic focus areas and directions for the future. 

One activity that Technology Services is leading on behalf of NIST is to describe the national measurement system and

why that system is so important to the country, and also to describe NIST’s role within that system, and in turn, why that

role is so important to the country. Ultimately – and I must stress that this will be a long-term effort – we hope to be able

to advise the country – that is, the Administration and Congress – on what needs to be done – not only by NIST, but by

GS - 1 
General Session 2003 Final Report

other key players as well – to address the challenges we face in the national measurement system, and on the 

consequences of not addressing those challenges. 

The commercial measurement system is obviously a critical component of the national measurement system. 

Metrologists, laboratories, manufacturers, packagers, retailers, and regulators are critical contributors to this system, 

which needs effective, but balanced, technical regulations and the enforcement of those regulations to promote fair

competition, to facilitate value comparisons, and to promote consumer protection. I note the considerable similarity

between the NIST effort on the National Measurement System and the effort initiated by Aves Thompson on the Fair 

Measurement Act. I want to commend Aves for his vision, leadership, and hard work in championing this effort. NIST

looks forward with enthusiasm to further discussions with Aves, Dennis Ehrhart, Dave Frieders, and all other interested 

parties. 

The effects of globalization represent another area of common interest for NIST and the NCWM. As you heard this

morning in the excellent presentation by Chuck Ehrlich and Gilles Vinet, weights and measures technical requirements 

are part of this global picture.

The NCWM, the Scale Manufacturers Association, and NIST are giving joint presentations at the regional weights and

measures association meetings on the importance of aligning U.S. and international legal metrology standards. The

alignment of U.S. and OIML standards is not a one-way street. The United States must present effective, technical 

arguments for its positions. And once acceptable international documents are developed – documents that facilitate trade 

but do not restrict U.S. technology – we must collectively push to align the U.S. legal metrology standards with the

international standards. 

In fact, recognition of these issues is what led us to reorganize within Technology Services to bring our efforts in national 

and international legal metrology together in one organization – the new Weights and Measures Division (WMD). We 

have already seen significant synergies and benefits from this change. 

The current process to revise OIML Recommendations 60 and 76 for load cells and scales, respectively, presents an

excellent opportunity for the United States to propose numerous changes to these standards. The U.S. National Working 

Group for these OIML standards will meet in August to develop the changes that the U.S. will propose and to determine

where the U.S. should consider changes to NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14. To facilitate these 

discussions, NIST supported a detailed comparison of the relevant OIML and U.S. standards. 

This morning Gilles Vinet talked about the importance that Canada places on the revision of OIML R 117 for liquidmetering devices for liquids other than water. The U.S. National Working Group has been working closely with Canada 

to develop changes to this important international standard. As for load cells and scales, NIST plans a detailed

comparison of the relevant OIML and U.S. standards. 

The participation of U.S. industry and U.S. regulatory officials in the review of draft international documents is critical if 

these documents are to reflect U.S. practices and approaches. Hence, NIST is supporting the participation of several 

weights and measures officials in the U.S. National Working Groups. 

The labeling of consumer packages is another area of mutual interest. As a result of feedback from industry partners,

NIST is working to change the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and other Federal labeling regulations to give 

packagers the option to label the net contents of consumer packages as they do today – that is, in both inch-pound and 

metric units – or to label the contents of packages in metric units only. Most states, through their weights and measures

laws and regulations, already provide manufacturers with this labeling option for products that fall under state packaging 

and labeling requirements only. Last November, NIST sponsored a forum on the proposed changes to the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act to provide interested parties with an opportunity to discuss their different perspectives and to identify 

potential problems. Lou Straub represented the NCWM in this forum and described the leadership role that the weights 

and measures community has taken to remove regulatory barriers to the use of metric units. We are planning another 

forum for this coming November to continue the dialog and to reduce the barriers even further. 

It is critical that packagers, retailers, manufacturers of shelf labeling equipment and products, and regulatory officials 

develop consensus guidelines for labeling and unit pricing in metric units. The labeling guidelines will help companies 

avoid costly labeling errors and get labeling right the first time. The unit pricing guidelines will reduce confusion in the

marketplace and facilitate value comparisons. When these changes occur, effective weights and measures control will be 

GS - 2 
General Session 2003 Final Report

essential to ensure that packages contain the correct net content and that unit price labels are accurate. Weights and 

measures enforcement must maintain confidence during the transition. 

The need for recognized quality systems for their laboratory measurement services is yet another parallel issue facing

NIST and weights and measures laboratories. NIST is now replacing its current quality system with a comprehensive new

quality system based on ISO/IEC 17025. One of the external drivers for NIST to follow 17025 was the Mutual

Recognition Arrangement of the International Committee on Weights and Measures. This Arrangement requires that 

national measurement institutes like NIST have a suitable quality system, preferably 17025, in place. A second external 

driver was the 2002 National Research Council Cross-Cut Panel on Measurement Services, which recommended that 

NIST adopt a quality system that more visibly conformed to the quality systems used by its customers, namely 17025. 

L.F. Eason of North Carolina served on this panel. Last night I reported on this activity at the NCWM Metrology 

Subcommittee meeting. 

I know that Georgia Harris and Diane Lee of the Weights and Measures Division have promoted the development of 

17025-based quality systems for the state weights and measures laboratories for some time through the incorporation of 

17025 requirements in NIST Handbook 143. I am extremely pleased to note that this year every operational state weights 

and measures laboratory has submitted a quality manual to WMD. Moreover, eight state laboratories have obtained

accreditation from NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and many others are in the

process. I commend the laboratory administrators and metrologists for their commitment to implementing quality systems 

for their measurement services. 

Challenges 

I’d now like to say a few words about challenges. As I indicated at the outset, we all face the challenge of lack of

resources. The current economic crises in the funding of weights and measures programs have changed – and appear to be

permanently changing – the way weights and measures activities are funded and carried out. States report that they are 

being forced to implement a number of revenue-generating activities just to survive. In fact, some states are only 

performing inspections related to generating revenue, which leaves many areas of the commercial measurement system

unregulated. Unfortunately, experience has shown that when weights and measures areas are left unregulated, compliance

tends to deteriorate, creating unfair competitive situations and loss of equity in the marketplace. Under these conditions, 

everyone loses except the unethical business operator. 

A key challenge – and opportunity – is this: “How can weights and measures officials, industry, and NIST work together

more effectively to achieve greater compliance with legal metrology requirements?” Of course, this Conference brings its 

members together to work collectively on the standards for weights and measures. In this era of reduced budgets,

however, we must seek an even higher level of cooperation in the application of these standards in the retail marketplace.

We must explore ways in which weights and measures programs can be more proactive and more creative in achieving 

compliance with legal metrology standards, even before products appear on the retail shelves. 

Your incoming Chairman, Dennis Ehrhart, has reported on Arizona’s effective programs in the areas of corporate

education and public relations. These programs stress gaining compliance through the corporate use of correct practices,

thereby reducing the need and frequency of weights and measures inspections required to achieve the same results. 

We simply must find ways for weights and measures programs to maintain a sufficient level of inspection across the entire 

range of their regulatory responsibilities if we are to continue to ensure equity in the marketplace. 

Goals 

We must remember that a primary objective of weights and measures enforcement is not merely to conduct inspections, 

but to achieve compliance with legal metrology requirements. As in the past, achieving this goal requires a cooperative

effort. The NCWM has been a successful example of how state and local weights and measures representatives, industry, 

consumers, and the federal government can work together collaboratively to benefit the commercial measurement system.

The input from both weights and measures regulatory officials and industry is critical to develop balanced and practical 

technical regulations for the commercial measurement system. 

Technology Services has taken the initiative within NIST to use the Baldrige National Quality Program Criteria for 

Performance Excellence as a framework for improving its products, services, and operations. As we have studied the 

GS - 3 
General Session 2003 Final Report

Baldrige criteria and the experiences of winners of the National Quality Award – and they’ll all tell you that their secrets

are not secret – we have learned that many factors are critical to success. These include the following: 

• Identify your core activities and responsibilities; 

• Identify the requirements that are most important to your customers; 

• Identify where you can add the most value; 

• Establish organizational goals so that success will benefit the larger system, not just the internal organization; 

• Make sure your goals are aligned with those of your partners and customers; and

• Develop and then implement sound, long-term strategies and plans for achieving those goals. 

As part of these efforts within Technology Services, WMD has adopted four long-term goals:

• Promote uniform standards and practices in legal metrology;

• Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the national weights and measures system; 

• Facilitate U.S. exports by aligning national and international legal metrology standards; and

• Facilitate the transition to the metric system.

For each of these long-term goals, WMD has developed 3- to 5-year objectives, strategies, desired outcomes, measures, 

and action plans. 

WMD’s plans reflect input and feedback from partners and customers. These partners and customers have indicated that 

they consider NIST’s technical expertise and objectivity in legal and laboratory metrology to be critical core activities,

and that they expect NIST to provide expert technical analyses, advice, training, and assistance to industry, weights and 

measures officials, and metrologists. 

WMD is currently reassessing its operations and trying to evaluate the current state of flux in weights and measures 

regulatory programs. As part of these efforts, WMD plans to meet with additional focus groups from industry and weights

and measures programs to discuss the current situation and to explore partner and customer needs and requirements. 

These focus groups will serve both as input and as a “reality check” on WMD’s basic assumptions and approaches. As a 

result of these meetings, WMD will either reaffirm its current objectives and strategies or it will change them to better

meet the needs of the commercial measurement system. 

Conclusion 

It is more important now than ever for all of us to demonstrate the impact and value-added of our activities, and to deal

effectively with the challenges we face. After all, we all want to maintain a fair and equitable commercial measurement

system. So, I want to close by taking this opportunity to reaffirm NIST’s commitment to that admirable goal and to

collaborating with all of you to achieve it as we “move strategically into the future”. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to share these remarks with you today and I wish you the best for a successful

conference. Thank you. 

GS - 4 
General Session 2003 Final Report

Chairman’s Address 

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Sparks, Nevada 

July 15, 2003

Ross J. Andersen 

New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 

Honored guests, members, and friends, it is my great privilege to welcome you to Sparks, Nevada and the 88th Annual

Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. I, and the Board of Directors, thank you for your

participation. 

Serving as Chairman has been a very rewarding experience. I look back at a long line of men and women who served

before me, and feel honored to be listed among them. I learned as they did, that you don’t so much run this organization,

but rather influence it a little. Sort of like trying to keep it pointed in the right direction. It has been demanding, but as

Shakespeare wrote, "To business that we love, we rise betime and go to't with delight." 

The NCWM is nearing 100 years of age but the Corporation is only five. We are on the move and I chose my theme of 

“Moving Strategically into the Future” to reflect our approach. I am here to report that the strategic plan it is alive and

well. I had the privilege to be the first Chairman to really work the plan. I looked to work on those things in the plan that

had to come first, essentially lay the foundations. Others will complete the work. The key is to get started, as the poet

Horace wrote, "He has the deed half done who has made a beginning." 

Let me start with infrastructure issues. One of our goals is financial security. Your Board of Directors has worked at

building zero-based budgets over the last three years so that we could move forward and remain self-supporting. Well

over half of our budget funds NTEP. Add in the Interim and Annual Meetings and you will quickly see that there is only a 

very small piece of the pie that we can call discretionary. We constantly look for alternative, non-dues revenues to support 

our activities. 

The Board is also looking at our relationship with our technical advisors both from Measurement Canada and NIST. It

was my great privilege to attend the Canadian Forum on Trade and Measurement last fall, along with Will Whotthlie and 

Diane Lee. We each felt honored to be able to add to their meetings as they have done so ably for us. When advisors cross

borders, there is some natural reluctance to speak out, since it is not your country’s laws and regulations. However, we 

have so much to offer each other and so much to gain from our cooperation, that we should not hesitate. I reported to the

Board that we should continue our participation in future Forums and look for other ways to help our neighbors. My

thanks to Alan Johnston and all the Measurement Canada staff for their support, their friendship and their hospitality. 

Similarly we have been looking closely at our relationship with the NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD). We 

have been meeting with the WMD leadership and staff to coordinate priorities and activities as we work together for the 

benefit of the entire community. I am pleased with many of our successes, particularly with respect to OIML and training. 

I will elaborate on these a little later. I want to express my sincere appreciation for all of the support provided by Henry 

Oppermann and his staff to the success of this Organization. 

NTEP is our most visible program. I believe our NTEP staff and our participating labs have created a very responsive

program. As to quality, our labs are upgrading their quality systems to ISO 17025 and we have a round robin in progress

to evaluate uniformity. We constantly seek improvements and spent time at our lab meeting this spring paring down the

unmanageable list of scale and measuring device types, harmonizing vehicle scale test procedures, harmonizing various

LMD tests that varied between codes, and discussing gray areas surrounding security seals. The problem we face is that

code changes lag behind technological change. While manufacturers are pushing the envelope, we are trying to make 

antiquated specifications fit new and very complex issues. So expect to see more issues coming to the S&T Committee 

from the sector meetings this fall. 

In the NTEP area, the Board has formulated a plan to ensure that production meets type. We aimed to improve initial

verification, review certificates periodically, and require certified quality assurance from manufacturers of devices subject 

to influence factors in order to provide assurances that production devices continue to conform. The Board listened 

GS - 5 
General Session 2003 Final Report

intently to the comments received yesterday but did not yet have time to address them. We will continue to work on the 

details and provide opportunities for additional comment as that work progresses. 

At the open hearings yesterday we heard concerns about our voting structure. The Board shares your concerns on this

difficult issue. The Board will look seriously over the coming year at possible changes to the By-laws. 

One major component of the Strategic Plan was to make the organization more nimble. By this I mean flexible enough to

respond to both long- term goals and short-term interests. The Board has focused on using smaller work groups instead of 

fixed committees to do more of the work. Our proposal to restructure the A&P Committee to a work group was just such

a move. Smaller work groups make it possible to get the right people working on the issues. They also can do it faster and 

cheaper using conference calls and email to replace travel to meetings. We also try to break down the work into smaller, 

more manageable pieces and reduce the commitment by volunteers. 

The membership reaction to our A&P proposal clearly indicates to us that we, as a Board, need to do a better job of

communicating with our stakeholders. We hear you, and in particular, your desire for some rapid movement on the 

National Training Program. That has been our desire from the beginning. Following the open hearings we decided on a 

course of action. We will disband the A&P Committee as planned. However, instead of just making a work group, we

will immediately create a new Professional Development Standing Committee utilizing the current members of the A&P 

Committee with responsibility to spearhead work on the National Training Program. The name was chosen to reflect the

new, more focused, direction. The Board will be drafting a specific charge for this new committee, filling the vacancies,

and providing necessary support. As a standing committee we will be able to maintain the network connecting the 

NCWM to the regionals and the membership in related areas. This certainly allows us to reach out to those who don’t

attend these meeting. 

After the infrastructure, I focused on laying foundations in three major program areas, statistics, harmonization with

OIML, and the National Training Program. 

We need facts to support our programs, particularly in these difficult times. So I created a small workgroup to gather 

statistics. I am pleased to report that we have survey responses from 40 states, and that the data is now being analyzed. 

The survey not only looked at the number of devices, inspections and tests, but also the demographics of the states and 

differences in programs. My thanks to Craig Leisey and his work group. Our next step is to look carefully at the data and 

conduct follow-up interviews. The workgroup will look for differences in the way states gather and report their statistics. 

They have been asked to suggest a plan to standardize data collection among the states and form the basis of an annual

survey for the NCWM. We want to create a collection of meaningful information on the scope and successes of our 

weights and measures programs. 

The survey confirmed the tremendous state and local contribution for weights and measures in this country, with annual

budgets totaling well over $100 million dollars. The total federal commitment is probably not even 5% of that. Aves

Thompson is working on one avenue to increase that commitment in the Fair Measurement Appropriation. We need to

find ways to support this effort and get it through Congress. 

On the OIML front, the US is an island in the world community. That separation is not so much that we use customary 

instead of metric units, but more that we have different technical requirements. That limits the competitiveness of our 

industry in the world market. We must ask ourselves if the differences are really necessary? The US has treaty obligations

to consider OIML recommendations. That obligation falls squarely on the shoulders of the NCWM and its members,

since we set the standards for commercial weighing and measuring devices in the US. 

The NCWM is approaching this vital issue from a number of angles. First, we are trying to get more participation on the 

US working groups reviewing the work of OIML technical committees. Second, we are cooperating with industry and the

WMD to educate our state and local leaders about OIML. We gave joint presentations on OIML to the two regionals that

met in the spring this year and will continue that for the two in the fall. A presentation at this meeting addressed current

opportunities to impact the OIML process. Third, we are seriously looking at the differences between US and OIML 

requirements. Our goal is to break those differences down into three areas, where OIML should change, where Handbook

44 should change, and where we can harmonize by changing Publication 14. The WMD is sponsoring a work group this

fall to look at recommendations in the comparative study of US and OIML scale requirements and set goals and priorities

for work toward harmonization. Finally, we want to consider additional mutual acceptance arrangements with other

nations, much like the arrangement we now have with Measurement Canada. Please note we expanded that arrangement 

this year to include some measuring devices. 

GS - 6 
General Session 2003 Final Report

With regard to training, most of us would agree that our National Training Program needs revision. I want to paraphrase 

former Chairman Wes Diggs, who articulated that we need a training plan that doesn’t tell states how to train but rather 

what the outcomes should be. I believe I have followed in his footsteps when I asked the A&P Committee to develop a

training outline to help us all agree on outcomes. I want to thank the WMD for sponsoring a meeting in mid-June to look

at this issue. In those discussions of a national program there were questions of who would develop it, how we would 

prepare instructors to deliver it, and how we would evaluate its effectiveness. Those are important considerations, but a

little premature. We don’t even know what “it” is. The training outline I am hoping to develop should pin that down and

help organize the curriculum to help answer those other questions. 

A training outline, I believe, will naturally result in a hierarchy of weights and measures knowledge grouped in what

educators call “common bodies of knowledge.” In the process we separate curriculum development from delivery. We

create smaller, pre-fabricated blocks, or units, that are mixed and matched to produce training courses. We also can 

separate basic material from advanced material. With an outline, many can work on the curriculum materials at the same

time. Each can work on the piece that is of interest to them, and we all share the final products. The outline serves as a 

roadmap keeping us all on course. We can also use alternative delivery methods like the Introduction to Weights and 

Measures course now being developed internally by the State of California on CDROM. California has offered to let the 

NCWM use and distribute the material. The parts that we have seen could translate easily into a national program. 

Most of all I want to eliminate the one-size-fits-all approach that I believe doomed the present program. It always seemed 

that jurisdictions were asking for short courses. I think they were saying that the student needs to be part of the equation

and that part is missing in our current program. The mix and match concept easily allows the jurisdiction to select the 

parts they need to teach to their students. Neither the NCWM nor the WMD will have resources to do all the training. Our 

primary roles will instead be in curriculum development, train-the-trainer programs, and perhaps certification. The states

will have to take the lead in the delivery and even basic evaluation. So let’s use our new standing committee to create the

outline and then work together to develop the curriculum to raise the bar for all weights and measures professionals. 

Before I close, let me make one final observation. The National Bureau of Standards formed the NCWM in 1905, and for 

90 some years it has been a parent-child relationship. The NCWM has grown up. Our relationship must now evolve into a

peer-peer relationship. This means changes, and that is hard for both partners. If everyone is to “buy in” then we must all 

have the opportunity to share in the decision-making. We must find the maturity to avoid that all too common statefederal conflict that always seems to focus on “who” is in control rather than the quality of the decision. We all have to 

leave our egos at the door. 

The strategic plan has set out what the Board intends to do, including taking active roles in the areas of training and in 

OIML harmonization. State and local jurisdictions must accept responsibility to be more professional, and to be less 

parochial, taking a broader world-view. We must all work more closely together, and work smarter, as a team. 

At the same time, the WMD has to change as well. Decision-making must be less centralized and involve more people

with more knowledge. There is a great deal of talent at the state and local level, and, like the staff at the WMD, we share a 

love and passion for the work. We have the regulatory authority for weights and measures in the US system, shared only

with specific, federal regulatory agencies like USDA, FDA and FTC. The WMD has the capability to devote staff time 

and resources to some issues that state and local officials often can’t. But, they can’t be making the decisions for us. Our 

advisors must work with us to ensure we have the necessary facts to make a good decision. Let’s make sure we do that as 

peers and partners, looking carefully to help each other and to avoid competing. There is certainly enough work to go 

around and incentives to partner to get it done right. 

I have a few people to thank. First, I must thank the members of the Board of Directors. It has been my pleasure to work

with you and I appreciate all of your support. A very special thank you goes to Lou Straub. He’s one of those that went

the extra mile for this organization and he has been a very important advisor during my term. Lou has been an outstanding

NTEP Chairman for the last two years and I hope he now finds time to get back out on the golf course and spend more 

time with Debbie. 

I want to thank the NCWM staff who helped me in so many ways and I’m sure will continue to do so in my year as NTEP 

Chair. Beth, Bev, Steve, Grace, Laura, Linda, and Lynn, thank you. I want to thank my office staff and especially my 

Assistant Director, Mike Sikula. They all pulled extra weight as I delegated a lot over the last two years. I am equally

appreciative for the support of my boss, Deputy Commissioner Margaret Becker. 

GS - 7 
General Session 2003 Final Report

Last and certainly most important is my family, my wife Carole and my son Adam. They have been so supportive, and I 

really appreciate it. Adam attended his first weights and measures meeting at two months of age and now is tall enough to

look me in the eye. Carole teases me about not being able to take it easy even when I do step down. I guess she’s right.

What am I saying, “I guess?” She is always right. Thank you both. 

My career in weights and measures still has a few years to go, I hope, and I will be watching my successors build on the 

foundations I worked on during my term. I have been asked several times in the last few weeks about the issue of

continuity within the NCWM leadership. Those asking were pleased with the things the NCWM is doing now, but

wondered if those efforts would continue under future Chairmen. The questions came from different people and in

relation to different issues. I was proud to be able to respond that I was just working the strategic plan, and I have 

confidence that my successors, both Dennis and Dave, and those that will follow them, share that commitment. 

Thank you for the honor of being your Chairman. 

GS - 8 
General Session 2003 Final Report

NCWM 2003 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients 

Name Firm Number of Years 

Leon Lammers Weigh-Tronix Inc. 10 

Neal J. Nover Nover Engelstein & Assoc., Inc./

Win Wam Software 

10 

Michael S. Pinagel Michigan Department of Agriculture 10 

Michael F. Grenier New Hampshire Department of Agriculture,

Markets & Food

15 

Gale Prince Kroger Company 15 

David W. Quinn Fairbanks Scales 15 

Vernon Lee Massey Shelby County Weights & Measures 20 

GS - 9 
BOD 2003 Final Report 

Report of the Board of Directors 

Ross J. Andersen, Chairman 

Director, New York Bureau of Weights & Measures

Introduction

The Board of Directors (BOD) held their quarterly Board of Directors meeting on Saturday, January 11, 2003, and

continued the meeting via work sessions during the remainder of the Interim Meeting, January 12-15, 2003, held in

Jacksonville, FL. The Board and National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee invited the membership to

dialogue with them during the open hearings on four mega issues: Conformity Assessment, National Conference on

Weights and Measures (NCWM) Organizational Structure, the National Training Program, and International

Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). 

This is the report of the Board of Directors for the 88th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and 

Measures (NCWM). It is based on the Interim Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” comments

received at the NCWM Annual Meeting, and modifications made to the Interim Meeting report as a result of input 

received at the NCWM Annual Meeting. 

Table A 

Table of Contents

Subject Page 

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................1

Conformity Assessment........................................................................................................................................................2

NCWM Organizational Structure .........................................................................................................................................3

Status of the Administrative & Public Affairs Committee....................................................................................................3

Dues Change.........................................................................................................................................................................3

Commitment to Better Communication................................................................................................................................4

Voting/Bylaws Change .........................................................................................................................................................4

National Training Program Curriculum................................................................................................................................4

OIML ................................................................................................................................................................................4

Fair Measurement Appropriation..........................................................................................................................................5

Statistics Work Group...........................................................................................................................................................5

Canadian Forum on Trade Measurement..............................................................................................................................5

Hypertext Handbooks...........................................................................................................................................................6

Financial ...............................................................................................................................................................................6

Meetings ...............................................................................................................................................................................7

Nominating ...........................................................................................................................................................................7

Committee Appointments.....................................................................................................................................................7

NCMW/NIST WMD Relationship .......................................................................................................................................7

Strategic Partnerships............................................................................................................................................................8

Membership ..........................................................................................................................................................................8

Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Report...............................................................................................................8

BOD - 1 
BOD 2003 Final Report

Table B 

Appendix 

Appendix Title Page 

A Report on the Activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) and 

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

Conformity Assessment 

The Board reviewed and discussed the comments received during the open hearing on this topic. The comments received 

centered on the expiration time of five years for Certificates of Conformance, quantity of evaluation required, and the role 

of the states in initial verification. Information was provided that both the EU and Australia send out a questionnaire to

initiate the review process. The questionnaire is completed by the Certificate holder and then reviewed by the issuing

body. Discussion next centered on if the date should be a review date and not an expiration date. The period of ten years

instead of five was discussed. A phase-in period was also discussed. 

In its deliberations the Board discussed the many comments received on this issue and made some decisions on its next

steps. The Board decided to assign the task of drafting a proposed revision to the Publication 14 Administrative 

Procedures section on Conformity Assessment to a small work group within the Board. The Board will develop a final

draft and distribute it for comment prior to the Annual Meeting in July. The Board will consider all comments received 

before making its decisions on changes to Publication 14. Since this is only a change to Publication 14, there will be no

general membership vote on the item.

The work group will be addressing the three main aspects of the proposed NTEP Conformity Assessment Program. 

1. Improving the Certificate of Conformance – This aspect will involve two main efforts:

a) Review and improve the format and information provided on an NTEP Certificate. The NTEP labs will be 

asked to participate in this effort with a goal of creating certificates that are uniform, easily understood, and

contain necessary information for conducting thorough verifications, both initial and subsequent. This could

include more detail on models covered, standard and optional features, pictures, and other inspector aids.

b) Periodically review certificates on at least a ten-year basis. While the details are yet to be developed by the

work group, the goal is to ensure that the information on the Certificate is as current as possible, that

production meets type, and the type has been updated to meet requirements added to HB44 since the

Certificate was issued. The Board is considering adding a “review date” to the Certificate that will be 10 

years after the last laboratory evaluation and test. The manufacturer will be responsible for initiating the 

review process by that date, i.e., device in the queue. Failure to initiate the review will result in the 

Certificate going inactive. This review process will require a phase-in period. The review date would be

added immediately to all certificates being issued for current evaluations. If a lab evaluates and tests a

device to produce an addendum to an existing Certificate, the revision date would be added at that time and 

set to ten years from that revision date. The revision date would not reset for paper amendments or editorial

corrections. The Board has discussed a process that would begin in January 2005 to update existing

Certificates. NTEP staff would identify those Certificates with no review date, starting with the oldest

Certificates. Each year, a number of certificates would then be selected for review based on the capabilities

of NTEP staff and the labs. It is anticipated that by January 2008, all existing certificates will have an

established review date. Also by January 2008, the review process will be on schedule such that all 

certificates with an assigned review date prior to January 1, 2008, will have been reviewed or will be in the 

queue to be reviewed. NTEP would establish new fees to cover the cost of said evaluations, while labs

would charge normal hourly rates for their work. 

BOD - 2 
BOD 2003 Final Report 

2. Improving the Initial Verification System – this aspect will involve two main efforts: 

a) Create a core group of evaluators across the country that will conduct thorough initial verifications. This 

process would include some training of inspectors to become technical experts on certain types of devices

and having these inspectors conduct the initial verifications of new devices installed within their

jurisdictions. 

b) Create a data collection system to collect data on initial verifications performed by this core group of

inspectors to support the Conformity Assessment efforts. This data would be maintained by NCWM and

would be used solely for that purpose. 

3. Verified Certification of Manufacturer Facilities Responsible for Influence Factor Compliance – This aspect is 

directed at conformance issues that cannot be verified in initial verification. The program would require that the 

manufacturer provide NTEP with certification that they have a quality assurance program in place and are taking

the necessary steps to ensure that their production devices comply with the influence factor requirements. The 

present model calls for this to be site specific to the site where the quality control system verifies compliance. 

The Board is looking at a 2006 implementation date. 

The most recent draft proposal was distributed at the open hearings. The Board received feedback on the proposal. The 

Board will continue to work on moving forward with Conformity Assessment, keeping in mind the feedback on 

certificate review and the concerns regarding the potential costs associated with conformity assessment. 

NCWM Organizational Structure 

The Board reviewed the input of the membership on this issue. The membership expressed their support for any needed 

changes, provided that the work normally handled by the A & P Committee is reassigned. The Board did not hear any

negative comments concerning this issue. Chairman Ross Andersen met with the A & P Committee during the week and

reassured them that the work that the Committee had traditionally handled would be reassigned to task forces and work

groups. Noting that much of the work traditionally handled by this committee need not be constrained by the

Interim/Annual meeting schedule, the Board felt that much more can be accomplished if pieces of the work are tasked to

different work groups. One important piece to be handled by a task force is the development of the National Training 

Program curriculum. The Board also discussed how the Metrology Workgroup and Petroleum Subcommittee fit into the 

NCWM structure. 

NCWM Bylaws, Section 2 – Standing Committees, states, “The Board of Directors may create and disband standing 

committees in the best interests of the Corporation.” After reviewing this section of the Bylaws, the Board made the

decision to disband the A & P Committee following the 2003 Annual Meeting. Current committee members will be asked

to join a task force working on the National Training Program curriculum. The Board also determined that the Metrology 

Subcommittee and Petroleum Subcommittee would continue within the current structure without funding. If funding is 

needed, they will be asked to submit their budget requests as a part of NCWM’s normal budgeting process. 

Status of the Administrative & Public Affairs Committee

The Board of Directors determined that it will disband the A & P Committee following this annual meeting. In its place, 

the Professional Development Committee will be created as a Standing Committee. It will be comprised of the current

members of the A & P Committee. Vacancies will be filled. The Board will begin immediately to develop the charge to 

the Committee so that work can begin as soon as possible. In addition, California’s training program on CD Rom is near

completion. When it is completed, NCWM Headquarters will mail a complimentary copy to each State Director. 

Dues Change 

The Board approved a dues increase as a part of the 2004 budget. Active and associate dues were set at $65. Associate 

members will continue to contribute $15 per member to the Associate Member Fund in addition to the $65 dues. 

BOD - 3 
BOD 2003 Final Report

Commitment to Better Communication 

Following feedback at the open hearings, the Board has made a commitment to better communication with the 

membership. In addition to attending the Regionals, the Board will publish a column in the NCWM News that reviews

the issues before the Board at each of their meetings.

Voting/Bylaws Change

The Board will review the issue of the current Bylaws that specifies that in order for an issue to pass, it must receive 27 

votes. With the current economic constraints, the Board recognizes that in order for the work of the Conference to 

proceed, a Bylaws change may be necessary. If a Bylaws change is deemed necessary, it will be presented to the 

membership at next year’s annual meeting for a vote. 

National Training Program Curriculum 

Ross Andersen and Mike Cleary from the Board met with the A & P Committee and Henry Oppermann of NIST Weights 

and Measures Division (NIST WMD) to discuss the National Training Program (NTP). The Committee was asked to take 

on an assignment to develop a weights and measures training curriculum outline. This outline would serve as the master 

plan for a long-term effort to modernize the NTP. With a master plan, the NCWM could seek grants to develop the

training materials, a good use for money that might come from Aves Thompson’s Fair Measurement Act. 

The outline would be used to organize the subject material in a hierarchy so that training materials and aids could be

developed through a variety of sources (NIST WMD, state and local W&M jurisdictions, industry, etc.) with minimal 

amounts of redundancy. A review of the current scale modules will quickly reveal that much of the material is repeated in

each module. Rather than develop complete courses, the subjects in the outline would be discrete units of knowledge that 

could be presented independent of each other, yet still combined to cover a specific discipline. It is anticipated that many

of the discrete units could be delivered through interactive CD-ROM or Internet formats and these units would have broad

appeal across a variety of disciplines. Materials requiring instructor delivery would thus be reduced to maximize the use

of instructor time with a student. 

The NIST WMD is in agreement that a master plan is needed to improve the NTP. They have offered to assist the NCWM

in this effort and to fund a meeting in the spring to bring together a work group on the subject. The NCWM Chairman has

asked the current A&P members to work with NIST WMD in this effort. The initial plan is to exchange ideas via email to

prepare and then meet at NIST to work through the layout of the curriculum outline. 

The State of California reported that it is completing a series of general knowledge CD-ROM courses along the same type

of organization. These courses cover a wide range of basic knowledge that would be applicable to almost every W&M

official from the administrator to the field inspector. They have offered to allow the NCWM to use their efforts as a

starting point to develop the training materials. The California courses contain specific references to their law and 

regulations and would have to be modified to a certain extent to make them more universal. The A&P Committee was 

provided with samples of some of the courses that have been completed thus far. 

OIML 

The Board identified the U.S. commitment to OIML as an important issue in its strategic planning. In addition to our

treaty commitments, it is vital that the U.S. avoid isolation from the international market in commercial measuring

devices because of unique design requirements here. The Board has set goals to become more active in the international

arena and is working toward this on several fronts. 

The NCWM must increase its member awareness of OIML activities and how these affect the commercial devices being

produced today throughout the world. In this regard it is important to recognize that OIML deals primarily with device 

design and type evaluation criteria. The OIML recommendations only indirectly affect field applications and verification

procedures. The Board has a number of strategic objectives in this regard including:

• Consideration of current OIML recommendations whenever changes U.S. requirements are proposed. 

BOD - 4 
BOD 2003 Final Report 

• Comparisons of U.S. and OIML requirements, where possible, to identify conflicts. To resolve these conflicts, the 

NCWM should consider harmonizing with the OIML requirement or consider proposing changes to OIML

requirements. 

• Increasing W&M participation in the U.S. working groups as they review the ongoing work of the OIML technical

committees and thus strengthen the U.S. position. Currently the working groups are primarily made up of the NIST 

staff and interested industry representatives. 

• Considering bilateral agreements with other countries to accept type evaluation test data. 

The NIST WMD has contracted a study of OIML recommendations R76 on Non-automatic Weighing Devices and R60

Load Cells. The draft of the study is available from NIST WMD on request. The Board will be asking that the NTEP

Weighing Sector and the S&T Committee look carefully at the recommendations of the study. Many of the 

recommendations support changes to Publication 14 and HB 44 to harmonize with OIML and others support changes to

OIML requirements. The timing is opportune since the OIML technical committees are looking to begin work on these 

documents this year. The U.S. Working Group on R117 Measuring Assemblies for Liquids other than Water is also

working on a comparison of U.S. vs. OIML requirements as this Recommendation is also presently under review. This is

a second opportunity to work toward minimizing conflicts between the U.S. and international standards. 

The Board is looking closely at the OIML requirements for load cells, since the present NTEP test procedures are very

close to OIML tests with only a few differences. Changing to the OIML tests might have very little impact on U.S. 

manufacturers who already conform to the international standards or on NTEP. Adoption of the OIML test procedures by 

NTEP would open the door to potential bilateral agreements to exchange test data with other national bodies (another

strategic objective). 

The Board also believes that the W&M community needs to gain a better understanding of OIML through education. The 

Board is working with NIST WMD to plan education sessions for this year’s regional weights and measures association 

meetings. These sessions might help to reduce some of the anxiety that comes from a lack of understanding of the benefits

of OIML

Fair Measurement Appropriation

Ross Andersen will work with Aves Thompson to put together a work group to support Aves’ efforts in this area. The 

Associate Members offered to help promote this issue through their trade associations. A paper detailing the talking 

points on this issue will be put together so that it can be forwarded to the trade associations. The Board thanks Aves 

Thompson for his work on the Fair Measurement Appropriation. 

Statistics Work Group 

The survey instrument is being finalized and will be released soon to gather some basic statistics on current programs.

The immediate goal is to get data that can be used to support weights and measures programs as they compete for budget

dollars, including some measure of economic impact on the U.S. marketplace. In addition, the workgroup will be

requesting samples of data and reports currently compiled on program activities in our state and local programs. The 

information will be analyzed to find ways to gather national statistics that are uniform and meaningful in an effort to 

document the value of our programs. These statistics may be needed soon to support the Fair Measurement Act proposal. 

Canadian Forum on Trade Measurement 

Chairman Ross Andersen and S&T Committee Chairman Will Wotthlie recently attended the Canadian Forum on Trade 

Measurement representing the NCWM. The Trade Forum is somewhat similar to the NCWM as it offers an open forum

for industry and the regulators to exchange views on important issues. Chairman Andersen reported to the Board his

belief that NCWM should continue to fund participation in the Forum for the Chairman and the S&T Chairman. The 

NCWM needs to reciprocate where possible for the support Measurement Canada provides to our program. The Forum

provides a perfect opportunity to do this. This year was the first time that the S&T Chairman attended the Forum. It is an

opportunity to see the issues being raised there and learn from the Canadian discussions as well as provide input regarding 

U.S. deliberations on those subjects. A key area for Measurement Canada is OIML. Measurement Canada has expressed 

its interest in both influencing and adopting OIML R117 requirements. Canadian industry expressed concern that they

were more concerned with U.S. requirements than OIML, since the United States is the major market for them. It was 

very important for them to hear that the NCWM also is interested in influencing and adopting OIML requirements. Gilles

BOD - 5 
BOD 2003 Final Report

Vinet, Measurement Canada, expressed his appreciation to NCWM for their participation in the Forum and welcomed 

continued support from NCWM. 

Hypertext Handbooks

A decision was made discontinue production of the NCWM hypertext handbook CDs. Instead, the Board has decided to

enter into a contract relationship with WinWam to resell their product. 

Financial 

The Board reviewed the 2001/02 year-end audited financial report. 

Statement of Activities ending September 30, 2002 2003 Budget

Revenue and Support 

Dues – government $ 81,065 $ 82,000

Dues – associate $ 51,165 $ 51,250 

Associate member fund $ 15,460 $ 15,375 

NTEP $ 437,594 $ 443,300 

Interim Meeting Fees $ 20,765 $ 22,950

Annual Meeting Fees $ 87,616 $ 83,000

Publication Sales $ 24,062 $ 35,500

Interest $ 9,758 $ 7,500 

Advertising $ 879 $ 2,000 

AMC Sponsorship News - $ 9,000 

AMC Sponsorship Hypertext - $ 6,000 

Total Revenue and Support $ 728,364 $ 757,875 

Expenses

Programs

Membership $ 9,821 $ 10,875

NTEP $ 362,879 $ 426,250 

Interim Meeting $ 46,404 $ 52,462

Annual Meeting $ 85,257 $ 107,075 

Publications $ 24,540 $ 24,775

Newsletter $ 16,887 $ 13,819

Total Programs $ 545,788 $ 635,256 

Management and general

Management Fees $ 46,000 $ 46,500

Associate Fund $ 23,515 $ 15,000

Board of Directors $ 18,382 $ 28,000

Committee Contingency $ 1,500 

Bank Fees $ 8,340 $ 5,750 

Website $ 6,812 $ 16,885

Board Governance & CEO Symposium $ 5,637 - 

Legal & Accounting $ 5,590 $ 8,225 

Telephone $ 2,998 $ 2,500 

Insurance $ 2,507 $ 2,600 

Office Supplies $ 1,080 $ 1,000 

Printing $ 973 $ 900 

Postage $ 99 $ 250 

Storage space rental $ 960 $ 960 

Total Management and general $ 122,893 $ 130,070 

Total Expenses $ 668,681 $ 765,326 

Change in net assets $ 59,683 ($7,451)

BOD - 6 
BOD 2003 Final Report 

Meetings 

The Board received positive feedback on the new format of the Interim Meeting. The new format will continue for future 

Interim Meetings. In addition, with one exception, there was positive feedback on the CD version of Pub 15. NIST WMD 

will continue to produce both Pub 15 & Pub 16 in the CD format. Hard copies of the publications will be available at the 

respective conference. 

The Board continued the policy adopted last year to offer a one-time reduced registration fee for the annual conference to 

members from the region where the conference is being held and who are first time attendees. The reduced registration 

fee does not permit the attendee to vote on voting items and they must pay an additional fee for the Special Event. 

Future Meetings: 

Annual

2004 July 11-15 Hilton Pittsburgh & Towers, Pittsburgh, PA 

2005 July 10-14 Hilton in Walt Disney World, Orlando, FL 

2006 July 9-13 Chicago Marriott, Chicago, IL 

Interim

2004 January 25-28 Hyatt Regency Bethesda, Bethesda, MD

2005 January 23-26 Fairmont Miramar, Los Angeles, CA

2006 January 22-25 Omni Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL 

Nominating 

The Nominating Committee submitted the following slate for the 2003/04 Board of Directors open positions. Chair – 

Elect, Dave Frieders, San Francisco, CA; Treasurer, Tom Geiler, Barnstable, MA; Directors: Stephen Pahl, TX, and Chris 

Guay, Procter & Gamble Co.

Committee Appointments 

Chairman Ross Andersen made the following appointments at the 2002 Annual Meeting:

• Board of Directors – Dave Frieders, San Francisco, CA, to fill the vacancy created by the election of Dennis

Ehrhart to Chairman Elect. 

• L&R Committee – James Cassidy, Cambridge, MA, replacing Pat D’Errico, NJ, whose term had expired.

• S&T Committee – Michael Sikula, NY, replacing Mark Coyne, Brockton, MA, whose term had expired. 

• A&P Committee – Kenneth Dietzler, PA, to fill vacancy created by move of Michael Sikula to the S&T 

Committee. 

• A&P Committee – Cato Fiksdal, Los Angeles, CA, to fill vacancy created by move of Dave Frieders to the 

Board of Directors. 

NCMW/NIST WMD Relationship 

The Board continues to work with NIST WMD to foster a productive partnership. NCWM and NIST WMD are 

examining each organization’s strategic plans for areas of commonality. Where these exist, the two organizations will

explore ways to work together to accomplish these goals. The Board of Directors has invited Henry and his key staff to

attend a portion of each spring and fall Board meetings to work together to identify areas of commonality and strategies to

accomplish goals. The Board is looking closely at the roles of committee chairs, committee members and technical 

advisors. It has asked Henry Oppermann and WMD staff to update the job descriptions for technical advisors from the

NCWM Executive Committee report of the 1993 Annual Meeting. There is also dialogue about areas where NIST WMD 

might be able to provide some funding support to the work of the NCWM. 

BOD - 7 
BOD 2003 Final Report

Strategic Partnerships

The Board affirmed its desire to form strategic partnerships with and encourage outreach to related industry associations. 

The Board will explore the exchange of exhibit space with ISWM. 

Membership 

As of December 2002, NCWM had 2,606 members in the following categories: 

State Government 852 

Local Government 556 

U.S. Government 35 

Foreign Government 23 

Associate 879 

Foreign Associate 31 

Retired 230 

Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Report 

AMC Report from its Meeting at the NCWM Interim Meeting

Chairman: Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo

Vice Chair: Bill Sveum, Kraft Foods North America 

Meeting Attendees: 23

Secretary/ Treasurer: Mark Galletta, Nestlé USA 

Financial Condition

Financial reports were reviewed. Of the $6,000 AMC allocated for training last year, all but $475 was spent. Using the 

new accrual accounting method, AMC starts the new fiscal year with $32,356 balance remaining. 

Elimination of AMC “Reserve Funds” 

In past years under the cash accounting method, AMC sought to allocate all funds with the exception of $2,500 held in

reserve to avoid a zero-balance/closed account. The reserve fund is no longer necessary. Since the NCWM operates

under the accrual method of accounting, the funds collected each fiscal year should be dispersed in the same fiscal year. 

The AMC will review its policies and by-laws to see if any changes are necessary to eliminate this reserve. 

Allocation of Funds 

NCWM-BOD Request

AMC reviewed the NCWM Board of Directors request to allocate $9,000 to help offset costs associated with the 

NCWM Newsletter. 

AMC approved the request with the caveat that the $9,000 is considered a one-time allocation for the development of

the newsletter. It is AMC’s desire to allocate its funds toward training, scholarships or other special requests and that 

AMC funds not be requested to cover routine NCWM line-item operating expenses. 

Training Scholarships

The AMC will make available to the NCWM the amount of $10,500 to be administered by the A&P Committee. The 

A&P Committee must advise the AMC Board on the use of the money. The AMC Board will approve the monies 

use and make the funds available. 

Special Event Funding

The AMC will make available to the NCWM a maximum sum of $10,000 for the 2003 Annual Meeting Outing. In

the event that the standard 60 % contribution does not require the complete $10,000, the remaining funds are to be 

returned to the AMC. 

BOD - 8 
BOD 2003 Final Report 

Industry Association Meetings 

AMC needs clarification on the status of NCWM policy regarding costs of meeting rooms for the various industry

associations (e.g. ICPL, SMA) that meet during NCWM events. If these associations are charged for meeting room 

expenses, The AMC is prepared to discuss allocating funds for this purpose provided the AMC is not restricted in its

policies or by-laws from doing so. 

Concern for W&M Programs

AMC discussed concerns regarding jurisdictions facing reduction or elimination of W&M programs. AMC believes in

the need for equity and uniformity in the marketplace and will explore potentials for various trade/industry associations 

(e.g., NFPA, GMA, SMA) to voice concern in these local jurisdictions. 

Newsletter Publication of Unofficial Documents 

AMC discussed the possibility of issuing a statement at the Annual Meeting outlining concerns put forth from ICPL on

publication of unofficial guidance documents by NIST in the Newsletter. ICPL will prepare a draft. 

Expiring Terms 

Terms expire this year for Associate Members currently serving the L&R and A&P Committees. AMC members were

asked to prepare nominations for the Annual Meeting. 

AMC Report from its Meeting at the NCWM Annual Meeting

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) conducted its annual business meeting during the afternoon of July 14,

2003 at the NCWM Annual Meeting. Associate Member Representatives on the Board of Directors (BOD), the L&R, 

and the A&P Committees gave reports of committee activity. 

The AMC members present were informed that Mr. Allan Nelson has resigned from the AMC. We wish Mr. Nelson all

the best in his retirement. 

Nominations were made and a vote was taken to fill the upcoming vacancies on the AMC Committee: Cary Frye, 

International Dairy Foods Association, and Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, were nominated for a second five year term.

In addition, Chris Guay, Procter & Gamble will complete the one-year remaining on Mr. Nelson’s term. The following

AMC officers were elected: 

• Chairman: Bill Sveum, Kraft Foods North America 

• Vice Chair: Mark Galletta, Nestlé USA

• Secretary/Treasurer: Gary Lameris, Hobart Corporation 

The AMC also had the task of recommending two (2) associate members to standing committees replacing Chris Guay on 

the L&R Committee and Chip Kloos on the A&P Committee. The membership thanked Chris and Chip for their efforts 

and work on these committees and submit the following recommendations to the Board of Directors. 

• Vince Orr, ConAgra Foods for a 5 year term on the L&R Committee. 

• John Moore, Lore Consulting for a 5 year term on the Professional Development Committee. 

Mr. Aves Thompson provided the membership with an overview and current status of the Fair Measurement 

Appropriation. To move this effort forward, Mr. Thompson felt that an industry cost of non-conformance would be a 

strong supporting statement. Some individual companies expressed concerns of publishing an actual dollar value but

agreed that companies could, where possible, inform their trade association of this number. These associations will then 

be asked to consolidate these costs into a single value and make this value available in support of this effort. The AMC

thanked Mr. Thompson for the information and agree, by vote, to provide a statement of support for the FMA to the 

Board of Directors. This statement will be provided to the Board in letterform after this meeting.

BOD - 9 
BOD 2003 Final Report

The AMC annual meeting was closed with the next meeting scheduled during the 2004 NCWM Interim Meeting in

January 2004. 

__________________________________

R. Andersen, New York, NCWM Chairman

D. Ehrhart, Arizona, NCWM Chairman Elect 

L. Straub, Maryland, Past NCWM Chair 

T. Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts, Treasurer 

R. McGrath, Boston, Massachusetts 

D. Onwiler, Nebraska

M. Gray, Florida 

M. Cleary, California 

M. Pinagel, Michigan

D. Frieders, San Francisco, California 

D. Quinn, Associate Membership, Fairbanks Scales 

Advisors:

G. Vinet, Canada 

B. Palys, CAE, NCWM Executive Director 

Executive Secretary: H. Oppermann, NIST 

Board of Directors 

BOD - 10
BOD 2003 Final Report 

Appendix A 

Report on the Activities of the 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 

and 

Regional Legal Metrology Organizations

International Legal Metrology Group

Weights and Measures Division, NIST

The International Legal Metrology Group (ILMG) in the Weights and Measures Division (WMD) of the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is responsible for coordinating U.S. participation in OIML and other 

international legal metrology organizations. Learn more about OIML at the ILMG website at http://ts.nist.gov/oiml or at

the OIML website at http://www.oiml.org on the Internet. Dr. Charles Ehrlich, Group Leader of the ILMG, can be 

contacted at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov or at 301-975-4834 or by fax at 301- 975-5414. 

Table of Contents 

Subject Page 

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees.................................................................BOD - A1

II. “Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type Evaluations” (First Draft

MAA Document).....................................................................................................................................BOD - A4

III. Report on the OIML Presidential Council...............................................................................................BOD - A5

IV. Report on the 37th Meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) .....................BOD - A6

V. Report on the OIML Development Council ............................................................................................BOD - A7

VI. 9 Annual Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) th ...................................................................BOD - A8

VII. Inter-American Metrology System (SIM) Legal Metrology Working Group (LMWG) Meeting...........BOD - A8

VIII. Report on the “International Workshop on the Future of Legal Metrology” - September 2002..............BOD - A9

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees 

This section provides a report on the status of work in OIML Technical Committees (TCs) and Technical Subcommittees 

(SCs) of specific interest to members of the NCWM. Also included are reports on recent activities of those groups and 

schedules of future activities of Secretariats, the U.S. National Working Groups (NWGs), and the International Working 

Groups (IWGs) of committees and subcommittees. 

TC 3 Metrological Control (United States of America)

The 1st draft revision of OIML D1 “Elements for a Law on Metrology” was developed by a joint working group of the

OIML, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), and the International Laboratory Accreditation

Cooperation (ILAC). A second draft is under development by the International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) and

the Laws and Metric Group and will be distributed to the members of TC3 and to the Laws and Regulations Committee

for their review. This revision of D1 presents the various elements that should be considered when preparing laws related 

to metrology. This document gives advice on general laws covering all the aspects of metrology, as well as specific laws

related to some distinct aspect of metrology, such as legal units and traceability. It can also be used to evaluate

provisions related to metrology in more general laws such as those on consumer protection and conformity assessment.

When completed, the document will be a tool that individuals can use in preparing such laws. They can select appropriate 

elements and adapt them into their legislation. Please contact Kathy Dresser at 301-975-3289 or at

kathryn.dresser@nist.gov if you would like to obtain a copy of the 2nd draft revision of D1 or to participate in this 

project. 

BOD - A1
BOD 2003 Final Report

TC 5/SC 1 Electronic Instruments (Netherlands)

A meeting was held in the Netherlands in October 2002 to discuss comments received on the 2nd committee draft (2CD) 

of a revision of D11 "General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments." There were a number of new

proposals for tests to be added to D11. A procedure was established to consider these proposed amendments to the 

revision and to require the proposing nation to develop a complete proposal that will be balloted before its incorporation 

into the D11 revision. The comments received on the 2CD were discussed clause by clause. There was considerable 

discussion about broadening the scope of application from electronic instruments to include all measuring instruments. 

The technical committee voted not to change the scope at the present time in order to keep the revision on track. The

minutes, decisions, and resolutions of the meeting are available. A third committee draft was circulated by the Secretariat 

in May 2003. For more information on this activity, contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at 301-975-2333 or at

ambler@nist.gov. 

TC 8/SC 3 “Measuring Instruments for Liquids other than Water.” (Germany)

OIML R117 “Measuring Instruments for Liquids other than Water” is undergoing an extensive revision – incorporating

new instrument technologies and merging the document with OIML recommendations R86 “Drum Meters” and R105

“Mass Flowmeters.” The Netherlands (NMi), as the convener of the International Working Group TC8/SC3/WG2 

“Revision of R117," is working closely with the US and Germany to accomplish this task. The United States is making

significant contributions on this revision as both a participating member on WG2 and as the convener of the working

group tasked with merging R117 and R105. Please contact Ralph Richter at 301-975-4025 or ralph.richter@nist.gov if 

you would like to participate on this project. 

TC 8/SC 4 “Dynamic Mass Measurements (Liquids other than Water)” (United States)

ILMG is working on the merger of OIML R105 “Direct Mass Flow Measuring Systems for Quantities of Liquids” (for 

which the United States is the Secretariat) with OIML R117 "Measuring Systems for Liquids other than Water" (for

which Germany is the Secretariat). The United States is the convener of the international working group TC8/SC4/WG1

named “Combination R105/R117.” This is a major priority project for OIML. ILMG is working with the U.S. National

Working Group on flowmeters, Germany, and the Netherlands (convener of the work group tasked with revising R117)

on this effort. Meetings of the U.S. National Working Group (USNWG) on flowmeters were held during the NCWM

Annual Meeting in July 2002, the Interim Meeting in January 2003, and the Annual Meeting in July 2003. Measurement

Canada has been a strong contributor to this effort. A successful meeting was held in September 2002 at the 

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany to review the work already done by the USNWG and to

establish an aggressive 2-year timetable for TC8/SC3 and SC4 to complete this major project. The first committee draft 

of the revised/combined R117 is expected to be distributed in August 2003, and a joint meeting of the two subcommittees 

working on this project is scheduled for October 2003 in Paris, France. 

TC8/SC5 “Water Meters” (United Kingdom)

CIML approved a revision of R49 for “mechanical and electronic” water meters in October 1999. Following that 

adoption, subsequent meetings of TC8/SC5/WG2 were held to develop a test procedure and test report format. The U.S.

voted “yes” to OIML TC8/SC5’s proposed amendment to OIML R49-1 “Water Meters Intended for the Metering of Cold

Potable Water Part 1: Metrological Requirements” to update the referenced standards for disturbance and influence factor 

testing. The U.S. voted “no” on a CIML ballot to adopt a proposed recommendation OIML R49-2 “Water Meters 

Intended for the Metering of Cold Potable Water Part 2: Test Methods.” The negative ballot resulted from the addition of

a series of unnecessary tests which would increase the cost of having meters tested, as well as a failure to follow a 

committee ballot to delay the CIML submission until 2002. The CIML approved OIML R49-2 at its Annual Meeting in

Moscow, Russia, in September 2001. A subsequent meeting of TC8/SC5 held in Brussels, Belgium, in October 2001

involved discussions of the changes required in the OIML R49-1 document to make it consistent with R49-2 and to revise 

OIML R49-2 as necessary. OIML TC8/SC5 balloted the changes and approved the revisions to OIML R49-1 and OIML

R49-2. The amended R49-1 was placed on the OIML web site in April 2002 and since no CIML Member objected it is

considered approved and will be republished. The same procedure was followed for the amended version of R49-2 

approved by TC 8/SC5. The new corrected versions of R49-1 and R49-2 are now at the printer for republishing. In

addition, OIML R49-3 “Test Report Format” was submitted for ballot to TC8/SC5 in August 2002, and the U.S. voted to

approve it. Please contact Wayne Stiefel at 301-975-4011 or at stiefel@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this 

effort. 

BOD - A2
BOD 2003 Final Report 

TC8/SC7 “Gas Metering” (Belgium and France)

An International Working Group (IWG) meeting was held in Brussels in March 2001 to discuss a 2nd CD draft OIML 

Recommendation “Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel” to include natural and compressed natural gas. The meeting 

focused on discussion of comments on the 2nd CD draft Recommendation. A second meeting of the IWG focused on a 2nd

CD Recommendation “Measuring Systems for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for Vehicles” and annexes covering 

performance tests for electronic devices and basic test procedures. The Secretariat has circulated a 3rd CD “Measuring 

Systems for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for Vehicles” for comment and vote. In April 2003, the US cast a negative 

ballot because the testing requirements were unrealistic. Please contact Wayne Stiefel at 301-975-4011 or at 

stiefel@nist.gov if you would like to obtain a copy of the 3rd CD or participate in this project. 

TC 8/SC 8 “Gas Meters” (Netherlands)

The Secretariat sent the members of the committee a letter with the results of a questionnaire asking for comments to

guide the initiation of a work program to revise R6 “General provisions for gas volume meters,” R31 “Diaphragm Gas 

Meters”, and R32 “Rotary Piston Gas Meters and Turbine Gas Meters.” A small majority of members voted to produce 

one new recommendation for gas meters that will replace R6, R31, and R32. The Secretariat reported that they would 

develop an initial draft. The new document, according to the Secretariat, may consist of a general chapter mainly 

consisting of R6 and those aspects in common with R31 and R32 and separate chapters on household and industrial gas 

meters. The U.S. NWG provided comments and will participate in the development of the new Recommendation. Please

contact Wayne Stiefel at 301-975-4011 or at stiefel@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this project. 

 

TC 9/SC 1 “Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments” (Germany and France) 

In May of 2002, Germany and France, the co-secretariats of OIML TC 9/SC 1 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments”

(NAWI), announced that they had initiated the first review of OIML Recommendation 76 “Non-automatic Weighing

Instruments” since 1994. This review cycle is of major importance to U.S. interests because R76 serves as the foundation 

for a majority of the laws and regulations that govern weighing instruments around the world. This review is significant

for U.S. weighing instrument manufacturers because the international harmonization of requirements will eliminate

technical barriers to trade and reduce the delays and the cost of getting new weighing instruments into the global

marketplace. It is also important for legal metrology officials since it is taking place when the NCWM is considering 

entering into Mutual Acceptance Arrangements for type evaluations with other countries (e.g., Germany). This effort

supports one of the Conference’s long-range strategies that is to “work toward the harmonization of U.S. (e.g., NIST 

Handbook 44 “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices”) and

international standards.” The review process for R76 has begun with the Co-Secretariats requesting comments from

Member States using a questionnaire that asks for feedback on everything from the basic principles of R76

(e.g., tolerances and accuracy classes) to exploring the addition of new requirements. Some of the new requirements 

under consideration would allow for the type evaluation of “modules” (e.g., digital indicators and load receiving

elements). One question asks whether new tests for electronic instruments are needed. If you would like to receive a

copy of the U.S. comments that were submitted in September 2002, or participate in this work please contact Steve Cook

at 301-975-4003 or steven.cook@nist.gov. 

TC 9/SC 2 “Automatic Weighing Instruments” (United Kingdom) 

The U. S. voted “no” at the recent CIML meeting on the ballot to adopt a proposed OIML Recommendation on

“Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles in Motion – Part A: Total Vehicle Weight”. The CIML did approve

the recommendation, however, which is being published as R134, Part A. The Recommendation specifies requirements

for highway weight enforcement scales used to obtain a total vehicle weight of trucks while they are in motion. The 

negative ballot was cast because the Secretariat failed to accept several U.S. comments regarding the technical accuracy 

of the terminology used in the proposed standard and because the U.S. did not support the adoption of an incomplete

OIML Recommendation. A meeting of the International Working Group was held at the United Kingdom’s National

Weights and Measures Laboratory in Teddington, England in November 2001. At the meeting it was agreed that a Part B

should be developed as a stand-alone Recommendation to apply to both total vehicle weighing (incorporating the 

requirements from Part A) and axle load determinations. In adopting this approach, it was understood that Part B would

eventually supersede Part A, as the requirements for total vehicle weighing will be duplicated. Upon completion of Part 

B, a decision will be made as to whether Part A should be withdrawn and Part B issued as a new Recommendation or,

alternatively, whether Part B should be issued as a revision to Part A, (i.e., as a second edition.) In September of 2002, 

ILMG received a second committee draft of Recommendation "Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles in 

BOD - A3
BOD 2003 Final Report

Motion – Part B – Axle Loads" that was prepared by the OIML Secretariat in the United Kingdom. After extensive 

review by the TC, this draft was rejected, and the Secretariat developed a third committee draft. The US voted “no” on

the 3CD in July 2003. If you would like to receive a copy of the latest draft of this Recommendation or participate in this 

work please contact Richard Harshman at 301-975-8107 or harshman@nist.gov. 

TC 9/SC 3 “Weights” (United States)

A draft revision of OIML Recommendation R111 “Weights....” was adopted by the CIML in the summer of 2002. NIST

staff are working closely with Dr. Michael Glaser of PTB (Germany) and Dr. Richard Davis (BIPM) to develop a final 

draft of R111 that will be sent to the International Committee on Legal Metrology (CIML) for adoption. Adoption of a 

new edition of this Recommendation is a high priority project for OIML as it is considered one of the most basic and 

important sets of requirements that member states can adopt as the foundation for their laws on metrology. TC9/SC3 also

agreed that OIML R52 “Hexagonal Weights” would not be withdrawn since its requirements may still be used in some

developing countries. An updated edition of R52 was recently approved by TC9/SC3 and is currently under consideration 

by CIML for adoption. 

A draft revision of OIML Recommendation 33 “Conventional Value of the Result of Weighing in Air" was adopted by

TC9/SC3 in the spring of 2002. The technical committee also voted to change R33 into an OIML International

Document. ILMG worked closely with Dr. M. Glaser (PTB) and Dr. R. Davis (BIPM) to develop a final draft that will be

sent to the CIML for adoption in November 2003. 

TC17/SC1 “Humidity” (China)

 

In February 2001, the 1st Committee Draft Revision of OIML R59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds" was 

received from the TC17/SC1 Secretariat, the Peoples Republic of China. The current edition of R59 was developed in 

the 1980s and includes technical and metrological requirements for both automatic and manual meters. A U.S. National

Working Group reviewed the draft revision of R59 and sent comments to the Secretariat in the spring of 2001. In

June 2001, Dr. Ambler Thompson and Dr. David Funk of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Grain Inspection and 

Packers and Stockyard Administration attended a meeting of TC17/SC1 held in Berlin, Germany. Dr. A. Thompson

presented U.S. proposals to clarify the scope and general direction that the revision process for R59 should take and

highlighted the need to recognize new technologies and tolerances for these instruments. Another issue is the need to 

separate the reference moisture method, usually defined by the responsible national authority, from the qualification of 

instruments since there is not an international agreement for a global reference moisture determination test method. 

These proposals were well received in particular by France, China, and Germany. The Chairman of the meeting asked the

United States to prepare an OIML draft based on the National Conference on Weights and Measures National Type

Evaluation Program (NTEP) for review by an International Working Group (IWG) composed of France, Germany, 

Poland, China and the United States. Dr. Thompson prepared a working draft of the Recommendation based upon

requirements for moisture meters in Handbook 44 and Publication 14. This working draft was distributed to the IWG in 

February 2003 for comment. Based on comments received on the working draft, a first committee draft was distributed to

the IWG in May 2003. Both drafts were also distributed to the U.S. National Working Group, which for the most part is a

subset of the NTEP Grain Sector. Please contact Diane Lee at 301-975-4405 or at diane.lee@nist.gov if you would like 

to participate in this working group. 

II. “Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type Evaluations” (First 

Draft MAA Document) 

The First Draft Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) Document, along with the associated document “Checklists for 

issuing authorities and testing laboratories carrying out OIML type evaluations,” was distributed to the full CIML for 

‘preliminary’ vote and comment, with a request for written responses by April 2003. All CIML members were invited to

a special Workshop on the MAA and were asked to provide comments to assist in the development of a final draft MAA

document. The Workshop on the MAA was held in Paris on June 2-3, 2003. Final CIML adoption of the MAA is

planned for the 38th CIML meeting in November 2003 in Kyoto, Japan. 

It is anticipated that the earlier concerns about some of the provisions of the MAA (cost, peer-review vs. accreditation

requirements, signatory responsibility, scope/terminology, and non-allowance of supplementary requirements) by the ‘no”

voters at the Subcommittee level will still exist, but the Workshop will be structured to explicitly address these issues to

attempt to find compromise solutions. The first draft document MAA also contains two new provisions (incorporating 

BOD - A4
BOD 2003 Final Report 

“Associates” to clarify the role of OIML Corresponding Members in the MAA, and including the possibility of an OIML

Issuing Authority issuing an OIML Certificate along with an authenticating letter validating a test report) that are intended 

to provide clarification to the MAA. 

The progress of the MAA is of special interest to the NCWM because the Board of Directors have put on hold negotiating

a bilateral agreement to exchange test data on type evaluations with Germany’s PTB until the future of the MAA is 

established. 

III. Report on the OIML Presidential Council 

OIML Presidential Council Meeting – February 24-25, 2003

Dr. C. Ehrlich attended a meeting of the OIML Presidential Council at the OIML Headquarters (the International Bureau 

of Legal Metrology (BIML) in Paris) on February 24-25, 2003. Other attendees were G. Faber (President, International

Committee of Legal Metrology, CIML), M. Kochsiek (CIML First Vice President, Germany), L. Issaev (CIML Second

Vice President, Russia), J. Bennett (member, Australia), S. Carstens (new member, South Africa), J. Han (attending for

Wang Qinping, new member, China), A. Johnston (member, Canada), M. Tanaka (member, Japan), J. F. Magana

(Director, BIML), and G.E.M. Anabe (Chair, OIML Development Council). Attending for part of the meeting were:

I. Dunmill (Assistant Director, BIML), A. Szilvassy (Assistant Director, BIML) and C. Pulham (Editor, BIML). 

Topics discussed included OIML financial matters (the organization is solvent), the upcoming election of a new CIML

President, OIML Technical Activities, and the status of the “Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) for OIML Type 

Evaluations” (see separate sections in this report). J. Magana reported that he anticipates needing to hire another staff

person when the MAA is passed; this position should be entirely fee-supported (he estimated that annual letter/certificate

registration fees associated with the MAA will need to be about $300 per letter/certificate). 

A plan was proposed by A. Szilvassy for accelerating some of the OIML technical work by reviewing the distribution of 

responsibilities for OIML TCs, SCs and projects and identifying areas where new responsibilities could be established.

Progress was reported on plans for holding a jointly-sponsored seminar (PTB and NIST), as a sequel to a seminar held in 

1998 by PTB on “The role of metrology in social and economic development”. S. Carpenter, Director of the NIST Office 

of International and Academic Affairs, serves on the planning committee. 

Significant progress was made in the development of two draft policy papers on “Liaisons between the OIML and other 

bodies” and “Interactions between the OIML and the Regional Legal Metrology Organizations”. It is anticipated that

these will be ready for CIML vote at the next CIML meeting (November 2003). The first paper covers how agreements 

such as the current one between OIML and European Committee for Standardization/European Committee for

Electrotechnical Standardization (CEN/CENELEC) will be negotiated in the future. A decision was made to reclassify a

draft policy paper on “Horizontal Documents” as a guidance document, due to the complexity of the topic and the 

difficulty establishing policy. 

The progress report by John Birch on his study of the “Benefit of Legal Metrology for the Economy and Society” was 

discussed, with the conclusion that John should complete the last Chapter (on “Economics of Legal Metrology”) before

any further decisions can be made as to how to proceed with this report. G. Tassey, NIST Senior Economist, believes that

this chapter will be difficult because the studies Birch cites approach the estimation of benefits and costs differently. 

OIML Presidential Council Meeting – September 30, 2002

Dr. C. Ehrlich attended another meeting of the OIML Presidential Council (Council) last September. Other attendees

were G. Faber (President, International Committee of Legal Metrology, CIML), M. Kochsiek (CIML First Vice 

President), L. Issaev (CIML Second Vice President), J. Bennett (new member), A. Johnston (member), M. Tanaka

(member), J. F. Magana (Director, BIML), and G.E.M. Anabe (Chair, OIML Development Council). 

Topics discussed included OIML financial matters, the election of a new CIML President, and the status of the “Mutual 

Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) for OIML Type Evaluations” (see separate section in this report), and draft policy

papers. A jointly-sponsored seminar (PTB and NIST) was discussed as possibly being organized after further analysis of

potential benefits is conducted as a sequel to one held in 1998 by PTB on “The role of metrology in social and economic

development.” 

BOD - A5
BOD 2003 Final Report

The progress of establishing an independent task force to improve the speed and effectiveness of the OIML Development 

Council was also briefly discussed (see Development Council section of this report). 

Upcoming OIML Meetings 

The next meeting of the OIML Presidential Council will be held in November 2003, in conjunction with the 38th CIML

meeting in Kyoto, Japan. The 2004 CIML meeting will be held in conjunction with the next quadrennial OIML

Conference in Berlin, Germany, from October 25-29, 2004. The 2005 CIML meeting will be held in Paris to coincide

with the 50th Anniversary of the establishment of OIML. 

IV. Report on the 37th Meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) 

Representatives from 54 of the 58 member nations participated in the 37th Annual Meeting of CIML from October 1-4,

2002, in Saint Jean-de-Luz, France. Meetings of the OIML Presidential and Development Councils were also held and

are reported on above. Dr. C. Ehrlich is the CIML Member for the United States. 

In his opening address, G. Faber raised the issue that his term as President of CIML will be over in 2003 and that the 

search for a successor has begun. The time for announcing candidacies for this position was extended until 

January 2003. 

The CIML reviewed the OIML Action Plan. It was noted that while progress was good in most areas, the area of 

standards development to cover software-related issues needs work. Slovenia volunteered to be the Secretariat of OIML

TC5 (Electronic Instruments and Software) that covers this topic. New entries in the Action Plan provide for the

development of “horizontal documents” that would address matters of general interest (such as software, printers, etc.), 

and provide for the renegotiation of existing agreements between OIML and CEN/CENELEC to make them more 

reciprocal. 

Albania has become a full Member State, and the Philippines has resigned its membership. Vietnam and New Zealand are 

looking to become Member States. The financial situation of OIML is stable for this year. The recent addition of two new 

staff members at the BIML has brought the staffing level back to its 2000 level. 

The BIML Director gave a live demonstration of the improved OIML web site (http://www.oiml.org). This site will

continue to be upgraded and improved. 

The Committee approved the following two draft International Recommendations: 

R 84 “Platinum, copper and nickel resistance thermometers (for industrial use)” (revision)

R 134 “Automatic instruments for weighing road vehicles in motion – Part A– Total vehicle weighing” (new) 

The CIML endorsed the BIML proposal to approve the revision of OIML R 111 (Weights) by CIML postal vote as soon

as the final Draft Recommendation is available from the United States. 

The CIML approved the following projects as proposed by: 

• TC11/SC3 on “Procedure for the control of the main parameters and characteristics of thermovision 

instruments,” 

• TC17/SC2 on “Automatic refractometers. Method and means for verification,” and 

• TC17/SC7 to start the revision of R 126 on “Evidential breath analyzers.”

Also, TC4 (Slovakia) and TC3/SC1 (U.S.) are requested to work together to decide which technical committee should

undertake a new work project on “Verification and inspection intervals of legally controlled measuring instruments”

proposed by TC4. 

The CIML established a new Subcommittee TC17/SC8 on ‘Instruments for quality analysis of agricultural products’, 

allocated the Secretariat to Australia, and approved its first work project on “Measuring instruments used for protein

determination in grain”. 

BOD - A6
BOD 2003 Final Report 

It was reported that the second edition of the OIML Certificate System will soon be published. This edition contains new

provisions such as definitions, requirements, test methods, and test report formats regarding families, modules and 

families of modules of measuring instruments. It was requested by the CIML that OIML TC3/SC5 (United States and 

BIML are co-Secretariats) start working on an extension of the System to include “certification of individual measuring

instruments,” meaning initial verification and production-meets-type issues (component testing is already included in the 

latest draft). It was also again emphasized that the Certificate System and the Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)

must be mutually compatible. 

A report on the status of the OIML Certificate System was presented. As of October 2002, the total numbers of 

Certificates issued for R76 “Non-Automatic Measuring Instruments” is 447, for R60 “Metrological Regulation for Load 

Cells” (1991) is 226, and for R60 (2000) is 88. OIML R84 will be applicable within the System when it is published, and 

OIML R134 and OIML R49-3 “Water meters for cold potable water” will be applicable within the System when the Test 

Report Format is approved by CIML postal vote and published. The BIML prepares a notice of certificates issued each 

quarter in the OIML Bulletin, reports annually to CIML members on the status of the System, and makes this information

available on the OIML web site. The report identifies participating member nations with testing laboratories that are 

issuing authorities. 

Dr. C. Ehrlich gave an extended presentation on the status of the “Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) for OIML

Type Evaluation” and also held a question and answer period (see separate section in this report for current information

on the MAA). 

John Birch, Honorary CIML Member, has been commissioned by the President of the CIML to carry out a study on ‘The 

Benefits of Legal Metrology for the Economy and Society’. Birch gave an update, reporting that the study will primarily

be a compilation of work done to date on this topic, along with whatever quantitative analysis is possible. 

Representatives from the Regional Legal Metrology Organizations (RLMO) gave reports on activities in their regions so 

that duplicative efforts could be identified for possible combination or harmonization. The WELMEC (Europe)

Chairman gave a presentation on the European Measuring Instruments Directive (MID). Vivian Liu, Secretary of the 

World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee, gave a presentation describing regional 

seminars that the WTO TBT Committee is prepared to conduct in close cooperation with the BIML to discuss trade issues 

pertaining to legal metrology. She emphasized that the TBT agreement encourages multilateral as opposed to bilateral

arrangements. 

An OIML distinguished service award was presented (in absentia) to Dr. Ambler Thompson of the NIST ILMG for his 

dedication, enthusiasm, and commitment to the work of OIML in areas including thermometry, electronic measuring

instruments, monitoring environmental pollutants, reference materials, ionizing radiation, bio-electrical instruments,

electrical utility meters and instruments for measuring characteristics of agricultural products. Dr. Thompson will be

receiving a certificate and a medal for this recognition. 

The 2003 CIML meeting will be held in November 2003 in Kyoto, Japan. 

V. Report on the OIML Development Council 

The OIML Development Council acts as an advisory body to the CIML on matters of legal metrology in developing

countries. This Council is examining possible sources of funding (like the World Bank and United Nations Industrial 

Development Organization) for legal metrology activities (such as for training, equipment and providing internet

access/capabilities) in developing countries. While funding is important, the Council believes that equally important is

the development of a legal metrology infrastructure in these countries. Due to limited resources, providing funds for 

representation and participation by developing countries in the work of the OIML Technical Committees and 

Subcommittees (TCs/SCs) continues to be deemed not possible at this time. 

To stimulate the work of the Development Council, a special Task Group was assembled in October 2002 consisting of 

representatives from the Americas (SIM), Asia (Japan and Vietnam) and Eastern Europe (COOMET). Among other 

activities, this Task Group will help identify needs expressed in the Regional Legal Metrology Organizations (RLMOs) 

and bring them to the attention of the full OIML. A web site has been established for the special independent Task 

Group. The Group hopes to be able to complete its work next year. 

BOD - A7
BOD 2003 Final Report

VI. 9th Annual Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) 

The 9th Annual Meeting and Working Group meetings of the Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) were held

from November 20-22, 2002, in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Dr. Charles Ehrlich served as Head of Delegation and was 

accompanied by Mr. Ross Andersen in his role as the Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM). Dr. Ehrlich and Mr. Andersen participated in the Forum’s Working Group meetings on Mutual Recognition 

Arrangements, Training, Grain Moisture Meters, Intercomparison Calibration and Testing, Utility Meters, Medical 

Measurements, and Goods Packed by Measure. Dr. Ehrlich serves as Chairman of the WG on Mutual Recognition 

Arrangements, and presented a report on the status of the OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (see separate section in 

this report). Mr. Gilles Vinet (Measurement Canada) serves as Chairman of the WG on Utility Meters and reported on a 

comprehensive survey that he conducted covering regulation of utility meters in the economies of the Asia-Pacific 

regions. Mr. Andersen presented the member-nation economy report for the United States, during which he reported on

NCWM strategic-planning interest in OIML activities, on NCWM interest in participating in the OIML MAA and

looking into possible bilateral arrangements with other countries, on the proposed change to the U.S. Fair Package and

Labeling Act to permit SI-only labeling, on NTEP’s look at the production-meets-type and repaired/remanufactured

device issues, and on the joint work with American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) on devices used to measure fat

content and other parameters in animal carcasses. 

During the report of the WG on Intercomparison Calibration and Testing (Australia is the Secretariat), the recently

completed “Report on the Intercomparison of Load Cells” was discussed. While the report finds that “the results are

inconclusive and do not necessarily establish the levels of confidence that would be required as the basis for a Mutual

Recognition Agreement”, the results from the U.S. participation seem quite good and would likely support the 

establishment of U.S. bilateral arrangements with some other participating countries. Mr. Tom Bartel of the NIST Force 

Group was acknowledged for his key role in assisting the Secretariat in this project. Anyone interested in seeing the 

Report should contact Dr. Ehrlich. Also, during discussion of possible future Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum

(APLMF) intercomparisons, Mr. R. Andersen said that some U.S. states may be interested in participating in the mass

round-robin that the APLMF has been talking about conducting (for field-level F1 masses). 

Japan has now served the first year of a two-year term as Secretariat of the APLMF. The President of APLMF is Dr. 

Akira Ooiwa who is Director of the Mechanical Metrology Division at the National Metrology Institute of Japan. The 

2003 APLMF meeting will be held in November 2003, in Kyoto, Japan, in conjunction with the 38th meeting of the

International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML). There will also be a Workshop on Traceability in Legal Metrology

held at the same time. The U.S. responded favorably to a request from the Secretariat to host the 2004 APLMF meeting.

Mr. Michael Cleary, Director of the California Division of Measurement Standards, has greatly assisted Dr. Ehrlich in

making arrangements to host the 2004 APLMF meeting in San Diego. Sponsorship and attendance by all interested U.S.

parties is encouraged; please contact Dr. Ehrlich for details. 

VII. Inter-American Metrology System (SIM) Legal Metrology Working Group (LMWG) 

Meeting 

A meeting of the SIM Legal Metrology Working Group took place October 29, 2003 in Santiago, Chile in conjunction 

with the SIM General Assembly. Mr. Wayne Stiefel served as Head of the U.S. Delegation and was accompanied by Ms. 

Ileana Martinez of NIST. Cesar Luiz da Silva of Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalização e Qualidade Industrial 

(INMETRO) in Brazil served as the LMWG Chair. Attending the meeting were representatives from nineteen member 

countries: Belize, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, 

Panama, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Santa Lucia, Uruguay, USA, and Venezuela. 

SIM Web Site

The legal metrology portion of the SIM web site http://www.science.oas.org/SIM/organization/twg/smt_twg_11.htm has

improved, and now has more information and links to other sites. The Chair has sent a questionnaire to all countries 

asking for links with country web sites. The intent is to present legal metrology information by means of links rather than 

country submissions that have to be regularly updated. The suggestion to include the actual regulations of each country on 

the website was not supported. The Chair reported on the successful Brazilian experience where the INMETRO web

page has state information and links to state pages when they exist.

BOD - A8
BOD 2003 Final Report 

Packaging and Labeling Survey 

Mr. W. Stiefel led this discussion. The responses to the first survey were discussed at the Miami December 2001 

workshop. Twenty (20) countries responded to the survey. Responses are posted in the SIM LM site 

http://www.science.oas.org/SIM/organization/twg/smt_twg_11news.htm. As agreed, the survey has been resent so that 

countries will provide full and updated information on requirements, including those of agencies separate from those 

responding. 

Objectives and Scopes of the LMWG Sub Groups

The group examined an October 2002 proposal by the subgroup coordinators Brazil and the USA that clarifies the 

objectives and scopes of each subgroup (subgroup 1: Laws and Regulations and subgroup 2: Metrological Control of 

Measuring Instruments and Prepackaged Products). Responding to a question from the representative from Belize on how

subgroups fit into the scheme of the LMWG, the Chair indicated that SIM had approved two subgroups, but they have

never formally met. Agreement had been reached on which countries would participate in each subgroup; Subgroup 1: 

Brazil - chair, Argentina, Uruguay and Mexico; and Subgroup 2: USA - chair, Bolivia, Costa Rica and Jamaica.

Membership remains open on both subgroups.

Training Needs

To find out what training activities would be of interest to member countries, a survey will be conducted, similar to the 

one conducted by the Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF). The Chair will circulate this survey to the LMWG

members. In addition, members were reminded that in 1998, Ms. Georgia Harris of NIST compiled information on LM 

authorities - not actual procedures - that could be helpful to Subgroup 2. Mr. Ricardo Munoz of Mexico will obtain a copy

of the information compiled by Ms. G. Harris on the legal metrology infrastructure of the SIM countries and will be

responsible for developing a similar survey instrument to collect updated information. 

OIML- Law on Metrology 

Mr. W. Stiefel reported that the OIML TC3 committee is working on a draft revision of OIML D1 “Law on Metrology”

(see TC3 section in this report). The draft was distributed to the attendees. The Chair indicated that OIML is encouraging 

wider participation by developing countries in technical activities, principally through regional organizations. Since there 

was insufficient time to develop SIM comments on D1 on a consensus basis, countries were encouraged to submit their 

individual comments to the LMWG Chair for forwarding to the US Secretariat. All countries will receive copies of the 

collated comments. 

OAS Publication

On behalf of the Organization of American States (OAS), Jose Dajes reported that the OAS has hired a technical writer to 

develop a publication devoted exclusively to legal metrology, similar to the existing “Metrology for Non-Metrologists”. 

The content is not yet fully defined, so suggestions have been requested. The Chair will inform contributors where 

suggestions should be sent. 

VIII. Report on the “International Workshop on the Future of Legal Metrology” - September 

2002 

The International Organization of Legal Metrology held a Workshop entitled "What will Legal Metrology be in the Year 

2020" on September 26-27, 2002, in Saint-Jean-de-Luz, France. Simultaneous English-French interpretation was 

provided. The aim of this Workshop was to encourage a broad exchange of views among legal metrology authorities and

those who are subject to legal metrology requirements. There were 21 presentations, with over 100 people in attendance. 

The themes of the Workshop were: 

• Globalization 

• National and Regional Activities - Mutual Recognitions 

• New Scope and Organization of Legal Metrology

• Impact of New Technologies 

BOD - A9
BOD 2003 Final Report

Key topics included the future of type approval, the impact of electronics and software, and the importance of market 

surveillance. In particular, it was predicted that traditional means of conducting type evaluation will give way to

manufacturers performing such evaluations under accredited quality systems using self-declaration. The question “What

is the instrument?” was explored in connection with the software issue. The role of surveys in surveillance was also 

discussed.

Three U.S. presentations were given: “Issues and Trends in Legal Metrology from a U.S. Perspective” by C. Ehrlich and

H. Oppermann, “The Pattern Approval Process: the Past, the Present, the Future as seen by U.S. Instrument

Manufacturers” by D. Flocken and D. Tonini, and “Opportunities and Future Trends in Legal Metrology Control of 

Measuring Instruments” by S. Chappell. At the conclusion of Flocken’s talk, there was considerable interest expressed by

some of the audience about NCWM awareness of OIML activities, and about the likelihood of the NCWM adopting

OIML Recommendations in the future. C. Ehrlich provided verbal information about how the NCWM is kept informed of

OIML activities (such as through reports like this), and about studies currently being conducted in the U.S. to identify

what differences exist between OIML and NCWM requirements for specific types of measuring instruments. 

A summary report of the Workshop was prepared by the BIML and is available on the OIML website at 

http://www.oiml.org. 

BOD - A10 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations

Dennis Johannes 

Chairman 

California Division of Measurement Standards 

Reference 

Key Number 

200 Introduction 

This is the report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations (L&R Committee) for the 88th Annual Meeting of the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). It is based on the Interim Report offered in the NCWM 

Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at public hearings, comments received from the regional weights and 

measures associations and other parties, the addendum sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the 

membership at the voting session of the Annual Meeting. The informational items presented below were adopted as 

presented when the Committee’s report was approved. 

Table A identifies agenda items by Reference Key Number, title, and page number. The first three digits of the Reference 

Key Numbers of the items are assigned from the subject series listed below. 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 item number are

informational. Items marked “W” has been withdrawn from consideration. Items marked with a “D” after the key number 

is developing issues. The developing designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item is returned back to the 

submitter for further development before any action is taken at the national level. 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.

This report contains recommendations to amend National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 130,

2002 Edition, “Uniform Laws and Regulations,” or NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged 

Goods,” Fourth Edition. Revisions proposed by the Committee are shown in bold face print by crossing out information

to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items proposed for the handbooks are designated as such and 

shown in bold face print. Proposals presented for information are shown in italic type unless identified as informational. 

When used in this report, the term “weight” 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 (EFL) 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 Regulation (VREG) 234 Series 

Open Dating Regulation (ODR) 235 Series 

National Type Evaluation Regulation (NTER) 236 Series 

Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation (EFR) 237 Series 

Interpretations and Guidelines 238 Series 

Price Verification 239 Series 

NIST Handbook 133 250 Series 

Other Items 260 Series 

L&R - 1 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference Title of Item Page 

Key Number

232 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation.........................................................................................................3

232-1 V Stored Tare Weights ....................................................................................................................................3

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation....................................4

237-1 I Petroleum Subcommittee Agenda Items......................................................................................................4 

237-2 I Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Regulation ....................................................4 

237-3 V Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual ....................................................................5 

237-4 I Biodiesel Fuel ..............................................................................................................................................5 

237-5 D E diesel.........................................................................................................................................................9 

237-6 V Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel ..........................................................................................................9 

237-7 V Premium Diesel, Single Definition ..............................................................................................................9 

239 Price Verification..................................................................................................................................................13

239-1 I Amend NIST Handbook 130, Examination Procedure for Price Verification, Section 6.2 .......................13

250 NIST Handbook 133, Checking the Net Content of Packaged Goods.............................................................13

250-1 W Amend NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3 .............................................................13

250-2 W Amend NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter2, Section 2.2 ..............................................................14

250-3 D Amend NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2 .............................................................16

250-4 D Amend NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3 .............................................................17

260 Other Items...........................................................................................................................................................19

260-1 I Enhanced Product – USDA/FSIS Meat and Poultry Products ...............................................................19

Table B 

Appendix 

Appendix Title Page 

A Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation .........................................20

L&R -A2 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table C 

Voting Results 

Reference House of Representatives House of Delegates 

Key Number Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Results 

232-1 14 14 26 5 Item returned to

Committee 

237-3 29 0 35 0 Passed

237-6 20 12 18 19 Item returned to

Committee 

237-7 32 0 36 0 Passed

200 

Committee Report in its Entirety 32 0 37 0 Passed

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

232 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation

232-1 V Stored Tare Weights 

(This item did not pass or fail; therefore, it returns to the Committee.) 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Background: Stored vehicle tare weights are often found to be incorrect. Errors found in vehicle tare weight surveys

range from weighing 8900 pounds less than the stored tare to weighing 2680 pounds more than the stored tare. A load of

sand or gravel at a cost of $5.50 per ton with a tare error of 750 pounds has a monetary value for each weighing error of 

$2.06. If this error occurs on four transactions per day for 240 working days, it results in an overcharge of more than

$1,977 per year. Since the practice of using stored tare weights is followed by other types of businesses (e.g., landfills and 

asphalt plants) where prices may reach $70 or more per ton, an error of 750 pounds in the tare weight of a truck would 

equal $26 per weighment. If this truck were involved in four transactions per day for 240 working days, the overcharge

would total more than $25,000 per year. 

Recommendation: The Committee recognizes the need for a regulation requiring scale operators to maintain accurate

“stored” tare weights. In 2002 the Committee reviewed the information concerning this issue and voted to submit the

item for a vote, using the language as proposed by the SWMA. In July 2002, the Committee recommended amending 

NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation, Section 3, General, by adding Section 3.5 - Vehicle Tare Weights.

This item was not adopted at the 2002 NCWM. In January 2003, the Committee recommended that NIST Handbook 130,

Method of Sale Regulation, Section 3, General be amended using alternative language as provided by the Northeastern

Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA). The proposed language is as follows:

3.5. Vehicle Tare Weights. - Whenever stored vehicle tare weights are employed, the following conditions and

requirements shall apply:

3.5.1. - All stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be determined to the nearest scale division. When stored tare 

weights are used, issued weight certificates shall identify that fact by placing words such as "stored tare" next 

to the tare weight. Abbreviations or symbols may be used, provided the terminology is defined elsewhere on 

the printed ticket.

L&R - 3 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

3.5.2. - Stored vehicle scale tare weights shall be verified at regular intervals at a frequency to be determined

by the jurisdiction with statutory authority for the device, unless preempted by a more stringent 

guideline/requirement or modification of the vehicle.

Comments: During the Committee’s open hearing a proposal to change the language of this item was heard. After 

considering this suggestion, the Committee voted to keep the language as proposed by NEWMA.

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation 

237-1 I Petroleum Subcommittee Agenda Items 

Source: Petroleum Subcommittee 

Background: The Committee developed an agenda for the Subcommittee based on the comments received on the 

following projects: 

Federal Kerosene Dye Information - It was suggested that information on the new Internal Revenue Service kerosene 

dye policies be distributed to the states. The Subcommittee will distribute this information.

NCWM Publication 21 - The Western Weights and Measures Association recommends that the Petroleum 

Subcommittee revise the sampling procedures and container requirements in NCWM Publication 21, “Petroleum Products

Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual” to include precautions regarding the use of clear glass containers for product

samples. This recommendation is based on data presented to the NCWM by Chevron Products Company and the State of 

Tennessee. 

Update the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory Guideline - This guideline is contained in

the Interpretations and Guidelines Section of NIST Handbook 130 and was last updated in 1994. Since that time, the cost

of equipment has changed and new test methods have been developed. The Subcommittee proposes to revise and update

the guideline. 

Automotive Lubricants - The Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory Guideline (EFR) implies 

that the document covers lubricants. When the regulation was developed, the Subcommittee gave developing engine fuel

requirements priority. The Subcommittee has proposed requirements for lubricants. 

Comments: Ron Hayes, Missouri, updated the Committee on the Petroleum Subcommittee items. He reported that the

“Federal Kerosene Dye Information” would be addressed in a new section to be added to a future version of ASTM

D 3699 Standard Specification for Kerosene. Automotive Lubricants and NCWM Publication 21 have been addressed as 

separate issues (see L&R items 237-2 and 237-3). The Committee has concerns as to the effectiveness of the EFR since it 

is impossible to keep the document up to date. The Committee is considering two possibilities: 1) if the guideline is to be

maintained, it will need to be revised to include additional equipment for testing premium diesel, and the equipment costs 

must be updated; and 2) remove the guideline from NIST Handbook 130 and post it on the internet where it can be

updated on a more frequent basis. The Committee solicits comments concerning the proposed options. 

237-2 I Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Regulation

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Background: WWMA received numerous recommendations stating the need to update the EFR. EFR has not been 

updated since 1994. This recommendation is based on data presented to the WWMA by the Chevron Texaco Corporation. 

Comments: At the WWMA meeting, David Heck, Chevron Texaco Corporation, commented that API supports the latest

changes to EFR. The WWMA recommends that the latest amended version, which includes requirements for lubricants 

and which is contained in Appendix A, move forward as a voting item.

Mike Belue, Belue Associates, reported that the State of California and Chevron Texaco have worked together to include

the latest specifications and definitions to the document. Randy Jennings, Tennessee, reported that California (Dave 

Lazier and Dennis Johannes) and the Subcommittee members from Chevron Texaco have taken the lead on this issue.

The SWMA supports the draft and recommends consideration by the Committee. 

L&R -A4 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Recommendation: The changes proposed by WWMA to the EFR were published in Appendix A of the Committee’s

2002 Final Report. The Committee recommends that the proposed changes be studied at the regional weights and

measures meetings and comments be submitted at the 2004 Interim Meeting.

237-3 V Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Background: WWMA recommends the revision of sampling procedures and container requirements in NCWM 

Publication 21, “Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual,” to include adequate precautions regarding 

the use of clear glass containers for product samples. This recommendation is based on data presented to the WWMA by

the Chevron Texaco Corporation and the State of Tennessee.

Recommendation: Three of the four regional W&M Associations recommended similar changes to NCWM

Publication 21. The Committee studied the proposed changes and voted to move the item forward using the changes 

proposed by the SWMA. The SWMA recommended that the following text replace Publication 21, Section IV, paragraph 

B. 

B. Types of Sample Containers 

Sample containers may be clear or brown glass bottles or metal containers. A clear bottle is advantageous

when conducting a visual examination for cleanliness, free water or solid impurities, while brown glass bottles 

provide protection from light. The samples to be tested for octane or cetane should be protected from light 

because the light can alter the characteristics of the samples. (See ASTM Research Report RR: D02-1502 for 

documented effects). Plastic-coated bottles are available which provide protection from shattering. The only

suitable metal containers are seamless aluminum bottles or metal cans with seams soldered on the exterior

surface with a flux of rosin in a suitable solvent, which is easily removed with gasoline. 

Text to be replaced: 

B. Types of Sample Containers 

Sample containers may be clear or brown glass bottles, aluminum bottles, or metal cans. The clear bottle is

advantageous because it may be examined visually for cleanliness, and also allows visual inspection of the sample for 

free water or solid impurities. The brown glass bottle affords some protection from light. Plastic coated bottles are

available which provide protection against shattering. The only suitable metal cans are those with the seams soldered 

on the exterior surface with a flux of rosin in a suitable solvent that is easily removed with gasoline or seamless

aluminum bottles. NFPA 30A 9.2 (1994 edition) states "No delivery of any Class I or Class II liquid shall be made

into portable containers unless the container is constructed of metal or is approved by the authority having

jurisdiction, has a tight closure, and is fitted with a spout or is so designed that the contents can be poured without

spilling." If a jurisdiction is operating in an area where National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements

are adopted, this should be considered in selecting sample containers that will be used at retail locations. Screw caps

made of either plastic or metal may be used; the caps should provide a vapor tight closure seal. The screw caps must 

be protected with liners made of metal foil, teflon, polyethylene, or other material that will not be destroyed by or

affect the sample product. Sample containers can be cleaned and used repeatedly as long as they are still serviceable. 

The caps should be used once and then disposed of, this will help prevent leakage and loss of reliability of the 

sample. 

237-4 I Biodiesel Fuel 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: Amend EFR Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications, and Section 3. 

Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products as follows: 

L&R - 5 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Section 1. Definitions

1.8. Biodiesel. – means a blend consisting of diesel fuel and a substantial amount of esterfied animal fats and/or

vegetable oil(s).

Replace with new definitions:

1.8. Biodiesel. - Means a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable 

oils or animal fats, designated B100 (Source: Standard ASTM D 6751).

Comments: Steve Howell, MARC-IV, representing the biodiesel industry testified at the Interim Meeting on each of the

three proposed sectional changes. Mr. Howell is the technical director of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) and serves

as chairman of the ASTM Biodiesel Task Force. 

The biodiesel industry supports the proposed new definition that is the equivalent to ASTM’s definition. The biodiesel

industry also recommends adding an additional definition for biodiesel blends which clarifies that “biodiesel blends” are 

blends of biodiesel and diesel fuel. Mr. Howell stated that the current definition contained in NIST Handbook 130 for

biodiesel is incorrect and should be changed. ASTM, along with the biodiesel industry, has worked to define what

biodiesel is and is not. ASTM standards also define the difference between pure biodiesel, or B100, and blends of

biodiesel with petroleum diesel. The ASTM specification for biodiesel has been developed to insure satisfactory engine 

operation with B20 (20 % biodiesel) blends and blends less than 20 % biodiesel. Adopting the definitions that ASTM has 

developed for biodiesel will eliminate confusion between industry standard biodiesel and other materials that have been

inappropriately called biodiesel (i.e., coal slurries, raw vegetable oils, partially reacted oils, etc.) that can cause serious

engine problems. It will also assist in minimizing confusion on the type of product a consumer purchases, such as 

biodiesel B100 or a blend of biodiesel with petroleum diesel. 

Recommendation: 

1. Adopt the ASTM definition for Biodiesel B100 as proposed. 

1.8.1. Biodiesel Blend. - A fuel comprised of a blend of biodiesel fuel with petroleum-based diesel fuel, 

designated BXX.

1.8.2. In the abbreviation, BXX, the XX represents the volume percentage of biodiesel fuel in the blend. 

2. Adopt a definition for a Biodiesel Blend, as outlined in ASTM D 6751 below:

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications

2.1.3.1. B100 biodiesel shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 6751, Standard Specification for 

Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels 

2.13.2. Biodiesel and diesel blends shall meet the following requirements: the base diesel fuel shall meet

the requirements of ASTM 975, and the biodiesel blend stock shall meet ASTM D 6751. 

2.13.3. Exception. - Biodiesel may be blended with diesel fuel whose sulfur or aromatic levels are outside 

Specification D 975 Grades 1-D, 2-D, and low sulfur 1-D and 2-D, provided the finished mixture meets

pertinent national and local specifications and requirements for these properties. 

Comments: There is no specification for biodiesel contained in Section 2 of NIST Handbook 130 as there are for other

fuels. The proposed change would adopt the current language contained in ASTM specification D 6751. The proposed 

amendment would help ensure that the customer receives fuel that meets ASTM specifications. 

The ASTM specification for diesel fuel D 975, which contains biodiesel in blends of B20 or below, is likely to change

very soon. This new group of fuels is being termed a “Fill and Go” category of D 975. Separate “fill and go” 

specifications are also being considered for other fuels such as water-emulsified and ethanol-emulsified diesel. The

anticipated change is to place specifications on fuels, which require no engine modifications but are different than 

conventional petroleum-based diesel fuels that include different parameters than those currently contained in D 975. 

L&R -A6 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

The D 975 “fill and go” specification may also impact biodiesel specification D 6751 as it relates to the properties that

either parent fuel must meet prior to blending biodiesel B20 and below. If ASTM adopts new specifications, it is hoped

that the NCWM would consider similar adoption. 

Assuming that the Conference will adopt ASTM changes or modifications to D 975 or D 6751, adopting the language in 

the current ASTM specification seems to be a prudent course of action. 

Recommendation: Adopt the specification language as proposed. 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products 

3.13. Biodiesel

3.13.1. How to Identify Biodiesel. - Biodiesel shall be identified by the capital letter B followed by the 

numerical value volume percentage. (Example: B20) 

3.13.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. - Each retail dispenser of biodiesel shall be labeled with the capital 

letter B followed by the numerical value volume percent biodiesel and ending with the word ‘biodiesel.” 

(Example: B20 biodiesel) 

3.13.3. Exemption. - Diesel fuel containing 2 % or less biodiesel is exempted from requirements 3.13.1 and 

3.13.2.” 

Discussion: Laws and regulations require that accurate and adequate information be placed on commodities allowing

consumers to make price and quantity comparisons. For our economy to function properly, consumers must also be able 

to rely on manufacturers’ product “claims.” Products must meet manufacturer specifications and claims. 

When ASTM first developed the biodiesel specification in 1993, it proposed a specification for biodiesel use as a pure 

fuel, called B100. Through the ballot process, several engine companies expressed reservations that they had no 

experience with using biodiesel in blends over 20 % with diesel fuel (B20). B20 has now been used successfully in over

40 million on-road miles over the last ten years with no changes to the fuel systems on conventional diesel engines. With

the higher cost of biodiesel, very few customers used blends higher than B20, and neither the biodiesel industry nor the 

engine industry was interested in investing the money and resources needed to meet a B100 standard. 

Since B20 was the highest level product envisioned with commercial potential, and since the engine community would 

not support inclusion higher than 20 % without further testing, the ASTM standard was changed from an independent

B100 standard to a blend stock standard. The ASTM Biodiesel Task Force developed D 6751 as the set of properties that

B100 must meet before being blended into diesel fuel up to 20 % biodiesel by volume. For blends higher than B20, the 

user should consult with his engine company prior to use. The major questions with blends over B20 are related to costs, 

rubber and gasket compatibility with high blend of biodiesel, and cold flow properties of high blends. 

As a blend-stock standard, the ASTM Biodiesel Standard was developed in a manner similar to that of 1-D and 2-D diesel

fuel, which are also frequently blended in the commercial marketplace as a means to improve the cold flow properties of

2-D in winter months. If the parent fuels meet their respective specifications, they can be blended and there is no separate

set of specifications for the blended mixture. The current requirement of the biodiesel specification is as follows: if

biodiesel meets D 6751 and diesel meets D 975 (either 1-D or 2-D), then the two can be blended up to 20 % biodiesel and 

there is no separate set of properties required for the B20 mixture. For example, as with 2-D, blends of B20 can contain 

higher levels of 1-D for improved cold flow properties in winter. This method has served industry and consumers well,

especially in the formative stages of biodiesel development.

There are two issues that come up from time to time. The first issue is that since biodiesel costs more than conventional

diesel, there is the possibility that fuel distributors will advertise that they are putting in more biodiesel than they are 

delivering and, thus, derive undue profits. If a distributor claims that they are selling B20 or B2 and they are putting in 

less than one half of one percent, the distributor is misrepresenting the product. The biodiesel industry claims this is not a

pump labeling issue but an enforcement issue. 

The second issue is the claim that biodiesel is being blended with diesel fuel when products such as raw vegetable oil or 

other oils, which do not meet D 6751, are blended with diesel fuel. The biodiesel industry claims this is an enforcement

L&R - 7 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

issue. The National Biodiesel Board has established a quality control program (BQ-9000) that oversees producers and

suppliers of biodiesel. Use of BQ-9000-certified suppliers is an effective means to mitigate this potential issue, as is

requiring that the distributor provide proof of EPA biodiesel registration. To obtain an EPA registration for biodiesel the 

supplier must commit to meeting D 6751. Again, aggressive competition, as well as the educational and promotional

activities by the industry, have mitigated the requirement that biodiesel must meet D 6751. NCWM adoption of the 

D 6751 language will help in those efforts. 

While B20 and lower levels of biodiesel fuel are considered “fill and go” and require no changes to the engine or fuel

system, levels of biodiesel higher than B20 may need to have different gaskets and hoses. While blending biodiesel 

greater than 20 % does not readily occur in today’s market place, it may in the not-too-distant future. Therefore, the

biodiesel industry supports accurate labeling for all fuel dispensers and encourages the NCWM to adopt these 

recommendations. 

As the price of biodiesel moves closer to the price of diesel fuel and biodiesel ceases to be a niche product blended into 

diesel for the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) compliance (cleaner air and superior lubricity and cetane), it becomes

just one of the myriad compounds which could make up conventional diesel fuel. Refiners could blend in biodiesel to

reduce the sulfur content or aromatic content of the finished blend. They could use it to replace their existing lubricity 

additives. If the price of biodiesel was more equal to diesel, they may add 1 % today, 5 % the next day, and 20 % the next

day. As long as the finished blend meets the D 975 “fill and go” specification, the level of biodiesel could range as high 

as 20 %. 

The proposed pump labeling requirement (requiring that pumps containing over 2 % biodiesel be labeled with the blend

percentage) would essentially eliminate that flexibility and could significantly reduce the amount of biodiesel that is

eventually used and consumed. ASTM is currently developing a biodiesel “fill and go” specification for D 975 that is not

based on the parent fuels, but on the finished fuel and which is satisfactory for operation in a diesel engine. This may also

mean changes to D 6751, which is a stand-alone specification. The current thinking is that the upper biodiesel 

concentration limit for the D 975 “fill and go” specification will be 20 % although it is possible that it could be higher or 

lower. Whatever the concentration of biodiesel, if the finished blend meets the D 975 “fill and go” specification, the fuel 

is D 975-grade diesel fuel and would have to be labeled such. According to industry, existing labeling contained in NIST 

Handbook 130 is sufficient. 

If the NCWM adopts the future D 975 “fill and go” specification and any changes required for D 6751, then it appears 

prudent to place the pump labeling exemption at 20 % biodiesel at the present time, with the understanding that it might

be higher or lower in the future based on the outcome of the ASTM “fill and go” recommendations. 

Ron Hayes, State of Missouri, recommended adding a section requiring fuel suppliers to disclose the biodiesel content on

delivery tickets or bills of lading if the biodiesel content exceeds the appropriate level for dispenser labeling requirements.

Recommendation: The Committee recommends this item be maintained informational to allow for comments from all

interested parties. 

1.8.1. How to Identify Biodiesel and Biodiesel Blends. - Biodiesel and biodiesel blends shall be identified by the 

capital letter B followed by the numerical value volume percentage. (Examples: B20, B100) 

1.8.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. - Each retail dispenser of biodiesel or biodiesel blends shall be labeled with 

the capital letter B followed by the numerical value volume percent biodiesel and ending with the words

“biodiesel blend.” (Example: B20 biodiesel blend) 

1.8.3. Exemption. - Diesel fuel containing “two”? or “twenty”? (select one for final proposal) percent or less

biodiesel is exempted from requirements 3.13.1 and 3.13.2. 

1.8.4. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. - When the biodiesel blend exceeds “two”? or

“twenty”? (select one for final proposal) percent biodiesel, the retailer shall be provided, at the time of delivery 

of the fuel, a declaration of the volume percent biodiesel on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other 

documentation,. This documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any 

potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to blending.

L&R -A8 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

237-5 D E diesel 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: To request that E diesel be added to the agenda of the Committee as a “Developing Item". 

Justification: 

(a) There is currently no consensus specification for E diesel, and a specification may need to be developed at a later 

date. 

(b) It may become necessary to develop “retail” labeling guidelines for E diesel. 

(c) If specification and labeling guidelines need to be developed, it may become necessary to assign this effort to the 

Petroleum Subcommittee or a specially selected Task Group. 

Background: E diesel is a blend of Standard Number 2 diesel fuel containing up to 15 % ethanol by volume. The blend

also contains 0.2 % to 5.0 % by volume proprietary additives to maintain certain fuel properties and blend stability. 

Currently E diesel does not have to conform to any specification designating properties. 

E diesel is being sold commercially for off-road applications and is being used in several on-road demonstration fleets. A 

group of E diesel stakeholders have formed the E diesel consortium to address the technical and regulatory issues with

this fuel. 

The Consortium has also approached ASTM about developing an E diesel specification. 

At the CWMA Interim Meeting in September 2002, E diesel Consortium representative Robert Reynolds provided an

update on the activities of the E diesel Consortium and requested that E diesel be put on the Committee agenda as a 

“Developing Item.” 

237-6 V Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel 

(This item did not pass or fail; therefore, it returns to the Committee.) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Background: Consumers are dispensing diesel fuel into non-diesel vehicles despite the proper labeling of retail motor

fuel dispensers. The Committee feels that the following recommendation will help eliminate the problem. 

 

Recommendation: Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive

Lubricants Regulation, Section 3. Diesel Fuel, as follows: 

3.3. Diesel Fuel 

3.3.X. Nozzle Requirements for Diesel Fuel. - Each dispensing device from which diesel fuel is sold shall be 

equipped with a nozzle spout having a terminal end with an outside diameter of not less than 23.63 mm

(0.930 in). 

Comments: The Committee was made aware of a concern that not all diesel passenger cars manufactured before 1996

may be able accommodate the larger nozzle size, although no supporting data were provided. 

237-7 V Premium Diesel, Single Definition 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Background: SWMA proposed a change to the EFR by deleting the energy content and fuel injector cleanliness 

requirement. 

L&R - 9 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Justification for changes: 

A single definition for premium diesel is imperative for this rule to gain acceptance by states. NCWM passed this 

definition under the assurance that the Working Group would continue to monitor and work toward a better solution. The 

SWMA believes that action must be taken based on ASTM activities, recently reviewed survey data, and work group 

discussions that have included engine manufacturing representatives. 

Thermal Stability – Engine manufacturers have expressed that a standard of 80 % should provide an adequate fuel. There 

was no recommended change to this value from the premium diesel work group. Data reviewed indicates this value 

should be achievable in most cases. 

Energy Content – Fungible issues continue to exist. Engine manufacturer representatives have indicated that removing

the requirement would be satisfactory. 

Fuel Injector Cleanliness, along with the cafeteria approach, has been a very controversial component of this definition.

The working group made a commitment to monitor the progress of L 10 as an ASTM test method. The working group

reported to the NCWM that the ASTM effort to pass this method has failed and the ASTM L 10 Surveillance Panel has 

dissolved. Even without the cost factor, the test can no longer be run. If a laboratory were to offer the test and a failure 

was cited, it is likely that the cited party would be able to successfully contest the results from a test. Unfortunately, the

detergency criteria, which may well provide a benefit to the end user, can no longer be used. 

Recommendation: Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive

Lubricants Regulation, Section 2 Standard Fuel Specifications, Subsection 2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel, as follows: 

Add to Definitions:

1.XX. Lubricity. - A qualitative term describing the ability of a fluid to affect friction between, and wear to,

surfaces in relative motion under load.

Delete from the current Definitions: 

1.17. Energy Content. means the gross energy content of the heating value of diesel fuel as defined by its heat of

combustion; the heat released when a known quantity of fuel is burned completely under specific conditions as

determined by ASTM Standard Test Method D240.

1.21. Fuel Injector Cleanliness. means a characteristic of the fuel which allows engine operation without fuel 

contribution to excessive injector deposits. (Added 1998)(Amended 1999)

Amend the following:

2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel. - Effective January 1, 2000, a All products diesel fuels identified on retail

dispensers, bills of lading, invoices, shipping papers, or other documentation with terms such as premium,

super, supreme, plus or premier must conform to at least two of the following requirements:

(a) Energy Content - A minimum energy content of 38.65 MJ/L, gross (138 700 BTU/gallon, gross) as

measured by ASTM Standard Test Method D 240.

(b) (a.) Cetane Number. - A minimum cetane number of 47.0 as determined by ASTM Standard Test 

Method D 613. 

(c) (b.) Low Temperature Operability. - A cold flow performance measurement which meets the ASTM 

D 975 tenth percentile minimum ambient air temperature charts and maps by either ASTM Standard Test

Method D 2500 (Cloud Point) or ASTM Standard Test Method D 4539 (Low Temperature Flow Test,

LTFT). Low temperature operability is only applicable October 1 - March 31 of each year. 

(d) (c.) Thermal Stability. - A minimum reflectance measurement of 80 % as determined by ASTM 

Standard Test Method D 6468 using a green filter in the Octel America's Test Method No. F21-61 (180

min, 150 °C). 

L&R -A10 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

(d.) Lubricity. - A maximum wear scar diameter of 520 microns as determined by ASTM D 6079. If an

enforcement jurisdiction’s single test of more than 560 microns is determined, a second test shall be 

conducted. If the average of the two tests are more than 560 microns, the sample does not conform to 

the requirements of this part.

(e) Fuel Injector Cleanliness - A Coordinating Research Council (CRC) rating of 10.0 or less and a flow loss 

of 6.0 percent or less as determined by the Cummins L-10 Injector Depositing Test.

1. When a fuel uses a detergent additive to meet the requirement, upon the request of the Director, the fuel

marketer shall provide test data indicating the additive being used has passed the Cummins L-10

Injector Depositing Test requirements when combined with Caterpillar 1-K (CAT 1-K) reference fuel. 

The Director may also request records or otherwise audit the amount of additive being used to ensure 

proper treatment of fuels according to the additive manufacturer's recommended treat rates. 

1.1. Upon the request of the Director, the fuel marketer shall provide an official "Certificate of 

Analysis" of the physical properties of the additive.

1.2. Upon the request of the Director, the fuel supplier shall provide a sample of detergent additive in an

amount sufficient to be tested with CAT 1-K reference fuel in a Cummins L-10 Injector Depositing

Test. The regulatory agency requesting the sample shall be responsible for all costs of testing.

2. When a fuel marketer relies on the inherent cleanliness of the diesel fuel to pass the Cummins L-10 Injector 

Depositing Test or if the fuel requires a lower detergent additive level than the amount required when the 

additive is used with the CAT 1-K reference fuel, the fuel marketer shall provide, upon the request of the

Director, annual test results from an independent laboratory that confirms the fuel meets the requirements of

2.2.1. (e). The time of fuel sampling and testing shall be at the Directors discretion. The Director may 

witness the sampling of the fuel and the sealing of the sample container(s) with security seals. The Director 

may request confirmation from the testing laboratory that the seals were intact upon receipt by the

laboratory. The final test results shall be provided to the Director. All costs for sampling, transporting, and

testing shall be the responsibility of the fuel supplier. If the annual test complies, any additional testing at

the request of the Director shall be paid for by the regulatory agency.

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999)

3.3.3. Labeling Properties of Premium Diesel -- All retail dispensers identified, as premium diesel must

display either: 

1. A label that includes all qualifying parameters as specified in 2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel affixed to each 

retail dispenser. The label shall include a series of check blocks clearly associated with each parameter. The 

boxes for the parameters qualifying the fuel must be checked. All other boxes shall remain unchecked. The

marketer may check as many blocks as apply, or,

2. A label that includes only the parameters selected by a marketer to meet the premium diesel requirements as 

specified in 2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel. In either case, the label must display the following words: 

"Premium Diesel Fuel" in a type at least 12.7 mm (1/2 in) in height by 1.4 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type.)

When applicable, as determined by the label option and qualifying parameters chosen by the marketer, the label 

must also display the following information and letter type size: 

The words "Energy Content," "Cetane Number," "Low Temperature Operability," "Thermal Stability," and "Fuel

Injector Cleanliness" in a type at least 6 mm (1/4 in) in height by 0.75 mm (1/32 in) stroke (width of type.)

A declaration of the minimum Energy Content (minimum 38.65 MJ/ L gross [138 700 BTU/gallon]), if energy

content is chosen as a qualifying parameter, in type at least 3 mm (1/8 in) in height by 0.4 mm (1/64 in) stroke

(width of type.)

The minimum cetane number guaranteed (at least 47.0) if cetane number is chosen as a qualifying parameter, in 

a type at least 3 mm (1/8 in) in height by 0.4 mm (1/64 in) stroke (width of type.)

L&R - 11 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

The date range of low temperature operability enhancement, (e.g., October - March,) along with the qualifying

test method (ASTM D 4539 or ASTM D 2500), if low temperature operability is chosen as a qualifying 

parameter, in a type at least 3 mm (1/8 in) in height by 0.4 mm (1/64 in) stroke (width of type). 

For Example:

Premium Diesel Fuel

High Energy Content

Cetane Number, 47.0 min

Low Temperature Operability (Oct.-Mar.,LTFT) 

Thermal Stability

Fuel Injector Cleanliness

or

Premium Diesel Fuel 

Cetane Number, 47.0 min

Low Temperature Operability (Oct.-Mar., LTFT)

Thermal Stability

The label must be conspicuously displayed on the upper-half of the product dispenser front panel in a position 

that is clear and conspicuous from the driver’s position.

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999)

7.1.1. Premium Diesel. - The following test methods shall be used to determine compliance with the applicable

premium diesel parameters: 

(a) Energy Content - ASTM D 240

(b) (a.) Cetane Number - ASTM D 613 

(c) (b.) Low Temperature Operability. - ASTM D 4539 or ASTM D 2500 (according to marketing claim)

(d) (c.) Thermal Stability. - Octel America F21-61 (180 min, 150 EC) ASTM D 6468 (180 min., 150 °C).

(d.) Lubricity. - ASTM D 6079

(e) *Fuel Injector Cleanliness - The most recent edition of the Cummins L-10 Injector Depositing Test as 

endorsed by the ASTM L-10 Injector Depositing Test Surveillance Panel.

* Upon ASTM approval of a standard test methods that are is derived from the above referenced methods, the 

ASTM standard test methods shall be used to determine compliance with the applicable premium diesel 

parameter.

(Amended 1999, 2003)

Comments: During the work session the Committee received a proposal from the Premium Diesel Work Group to 

modify this item slightly to match the proposal now being considered by ASTM. The Committee reviewed this proposal

and accepted the recommendation of the Premium Diesel Work Group. The Committee wishes to sincerely thank the 

Premium Diesel Work Group for all of their hard work and assistance with this item. The Premium Diesel Work Group is

comprised of the following members: R. Jennings, Tennessee; R. Leisenring, Jr, Chevron Texaco; C. Cooney, Oregon;

L. Cunningham, Ethyl Corporation; D. Daniels, Octel-Starreon; C. Yarnold, ONDEO Nalco; D. Harvey, Citgo Petroleum;

L&R -A12 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

R. Hayes, Missouri; M. Herman, Herman & Associates; G. Mittermaier, Petroleum Marketers; M. Nikanjam, Chevron

Products Co.; J. Peeples, AAE Technologies, Inc; D. Smith, North Carolina; and N. Strete, Lubrizol Corp. 

239 Price Verification 

239-1 I Amend NIST Handbook 130, Examination Procedure for Price Verification, Section 6.2 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Background: While the definition of a point-of-sale system includes a requirement for a weighing and measuring device

and requires indications to be visible in a direct sale (NIST Handbook 44, G-UR.3.3.), cash registers and computer

monitors that do not incorporate a weighing or measuring device are not subject to the requirement that the indication be

visible to a consumer. The WWMA recommends that the practice of consumers having access to price information as the

transaction is in progress be standardized. Consumers would then be able to instantly confirm prices, businesses could 

correct incorrect prices during the transaction, and the benefit of correct prices and time saved would help everyone 

involved. Many businesses that use cash registers or computer monitors currently have remote indicators that meet the 

requirements, and for the ones that do not, technology and equipment is available to provide such indications at an

affordable price. 

Proposal: Modify NIST Handbook 130, Examination Procedure for Price Verification, Section 6, Inspection 6.2 Other 

as follows: 

Add:

(a) A cash register or computer monitor used to list and total customer purchases must be positioned so that

its indications may be observed from a reasonable customer location and/or have a remote indicator

display so that its indications may be observed from a reasonable customer location.

Committee Recommendation: The Committee believes that, while this item is worthy of consideration, it should not be

placed in the Examination Procedure for Price Verification contained in NIST Handbook 130. The Committee believes

that a more appropriate location for the proposal would be in NIST Handbook 130, Weights and Measures Law, Section

22, Prohibited Acts. 

Comments: The SWMA considered this to be a problem, but there is concern whether or not this is a weights and

measures issue. Additionally, there are concerns that Publication 19, which is now out of print and obsolete, is the 

appropriate place to add this requirement if it is considered a weights and measures issue. The scope of this requirement 

is very broad and would impact a wide range of retail establishments, which may not come under the jurisdiction of

weights and measures authorities since the systems may not be attached to a scale or a meter. 

250 NIST Handbook 133, Checking the Net Content of Packaged Goods 

250-1 W Amend NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Background: NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2 states that a scale/balance having a “scale division

no larger than 1/6 of the Maximum Allowable Variation (MAV) for the package size being weighed” is required to test 

product. The example used to illustrate this concept on page 7 of H-133 uses a 0.002-lb scale division as the largest unit 

of measure appropriate for weighing these packages. The existing examples on pages 11, 12 and 16 are not consistent 

with the requirements of Section 2.2 and should be modified. In addition to the device suitability requirement, the reason

for recording package errors in terms of “units of measure/dimensionless units” is to simplify and reduce computation

errors. WWMA believes that the examples on pages 11, 12 and 16 are unnecessarily restrictive in that they require the

use of the smallest scale division without any consideration to the weight of the package, the size of the errors, or the

graduations of the scale being used. For example, in a recent series of inspections, shortages as large as 12 lb were found 

for 60-lb bags of concrete mix. The scale used to conduct the inspection had a minimum division of 0.002 lb, which

would require the package errors to be recorded in a unit of measure of 0.001 lb. The recorded errors (in dimensionless 

L&R - 13 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

units) for these inspections were as large as 12 000. Use of a larger unit of measure that met the MAV/6 requirement

(MAV = 2 % of labeled quantity or 1.2 lb; MAV/6 = 0.2 lb) would not have affected the results of the inspection. 

Recommendation: Amend NIST Handbook 133, pages 11 and 12, the second and third “Example” contained in the

question “How are the specific steps of the Basic Test Procedure and document the inspection identified?” and amend the 

“Example” on page 16 contained in the question “How are individual package errors determined for the tare sample 

packages?” as follows: 

Pages 11 and 12

Example: If the net weight declared on a package is 1 lb, the metric equivalent (accurate to six significant digits) is 

453.592 g. Do not round down or truncate values in the calculations until the nominal gross weight is determined

and recorded. If the package is also labeled 454 g, then the metric declaration is larger than the inch-pound

declaration and should be used to verify the net contents of the package. The Basic Test Procedure does not prohibit

the use of units of weight instead of dimensionless units when recording package errors, nor does it prohibit the use

of net content computer programs to determine product compliance. Record the unit of measure in box 2. The unit

of measure is the minimum division of the unit of measurement used to conduct the test. If a scale is used that reads

to thousandths of a pound, the unit of measure is 0.001 lb even if the scale division is 0.002 lb or 0.005 lb, should be

less than or equal to MAV/6.

Example: If the scale has a scale division of 0.5 g, the unit of measure is 0.1 g. If a weighed package that has an

error of “-0.5 g,” record the error as “-5” using the dimensionless units.” If the scale indicates in increments of 0.002 

lb, the unit of measure is 0.001 lb. If a weighed package has an error of “0.016,” record the error as “16” using

“dimensionless units.” The MAV for packages labeled 2.50 lb is 0.086 lb (see Table 2-5). The MAV/6 is

0.014 lb. If using a scale that reads in hundredths of a pound, the largest appropriate unit of measure should

be 0.01 lb. If the scale division is in thousandths of a pound, the unit of measure may be 0.001, 0.002, or

0.005 lb. When using dimensionless units, multiply package errors by the unit of measure to obtain the package error

in weight. 

Page 16 

Example: If weighing in 0.001 increments, the unit of measure is also 0.001 lb. If the unit of measure is 0.001 lb

and If the package error for the first package opened for tare is +0.008 lb, instead of recording 0.008 lb in the plus 

column, record the error as “8” in the plus column. If the second package error is +0.060 lb, record the package error 

as “60” in the plus column, and so on. (This section does not prohibit the use of units of weight instead of

dimensionless units or computer programs.) 

Comments: Although there may be some benefits to clarifying the language of Handbook 133, the Southern Weights 

and Measures Association (SWMA) is not convinced that the proposed language is needed or justified to reverse the 

handbook at this time. The Committee agreed with the interpretation and recommendation of the SWMA and voted to

withdraw this item. 

250-2 W Amend NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter2, Section 2.2 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Background: The WWMA reported that the test procedures in NIST Handbook 44 are designed for commercial 

weighing and measuring devices. A scale, when used by an official to inspect/test the net content of packaged goods, is 

in effect a comparator with mass standards. As currently written in NIST Handbook 133, the scale test requirements and 

the frequency that they are tested are unnecessarily time-consuming and onerous on the regulatory official. This proposal 

simplifies the verification procedure and allows the official some flexibility. The requirement to hold the scale to 

tolerances to one-half scale divisions is difficult to determine under field conditions. The proposal to hold tolerances to

whole divisions is reasonable bearing in mind that mass standards will determine any error that could then be corrected

during the weighing operation. 

L&R -A14 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Recommendation: Amend the scale test in NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Measurement

Standards and Test Equipment, as follows:

How often should I verify the accuracy of a scale? 

Verify the accuracy of a scale before each initial daily use, each use at a new location, or when there is any indication 

of abnormal equipment performance (e.g., erratic indications). Recheck the scale accuracy if it is found that the lot 

does not pass, so there can be confidence that the test equipment is not at fault.

Which accuracy requirements apply?

Scales used to check packages must meet the acceptance tolerances specified for their test load and accuracy class 

specified in Table 1-2 the current edition of NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices” (NIST HB 44). The tolerances for Class II and Class III digital 

scales are presented in Section 2.20. Scales, in NIST HB 44.

In testing, which tolerances apply to the scale?

Table 1-2 Acceptance Tolerances for Class of Scales based on Test Load in Divisions 

Test Load in Divisions 

Class II Scale Class III Scale

Tolerance 

0 to 5 000 0 to 500 Plus or Minus 1 0.5 Division

5 001 to 20 000 501 to 2 000 Plus or Minus 1 Division

20 001 or more 2 001 to 4 000 Plus or Minus 2 1.5 Divisions 

Not Applicable 4 001 or more Plus or Minus 3 2.5 Divisions 

Do not use a scale if it has an error that exceeds the Table 1-2 specified tolerance in any of the performance tests

described in the following section. 

Which performance tests should be conducted to ensure the accuracy of a scale? 

Use the following procedures and certified mass standards to verify the scale. These following procedures are

based on those required in NIST Handbook 44 and have been modified to reduce the amount of time required for 

testing scales in field situations. 

Increasing-Load Test 

Use certified mass standards to cConduct an “increasing-load test” with all test loads centered on the load-receiving 

element. Start the test with the device on zero and progress with increasing test loads to a “maximum test load” of at 

least 10 % more than the gross weight of the packages to be tested. Use at least three different test loads of

approximately equal value to test the device up to the “maximum test load” with an additional test load

approximately equal to the average package tare weight. Verify the accuracy of the device at each test load. 

Include the package tare weight as one of the test points.

Decreasing-Load Test 

For all types of scales, other than one Except for equal-arm balances or scales with a beam indicator or equal-arm 

balance, conduct a “decreasing-load test” with all test loads centered on the load-receiving element. Use the same

test loads used in the “increasing-load test” of this section, and start at the “maximum test load.” Remove the test 

loads in the reverse order of the increasing-load test until all test loads are removed. Verify the accuracy of the scale 

at each test load. 

Shift Test 

Use a test load equal to one-half of the “maximum test load” used for the “increasing-load test.” For bench scales

(see Diagram 1) place. Place the test load as indicated in diagrams 1 or 2 below. in the center of four separate 

L&R - 15 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

quadrants, equidistant between the center and edge of the load-receiving element and determine the accuracy in each 

quadrant for equal-arm balances. For example, where the load-receiving element is a rectangular or circular shape, 

place the test load in the center of the area represented by the shaded boxes in the following diagrams. For each

position of the test load, verify the accuracy of the scale.

Comments: The tolerances for package checking scales have been in Handbook 133 for approximately 15 years. There 

appears to be a consensus among SWMA members that the scales used for regulatory inspection should be held to tight

tolerances when checking packages. These tolerances have been acceptable for many years. Following the guidelines of 

Handbook 133 results in a high level of confidence in the inspection results. The SWMA does not want to see the level of

confidence diminished by increasing the tolerances for package inspection scales. Consequently, the SWMA recommends 

maintaining the existing tolerances for package inspection scales as currently stated in Handbook 133. The Committee

agreed with the analysis provided by the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) concerning this item and 

voted to withdraw the proposal. 

250-3 D Amend NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter 1, Section 1.2 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Recommendation: Amend the discussion section “Why do we allow for moisture loss or gain?” in section 1.2 Package

Requirements on page 4 as follows:

Why do we allow for moisture loss or gain?

Some packaged products may lose or gain moisture and, therefore, lose or gain weight or volume after packaging.

The amount of lost moisture depends upon the nature of the product, the packaging material, the length of time it is in

distribution, environmental conditions, and other factors. Moisture loss may occur even when manufacturers follow

good distribution practices. 

Loss of weight “due to exposure” may include solvent evaporation, not just loss of water. Note that allowances for 

loss or gain of moisture only apply to packages of commodities where the moisture has no value to the 

consumer (see Jones vs Rath). 

For loss or gain of moisture, you apply the moisture

allowances to the maximum allowable variations permitted

for individual packages and to the average net quantity of

contents before determining the conformance of a lot. You 

may apply the allowance before measuring the package 

errors or after. When applying the allowance before the

measurements, you essentially correct each package back 

to theoretical weight at time of pack, see Figure 1 at right. 

When applying the allowance after measuring the

package errors, you correct the MAV and SEL to 

recognize the moisture loss as in Figure 2 at right. You 

can find specific directions for applying the allowances in 

tests in Section 2.3.

NEWMA

 complete this proposal. As a result of that testimony the Committee designated this item as developmental. 

This handbook provides “moisture allowances” for some

meat and poultry products, flour, and dry pet food (see 

“Moisture Allowances” in Chapter 2). These allowances are 

based on the premise that when the average net weight of a 

sample is found to be less than the labeled weight, but not by

an amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either the lot is 

declared to be within the moisture allowance or more

information must be collected before deciding lot compliance

or non compliance. 

Comments: Testimony was provided that indicated additional language would be developed and presented by

to

L&R -A16 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

250-4 D Amend NIST Handbook 133, 4th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.3 

oisture Allowances” discussion in section 2.3 Basic Test

rocedure, on pages 17 through 19 and replacing it as follows:

oisture Allowances 

hat products have an established moisture allowance?

s packaged in kraft paper bags and/or cardboard boxes with a

oisture content of 13 % or less at the time of pack. 

ected plant are permitted no moisture 

e flowing liquid or absorbent

ackaging materials in contact with the product, all free liquid is part of the wet tare. 

•

s poultry above

3 oC (26 oF). This is a product that yields or gives when pushed with the thumb. 

• gs that bear an USDA seal of inspection, the moisture allowance is 

2.5 % of the labeled net weight. 

•

are no absorbent materials in contact with the product, Wet Tare and Dried Used Tare are equivalent. 

in the

oisture allowance, or more information must be collected before deciding lot compliance or noncompliance. 

ow do you determine the allowance for products without an established moisture allowance?

ould be 

ncountered. You may use the moisture loss limits found in such study as an allowance in a compliance test. 

hat is the accepted method to determine the actual moisture loss for a lot?

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Recommendation: NEWMA proposes deleting the current “M

P

M

W

Flour and dry pet food have a moisture allowance of 3 % of the labeled net weight. Note: Dry pet food means all 

extruded dog and cat foods and baked treat product

m

Meat and poultry products from a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-insp

allowance when tested under a Category A sampling plan with Used Dry Tare. 

Meat and poultry products from a USDA-inspected plant are permitted the following moisture allowances when 

tested under a Category A sampling plan with Wet Tare. Note: When there is fre

p

For packages of fresh poultry that bear a USDA seal of inspection, the moisture allowance is 3 % of

the labeled net weight. For net weight determinations only, fresh poultry is defined a

For packages of franks or hotdo

For packages of bacon, fresh sausage, and luncheon meats that bear a USDA seal of inspection, there

is no moisture allowance if there is no free-flowing liquid or absorbent materials in contact with the 

product and the package is cleaned of clinging material. Luncheon meats are any cooked sausage

product, loaves, jellied products, cured products, and any sliced sandwich style meat. This does not

include whole hams, briskets, roasts, turkeys, or chickens requiring further preparation to be made 

into ready-to-eat sliced product. When there is no free-flowing liquid inside the package and there

These allowances are based on the premise that when the average net weight of a sample is found to be less than the 

labeled weight, but not by an amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either the lot is declared to be with

m

H

For any product subject to moisture loss/gain, you may determine the appropriate moisture loss allowance based on a 

valid, scientific study. You may not use arbitrarily chosen allowances for moisture loss/gain. Many packers have

conducted studies that they can provide in support of any claim that the product lost/gained moisture. Any such study

should have included a variety of environments that simulate the potential distribution chains that c

e

W

Where the packer measures and records the moisture content of product in each lot, you may request a copy of that 

data to be compared to the moisture content of the product offered for sale. You must select a random sample of the 

product offered for sale and have it tested for moisture content using a scientifically verified test procedure e.g. like 

those in the Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (See Appendix D). The 

actual moisture loss is calculated as the moisture content (%) at time of pack minus moisture content (%) at time of

sale. Use the difference obtained to calculate the actual moisture loss for the lot by multiplying it times the label 

L&R - 17 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

quantity. Use this as the moisture allowance in the official test. In the case of moisture gain, this value will be a

hed moisture allowances like flour and

ry pet food. In most other cases the correction is made after the test since moisture loss data will probably be

s found by adding the average tare 

ox 13) to the label quantity (box 1) and subtracting the moisture allowance (box 13a). Lot compliance is evaluated 

3)

oisture Allowance is 3 % (0.03) of 2 lb = 0.06 lb 

e labeled quantity by the decimal percent value of the moisture loss or allowance. Lot

ompliance is evaluated using decision criteria in boxes 16 and 24 on the report form and the moisture corrected

rage tare is 0.04 lb (box 13), MAV (box 3) is 0.07 lb, and

acker data) 

data) 

6. 

Moisture Corrected SEL is 0.023 lb + 0.056 lb = 0.079 lb – Compare the sample average error in the initial test to

the moisture allowance for flour and dry pet food?” It does not state if any 

her products have a moisture allowance. In addition, the Handbook gives no guidance on what to do for products that do

lowance to the difference 

etween the average error and the Sample Error Limit (SEL) is confusing. Simply adjusting the SEL with the moisture 

he current Handbook does not address commodities that are packed in sealed containers or how to treat commodities 

ecommendation: The Committee believes that the Fourth Edition of NIST Handbook 133 provides adequate guidance 

r regulatory officials in the area of Moisture Allowance. The Committee designated the proposal as developmental. 

negative number. 

Calculations 

How do you apply a moisture allowance when conducting a test?

Moisture allowances may be applied either prior to testing or after testing. These two methods are mathematically

equivalent means of adjusting both the individual package errors and the sample average. It is common practice to 

apply the moisture correction prior to the test for those products with establis

d

obtained as part of the follow-up investigation after the initial test has failed.

To compute the moisture loss allowance prior to testing, you correct the nominal gross weight in box 14 for moisture 

loss. Find the value of the allowance by multiplying the labeled quantity by the decimal percent value of the 

allowance. Enter this value in box 13a on the form. The nominal gross weight i

(b

in the normal way using decision criteria in boxes 16 and 24 on the report form. 

Example: Labeled quantity of a bag of flour is 2 lb and average tare is 0.04 lb (box 1

M

Nominal Gross Wt. = 2 lb + 0.04 lb – 0.06 lb = 1.98 lb record this value in box 14. 

To compute the moisture loss allowance after testing, you correct only the MAV and SEL for moisture loss. Perform 

your initial test with no moisture allowance in box 13a. When moisture loss data becomes available, find the value of 

the allowance by multiplying th

c

MAV and SEL respectively. 

Example: Labeled quantity of a package of rice is 2 lb, ave

SEL (box 23) is 0.023 lb. 

Moisture content at time of pack was 13.4 % (p

Moisture content at time of sale is 10.6 % (lab

Moisture loss is (13.4 % to 10.6 %) = 2.8 % 

Moisture allowance is 0.028 x 2 lb = 0.056 lb 

Moisture Corrected MAV is 0.07 lb + 0.056 lb = 0.126 lb – Compare each package error measured in the initial test

to this moisture corrected MAV using criteria in box 1

this moisture corrected SEL using criteria in box 24. 

Justification: The products that have an established moisture allowance should be clearly stated. Currently the

Handbook only poses the question “What is

ot

not have an established moisture allowance.

 

The “Calculations” section on page 18 is confusing and does not distinguish between applying a moisture allowance

before or after testing. NEWMA believes that the current method of comparing the moisture al

b

allowance is easier and more in line with how the MAV is corrected (see graphs on first page).

T

packed on the premises. NEWMA requests guidance from the L&R Committee on these two items. 

R

fo

L&R -A18 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

260 Other Items

260-1 I Enhanced Product – USDA/FSIS Meat and Poultry Products 

Enhanced Product Working Group propose a plan and scope of action for consideration by the NCWM. The 

WMA and the SWMA encourage the Working Group to invite participants from USDA, industry, and other interested

M Chairman and the Committee Chairman in advance of the 2002

he Committee voted to maintain this item as “Informational” pending the proposed formation of an Enhanced Product 

orking Group by the NCWM Board of Directors. 

 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Comments: Last year the Committee recommended and the NCWM adopted a proposal to form an Enhanced Product

Working Group. This Working Group was not established as of the 2003 Interim Meeting. The WWMA recommended

that the

W

parties. 

The CWMA formed a small committee to develop recommendations for the formation of the working group with the goal

of providing those recommendations to the NCW

NCWM Interim Meeting. NIST Weights and Measures Division, provided copies of a previous NCWM study group

protocol to assist in the development of this item.

T

W

D. Johannes, California, Chairman 

V. Dempsey, Montgomery County, Ohio

E. Price, Texas

J. Gomez, New Mexico

J. Cassidy, Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Associate Membership Committee Representative: C. Guay, Procter & Gamble Company 

Petroleum Subcommittee: Randy Jennings, Tennessee, Chairman

Canadian Technical Advisors: B. Lemon and D. Hutchinson

NIST Technical Advisors: T. Coleman and K. Dresser 

NIST Technical Advisor on the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation: S. Cook

Committee on Laws and Regulations

L&R - 19 

L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix A 

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation

Recommendation for 237-2 

Information Item

as adopted by

The National Conference on Weights and Measures* 

1. Background

In 1984, the National Conference on Weights and Measures adopted section 2.20. in the Uniform Regulation for the 

Method of Sale of Commodities requiring motor fuel containing alcohol be labeled as such to disclose that information to

the retail purchaser. The delegates deemed this action necessary since motor vehicle manufacturers were qualifying their 

warranties with respect to some gasoline-alcohol blends, motor fuel users were complaining to weights and measures

officials about fuel quality and vehicle performance, and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) had not 

yet finalized quality standards for oxygenated (which includes alcohol-containing) fuels. While many argued that weights 

and measures officials should not cross the line from quantity assurance programs to programs regulating quality, the 

delegates were persuaded that the issue needed immediate attention. 

A Motor Fuels Task Force was appointed in 1984 to develop mechanisms for achieving uniformity in the evaluation and 

regulation of motor fuels.

The Task Force developed the Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law (see the Uniform Laws section of this Handbook) and

the Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation to accompany the Law. 

The recommended Law required registration and certification of motor fuel as meeting ASTM standards. The regulation 

defined the ASTM standards to be applied to motor fuel. 

In 1992 the NCWM established the Petroleum Subcommittee under the Laws and Regulations Committee. The 

subcommittee recommended major revisions to the Regulation that was adopted at the 80th NCWM in 1995. The scope 

of the regulation was expanded to include all engine fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants; its title was 

changed accordingly; and the fuel specifications and method of sale sections were revised to address the additional

products. Other changes included expansion of the definitions section and addition of sections on retail storage tanks, 

condemned product, registration of engine fuels designed for special use, and test methods and reproducibility limits. 

2. Status of Promulgation 

The Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants was adopted by the 

Conference in 1995. The status of State actions with respect to this Regulation is shown in the table beginning on page 8.

*The National Conference on Weight sand Measures is sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

in partial implementation of its statutory responsibility for “cooperation with the States in securing uniformity in weights 

and measures laws and methods of inspection.” 

L&R - A1 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table of Contents 

Section Page 

1. Definitions............................................................................................................................................................135 134 

1.1. ASTM ................................................................................................................................................................135 134

1.2. Antiknock Index (AKI)......................................................................................................................................135 134

1.3 Automatic Transmission Fluid............................................................................................................................135 134

1.3.1.4 Automotive Fuel Rating................................................................................................................................135 134

1.4.1.5 Automotive Gasoline, Automotive Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend ...................................................................135 134

1.5.1.6 Aviation Gasoline ..........................................................................................................................................135 134

1.6.1.7 Aviation Turbine Fuel...................................................................................................................................135 134

1.7.1.8 Base Gasoline................................................................................................................................................135 134

1.8.1.9 Biodiesel .......................................................................................................................................................135 134

1.9.1.10 Cetane Index ...............................................................................................................................................135 134

1.101.11 Cetane Number ..........................................................................................................................................135 134

1.111.12 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)................................................................................................................135 134

1.12.1.13 Denatured Fuel Ethanol ............................................................................................................................136 135

1.131.14 Diesel Fuel .................................................................................................................................................136 135

1.14.1.15 Distillate....................................................................................................................................................136 135

1.151.16 EPA............................................................................................................................................................136 135

1.161.17 E85 Fuel Ethanol........................................................................................................................................136 135

1.171.18 Energy Content ..........................................................................................................................................136 135

1.181.19 Engine Fuel................................................................................................................................................136 135

1.191.20 Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use .....................................................................................................136 135

1.201.21 Ethanol.......................................................................................................................................................136 135

1.211.22 Fuel Injector Cleanliness............................................................................................................................136 135

1.22. 1.23 Fuel Oil ...................................................................................................................................................136 135

1.23. 1.24 Gasoline ...................................................................................................................................................136 135

1.241.25 Gasoline-Alcohol Blend.............................................................................................................................136 135

1.251.26 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) ...........................................................................................................136 135

1.261.27 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE)...............................................................................................................136 135

1.271.28 Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend ........................................................................................................................137 136

1.29 Gear Oil.............................................................................................................................................................137 136

1.281.291.30 Kerosene ..............................................................................................................................................137 136

1.291.30 1.31 Lead Substitute....................................................................................................................................137 136

1.301.311.32 Lead Substitute Engine Fuel ................................................................................................................137 136

1.311.321.33 Leaded .................................................................................................................................................137 136

1.32 1.331.34 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).............................................................................................................137 136

1.331.341.35 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) ..........................................................................................................137 136

1.341.351.36 Low Sulfur ..........................................................................................................................................137 136

1.351.361.37 Low Temperature Operability..............................................................................................................137 136

1.361.38 M100 Fuel Methanol..................................................................................................................................137 136

1.371.39 M85 Fuel Methanol....................................................................................................................................137 136

1.381.40 Motor Octane Number ...............................................................................................................................137 136

1.41 Motor Oil (Engine Oil) .....................................................................................................................................137 136

1.42 Oil ............................................................................................................................................................................137

1.391.43 Oxygen Content of Gasoline......................................................................................................................138 137

1.401.44 Oxygenate ..................................................................................................................................................138 137

1.411.45 Reformulated Gasoline ..............................................................................................................................138 137

1.421.46 Research Octane Number............................................................................................................................138 137

1.431.47 SAE............................................................................................................................................................138 137

1.441.48 Substantially Similar..................................................................................................................................138 137

1.451.49 Thermal Stability .......................................................................................................................................138 137

1.461.50 Total Alcohol ..............................................................................................................................................138 137

L&R -A2 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

1.471.51 Total Oxygenate.........................................................................................................................................138 137

1.481.52 Unleaded ....................................................................................................................................................138 137

1.491.53 Wholesale Purchaser Consumer..................................................................................................................138 137

2. Standard Fuel Specifications..............................................................................................................................138 137

2.1. Gasoline and Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends.........................................................................................................138 137

2.2. Diesel Fuel .........................................................................................................................................................139 138

2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel........................................................................................................................................139 138

2.3. Aviation Turbine Fuels......................................................................................................................................140 139

2.4. Aviation Gasoline ..............................................................................................................................................140 139

2.5. Fuel Oils.............................................................................................................................................................140 139

2.6. Kerosene (Kerosine) ..........................................................................................................................................140 139

2.7. Ethanol......................................................................................................................................................................140 

2.8. Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases........................................................................................................................141 140

2.9. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)........................................................................................................................141 140

2.10. E85 Fuel Ethanol..............................................................................................................................................141 140

2.11. M85 Fuel Methanol..........................................................................................................................................141 140

2.12. Motor Oil ..........................................................................................................................................................141 140

2.13. Products for Use in Manual Transmissions, Gears, or Axles...........................................................................142 140

2.14. Products for Use in Lubricating Automatic Transmissions ..............................................................................142 141

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products.................................................................142 141

3.1. General Considerations......................................................................................................................................142 141

3.2. Automotive Gasoline and Automotive Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends.................................................................142 141

3.3. Diesel Fuel .........................................................................................................................................................143 142

3.4. Aviation Turbine Fuels......................................................................................................................................145 144

3.5. Aviation Gasoline ..............................................................................................................................................145 144

3.6. Fuel Oils.............................................................................................................................................................145 144

3.7. Kerosene (Kerosine) ..........................................................................................................................................146 145

3.8. Fuel Ethanol.......................................................................................................................................................146 145

3.9. Fuel Methanol....................................................................................................................................................147 145

3.10. Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gas.........................................................................................................................147 145

3.11. Compressed Natural Gas..................................................................................................................................147 146

3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas......................................................................................................................................147 146

3.13. Oil ....................................................................................................................................................................148 146

3.14. Automatic Transmission Fluid........................................................................................................................ 148 147

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks.............................................................................................................................148 147

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Gas, and Aviation Turbine Fuel.................................................148 147

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels.............................................................................148 147

4.3. Product Storage Identification ..................................................................................................................................148 

4.4. Volume of Product Information................................................................................................................................148 

Section 5. Condemned Product..............................................................................................................................149 148

5.1. Stop Sale Order at Retail................................................................................................................................149 148

5.2. Stop Sale Order at Terminal or Bulk Plant Facility........................................................................................149 148

Section 6. Product Registration .............................................................................................................................149 148

6.1. Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use .........................................................................................................149 148

6.2. ......................................................................................................................................................................149 

6.3. ......................................................................................................................................................................149 

L&R - A3 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

6.4. ......................................................................................................................................................................149 

6.5. ......................................................................................................................................................................149 

Section 7. Test Methods and Reproducibility Limits...........................................................................................150 149

7.1. ...............................................................................................................................................................150 149

7.2. Reproducibility Limits ...................................................................................................................................150 149

L&R -A4 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation

1. Definitions

1.1. ASTM. - The American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM International means the international 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 = (RON+MON)/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. Automatic Transmission Fluid. - Means a product intended for use in a passenger vehicle, other than a bus, as

either a lubricant, coolant, or liquid medium in any type of fluid automatic transmission, that contains a torque 

converter. or any other type of unit through which or by which, force, energy, or power is transferred from a motor

vehicle engine by hydraulic means to the driving assembly. For the purposes of this regulation, fluids intended for

use in continuously variable transmissions are not considered “Automatic Transmission Fluid”.

1.3.1.4. 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. 

1.4.1.5. 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. 

1.5.1.6. Aviation Gasoline. - Means a type of gasoline suitable for use as a fuel in an aviation spark-ignition internal

combustion engine. 

1.6.1.7. Aviation Turbine Fuel. - Means a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel in an aviation gas turbine 

internal combustion engine. 

1.7.1.8. Base Gasoline. - Means all components other than ethanol in a blend of gasoline and ethanol. 

1.8.1.9. Biodiesel. - Means a blend consisting of diesel fuel and a substantial amount of esterified animal fats and/or 

vegetable oil(s). 

1.9.1.10. Cetane Index. - Means an approximation of the cetane number of distillate diesel fuel, which does not contain

a cetane improver additive, calculated from the density and distillation measurements. 

1.10.1.11. Cetane Number. - Means a numerical measure of the ignition performance of a diesel fuel obtained by 

comparing it to reference fuels in a standardized engine test. 

1.11.1.12. 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 fuel. 

1.12.1.13. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. - Means "ethanol" as defined in 1.19. below. 

1.13.1.14. Diesel Fuel. - Means a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel in a compression-ignition (diesel) 

internal combustion engine. 

1.14.1.15. Distillate. - Means any product obtained by condensing the vapors given off by boiling petroleum or its

products. 

1.15.1.16. EPA. - Means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

L&R - A5 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

1.16.1.17. E85 Fuel Ethanol. - Means a blend of ethanol and hydrocarbons of which the ethanol portion is nominally 85

to 75 volume percent denatured fuel ethanol. 

1.17.1.18. Energy Content. - Means the gross energy content or the heating value of diesel fuel as defined by its heat of 

combustion - the heat released when a known quantity of fuel is burned completely under specific conditions as 

determined by ASTM Standard Test Method D 240.

(Added 1998)(Amended 1999)

1.18.1.19. Engine Fuel. - Means any liquid or gaseous matter used for the generation of power in an internal combustion 

engine. 

1.19. 1.20. Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use. - Means engine fuels designated by the Director requiring 

registration. These fuels normally do not have ASTM or other national consensus standards applying to their quality or

useability; common special fuels are racing fuels and those intended for agricultural and other off-road applications. 

1.20.1.21. 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 fuel ethanol is first made unfit for drinking by the addition of Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) approved substances before blending with gasoline. 

1.21.1.22. Fuel Injector Cleanliness. - Means a characteristic of the fuel which allows engine operation without fuel

contribution to excessive injector deposits. 

(Added 1998)(Amended 1999)

1.22.1.23. 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.

1.23.1.24. 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. 

1.24.1.25. Gasoline-Alcohol Blend. - Means a fuel consisting primarily of gasoline and a substantial amount (more than

0.35 mass percent of oxygen, or more than 0.15 mass percent of oxygen if methanol is the only oxygenate) of one or more 

alcohols. 

1.25.1.26. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). - Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 2.567 kilograms (5.660 lb)

of natural gas. 

1.26.1.27. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). - Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kilogram (1.495 lb) of

natural gas. 

1.27.1.28. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend. - Means a fuel consisting primarily of gasoline along with a substantial amount

(more than 0.35 mass percent of oxygen, or more than 0.15 mass percent of oxygen if methanol is the only oxygenate) of

one or more oxygenates. 

1.29. Gear Oil. - Means an oil used to lubricate gears, axles or some manual transmissions.

1.28.1.30. Kerosene. - (or "Kerosine") Means a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel for heating or 

illuminating, the classification of which shall be defined by ASTM D 3699. 

1.29.1.31. 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. 

1.30.1.32. Lead Substitute Engine Fuel. - Means, for labeling purposes, a gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend that 

contains a "lead substitute." 

L&R -A6 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

1.31.1.33. Leaded. - Means, for labeling purposes, any gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend which contains more than

0.013 gram of lead per liter (0.05 g lead per U.S. gal). NOTE: EPA defines leaded fuel as one which contains more than 

0.0013 gram of phosphorus per liter (0.005 g per U.S. gal), or any fuel to which lead or phosphorus is intentionally added.

1.32.1.34. 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. 

1.33.1.35. 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. 

1.34.1.36. 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. 

1.35.1.37. Low Temperature Operability. - Means a condition which allows the uninterrupted operation of a diesel 

engine through the continuous flow of fuel throughout its fuel delivery system at low temperatures. Fuels with adequate 

low temperature operability characteristics have the ability to avoid wax precipitation and clogging in fuel filters. 

(Added 1998)(Amended 1999)

1.36.1.38. M100 Fuel Methanol. - Means nominally anhydrous methyl alcohol, generally containing small amounts of

additives, suitable for use as a fuel in a compression-ignition internal combustion engine. 

1.37.1.39. M85 Fuel Methanol. - Means a blend of methanol and hydrocarbons of which the methanol portion is

nominally 70 to 85 volume percent. 

1.38.1.40. 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. 

1.41. Motor Oil . - is an oil that reduces friction and wear between the moving parts within a reciprocating 

internal combustion engine and also serves as a coolant. For the purposes of this regulation, “vehicle motor oil” 

refers to a motor oil which is intended for use in light-to-heavy duty vehicles comprising cars, sport utility vehicles, 

vans, trucks, buses, and off-road farming and construction equipment. For the purposes of this regulation,

“recreational motor oil” refers to a motor oil which is intended for use in four-stroke cycle engines used in 

motorcycles, ATVs, and lawn and garden equipment. For the purposes of this regulation motor oil also means

engine oil.

1.42. Oil. - Means motor oil, engine oil, and/or gear oil.

1.39.1.43. Oxygen Content of Gasoline. - Means the percentage of oxygen by mass contained in a gasoline. 

1.40.1.44. Oxygenate. - Means an oxygen-containing, ashless, organic compound, such as an alcohol or ether, which can

be used as a fuel or fuel supplement. 

1.41.1.45. 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 sparkignition internal combustion engine. 

1.42.1.46. 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. 

1.43.1.47. SAE. - Means the Society of Automotive Engineers International, 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. 

1.44.1.48. 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)]. 

L&R - A7 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

1.45.1.49. Thermal Stability. - Means the ability of a fuel to resist the thermal stress which is experienced by the fuel

when exposed to high temperatures in a fuel delivery system. Such stress can lead to formation of insoluble gums or

organic particulates. Insolubles (e.g., gums or organic particulates) can clog fuel filters and contribute to injector

deposits. 

(Added 1998)(Amended 1999)

1.46.1.50. Total Alcohol. - Means the aggregate total in volume percent of all alcohol contained in any fuel defined in 

this Chapter. 

1.47.1.51. Total Oxygenate. - Means the aggregate total in volume percent of all oxygenates contained in any fuel 

defined in this Chapter. 

1.48.1.52. Unleaded. - In conjunction with "engine fuel" 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

of lead per liter (0.05 g lead per U.S. gal) and not more than 0.0013 gram of phosphorus per liter (0.005 g phosphorus per

U.S. gal). 

1.49.1.53. Wholesale Purchaser Consumer. - Means any person who is an ultimate gasoline consumer of fuel

methanol, fuel ethanol, diesel fuel, biodiesel, fuel oil, kerosene, aviation turbine fuels, natural gas, compressed natural

gas, or liquefied petroleum gas and who purchases or obtains the product from a supplier and receives delivery of that 

product into a storage tank. 

(Added 1998)(Amended 1999)

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). Gasoline blended with ethanol shall be blended under any of the 

following three 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. Blends of gasoline and ethanol shall not exceed the ASTM D 4814 vapor pressure standard by more than 1.0 

psi.

2.1.3. Minimum Antiknock Index (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 g per U.S. gal); 

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 (0.10 g per U.S. gal). 

2.1.6.1. Documentation of Exhaust 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

L&R -A8 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

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 

211(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act; or

2.1.6.1.2. Until such 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." 

2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel. - Effective January 1, 2000, all products identified on retail dispensers, bills of lading,

invoices, shipping papers, or other documentation such as premium, super, supreme, plus, or premier must conform

to at least two of the following requirements: 

(a) Energy Content. - A minimum energy content of 38.65 MJ/L, gross (138,700 BTU/gallon, gross) as

measured by ASTM Standard Test Method D 240. 

(b) Cetane Number. - A minimum cetane number of 47.0 as determined by ASTM Standard Test Method

D 613. 

(c) Low Temperature Operability. - A cold flow performance measurement which meets the ASTM D 975

tenth percentile minimum ambient air temperature charts and maps by either ASTM Standard Test Method 

D 2500 (Cloud Point) or ASTM Standard Test Method D 4539 (Low Temperature Flow Test, LTFT). Low 

temperature operability is only applicable October 1 - March 31 of each year. 

(d) Thermal Stability. - A minimum reflectance measurement of 80 % using a green filter in the Octel

America's Test Method No. F21-61 (180 minutes, 150 °C). 

(e) Fuel Injector Cleanliness. - A Coordinating Research Council (CRC) rating of 10.0 or less and a flow loss

of 6.0 % or less as determined by the Cummins L-10 Injector Depositing Test. 

1. When a fuel uses a detergent additive to meet the requirement, upon the request of the Director, the fuel

marketer shall provide test data indicating the additive being used has passed the Cummins L-10

Injector Depositing Test requirements when combined with Caterpillar 1-K (CAT 1-K) reference fuel. 

The Director may also request records or otherwise audit the amount of additive being used to ensure 

proper treatment of fuels according to the additive manufacturer's recommended treat rates. 

1.1. Upon the request of the Director, the fuel marketer shall provide an official "Certificate of 

Analysis" of the physical properties of the additive. 

1.2. Upon the request of the Director, the fuel supplier shall provide a sample of detergent additive in an

amount sufficient to be tested with CAT 1-K reference fuel in a Cummins L-10 Injector Depositing 

Test. The regulatory agency requesting the sample shall be responsible for all costs of testing.

2. When a fuel marketer relies on the inherent cleanliness of the diesel fuel to pass the Cummins L-10 

Injector Depositing Test or if the fuel requires a lower detergent additive level than the amount required

when the additive is used with the CAT 1-K reference fuel, the fuel marketer shall provide, upon the 

request of the Director, annual test results from an independent laboratory that confirms the fuel meets

the requirements of 2.2.1. (e). The time of fuel sampling and testing shall be at the Directors discretion.

The Director may witness the sampling of the fuel and the sealing of the sample container(s) with 

L&R - A9 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

security seals. The Director may request confirmation from the testing laboratory that the seals were 

intact upon receipt by the laboratory. The final test results shall be provided to the Director. All costs

for sampling, transporting, and testing shall be the responsibility of the fuel supplier. If the annual test 

complies, any additional testing at the request of the Director shall be paid for by the regulatory agency. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999) 

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 Kerosene." 

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." 

Note: Also reference Gas Processors Association 2140, "Liquefied Petroleum Gas Specification and Test Methods." 

2.9. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) shall meet the most recent version of SAE J 1616, "Recommended Practice for 

Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel." 

2.10. E85 Fuel Ethanol shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 5798, "Standard Specification for Fuel Ethanol 

(Ed75-Ed85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines." 

(Added 1997)

2.11. M85 Fuel Methanol. shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 5797, "Standard Specification for Fuel

Methanol M70-M85 for Automotive Spark Ignition Engines." 

(Added 1997)

2.12. Vehicle Motor. - Oil shall not be sold or distributed for use unless the product conforms to the following 

specifications:

(a) It shall meet at least one of the engine oil service categories established in the latest version of SAE J183 or API

Publication 1509 Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System Performance claims listed on the label shall 

be evaluated against SAE J183, API 1509 Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System or other industry

standards as applicable.

(b) It shall meet its labeled viscosity grade classification as specified in the latest published version of SAE 

J300.

(c) Any engine oil that is represented as "energy conserving" shall meet the requirements established by the

latest revision of SAE J1423.

2.13. PRODUCTS FOR USE IN LUBRICATING MANUAL TRANSMISSIONS, GEARS OR AXLES shall not

be sold or distributed for use in lubricating manual transmissions, gears, or axles unless the product conforms to

the following specifications:

(a) It is labeled with one or more of the service designations found in the latest revision of the SAE

Information Report on axle and manual transmission lubricants SAE J308 and API Publication 1560 and 

meets all applicable requirements of those designations.

L&R -A10 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

(b) The product shall meet its labeled viscosity grade classification as specified in the latest published version 

of SAE J306. 

(c) It shall be free from water and suspended matter when tested by means of centrifuge, in accordance with 

the standard test ASTM D-2273.

2.14. Products For Use In Lubricating Automatic Transmissions. - Any automatic transmission fluid sold without

limitation as to type of transmission for which it is intended, shall meet all automotive manufacturers' 

recommended requirements for transmissions in general use in the state. Automatic transmission fluids that are 

intended for use only in certain transmissions, as disclosed on the label of its container, shall meet the latest 

automotive manufacturers' recommended requirements for those transmissions. Adherence to automotive

manufacturers recommended requirements shall be based on tests currently available to the lubricants industry 

and the state regulatory agency.

Any material offered for sale or sold as an additive to automatic transmission fluids shall be compatible with the 

automatic transmission fluid to which it is added and the resulting mixture shall not fall below the minimum 

specifications for automatic transmission fluids, as established by the director. and shall meet all performance claims as

stated on the label. Any manufacturer of any such product sold in this state shall provide, upon request by a duly 

authorized representative of the Director, documentation of any claims made on their product label.

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products 

3.1. General Considerations.

3.1.1. Documentation. - When gasoline; gasoline-oxygenate blends; reformulated gasoline; M85 and M100 fuel 

methanol; E85 and E100 fuel ethanol; liquefied petroleum (LP) gases; compressed natural gas; liquefied natural gas; 

biodiesel; diesel fuel; kerosene; aviation gasoline; aviation turbine fuels; 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 fuel

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. 

3.1.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. - All retail dispensing devices must identify conspicuously the type of product,

the particular grade of the product, and the applicable automotive fuel 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 from 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 12.7 mm (1/2 in) 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 mm

(0.930 in). 

L&R - A11 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms. - It is prohibited to use specific terms to describe a grade of gasoline or gasolineoxygenate blend unless it meets the minimum antiknock index requirement shown in Table 1.

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 1.5 mass percent 

oxygen shall be identified as “with” or “containing” (or similar wording) the predominant oxygenate in the engine

fuel. For example, the label may read “contains ethanol” or “with MTBE.” The oxygenate contributing the largest 

mass percent oxygen to the blend shall be considered the predominant oxygenate. Where mixtures of only ethers are 

present, the retailer may post the predominant oxygenate followed by the phrase “or other ethers” or alternatively 

post the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” In addition, gasoline-methanol blend fuels containing more than

0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This information 

shall be posted on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver’s

position in a type at least 12.7 mm (1/2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type). 

(Amended 1996) 

3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. - The retailer shall be provided, at the time of delivery of

the fuel, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, a declaration of the predominant

oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least

1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the 

predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen) or, alternatively, 

use the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” In addition, any gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent

oxygen from methanol shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. 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 1996) 

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 sulfur" are not required. 

3.3.2. Location of Label. - These labels shall be located on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front panel in a position 

clear and conspicuous from the drivers position, in a type at least 12.7 mm (1/2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke

(width of type). 

3.3.3. Labeling Properties of Premium Diesel. - All retail dispensers identified, as premium diesel must display 

either: 

1. A label that includes all qualifying parameters as specified in 2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel affixed to each 

retail dispenser. The label shall include a series of check blocks clearly associated with each parameter. 

The boxes for the parameters qualifying the fuel must be checked. All other boxes shall remain unchecked.

The marketer may check as many blocks as apply, or, 

2. A label that includes only the parameters selected by a marketer to meet the premium diesel requirements as 

specified in 2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel. In either case, the label must display the following words: 

• "Premium Diesel Fuel" in a type at least 12.7 mm (1/2 in) in height by 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of

type). 

When applicable, as determined by the label option and qualifying parameters chosen by the marketer, the label must 

also display the following information and letter type size: 

• The words "Energy Content," "Cetane Number," "Low Temperature Operability," "Thermal Stability," and 

"Fuel Injector Cleanliness" in a type at least 6 mm (1/4 in) in height by 0.79 mm (1/32 in) stroke (width of 

type). 

L&R -A12 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

• A declaration of the minimum Energy Content (minimum 38.65 MJ/L gross [138,700 BTU/gallon]), if

energy content is chosen as a qualifying parameter, in type at least 3 mm (1/8 in) in height by 0.4 mm (1/64

in) stroke (width of type). 

• The minimum cetane number guaranteed (at least 47.0) if cetane number is chosen as a qualifying 

parameter, in a type at least 3 mm (1/8 in) in height by 0.4 mm (1/64 in) stroke (width of type). 

• The date range of low temperature operability enhancement, (e.g., October - March) along with the

qualifying test method (ASTM D 4539 or ASTM D 2500), if low temperature operability is chosen as a

qualifying parameter, in a type at least 3 mm (1/8 in) in height by 0.4 mm (1/64 in) stroke (width of type). 

Table 1. Minimum Antiknock Index Requirements 

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 

Economy — 86

(Table Amended 1997)

L&R - A13 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

For example: 

Premium Diesel Fuel

High Energy Content

Cetane Number, 47.0 min 

Low Temperature Operability (Oct.-Mar.,LTFT) 

Thermal Stability

Fuel Injector Cleanliness

Or 

Premium Diesel Fuel

Cetane Number, 47.0 min 

Low Temperature Operability (Oct.-Mar., LTFT) 

Thermal Stability

• The label must be conspicuously displayed on the upper-half of the product dispenser front panel in a 

position that is clear and conspicuous from the drivers position.

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999) 

3.3.4. Delivery Documentation. - Before or at the time of delivery of premium diesel fuel, the retailer or the 

wholesale purchaser-consumer shall be provided on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other 

documentation, a declaration of all performance properties that qualifies the fuel as premium diesel fuel as required

in 2.2.1. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999)

3.4. Aviation Turbine Fuels.

3.4.1. Labeling of Grade Required. - Aviation turbine fuels 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 in (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.

3.5.1. Labeling of Grade Required. - Aviation gasoline shall be identified by Grade 80, Grade 100, or Grade

100LL.

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 in (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.) 

L&R -A14 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

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 12.7 mm (1/16 in) in height by 1.5 mm (1/16 in) 

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 fuel 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. Retail 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 fuel 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 (HD5). 

3.10.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. - Each retail dispenser of liquefied Petroleum gases shall be labeled as

"Commercial Propane," "Commercial Butane," "Commercial PB Mixtures," or "Special-Duty Propane (HD5)." 

3.10.3. Additional Labeling Requirements. - Liquefied Petroleum Gas shall be labeled with its automotive fuel

rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

3.10.4. NFPA Labeling Requirements also apply. (Refer to the most recent edition of NFPA 58.) 

3.11. Compressed Natural Gas.

3.11.1. How Compressed Natural Gas Is to Be Identified. - For the purposes of this regulation, compressed

natural gas shall be identified by the term "Compressed Natural Gas" or "CNG." 

L&R - A15 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

3.11.2. Retail Sales of Compressed Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel.

3.11.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. - All compressed 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). 

3.11.2.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. 

3.11.2.2.1. Identification of Product. - Each retail dispenser of compressed natural gas shall be labeled as 

"Compressed Natural Gas." 

3.11.2.2.2. Conversion Factor. - All retail compressed 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. 

3.11.2.2.3. Pressure. - CNG is dispensed into vehicle fuel containers with working pressures of 16 574 kPa,

20 684 kPa, or 24 821 kPa. The dispenser shall be labeled 16 574 kPa, 20 684 kPa, or 24 821 kPa 

corresponding to the pressure of the CNG dispensed by each fueling hose. 

3.11.2.2.4. NFPA Labeling. - NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52.) 

3.11.3. Nozzle Requirements for CNG. - CNG fueling nozzles shall comply with ANSI/AGA/CGA NGV 1. 

3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas.

3.12.1. How Liquefied Natural Gas Is to Be Identified. - For the purposes of this regulation, liquefied natural gas 

shall be identified by the term "Liquefied Natural Gas" or "LNG." 

3.12.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers of Liquefied Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel.

3.12.2.1. Identification of Product. - Each retail dispenser of liquefied natural gas shall be labeled as 

"Liquefied Natural Gas." 

3.12.2.2. Automotive Fuel Rating. - LNG automotive fuel shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in 

accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

3.12.2.3. NFPA Labeling. - NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 57.) 

3.13. Oil. - Each label for recreational motor oil and vehicle motor oil shall contain the viscosity grade

classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest version of SAE J300 

and its intended use.

Each label for gear oil shall contain the viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance

with the SAE International’s latest version of SAE J306 or SAE J300.

(Exception: Some automotive equipment manufacturers may not necessarily specify an “SAE” viscosity grade 

requirement for some applications. Gear oils intended to be used only in such application are not required to 

contain an “SAE Viscosity Grade” on their labels.)

The label on each container of vehicle motor oil shall contain the engine service categories met in letters not less

than one-eighth inch (3.18 mm) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183 or API Publication 1509, 

Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System.

The label of each container of gear oil shall contain the service categories met in letters not less than one-eighth 

inch (3.18 mm) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J308. 

L&R -A16 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

Each container of engine vehicle motor oil with a volume of one gallon or less that does not meet an active service 

category, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in

compliance with SAE J183, Appendix A, for obsolete API oil categories.

3.14. Automatic Transmission Fluid - Automatic transmission fluid shall be deemed to be mislabeled if any of the 

following occurs:

(a) The container does not bear a label on which is printed the brand name, the name and place of business of 

the manufacturer, packer, seller, or distributor, the words "Automatic Transmission Fluid", and the duty 

type classification.

(b) The container does not bear a label on which is printed an accurate statement of the quantity of the

contents in terms of liquid measure.

(c) The labeling on the container is false or misleading.

3.14.1. DOCUMENTATION OF CLAIMS MADE UPON PRODUCTS' LABEL - Any manufacturer or

packager of any product subject to this article and sold in this State shall provide, upon request to duly 

authorized representatives of the director, documentation of any claim made upon their products' label.

 

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Gas, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. - No water phase greater than

6 mm (1/4 in) 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, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. - Water shall not exceed 50 mm (2 in) 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 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 

L&R - A17 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

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. Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use. - All engine fuels designed for special use 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 fuel. 

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 Standard Specification shall be used to 

determine the specification values for enforcement purposes. 

7.1.1. Premium Diesel. - The following test methods shall be used to determine compliance with the applicable

premium diesel parameters: 

(a) Energy Content - ASTM D 240 

(b) Cetane Number - ASTM D 613 

(c) Low Temperature Operability - ASTM D 4539 or ASTM D 2500 (according to marketing claim)

(d) Thermal Stability - Octel America F21-61 (180 minutes, 150 EC) ASTM D 6468.

(e) *Fuel Injector Cleanliness. - The most recent edition of the Cummins L-10 Injector Depositing Test as

endorsed by the ASTM L-10 Injector Depositing Test Surveillance Panel. 

*Upon ASTM approval of a standard test methods that are is derived from the above referenced methods, the ASTM

standard test methods shall be used to determine compliance with the applicable premium diesel parameter. 

(Amended 1999) 

L&R -A18 
L&R Committee 2003 Final Report 

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 X1 shall be acknowledged for enforcement

purposes. 

7.2.2. Reproducibility. - 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.

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.

L&R - A19 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Final Report of the 

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 

Richard Wotthlie, Chairman 

Program Manager 

Maryland

Reference 

Key Number 

300 Introduction 

This is the final report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T Committee) for the 88th Annual Meeting 

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report is based on the 88th Interim Report offered

in NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” 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 agenda 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,” or if the item was part

of the consent calendar by the suffix “VC” after the item number. Items marked with an “I” after the reference key 

number are information items. Items marked with a “D” after the key number are developing issues. The developing

designation indicates an item that while it has merit, it may not be adequately developed for action at the national level. 

Developing items inform parties about issues that are developing in different localities or in the regional associations. A

developing item is returned to the submitter to develop further before any action is taken at the national level. The 

Committee withdrew items marked with a “W.” Items marked with a “W” generally will be referred to the regional

weights and measures associations because they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or did not have 

sufficient Committee support to bring them before the NCWM. 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. 

The attached report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) Handbook 44, 2003 Edition, “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices.” Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by crossing out text to be deleted,

and underlining information 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 Number Title of Item Page 

300 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................1

310 General Code....................................................................................................................................................6

310-1A V G-S.1. Identification; Not-Built-for-Purpose Software-Based Devices, G-S.1.1. Not Built-forPurpose Devices; Software-Based, and Appendix D; Definition of Built-for-Purpose Device.........6

S&T - 1 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

310-1B I G-S.1. Identification; Built-for-Purpose Software-Based Devices, G-S.1.1. Required

Information, G-S.1.2. Location of Marking Information for Built-for-Purpose, SoftwareBased Devices, G-S.1.3. RequiredInformation for Not Built-for-Purpose, Software-Based 

Devices, and Appendix D; Definition of Not Built-for-Purpose Device...........................................8

320 Scales .........................................................................................................................................................10

320-1 I S.1.12. Manual Gross Weight Entries and UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries ............10

320-2 V S.1.2.3. Prescription Scale with a Counting Feature, S.2.5.3. Class I and Class II Prescription

Scales with a Counting Feature, Table S.6.3.b. Notes for Table S.6.3.a; Note 13, Table 3 

Parameters for Accuracy Classes; Footnote 2, S.6.6. Counting Feature Minimum Piece 

Weight and Minimum Number of Pieces, N.1.10. Counting Feature Test, T.N.3.10.

Prescription Scales with a Counting Feature, Table T.N.3.10. Maintenance and Acceptance 

Tolerances in Excess and in Deficiency for Count, UR.3.5. Special Designs; Footnote 5, 

UR.3.11. Minimum Count, and UR.3.12. Correct Stored Average Piece Weight...........................12

320-3 I S.6.4. Railway Track Scales...........................................................................................................16

320-4 I Appendix D; Definition of Counter Scale .......................................................................................18

320-5 VC N.1.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales, N.1.3.4.1. Vehicle Scales, 

Axle-Load Scales, and Combination Vehicle/Livestock Scales, N.1.3.4.2. Prescribed Test 

Pattern and Test Loads for Livestock Scales and Combination Vehicle/Livestock Scales With

More ThanTwo Sections and N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, 

Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers ...................................19

320-6 W N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load 

Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers, T.N.3.4. Crane and Hopper (Other than Grain 

Hopper) Scales, Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes; Footnote 3, Table 7a. Typical 

Class or Type of Device for Weighing Operations, Table 7b. Applicable to Devices not

Marked with a Class Designation, and Appendix D; Definitions of Crane Scale and Hanging 

Scale ................................................................................................................................................23

320-7 VC T.N.8.3.1.(a) Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency......................................................................25

320-8 W UR.1.6. Average Net Load; Class III Scales...................................................................................26

320-9 VC Appendix D; Definition for Concentrated Load Capacity (CLC); Dual Tandem Axle Capacity....29

320-10A V Appendix D; Definitions of Substitution Test and Substitution Test Load .....................................30

320-10B V N.1.11. Substitution Test and T.N.3.11. Tolerances for Substitution Test......................................31

320-10C V N.1.12. Strain-Load Test and T.N.3.12. Tolerances for Strain-Load Test ......................................32

320-11 I N.1.3.4.X. Weight Carts..................................................................................................................33

322 Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems ..............................................................................................................33

322-1 I Tolerances.......................................................................................................................................33

324 Automatic Weighing Systems .......................................................................................................................35

324-1 I Tentative Status of the Automatic Weighing Systems Code...........................................................35

330 Liquid-Measuring Devices ............................................................................................................................36

330-1 I S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements With a Single Provision for Sealing..................................36

330-2 VC S.4.4.1. Discharge Rates.................................................................................................................36

330-3 W UR.1.2. Nozzle Requirements........................................................................................................37

330-4 I UR.2.5.1. Measuring Element Identification, and UR.2.5.2. Product Storage Identification..........38

330-5 V UR.3.6.3. Temperature Compensation Wholesale – When to be Used..........................................39

330-6 I Appendix D; Definition of Retail Device........................................................................................40

331 Vehicle-Tank Meters .....................................................................................................................................41

331-1 V Recognition of Temperature Compensation....................................................................................41

331-2 W S.3.5. Discharge Valve...................................................................................................................43

331-3 W S.3.2.X. Automatic Pump Discharge Unit......................................................................................44

331-4 W S.3.2.X. Flood Volume Automatic Pump Discharge Unit .............................................................45

331-5 VC UR.1.4. Liquid Measured...............................................................................................................45

331-6 I N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems), N.4.5. Product Depletion Test, and 

T.5. Product Depletion Test ............................................................................................................46

S&T - 2 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

332 LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices......................................................................47

332-1 VC Tolerances, Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia 

Liquid-Measuring Devices..............................................................................................................47

332-2 I UR.2.3. Vapor-Return Line............................................................................................................48

333 Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices .............................................................................................49

333-1 VC Tolerances, Table T.1. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.33. Hydrocarbon Gas VaporMeasuring Devices..........................................................................................................................49

334 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices..........................................................................................................50

334-1 VC Tolerances; T.2. Tolerance Values, T.2.1. On Normal Tests, T.2.2. On Special Tests and 

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.34. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices...................50

334-2 VC Definition of Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices.......................................................................51

335 Milk Meters....................................................................................................................................................52

335-1 W Tolerances; Table T.X. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.35. Milk Meters.......................................52

336 Water Meters..................................................................................................................................................53

336-1 V Tolerances; N.3. Test Drafts, N.4.1. Normal Tests, N.4.2. Special Tests, T.1. Tolerance

Values, Table N.4.1. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters Normal Tests, Table N.4.2. 

Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters Special Tests, and Table T.1. Accuracy Classes

for Section 3.36. Water Meters........................................................................................................53

336-2 V S.2.3. Multi-Jet Meter Identification, Table T.1. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Water 

Meters; Other than Multi-Jet Meters and Special Tests at the Minimum Flow Rate, and

Appendix D; Definition of Multi-Jet Water Meter..........................................................................57

338 Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices ................................................................................................58

338-1 VC Tolerances; T.2. Tolerance Values, T.2.1. On Normal Tests, T.2.2. On Special Tests, and 

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.38. Carbon DioxideLiquid-Measuring Devices...........58

356(a) Grain Moisture Meters..................................................................................................................................59

356(a)-1 VC Recognize Indications and Recorded Representations of Test Weight per Bushel .........................59

356(b) Grain Moisture Meters..................................................................................................................................62

356(b)-1 VC T.3. For Separate Test Weight Per Bushel Devices........................................................................62

357 Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers....................................................................................................................63

357-1 VC S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements.........................................................................63

357-2 VC S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent ..................................................................................65

358 Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices.......................................................................................................65

358-1 I Tentative Status of the Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Code...........................................65

360 Other Items.....................................................................................................................................................66

360-1 I Revise NIST Handbook 44..............................................................................................................66

360-2 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report.....................................................66

360-3 D Developing Items ............................................................................................................................67

360-4 V Update NCWM Publication 3, National Conference on Weights and Measures Policy, 

Interpretations, and Guidelines; Taximeters vs. Odometers Used for Transporting Fare Paying 

Passengers.......................................................................................................................................68

S&T - 3 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table B 

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key Number Page 

A Prescription Scales-Counting Feature Test and Other Procedures 320-2.................................A1

B Developing Items 360-3.................................B1

S&T - 4 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State 

Representatives 

House of Delegates Reference Key No. 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Results 

300 (Consent Calendar) All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed 

310-1A 31 1 36 1 Passed

320-2 30 0 34 0 Passed

320-10A 32 0 37 0 Passed

320-10B 32 0 35 0 Passed

320-10C 32 0 34 0 Passed

330-5 (Pulled from Consent Calendar) 29 3 31 5 Passed 

331-1 26 6 29 4 Returned to

Committee 

336-1 32 0 35 0 Passed

336-2 32 0 36 0 Passed

300 (Report in its Entirety Voice Vote) All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed

S&T - 5 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Details of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

310 General Code 

310-1A V G-S.1. Identification; Not-Built-for-Purpose Software-Based Devices, G-S.1.1. Not Built-forPurpose Devices; Software-Based, and Appendix D; Definition of Built-for-Purpose Device 

(This item was adopted.)

(During the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting Item 310-1 was separated into two parts, 310-1A and 310-1B, to allow a vote 

on the original proposal for Not-Built-for-Purpose Software-Based devices and still provide assurance that the issue of

Built-for-Purpose Software-Based devices would be on the agenda next year.)

Source: Carryover Item 310-1. (This item was developed by the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

(NTETC) Measuring Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44, General Code G-S.1. Identification (d) and add a new 

paragraph (e) as follows: 

 

G-S.1. Identification. - All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor;

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(c) the model designation shall be prefaced by the term "Model," "Type," or "Pattern." These terms may be 

followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word

"Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation for the 

word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.”

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

 (Added 2000) (Amended 2001)

[Note: Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals or all lower case.]

(d) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and not built-for-purpose, softwarebased devices, a nonrepetitive serial number; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

(e) for not built-for-purpose, software-based devices the current software version designation;

(f)(e) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol that clearly identifies the

number as the required serial number; and 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(g)(f) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Serial Number" or an abbreviation of that term.

Abbreviations for the word "Serial" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "S," and abbreviations for 

the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001]

S&T - 6 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

(h)(g) For devices that have an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a corresponding CC 

addendum number, the NTEP CC shall be prefaced by the terms "NTEP CC," "CC," or "Approval." 

These terms may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation 

for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999 and 2000)

Add a new General Code paragraph G-S.1.1. and renumber existing paragraph G-S.1.1. as follows:

G-S.1.1. Not Built–For–Purpose Devices, Software-Based. - For not built–for–purpose, software-based devices, 

the following shall apply: 

(a) the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation shall be continuously displayed or marked on

the device (see note below), or

(b) the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be continuously displayed or marked on the device 

(see note below), or

(c) all required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), (e), and (h) be continuously displayed. 

Alternatively, a clearly identified “view only” System Identification, G-S.1. Identification, or Weights and

Measures Identification shall be accessible through the “Help” menu. Required information includes that

information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was evaluated.

Note: Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required G-S.1. information shall be listed on the 

CC. Required information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device

is the same type that was evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

G-S.1.12. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. - All remanufactured devices 

and remanufactured main elements shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purpose of

identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the last remanufacturer or distributor; 

(b) the remanufacturer's or distributor's model designation if different than the original model designation. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002]

Add a new definition to Appendix D, Definitions, for “built-for-purpose devices” as follows: 

built-for-purpose device. Any main device or element which was manufactured with the intent that it be used

as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. 

Discussion/Background: At the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the S&T Committee reviewed and

received comments on two proposals to address marking requirements for software based “Not Built-for-Purpose devices. 

One proposal was developed and submitted by the NTETC Measuring Sector. The other proposal was developed and

submitted by the NTETC Weighing Sector. The Committee asked that the NTETC Measuring and Weighing Sectors 

review both proposals and attempt to agree on a single proposal that is acceptable to all parties. 

At the Fall 2002 NTETC Sector Meetings, the Weighing Sector developed a new proposal based on both of the proposals 

submitted in 2001. That proposal was forwarded to the NTETC Measuring Sector for review and comment. The

Measuring Sector reviewed the proposal developed by the Weighing Sector and concurred with the intent of the proposal.

The Measuring Sector recommended some changes to the proposal and agreed to forward it to the NCWM S&T 

Committee for consideration. The Measuring Sector’s modified proposal was also sent to the Weighing Sector members

along with a ballot requesting approval of the modifications. The result of the ballot was 9 affirmative votes, 1 negative 

vote, and 3 abstentions. 

S&T - 7 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) supported the Measuring

Sectors revision and encouraged both to support the proposal. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for the proposal developed by the Measuring Sector 

at its October 2002 Meeting. The Committee also heard that the proposal should include “Built-for-Purpose” devices. 

The Committee agreed that for software-based systems the software version number has greater value than a serial

number. The Committee also agreed that the word “may” should be removed from the proposed G-S.1.1. (a), (b), and (c). 

The Committee agreed to continue limiting the proposal to “Not Built-for-Purpose” devices and to present the item for a 

vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed an alternate proposal submitted by the Scale

Manufacturers Association (SMA) that was intended to allow the same alternate methods for providing required

identification markings for both “Built-for-Purpose” and “Not Built-for-Purpose” devices. The Committee agreed that

there appeared to be no opposition to allowing the same alternate methods for providing required identification markings

on “Built-for-Purpose” Software-Based Devices as those proposed for “Not Built-for-Purpose” devices. However, the 

Committee believed that the SMA alternate proposal to include “Built-for-Purpose” devices needed further review and

development by the NTETC Weighing and Measuring Sectors and the Regional Associations prior to a vote. The 

Committee agreed to split the item into two parts and to present item 310-1A for a Vote and to retain Item 310-1B as an

information item. The Committee modified the item title to include the words “Not Built-for-Purpose” and made some

editorial changes to the proposal to clarify that the alternative methods for meeting marking requirements only apply to

“Not Built-for-Purpose” devices at this time. The SMA expressed concern with the non-level playing field that would be

created if the proposed alternate methods for meeting marking requirements applied only to “Not Built-for-Purpose”

devices; however, splitting the item into two parts to facilitate adding similar requirements for “Built-for-Purpose 

Software-Based Devices” probably satisfied that concern. The Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA) and one

manufacturer of retail motor-fuel dispensers supported the Committee’s decision to split the items. A weights and 

measures official stated that inspectors should be able to easily access the software version number and adoption of this

item will facilitate that access. 

For more background information, refer to the 2002 S&T Final Report. 

310-1B I G-S.1. Identification; Built-for-Purpose Software-Based Devices, G-S.1.1. Required Information, 

G-S.1.2. Location of Marking Information for Built-for-Purpose, Software-Based Devices, GS.1.3. RequiredInformation for Not Built-for-Purpose, Software-Based Devices, and Appendix D; 

Definition of Not Built-for-Purpose Device

(During the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting Item 310-1 was separated into two parts, 310-1A and 310-1B, to allow a vote 

on the original proposal for Not Built-for-Purpose Software Based devices and still provide assurance that the issue of

Built-for-Purpose Software-Based devices would be on the 2004 agenda.)

Discussion: See the discussion in Item 310-1A above. The Committee agreed to retain Item 310-1B as an information 

item as follows: 

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information. The required information shall be so located that it is readily 

observable without the necessity of the disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the

device. (Amended 1985, 1991, 1999 and 2000)

G-S.1.1. Required Information. – Equipment utilizing a plate or badge for identification must be 

permanently marked with the following information:

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor;

(b) model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(c) the model designation shall be prefaced by the term "Model," "Type," or "Pattern." These terms 

may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the 

S&T - 8 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation 

for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” 

[Nonretroactive January 1, 2003]

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001)

[Note: Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals or all lower case.]

(d) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts, a nonrepetitive serial number; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(e) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the

number as the required serial number; and 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(f) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Serial Number" or an abbreviation of that term. 

Abbreviations for the word "Serial" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "S," and

abbreviations for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., S/N, SN,

Ser. No, and S No.) 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001]

(g) For devices that have an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a corresponding CC

addendum number, the NTEP CC shall be prefaced by the terms "NTEP CC," "CC," or "Approval." 

These terms may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The 

abbreviation for theword "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.)

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. (Amended 1985, 1991, 1999 

and 2000)

G-S.1.2. Location of Marking Information for Built-for-Purpose, Software-Based Devices. – For built-forpurpose, software-based devices, with display capability, the following shall apply:

(a) the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation be continuously displayed or marked on

the device*, or

(b) the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number be continuously displayed or marked on the device*, or

(c) all required information in G-S.1.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), (e), and (h) be continuously displayed. 

Alternatively, a clearly identified System Identification, G-S.1. Identification, or Weights and

Measures Identification shall be accessible through the “Help”menu. Required information includes 

that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was 

evaluated.

*Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required G-S.1.1. information shall be

listed on the CC. Required information includes that information necessary to identify

that the software in the device is the same type that was evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

(a) All information defined in G-S.1.1. shall be either marked on the unit or continuously displayed.

Alternative markings are:

1. the manufacturer or distributor name and the model number, or

2. the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number, provided that access to the remaining G-S.1.1.

information is available through the “Help” key, or clear instructions are listed on the CC.

(b) Information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was evaluated.

S&T - 9 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

 

G-S.1.3. Required Information for Not Built-for-Purpose, Software Based Devices. – For not built-forpurpose, software based devices, the following shall apply:

(a) All information defined in G-S.1.1. (a), (b), (c) and (g) shall be either marked on the unit or

continuously displayed. Alternative marking requirements are:

1. the manufacturer or distributor name and the model number, or

2. the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number.

Provided that access to the remaining required G-S.1.1. information is available through the “Help”

key or clear instructions are listed on the CC. 

G-S.1.14. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. All remanufactured devices and 

remanufactured main elements shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purpose of identification 

with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the last remanufacturer or distributor; 

(b) the remanufacturer's or distributor's model designation if different than the original model 

designation. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002]

The above proposed changes lead to the need for two new definitions. Suggestions are:

Built-for-purpose device. Any main device or element which was manufactured with the intent that it be used 

as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. 

Not built-for-purpose device. Any main device or element which was not originally manufactured with the 

intent that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system

Editor’s note: The definition for “built-for-purpose” was adopted under S&T Agenda Item 310-1A G-S.1. Identification: 

Not-Built-for-Purpose Software-Based Devices, and Appendix D; Definitions of Built-for-Purpose Device. 

For more discussion and background refer to Item 310-1A.

320 Scales 

320-1 I S.1.12. Manual Gross Weight Entries and UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries 

Source: Carryover Item 320-4. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.)

Recommendation: Modify paragraphs S.1.12. and UR.3.9. as follows:

S.1.12. Manual Gross Weight Entries. – A device shall accept an entry of a manual gross weight value only when 

the scale is at gross load zero and the scale gross or net* weight indication is at zero in the gross weights display 

mode. Recorded manual weight entries except those on labels generated for packages of standard weights, shall

identify the weight value as a manual weight entry by one of the following terms: “Manual Weight,” “Manual 

Wt,” or “MAN WT.” The use of a symbol to identity multiple manual weight entries on a single document is 

permitted, provided that the symbol is defined on the same page on which the manual weight entries appear and 

the definition of the symbol is automatically printed by the recording element as part of the document. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993]

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004.]

UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries. – Manual gross weight entries are permitted for use in the

following applications only: (1) on a point-of-sales system interfaced with scales when credit is given for a

S&T - 10 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

weighed item on point-of-sale systems interfaced with scales, or when an item is pre-weighed and marked with

the correct net weight; (2) when a device or system is generatesing labels for standard weight packages; (3) 

when postal scales or weight classifiers are generatesing manifests for packages to be picked up at a later time; 

or and (4) on livestock scale and vehicle scale systems generate weight tickets to correct erroneous tickets.

Discussion: This proposal was developed to address concerns about practices for using manual weight entries on

point-of-sale (POS) systems. One national grocery company manually enters weights (obtained from a scale other than

the POS system) into its POS system when an item (e.g., watermelons, turkeys, roasts, etc.) exceeds the capacity of the 

POS scale system or when the scanner system cannot read the Universal Product Code (UPC) on a random weight

package (but the weight and price per pound are legible). These applications are not specifically addressed in NIST

Handbook 44 regarding the use of manual weight entries. 

Several restrictions are placed on the use of manual weight entries in Handbook 44 to deter fraudulent use of the feature

and to ensure that entries are properly identified. Paragraph UR.3.9. permits use of manual weight entries in applications

where a credit is given on a POS system, to generate labels for standard weight packages, for postal weight manifests 

when packages are picked up at a later time, or to correct erroneous tickets generated by livestock or vehicle scales. 

Paragraph S.1.12. permits manual weight entries only when the scale is at gross load zero and the scale indication is zero. 

This also specifies that manual weight entries must be identified with specific terminology on labels (except standard 

weight packages) or tickets. The Committee had concerns that adding more applications to the list of weighing operations, 

where manual entries are permitted, might not adequately recognize all weighing installations where manual weight

entries are appropriate. 

At the July 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended a more complete assessment of the field use of

manual weight entries since not all involve gross weights. The Committee reviewed several proposals to modify 

paragraph UR.3.9. to address specific manual weight entry applications encountered by each submitter. The Committee

agreed that the use of manual weight entries occurs with both gross and net weight packages, therefore, the proposals to

modify paragraph UR.3.9., as worded, did not address all instances where manual weight entries occur. The Committee 

also discussed a proposal, developed by the Committee at the 2002 NCWM Interim Meeting that addressed various

manual weight entries that occur nationally in weighing operations. The proposal modified paragraph S.1.12. to

recognize manual weight entries for both gross and net weight packages and to require the system to identify and print

manual tare entries. 

The Committee agreed that changes were also necessary to paragraph UR.3.9. to ensure that the requirement is consistent 

with the proposed modifications to paragraph S.1.12. The Committee agreed to consider recommendations to modify

paragraph UR.3.9. because corresponding changes are needed for device operators that use manual weight entries. 

In September 2002, the WWMA indicated its support for a proposal to modify paragraph UR.3.9. to recognize manual

weight entries on POS systems for marking the correct weight on preweighed items. The WWMA indicated that it is 

acceptable to manually enter weight and price information and use the POS system as a calculator. The WWMA also 

proposed removing all references to the term “gross” from paragraph UR.3.9. to correspond with the changes 

recommended for paragraph S.1.12. 

During the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, several scale manufacturers indicated it would be too costly to require devices

to print manual tare values. Scale manufacturers supported an alternate proposal to modify paragraph S.1.12. to specify

that only “direct sale” devices accept manual weight entries. 

The Committee was not certain that the WWMA proposal to modify paragraph UR.3.9. as written clearly identified which 

applications are permitted to use manual weight entries. Additionally, the Committee was not certain that the proposal

permits manual weight entries for random weight packages. The Committee agreed the proposed language in paragraph

S.1.12. might be misleading as to whether or not the device must print the value for each keyboard-, stored-, push-buttonor digitally-entered tare. Consequently, the Committee deleted the proposed language to identify and print manual tare 

values on labels or recorded representation from paragraph S.1.12. The Committee also modified the proposal to clarify

which type of manual weight entries are acceptable for point-of-sale systems and to clarify that the application in 

paragraph S.1.12. is effective on January 1, 2004, for manual net weight entries. However, the Committee considered

keeping the original effective date of January 1, 1993, for simplicity since manual gross and net weight entries already 

occur and the proposal would make both entries acceptable. The Committee believed that these modifications afforded the 

flexibility grocers needed to make manual weight entries while providing sufficient safeguards to prevent fraudulent use 

of the feature. 

S&T - 11 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

The Committee acknowledges that there are specific weighing applications where manual gross weight entries are 

permissible. However, Handbook 44 does not include language to address every transaction that might use the manual

weight entry feature and require the recorded value to be identified to prevent fraudulent use of the feature. Handbook

44 specifies that the scale must be at gross load zero and the scale indication at zero in the gross weight display so that the

customer realizes that a manual weight entry is taking place. 

In the early 1990s, the S&T Committee could not foresee all possible uses of manual weight entries on point-of-sale

systems. The Committee believes the current requirements were not intended to prohibit manual weight entries to 

calculate a new price. Paragraphs S.1.12. Manual Gross Weight Entries and UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries

would permit a point-of-sale system interfaced with a scale to give credit for a net weighed item or when an item is preweighed and marked with the correct net weight. 

The Committee acknowledges there is confusion about the proper operation of tare features and the specific point in the 

transaction where values must be identified, in part, because NIST Handbook 44 does not include definitions for the 

terms, “gross,” “net,” and “tare.” NIST Handbook 130 (Weights and Measures Law Section 1.10) defines “net weight”

and Publication 14 addresses push-button, keyboard, programmable, digital, and stored tares. The Committee believes 

future work on manual weight entry requirements may require defining those terms to clarify what values are appropriate

for manual weight entries. 

The Committee agreed with industry’s concerns about how the proposed modification to paragraph S.1.12. may be

interpreted to restrict keyboard tare entries and tare determined on vehicle weigh-in/weigh-out systems. A keyboard entry

of tare prior to the entry of a manual weight value is not permitted because the proposal requires that the scale must be at 

zero load in order to accept a manual weight entry. The proposal would not, for example, permit entry of the tare weight 

of a vehicle at a recycling operation when the scale is not at a gross zero load. Therefore, the Committee changed the 

proposal to an information item and recommended that the Weighing Sector revise the language to clarify the original

intended use of the manual weight entry feature in existing and other applications that are the result of new technology 

and today’s marketing practices (e.g., tier pricing). 

For more background information, refer to the 2002 S&T Final Report. 

320-2 V S.1.2.3. Prescription Scale with a Counting Feature, S.2.5.3. Class I and Class II Prescription 

Scales with a Counting Feature, Table S.6.3.b. Notes for Table S.6.3.a; Note 13, Table 3 

Parameters for Accuracy Classes; Footnote 2, S.6.6. Counting Feature Minimum Piece Weight 

and Minimum Number of Pieces, N.1.10. Counting Feature Test, T.N.3.10. Prescription Scales

with a Counting Feature, Table T.N.3.10. Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances in Excess and 

in Deficiency for Count, UR.3.5. Special Designs; Footnote 5, UR.3.11. Minimum Count, and

UR.3.12. Correct Stored Average Piece Weight 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA). (This item originated from the Southern Weights and

Measures Association (SWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda as Developing Item 360-3,

Appendix A.) 

Recommendation: Add the following new paragraphs to the Scales Code to address prescription scales with a counting 

feature: 

S.1.2.3. Prescription Scale with a Counting Feature. - A Class I or Class II prescription scale with an 

operational counting feature shall not calculate a piece weight or total count unless the following conditions

are met: 

(a) minimum individual piece weight is greater than or equal to 3 e, 

(b) minimum sample size is greater than or equal 10 pieces

S.2.5.3. Class I and Class II Prescription Scales with a Counting Feature. - A prescription scale, Class I or

Class II, shall indicate to the operator when the piece weight computation is complete by a stable display of the

quantity placed on the load receiving element. 

S&T - 12 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

S.6.6. Counting Feature Minimum Piece Weight and Minimum Number of Pieces. - A Class I or Class II

prescription scale with an operational counting feature shall be marked with the minimum piece weight and

minimum number of pieces used to establish an individual piece count. 

N.1.10. Counting Feature Test. – A test of the counting function shall be conducted on all Class I and Class II

prescription scales having an active counting feature. The test should verify that the scale will not accept a 

sample with less than either the minimum sample piece count or the minimum sample weight. Counting

feature accuracy should be verified at a minimum of two test loads. Verification of the count calculations shall 

be based upon the weight indication of the test load. 

Note: Test load as used in this section refers to actual calibration test weights selected from an appropriate test

weight class. 

T.N.3.10. Prescription Scales with a Counting Feature. – In addition to Table 6 Maintenance Tolerances (for 

weight), the indicated piece count value computed by a Class I or Class II prescription scale counting feature 

shall comply to within the tolerances in Table T.N.3.10. Maintenance and acceptance tolerances are the same. 

Table T.N.3.10. 

Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances 

in Excess and in Deficiency for Count 

Indication of Count Tolerance (piece count) 

0 to 100 0 

101 to 200 1 

201 or more 0.5 %

UR.3.11. Recommended Minimum Count. - A prescription scale with an operational counting feature shall be 

used to count a quantity of 30 (at a minimum of 30 e) or more pieces. 

UR.3.12. Correct Stored Average Piece Weight. - For prescription scales with a counting feature, the user is 

responsible to maintain the correct stored average piece weight; especially when a medicine is reformulated. 

Modify Table S.6.3.b., Note 13; Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes, Footnote 2; paragraph UR.3.5. Special

Designs; and Footnote 5 to paragraph UR.3.5. as follows:

Table S.6.3.b. 

13. A scale designed for 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," except when a prescription scale complies with sections S.1.2.3., S.2.5.3., S.6.6.

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes 

2 A scale marked For prescription weighing only may have a verification scale division (e) not less than 0.01 g.

UR.3.5. Special Designs. - A scale designed and marked for a special application (such as a prepackaging scale 

or prescription scale with a counting feature) shall not be used for other than its intended purpose.

5

5

Prepackaging scales and prescription scales with a counting feature (and other commercial devices) used for 

putting up packages in advance of sale are acceptable for use in commerce if all appropriate provisions of 

Handbook 44 are met. Users of such devices must be alert to the legal requirements relating to the declaration 

of quantity on a package. Such requirements are to the effect that, on the average, the contents of the

individual packages of a particular commodity comprising a lot, shipment, or delivery must contain at least

the quantity declared on the label. The fact that a prepackaging scale may overregister, but within established 

S&T - 13 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

tolerances, and is approved for commercial service is not a legal justification for packages to contain, on the

average, less than the labeled quantity. 

Discussion: The WWMA proposed that the counting by weight feature on prescription scales be recognized in NIST 

Handbook 44. The WWMA developed a proposal based on the following input from prescription scale manufacturers:

(1) there is a high level of regulatory oversight by the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that prescription drug

dosages are uniform, unlike other commodities sold by count based on weight, (2) pharmacists are trained professionals in 

search of an accurate method to dispense pills, and (3) device technology provides greater accuracy for filling containers 

when counting by weight rather than by hand. The WWMA recommended this application be limited to prescription

scales because of the controls in place for pill dosages and pill weight. 

Past NCWM discussions about the counting feature focused on variability in the size of individual items, compliance with

device performance tolerances, and the individual piece weight unit having a higher resolution than the displayed scale 

division (d). The initial WWMA proposal included language to eliminate labeling requirements for the counting feature 

on prescription scales from Table S.6.3.b Note 13 and included background information from McKesson that explored

some possible sources for counting error when using the weighing function to determine count. The WWMA proposal

did not include language for accuracy requirements or modify the notes section to specify test procedures. These issues 

and others such as the appropriate standards and influence factors must be developed to establish a means for verifying 

the performance of a metrological feature.

The WWMA recognized that Handbook 44 must be modified to permit a counting feature for prescription scales and 

further work was needed to ensure that appropriate test procedures were developed. The WWMA indicated that the 

counting feature was suitable only for prescription scale applications when the device and the counting feature are 

covered by an NTEP Certificate of Conformance. The WWMA received documents from McKesson that contained the 

following: (1) establishing piece weight data with reference weight, (2) expanding the reference weight data (optional 

algorithm for prescription scale program), (3) Recommended Characteristics for a Prescription Scale, (4) Accuracy Test 

for Prescription Scale Counting Feature, and (5) Two Methods for Verifying Counting Accuracy (see Appendix A for the 

documents provided by McKesson). The WWMA encouraged McKesson to work with parties such as NTEP, NIST, and

the States to make any changes necessary to the proposed test procedures so that they adequately address Handbook 44

requirements. 

The SWMA reviewed the WWMA proposal, but due to time constraints the SWMA was not able to study the

corresponding documents prepared by McKesson. The SWMA concluded that the type evaluation and field test 

procedures developed by McKesson must include tolerances and that they need further development. The SWMA

recommended the proposal move forward as an information item until all work was completed on the procedures. 

The Committee agreed that WWMA proposal and supplemental prescription scale counting feature test procedures 

developed by McKesson (see Appendix A) were a good start at recognizing that feature. The proposed procedures were

supported as metrologically sound by the Scale Manufacturers Association. However, the proposal to only modify Note

13 did not include necessary NIST Handbook 44 specifications, test procedures (influence factors, appropriate standards,

etc.) for the counting feature. 

During the January 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, at the Committee’s recommendation, the proposal to modify Note 13

was revised by the NCWM membership. The Committee reviewed the alternate proposal shown below to add new 

specifications for marking the prescription scale with its internal resolution and how the count feature must function: 

S.X.X. Pharmacy Scales (Scales used in pharmacy applications). A pharmacy scale installed with an operational 

counting feature shall be marked with the value of the internal scale division used internally for counting purposes. 

S.X.X. Pharmacy Counting Scale Divisions. A pharmacy counting scale shall not count when the scale calculated 

individual piece weight is less than 30 counting (internal) scale divisions. 

The Committee believed that the specifications were also a good start at establishing Handbook 44 requirements for Class 

II prescription scale counting features. However, Note 13 still required modification because the existing Handbook 44 

wording prohibited the counting feature. The Committee made the proposed specifications a voting item with the 

stipulation that McKesson and other prescription scale manufacturers complete their work with the weights and measures 

community to fully develop Handbook 44 requirements that adequately address the counting feature on Class II

prescription scales, prior to the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

S&T - 14 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

In March 2003, in response to the Committee’s request for comprehensive Handbook 44 language to address the counting 

feature, McKesson along with the S&T Committee and NIST developed an alternate proposal similar to the 

recommendation above. The recommendation further modified the WWMA’s proposal that added language to Table 

S.6.3.b. Note 13 to recognize prescription scales covered by a Certificate of Conformance that listed a commercial 

counting feature. 

The proposed requirements were developed to ensure that the counting feature functioned properly, did not facilitate

fraud, and could be verified in the field. Only Class I or Class II scale technology has sufficient resolution to determine 

piece weight and use that information as the basis for computing pill count to fill prescriptions. The relationship of the

scale division (d) to the verification scale division (e) is already established in paragraph S.1.2.2.1. Class I and II Scales 

and Dynamic Monorail Scales, where d < e # 10 d. The limits on the value of d and e were considered in the 

development of the requirement. There is also sufficient internal resolution in Class I and II digital scales to ensure 

accurate piece weight measurement when d equals e. However, internal resolution cannot be determined by the scale user

or customer so this value is not part of the requirement in paragraph S.1.2.3. for verifying the accuracy of the counting

feature. The proposed changes also include a modification to Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes Footnote 2 to

eliminate any confusion about the relationship of d and e for Class III scales used in a prescription application.

Additionally, the scale should not provide an indication of count when the conditions proposed in paragraph S.1.2.3. for 

establishing minimum piece weight, sample weight, and piece count are not met. Class I and Class II prescription scales

used commercially to establish quantity must meet a tolerance for count. Packages filled through a Class I or Class II 

prescription scale with a counting feature that complies with all proposed Handbook 44 requirements must also comply 

with all other quantity and labeling requirements. 

The NIST Technical Advisors provided the following example of how paragraph S.1.2.3. Prescription Scale with a

Counting Feature would apply in the selection and use of a prescription scale. This example is based on a Class II 

prescription scale with a capacity of 500 g, e = 0.01 g; d = 0.001 g; and nmax = 50 000, where the prescription scale does 

not calculate a piece weight or total count unless all requirements in subparagraphs (a) and (b) are met as follows: 

(a) the minimum pill weight must be greater than or equal to 0.03 g (30 mg), and

(b) the minimum number of pieces in a sample used to establish a piece weight count must be greater than or equal 

to 10 pills, in this case the equivalent of 0.3 g (30 mg). 

A field examination procedure based on the proposed Handbook 44 requirements was needed for weights and measures

officials. The new test procedure drafted and proposed for inclusion in Examination Procedure Outline Number 1, Retail

Computing Scales is as follows: 

14. Test count feature for Class II prescription scales. Verify the count accuracy for at least two points. 

a. Place a load equivalent to 29 e on the load receiving element and enter a sample count of 10. The device 

should not accept the entry. 

b. Place a load equivalent to 30 e on the load receiving element and enter a sample count of 9. The device

should not accept the entry. 

c. Place a load equivalent to 30 e on the load receiving element and enter a sample count of 10. The device 

should accept the entry. Then place a load equivalent to 300e on the load receiving element. Verify that the

total count of 100 is accurate. 

d. Place a load equivalent to 200 e on the load receiving element and enter a sample count of 10. The device 

should accept the entry. Then place a load equivalent to 4 000 e on the load receiving element. Verify that

the total count of 200 is accurate. 

The Committee also asked for input from the Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Pharmacopeia, and representatives 

from the pharmaceutical industry on the proposal. One scale manufacturer indicated some concern about the variability 

in the pill formulation process and the effect on individual pill weight. 

The Committee believes that Class I and Class II prescription scales will meet all proposed specifications and tolerances 

for weighing and counting applications when field test standards are used to conduct accuracy tests. The Committee

S&T - 15 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

questioned whether or not tests using pharmaceuticals will result in inaccuracies in the counting feature because of the 

effects of environmental factors on individual pill weight. Consequently, the Committee included a note in proposed

paragraph N.1.10. to specify that tests shall be performed with appropriate test standards. 

The Committee acknowledged that the limits on minimum individual piece weight and sample size result in a calculated 

minimum sample weight of 30 e and not 20 e that appears in Publication 16. The Committee reworked the proposal to 

eliminate from paragraph S.1.2.3. any reference to a minimum sample weight and to include the correct test load in the 

field test procedure used to verify the count feature. Additionally, the Committee believes the scale count feature should

operate at a required rather than recommended minimum count of 30 or more pieces. 

The Committee agreed that the proposal should clarify when special application marking requirements are not required on

scales equipped with the counting feature. The Committee modified Table S.6.3.b. Note 13 to include an exception to the 

marking requirements when a prescription scale meets the operating, indicating, and marking requirements proposed in 

paragraphs S.1.2.3., S.2.5.3., and S.6.6. 

The Committee agreed with a CWMA recommendation that the proposal should include an additional user requirement to

ensure that the pill count is based on up-to-date information from the manufacturer when medicines are reformulated. 

The Committee modified the proposal to include a new paragraph UR.3.12. Correct Stored Average Piece Weight. 

320-3 I S.6.4. Railway Track Scales 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.6.4. in the Scales Code as follows:

S.6.4. Railway Track Scales. - A railway track scale shall be marked with the maximum capacity of each

section of the load-receiving element of the scale. Such marking shall be accurately and conspicuously 

presented on, or adjacent to, the identification or nomenclature plate that is attached to the indicating element 

of the scale. The nominal capacity of a scale with more than two sections shall not exceed twice its rated section

capacity. The nominal capacity of a two-section scale shall not exceed its rated section capacity*. The marked

nominal capacity shall not exceed the sectional capacity (SC) multiplied by the number of sections (N) of the scale

minus 0.5 sections. The formula is stated as Nominal Capacity # SC x (N - 0.5)*. 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20024] 

Discussion: In 2001, paragraph S.6.4. was modified to specify that the maximum nominal capacity for railway track 

scales with more than two sections must not exceed twice the marked section capacity and the nominal capacity for 

railway track scales with two sections must not exceed the marked section capacity. The CWMA found that the marked

nominal capacity required in paragraph S.6.4. is exceeded on modular railway track scales when railcars are pushed and

placed on the scale for weighing. Weighing systems monitor and record all weighments, which includes all instances

where loads exceed the marked nominal capacity (except when total platform load is in excess of 105 % of scale

capacity). The CWMA proposed changes to the language to permit a greater nominal capacity that is based on the

section capacity multiplied by the number of sections minus 0.5 sections; the CWMA believes this change is consistent

with the nominal capacity specifications for vehicle scales. 

One scale manufacturer indicated that railway track scales are designed to meet American Railway Engineering 

Maintenance of Way Association and Cooper E-80 specifications as specified by the servicing railroad. System

Associates, Inc. reported that modular railway track scales based on Cooper E-80 specifications can withstand loads far

greater than the marked nominal capacity limits in existing paragraph S.6.4. The length of scales fabricated from multiple 

modules is restricted because of nominal capacity limitations specified in current paragraph S.6.4. 

The company provided the examples below to demonstrate railway track scale loading, where railcar loads exceed 

nominal scale capacity limits specified in paragraph S.6.4. The modular railway track scale typically uses 100 000 lb load

cells and has a 170 000 lb section capacity. A change to load cell capacity to meet the weight of coupled railcars might 

require modifications to the scale design and require re-evaluation by NTEP. Railcars are uncoupled at both ends to

obtain a true net weight and ensure there is no coupler interaction or weight transfer. The terms used in Examples A 

through C that are not in Handbook 44 are defined below:

S&T - 16 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

single scale – A single module having a 12 ft span that is designed to support three 80 000 lb axles on five foot

centers. 

double scale – A single module having a 25 ft to 26 ft span that is designed to support four 80 000 lb axles on five 

foot centers. 

truck – A swiveling framework of wheels located at each end of the railcar. 

Examples of Railway Track Scale Loading 

A - Short Railcar on a Single-Double Scale 

 

• A short railcar is spotted or placed into position for weighing on a single-double combination scale 

• Each truck weighs 131 500 lb for a gross railcar weight of 263 000 lb

• The gross railcar weight does not exceed the nominal capacity of 340 000 lb

Short Railcar on a Single-Double Scale Where Weighing is NOT Intended 

• The next car recouples to push the weighed railcar off the scale 

• Each of the three trucks weighs 131 500 lb for a gross weight of 394 500 lb

• With a 340 000 lb nominal capacity, the scale is 54 500 lb overloaded under normal traffic 

• The design load capacity (per railroad requirements) of this scale is 560 000 lb

• A nominal capacity of 400 000 lb would be acceptable in most applications

B - Six Axle Car on a Double-Double Scale 

• Six axle railcar is spotted for weighing on a double-double combination scale 

• Each truck weighs 192 000 lb for a gross weight of 384 000 lb

• With a 340 000 lb nominal capacity, this scale is overloaded by 44 000 lb

• The design load capacity of this scale (per railroad requirements) is 640 000 lb

• A nominal capacity of 600 000 lb would be acceptable in most applications 

S&T - 17 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

C - Railcars Moving on a 93-ft Modular Scale Where Weighing is NOT Intended 

• Railcars are moving across a 93 foot scale with seven 12 foot modules 

• Each truck weighs 131 500 lb for a gross weight of 526 000 lb

• With a 340 000 lb nominal capacity, this scale is overloaded by 186 000 lb 

• The design load capacity of this scale (per railroad requirements) is 1 044 000 lb

• A nominal capacity of 600 000 lb would be acceptable in most applications 

The Committee included text in the title of the diagrams above to clarify that the illustrations do not represent the 

weighing of coupled railcars. The diagrams show movement of multiple coupled railcars across scale modules to position

the railcars for weighing. The scale indication may blank out since the combined weight of the coupled cars exceeds the

scale’s rated nominal capacity, but the indication operates when the railcars are uncoupled for the weighing of a single

railcar. 

The Committee acknowledged that overloading of scales does occur, for example, when locomotives are driven across 

scales. However, the overloading of scales is not a problem for scales that are designed to withstand the loads, provided

the scale complies with NIST Handbook 44 specification that a scale cannot indicate more than 105 % of scale capacity.

Additionally, the scale should be suitable for a particular use with respect to its design, which includes but is not limited

to its weighing capacity. 

In response to a request from the submitter, the Committee made changes to the formula to align the relationship of the 

equations in the formula with similar applications elsewhere in Handbook 44. The Committee modified the proposed 

formula to require a nominal capacity that is less than or equal to the section capacity multiplied by the number of scale

sections minus 0.5 sections. The Committee also heard that there may be instances where coupled railway cars are being 

statically weighed and believes that a user requirement may be needed to resolve this enforcement issue.

The Committee agreed that the proposed formula permits nominal capacities that may exceed the safe load of a railway

track scale. Typically, weights and measures jurisdictions do not have sufficient field test standards to test railway track

scales that exceed a 640 000 lb nominal capacity at the minimum 12.5 % (80 000 lb) of capacity prescribed in Table 4 

Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads. 

The Committee believes that the item needs further review by industry and the Weighing Sector to either modify the 

proposed formula or develop additional language that establishes appropriate capacity limitations for railway track scales. 

Consequently, the Committee changed the proposal to an information item to allow sufficient time for input on

appropriate nominal capacity limitations. 

320-4 I Appendix D; Definition of Counter Scale

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Modify the definition of “counter scale” as follows: 

counter scale. One A scale that, by reason of its size, arrangement of parts, and moderate with a nominal 

capacity no greater than 100 kg (220 lb), is adapted for use on a counter or bench. Sometimes called “bench 

scale.” [2.20] 

Discussion: There are some questions regarding whether certain scales are classified as bench/counter scales or 

classifying them as floor scales. This confusion has led officials to perform different shift tests on the same device. In

some instances, the shift tests were based on the requirements in NIST Handbook 44 paragraph N.1.3.1. Bench or

Counter Scales, which describes test load positions for bench/counter scales. In other instances, the tests were based on 

S&T - 18 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

paragraph N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and 

Portable Axle-Load Weighers which addresses test load positions for other (platform) scales, and were applied to the

same device model when it was classified as a floor scale. 

Currently, Handbook 44 requires that bench/counter scale shift tests be conducted with a half-capacity test load centered 

successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back, and right edges of the load-receiving

element (see paragraph N.1.3.1.). Shift tests on other types of platform scales are conducted with a one-half capacity test 

load centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the center of each quadrant (see paragraph N.1.3.8.). Several

manufacturers have indicated that it is an unfair test to place one-quarter scale capacity on the corners of a single load cell

scale as compared to placing one-quarter scale capacity in the corners of a scale with four load supports. 

NIST Handbook 44 also prescribes different requirements for the maximum loads that can be rezeroed in paragraph

S.2.1.3. Scales Equipped with an Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism for bench/counter scales (0.6 scale division) and for 

all other scales (1.0 scale division). 

In October 2002, the NTETC Weighing Sector recommended a proposal to modify paragraphs N.1.3.1. and N.1.3.8. and

to revise the current definition of “counter scale” to distinguish bench/counter scales from floor scales based on the 

number of platform supports and the device’s nominal capacity rating. The Weighing Sector recommended a capacity 

limit of 100 kg (220 lb) for bench/counter scales since many shipping scales in commercial use on business counters or

elevated conveyors have a nominal capacity of 100 lb to 200 lb and 100 kg (220 lb) is consistent with capacity limits set

by Measurement Canada. 

During its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) agreed with limiting

the capacity of a bench scale to 100 kg (220 lb); but the SWMA did not agree with the proposed changes to paragraphs

N.1.3.1. and N.1.3.8. 

In April 2003, the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) supported the recommendation to modify the definition of 

“counter scale” if it helps in determining an appropriate shift test procedure. However, the SMA could support only

limited changes to paragraphs N.1.3.1. and N.1.3.8. to specify the conditions for shift tests on multiple platform supports 

of bench and counter scales and test loads placed on multiple points for all other scales with a single platform support. 

During the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed to continue supporting several points reached at the

January 2003 Interim Meeting. The Committee recognized that the Weighing Sector’s proposal was intended to align the

U.S. and Measurement Canada’s shift test procedure that are based on the number of load supports in the scale. The

Committee agreed with comments from industry and weights and measures officials that paragraphs N.1.3.1. and N.1.3.8.

already adequately address shift test procedures and any change would create confusion. The Committee agreed with 

comments recommending that the definition of counter scale needs to be modified. However, the Committee decided to

amend the definition for clarity only and to include a 100 kg limit on the nominal capacity of a counter scale. 

The Committee agreed that the proposal to modify the definition of counter scale as written does not provide weights and 

measures officials with a means to determine the shift test procedure that is appropriate for a scale design (single or four

load supports). The Committee recognized the difficulty or reluctance of field officials to dismantle a scale to determine

its design. Consequently, the Committee changed this item’s status to an information item and recommended that the

Weighing Sector consider the practice of including scale design information on all NTEP Certificates of Conformance to

assist officials in performing shift tests. 

320-5 VC N.1.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales, N.1.3.4.1. Vehicle Scales, AxleLoad Scales, and Combination Vehicle/Livestock Scales, N.1.3.4.2. Prescribed Test Pattern and

Test Loads for Livestock Scales and Combination Vehicle/Livestock Scales With More ThanTwo 

Sections and N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, 

Wheel-Load Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-1B. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Weighing Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s Agenda in 2001 as Item 320-4.) 

S&T - 19 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Recommendation: Modify paragraphs N.1.3.4. and N.1.3.4.1. as follows:

N.1.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales 

N.1.3.4.1. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Combination Vehicle/Livestock Scales – 

(a) Minimum Shift Test. At least one shift test shall be conducted with a minimum test load of 

12.5 % of scale capacity and may be performed anywhere on the load-receiving element using the 

prescribed test patterns and maximum test loads specified below. (Two-section livestock scales

shall be tested consistent with N.1.3.8.) (Combination Vehicle/Livestock scales shall also be tested 

consistent with N.1.3.4.2.)

(ab) Prescribed Test Pattern and Loading for Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Combination

Vehicle/Livestock Scales. The normal prescribed test pattern shall be an area of 1.2 m (4 ft) in

length and 3.0 m (10 ft) in width or the width of the scale platform, whichever is less. Multiple 

test patterns may be utilized when loaded in accordance with Paragraph (b) (c), (d), or (e) as 

applicable. 

4' 4' 4' 4' 4'

Section 1 Midway 

between 

sections 

1 and 2

Section 2 Midway 

between 

sections 

2 and 3

Section 3

(bc)Maximum Loading Precautions for Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Combination 

Vehicle/Livestock Scales. When loading the scale for testing, one side of the test pattern shall be 

loaded to no more than half of the concentrated load capacity or test load before loading the other 

side. The area covered by the test load may be less than 1.2 m (4 ft) x 3.0 m (10 ft) or the width of 

the scale platform whichever is less; for test patterns less than 1.2 m (4 ft) in length the maximum 

loading shall meet the formula: [(wheel base of test cart or length of test load divided by 48 in) x

0.9 x CLC]. The maximum test load applied to each test pattern shall not exceed the concentrated

load capacity of the scale. When the test pattern exceeds 1.2 m (4 ft), the maximum test load

applied shall not exceed the concentrated load capacity times the largest “r” factor in Table

UR.3.2.1. for the length of the area covered by the test load. For weighing elements installed prior 

to January 1, 1989, the rated section capacity may be substituted for concentrated load capacity 

to determine maximum loading. An example of a possible test pattern is shown below above. 

(cd) Multiple Pattern Loading. To test the nominal capacity, multiple patterns may be simultaneously

loaded in a manner consistent with the method of use. 

(de) Other Designs. Special design scales and those that are wider than 3.7 m (12 ft) shall be tested in

a manner consistent with the method of use but following the principles described above.

S&T - 20 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Add a new paragraph N.1.3.4.2. and associated diagram as follows:

N.1.3.4.2. Prescribed Test Pattern and Test Loads for Livestock Scales with More Than Two Sections and 

Combination Vehicle/Livestock Scales. - A minimum test load of 5000 kg (10 000 lb) or one-half of the rated 

section capacity, whichever is less, shall be placed, as nearly as possible, successively over each main load 

support as shown in the diagram below. For livestock scales manufactured between January 1, 1989, and

January 1, 2003, the required loading shall be no greater than one-half CLC. (Two-section livestock scales

shall be tested consistent with N.1.3.8.)

Position 1 Position 2 Position 3

Position 6 Position 5 Position 4 

= Load Bearing Point 

Modify paragraph N.1.3.8. as follows: 

N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and 

Portable Axle-Load Weighers. – A shift test shall be conducted using the following prescribed test loads and

test patterns. with a half-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the center of each

quarter of the load-receiving element, or with a quarter-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, 

successively over each main load support. For livestock scales the shift test load shall not exceed one-half the 

rated section capacity.

(a) A shift test load shall be conducted using a one-quarter nominal capacity test load centered as nearly 

as possible, successively over each main load support as shown in the diagram below, or 

Position 1 Position 2

Position 4 Position 3

= Load Bearing Point 

S&T - 21 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

(b) A shift test load shall be conducted using a one-half nominal capacity test load centered as nearly as

possible, successively at the center of each quarter of the load-receiving element as shown in the

diagram below.

Position 1 Position 2

Position 4 Position 3

= Load Bearing Point 

Modify Table S.6.3.a. Marking Requirements Note 22 as follows: 

22. Combination vehicle/livestock scales must be marked with both the CLC for vehicle weighing and the section 

capacity for livestock weighing. All other requirements relative to these markings will apply. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003.] 

Note: The marked section capacity for livestock weighing may be less than the marked CLC for vehicle

weighing.

Discussion: In 2001, the Committee considered language that prescribed the appropriate test load patterns, the maximum 

test load, and capacity ratings for safe and adequate performance tests of vehicle and livestock scales. The 2001 proposal 

also included language to modify the definition of Concentrated Load Capacity (CLC) to remove any reference to

livestock scales. In response to comments from industry, weights and measures officials, and Grain Inspection, Packers 

and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the 2001 proposal was referred back to the Weighing Sector for further work to

clarify what weighing devices the requirements apply to and the positions of the test load. 

In 2002, the Committee agreed to a modified Weighing Sector proposal that places in NIST Handbook 44 the shift tests

and test load patterns currently in use when testing livestock and vehicle scales. The 2002 proposal did not receive the

majority vote necessary to modify requirements in Handbook 44. The proposal was returned to the Committee. The 

Committee separated the proposal (Item 320-1B) into two parts, after the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting to facilitate

review of the issues. The proposal to modify the definition of CLC to eliminate any reference to livestock scales now 

appears as agenda Item 320-9.

At its 2002 Interim Meeting, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association recommended that the proposal remain

an information item to allow sufficient time to address any concerns expressed by the Scale Manufacturers Association 

(SMA). 

The SMA supported the proposal to add new paragraph N.1.3.4.2. and modify Table S.6.3.b. Note 22 shown in the 

recommendation above. 

At its 2002 meeting, the Weighing Sector agreed to submit a separate proposal to make the definition for CLC a separate 

agenda item (see Item 320-9) from the agenda item which establishes test patterns and test loads for livestock scales. 

The Weighing Sector agreed with the Central Weights and Measures Association recommendation that a test load of 

12.5 % of scale capacity, not to exceed one-half section capacity, is more than adequate to test a main load support. The 

Sector noted that the test load of 12.5 % of scale capacity provides an adequate test of the performance of the load support 

and also addresses safety concerns that might arise when stacking weights. The Weighing Sector proposed alternate

language for new paragraph N.1.3.4.2. and included the diagram shown above that specifies a minimum test load of 10

000 lb to facilitate the safe application of test weights while applying a load that more closely simulates the potential 

S&T - 22 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

concentration of livestock in the corner of the scale. The language in the Weighing Sector proposal permits weights and 

measures officials and NTEP laboratories to conduct shift tests with a minimum load of 12.5 % of scale capacity. 

The Weighing Sector believed that testing of main load supports more accurately reflects the actual usage of livestock 

scales. The Weighing Sector added broken lines to the test pattern diagram in paragraph N.1.3.4.2. to indicate that test 

loads should not be centered over the main load bearing points. 

The Committee believes the recommendations above included language that addresses the test load patterns, the 

maximum test load, and capacity ratings for the safe and adequate test of a device’s performance in vehicle and livestock

scale applications. The Committee decided that the Weighing Sector’s proposal for new paragraph N.1.3.4.2. and

associated diagram shown above were more appropriate guidelines for the test load and test pattern for livestock scales

with more than two sections and combination vehicle/livestock scales. The Committee also agreed with the WWMA’s 

recommendation to add a note to Table S.6.3.a. Note 22 as shown above.

The Committee discussed that there is some confusion about the terms test load and test weight; however, the proposal is

technically correct and was not intended to resolve issues over those terms. After making editorial changes to include the 

word “scale” with each application for consistency with other related requirements in the Handbook 44 Scales Code, the 

Committee recommended this item for a vote. 

For additional background on this item, refer to the 2001 and 2002 S&T Final Reports. 

320-6 W N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load 

Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers, T.N.3.4. Crane and Hopper (Other than Grain

Hopper) Scales, Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes; Footnote 3, Table 7a. Typical Class or

Type of Device for Weighing Operations, Table 7b. Applicable to Devices not Marked with a 

Class Designation, and Appendix D; Definitions of Crane Scale and Hanging Scale

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Discussion: The Committee considered a proposal to modify paragraphs N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, 

Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers and T.N.3.4. Crane and

Hopper (Other than Grain Hopper) Scales, Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes Footnote 3, Table 7a. Typical Class

or Type of Device for Weighing Operations, and Table 7b. Applicable to Devices not Marked with a Class Designation as 

follows: 

N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and

Portable Axle-Load Weighers. – A shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load centered, as 

nearly as possible, successively at the center of each quarter of the load-receiving element, or with a quartercapacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively over each main load support. 

T.N.3.4. Crane Class III L Hanging and Hopper (Other than Grain Hopper) Scales. – The maintenance and 

acceptance tolerances shall be as specified in T.N.3.1. and T.N.3.2. for Class III L, except that the tolerance for 

crane Class III L hanging and construction materials hopper scales shall not be less than 1d or 0.1 % of the

scale capacity, whichever is less. 

3

 The value of a scale division for crane Class III L hanging and hopper (other than grain hopper) scales shall 

be not less than 0.2 kg (0.5 lb). The minimum number of scale divisions shall be not less than 1 000. 

S&T - 23 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table 7a. 

Typical Class or Type of Device for Weighing Operations

Class Weighing Application or Scale Type 

I Precision laboratory weighing

II Laboratory weighing, precious metals and gem weighing, grain test scales 

III All commercial weighing not otherwise specified, grain test scales, retail precious metals and semi-precious

gem weighing, animal scales, postal scales, scales used to determine laundry charges, hanging, and vehicle 

on-board weighing systems 

III L Vehicle, axle-load, livestock, railway track scales, crane hanging, hopper (other than grain hopper) scales, 

and vehicle on-board weighing systems 

IIII Wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load weighers used for highway weight enforcement 

Note: A scale with a higher accuracy class than that specified as “typical” may be used. 

Table 7b. 

 Applicable to Devices not Marked with a Class Designation

Scale Type or Design Maximum Value of d 

Retail Food Scales, 50 lb capacity and less than or equal to 

50 lb

1 ounce 

Animal Scales 1 pound 

Grain Hopper Scales 

 Capacity up to and incl. 50 000 lb

 Capacity over 50 000 lb 

10 pounds (not greater than 0.05 % of capacity) 

20 pounds 

Crane Hanging Scales – Capacity 5000 lb and over not greater than 0.2 % of capacity 

Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales Used in Combination 

 Capacity up to and including 200 000 lb

 Capacity over 200 000 lb

20 pounds 

50 pounds 

Railway Track Scales 

 With weighbeams 

 Automatic indicating

20 pounds 

100 pounds 

Scales with capacities greater than 500 lb except otherwise 

specified 

0.1 % capacity (but not greater than 50 lb) 

Wheel-Load Weighers 0.25 % capacity (but not greater than 50 lb) 

Note: For scales not specified in this table, G-UR.1.1. and UR.1. apply. 

Delete the Appendix D; Definition of Crane Scale as follows: 

crane scale. One with a nominal capacity of 5000 pounds or more designed to weigh loads while they are suspended 

freely from an overhead, track mounted crane.

Add the following new definition of “hanging scale” to Appendix D as follows: 

hanging scale. A scale designed to weigh loads while they are suspended from a hook on the scale or loads resting on

a platter or platform that is suspended from the scale. Hanging scales may be any capacity and may be Class III or 

III L, whichever is appropriate for the intended use, as long as all parameters for the intended class are met. 

Sometimes called “crane scale.” 

The Weighing Sector reported that existing criteria for distinguishing hanging scale applications from crane scale

applications are not clear and are inconsistent. Currently, the term “hanging scale” is not defined in NIST Handbook 44 

although the term is cited in several requirements in the Scales Code. 

S&T - 24 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

The Weighing Sector noted that Handbook 44 Scales Code Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy Classes, Footnote 3 specifies 

that the minimum permissible capacity for a crane scale is 500 lb; however, the existing Handbook 44 definition states 

that a crane scale has a nominal capacity of 5000 lb or more. The Weighing Sector also noted that there are

inconsistencies in the use of the term “crane scale” in Handbook 44 and in NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CC). 

Several CCs were issued to families of electronic scales with capacities that range from 1 000 lb to 50 000 lb, where the 

scales are designated as both “hanging scales” and “crane scales.” 

The Weighing Sector agreed that the only difference in the installation of hanging scales and crane scales appears to be

that hanging scales are suspended from fixed supports while crane scales are suspended from overhead. However, some

overhead, track-mounted scales might easily be suspended from other types of supporting structures. The Weighing

Sector believed that the design of a scale’s support structure (overhead crane, fixed support, etc.) should not be the factor 

that determines device type. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended further study on how the proposals will impact existing

devices. 

The Scale Manufacturers Association supported reducing the number of categories of weighing devices, but opposed

removing the term crane scale from the Scales Code without further discussion. 

 The Committee discussed the Weighing Sector’s concern about the large list of terms used to identify various

scale types and design. The Committee questioned the existence of Class II hanging scales that may not be 

included in the proposed definition for “hanging scale.” The Committee believes that the Weighing Sector 

should explore other options to consolidate the terminology used to describe scale types and designs. In addition 

to examining these issues, the Committee recommends the Weighing Sector examine how devices are designated 

internationally. The Committee has not heard unanimous support for the proposal from parties affected by the

changes. The Committee agreed that the current terminology has not created any situations that require an 

immediate change to Handbook 44. Given this is not an urgent issue and there is lack of support for the proposal

the Committee withdrew the item from its agenda. 

320-7 VC T.N.8.3.1.(a) Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Amend T.N.8.3.1.(a) Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency as follows:

(a) Weighing devices that operate using alternating current must perform within the conditions defined in 

paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N.7., inclusive, over the nominal line voltage with the tolerance –15 % to 

+10 % of the nominal, or the range as marked by the manufacturer. (Range takes precedence) of 100 V to

130 V or 200 V to 250 V rms as appropriate, and over the frequency range of 59.5 Hz to at 60.5 Hz. 

Discussion: NTEP Participating Laboratories reported an increase in the number of devices submitted for type evaluation

with voltage ranges wider than the voltages listed in NIST Handbook 44 paragraph T.N.8.3.1. For example, a device 

might be marked with a voltage range of 80 V to 170 V. The Participating Laboratories believe that testing over the

entire voltage range is not supported by language in paragraph T.N.8.3.1.

The NTETC Weighing Sector reviewed the Canadian and OIML requirements for maximum and minimum specified

voltage. In the Canadian requirements, devices may be marked with a nominal voltage of 117 V, 225 V, or other voltage. 

When a device is marked with a voltage range the midpoint is taken as the nominal voltage. The device is tested at –15 %

and +10 % of the marked nominal voltage. Devices marked with a range are tested to the greater of –15 % and +10 % of

the midpoint of the nominal voltage or the maximum and minimum indicated voltage range values. OIML

Recommendation 76-1, Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments, Part 1: Metrological and Technical Requirements - Tests 

(Edition 1992 E) requires testing the device at +10 % of the maximum marked voltage and –15 % of the minimum 

marked voltage. 

S&T - 25 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

The Weighing Sector’s proposal to modify paragraph T.N.8.3.1.(a) required tests over the marked voltage range rather 

than a specified voltage range. Performance tests would be conducted at the device’s marked maximum voltage, marked 

minimum voltage, and nominal voltage (voltage value at the midpoint of the range). 

The Weighing Sector also questioned whether performance tests should be conducted during variations in frequency are 

appropriate. Currently, NTEP does not test for a change in line frequency of ∀ 0.5 Hz because test equipment is very 

expensive. Manufacturers indicated that today’s weighing devices are capable of performing over a much larger voltage

and frequency range than specified in Handbook 44 because devices are equipped with one version of power supply that

is suitable for the worldwide marketplace. 

The SWMA believes its proposed alternate language provides a requirement that harmonizes with OIML requirements. 

The Committee reviewed the following alternate proposals to modify paragraph T.N.8.3.1.(a) submitted by the Weighing

Sector and Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA), respectively. 

T.N.8.3.1.(a) Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

(a) Weighing devices that operate using alternating current must perform within the conditions defined in

paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N.7., inclusive, over the line voltage range as marked of 100 V to 130 V or

200 V to 250 V rms as appropriate, and over the frequency range of 59.5 Hz to at 60.5 Hz. 

or 

T.N.8.3.1. Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

(a) Weighing devices that operate from a main power supply must perform within the conditions defined in

paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N.7., inclusive if the power supply varies in voltage from – 15 % to + 10 % of

the value marked on the device. If a range of voltage is marked, the device shall operate within the 

conditions defined in paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N. 7., inclusive at a voltage of + 10 % of the maximum 

voltage marked on the device and at a voltage of –15 % of the minimum voltage marked on the device using

alternating current must perform within the conditions defined in paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N.7., 

inclusive, over the line voltage range of 100 V to 130 V or 200 V to 250 V rms as appropriate, and over the

frequency range of 59.5 Hz to 60.5 Hz.

After reviewing the alternate proposals, the Committee agreed to modify an alternate SMA proposal to include test at 

60 Hz. as shown in the recommendation. The Committee felt the end result was a requirement that provided the clearest 

guidelines on the voltage and frequency for a performance test. 

The Committee recommended that all corresponding power supply, voltage and frequency requirements in other code

sections be reviewed for clarity and consistency with the proposed language in paragraph T.N.8.3.1.(a).

320-8 W UR.1.6. Average Net Load; Class III Scales 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Carryover Item 320-3. (This item originated in the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) and 

first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

Background/Discussion: The Committee considered a proposal to add new paragraph UR.1.6. Average Net

Load - Class III Scales and Table as follows: 

UR.1.6. Average Net Load – Class III Scales. – To be suitable for its application, a Class III scale shall have a 

division such that the requirements of the following table are satisfied for the minimum and average loads weighed

on the scale.

S&T - 26 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Range of Scale Capacities Average Net Load *

Capacities up to and including 1000 kg (2500 lb) Average net load ∃ 100d

Capacities greater than 1000 kg (2500 lb) Average net load ∃ 500d

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

* See Table 8 for recommended minimum load.

Device suitability for particular commercial applications is a recurrent issue on the S&T Agenda and generates many

questions in the weights and measures community. The proposal was intended to incorporate guidelines into NIST 

Handbook 44 requirements to assist business owners in the purchase of suitable equipment and to provide industry and

weights and measures officials with a uniform method for assessing the suitability of a device for an application. The

Committee discussed factors such as the size of the purchase (weight load), the size of the scale division, and the

commodity price and how these factors affect the magnitude of the weighing error. 

In 1992, the Committee considered a proposal from the CWMA to express the suitability requirements for scales as two 

separate formulas. Scales marked with an accuracy class would have been required to satisfy a formula for the minimum

net load and a formula for the average net load. Scales not marked with an accuracy class would have had to comply with 

Table 7b which specifies a maximum value of d for a particular scale type or design. The scale division value was 

dependent on the scale capacity. The value of d for scales with capacities from 5 lb to 2500 lb, inclusive, were allowed to

be a larger percentage of the minimum net load and average net load than scales with capacities less than 5 lb and greater 

than 2500 lb. 

In 1994, the NCWM adopted guidelines to determine the average net load of purchases on Class III scales. The average

net load information was used to evaluate the suitability of a scale for an application. However, the guidelines were not

included in NIST Handbook 44 requirements, hence weights and measures officials find it difficult to enforce suitability

requirements. Inconsistencies in the determination of a minimum load requirement for a device continue to be a concern

to industry and weights and measures officials. 

Regional weights and measures associations agreed that better criteria are needed to determine the suitability of a device. 

Several regional associations recommended that the proposal be made a developing item to allow time to develop 

appropriate criteria. 

During its 2002 Interim Meeting, the CWMA reiterated its belief that weights and measures can obtain information about 

average net loads from the retailer. In instances where the retailer and weights and measures officials do not agree on the

average net load, the burden of proof lies with the retailer. The CWMA also provided the following list of examples

submitted by Nebraska which demonstrate how to determine the suitability of Class III scales used in specific

applications. 

S&T - 27 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

CWMA Suitability Examples for 

Average Net Load (ANL) 

d – scale division 

*NIST Handbook 44 specifies scale division “d” must be expressed in units of 1, 2, or 5

Typical

Application

Example Formula*

y Most transactions involve produce that weighs from

0.5 lb to 5 lb, with infrequent weighments above and 

below that range 

d < 1 % x ANL 

y The average net load is approximately 2 lb d < 0.01 x 2 lb

y Using the formula for a scale with a capacity up to 

2500 lb: A division of 0.02 lb or less is suitable 

d < 0.02 lb

1 Supermarket

Checkstand 

 

y Most transactions involve weighments between 0.25

lb to 3 lb

d < 1 % x ANL 

y The average net load is approximately 1 lb d < 0.01 x 1 lb

y Using the formula for a scale with a capacity up to 

2500 lb: A division of 0.01 lb or less is suitable 

d < 0.01 lb

2 Supermarket Deli

Scale 

y Most transactions involve weighments of coffee,

tea, tobacco, spices, or chocolates between 0.12 lb 

(2 oz) to 1 lb 

d < 1 % x ANL 

y The average net load is approximately 0.5 lb d < 0.01 x 0.5 lb

y Using the formula for a scale with a capacity up to 

2500 lb: A division of 0.005 lb or less is suitable, 

the scale in use is not suitable for this application

d < 0.005 lb

3 Specialty Shop

Scale – Shopping

Mall (30 lb x 0.01

lb electronic scale) 

y The average net load is approximately 9500 lb d < 2 % x ANL 

y Using the formula for a scale with a capacity above

2500 lb: A division of 10 lb or less is suitable 

d < 0.02 x 9500 lb

4 Hopper Scale

d <19 lb * d is 10 lb

y Weights and measures informs a business a device is 

suitable for weighments above 25 lb 

d < 1 % x ANL 

y However the average net load is approximately 5 lb d < 0.01 x 5 lb

y Using the formula for a scale with a capacity up to 

2500 lb: A division of 0.05 lb or less is suitable 

d < 0.05 lb

5 Platform Scale

(500 lb x 4 oz

scale for buying

aluminum cansnew business) 

y Most weighments are used for a moisture test d < 2 % x ANL 

y The average net load is 250 g

y Using the formula for a scale with a capacity up to 

2500 lb: A division of 0.1 g is suitable, in fact a

d < 5 g is suitable 

d < 0.02 x 250 g

6 Grain Scale

d < 5 g

y Most weighments are of hog heads or sheep d < 1 % x ANL 

y The average net load is 200 lb d < 0.01 x 200 lb

y Using the formula for a scale with a capacity up to 

2500 lb: A division of 2 lb or is suitable 

d < 2 lb

7 Other Scale

y Most weighments are of carcasses d < 1 % x ANL 

y The average net load is 180 lb d < 0.01 x 180 lb

y Using the formula for a scale with a capacity up to 

2500 lb: 

d < 1.8 lb

8 Monorail Scale

(packing house)

A division of 1 lb or less is suitable 

S&T - 28 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

The Committee considered the CWMA’s proposal to add new paragraph UR.1.6. Average Net Load – Class III Scales 

and associated Table to the Scales Code. The Committee acknowledged that guidelines to assist the scale user, service

company, and weights and measures official in determining the suitability of a device for a weighing application are 

needed and long overdue. The Committee recommends that submitters of future proposals for such guidelines review 

Measurement Canada’s table for minimum net loads. The Canadian table includes guidelines for the minimum net load

for weighing applications based on the type of materials weighed. Each application has a minimum net load expressed as

a multiple of the verification scale interval (e). The Committee finds that the proposal cannot be uniformly applied to all 

weighing applications it is intended to cover. Industry opposes the proposal citing that the concept is good, but the 

guidelines are unenforceable and subjective. Consequently, the Committee withdraws this item from its agenda. 

For more background information, refer to the 1992 and 2002 S&T Final Reports. 

320-9 VC Appendix D; Definition for Concentrated Load Capacity (CLC); Dual Tandem Axle Capacity

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-1B. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Weighing Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s Agenda in 2001 as Item 320-4.) 

Recommendation: Modify the definition of Concentrated Load Capacity in Appendix D as follows:

concentrated load capacity (CLC) (also referred to as Dual Tandem Axle Capacity (DTAC)). A capacity 

rating of a vehicle, or axle-load, or livestock scale, specified by the manufacturer, defining the maximum load

concentration applied by 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. 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: In July 2002, the NCWM reconsidered language that prescribed the appropriate test load patterns, maximum 

test load, and capacity ratings for safe and adequate performance test of vehicle and livestock scales. The NCWM also 

considered as part of the 2002 proposal, language developed by the Weighing Sector that modified the definition of 

concentrated load capacity (CLC) to eliminate any reference to livestock scales. The CLC was intended to address the

maximum load rating for a weighbridge based on a typical tandem axle vehicle’s footprint rather than livestock loading

patterns. The Sector’s proposal was:

concentrated load capacity (CLC). A capacity rating of a vehicle, or axle-load or livestock scale, specified by the

manufacturer, defining the maximum load concentration applied by 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. 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]

The 2002 proposal did not receive the majority vote necessary to make changes to NIST Handbook 44. The item was 

returned to the Committee and is presented as two separate issues, Item 320-5 (to addresses test load patterns, maximum 

test load, and capacity ratings) and this recommendation addresses the definition of concentrated load capacity. 

At their 2003 meetings, the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) and Southern Weights and Measures

Associations (SWMA) agreed to support an alternate proposal to change the definition of CLC. The associations noted 

that weighbridges are designed for a load applied by a group of two axles with a centerline spaced 4 feet apart and an axle

width of 8 feet. The two (dual) axles are routinely referred to as a tandem axle. Industry representatives reported that

dual tandem axle capacity (DTAC) is cited in equipment literature rather than CLC because users are not familiar with the 

concept of CLC. However, some manufacturers declare a CLC based on the amount of test weight applied during a shift

test which exceeds the weighbridge design load. The associations were concerned that manufacturers who declare

different CLC and DTAC ratings do not recognize that CLC refers to dual axles and that the ratings might mislead buyers. 

The Committee agreed to recommend the WWMA and SWMA definition of concentrated load capacity shown in the 

recommendation above for adoption at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. The WWMA/SWMA definition of CLC 

S&T - 29 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

addresses concerns about the appropriate use of the term DTAC in reference to a scale’s rating and removes any reference

to livestock scales. The Committee discussed that dual tandem axle vehicles are configured with two wheels on the end

of the axle (for a total of eight tires) although it is possible for tandem axles with one wheel on each axle. Dual tandem

axle capacity and CLC are equivalent and it would be misleading to state there is any difference. The CLC ratings allow 

the device user to compare the capacities of different devices. The load pattern and capacity for a device is the same for 

its dual tandem axle capacity and CLC. 

For more background information, refer to the 2001 and 2002 S&T Final Reports. 

320-10A V Appendix D; Definitions of Substitution Test and Substitution Test Load

(This item was adopted.)

(Item 320-10 was separated into three parts, Items 320-10A, 320-10B, and 320-10C to facilitate review of the issues.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-8 (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) and

first appeared on the Committee’s 2000 agenda as Item 320-6.) 

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the following definitions for “substitution test” and “substitution

test load” be added to NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D; Definitions:

substitution test. - A scale testing process used to quantify the weight of material or objects for use as a known 

test load. 

substitution test load. - The sum of the combination of field standard test weights and any other applied load 

used in the conduct of a test using substitution test methods.

Discussion/Background: Since 1999, the lack of a definition for the term “substitution test” has created much discussion

and confusion between the meaning of the term “substitution load” and other related terms such as “strain load test,”

“build-up test,” and “step test.” Many discussions about “substitution tests” have focused on (1) the uncertainties 

associated with repeating the procedure, (2) the effects of the environment on uncertainties, (3) the ability to bring the 

amount of substituted materials to the exact amount of known test weights, (4) the need to address operational differences

in technology (mechanical vs. electronic) and device types in test procedures, and (5) keeping test procedures separate

from definitions. 

At the 2002 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that the definition of substitution test developed by the New 

York Bureau of Weights and Measures adequately described the test load, test procedure, and relevant tolerances without

being too restrictive or documenting the details for test procedures. The Committee also agreed with New York’s

proposed definition of test load which clarified that the term applies to the substitution process. 

At the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee also reviewed a NIST recommendation to modify the current

definition of “strain-load test” to be more consistent with New York’s proposed definition of “substitution test” as 

follows: 

strain-load test. The test of a scale beginning with the scale under load and applying known test weights to determine 

accuracy over a portion of the weighing range. The scale errors for a strain-load test are the errors observed for the

known test loads only. A scale testing procedure that uses a quantity of unknown material or objects in addition to 

known test weights in order to test a scale with a load greater than the known test weights. In this procedure,

unknown material or objects are used to establish a reference load or tare to which known test weights are added. The 

tolerances to be applied to the change in indication of the unknown load to the sum of the indications for total

unknown load and known test weights are based on the known test weights load used for each error that is

determined. Substitution test loads can be used in lieu of known test weights.

The proposal developed by New York was kept an information item to allow sufficient time to determine if there are 

acceptable limits for the variation between the scale indications for known test weight and the substitution load. The 

Committee also wanted to revise the definition by moving any references to test procedures into the appropriate 

Examination Procedure Outline. 

S&T - 30 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

During its September 2002 Technical Conference, the WWMA agreed to support the definitions for substitution test,

substitution test load, and strain load. The WWMA recommended that appropriate procedures be developed for using the 

substitution test method for mechanical and electronic devices and that the information be included in an Examination

Procedure Outline. 

At its 2002 Interim Meeting, the CWMA developed an alternate proposal for a new definition of “substitution test” and to

modify the current definition of “strain-load test” to eliminate language that referenced test procedures. The CWMA also 

proposed to eliminate any confusion between the terms substitution test and strain-load test by creating separate 

procedures and tolerances for each test method. 

The Committee heard numerous comments from NCWM members who earlier proposed alternate definitions, but were

now in favor of the substitution test and substitution test load definitions, and separate test notes and tolerances for 

substitution test and strain-load test developed by the CWMA. The Committee found the CWMA proposal effectively 

separates procedural language from the definitions thereby eliminating any confusion about how to conduct the tests. 

The Committee agreed to support CWMA’s proposal shown in the recommendation above. The Committee split the 

proposal into three separate items, 320-10A, 320-10B, and 320-10C, as recommended by the CWMA. 

The Committee agreed with the Scale Manufacturers Association’s recommendation to remove the term “unknown” from 

the definition for substitution test because it is misleading. The Committee notes that during a substitution test the 

official knows what materials or objects are substituted but must also quantify them to conduct the test. 

For additional background information on this item, refer to the 2000, 2001, and 2002 S&T Final Reports.

320-10B V N.1.11. Substitution Test and T.N.3.11. Tolerances for Substitution Test 

(This item was adopted.)

(Item 320-10 was separated into three parts, Items 320-10A, 320-10B, and 320-10C to facilitate review of the issues.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-8 (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) and

first appeared on the Committee’s 2000 agenda as Item 320-6.) 

Recommendation: Add new paragraphs N.1.11. Substitution Test and T.N.3.11. Tolerances for Substitution Test to the 

NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code as follows: 

N.1.11. Substitution Test. - In the substitution test process, material or objects are substituted for known test

weights, or a combination of known test weights and previously quantified material or objects, using the scale 

under test as a comparator. Additional test weights or other known test loads may be added to the known test

load to evaluate higher weight ranges on the scale. 

T.N.3.11. Tolerances for Substitution Test. - Tolerances are applied to the scale based on the entire test load. 

Discussion: Since 1999, the Committee has discussed numerous proposals to define “substitution test” and related terms 

such as “strain-load test” to clarify any confusion about test methods for large capacity scales. 

At its 2002 Interim Meeting, the CWMA developed an alternate proposal for a new definition of “substitution test” and to

modify the current definition of “strain-load test” to eliminate any references to test procedures. The CWMA also 

proposed to eliminate any confusion between the terms substitution test and strain-load test by creating separate 

procedures and tolerances for each test method. 

The Committee heard numerous comments from NCWM members who proposed alternate definitions, but were now in 

favor of the substitution test and substitution test load definitions and separate test notes and tolerances for substitution

test and strain-load test developed by the CWMA. The Committee found the CWMA proposal effectively separates

procedural language from definitions thereby eliminating confusion about how to conduct the tests. The Committee may 

revisit this issue when New York completes its work on procedures that will allow officials to assess the uncertainty for 

specific scale installations and applications. 

S&T - 31 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

The Committee agreed to support CWMA’s proposal shown in the recommendation above. The Committee split the 

proposal into three separate items, 320-10A, 320-10B, and 320-10C, as recommended by the CWMA. 

The Committee agreed with the Scale Manufacturers Association’s recommendation to remove the term “unknown” from 

the test note for substitution test because it is misleading. The Committee notes that during a substitution test the official 

knows what materials or objects are substituted but must also quantify them to conduct the test. The Committee also 

modified the substitution test tolerance to ensure that tolerances are applied to the entire test load which can be test 

standards or other quantified material. 

The background and rationale for this item are provided in Item 320-10A. 

320-10C V N.1.12. Strain-Load Test and T.N.3.12. Tolerances for Strain-Load Test

(This item was adopted.)

(Item 320-10 was separated into three parts, Items 320-10A, 320-10B, and 320-10C to facilitate review of the issues.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-8 (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) and

first appeared on the Committee’s 2000 agenda as Item 320-6.) 

Recommendation: Add new paragraphs N.1.12. Strain-Load Test and T.N.3.12. Tolerances for Strain-Load Test to

NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code as follows: 

N.1.12. Strain-Load Test. - In the strain load test procedure, an unknown quantity of material or objects are

used to establish a reference load or tare to which test weights or substitution test loads are added.

T.N.3.12. Tolerances for Strain-Load Test. - The tolerances apply only to the test weights or substitution test

load. 

Modify Table 4 Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads Note 3 as follows:

3

 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 tolerances appliesy only to the known test load weights 

and substitution test load. 

Discussion: Since 1999, the Committee has discussed numerous proposals to define “substitution test” and related terms 

such as “strain-load test” to clarify any confusion about test methods for large capacity scales. 

At its 2002 Interim Meeting, the CWMA developed a proposal to modify the current definition of “strain-load test” to

eliminate all procedural language. The CWMA also proposed to eliminate any confusion between the terms substitution

test and strain-load test by creating separate procedures and tolerances for each test method. 

The Committee heard numerous comments from NCWM members who proposed alternate definitions, but were now in 

favor of the substitution test and substitution test load definitions and separate test notes and tolerances for substitution

test and strain-load test developed by the CWMA. The Committee found the CWMA proposal effectively separates

procedural language from definitions thereby eliminating confusion on how to conduct the tests. The Committee may 

revisit this issue when New York completes its work on procedures that will allow officials to assess the uncertainty for 

specific scale installations and applications. 

The Committee agreed to support CWMA’s proposal shown in the recommendation above. The Committee split the 

proposal into three separate items, 320-10A, 320-10B, and 320-10C, as recommended by the CWMA. 

The Committee clarified that in the strain-load test procedure it is an unknown quantity of material or objects that are

used to establish a reference load or tare to which either test weights or a substitution test load is added to reach scale

capacity. The Committee modified paragraph T.N.3.12. for the strain load test tolerance to agree with the strain-load test

S&T - 32 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

tolerances described in Table 4 Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads. The Committee noted that there should be 

consistency in the terminology used in related requirements in the Scales Code. 

The background and rationale for this item are provided in Item 320-10A 

320-11 I N.1.3.4.X. Weight Carts

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Recommendation: Add new paragraph N.1.3.4.1. to the Scales Code as follows:

N.1.3.4.X. Weight Carts. - Weight carts may be included as part of the minimum required test load required 

in N.1.3.4. provided that the mass value of the weight cart has been determined by weights and measures and 

is clearly marked thereon. Further, a certificate of calibration issued by the weights and measures jurisdiction

that issued the weight certificate must be available at all times. Said certificate shall contain at a minimum the 

following information: date of calibration, name, model, and serial number of the weight cart, the minimum

graduation of the scale used in the calibration of the weight cart, and the name of the jurisdiction and

inspector or metrologist who determined the mass value. 

Discussion: This item first appeared on the Committee’s 2003 agenda as Developing Item 360-3, Appendix B Item 1.

The Committee changed the proposal’s status to an information item because corresponding work to develop weight cart 

standards was nearing completion on NIST 105-8, “Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weight Carts.” 

This proposal is intended to modify the NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code to recognize the use of weight carts during a 

shift test 

The Committee heard comments from the private and public sectors. The Scale Manufacturers Association supported the 

proposal. Several weights and measures jurisdictions indicated concern about how their weight carts will comply with 

Handbook 105-8, especially the requirement for a maximum fuel tank capacity of one gallon. 

The NIST Working Group on Weight Carts conducted more in depth reviews of fuel tank requirements. The Working 

Group planned to define a reasonable standard that allows existing weight carts to operate. Other issues briefly discussed

were the effects of weight cart uncertainties on the error limits for standards specified in Appendix A Fundamental

Considerations Associated with the Enforcement of Handbook 44 Codes. 

The Committee upgraded the proposal’s status from a developing item to an information item in anticipation of the final

publication of Handbook 105-8 to ensure that work on the proposed Handbook 44 standard is consistent with

corresponding standards in Handbook 105-8. 

The Committee did not receive further comments on this item. The work to complete NIST Handbook 105-8 was 

scheduled for completion after the Committee met during the NCWM 2003 Annual Meeting. The Committee

acknowledged that historically the field standard verification intervals are established as often as regulation and 

circumstances warrant by the jurisdiction. The weight cart standards for accuracy and traceability are addressed in the 

Handbook 105 series.

322 Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems 

322-1 I Tolerances 

Source: Carryover Item 322-1. This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

(NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Delete paragraphs T.1.4., T.2., T.2.1, T.3.2. and T.3.3.; renumber paragraphs T.3. and T.3.1.; add

new paragraphs T.2.2, T.2.3., and T.2.3.1.,Table 1, and Table 2; and add a new footnote to Section 2.20 Scales Table

1.1.1. as follows:

T.1.4. To Tests Involving Digital Indications or Representations. - To the tolerances that would otherwise be

applied, there shall be added an amount equal to one-half the value of the scale division. This does not apply

to digital indications or recorded representations that have been corrected for rounding using error weights.

S&T - 33 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

T.2. Minimum Tolerance Values. - The minimum tolerance value shall not be less than half the value of the

scale division.

T.2.1. For Systems used to Weigh Construction Materials. - The minimum maintenance and acceptance

tolerance shall be 0.1 percent of the weighing capacity of the system, or the value of the scale division,

whichever is less . 

T.3.2. For Systems used to Weigh Grain. - The basic maintenance tolerance shall be 0.1 percent of test load.

T.3.3. For all Other Systems. - The basic maintenance tolerance shall be 0.2 percent of test load.

Renumber paragraphs T.3. and T.3.1. as follows:

 

T.3.2. Basic Tolerance Values. 

T.3.2.1. Acceptance Tolerance. -The basic acceptance tolerance shall be one-half the basic maintenance

tolerance but never less than 1 division. 

Add new paragraphs T.2.2, T.2.3., and T.2.3.1., Table 1, and Table 2 as follows:

T.2.2. General. - The tolerance applicable to devices not marked with an accuracy class shall have the

tolerances applied as specified in Table 1. below.

Table 1. Tolerance for Unmarked Scales

Type of Device Tolerance Decreasing Load

Multiplier

Other applicable 

Requirements

Grain Hoppers Class III, T.2.3 (Table 2) 1.0 T.2.1., T.2.3.1

Other Systems Class III L, T.2.3 (Table 2) 1.0 T.2.1., T.2.3.1

T.2.3. Tolerances Applicable to Devices Marked III or III L.

T.2.3.1. Maintenance Tolerance Values - The maintenance tolerance values are specified in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Maintenance Tolerance for Marked Scales

(All values in this table are in scale divisions)

Tolerance in scale divisions

1 2 3 5

Class Test Load

III 0 - 500 501 - 2000 2001 - 4000 4001 +

III L 0 - 500 501 - 1000 (Add 1d for each additional 500 d or fraction 

thereof)

Add a new footnote to Section 2.20 Scales Code Table 1.1.1. Tolerances for Unmarked Scales as follows:

XAutomatic bulk weighing systems see Section 2.22 for specifications and tolerances.

Discussion: NEWMA recommended changing the prescribed tolerances for automatic bulk weighing systems from a 

percentage basis to division values which are based on the device’s accuracy class. NEWMA believes this change will 

align tolerances in the Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems (ABWS) Code and Scales Code. Additionally, NEWMA

believes a footnote should be added to the Scales Code Table T.1.1. to avoid any confusion over which devices that can 

be classified as automatic bulk weighing systems. 

The Committee recognized there is confusion over which weighing systems fall under the Automatic Bulk Weighing

Systems Code. At the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee encouraged the Technical Advisors to develop 

materials on automatic bulk weighing systems in time for presentations at the 2002 fall regional weights and measures 

association meetings. Consequently, the Committee kept this an information item.

S&T - 34 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

During the its September 2002 Technical Conference, the Western Weights and Measures Association joined the USDA 

Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) in expressing concerns about the proposed increases to 

tolerances for automatic bulk weighing systems. Consequently, the WWMA recommended the NCWM S&T Committee

withdraw this item. 

NEWMA reported that New York supports returning the item to voting status. New York believes the changes to the 

tolerances are necessary to align this code with the Scale Code. At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, New York 

provided the Committee and GIPSA with charts and tables to demonstrate that the proposed tolerances, based on scale 

divisions, would result in minor changes in the current tolerances. The charts were available. 

The Committee acknowledged there is still confusion about which code applies to hopper scales such as systems used in

grain and asphalt applications. The entire weights and measures community would benefit from efforts to clarify this

point. The Committee notes that adding a controller to a hopper or a hopper that makes a limited number of drafts 

(continuous) cannot be classified as an ABWS. Typically, an ABWS must record a load and no load for each successive

draft. 

The Committee made the proposal an information item to allow GIPSA and New York additional time to work through

accuracy class and percentage based tolerance data. Both agencies reiterated their earlier positions on modifying the

ABWS Code tolerances. GIPSA indicated there is a problem with the proposal because it represents a tolerance based on

accuracy class which results in a substantial cumulative error. New York stated the benefits to an accuracy class 

tolerance go beyond harmonizing the requirements in the ABWS and Scales Codes. One option discussed to resolve

GIPSA’s concerns about the impact of the proposed tolerances on weighing operations, where GIPSA has oversight, is to

create an exemption for all grain scales similar to what exist in the Scales Code. 

The Committee encourages New York and GIPSA to continue their work to develop a set of tolerances that is mutually 

agreeable and appropriate for ABWS.

For more background information, refer to the 2002 S&T Final Report. 

324 Automatic Weighing Systems 

324-1 I Tentative Status of the Automatic Weighing Systems Code 

Source: Carryover Item 324-1. (This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Change the status of the Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) Code from tentative to permanent. 

Discussion: The Automatic Weighing Systems Code was added to the 1996 edition of NIST Handbook 44 as a Tentative 

Code. In 2002, the adoption of the code as a permanent code in Handbook 44 was delayed to resolve issues with several

NTEP test criteria which are based on the code’s requirements. On October 2-3, 2002, in Annapolis, Maryland, a work

group met to review any remaining code issues. The group discussed Handbook 44 requirements that limit a device to

operating in a single unit of measure. The group questioned the need for NTEP laboratories to perform line frequency 

and barometric pressure tests. The group also noted that there are inconsistencies in the titles of several requirements. 

The Committee recognized that the entire AWS Work Group has not had the opportunity to review and comment on a 

first draft of proposed changes to the AWS Code. The Committee also heard that one member of the AWS Group plans 

to submit changes to the draft. Therefore, the Committee made the proposal an information item.

During its 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting Open Hearing session, the Committee was notified by NIST that the Work

Group’s final comments are available in electronic format. The Committee requested that all interested parties review 

this document. The Committee anticipates that the AWS Work Group will shortly conclude its work on any remaining

issues with the AWS Code and any recommendations to modify Handbook 44 will be reviewed at the fall 2003 Weighing

Sector and regional weights and measures associations meetings. 

For more background information, refer to the 2002 S&T Final Report. 

S&T - 35 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

330 Liquid-Measuring Devices 

330-1 I S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements With a Single Provision for Sealing

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Measuring Sector 

Recommendation: Add new paragraph to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices S.2.2.1. 

Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing as follows: 

S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing. - A change to the adjustment of any

measuring element within any multi-product dispenser with a single provision for sealing multiple measuring

elements must be identified. 

 

Background/Discussion: At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, one of the participating laboratories indicated

that field officials in their jurisdiction are having difficulty with multi-product dispensers that have only one sealing

mechanism for two or more measuring elements. If a field official rejects a meter for not meeting performance 

requirements, they have no way of determining which measuring elements have been recalibrated when they reinspect the 

dispenser. During reinspection, the field official may be required to test all grades and blends offered through the rejected

dispenser to determine that only the rejected measuring element was adjusted.

At its October 2002 meeting, the NTETC Measuring Sector developed the proposal shown above which requires devices

to provide a clear indication of which measuring elements have been adjusted. The Sector agreed to forward the proposal

to the Committee for consideration.

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the SWMA recommended that the proposal to add a new paragraph to NIST 

Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices paragraph S.2.2.1. be forwarded to the Committee as an 

information item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for clearly identifying, in a manner that is readily

available to the field official, any measuring element that is adjusted and agreed that the item has merit. Device

manufactures stated that identifying any measuring element that is adjusted is possible on dispensers that have only one 

sealing mechanism for two or more measuring elements. The Committee gave the item informational status to provide 

device manufacturers the opportunity to study the issue and develop means for complying with the proposed

requirements. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard support for the item. One manufacturer opposed the item 

because they believe that the proposal means a lead wire seal is no longer a sufficient method of sealing; however, their 

company is looking at ways to be able to meet the proposed requirement. The Committee agreed that the item should

remain an information item to provide device manufacturers additional time to develop means for complying with the 

proposed requirements. 

330-2 VC S.4.4.1. Discharge Rates 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Measuring Sector

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) S.4.4.1. as follows:

S.4.4.1. Discharge Rates. - On a retail device with a designed maximum discharge rate of 115 L (30 gal) per

minute or greater, the maximum and minimum discharge rates shall be marked on an exterior surface of the

device and shall be visible after installation in accordance with S.4.4.2. The marked minimum discharge rate

shall not exceed 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate. 

Example: With a marked maximum discharge rate of 230 L/min (60 gpm), the marked minimum discharge

rate shall be 45 L/min (12 gpm) or less (e.g., 40 L/min (10 gpm) is acceptable). A marked minimum discharge 

rate greater than 45 L/min (12 gpm) (e.g., 60 L/min (15 gpm)) is not acceptable.

S&T - 36 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Background/Discussion: During its 2002 Annual Meeting, the NCWM amended LMD Code paragraph S.4.4. Retail

Devices by adding a new paragraph, S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser that requires

that markings for G-S.1. Identification be located within a specified range of heights either inside or on the outside of the 

dispenser. During the 2002 Measuring Sector meeting, it was noted that the marking requirements for discharge rates are 

required to be located on an external surface of the device without any reference to being located within a specified height 

range. The Sector indicated that it is also appropriate to include the markings for discharge rates required in paragraph

S.4.4.1. with the other markings in accordance with the requirements of paragraph S.4.4.2. Some weights and measures

officials have incorrectly interpreted paragraph S.4.4.1. to mean that a flow rate greater than or less than 20 % of the 

maximum discharge is not acceptable. The Sector agreed to forward a proposal to the S&T Committee through the 

SWMA to modify S.4.4.1. that includes an example of how the requirement should be applied as shown above. 

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting the SWMA supported the proposed modification to S.4.4.1. and the example and

recommended it be forwarded to the S&T Committee as a voting item.

 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no comments on this item and agreed to present it for a vote 

at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting.

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard no opposition to this item. The Committee was asked to 

clarify that the minimum and maximum discharge rates referred to rates marked on the device and not the rates developed 

at an installation. The committee agreed to modify the proposed S.4.4.1. to clarify that the minimum and maximum

discharge rates in the proposal refer to the marked minimum and maximum discharge rates. The committee also agreed 

that a reference to the example in S.4.4.1. should be added to S.5.2. in Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters, S.4.2. in

Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices, S.4.2. in Section 3.35 Milk Meters, and S.4.2. in

Section 3.38 Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices. 

330-3 W UR.1.2. Nozzle Requirements 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Carryover Item 330-4. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices UR.1.2. as 

follows: 

UR.1.2. Nozzle Requirements for Diesel. On a retail motor-fuel device any hose from which diesel fuel is sold 

shall have a nozzle with an outside diameter of not less than 23.6 mm (0.93 in). 

Background/Discussion: At the August 2001 WWMA Conference, Idaho Weights and Measures reported receiving 

complaints from consumers who accidentally put diesel fuel into a gasoline-powered vehicle. The complaints were

investigated and inspectors found that the pumps were properly labeled, but people still accidentally selected the wrong 

product. The intention of the proposed user requirement is to reduce the chances of accidentally putting diesel fuel into a

gasoline-powered vehicle. Idaho reported that many retail motor-fuel dispenser manufacturers follow the minimum size 

specification in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice, J285, revised September 1992. 

SAE, J285 recommends that nozzle spouts for unleaded fuels have a nominal outside diameter of 20.6 mm (13/16 in) and

that for all other fuels the nominal outside diameter should be 23.8 mm (15/16 in), but not less than 23.6 mm (0.93 in).

However, station owners and service agents frequently replace these nozzles with nozzles that have a spout designed for 

dispensing unleaded gasoline. Since 1992 date automotive manufacturers have recommended for some time that fueling

components meet this specification so that nozzles dispensing diesel fuel will not fit into the filler neck of unleaded 

gasoline powered vehicles. 

At the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, this item did not pass or fail; therefore, it was returned to the Committee for further 

consideration. 

At its September 2002 Interim Meeting, the Central Weights and Measures Association recommended that this item be

moved to the L&R Committee Agenda. 

S&T - 37 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA received documentation that the SAE Recommended Practice, J285,

was reaffirmed in 1999. The WWMA recommended that the proposal be modified to include an effective date of 

January 1, 2005. 

At its October 2002 Interim Meeting, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association recommended that this item be

withdrawn from the agenda. 

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association was provided information on the 

cost of a nozzle spout for unleaded fuel and the recommended larger spout for diesel fuel to demonstrate that this proposal

would cause no economic hardship for device owners and continues to support this item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments similar to those received at previous meetings that 

relate to whether or not this is a weights and measures enforcement problem. The Committee agreed to present the item

for a vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting and let the NCWM vote the item up or down. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, Florida, North Carolina, and Missouri supported this item. California, Iowa, 

Michigan and the Michigan Weights and Measures Association opposed the item. Wisconsin agreed there is a problem,

but didn’t believe it is a weights and measures issue and therefore opposed this item. One official stated that passing this

item would not solve the problem, he stated that it is the responsibility of service station industry to resolve the problem.

Another official stated that this is a weights and measures issue. The Committee agreed that if this item remained a 

voting item it would not receive sufficient yea votes to pass or nay votes to fail and would return to the Committee as it 

did last year. The Committee decided that since there is a similar proposal being considered by the Laws and Regulations

Committee for adding a requirement to Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive

Lubricants Regulation, Item 330-3 should be withdrawn from the Committee’s Agenda. 

For more background information, refer to the NCWM 2002 S&T Final Report. 

330-4 I UR.2.5.1. Measuring Element Identification, and UR.2.5.2. Product Storage Identification 

(This item was changed from a voting item to an information item at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Measuring Sector 

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices UR.2.5. as follows: 

UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification. 

UR.2.5.1. Measuring Element Identification.

(a) The measuring elements of any multi-product dispenser shall be permanently, plainly, and visibly 

identified as to product being measured.

(b) When the measuring elements of any multi-product dispenser are marked by means of a color

code, the color code key shall be conspicuously displayed at the place of business.

UR.2.5.2. Product Storage Identification.

(a) The fill connection for any petroleum product storage tank or vessel supplying motor-fuel devices 

shall be permanently, plainly, and visibly marked as to product contained. 

(b) When the fill connection device is marked by means of a color code, the color code key shall be 

conspicuously displayed at the place of business. 

Background/Discussion: At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, one of the participating laboratories indicated

that field officials in their jurisdiction are sometimes unable to determine which measuring element is associated with a

particular grade or blend of fuel on multi-product dispensers. This is because some newer dispensers, have measuring 

elements with no external drive to a pulser or mechanical indicator, and therefore provide no visible means for the official 

to be able to determine when a specific measuring element is in operation. During a field examination of a multi-product

S&T - 38 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

dispenser if one grade or blend is rejected for not meeting performance requirements, the official does not know which

measuring element to mark or tag as rejected. During reinspection, the field official may be required to test all grades and 

blends offered through the rejected dispenser to determine that only the rejected measuring element was adjusted.

At its October 2002 meeting, the NTETC Measuring Sector developed a proposal that requires a measuring element

without an individual physical seal within any multi-product dispenser be plainly and visibly identified as to the product

being measured. The Sector agreed to forward the proposal to the Committee through the SWMA. 

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the SWMA recommended that the proposed modification to NIST Handbook 44, 

Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices paragraph UR.2.5. be forwarded to the Committee as a voting item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for the proposal. Device manufacturers agreed that 

this requirement would also assist service agencies to identify measuring elements needing adjustment. The 

manufacturers also reported that, the majority of the devices currently in the market place have external moving parts that 

facilitate the association of a specific measuring element with the product type being delivered. The Committee believes 

it is important that a field official be able to identify the product delivered by each measuring element and agreed to 

present the item for a vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting.

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, a manufacturer of retail motor-fuel dispensers stated that the company makes some

dispensers where the measuring elements are not readily accessible. A representative of a fuel distribution company

asked if the requirement would be retroactive or nonretroactive. As a retroactive requirement could create a hardship for 

service station owners. WMD suggested that if color codes are to be used for identifying measuring elements and for 

product storage within the same facility they should be consistent. The Committee agreed that if a color code is used for 

identifying measuring elements and product storage fill connections they should be the same. The Committee changed

the item to informational and requested that the NTETC Measuring Sector reconsider the proposal to clarify that the 

requirement is intended to apply to measuring elements that have no visible moving mechanical parts and whether or not 

the requirement should be retroactive.

330-5 V UR.3.6.3. Temperature Compensation Wholesale – When to be Used 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Recommendation: Revise NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices by adding a new paragraph 

UR.3.6.3. that requires the buyer and seller of products measured or calculated using temperature compensation to do so

for a twelve-month period, unless mutually agreed in writing to do otherwise. The revision is as follows: 

UR.3.6.3. Period of Use - When fuel is bought or sold on an automatic or nonautomatic temperaturecompensated basis, it shall be done bought or sold using this method over at least a consecutive 12-month 

period, unless otherwise agreed to by the buyer and the seller in writing.

Background/Discussion: At the 2002 SWMA Annual Meeting, a weights and measures official expressed concern that

temperature compensation is being selectively used during different times of the year. Depending on the temperature

during the measurement, the product may be expanded or contracted and either the buyer or the seller may have an 

advantage. If a company uses temperature compensation, it must be used for a consecutive 12-month period to prevent

selective use of temperature compensation. The SWMA agreed that the issue has merit and recommended it be forwarded

to the Committee as an information item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, comments made during the open hearings suggested that the requirement should

clearly state that it applies to sales that are compensated for the effect of temperature whether the compensation is done 

automatically or manually using a calculator and that any agreement between the buyer and seller to not use temperature

compensation should be in writing. The Committee agreed and developed the new paragraph UR.3.6.3. (proposed as a 

revision to paragraph UR.3.6.1.2. in the 2003 Interim agenda) shown above to be presented for a vote at the Annual 

Meeting. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Meter Manufacturer’s Association (MMA) supported this item. The 

Committee received objections to this item. The paragraph number for this item was changed in Publication 16, but the

S&T - 39 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

title for this item was not. The Committee modified the title and agreed that in the proposed paragraph UR.3.6.3, the

word “done” should be replaced with the words “bought or sold using this method.”

330-6 I Appendix D; Definition of Retail Device 

Source: Carryover Item 330-7 (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) and

first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda as Item 330-5.) 

Recommendation: Modify the definition of retail devices as follows: 

retail device. A device primarily used for non-resale use.

single deliveries of less than 378 L (100 gal),

retail deliveries of motor fuels to individual highway vehicles, or

single deliveries of liquefied petroleum gas for domestic use and liquefied petroleum gas or liquefied 

anhydrous ammonia for nonresale use.

[3.30, 3.31, 3.32, 3.37] 

Background/Discussion: During the 2001 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee considered several proposals that 

define retail devices as those that deliver product to the ultimate consumer. The Committee agreed that these proposals

change the classification of some devices, previously classified as wholesale devices, to retail devices that are held to a

lesser tolerance. 

In 2002 the Committee agreed that if the proposals in Items 330-3A, 330-3B, and 331-3, to base tolerances on accuracy

classes rather than the application of the device were adopted, changes to the definition would be unnecessary and this 

item could be withdrawn from its agenda. Items 330-3A and 331-3 were adopted. Item 330-3B was carried over as 

informational to provide the regional associations the opportunity to identify and discuss any negative impact it would

have on the affected codes in NIST Handbook 44. 

At its September 2002 Interim Meeting, the Central Weights and Measures Association agreed that the word “primarily”

is ambiguous and should be removed from the proposal.

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA supported the item as proposed. 

At its October 2002 Interim Meeting, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) agreed that this 

item is unnecessary if accuracy classes are adopted for Section 3.32. through Section 3.36. and Section 3.38. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard that even with the adoption of the accuracy class tables last 

year, a definition of “retail device” is still needed because the term retail is referenced in several paragraphs in the

Liquid-Measuring Devices code and in other measuring device codes of NIST Handbook 44. The Committee believes

that the term “primarily” in the retail device definition, is appropriate to provide weights and measures officials some 

flexibility for determining the applicability of various requirements on a case-by-case basis. The Committee agreed that 

the item should remain informational to allow further study of all the codes potentially affected by the change. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard that at its May 2003 Meeting, the NEWMA received 

comments that the use of the word “primarily” and the phrase “non-resale use’ are not definitive and will lead to further 

confusion. WMD recommended an alternate definition of retail device as follows: 

retail device. A device primarily used for weighing or measuring a finished product or commodity that will 

not be offered for sale in the same form.

The Committee agreed that the item should remain informational to allow further consideration by the regional weights

and measures associations. 

For more background information, refer to the 1999 through 2002 S&T Final Reports. 

S&T - 40 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

331 Vehicle-Tank Meters 

331-1 V Recognition of Temperature Compensation 

(This item did not pass or fail; therefore it returns to the Committee.) 

Source: Carryover Item 331-1 (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) and

first appeared on the Committee’s 2000 agenda as Item 331-1.)

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters Code (VTM) by adding the 

following paragraphs to recognize temperature compensation as follows: 

S.2.4. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. 

S.2.4.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. - A device may be

equipped with an automatic means for adjusting the indication and registration of the measured volume of

product to the volume at 15 °C (60 °F), where not prohibited by State Law. 

S.2.4.2. Provision for Deactivating. - On a device equipped with an automatic temperature-compensating 

mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of liters (gallons) compensated to 15 °C (60 °F), 

provision shall be made for deactivating the automatic temperature-compensating mechanism so that the 

meter can indicate and record, if it is equipped to record, in terms of the uncompensated volume. 

S.2.4.2.X. Gross and Net Indications – A device equipped with automatic temperature compensation shall

indicate and record, if equipped to record, both the gross (uncompensated) and net (compensated) volume

for testing purposes. If both values cannot be displayed or recorded for the same test draft, means shall be 

provided to select either the gross or net indication for each test draft.

S.2.4.3. Provision for Sealing Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. – Adequate provision shall

be made for an approved means of security (e.g., data change audit trail) or physically applying security

seals in such a manner that an automatic temperature-compensating system cannot be disconnected and 

that no adjustment may be made to the system.

S.2.4.4. Temperature Determination with Automatic Temperature Compensation. - For test purposes, 

means shall be provided (e.g., thermometer well) to determine the temperature of the liquid either: 

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or 

(b) immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or discharge line. 

S.5.6. Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. - If a device is equipped with an

automatic temperature compensator, the primary indicating elements, recording elements, and recording 

representation shall be clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered has been

adjusted to the volume at 15 °C (60 °F).

N.4.1.3. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems for Refined Petroleum Products. - On devices 

equipped with automatic temperature-compensating systems, normal tests shall be conducted: 

 

(a) by comparing the compensated volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume

corrected to 15 °C (60 °F); and 

(b) with the temperature-compensating system deactivated, comparing the uncompensated volume

indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume. 

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system operating in the

"as found" condition. On devices that indicate or record both the compensated and uncompensated 

volume for each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be performed as a single test. 

S&T - 41 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

N.5. Temperature Correction for Refined Petroleum Products. - Corrections shall be made for any changes in

volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between the time of passage through the meter 

and time of volumetric determination in the prover. When adjustments are necessary, appropriate petroleum 

measurement tables should be used. 

T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. - The difference between the meter error

(expressed as a percentage) for results determined with and without the automatic temperaturecompensating system activated shall not exceed: 

(a) 0.4 % for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems; and 

(b) 0.2 % for electronic automatic temperature-compensating systems. 

The delivered quantities for each test shall be approximately the same size. The results of each test shall 

be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. 

UR.2.5. Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. 

UR.2.5.1. Automatic. 

UR.2.5.1.1. When to be Used. - In a State that does not prohibit, by law or regulation, the sale of

temperature-compensated product, a device equipped with an operable automatic temperature

compensator shall be connected, operable, and in use at all times. An electronic or mechanical

automatic temperature compensating system may not be removed, nor may a compensated device be

replaced with an uncompensated device, without the written approval of the responsible weights and

measures jurisdiction. 

[Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for product measured through a meter.] 

UR.2.5.1.2. Invoices. 

(a) An invoice based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic temperature

compensator shall show that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 15 °C 

(60 °F). 

Discussion/Background: When this item was submitted, weights and measures officials indicated confusion when an

NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) for a meter includes a temperature-compensation feature, but the application 

section of the CC is for a vehicle-tank meter (VTM) and Handbook 44 does not recognize temperature compensation for 

VTMs. The WWMA acknowledged that there are jurisdictions that permit temperature compensated deliveries in

applications that are not addressed by NIST Handbook 44. Some states do not allow the use of automatic temperature 

compensation for the delivery of products using VTMs. 

At the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meeting, the Committee received comments in support of this item because the 

language does not require the use of temperature compensation, but does provide inspection notes for those jurisdictions

that have temperature compensated vehicle-tank meters in use. The item provides specifications, tolerances, test notes, 

and user requirements if a temperature compensated device is used. The Committee did hear some opposition to the 

proposal from officials who believe they would be forced to accept temperature compensated vehicle-tank meters because

there is not a specific prohibition in their weights and measures law; however, the Committee concluded that the

opposition was not supported by a technical argument and there are other means for prohibiting the use of temperature 

compensated vehicle-tank meters in a particular state if the prohibition is justified. The Committee agreed to present the

item for a vote at the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, this item did not pass or fail; therefore, it was returned to the Committee for further 

consideration. 

S&T - 42 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

At its September 2002 Interim Meeting, the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) reaffirmed its

recommendation that the L&R Committee adopt appropriate language for a method of sale requirement for temperature

compensated vehicle-tank meters to promote uniformity. 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA supported this item as proposed and recommended that the 

Committee move it forward as a voting item. 

At its October 2002 Interim Meeting, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended that 

the NCWM S&T Committee move this item forward as a voting item. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard both support and opposition to this item for similar reasons

expressed at earlier meetings. The Meter Manufacturer’s Association (MMA) indicated that the proposed tolerances in

T.2.1. of 0.2 % for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems and 0.1 % for electronic automatic

temperature-compensating systems were too restrictive and should be changed to 0.4 % for mechanical systems and 0.2 % 

for electronic systems. The Committee agreed with the MMA and modified T.2.1. accordingly. The Committee agreed

to present the item for a vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting as shown above. 

At their Spring 2003 Annual Meetings, the CWMA and NEWMA supported this item as written. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the MMA supported the proposal. One official stated that a method-of-sale

requirement for temperature compensation of petroleum products delivered using vehicle-tank meters should be in

Handbook 130 before this item is adopted. Another official stated that this item is not equitable unless all states require

temperature compensation of petroleum products delivered using vehicle-tank meters. 

 

For additional background on this item see the NCWM 2000 through 2002 S&T Final Reports. 

331-2 W S.3.5. Discharge Valve 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Revise NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters by amending S.3.5. as follows: 

S.3.5 Discharge Valve. - A discharge valve may be installed in the discharge line only if the device is of the wethose type or is incorporated within an automatic pump discharge system, in which case such valve shall be at the 

discharge end of the line. Any other shutoff valve on the discharge side of the meter shall be of the automatic

or semiautomatic predetermined-stop type or shall be operable only:

(a) by means of a tool (but not a pin) entirely separate from the device, or

(b) by mutilation of a security seal with which the valve is sealed open. 

Discussion: A manufacturer of vehicle-tank metering systems put forth this proposal as part of its endeavor to have dryhose delivery systems recognized in NIST Handbook 44. The changes proposed to NIST Handbook 44 were believed

necessary to allow the systems to begin the NTEP process. These systems would have had to be evaluated for accuracy, 

repeatability and other requirements. The systems are currently in use in Germany and the United Kingdom. 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA recommended this item move forward as an information item.

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) recommended that this

item move forward as an information item. Because the system uses compressed air to purge the delivery hose the

SWMA has concerns with the repeatability and performance accuracy for the described system and does not support 

changing NIST Handbook 44 until the manufacturer provides performance data for consideration. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received a request from original submitter of the proposal to 

withdraw the item because they had encountered difficulty in collecting sufficient data to verify accuracy and 

S&T - 43 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

repeatability of their system. The Committee agreed with the support of the committee representatives from the WWMA 

and the SWMA. 

331-3 W S.3.2.X. Automatic Pump Discharge Unit

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Revise NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters by adding a Specification S.3.2.X

Automatic Pump Discharge Unit as follows: 

S.3.2.X. Automatic Pump Discharge Unit. - On an automatic pump discharge unit, the discharge hose may be

of the dry-hose type with a shutoff valve at its outlet end, but only if: 

(a) the pump discharge unit is completely automatic in that all openings and closing of valves

incorporated within the system are controlled absolutely by the system, and 

(b) a means is provided to ensure that the pump discharge system will be dry at the beginning and the 

end of each delivery, and 

(c) a means is incorporated within the pump discharge system that detects if the hose end shutoff valve or 

any other valve downstream of the system is closed prematurely during the purging of the system to 

its dry state, thus preventing a complete delivery. In this case, means must be provided so that it will 

be impossible to end the delivery and print a delivery ticket. The system must provide the facility to 

automatically clear the discharge lines once the hose end shutoff valve has been opened or the

obstruction preventing a complete delivery is removed, and 

(d) in the event that a delivery is terminated before the pre-set quantity is reached or the delivery

quantity is unknown at the beginning of the delivery, then means must be provided to return the

product contained within the pump discharge system back to the tank truck compartment and be

fully discharged so as to bring the system back to its dry state. The system must ensure that product 

is returned to the tank truck and that this quantity does not form part of the delivered quantity. 

(e) There shall be incorporated an automatic vacuum breaker or equivalent means to prevent siphoning 

and to ensure the rapid and complete drainage of the automatic pump discharge unit.

Discussion: A manufacturer of vehicle-tank metering put forth this proposal as part of its endeavor to have dry hose

delivery systems recognized in NIST Handbook 44. The changes proposed to Handbook 44 were believed necessary to 

allow the systems to begin the NTEP process. These systems would have had to be evaluated for accuracy, repeatability 

and other requirements. The manufacturer states that the systems are currently approved for use in Germany and the 

United Kingdom. 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA recommended this item move forward as an information item.

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) recommended that this

item move forward as an information item. Because the system uses compressed air to purge the delivery hose the

SWMA has concerns with the repeatability and performance accuracy for the described system and does not support 

changing NIST Handbook 44 until the manufacturer provides performance data for consideration. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received a request from original submitter of the proposal to 

withdraw the item because they had encountered difficulty in collecting sufficient data to verify accuracy and 

repeatability of their system. The Committee agreed with the support of the committee representatives from the WWMA 

and the SWMA. 

S&T - 44 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

331-4 W S.3.2.X. Flood Volume Automatic Pump Discharge Unit

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Revise NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.31. by adding a Specification S.3.2.X. Flood Volume

Automatic Pump Discharge Unit as follows:

S.3.2.X. Flood Volume Automatic Pump Discharge Unit. - When applicable, the volume of product necessary

to flood the system when dry shall be clearly, conspicuously, and permanently marked on the system. 

Discussion: A manufacturer of vehicle-tank metering put forth this proposal as part of its endeavor to have dry hose

delivery systems recognized in NIST Handbook 44. The changes proposed to NIST Handbook 44 were believed

necessary to allow the systems to begin the NTEP process. These systems would have had to be evaluated for accuracy, 

repeatability and other requirements. The systems are currently in use in Germany and the United Kingdom. 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA recommended this item move forward as an information item.

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) recommended that this

item move forward as an information item. Because the system uses compressed air to purge the delivery hose the

SWMA has concerns with the repeatability and performance accuracy for the described system and does not support 

changing NIST Handbook 44 until the manufacturer provides performance data for consideration. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received a request from original submitter of the proposal to 

withdraw the item because they had encountered difficulty in collecting sufficient data to verify accuracy and 

repeatability of their system. The Committee agreed with the support of the committee representatives from the WWMA 

and the SWMA. 

331-5 VC UR.1.4. Liquid Measured 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Revise NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.31 Vehicle-Tank Meters by adding a user requirement as 

follows: 

UR.1.4. Liquid Measured. - A Vehicle-Tank Meter shall continue to be used to measure the same liquid or one

with the same general physical properties as that used for calibration and weights and measures approval 

unless the meter is recalibrated with a different product and tested by a registered service agency or a weights

and measures official and approved by the weights and measures jurisdiction having statutory authority over

the device. 

Discussion: At the October 2002 SWMA Annual Meeting, a weights and measures official stated that paragraph

N.1. Test Liquid in the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code requires that a meter test be conducted with the same liquid or a liquid 

with the same general physical characteristics as the one being commercially measured. However there is no user

requirement that requires the user to continue to use the product with which the meter was tested. The SWMA agreed 

that the issue has merit and recommended it be forwarded to the Committee as an information item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments that the proposal should be modified to include

testing and approval by weights and measures officials. The Committee agreed with the comments, modified the 

proposal, and decided to present it for a vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting as shown above. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Meter Manufacturer’s Association supported this item. The Committee heard 

that at their Spring 2003 Meetings, the Central Weights and Measures Association and the Northeastern Weights and 

Measures Association supported this item. NIST recommended that the title of the item be modified to be consistent with

S&T - 45 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

terminology used in the paragraph title. The Committee agreed with WMD and modified the title of the item from “Test

Liquid” to “Measured Liquid.” 

331-6 I N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems), N.4.5. Product Depletion Test, and T.5.

Product Depletion Test 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.32. Vehicle-Tank Meters paragraph N.4.2. Special Tests 

(Except Milk-Measuring Systems) as follows: 

N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems). - “Special” tests shall be made to develop the operating 

characteristics of a measuring system and any special elements and accessories attached to or associated with 

the device. Any test except as set forth in N.4.1. or N.4.5. shall be considered a special test. Special test of a 

measuring system shall be made as follows: 

(a) at a minimum discharge rate of 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate or at the minimum

discharge rate marked on the device whichever is less; 

(b) to develop operating characteristics of the measuring system during a split-compartment delivery. 

Add new paragraphs N.4.5. Product Depletion Test and T.5. Product Depletion Test to the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code as

follows: 

N.4.5. Product Depletion Test. - The effectiveness of the vapor eliminator shall be tested by depleting the

product supply and continuing until the lack of fluid causes the meter register to stop completely. The test

shall be completed by switching to another compartment with sufficient product on a multi-compartment 

vehicle, or by adding sufficient product to a single compartment vehicle. When adding product to a single

compartment vehicle, allow appropriate time for any entrapped vapor to disperse before continuing the test. 

T.5. Product Depletion Test. – The difference in the delivered volumes for the normal test and the product 

depletion test shall not exceed 0.5 % of the equivalent of one minute of flow at the maximum rated flow rate 

for the system. 

Discussion: The proposal intends to recognize that the vapor measured when product is depleted during the vehicle-tank

meter split compartment test (product depletion test) is a system problem that is not related to the prover size. The 

proposal requires a split compartment test (product depletion test) for single compartment vehicles to verify the 

performance of the air elimination mechanism.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed the proposal has merit because the product depletion test is

necessary for vehicle-tank meters and the proposal provides guidelines on the appropriate test conditions. Therefore, the

Committee changed the status of this item from developing to an information item. The proposed tolerance, when

conducting a product depletion test, is based on the marked flow rate of the meter rather than the size of the prover. The

tolerance stays the same regardless of the size of the prover used for the test. NEWMA noted concerns because operators 

with vehicle-tank meters that fail tests in a jurisdiction using a 100-gallon prover are passing tests in neighboring

jurisdictions that use a 200-gallon prover. 

The Committee is uncertain that all sizes of vehicle-tank meters can attain the 0.5 % tolerance proposed for the difference 

in the test results between the normal and product depletion tests. The Committee asks for data that demonstrates the 

ability of vehicle-tank meters to meet the proposed tolerance. The Committee also recommends NEWMA develop

guidelines for switching tanks (compartments) when all tanks are not the same size to ensure an adequate test of the

vehicle-tank meters since tanks of different sizes drain at different rates.

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Meter Manufacturer’s Association supported this item. The Committee heard 

that the NEWMA continues to support this item. NIST on noted that other tolerances such as repeatability tolerances that 

consider the difference between two or more tests also stipulate that all results must be within applicable tolerance. For 

consistency paragraph T.5. should be modified as follows:

S&T - 46 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

T.5. Product Depletion Test. - The difference in the delivered volumes for the normal test and the product 

depletion test shall not exceed 0.5 % of the equivalent of one minute of flow at the marked maximum rated 

flow discharge rate for the system and all results must be within applicable tolerance.

The Committee agreed that this item should remain an information item to allow for additional development by the 

NTETC Measuring Sector and the regional weights and measures associations. 

If you would like more information or to participate in test data collection contact Ross Andersen (New York Bureau of

Weights and Measures) by telephone at 518-457-3146, by fax at 518-457-5693, or by email at 

ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us or Stephen Martin (New York Bureau of Weights and Measures) by telephone at 

315-487-2250, by fax at 315-487-2408, or by email at weighsyr@agmkt.state.ny.us. 

332 LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices 

332-1 VC Tolerances, Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia LiquidMeasuring Devices 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 330-3B. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda as Item 330-1.) 

Recommendation: Add a new Table T.2. to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.32 LPG and Anhydrous Liquid-Measuring 

Devices and modify Paragraph T.2. as follows:

T.2. Tolerance Values. – The maintenance and acceptance tolerances for normal and special tests shall be as 

shown in Table T.2.

Acceptance

Tolerance

Maintenance

Tolerance

Normal Tests 0.6% 1.0%

Special Tests 1.0% 1.0%

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices 

Accuracy 

Class

Application Acceptance

Tolerance

Maintenance

Tolerance

Special Test

Tolerance*

1.0 Anhydrous ammonia, LPG gas (including vehicle 

tank meters) 0.6 % 1.0 % 1.0 %

*where applicable 

Background/Discussion: At the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee received no negative 

comments on Item 330-3B. 

Prior to the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, Item 330-3B was divided into a separate item for each affected NIST 

Handbook 44 code. The tolerances shown in the proposed table are the same as the current NIST Handbook 44 

tolerances. The proposed table format will facilitate the reformatting of all NIST Handbook 44 Section 3, 3.3X -

measuring device codes. 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA recognized that this format will facilitate the reformatting of NIST 

Handbook 44 and recommends that the Committee move it forward as a voting item. 

S&T - 47 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

At its October 2002 Interim Meeting, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended that 

the Committee move this item forward as a voting item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no comments on the item. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard that at their Spring 2003 Meetings, the Central Weights and 

Measures Association (CWMA) and NEWMA supported this item. WMD noted that in Handbook 44, liquefied

petroleum gas is typically abbreviated as LPG and recommend that the use of the term be corrected from LP gas to LPG

in the proposed Table T.2. The Committee agreed and modified Table T.2. as shown above. 

For additional background on this Item see item 330-3B in the NCWM 2002 S&T Final Report.

332-2 I UR.2.3. Vapor-Return Line

Source: Carryover Item 332-2. (This item was developed by the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring 

Devices paragraph UR.2.3. as follows: 

UR.2.3. Vapor Return Line. - During any metered delivery of liquefied petroleum gas from a supplier’s tank to a

receiving container, there shall be no vapor-return line from the receiving container to the supplier tank except: 

(a) in the case of any receiving container to which normal deliveries cannot be made without the use of such

vapor-return line, or

(b) in the case of any new receiving container when the ambient temperature is below above 90 °F, or 

in the case of wholesale terminal deliveries.

(c) in the case of wholesale terminal deliveries.

Background/Discussion: At its September 2001 Annual Meeting, the SWMA heard from the State of Tennessee that 

vapor-return lines are commonly used at LPG loading rack terminals where large capacity transports are loaded for 

distribution to bulk LPG dealers. At least some of the companies operating terminals are applying industry derived 

factors that are used to credit customers for metered product that is returned as vapor to the sellers’ storage tanks.

Paragraph U.R.2.3. (a) provides an exception for abnormal conditions, such as high pressure in the receiving tank, which

prevents delivery without the use of a vapor return line. The SWMA questions whether or not bulk terminal locations fall 

under this exemption. The terminals where vapor-return lines are being used have insufficient pumping ability to fill the 

large vessels that are used to distribute LPG to bulk dealer facilities; however, when pumping capacity becomes an issue 

the condition can be remedied by installing new pumping and metering equipment which is capable of filling the large 

pressure vessels without a vapor-return line. Additionally, the terminals have the option of weighing the product rather 

than metering it. These conditions exist at LPG terminals in all regions of the United States, thus, this is not a unique

situation only affecting Tennessee. 

SWMA agreed with Tennessee that the following points should be reviewed to remove any ambiguity about the 

appropriateness of vapor return lines in various LPG filling operations: 

1. Allow loading rack terminals to use vapor-return lines and review a proposal from industry on applying the

vapor factor to credit the purchaser. A mean credit value may be adequate, although it has been determined that 

the vapor returned is not always consistent from delivery to delivery. 

2. Allow a vapor meter to be installed between the receiving vessel and the seller’s tanks, then convert the vapor 

measurements to liquid quantities and credit the purchaser. 

3. Provide a consensus opinion that bulk terminal loading-rack installations meet the exception contained in 

paragraph UR.2.3. (a) and no action is needed by weights and measures officials. 

S&T - 48 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

4. Provide a consensus opinion that the conditions do not meet the exception noted in paragraph UR.2.3. and

weights and measures official should require terminals currently unable to load without vapor-return lines to take

corrective action to comply with NIST Handbook 44. 

The SWMA recognized the State of Tennessee’s concerns of the and agreed to forward this item to NCWM, but

recommends it remain informational to allow Tennessee to develop specific language. 

At the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee gave the item informational status to provide 

Tennessee time to develop a specific proposal. 

Following the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received the proposal shown in the recommendation above

from the State of Tennessee. The Committee agreed the item should remain informational to provide the regional 

associations an opportunity to review and discuss Tennessee’s proposal. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, Tennessee recommended that for clarity the last sentence in the original proposal

should be made a separate paragraph (c). The Committee agreed and modified the original proposal as shown above. 

The Committee agreed that the item should remain an information item to provide for additional review and input from 

industry and the regional weights and measures associations. 

333 Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices 

333-1 VC Tolerances, Table T.1. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.33. Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring 

Devices 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 330-3B. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda as Item 330-1.) 

Recommendation: Add a new Table T.1. to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.33 Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring

Devices and modify Paragraph T.1. as follows:

T.1. Tolerance Values on Normal Tests and on Special Tests Other Than Low-Flame Tests. - Maintenance 

and acceptance tolerances for normal and special tests for hydrocarbon gas vapor-measuring devices shall be

as shown in Table T.1. 3 percent (1.03 proof) of the test draft on underregistration and 1.5 percent (0.985 

proof) of the test draft on overregistration.

(Amended 1981and 200X) 

Table T.1. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances or Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices

Accuracy 

Class

Application Acceptance

Tolerance

Maintenance Tolerance

Overregistration 1.5 % 1.5 %

3.0 Gases at low pressure (LPG 

vapor) Underregistration 3.0 % 3.0 %

Background/Discussion: At the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee received no negative 

comments on Item 330-3B. 

Prior to the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, Item 330-3B was divided into a separate item for each affected NIST 

Handbook 44 code. The tolerances shown in the proposed table are the same as the current NIST Handbook 44

tolerances. The proposed table format will facilitate the reformatting of all NIST Handbook 44 Section 3, 3.3X -

measuring device codes. 

S&T - 49 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

At is September 2002 Annual Meeting the WWMA recognized that this format will facilitate the reformatting of NIST 

Handbook 44 and recommended that the Committee move it forward as a voting item.

 

At its October 2002 Interim Meeting the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended that

the Committee move this item forward as a voting item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no comments on this item and agreed to present it for a vote 

at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee learned that the Central Weights and Measures Association 

(CWMA) and NEWMA supported this item. WMD noted that in Handbook 44, liquefied petroleum gas is typically 

abbreviated as LPG and recommend that the use of the term be corrected from LP to LPG in the proposed Table T.1. The

Committee agreed and modified Table T.1. as shown above. 

For additional background on this item see Item 330-3B in the NCWM 2002 S&T Final Report. 

334 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices 

334-1 VC Tolerances; T.2. Tolerance Values, T.2.1. On Normal Tests, T.2.2. On Special Tests and Table 

T.2. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.34. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 330-3B. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda as Item 330-1.) 

Recommendation: Add a new Table T.2. to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.34 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices 

delete paragraphs T.2.1. and T.2.2. and modify Paragraph T.2. as follows:

T.2. Tolerance Values. - The maintenance and acceptance tolerances for normal and special tests shall be as 

shown in Table T.2.

T.2.1. On Normal Tests. - The maintenance tolerance on "normal" tests shall be two and one-half percent 

(2.5 %) of the indicated quantity. The acceptance tolerance shall be one and one-half percent (1.5 %) of

the indicated quantity.

T.2.2. On Special Tests. - The maintenance and acceptance tolerance on "special" tests shall be two and onehalf percent (2.5 %) of the indicated quantity.

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

Accuracy 

Class

Application Acceptance

Tolerance

Maintenance

Tolerance

Special Test

Tolerance*

2.5 Cryogenic products; liquefied compressed gases 

other than LP gas liquid carbon dioxide 1.5 % 2.5 % 2.5 %

*where applicable 

Background/Discussion: At the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee received no negative 

comments on Item 330-3B. 

Prior to the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, Item 330-3B was divided into a separate item for each affected NIST 

Handbook 44 code. The tolerances shown in the proposed table are the same as the current NIST Handbook 44

tolerances. The proposed table format will facilitate the reformatting of all Handbook 44 Section 3, 3.3X -measuring

device codes. 

S&T - 50 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

At is September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA recognized that this format will facilitate the reformatting of NIST 

Handbook 44 and recommended that the Committee move it forward as a voting item.

 

At its October 2002 Interim Meeting, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended that 

the Committee move this item forward as a voting item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no comments on this item and agreed to present it for a vote 

at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard that at their Spring 2003 Meetings, the Central Weights and 

Measures Association (CWMA) and NEWMA supported this item. WMD noted that LP gas is not a cryogenic liquid.

The only cryogenic product presently covered by a separate code is liquid carbon dioxide. WMD recommended that the 

reference to LP gas in the proposed Table T.2. be replaced with a reference to liquid carbon dioxide. The Committee 

agreed and modified Table T.2. as shown above. 

For additional background on this item see item 330-3B in the NCWM 2002 S&T Final Report. 

334-2 VC Definition of Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Measuring Sector

Recommendation: Modify the NIST Handbook 44 definition for cryogenic liquid-measuring device as follows. 

cryogenic liquid-measuring device. A system including a liquid-measuring element mechanism or machine of 

(a) the meter of the positive displacement, turbine, or mass flow type, or (b) a weighing type of device mounted

on a vehicle, designed to measure and deliver cryogenic liquids in the liquid state. Means may be provided to 

indicate automatically, for one of a series of unit prices, the total money value of the liquid measured.[3.34] 

(Amended 1986, 200X) 

Background/Discussion: In 1986, paragraph A.1. of Section 3.34. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices and the

definition for cryogenic liquid-measuring devices were modified to include on-board-weighing systems for measuring

cryogenic liquid. In 1995 the reference to scales for measuring cryogenic liquids was removed from paragraph A.1., 

because vehicle on-board weighing systems were recognized in the Scales Code in 1992. At its October 2002 Meeting, 

the NTETC Measuring Sector recognized that the reference to scales for measuring cryogenic liquids was not removed

from the definition for cryogenic liquid-measuring device in 1995 and recommended that the definition be modified to 

reflect the 1995 change to paragraph A.1.

At its October 2002 Annual Meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association supported the proposal and

recommended that the Committee move it forward as a voting item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee received no comments on this item and agreed to

present it for a vote. 

S&T - 51 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

335 Milk Meters 

335-1 W Tolerances; Table T.X. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.35. Milk Meters

(This item was withdrawn)

Source: Carryover Item 330-3B. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda as Item 330-1.) 

Recommendation: Add the following new Table T.X. for Liquid-Measuring Devices to NIST Handbook 44, Sections

3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices, 3.33. Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices, 3.34. 

Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices, 3.35. Milk Meters, 3.36. Water Meters, 3.37. Mass Flow Meters, and 3.38. Carbon

Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices. As an option the entire table could be added as an appendix to these codes. 

Table T.X Accuracy Classes for Liquid Measuring Devices Covered in

NIST Handbook 44 Sections 3.32 through 3.38

Accuracy 

Class

Application Acceptance

Tolerance

Maintenance

Tolerance

Special Test 

Tolerance*

1.0 Anhydrous ammonia, LP gas (including vehicle tank

meters) 0.6 % 1.0 % 1.0 %

Overregistration 1.5 % 1.5 % 1.5 %

1.5 Water

Underregistration 1.5 % 1.5 % 5.0 %

2.0 Compressed natural gas as a motor fuel 1.5 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

2.5 Cryogenic products; liquefied compressed gases 

other than LP gas

1.5 % 2.5 % 2.5 %

Overregistration 1.5 % 1.5 %

3.0 Gases at low pressure (LP 

vapor) Underregistration 3.0 % 3.0 %

*where applicable 

Background/Discussion: At the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received no negative comments on item 

330-3B. The Committee made item 330-3B informational to allow further study on the effect of the proposed tolerances 

for devices covered by Section 3.32. through Section 3.38. 

Item 330-3B was divided into a separate item for each affected Handbook 44 code. The tolerances shown in the proposed

table are the same as the current tolerances. The proposed table format will facilitate the reformatting of all Handbook 44

Section 3, 3.3X -measuring device codes. 

Following the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, NIST noted that proposed table above does not include a specific class 

designation and tolerances for devices measuring milk as it does for devices measuring other commodities. When Table 

T.1. for Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters was adopted in 2002, Table 2. Tolerances for Vehicle-Mounted Milk Meters

was not deleted from the code. The existing Table 1. Tolerances for Milk Meters and Table 2. Tolerances for

Vehicle-Mounted Milk Meters provide the same tolerances for both applications. If Table 2. Tolerances for Milk Meters 

is to be replaced with a table providing an accuracy class and tolerances for milk meters, then a class designation and an 

appropriate percent tolerance need to be developed. 

S&T - 52 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA agreed that the above table does not include tolerances for milk

meters. No specific proposal recommending a single percentage tolerance for milk meters was available for review. The 

WWMA recommends that this item remain an information item until a specific proposal is submitted for consideration. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that the current Table 1. Tolerances for Milk Meters in the

milk meters code should be retained to be consistent with the milk meter tolerances in the vehicle-tank meters code. The 

Committee agreed to withdraw this item from its agenda. 

For additional background on this item see item 330-3B in the NCWM 2002 S&T Final Report. 

336 Water Meters

336-1 V Tolerances; N.3. Test Drafts, N.4.1. Normal Tests, N.4.2. Special Tests, T.1. Tolerance Values,

Table N.4.1. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters Normal Tests, Table N.4.2. Flow Rate

and Draft Size for Water Meters Special Tests, and Table T.1. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.36. 

Water Meters

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 330-3B. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda as Item 330-1.) 

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.36 Water Meters paragraphs N.3., N.4.1., N.4.2., and T.1.

delete existing Table 1 and Table 2., add new Tables N.4.1., and N.4.2. as shown below.

N.3. Test Drafts. - Test drafts should be equal to at least the amount delivered by the device in 2 minutes and

in no case less than the amount delivered by the device in 1 minute at the actual maximum flow rate developed 

by the installation. The test drafts shown in Table N.4.1., next page, shall be followed as closely as possible. 

N.4. Testing Procedures. 

N.4.1. Normal Tests. - The normal test of a meter shall be made at the maximum discharge rate developed

by the installation. Meters with maximum gallon per minute ratings higher than Table N.4.1. values may

be tested up to the meter rating, with meter indications no less than those shown.

(Amended 1990 and 2002)

N.4.1.1. Repeatability Tests. - Tests for repeatability should include a minimum of three consecutive 

test drafts of approximately the same size and be conducted under controlled conditions where

variations in factors, such as temperature, pressure, and flow rate are reduced to the extent that they

will not affect the results obtained. 

(Added 2002) 

N.4.2. Special Tests. - Special tests to develop the operating characteristics of meters may be made

according to the rates and quantities shown in Table N.4.2. 

T.1. Tolerance Values. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerance shall be as shown in Table T.1. and Table 2.

S&T - 53 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table 1. Tolerances for Water Meters

Normal Tests

Meter size

(inches) Maximum Rate

Meter

indication

Rate of flow

(gal/min)

gal ft3

Tolerance on overand underregistration

Less than 5/8 8 50 5

5/8 15 50 5

3⁄4 25 50 5

1 40 100 10

1 1⁄2 80 300 40

2 120 500 40

3 250 500 50

 4 350 1 000 100

6 700 1 000 100

1.5 %

S&T - 54 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table 2. Tolerances for Water Meters

Special Tests

Intermediate Rate Minimum Rate

Meter

indication

Rate of 

flow

(gal/

min)

Meter

indication

Tolerance Meter size (inches)Rate of 

flow

(gal/

min) gal ft3

Tolerance on 

over- and 

underregistration gal ft3

Underregistration

Over-registration

Less than or 

equal to 5/8 2 10 1 1/4 5 1

3/4 3 10 1 1/2 5 1

1 4 10 1 3/4 5 1

1 1/2 8 50 5 1 1/2 10 1

2 15 50 5 2 10 1

3 20 50 5 4 10 1

4 40 100 10 7 50 5

6 60 100 10

1.5 %

12 50 5

5.0 % 1.5 %

Table N.4.1. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters 

Normal Tests 

Maximum Rate 

Meter Indication/Test Draft 

Meter size

(inches) 

Rate of flow 

(gal/min) 

Gal ft

3

Less than 5/8 8 50 5 

5/8 15 50 5

3/4 25 50 5 

1 40 100 10

1 1/2 80 300 40 

2 120 500 40

3 250 500 50

4 350 1 000 100

6 700 1 000 100

S&T - 55 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Table N.4.2. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters

Special Tests 

Intermediate Rate Minimum Rate

Meter indication/Test Draft Meter indication/Test Draft 

Meter size

(inches) Rate of flow

(gal/min) gal ft

3

Rate of flow

 (gal/min) gal ft

3

Less than or

equal to 5/8 2 10 1 1/4 5 1

3/4 3 10 1 1/2 5 1 

1 4 10 1 3/4 5 1

1 1/2 8 50 5 1 1/2 10 1 

2 15 50 5 2 10 1

3 20 50 5 4 10 1

4 40 100 10 7 50 5

6 60 100 10 12 50 5

Table T.1. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Water Meters 

Accuracy 

Class 

Application Acceptance

Tolerance 

Maintenance

Tolerance 

Tolerance for Special Tests 

Conducted at the Minimum Flow 

Rate Tolerances*

Overregistration 1.5 % 1.5 % 1.5 %

1.5 Water

Underregistration 1.5 % 1.5 % 5.0 %

*where applicable

Background/Discussion: At the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee received no negative 

comments on Item 330-3B. 

Prior to the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, Item 330-3B was divided into a separate item for each affected NIST 

Handbook 44 code. The tolerances shown in the proposed table are the same as the current NIST Handbook 44 

tolerances. The proposed table format will facilitate the reformatting of all NIST Handbook 44 Section 3, 3.3X -

measuring device codes. 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA supported the concept of having accuracy classes and tolerances in a

uniform table format for all Section 3, 3.3X -measuring device codes; however, the existing Table 1 and Table 2 in the 

Water Meters Code include criteria for test draft sizes and for maximum, intermediate, and minimum flow rates for 

testing various sizes of water meters. The test draft size and flow rate information in Table 1 and Table 2 needed to be

retained. The WWMA recommended that this item remain informational until a proposal to retain the flow rate criteria to

accompany the new table for accuracy class and tolerances is developed. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee and the technical advisors developed new test notes and tables to 

replace the current Table 1 and Table 2 to retain test recommendations for flow rate and draft size. The Committee

agreed to present the item for a vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the California Division of Measurement Standards (DMS) provided editorial

comments on this item to the committee. The modified paragraph T.1. and the tables 1 and 2 proposed for deletion were

not included in the item as presented in Publication 16. DMS also recommended that the footnote in Table T.1. be

changed from “where applicable” to “Only applies to Minimum Rate of Flow Tests.” The Committee agreed that while 

other types of tests could be considered “special tests”, as presently written, in Handbook 44 Section 3.36. Water Meters, 

S&T - 56 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

tests conducted at minimum flow rates are the only tests where “special test” tolerances apply. The Committee modified 

the proposal as shown above. 

For additional background on this item see Item 330-3B in the NCWM 2002 S&T Final Report. 

336-2 V S.2.3. Multi-Jet Meter Identification, Table T.1. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Water 

Meters; Other than Multi-Jet Meters and Special Tests at the Minimum Flow Rate, and 

Appendix D; Definition of Multi-Jet Water Meter 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Western Weights and Measure Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph S.2.3 to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.36 Water Meters, and modify Table 

T.1. (as proposed in item 336-1) as follows:

S.2.3. Multi-Jet Meter Identification. – Multi-Jet water meters shall be clearly and permanently identified as 

such on the device or on the Certificate of Conformance. 

Table T.1. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Water Meters 

Accuracy 

Class 

Application Acceptance

Tolerance 

Maintenance

Tolerance 

Tolerance for Special Tests 

Conducted at the Minimum

Flow Rate Tolerances*

Overregistration 1.5 % 1.5 % 1.5 %

1.5 

Water 

other than 

Multi-Jet Underregistration 1.5 % 1.5 % 5.0 %

Overregistration 1.5 % 1.5 % 3.0 %

1.5 Water 

Multi-jet Underregistration 1.5 % 1.5 % 3.0 %

*where applicable

Add a new definition to Appendix D:

Multi-Jet Water Meter. A water meter in which the moving element takes the form of a multiblade rotor

mounted on a vertical spindle within a cylindrical measuring chamber. The liquid enters the measuring

chamber through several tangential orifices around the circumference and leaves the measuring chamber

through another set of tangential orifices placed at a different level in the measuring chamber. These meters 

register by recording the revolutions of a rotor set in motion by the force of flowing water striking the blades. 

[3.36] 

Discussion: Currently, the Water Meters code does not include any test criteria or tolerances for multi-jet water meters. 

Multi-jet meters are widely used for metering and sub-metering water. One manufacturer of these meters indicates that

the performance curve for a multi-jet meter is different than the performance curve for a positive displacement meter and 

believes that the tolerances for a multi-jet meter should be equal for underregistration and overregistration at all flow 

rates. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) has recognized these differences and has developed two

standards, C700-02: Cold-Water Meters – Displacement Type, Bronze Main Case and C708-96: Cold-Water Meters –

Multijet Type, to allow for the different meter accuracy curves. 

At its September 2002 Annual Meeting, the WWMA agreed that test criteria and tolerances for multi-jet water meters 

should be included in the water meters code and agreed to forward it to the Committee as an information item.

S&T - 57 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee and the technical advisors developed a new tolerance table T.1.

based on the table proposed in item 336-1 that includes tolerances for multi-jet water meters to replace the ones proposed

by WWMA which do not follow the new format proposed for all liquid-measuring device codes. The Committee agreed

to present the item for a vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting.

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, the California Division of Measurement Standards (DMS) provided editorial

comments on this item similar to those provided for item 336-1. The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

(NEWMA) stated that the any markings identifying the meter, as being a Multi-Jet Meter, should be on the meter itself. 

The Committee agreed with DMS and the NEWMA and modified the proposal as shown above. 

338 Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices 

338-1 VC Tolerances; T.2. Tolerance Values, T.2.1. On Normal Tests, T.2.2. On Special Tests, and Table 

T.2. Accuracy Classes for Section 3.38. Carbon DioxideLiquid-Measuring Devices 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 330-3B. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda as Item 330-1.) 

Recommendation: Add a new Table T.2., to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.38 Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring 

Devices modify Paragraph T.2. and delete paragraphs T.2.1. and T.2.2. as follows:

T.2. Tolerance Values. - The maintenance and acceptance tolerances for normal and special tests shall be as 

shown in Table T.2.

T.2.1. On Normal Tests. - The maintenance tolerance on "normal" tests shall be two and one-half percent (2.5 %) of 

the indicated quantity. The acceptance tolerances shall be one and one-half percent (1.5 %) of the indicated quantity.

T.2.2. On Special Tests. - The maintenance and acceptance tolerance on "special" tests shall be two and one-half

percent (2.5 %) of the indicated quantity.

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices 

Accuracy 

Class 

Application Acceptance

Tolerance 

Maintenance

Tolerance 

Special Test

Tolerance*

2.5 Liquid carbon dioxide Cryogenic products; liquefied 

compressed gases other than LP gas 1.5 % 2.5 % 2.5 %

*where applicable 

Background/Discussion: At the 2002 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed with the WWMA 

recommendation to split item 330-1 into items 330-3A and 330-3B. The Committee also made item 330-3B

informational to allow further study on the effect of the proposed tolerances for devices covered by Section 3.32. through

Section 3.38. The background and rational for this item are outlined in the 2002 NCWM S&T Agenda Item 330-3A and 

331-1 that address the proposed changes to Sections 3.30 and 3.31. 

At the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received no negative comments on this item.

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no comments on this item and agreed to present it for a vote 

at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee heard no negative comments on this item. WMD

noted that Liquid Carbon Dioxide is the only product covered by this table and recommended that the reference to

liquefied compressed gases other than LP gas be removed. The committee agreed and modified the table as shown above. 

S&T - 58 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

356(a) Grain Moisture Meters 

356(a)-1 VC Recognize Indications and Recorded Representations of Test Weight per Bushel 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Grain Moisture Meter

(GMM) Sector and first appeared on the S&T Committee’s 2000 agenda as Developing Item 360-3, Appendix D. 

Recommendation: Modify NIST Handbook 44 Section 5.56(a) Grain Moisture Meters Code to recognize indications

and recorded representation of test weight per bushel as follows:

Amend the following paragraphs:

A.1. - This code applies to grain moisture meters; that is, devices used to indicate directly the moisture content 

of cereal grain and oil seeds. The code consists of general requirements applicable to all moisture meters and

specific requirements applicable only to certain types of moisture meters. Requirements cited for “test weight

per bushel” indications or recorded representations are applicable only to devices incorporating an automatic 

test weight per bushel measuring feature.

S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements. 

(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, test weight per 

bushel results and calibration version identification. 

(d) A digital indicating element shall not display and a recording element shall not record any 

moisture content values or test weight per bushel values before the end of the measurement cycle.

(e) Moisture content results shall be displayed and recorded as percent moisture content, wet basis. 

Test weight per bushel results shall be displayed and recorded as pounds per bushel. Subdivisions 

of this these units shall be in terms of decimal subdivisions (not fractions). 

(f) A meter shall not display or record any moisture content or test weight per bushel values when

the moisture content of the grain sample is beyond the operating range of the device, unless the

moisture and test weight representations includes a clear error indication (and recorded error

message with the recorded representations). 

S.1.3. Operating range. - A meter shall automatically and clearly indicate when the operating range of the

meter has been exceeded. The operating range shall specify the following: 

(c) Moisture Range of the Grain or Seed. The moisture range for each grain or seed for which the 

meter is to be used shall be specified. A mMoisture and test weight per bushel values may be

displayed when the moisture range is exceeded if accompanied by a clear indication that the 

moisture range has been exceeded. 

S.1.4. Value of Smallest Unit. - The display shall permit constituent moisture value determination to both

0.01 % and 0.1 % solution. The 0.1 % resolution is for commercial transactions; the 0.01 % resolution is

for type evaluation and calibration purposes only, not for commercial purposes. Test weight per bushel 

values shall be determined to the nearest 0.1 pound per bushel.

S.2.4.1. Calibration Version. - A meter must be capable of displaying 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 moisture content and test weight per bushel

determinations. 

S&T - 59 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

S.2.6. 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. 

In addition, if the meter is capable of measuring test weight per bushel, determination of sample volume 

and weight for this measurement shall be fully automatic and means shall be provided to ensure that

measurements of test weight per bushel are not allowed to be displayed or printed when an insufficient sample 

volume is available to provide an accurate measurement.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

S.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 of

accessory equipment necessary in obtaining a moisture content. Operating instructions shall include the

following information: 

(d) the kind or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture content and

test weight per bushel; 

N.1.1. Air Oven Reference Method Transfer Standards. - Official grain samples shall be used as the

official transfer standards with moisture content and test weight per bushel. Moisture content values are

assigned by the reference methods. The reference methods for moisture shall be the oven drying methods

as specified by the USDA GIPSA. The test weight per bushel value assigned to a test weight transfer 

standard shall be the average of 10 test weight per bushel determinations using the quart kettle test weight

per bushel apparatus as specified by the USDA GIPSA. Tolerances shall be applied to the average of at

least three measurements on each official grain sample. Official grain samples shall be clean and

naturally moist, but not tempered (i.e., water not added). 

N.1.2. Minimum Test. - A minimum test of a grain moisture meter shall consist of tests:

(a) with using samples (need not exceed three) of each grain or seed type for which the device is used, 

and for each grain or seed type shall include the following: 

(a) tests of moisture indications, (b)with using samples having at least two different moisture content 

values within the operating range of the device. , and if applicable, 

(b) tests of test weight per bushel indications, with at least the lowest moisture samples used in (a) 

above.

T.3. For Test Weight Per Bushel Indications or Recorded Representations. - The maintenance and acceptance 

tolerances on test weight per bushel indications or recorded representations shall be 0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 lb/bu. 

The test methods used shall be those specified by the USDA GIPSA. as shown in Table T.3. Tolerances are (+) 

positive or (-) negative with respect to the value assigned to the official grain sample.

Table T.3. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances Test 

Weight per Bushel

Type of Grain or Seed Tolerance

(pounds per bushel)

Corn, oats 0.8

All wheat classes 0.5

Soybeans, barley, rice, 

sunflower, sorghum 0.7

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary Indicating and Recording Elements. - The resolution of the

moisture meter display shall be 0.1 % moisture and 0.1 pounds per bushel test weight during commercial 

use. 

S&T - 60 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets 

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type, grain moisture results, 

test weight per bushel and calibration version identification. The ticket shall be generated by the

grain moisture meter system. 

Discussion: This proposal was developed to provide tolerances and to establish requirements for specific grain types to 

address grain moisture meters with an optional automatic test weight per bushel (TW) measuring feature. 

The following information is excerpted from the 2002 Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Sector summary. Knowledge of

Test Weight per Bushel (TW) is important not only in determining the price a producer receives for grain delivered to a

grain elevator; it is also important to the grain elevator when grain stocks in storage are audited for quantity. Grain 

industry members reported that the proposed tolerances for TW are acceptable to the industry. Stressing that the grain 

industry urgently needs the capability to simultaneously (and easily) make TW determinations, they urged the GMM

Sector to move forward on this issue. Some members were hesitant about moving forward at that time, citing concern

about the unresolved issue of large negative bias in the Phase II data for one state. A review of the issue strongly 

indicates a procedural error at the field level was the cause for questionable data. It was pointed out that even if the 

GMM Sector recommends moving ahead at this time, the earliest date that changes in the code would become effective 

was January 1, 2004. 

The GMM Sector considered whether the recommended changes should be retroactive or nonretroactive. Sector

discussions centered on the requirement that meters measuring TW must provide some means to ensure that 

measurements of TW are not allowed to be displayed or printed when insufficient sample volume has been supplied. The 

GMM Sector recognized there is a general assumption that the means will include some sort of a level sensor installed in

either the sample hopper or the test cell although the proposed code does not specify how this will be accomplished. 

GMM Sector members in favor of making the proposed code retroactive noted that although moisture measurements are 

not significantly affected when samples are not of sufficient size to completely fill the measuring cell of a GMM, the TW

measurement is greatly affected when the cell is not filled. Measurement of TW requires determination of two

parameters; volume and mass. The vast majority of GMMs with TW capability presently in the field do not have means 

to assure that the measuring cell is completely full. If the cell is not filled completely, TW indications will be lower than

they should be to the disadvantage of the producer selling grain. Some members in favor of making the code

nonretroactive felt that GMMs with a window, through which the test cell could be seen, provide adequate means to 

verify that the cell is full. A grain industry member expressed the belief that compared to how test weight measurements 

are being made now, the worry about a sensor was trivial. It was argued that as long as the GMM could produce an 

accurate TW measurement when properly used, it was not important whether or not the hopper or test cell had a sensor. 

Some thought this was a facilitation of fraud issue and favored making the sensor requirement retroactive. Other 

members thought that making the code retroactive would unfairly penalize users of existing NTEP meters with TW

capability. 

One manufacturer supported making the sensor requirement retroactive and pointed out that the GMMs they manufacture

are covered by an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) and are hard coded to add the words “approx” or

“approximate” to the display and print out TW measurements. That GMM Sector member also questioned how devices 

displaying “approximate” TW would be regulated if the sensor requirement was nonretroactive. Weights and measures

officials were at first divided on this question. Some were of the opinion that they would permit the continued use of the

device and display of “approximate” TW, if the device met the tolerance requirements, since “approximate” was added at

the request of jurisdictions permitting a display of TW when tolerances did not exist as regulation. Others were

concerned about what would happen in a court case when printed tickets which recorded “approximate” were used as 

evidence. States that presently do not permit “approximate” TW to be displayed or recorded indicated they would not 

change their policy. 

The Committee discussed concerns about how to ensure meters have sufficient sample volume. The Committee was

informed that older meters are equipped with a hopper where the operator can observe the sample volume; however, most

new meters do not have a weight sensor. The GMM Sector agreed that the proposed changes to paragraph S.2.6. to

require a means for sensing when a sample is not sufficient should be a nonretroactive requirement. The Committee

agreed that all issues were resolved and the item is ready for a vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

S&T - 61 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

The Committee considered a proposal to include SI (metric) units of measurement in paragraphs S.1.1.(e), S.1.4., and

UR.1.1. and Table T.3. The Committee believes that grain moisture meters currently recognized in the United States

indicate and make measurements only in U.S. customary units. Prior to any editorial changes, the Committee asked that 

NIST determine if including metric units involves straight conversions or other steps. The advisors determined that a

straight measurement unit conversion ob lb/bu test weight to kg/hL using the USDA method does not equal the method

followed by countries using the metric system, where kg/hL is based on the ISO test method

The Committee also discussed the use of term “approximate” TW (test weight per bushel). The Committee agreed that

quantifying terms should not be used in conjunction with indicated or recorded units of measurement.

356(b) Grain Moisture Meters 

356(b)-1 VC T.3. For Separate Test Weight Per Bushel Devices 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph T.3. as follows:

T.3. For Separate Test Weight Per Bushel Devices Indications or Recorded Representations. - The 

maintenance and acceptance tolerances on separate test weight per bushel devices used to determine the test

weight per bushel of grain samples for the purpose of making density corrections in moisture determinations

indications or recorded representations shall be 0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 lb/bu. The test methods used shall be 

those specified by the USDA GIPSA using a dockage-free sample of dry hard red winter wheat. 

Discussion: Prior to being amended in 1992, Section 5.56.(b) applied to separate test weight per bushel (TW) devices

used to determine the test weight per bushel of grain samples for the purpose of making density corrections in moisture

determinations. When grain moisture meters were introduced with the capability to automatically indicate and record test

weight per bushel values for the grain sample under test for moisture, the paragraph was amended to cover these devices. 

The tolerance assigned was that used by USDA GIPSA for their quart kettle test weight per bushel apparatus when tested 

as specified in the USDA GIPSA procedures using samples of hard red winter wheat. 

At its August 2002 meeting, the Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Sector reviewed test weight per bushel data collected in a 

field evaluation of the proposed tolerances and test methods. The GMM Sector agreed to recommend that only Section

5.56.(a) of the Grain Moisture Meter Code recognize indications and recorded representations in weight per bushel for a 

vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. New devices with test weight per bushel capability will be required to be fully 

automatic and have means to ensure that measurements of test weight per bushel are not allowed to be displayed or

printed when insufficient sample volume is available. 

The GMM Sector decided that it was not appropriate for the Sector to recommend modification of Section 5.56.(b) of the

Code to add tolerances for grain moisture meters with test weight per bushel capability. Non-NTEP devices with test

weight per bushel capability will not be required to determine if a sufficient sample volume has been provided for an

accurate measurement. Section 5.56.(b) applies to non-NTEP devices which are not within the purview of the GMM 

Sector. Weights and Measures officials who are GMM Sector members suggested that paragraph T.3. should be revised

to clarify that it applies to separate accessory devices (such as a beam balance test weight apparatus) used to determine

test weight per bushel of grain samples for the purpose of making density corrections in moisture determinations. The

Committee modified the paragraph title to clarify that the tolerance applies to separate equipment used to determine the 

TW that is used to make density correction in moisture determinations rather than grain moisture meters. 

The Committee heard no unfavorable comments on this item. Therefore, the Committee recommended the item for a

vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

S&T - 62 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

357 Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers 

357-1 VC S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements

(This item was adopted.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Near Infrared Grain Analyzer (NIR) Sector 

Recommendation: Modify paragraphs S.1.1.(c) and (e) as follows:

S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements. 

(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, the moisture basis for each 

constituent value (except moisture), and calibration version identification. If the analyzer converts 

constituent results to a manually entered moisture basis, the “native” concentration and the “native” 

moisture basis must appear on the printed ticket in addition to the converted results and the manually 

entered moisture basis.

(e) Constituent content shall be recorded and displayed as percent of total mass at the specified moisture 

basis. The moisture basis shall also be recorded and displayed for each constituent content result (except 

moisture). If a whole grain analyzer that is calibrated to display results on an “as is” moisture basis does

NOT display or record a moisture value, it must clearly indicate that results are expressed on an “as is” 

moisture basis. Ground grain analyzers must ALWAYS display and record a moisture measurement for 

“as is” content results (except moisture). 

Add new paragraph S.1.1.(h) as follows:

(h) If the analyzer incorporates a built-in printer or if a printer is available as an accessory to the analyzer, the 

information appearing on the printout shall be arranged in a consistent and unambiguous manner.

Discussion: During its August 2002 review of NCWM Publication 14 checklist to add additional grains and criteria for 

moisture basis, the NIR Sector considered including text, “at the specified moisture basis,” to the NTEP Publication 14

criteria that is based on NIST Handbook 44 paragraph S.1.1.(e). Total mass is the sum of constituent mass and moisture 

mass. Moisture mass, in turn, depends on the specified moisture basis. Unless both percent constituent content and its

associated moisture basis are known, the actual constituent concentration cannot be known with certainty. To correctly

reflect that the constituent percent of total mass depends upon the specified moisture basis and to bring the code into

agreement with the Publication 14 NIR Checklist, the NIR Sector agreed that paragraph S.1.1.(e) should be modified as

shown in the recommendation above. 

It was also noted during the review of the proposed changes to the Publication 14 NIR checklist that the checklist 

referenced paragraph UR.2.3 Printed Tickets. NIR printed tickets must record specific information such as constituent 

values and each constituent’s associated moisture basis. Publication 14 criteria should be based on specifications rather

than user requirements. A review of the NIR code revealed that in cases where an analyzer converts constituent results to

a manually entered moisture basis, there is nothing in the NIR Code specifications that requires the device to record the

“native” constituent concentration and the native moisture basis along with the converted results and the manually entered 

moisture basis. There is also no specification that requires the printed information be arranged in a consistent and

unambiguous manner. 

Consequently, the NIR Sector proposed to amend paragraph S.1.1. (c) to include specifications for recording the “native” 

constituent value and moisture value along with the converted results and the manually entered moisture basis, to amend

paragraph S.1.1.(e) to recognize the need for moisture basis in determining the constituent mass, and to add new

paragraph S.1.1. (h) to include a specification that requires the printed information be arranged in a consistent and 

unambiguous manner.

During the 2003 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no unfavorable comments on this item. Therefore, the Committee

recommended the item for a vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting.

S&T - 63 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

The Committee considered a proposal to define “nature moisture basis” as the default moisture basis of the sealable 

constituent calibration (the moisture basis of the device) since the term appears in the proposal, but is not defined in

Handbook 44 Appendix D, Definitions. However, a new definition of the term “native moisture basis” is not needed 

since the term is already defined in paragraph A.3. Calibrations as follows: The "native" moisture basis is the default

moisture basis of the sealable constituent calibration (or constituent calibration pair when a non-displayed moisture 

calibration is also involved). 

S&T - 64 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

357-2 VC S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Carryover Item 357-1B (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Near Infrared Grain Analyzer (NIR) Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.2. as follows:

S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent. – Provision shall be made for selecting, 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 of grain and constituents(s) selected is permitted provided that it is clearly defined adjacent to the display. 

Minimum acceptable abbreviations are listed in Table S.1.2. Meters shall have the capability (i.e., display 

capacity) of indicating the grain type using a minimum of four characters in order to accommodate the 

abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2. If more than one calibration is included for a given grain type, the calibrations 

must be clearly distinguished from one another.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X] 

Discussion: In 2002, the Committee indicated it was not appropriate to exempt specialty crops, an undefined commodity, 

from the entire NIR Code. The Committee agreed that it was more appropriate to address industry concerns about the 

proprietary nature of specialty crop calibrations by modifying paragraph S.1.2. The Committee proposed including 

language in paragraph S.1.2. that requires multiple calibrations (i.e., specialty crop calibrations) for a particular grain type 

to be clearly distinguished from one another. 

In an attempt to arrive at a definition of “specialty crop,” the NIR Sector considered one member’s recommendation that a 

specialty crop might be one in which the constituents recognized by the NTEP Certificate of Conformance for that crop 

type (e.g., soybeans: protein, and oil) could not be measured accurately using the normal calibration because the specialty 

crop had a spectral response that differed significantly from the spectral response of normal varieties of that crop. High

oleaic soybeans (soybean varieties developed specifically to yield high concentrations of oleaic acid) were cited as a good

example of a specialty crop requiring special oil and protein calibrations. In contrast, “high oil” corn was not considered

a good example of a specialty crop, although seed companies may market it as such. It was pointed out that although

“normal” corn typically has an oil content in the 3 % to 4 % range, the GIPSA corn oil calibration contains low (3 % to

4 %), mid-range (5 % to 6 %), and high (>7 %) oil samples from three major seed companies. Sector members were in 

general agreement that it would be misleading to imply that this, or similar, "standard" calibrations are somehow

unsuitable for use with high-oil corn samples. There was similar agreement that, from a regulatory point of view, it

would not be desirable to allow the use of multiple calibrations (on the same device) for essentially the same commodity. 

The NIR Sector searched for wording that would restrict the unnecessary use of multiple calibrations for the same basic 

grain type, but would still permit the use of proprietary calibrations where there was a legitimate need. The NIR Sector

considered amending paragraph S.1.2. to include several variations of the statement “If a non-NTEP calibration is

included for a given grain type, it must be clearly distinguished from other calibrations. The calibration description must 

clearly identify the unique end use property addressed by the calibration.” 

Ultimately, the NIR Sector decided on the wording in the recommendation above, which was originally proposed by the 

S&T Committee, adequately addresses requirements for specialty crops. 

The Committee heard no unfavorable comments on this item. Therefore, the Committee recommended the item for a

vote at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

358 Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices 

358-1 I Tentative Status of the Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Code 

Source: Carryover Item 358-1. (This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

S&T - 65 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Recommendation: Change the status of the Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Code (MDMD) from tentative to

permanent. 

Discussion: In response to comments from weights and measures officials and industry representatives the Multiple 

Dimension Measuring Devices Code was considered for permanent status. The Committee also heard comments from

industry that the code should be harmonized with the more stringent Canadian requirements. In January 2002, the

Committee made the proposal a voting item. During the July 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, industry representatives 

cautioned that other issues may exist because the code was developed prior to the introduction of some of the latest 

electronic technology. Therefore, the Committee changed the proposal’s status from a voting item to an information item 

pending further review. 

The Northeastern and Western Weights and Measures Associations recommended the proposal remain an information 

item until a work group could review the code requirements. 

During the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard that there remained a number of proposals to modify 

Canadian requirements for MDMD devices. Consequently, in the interest of aligning U.S. and Canadian requirements, 

the Committee made the proposal an information item to allow time for review and comparison of U.S. and pending 

Canadian requirements. 

The MDMD Work Group met July 17-18, 2003 to discuss outstanding issues in the MDMD Code. The Work Group

plans to submit proposals for changes to NIST Handbook 44 MDMD Code by the January 2004 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

For more background information, refer to the 2002 S&T Final Report. 

360 Other Items 

360-1 I Revise NIST Handbook 44

 

Source: Carryover Item 360-1 (This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) and

first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda.) 

Discussion: The Committee is not aware of any updates on the work to revise NIST Handbook 44. The Committee

recommends that all parties interested in learning the status of this project contact the NCWM Board of Directors (BOD). 

At its 2002 Interim Meeting, members of the Northeastern and Western Weights and Measures Associations agreed to

continue to support the BOD’s effort and encourage them to fund this project.

The Committee also encourages the BOD to continue to provide financial support for the project. The Committee

believes that the project to revise Handbook 44 is worthwhile and needed by its users. 

The Committee believes that Handbook 44 is an important tool for the weight and measures community. The Committee 

agreed that work should continue to reformat the document to make it more user friendly. The Committee encourages the

BOD to continue in its support of the project to revise Handbook 44. 

360-2 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report 

Many issues before the OIML, the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF), and other international activities are 

within the purview of the S&T Committee. Additional information on OIML activities is available on the OIML web site

at http://www.oiml.org/. 

For more information on weighing devices, contact Steven Cook (NIST Weights and Measures Division Legal Metrology

Devices Group (WMD-LMD)) by telephone at 301-975-4003 or by e-mail at steven.cook@nist.gov. For more

information on grain moisture meters, contact Diane Lee (WMD-LMD) by telephone at 301-975-4405 or by e-mail at 

diane.lee@nist.gov. For more information on the R 117, “Measuring Systems for Liquids Other than Water” and R 105,

“Direct Mass Flow Measuring Systems for Quantities of Liquids,” and gas meters, contact Ralph Richter 

(WMD - International Legal Metrology Group (WMD-ILM)) by telephone at 301-975-4025 or by e-mail at 

ralph.richter.@nist.gov. For more information on measuring devices, contact Wayne Stiefel (WMD-ILM) by telephone at

301-975-4011, or by e-mail at s.stiefel@nist.gov. For more information on electronic measuring devices, contact

S&T - 66 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Dr. Ambler Thompson (WMD-ILM) by telephone at 301-975-2333 or by e-mail at ambler@nist.gov. For more 

information on taximeters, contact Juana Williams (WMD-LMD) by telephone at 301-975-3989 or by e-mail at

juana.williams@nist.gov. Each WMD representative can also be reached by postal mail at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive-Mail 

Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 or by fax at 301-926-0647. 

The NIST WMD contracted with Mr. John Elengo (Consultant) to create a line item comparison document and analysis of 

requirements in NIST Handbook 44 Scale Code and OIML Recommendations R 76, “Non-Automatic Weighing

Instruments,” and R 60 “Metrological Regulations for Load Cells.” To obtain a copy of the document, access the WMD 

web site at www.nist.gov/owm. The work represents the first stages to harmonize U.S. and international requirements for 

non-automatic weighing systems and load cells. The Committee requests comments on the draft document that compare 

R 76 and R 60 with corresponding requirements in NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code. 

On Monday July 14, 2003 at the NCWM Annual Meeting open hearing session, NIST representatives Dr. Charles Ehrlich

(WMD-ILM), Mr. Ralph Richter (WMD-ILM), Mr. Steven Cook (WMD-LMD) and Juana Williams (WMD-LMD) 

provided updates on OIML activities. For details on the entire OIML Report see Appendix A of the Board of Directors 

Final Report. 

360-3 D Developing Items 

The NCWM established a mechanism to disseminate information about emerging issues which have merit and are of

national interest. Developing items have not received sufficient review by all parties affected by the proposals or may be 

insufficiently developed to warrant review by the Committee. The developing items are currently under review by at least 

one regional association or technical committee. 

The developing items are listed in Appendix B according to the specific NIST Handbook 44 Code Section under which

they fall: 

Part 1 – Scales

Part 2 – Vehicle-Tank Meters

Part 3 – Other Items 

The status changes to developing items are as follows: 

Old Reference 

Number 

Title of Item

New

Reference 

Number 

Status Change

Appendix B 

Part 1, Item 1 

N.1.3.4.1. Weight Carts 320-11 January 2003 upgrade of item to an 

Information Item

Appendix B 

Part 1, Item 2 

T.N.3.X. Vehicle Scales Equipped Only With

Weighbeam and Used to Weigh Aggregate 

None Committee withdrew this item 

from the developing agenda 

Appendix B 

Part 2, Item 1 

N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring

Systems), N.4.5. Product Depletion Test, and

T.5. Product Depletion Test 

331-6 January 2003 upgrade of item to an

Information Item

Appendix B 

Part 3, Item 1 

Update NCWM Publication 3, National

Conference on Weights and Measures Policy, 

Interpretations, and Guidelines; Taximeters vs. 

Odometers Used for Transporting Fare Paying

Passengers 

360-4 January 2003 upgrade of item to a

Voting Item

The Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals included in Appendix B and send their comments 

to the contact listed in each item. 

The Committee asks that the regional weights and measures associations and NTETC Sectors continue their work to fully 

develop each proposal. If an association or Sector decide to discontinue work on a developmenting item, the Committee

asks that it be notified.

S&T - 67 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

360-4 V Update NCWM Publication 3, National Conference on Weights and Measures Policy,

Interpretations, and Guidelines; Taximeters vs. Odometers Used for Transporting Fare Paying

Passengers 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA). (This item first appeared on the Committee’s 2001

Agenda as Developing Item 360-4, Appendix E. The item appeared in the 2003 NCWM Interim Agenda as Developing

Item 360-3, Appendix D. During the 2003 Interim Meeting, the item status was changed to a voting item because there is

a national consensus in favor of the proposed policy.) 

Recommendation: Add the following interpretation to NCWM Publication 3, Section 3 – Specifications, Tolerances,

and Device Inspection, Subsection 5 – Linear Measuring and Other Devices:

3.5.X Taximeters vs. Odometers Used for Transporting Fare Paying Passengers 

Interpretation 

Taximeters are required for use in transporting passengers and charging on a “distance traveled” basis. 

Vehicle odometers are not suitable equipment for such use. Odometers are suitable for use in charging 

“distance traveled” rates in rental vehicles in which customers pay on a “per-mile” basis for the right to 

operate the vehicle. 

NIST Handbook 44 requires that devices must be suitable for their application with regard to their operating 

abilities, including their capacity, smallest division size, readability, performance, and design. 

Handbook 44 General Code, which applies to all devices, requires in paragraph G-UR. 3.3. Position of

Equipment that a device or system “used in direct sales shall be so positioned that its indications may be

accurately read and the weighing or measuring operation may be observed from some reasonable “customer and

operator position.” Reasonable customer positions in taxicabs or other vehicles in which a driver transports

passengers includes all passenger seats in a vehicle, both front and back. A properly installed taximeter’s 

indications are easily readable from any position in the vehicle, both in darkness and light. An odometer

cannot be read accurately from most positions in a vehicle other than the drivers' seat. 

Handbook 44 General Code also requires specific markings on devices including manufacturer’s name or

trademark, model designation, and a nonrepetitive serial number. All markings must be located so that it is

readily observable without the necessity of the disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate

from the device. The code also requires electronic devices to have provisions for applying security seals that

must be broken before any changes that affect the accuracy of the device can be made. While taximeters meet 

these requirements, most odometers do not. 

Further supporting the requirement for taximeters over odometers are the tolerances for the two devices

prescribed in Handbook 44. Transporting passengers for hire normally involves shorter distances at higher 

cost-per-distance charges than for rental vehicles. The tolerances for taximeters in the Taximeters Code are 

1 % for overregistration (error in favor of the cab) and 4 % for underregistration plus 100 feet (in favor of the

customer). The tolerances for odometers in the Odometers Code are 4 % for overregistration and 

underregistration, allowing 4 times as much error in favor of the operator. As taxi fares are usually much 

higher than rental car costs on a per mile basis, this allows for unreasonable and unacceptable errors that

could be financially injurious to the customer. 

It should be noted that no taximeter is required in cases where the charges are based on zones or flat rates,

providing that such methods are in compliance with local ordinances and are conspicuously posted and 

understandable to customers. When taximeters are used, the rates for distances traveled and any extras must

be posted as well. 

Background: The SWMA asked the NCWM to consider a proposal to modify NCWM Publication 3 “Policy,

Interpretations, and Guidelines” to include an interpretation in Section 3, Subsection 5 specifying that odometers are not

suitable equipment for use in transporting passengers and charging on a “distance traveled” basis. 

S&T - 68 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

The Committee concurred with the SWMA that the charging of passengers based on an odometer reading is inappropriate 

and does not comply with paragraph G-UR.1.1. Suitability of Equipment. The Committee recommends using paragraph 

G-UR.1.1. as a basis to prohibit odometers from being used to charge passengers for distance fares.

The policy in the recommendation above was developed by SWMA and assist weights and measures officials in requiring 

taximeters to be used in charging passengers on a distance traveled basis when hiring a vehicle and clarifies that the driver 

is to transport the passengers at a predetermined rate or rates. 

The Committee recognizes that individuals or small taxi companies that operate in less populated or rural communities 

might obtain all necessary operating permits and licenses from the local government yet begin operations using vehicle

odometers, rather than taximeters, as the basis for charging passengers. Local law enforcement agencies (e.g., local 

police or sheriff’s departments) that are involved in the permitting process, but not the inspection of the measuring

devices, see no problem in using odometers if they are accurate and demand something written specifically to address the 

issue before they will offer assistance in obtaining compliance. The Odometer Code and Taximeter Code does not

directly address this suitability issue therefore, it must be explained through interpretations such as the one in this 

proposal. An NCWM endorsed interpretation would be of valuable assistance in obtaining compliance. 

The Committee recognizes that NCWM Publication 3 has not been published or updated since 1991, although there have

been many changes to Handbook 44 that justify additional interpretations and policies. Currently, weights and measures

officials must rely on and reference the NCWM Standing Committee Final Reports for help in interpreting many

provisions found in the codes. NIST Handbook 130 now contains the interpretations, policies, and guidelines related to 

Laws and Regulations issues, which are presumably kept up to date with each new edition unlike Handbook 44. The 

Committee acknowledges there is no plan for any working group, technical committee, or organization to publish the 

policy in a procedural document. However, the weights and measures community needs to reference policy that clearly

specifies that odometers are not suitable for determining distance fares when transporting passengers. 

The Committee has heard only comments in favor of this policy. Consequently, the Committee and the submitter of this

proposal believes that the proposed policy is a good start to address the suitability issues that arise when odometers are

used to charge passengers for distance fares. The Committee also encourages the SWMA and other weights and measures 

communities facing similar suitability issues to develop language for the Odometer and Taximeter Codes to further 

remedy this situation. The Committee recommended a change in the proposal’s status from developing item to a voting

item at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

__________________________________

Richard W. Wotthlie, Maryland, Chairman

Clark Cooney, Oregon 

Jack Kane, Montana 

Michael J. Sikula, New York 

Craig Van Buren, Michigan 

Ted Kingsbury, Canada, Technical Advisor 

Richard Suiter, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Juana Williams, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

S&T - 69 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix A 

 

Prescription Scales – Counting Feature Test and Other Procedures

(Item 320-2) 

(The following information was excerpted from the 2003 Final Report of the S&T Committee for the Western Weights 

and Measures Association. The procedures included in this information are provided as background information on the 

proposal adopted by the 2003 NCWM to recognize the counting feature on Class I and Class II Prescription Scales. The 

procedures have not been evaluated to determine if they are appropriate for verification of the counting feature. The 

Committee did not modify the format of the procedures to correspond to existing handbook test notes, type evaluation 

checklists criteria, or examination procedure outlines (EPO). The Committee developed a test procedure for the field

verification of the counting feature (see Item 320-2). 

I - Calculating Piece Weight 

How to Perform Piece Counting with Reference Weight Calculated by the Prescription Scale 

1. Zero the scale 

2. Place reference (appropriate sample) number of pieces on scale pan. 

3. Input reference quantity data into Prescription scale 

4. Prescription scale waits for the weight to become stable 

5. Prescription scale calculates reference weight (reference weight = current weight on scale divided by selected 

reference quantity 

6. Scale stores the calculated reference weight and reference quantity 

7. Scale switches to a count display with the current quantity displayed

8. Scale is now ready to continue counting – indicated number of pieces = current weight divided by reference

weight

Reference Weight Optimizing Program

(Optional algorithm for counting feature described above) 

When you place a number of pieces on the pan, which is at least three pieces higher than the reference count of pieces, the 

new reference weight is being recalculated and stored together with this higher reference count. The prescription scale

could confirm this by some type of symbol located on the display. 

Weight

[g] 

Calculation

[pieces] 

Display 

[pieces] 

Reference-weight 

[g/pieces] 

Reference-count 

[pieces] 

New

Reference 

Weight

Start 5.123 5 5 1.024 6 5 Yes

1. count 25.500 24.888 25 1.020 0 25 Yes 

2. count 26.450 25.931 26 1.020 0 25 No 

3. count 50.700 49.706 50 1.014 0 50 Yes 

4. count 30.050 29.635 30 1.014 0 50 No 

II – Specifications for Prescription Scales Equipped with a Counting Feature 

Recommended Prescription Scale Characteristics 

• The scales should be Accuracy Class I or II 

• Counting mode must be evident on display 

• Scale display must be able to differentiate between counting and weighing

• Scale capacity would range from 310 g to 620 g

• Suggested scale divisions of d=0.001 g, e=0.01 g 

• Scale is equipped with a zero count indicator 

• Scale is equipped with zero-count setting capability 

• Verification resolution 0.010 g

S&T - A1 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

• Linearity +/- 0.001 5 g 

• Reproducibility +/- 0.001 g

III - Test Methods to Determine the Prescription Scale’s Performance 

Scope 

The following guidelines are proposed for testing potential prescription scale equipped with a counting feature to ensure

counting accuracy. These procedures describe the tests to be used in determining various parameters of a prescription

counting scale. 

The prescription counting scale test procedures determine: 

a) The precision of determining mean piece weight, 

b) The minimum and maximum mean piece weights, 

c) The minimum weight and minimum piece count that may be used to determine mean piece weight, 

d) The linearity in determining accurate mean piece weight throughout the prescription scale weight range, 

e) The linearity and accuracy of determining mean piece weight given a range of pill quantities, 

f) The percent of a pill required for indicating the next pill quantity. 

Recommended Method for Determining Prescription Scale Accuracy During Counting Function

The following test plan should be carried out to approximate most of these values. The resolution and accuracy internal 

to the device cannot be determined; however, these tests may identify significance or a means to approximate the internal 

resolution. 

Assumptions 

a. Tests must be performed in a laboratory setting to minimize external influences. An assumption must be made 

that the scales are Class I or II balances and testing must be performed under suitable Class I scale conditions 

that is, free from temperature fluctuations, vibration, draft, calibration, warm-up, level, and free from static or

other electro-magnetic sources. Use ASTM E 617 Class 2 (OIML R 111 Class F1) or better calibrated weights,

proper weight handling conditions, and ensure weight cleanliness. 

b. Tests will be performed on at least two of each scale device. Testing on a third device will be required should

significant variations be noted on any one scale of the same class. 

c. Class 2 or better (Class 1 preferred during calibration) test weights will be used during testing. Clean and air dry

all test weights using an approved method. If unable to determine Class the appropriate 1/2 weight cleaning 

procedure, assume that the use of denatured alcohol is an approved solvent for cleaning that will result in no

residue on weights.

d. Perform all tests using the same test weight set. 

e. Preference is for the same operator and same environmental setting be used to perform all like tests. Preference 

is for all like devices to be tested at the same time or as close as possible. 

f. Each test defined below should be performed without interruption in time or concentration. After the test is 

performed, the same test should be repeated on the second device immediately thereafter. If necessary, a third 

device should be tested. This is to ensure repeatability under the same or similar conditions. 

g. All tests will be performed a minimum of 5 times or as stated in NTEP testing procedures if an equivalent test

exists. 

h. All test results must be recorded when performed. All exceptions, retries or retesting, significant pauses in

testing and aborted tests or scale recalibrations must be noted before, during and after test. Time should be

recorded at the beginning and completion of each major test. 

i. Once testing begins, absolutely no recalibration of the scale may occur throughout the entire test sequence. 

(Should recalibration be needed during the testing; the entire testing must be aborted and properly documented

and testing restarted at the beginning.) 

1. Calibrate scale using approximately two-thirds total load of scale 

2. Verify scale calibration conforms to Class I or II (NIST Handbook 44 Table 6)

i. Verify by approaching calibration weight from below and above as defined in NTEP testing procedures. 

3. Verify linearity across entire range (per NTEP) 

4. Verify corner load (per NTEP) 

S&T - A2 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

5. Verify calibration every hour while testing. If greater than +/-0.001 g error; calibration error must be

sufficiently explained before resumption of testing. All tests to last known good calibration must be

repeated; with original test results also noted.

6. Record all results. 

j. Record all results within a spreadsheet. Use formulas wherever possible. Record all significant digits. Display

in fixed format. Display all calculated values to 6 significant digits. Note any formula or calculation that uses a

rounded or truncated value. Test results sheets should also contain other good laboratory practices background

data. (e.g., Time, date, who, SN,)

k. Before starting the tests defined below, perform the following NTEP tests. These tests must be performed daily

before testing starts. Use a single test weight nearest the two-thirds total load. (or larger if required) 

1. Verify calibration using approximately two-thirds total load of scale. 

2. Verify return to zero after each test above. Tare as needed. Do not continue testing if repeatability of zero 

is unreliable (e.g., must repeatedly tare for zero values greater than +/- 0.001 g.) 

3. Verify linearity across entire range (per NTEP) accuracy and repeatability. 

4. Verify corner load (per NTEP). For each test, Record the actual test weight, displayed value, note

fluctuations in display as comments. Calculate error, percent error in spreadsheet 

5. Record all results. 

6. Steps 1 and 2 must be performed at the beginning and completion of each test phase to insure test reliability. 

l. If a test range of values requested for N are not specified, where N is the ...... Assume 5, 10, 30, 100, 200 or 

some N to match test weight specified) these represent minimum scale reference quantities and typical in-use 

values for reference quantities. The maximum N may need to be determined based on the test being performed

and the test weight specified. 

m. If a test range of values request for test weights is not specified. Assume 0.020 g, 0.030 g, 0.300 g, 0.400 g,

1.000 g and 10.000 g. These values represent the smallest drug weights, average and median drug weights and

upper end and maximum drug weights)

1. Scale communication interface minimum piece weight. All tests for this section assume communication 

with the scale CPU from a computer or via the RS-232 interface. The recorded value should be to the

highest resolution accepted by the scale. (Repeat once) 

i. What is the highest resolution value accepted by the scale? (00.123 45...9... g)

ii. What is the minimum acceptable piece weight accepted by the scale via the RS-232 interface? (in 

xx.xxxxx grams format)

iii. What is the maximum acceptable piece weight accepted by the scale via the RS-232 interface?

iv. What is the highest resolution value returned by the scale?

v. What is the resolution recorded in the library? (00.123 4 g)

2. Scale calculated minimum piece weight. All tests for this section assume the scale is performing the piece 

weight calculation. (e.g., An operator places N pieces on the scale and the scale calculates by total weight / 

N = piece weight.) Determine by using the same reference weight(s) and adjusting N. (Note: Reference

weight must be greater than scale minimum weight. Preferably 2x to 5x minimum scale weight.) (Repeat 

once)

i. What is the maximum resolution piece weight value returned by the scale?

ii. What is the minimum number of reference pieces accepted for determining reference weight? 

iii. What is the minimum piece weight that will be calculated by the scale?

1) Does this vary by the number of pieces? (i.e., Changes in N) 

iv. What is the minimum total weight that the scale will calculate a piece weight? 

1) Does this vary by the number of pieces? (i.e., Changes in N) 

v. Record the following

1) Actual weight used

2) Reference quantity set (N) 

3) Scales calculated reference piece weight (ActPcWt) 

4) Theoretical reference piece weight (TPcWt) 

5) Error (TPcWt – ActPcWt)

6) Percent error = (TPcWt – ActPcWt) / TPcWt * 100) 

3. Scale accuracy in determining piece weight. These tests are to determine the scales algorithm in piece

weight calculation. Testing assumes use of test weights as a quantity. Where practical, use nearest whole 

test weight. Otherwise use as few weights as possible. 

i. What is the accuracy of the scale determining piece weight?

ii. Does the accuracy change by changes in N?

S&T - A3 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

iii. Repeat for N = 5, 10, 30, 60, 100 and 200 using a 5.000g test weight. 

iv. Does the accuracy change by changes in total weight?

v. Repeat for approximate piece weight (after scale calculation) to be near 0.020 g, 0.030 g, 0.300 g,

0.400 g, 1.000 g, and 10.0 g with a count in the 60 to 180 range. (i.e., 2.000 g, 5.000 g, 20.000 g,

50.000 g, 100.000 g, and 200.000 g test weights)

vi. Use single reference weight nearest 25 % of total load capacity. 

a) Adjust N as required to achieve average pill pc.weight (0.300 g – 0.400 g). (Example 310.000 g *

0.25; locate nearest single reference weight. Nearest Single Reference Weight / 0.300 = N) 

b) Repeat for 50 % and 90 % of total load capacity by estimating N and then immediately finding N 

c) Record the following 

i) Actual weight used

ii) Reference quantity set (N) 

iii) Scales calculated reference piece weight (ActPcWt) 

iv) Theoretical reference piece weight (T.PcWt) 

v) Error (TPcWt – ActPcWt)

vi) Percent error = (TPcWt – ActPcWt) / TPcWt * 100) 

4. Next pill tests. These tests are to determine the counting algorithm used within the devices 

i. What percent of a piece weight is required to generate the next count? (i.e. N+1) 

ii. Does this vary by piece weight value?

iii. Does this vary by count?

iv. Does this vary by scale settings? 

v. Perform tests at approximately 25, 50, 75 and 90 % of total load 

vi. Choose nearest whole weight (W1) 

vii. Perform test with N = 30 and 100 

viii. Scale to calculate reference piece weight 

ix. Place test weight on scale 

x. Extract and Record scales reference piece weight. (PcWt)

xi. Record calculated piece weight. (W1 / N) 

xii. Add test weight(s) in 0.001 g increments (or using binary search procedure) until N+1 value is reached. 

xiii. Record total weight (and individual test weights) to nearest 0.001 g (W2) (proper protocol must be 

followed in approaching the N+1 count. Follow NTEP test procedures for slowly adding test weights in

a reliable, predictable fashion. If the >0.001 g added and N+1 event occurs, sufficient test weights must

be removed to reliable predict weight required for N+1 threshold. Do not drop weight onto scale pan. 

Do not touch scale pan when placing weight on scale. Do not touch scale pan when removing weight. 

Do not press on scale pan when removing weight.)

xiv. Add test weight(s) in 0.001 g increments (or using binary search procedure) until N+2 value is reached. 

(W3)

xv. Record total weight (and specify individual test weights used) to nearest 0.001 g

xvi. Calculate and Record percent of piece weight required

a) (W2 – W1) / PcWt * 100 % 

b) ((W3 – ((W3-W2)/2)) / PcWt * 100 % 

c) Note: both values calculated in i) and ii) above should be identical 

d) (W3-W2) = PcWt ???

xvii. Once weights required for N+2 and N+1 are known; start with weight for N+2 + (PcWt / 2)

a) Remove weights in 0.001 g increments (or using binary search) until N+1threshold reached.

b) Record total weight (W4)

c) Remove weights in 0.001 g increment until N reached 

d) Record total weight (W5)

xviii.Calculate and record percent of pieces required 

a) W4 – W3 = difference for N+2 event 

b) W5 – W2 = difference for N+1 event 

c) W5 – W4 = PcWt ???

5. Counting accuracy based on known piece weight. These tests are to determine the linearity and accuracy of 

counting by using known weights and programmed piece weights. 

i. Perform tests with piece weight set to 0.020 g, 0.030 g, and 0.050 1 g 

ii. Test at 20x, 50x, 100x, 150x, 200x counts. 

iii. Record 

a) Actual total weight required

S&T - A4 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

b) Specific test weight(s) used, 

c) N 

d) Expected total weight, 

e) Error in weight

f) Percent error 

iv. For 0.0501 g piece weight, test using 100.000 g weight (W1) 

a) Set piece weight to 0.0501 g 

b) Place the 100.000 g weight on scale 

c) Record count (N)

d) Add weight(s) in 0.001 g increments until N+1 count reached (W2) 

e) Record 

1) Actual total weight added,

2) Specific test weight(s) used, 

3) Error in weight

4) Percent error ((calculated weight needed for N+1 – actual weight) / calculated weight needed

for N+1)

f) Continue adding weight in 0.001 g increments until N+2 count reached (W3) 

g) Record 

1) Actual total weight added,

2) specific test weight(s) used, 

3) Error in weight

4) Percent error ((calculated weight needed for N+1 – actual weight) / calculated weight needed

for N+1)

h) Calculate the following

1) W4 = W2+(W3-W2)/2 (represents N+1) 

i) Repeat test above using 200.000 g weight

IV - Test Methods to Determine the Performance of the Counting Feature 

Verifying Accuracy of a Counting Scale

A counting scale calibration assumes the following parameters are available when operating in the piece counting mode. 

D(i) Internal scale resolution used during counting. D(i) will be higher resolution than e and d

parameters currently on the weighing scale. 

PcWt(min) Minimum mean article weight. PcWt(min) should follow normal distribution curves. 

Class (count) Counting accuracy class. Class (count) determines the percent accuracy of the counting feature. 

Ideally, Class (count) should mimic the weighing Class I, II, III.

In addition, these parameters may be needed internal to a counting scale: 

PCs (min) Minimum number of pieces allowed to establish PcWt. The PCs (min) is determined by the article

type being counted. To some degree, the PCs (min) are established by the Normal Distribution of

the article being counted. 

CNT (min) PcWt (min) / D(i) = minimum number of scale intervals ( D(i) ) between each article counted. 

Because article counting depends directly on the weight capacity, resolution, and mathematical routines internal to an 

electronic digital scale, no absolute counting calibration should be necessary or possible. The counting scale will support 

a method of establishing an article reference weight by either calculation based on an expected quantity or by direct entry

(either manually or via a computer interface). However, a means must be provided to verify counting calibration based

on an article reference weight. 

S&T - A5 
S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Counting Scale – Verification of Counting 

Two alternative methods will be available to the scale manufacturer to demonstrate counting accuracy. 

y Method #1 - Using a first test weight and a selected quantity to establish the article reference weight. And a 

second test weight to verify the count accuracy within the Class (count) tolerance.

y Method #2 - Counting scale retrieves a known (and published) article reference weight and a test weight to

verify the count accuracy within the Class (count) tolerance. 

Both methods assume the scale weighing calibration has been performed and the article reference weight (determined or

pre-programmed) is typical for the intended application. The article reference weight must also be selected to result in the 

use of test weights typical for the Class of scale being used. The test weight value should be an even multiple of the

article reference weight to simplify verification by using a singular test weight. 

Method #1 – Using a Reference Quantity to Verify Counting Accuracy

This method assumes a known (published) reference quantity and a test weight will be used to establish the article

reference weight and then this established article reference weight is used to verify the count accuracy to within the 

specified Class (count) accuracy. 

The advantage to this method is that any test weight set for the Class scale may be used to verify proper operation of the

counting scale. The operator selects two test weights that are X and 10X to 100X values within the published scale

weighing range and greater than the PcWt(min). 

The counting scale may support multiple quantities for the operator to select from in establishing the individual reference

weight value. These quantities allow the scale to calculate an article reference weight based on a theoretical sample size 

of N articles. 

Determining the Test Weights Needed: 

1. Determine the article quantity to be used for establishing the reference weight. (N) 

2. Calculate a test weight #1 (TW1) that is above the PcWt(min) and typical for the articles counted. 

(Example: PcWt(min) * N < test weight #1(TW1)) 

3. Calculate a test weight #2 (TW2) that is 10X to 100X the test weight #1. 

Establishing the Article Weight: 

4. Place the scale in the counting mode. 

5. Place the scale in the mode used to establish article reference weights for the quantity of articles (N). 

6. Following the scale manufacturer’s direction, place the TW1 on the scale to establish the article reference 

weight. (Ref.Weight = TW1 / N) 

7. Wait for the scale to indicate that the article reference weight calculation is complete. 

8. Verify the quantity displayed. 

Verify the Counting Accuracy Using the Established Article Reference Weight: 

9. Zero the count display.

10. Place test weight #2 (TW2) on the counting scale. 

11. Verify the quantity display is 10 to 100 articles (as previously calculated) are within the Class (count) 

tolerance. 

A scale manufacturer may choose to publish the calculated article reference weight, N, TW1, TW2 and tolerance 

range values and procedures to simplify the verification task. A table of calculated article reference weights, N,

TW1, TW2 and tolerance range values may be published for scales with multiple weighing ranges (and therefore 

counting ranges and corresponding tolerances). 

S&T - A6 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Calculated article 

reference weight 

N Test Weight #1

(TW1) 

Test Weight #2 

± (TW2)

Expected Count and 

acceptable Tolerance 

0.020 10 0.200 gram 20.000 gram 100 ± x 

0.100 10 1.000 gram 100.000 gram 100 ± x 

0.100 10 1.000 gram 300.000 gram 300 ± y 

0.300 10 3.000 gram 300.000 gram 100 ± x 

Method #2 – Using a Reference Article Weight to Verify Counting Accuracy 

This method assumes a pre-programmed, known and published article reference weight will be used to verify the count 

accuracy to within the specified Class (count) accuracy. The pre-programmed article reference weight should be typical 

for the articles being counted. The operator may be able to select from a list of article reference weights or program a 

specific article reference weight. 

Determining the Test Weight Needed

1. Calculate the test weight needed to be in the 10X to 100X range of the article reference weight. Preprogrammed article reference weight * 100 = test weight #1(TW1). 

Verify the Counting Accuracy Using the Established Article Reference Weight

2. Zero the count display.

3. Place test weight #1 (TW1) on the counting scale. 

4. Verify the quantity display is 10 to 100 articles (as previously calculated) are within the Class (count) 

tolerance. 

A scale manufacturer may choose to publish the article reference weight, TW1 and tolerance range values and procedures

to simplify the verification task. A table of article reference weights, TW1 and tolerance range values may be published

for scales with multiple weighing ranges (and therefore counting ranges and corresponding tolerances).

Article 

Reference 

weight

Test Weight #1 

(TW1) 

Expected Count and 

acceptable Tolerance 

0.020 20.000 gram 100 ± x 

0.100 100.000 gram 100 ± x 

0.100 300.000 gram 300 ± y 

0.300 300.000 gram 100 ± x 

S&T - A7 
 S&T Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix B 

Developing Items (Item 360-3) 

Part 1, Developing Items - Scales 

Part 1, Item 1 N.1.3.4.X. Weight Carts

Discussion: The status of this proposal was changed to an information item and now appears as Item 320-11. 

Part 1, Item 2 T.N.3.X. Vehicle Scales Equipped Only With Weighbeam and Used to Weigh Aggregate 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: Add new paragraph T.N.3.X. to the Scales Code as follows: 

T.N.3.X. Vehicle Scales Equipped Only With Weighbeam and Used to Weigh Aggregate. - The minimum 

tolerance applied to vehicle scales equipped only with a weighbeam and used solely to weigh aggregate 

products shall be 100 lb. 

Discussion: The CWMA requested input on this proposal to increase the tolerances for vehicle scales equipped with only 

a weighbeam and used to weigh aggregate. 

The Committee heard numerous comments that the proposal has no technical merit and the scale tolerances should not be

modified to accommodate equipment that is not able to maintain NIST Handbook 44 tolerances and other technical 

requirements. Consequently the Committee recommends the CWMA withdraw this item from its agenda. 

The Committee recognizes the economic challenges faced by industry. The Committee believes the existing tolerances 

were not intended to be burdensome to either the scale user or customer that purchases a commodity that is weighed on

the scale. The Committee can find no technical justification for modifying current Handbook 44 tolerances. Therefore,

the Committee is withdrawing this item.

Part 2, Developing Items – Vehicle-Tank Meters 

Part 2, Item 1 N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems), N.4.5. Product Depletion Test, and T.5.

Product Depletion Test 

Discussion: The status of this proposal was changed to an information item and now appears as Item 331-6. 

Part 3, Developing Items – Other Items 

Part 3, Item 1 Update NCWM Publication 3, National Conference on Weights and Measures Policy,

Interpretations, and Guidelines; Taximeters vs. Odometers Used for Transporting Fare Paying

Passengers 

Discussion: The status of this proposal was changed to a voting item and now appears as Item 360-4. 

S&T - B1
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report 

Report of the Committee on 

Administration and Public Affairs 

Steve Hadder, Chairman 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Tallahassee, Florida 

Reference 

Key Number 

400 Introduction 

The Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P Committee) submits its Annual Report for the 88th Annual

Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Report consists of the Interim Report presented in

NCWM Publication 16, "Committee Reports," as amended in the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual Meeting. 

The Committee considered communications it received prior to and during the Annual Meeting in developing this report. 

Table A identifies items contained in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Presented below is a list of informational items, which are 

indicated by an I. Table B lists the Appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting 

on the report in its entirety. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference Title of Item Page 

Key Number 

400 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................1

401 Program Management..............................................................................................................................................2

401-1 I Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment (VQAA).....................................................................................2

401-2 I Safety Information ........................................................................................................................................2

401-3 I NCWM Internet Home Page.........................................................................................................................3

401-4 I E-Commerce .................................................................................................................................................3

402 Education ...................................................................................................................................................................4

402-1 I National Training Program ...........................................................................................................................4

402-2 I Associate Membership Training Funds ........................................................................................................4

402-3 I NCWM Training...........................................................................................................................................5

402-4 I Education Sessions – 2003 Conference ........................................................................................................5

403 Public Affairs.............................................................................................................................................................5

403-1 I Weights and Measures Week........................................................................................................................5

A&P - 1 
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Page 

A AMC Training Funds Report........................................................................................................................A1

B National Training Curriculum Outline (Draft) .............................................................................................B1

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State 

Representatives 

House of Delegates Reference Key Number

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Results 

400 (Report in Its Entirety) 

Voice Vote All No All No Passed

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

401 Program Management 

401-1 I Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment (VQAA) 

The A&P Committee reviewed checklists submitted for evaluation through January 2003. Reviewer evaluation letters 

were prepared and sent to the appropriate state directors. At this time the Committee decided not to develop further

checklists. The checklists are available on the NCWM website, and regional associations are encouraged to place the

checklists on their websites. 

The A&P Committee expressed concern that more jurisdictions are not participating in the VQAA Program. Jurisdictions

are encouraged to participate in the confidential assessment and view participation as an opportunity to improve their 

programs, rather than to use it as a report card of deficiencies. 

401-2 I Safety Information 

The NCWM Safety Liaison had not received any safety reports as of the 88th NCWM Annual Meeting, July 2003. Safety

reports should continue to be submitted to the Regional Safety Liaisons. 

The Regional Safety Liaisons are as follows: 

A&P - 2 
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report 

Western Weights and Measures Association:

Craig Leisy 

Supervisor Weights and Measures 

Seattle Licenses and Consumer Affairs 

805 South Dearborn Street

Seattle, WA 98134

Tel: 206-386-1129

Fax: 312-386-1129

Email: craig.leisy@ci.seattle.wa.us

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association:

Michael J. Sikula 

Assistant Director 

New York Bureau of Weights and Measures

Building 7A State Campus 

Albany, NY 12235-0001

Tel: 518-457-3452

Fax: 518-457-2552

Email: mike.sikula@agmkt.state.ny.us

Central Weights and Measures Association:

Agatha Shields 

Inspector 

Franklin County Weights and Measures 

373 S. High Street, Auditor’s Office 

Columbus, OH 43215-7380

Tel: 614-462-7380

Fax: 614-462-3111

Email: aashield@co.franklin.oh.us

Southern Weights and Measures Association:

Steve Hadder, Trainer/Investigator 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services 

3125 Connor Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2634 

Tel: 850-487-2634

Fax: 850-922-6655

Email: hadders@doacs.state.fl.us

401-3 I NCWM Internet Home Page 

The A&P Committee will continue to use the NCWM Internet website to disburse pertinent information to the weights 

and measures community. At the Interim Meeting the Committee discussed how the NCWM website (www.ncwm.net) 

can better serve weights and measures programs. The Committee recommends the Board of Directors approve the

following for posting to the NCWM website: 

1. List the topics available in the “Members Only” section on the main page to let non-members know the benefits 

of membership.

2. List the participants of Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment on the NCWM Internet website to show

appreciation for participation and encourage other jurisdictions to participate. 

3. Make forms that are available on the NCWM website interactive. 

4. Place the Associate Membership Committee application for training funds and AMC time line on the NCWM

website. 

5. Place the results of 2002 “Surf” Day on the website under the “Members Only” section. 

6. Add a “New flash/hot item” section on the Home Page (including list of suggested activities) to advertise W&M 

Week or other important events. 

401-4 I E-Commerce 

Source: WWMA A&P Committee 

Discussion: Jerry Buendel announced the results of a study conducted by Washington State during Weights and

Measures Week 2002. Washington inspectors visited 32 websites and found 55 violations. Washington sent letters to the 

violators asking them to correct the deficiencies. In September 2002 the sites were revisited. Eight of the sites were no

longer operational. Four items among the other sites were corrected leaving 37 sites that took no action to make

corrections. The Committee members recommended these results be forwarded to NCWM for discussion with Federal 

Trade Commission officials. 

A&P - 3 
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report

Decision: The A&P Committee decided that Internet violations (e.g., package labeling violations) are definitely a

problem. With the increase in e-commerce sales expected in the future, it is recommended that those jurisdictions that

participate in surfing for violations contact the internet company that is in violation and the state director of the state in

which the company resides. 

It is recommended that a “surf” day be conducted during future Weights and Measures Weeks and that the results be

forwarded to Lynn Sebring (lynn.sebring@nist.gov, 100 Bureau Drive STOP 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600, or 

fax: 301-926-0647). 

The Committee recommends that the results of the “surf” days be posted on the NCWM website. 

402 Education 

402-1 I National Training Program 

Source: NCWM Board of Directors 

The A&P Committee met with NCWM Chairman Ross Andersen, who explained his vision for revising the National

Training Program. Mr. Andersen’s vision includes a horizontal, hierarchical approach to training, filtering out the 

common elements of general information applicable to a wide range of devices and including the most detailed 

information in courses for specific devices. The A&P Committee presented a draft of a National Training Curriculum 

Outline, which is appended to the A&P Committee final report as Appendix B. 

After hearing concerns from the floor concerning completion of the direction of the proposed plan, Chairman-Elect

Dennis Ehrhart assured the A&P Committee of his support to “do whatever it takes” to complete the revised training 

program initiated by Chairman Ross Andersen. 

402-2 I Associate Membership Training Funds 

Source: Southern Weights & Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: The SWMA requested clarification of the second bullet of the time line for request and distribution

of Associate Membership Committee (AMC) training funds as set forth in the A&P Committee’s Report to the 87th

National Conference on Weights and Measures, 2002. The second bullet read as follows: 

“The AMC will notify the NCWM A&P Committee of the proposed amount when the BOD approval is given.” 

Background: At the SWMA meeting, an industry representative questioned why it was necessary for the A&P 

Committee to obtain Board approval on funds provided by the AMC for training purposes. Furthermore, since the AMC 

funds may be used in a broad sense for training purposes, a request for using the funds for other than training should be 

sent directly to the AMC for consideration.

Decision: The A&P Committee reviewed the questioned bullet and, based on clarification from the AMC, revised the

second bullet to read as follows: 

“The AMC will notify the NCWM A&P Committee of the proposed amount after review by the BOD.” 

At the Interim Meeting, the AMC notified the A&P Committee that $10,500 was available for distribution for fiscal year 

2002-2003. The NCWM A&P Committee reviewed applications received for requests of AMC training funds at the 

Interim Meeting and apportioned those requests based on need. Official notification of the grants was made by

January 31, 2003. 

The A&P Committee greatly appreciates the generosity of the AMC in making training funds available to the weights and

measures community and thanks the AMC for this significant contribution. The AMC Training Funds Report is included

in Appendix A. 

A&P - 4 
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report 

402-3 I NCWM Training 

Source: Western Weights & Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: The WWMA recommended that the NCWM should establish and maintain a database of classroom

training programs completed by individual weights and measures officials where the training used NCWM courses (or 

equivalent) and NIST-certified trainers. The NCWM should also issue certificates to individual weights and measures

officials for course completion. 

Discussion: The WWMA A&P Committee recognized the value of formal training for inspection staff and the credibility

these programs provide. Some jurisdictions have formal licensing programs for weights and measures staff, while others 

rely on informal and less well-documented programs. The WWMA A&P Committee recognized that NCWM is a logical

entity to provide standardized training and accreditation programs. 

Decision: The Board of Directors (BOD) directed the NCWM A&P Committee to develop a new training concept. As

that program is developed, the issues recommended by the WWMA will be considered. 

402-4 I Education Sessions – 2003 Conference 

Source: Central Weights & Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: The CWMA A&P Committee proposed that a technical session on the gas pump technology be

presented at 2003 Annual Meeting of the NCWM. 

Decision: Three technical sessions were presented at the 88th NCWM Annual Meeting. They were as follows: 

• Static Electricity: Staying Safe at the Pump – Cindy Gordon, American Petroleum Institute 

• Current OIML Opportunities and Their Importance – Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada & Dr. Charles Ehrlich, 

NIST Weights and Measures Division 

• Fair Measurement Act: What Will It Mean & How Can We Bring It About – Aves Thompson, Alaska Division 

of Measurement Standards/CVE 

403 Public Affairs 

403-1 I Weights and Measures Week 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: The WWMA A&P Committee proposed three topics as themes for Weights & Measures Week:

(1) “It’s All About Confidence” – This topic would emphasize the role weights and measures plays in assuring

consumers and businesses can conduct their transactions with confidence. 

(2) “Tare – Pay For The Goods Not For The Packaging” – This topic would alert consumers to be aware that they 

should only pay for the product. 

(3) “Get What You Sell For” – This topic would make the public aware of the need for accurate measurement when

dealing with recyclers and the role weights and measures plays in assuring scales are accurate. 

Additionally, the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) recommended the following topic at the 

88th Annual Meeting of the NCWM: 

(4) “Weights & Measures – Its Effect on our Daily Lives.” 

Discussion: The WWMA A&P Committee recognized the value of Weights and Measures Week in promoting consumer

awareness. Weights and Measures Week, March 1 through 7, provides members of the WWMA an opportunity to

publicize and promote these consumer protection topics and the role of weights and measures officials. Members are 

urged to submit topics for future Weights and Measures Weeks to the regional and national A&P Committees. 

A&P - 5 
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report

The theme for Weights and Measures Week 2003 is “Weights & Measures: Working for Integrity in the Marketplace.” 

In view of the current trend of questionable business practices, this theme can inspire public confidence in weights and

measures’ efforts to maintain integrity in the marketplace. The Committee discussed some activities for W&M Week and 

encourages the Board of Directors to add these to the NCWM website. 

The Committee also discussed the importance of educating children on the effect of weights and measures in their lives 

and how that knowledge can be applied in everyday situations. The A&P Committee will discuss themes for Weights & 

measures Week 2004 at the Annual Meeting and will offer several suggestions to the BOD for its consideration and final 

decision. 

 Steve Hadder, Florida, Chairman 

Celeste Bennett, Michigan 

Ken Deitzler, Pennsylvania 

Cato Fiksdal, Los Angeles County W&M, CA

Industry Representative: Chip Kloos, Colgate-Palmolive Company 

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York, Safety Liaison 

L. Sebring, NIST Technical Advisor 

Administration and Public Affairs Committee

A&P - 6 
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report 

A&P - A1 

Appendix A 

AMC Training Funds Report 2002-2003 

Jurisdiction Intended Use Amount 

Granted 

Ohio Videos and books for library $ 450 

Hawaii Metrologist training at NIST $ 800 

Massachusetts Room rental charges, course materials, and related expenses for training inspectors $ 1,000 

Idaho Inspector training on calibration of electronic LPG meters and registers $ 900 

Florida Purchase of LCD projector to benefit 80 inspectors for training $ 2,300 

Washington LPG training for 16 inspectors $ 1,000 

Wisconsin Purchase training aid equipment for W&M inspectors $ 250 

Illinois USDA/GIPSA training for 9 inspectors in livestock, vehicle & monorail scales $ 3,800 

Total AMC Funds Granted $10,500 
A&P Co

A&P - B1 

Appendix B 

National Training Curriculum Outline

(Draft) 

Weights & Measures 

General/State Policies 

Market Practices 

Laws and Regulations

NIST Handbook 130

General Devices 

NIST Handbook 44

Weights & Measures 

Administration 

• State Administrative Issues 

- Completion of administrative forms - Review of rules and policies 

• History 

• Roles in Society 

• Need for W&M 

• System of W&M 

• W&M in U.S. & Your State 

• Metrology 

• State Laws 

• Relationship to National & International 

W&M 

• Associations 

- Regional, State, Federal 

• Federal Agencies

Price Verification 

• Terminology 

• NIST H-130 Specifications 

& Requirements 

• Safety 

• Support Equipment 

• General Enforcement 

Guidelines

Test Purchases 

• Examination Specifications 

• EPO 

• Purchasing Process 

• Check for Validity of 

Purchase 

• Field/Practical Exercises

E-Commerce 

• Terminology 

• NIST H-130 Requirements 

& Specifications 

• Packaging & Labeling 

Regulations 

• Exemptions 

• Indirect Sale of Random 

Packages

Commodities General 

• Terminology 

• Wet/Dry Tare 

• NIST H-133 Specifications & Requirements 

• Uncertainty 

• Safety 

• Support Equipment 

• General Enforcement Guidelines

Standard Pack (wt) 

• Examination Specifications 

• Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipment - Examination - Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises

Random Pack (wt) 

• Examination Specifications 

• Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipment - Examination - Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises

Sale by Volume 

• Examination Specifications 

• Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipment - Examination - Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises

Sale by C

• Examination Spec

• Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipmen- Examination - Test Specificat- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Ex
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report 

A&P - B2 

General Devices NIST Handbook 44 

• Terminology 

• NIST Handbook 44 

• Fundamental Consideration 

• Uncertainty 

• Safety 

• Support Equipment 

• Seals 

• Supports 

• General Enforcement Guidelines

Weighing Devices 

• Terminology 

• Scale Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation/Markings 

• Scale Classes & Tolerances 

• Basic Scale Test Procedures 

• Basic Inspection

Measuring Devices 

• Terminology 

• Measuring Device Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation & Markings 

• Tolerances for LMDs 

• Basic LMD Test 

• Basic LMD Inspections

Other 

• Terminology 

• Other Device Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation & Markings 

• Tolerances for LMDs 

• Basic Test 

• Basic Inspections

Retail Computing 

Scales 

• Common traits 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• Test Equipment 

• Examination, 

Installation, & Maintenance 

• Test Specifications 

• Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises 

Platform 

• Common traits 

• EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, 

Installation, & Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Vehicle 

• Common traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, 

Installation, & Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises 

Railroad Track 

• Common traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, 

Installation, & Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Hopper 

• Common traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, 

Installation, & Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Point-of-Sale 

Scales

• Examination 

Specifications 

• User Requirements 

• Suitability 

• Test Equipment 

• Examination, 

Installation & Maintenance 

• Test Specifications 

• Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises 

Vehicle Scales –

Advanced 

• Initial Verification
A&P Co

A&P - B3 

Measuring Devices

Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispensers 

• Common Traits 

• Examination Specifications 

• Test Equipment 

• Examination, Installation & 

Maintenance 

• Test Specifications 

• Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises

Liquid Propane Gas Meters 

- Basic 

• Common Traits 

• EPO 

- Examination Specifications - User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises

Vehicle-Tank Meters 

• Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination Specifications - User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises 

Loading-Rack Meters - 

Basic 

• Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination Specifications - User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises 

Liquid Propane Gas 

Meters – Advanced 

• Initial Verification 

Vehicle-Tank Meters –

Advanced 

• Initial Verification 

Loading-Rack Meters –

Advanced 

• Initial Verification 

Water Meters 

• Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination Specifications - User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises

Mass Flow Meters 

• Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination Specifications - User Requirements - Suitability - Test Equipment - Examination, Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications - Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises

• C

• C

- - - - - - - 

• F
A&P Committee 2003 Final Report 

A&P - B4 

Weights & Measures Administration

Weights & Measures Administration 

• Understanding the Commercial Measurement System 

• Responsibilities of W&M Regulatory Official 

- Consumer Protection - Fair Competition - Facilitating Value Comparisons 

• Funding Considerations 

- Licensing of W&M Devices - Licensing of Service Agencies - Conflicts of Interest 

• Roles of Stakeholders 

- Manufacturers - Packagers - Retailers - Service Agencies 

• Powers & Duties of Officials 

- Weighmaster Considerations 

• Type Evaluation, Initial Verification & Subsequent 

Inspection 

- Economic Impact 

• Complete Scope of Weights & Measures Inspections 

• Concurrent Federal & State Jurisdiction 

• Federal Pre-emption 

• Organizational Structure 

• Budget 

• Personnel 

- Knowledge, Skills & Abilities - Training 

• Strategic Planning & Goals 

• Education 

- Officials - Administrative Staff - Public 

• Publicity 

• Public Relations 

• Communication 

• Record Keeping 

• Forms 

• Legal Considerations 

- Due Process - Stop Orders - Standards Development - Prosecution - Court 

Laboratory Metrology Administration 

• Purpose of the Laboratory 

• Responsibilities of the Metrologist 

• NIST Expectations of the Laboratory 

• Rationale for the Requirements for Recognition of the 

Laboratory 

• Important Considerations for Laboratory Operation 

• Factors Driving Changes in Laboratory Requirements 

• Quality System 

• NVLAP Accreditation 

• Hierarchy of Laboratory Standards 

• Calibration Intervals for All Standards 

• Annual RMAP Round Robins & Training 

• Laboratory Facility Requirements 

• Uncertainty Analysis 

• Management Review of Laboratory Operations 
A&P Co

A&P - B5 

Laboratory Metrology

Concepts - Basic 

• Introduction 

• Statistics 

• Uncertainty 

• Measurement Assurance 

• Standard Operating Procedures 

- Mass - Volume 

• Calibration 

• Calculations 

• Traceability 

Concepts – Advanced 

• Program Philosophy 

• New Technology 

• Calibration Design Concepts 

• Computerized Workshops 

• Statistics for Quality 

- T-tests - F-tests 

• Workshop on Errors 

• Advanced Uncertainties 

• Software Workshop 

• Integration of Advanced Concepts 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Report of the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee 

Louis Straub 

Chief 

Maryland Weights and Measures 

Reference 

Key Number 

500 Introduction

The NTEP Committee submits its Report for the 88th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This

consists of the Interim Report presented in NCWM Publication 16 as amended in the Addendum Sheets issued during the 

Annual Meeting that was held July 13-17, 2003, in Sparks, Nevada. The Committee considered communications received 

prior to and during the 88th Annual Meeting that are noted in this report. 

Table A, identifies all of the items contained in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The 

item numbers are those assigned in the Committee’s Interim Meeting Report. Voting items are indicated with a “V” or, if 

the item was part of the consent calendar, by the suffix “VC” after the item numbers. Items marked with an “I” after the 

reference key number are information items. An item marked with a “W” means that item has been withdrawn. Items

marked with a “W” generally will be referred to the regional weights and measures associations or other groups because 

they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or they do not have sufficient Committee support to bring 

them before the NCWM. 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.

The attached report may contain recommendations to revise or amend NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Procedures, 

Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures or other documents. Revisions proposed by Committee members are 

shown in bold face print by crossing out information to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items

proposed for addition to NCWM Publication 14 or other documents are designated as such and shown in bold face print. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference Title Page

Key No.

500 Introduction 

501-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Certificate Project............................................. 3 

501-2 I Test Data Exchange Agreements............................................................................................................... 3 

501-3 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by States............................................... 4 

501-4 I NTEP Policy: Challenges to a Certificate of Conformance and Verification that Production Meets 

Type........................................................................................................................................................... 5 

501-5 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports....................................................................... 5 

501-6 I NTETC Sectors Reports............................................................................................................................ 5 

501-7 I Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) and Near Infrared (NIR) Instruments Dual Certification – Can a 

Single Certificate be Issued? ..................................................................................................................... 7 

NTEP - 1 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

 

A NTEP Status by State 501-3 .................................... A1

B NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report 501-5 .................................... B1

C National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 501-6 .................................... C1

Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Sector

D National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 501-6 .................................... D1 

 Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer Sector

E National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 501-6 .....................................E1 

Measuring Sector Annual Meeting

F National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 501-6 .....................................F1 

Weighing Sector Annual Meeting

Table C 

Voting Results

House of Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Results

500 (Report in Its Entirety) 

Voice Vote All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed 

NTEP - 2 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

501-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Certificate Project 

Source: Carryover Item 501-1 

Background: This item was included on the Committee’s agenda to provide an update on NTEP’s work to issue OIML

R 60, “Metrological Regulation for Load Cells” and R 76, “Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments” certificates. 

OIML R 76 and R 60 Applications: During the 2003 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, Stephen Patoray, NTEP

Director, and Louis Straub, NTEP Committee Chairman, reported that NTEP received no new applications for R 76 or 

R 60 tests. The Committee believes that potential applicants for OIML Certificates are waiting for the results of

discussions on the Mutual Acceptance Arrangement and Checklists Document. 

OIML Certificate System: At the 2003 Annual Meeting, Dr. Ehrlich reported that the 2003 edition of the “OIML

Certificate System for Measuring Instruments” was published in April 2003 and is available for use. Most notably, the 

revised system contains new provisions such as definitions, requirements, test methods and test report formats regarding 

families, modules, and families of modules of measuring instruments. Please contact Dr. Ehrlich or visit the OIML

website at www.oiml.org to obtain a copy of the new document (designated P1). 

See the 2002 Final Report of the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee for additional background 

information. 

501-2 I Test Data Exchange Agreements 

Source: Carryover Item 501-2 

Background/Discussion: This item was included on the Committee’s agenda in 1998 to provide an update on NTEP’s

work to establish bilateral and multilateral agreements. Under such agreements and arrangements, manufacturers would 

be able to submit their equipment to any of the participating countries for testing to OIML-recommended requirements. 

The resulting test data would be accepted by other participants, as a basis for issuing each country’s own type approval

certificate. Following is a report on the three types of test data exchange agreements. 

Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA): At the 2003 Annual Meeting, Dr. Charles Ehrlich, NIST International Legal

Metrology Group, updated the Committee on the status of the MAA, which has moved from the OIML subcommittee 

level to the full International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML). Dr. Ehrlich reported that an International 

Workshop was held on June 2-3, 2003 in Paris to review and discuss the results of a straw vote on the 1st Draft Document

MAA and the associated Checklists Document that had been taken of the members of CIML. Only half of the CIML

members voted, but of those voting 80 % had voted “yes.” In order to achieve better consensus, the remaining key issues

were identified and discussed. These included a clarification of the Scope, who the participants should be, allowance of

additional requirements other than those in OIML Recommendations, and anticipated costs. The discussions were highly 

productive and a better mutual understanding and compromise was achieved. One item that was resolved was the issue of

peer review, including on-site assessments in lieu of laboratory accreditation. It is anticipated that the MAA and 

Checklists Document will be adopted by the CIML at its annual meeting in November 2003. Please contact Dr. Ehrlich

for further details. The MAA and Checklists documents can be downloaded from a specially-created WMD web site

(http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/ilmg/oiml_maa.htm). 

The NTEP Committee continues to closely follow the development of the MAA and encourages interested parties to 

provide comments to the Secretariat. See the 2002 Final Report of the NTEP Committee for additional background

information.

Bilateral Agreements: During the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, Stephen Patoray, NTEP Director, reported that there

was no additional information on possible bilateral agreements. NTEP is awaiting the outcome of the MAA deliberations

before further pursuing bilateral agreements. 

 

NTEP - 3 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

NTEP-Canada Mutual Recognition Program: At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, NTEP Director Stephen Patoray

and NTEP Chairman Louis Straub announced that Measurement Canada and the NTEP Participating Laboratories are 

ready to accept NTEP applications for retail motor-fuel dispensers.

See the 2002 Final Report of the NTEP Committee for additional background information. 

501-3 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by States 

Source: Carryover Item 501-3 

Background/Discussion: For many years, the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) has hosted NTEP adoption and 

implementation meetings for state directors at each regional weights and measures association conference. These 

meetings enable jurisdictions to share information about adopting and implementing NTEP in their respective 

jurisdictions, encourage non-NTEP jurisdictions to adopt the regulation, and allow current NTEP jurisdictions to share

ideas on how to make enforcement more effective and uniform among the States. The meetings also provide NTEP

management with information related to areas in which the operation and implementation of the program can be

improved. Several questions have been posed at these meetings about issues associated with NTEP interpretation or 

practice. Comments from 1997 to 2002 have been summarized, without attribution, and are available for review and

download on the SMA web site at http://www.scalemanufacturers.org. 

At the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, the SMA reported that it was developing two new standards for weighing devices. 

The first standard was to define a uniform procedure to access the parameter and calibration counters for Category 1 and

2 scale sealing methods and the event loggers in the Category 3 scale sealing method. Specific requirements for the 

software sealing methods are contained in NIST Handbook 44 paragraph G-S.8. Provision for Adjusting Electronic

Adjustable Components. At the 2003 Interim Meeting, Daryl Tonini, SMA, announced that the SMA standard for

software sealing had been finalized and was available on the SMA web site for manufacturers interested in voluntarily

using a standard method of accessing audit trail information and for weights and measures officials interested in ongoing

efforts to standardize audit trail access information. The second SMA standard, updating RFI/EMI field test procedures

to reflect current technology, was withdrawn. 

SMA upgraded the standard titled Recommendation on Electrical Disturbances (SMA RED-0499) from “provisional” to

“full” status and developed a new standard titled Vehicle Scale Characterization. The Vehicle Scale Characterization

standard provides criteria for characterizing the service life of a vehicle scale based on the concentrated load capacity 

(CLC) rating of the platform. Potential scale owners and operators can use this knowledge to select the proper vehicle

scale for a given application. The final versions of the Vehicle Scale Characterization and the Recommendation on

Electrical Disturbances standards are available on the SMA web site. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, Daryl Tonini, SMA, updated the NTEP Committee on the status of SMA's drive to

assist States to adopt the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation (URNTE) and the Uniform Regulation for the 

Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies (VRR). It was reported that the Kentucky URNTE and

VRR were adopted and became effective on July 1, 2003. Additionally, Michigan completed work on its weights and 

measures regulation to adopt the URNTE and VRR. SMA also provided the Committee with a copy of the United States 

map depicting state adoption of the URNTE and VRR. An updated copy of this map (April 2003) has been included as 

Appendix A of the Final Report of the NTEP Committee. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, Louis Straub announced that the Maryland Department of Agriculture Weights and

Measures Section submitted a regulation package to adopt a voluntary registered service agency registration program 

partially based upon the NCWM VRR standard. 

See the 2002 Final Report of the NTEP Committee for additional background information. 

NTEP - 4 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

501-4 I NTEP Policy: Challenges to a Certificate of Conformance and Verification that 

Production Meets Type 

Source: Carryover Item 501-4 

Background: This item has been moved to the NCWM Board of Directors Interim Agenda. See the 2002 Final Report

of the National Type Evaluation Program Committee for additional background information. 

501-5 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports 

Source: Carryover Item 501-5 

Background: NTEP Director Stephen Patoray provided the Committee with a report of the NTEP laboratory and 

administrative activities from October 1, 2001 to June 2003. Mr. Patoray reported that the number of NTEP applications

to date is in line with projected numbers. A report of NTEP Laboratory Activities was distributed to the NTEP 

Committee at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting and is included in the Final Report of the NTEP Committee in

Appendix B. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Patoray reported that a policy to expedite the process for issuing a CC after a 

device completes a successful evaluation went into effect on January 1, 2003, for NTEP applicants that desire the

expedited CC process. The optional NTEP process is in response to concerns from manufacturers that the delay between

the date an evaluation was completed and the date CC numbers were assigned would hold up production and distribution 

of devices. In summary, the plan requires an applicant and NTEP to agree upon the testing to be performed and the

contents of a draft CC prior to the start of an evaluation. The final CC and number would be ready for signature and

distribution at the conclusion of a successful evaluation. The plan was discussed at the 2002 National Type Evaluation 

Technical Committee (NTETC) Sectors and BOD meetings. 

At the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Patoray reported on an April 2003 joint meeting of the NTEP Weighing and

Measuring Laboratories and the Canadian Participating Laboratories in Sacramento, CA. The laboratories discussed 

several items including recommendations on mix-and-match components for liquid-measuring devices, updating the 

mutual recognition applications and checklists, and suggested “device types” to be listed on Certificates of Conformance 

(CC) for both weighing and measuring devices. Many of these items will be developed as proposals for consideration at

the 2003 meetings of the NTETC Weighing and Measuring Sectors. 

See the 2002 final report of the NTEP Committee for additional background information. 

501-6 I NTETC Sectors Reports 

Source: Carryover Item 501-6 

Background: The Committee received an update on the activities of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Sectors at the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting. Outlined below is a brief summary of Sector activities since the 

2002 NCWM Annual Meeting.

Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors: The NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein 

Analyzer Sectors held a joint meeting in Kansas City, MO on August 21-23, 2002. A summary of these joint meetings

was distributed to Sector members in October 2002. A draft of the final summary was provided to the Committee prior to

the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval. The Committee reviewed the draft and accepted the

recommendations from the Sectors. 

The next meeting of the Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors is scheduled for August 20-22, 2003, in

Kansas City, MO. For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please

contact the Sector Technical Advisors, Diane Lee, NIST WMD, or Jack Barber, J.B. Associates. Ms. Lee can be reached

by telephone at 301-975-4405, by fax at 301-926-0647, by e-mail at diane.lee@nist.gov, or in writing at NIST, 100

Bureau Drive - Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. Mr. Barber can be reached by telephone at 217-483-4232, by

fax at 217-483-3712, by e-mail at jbarber@cityscape.net, or in writing at J.B. Associates, 10349 Old Indian Trail, 

Glenarm, IL 62536. 

NTEP - 5 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Measuring Sector: The NTETC Measuring Sector met October 11-12, 2002, in Richmond, VA. A draft of the final

summary of that meeting was distributed to the Sector in January 2003. A draft of the final summary was also provided

to the NTEP Committee prior to the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval. The Committee reviewed 

the draft and accepted the recommendations of the Sector. 

The next meeting of the Measuring Sector is scheduled for October 3-4, 2003, in Charlotte, NC, in conjunction with the 

Southern Weights and Measures Association’s Annual Meeting. For questions on the current status of Sector work or to

propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector Technical Advisor Richard Suiter, NIST WMD. Mr. Suiter 

can be reached by telephone at 301-975-4406, by fax at 301-926-0647, by e-mail at rsuiter@nist.gov, or in writing at

NIST, 100 Bureau Drive - Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

Weighing Sector: The NTETC Weighing Sector met September 30 - October 2, 2002, in Annapolis, MD. A draft 

summary was distributed to Sector members in early December 2002. A final draft of the meeting summary was also

provided to the Committee prior to the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval. The Committee did not

accept the recommendation of the Sector on agenda item 23 titled Inconsistent Language on a CC. The Sector had 

suggested a list of consistent information that should be included on a Certificate of Conformance for NCWM Publication 

14 Administrative Procedures paragraph P. Certificate of Conformance. The Committee disagreed with the Sector and 

stated that the Sector recommendation is a technical procedural issue and does not affect the administration of NTEP. 

The Committee returned this item to the Sector and suggested that it develop language for NCWM Publication 14

Technical Policies at their 2003 meeting. The Committee accepted the remaining recommendations (with minor editorial 

corrections identified by the Committee) in the final draft of the meeting summary. 

The next Weighing Sector meeting is scheduled for September 11-13, 2003, in Fresno, CA, and will be held in

conjunction with the Western Weights and Measures Association’s Annual Meeting. For questions on the current status 

of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector Technical Advisor Steven Cook, NIST 

WMD. Mr. Cook can be reached by telephone at 301-975-4003, by fax at 301-926-0647, by e-mail at stevenc@nist.gov, 

or in writing at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive - Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

Automatic Weighing Systems Working Group (AWS): The AWS Working Group met on October 2-3, 2002, in 

Annapolis, MD, following the meeting of the NTETC Weighing Sector and responded to remaining issues related to a 

proposal to change the status of the tentative AWS Code in NIST Handbook 44. The Work Group dealt with several 

items related to the current NCWM Publication 14 NTEP Draft Checklist and Test Criteria. The AWS Work Group made

several suggestions for amending language in Handbook 44 and submitted their recommendations to the NCWM S&T

Committee and the NTEP Committee prior to the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting. Contact Stephen Patoray, NTEP 

Director, or NIST WMD Technical Advisor, Steve Cook, to request a copy of the proposed changes. Mr. Patoray can be 

reached by email at spatoray@mgmtsol.com. Steve Cook can be reached by telephone at 301-975-4003, by fax at

301-926-0647, by email at steven.cook@nist.gov, or in writing at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive-Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD

20899-2600. 

NTETC Sector Summaries: At the 2002 Annual Meeting, Mr. Straub discussed the whether or not it is necessary to

publish the NTETC Sectors summaries as part of the Interim Committee Reports. The summaries currently account for 

more than one third of the size of the publication. The NCWM Board of Directors and NTEP Committee agreed that the

Sector summaries do not need to be published in hard copies of the NCWM Interim Committee Reports for the Annual

Meeting. The NTEP Committee will receive copies of the summaries prior to the NCWM Interim Meeting for their 

review and approval. The NTETC Sector summaries will continue to be included as appendices in the NCWM Annual

Reports. 

At the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NCWM Board of Directors and NTEP Committee agreed that electronic copies

of the NTETC Sector summaries would be included in electronic versions of NCWM Publication 16 Committee Reports 

for the Annual meeting. Electronic or hard copies of the NTETC Sector summaries are available upon request from

NCWM and NIST. Contact NCWM Inc., or NIST WMD Technical Advisor, Steve Cook, to request electronic or hard

copies of the NTEP Sector Summaries. NCWM Inc. can be reached by phone at 240-632-9454 or by email at

ncwm@mgmtsol.com. Steve Cook can be reached by telephone at 301-975-4003, by fax at 301-926-0647, by email at 

steven.cook@nist.gov, or in writing at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive-Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

NTEP - 6 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

501-7 I Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) and Near Infrared (NIR) Instruments Dual 

Certification – Can a Single Certificate be Issued? 

Source: NTETC GMM and NIR Sector

Background: Of the five Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) types with active NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CCs), two

are whole-grain Near Infrared (NIR) Instruments with the potential to seek certification as NIR Grain Analyzers. In a

previous Sector meeting, the question was raised as to whether a single CC could be issued to cover devices certified as 

both GMMs and NIR Grain Analyzers. Time constraints caused consideration of this question to be postponed to a future 

meeting. 

In deciding whether a single CC could be issued to cover devices certified as both GMMs and NIR Grain Analyzers, there

are two requirements to consider: 

1) CCs for GMMs automatically expire July 1. To maintain "active" status, meters must remain in the NTEP 

ongoing calibration program and the CC's must be reissued annually with valid calibration constants for 

moisture. 

2) NIR Grain Analyzers that display a measured whole grain moisture value are required to comply with the 

requirements of the GMM Code and be type approved as a grain moisture meter. 

When an instrument has been approved under both codes, it would seem that NIR Grain Analyzer CCs are subordinate to 

GMM CC’s, because failure to maintain an “active” GMM CC would automatically invalidate the corresponding NIR

Grain Analyzer CC. A single CC, such as a “GMM CC with NIR Grain Analyzer Certification” would have to be

reissued annually (and whenever a calibration change is made) so there would be no ambiguity regarding the NTEP status 

of the instrument and its calibrations. With a single Certificate, weights and measures personnel would have only one CC 

number to check. Manufacturers would have only one CC to maintain per instrument type. Marking requirements would

be simplified. The maintenance fee structure for a CC with a “certification” for compliance with another code could be set 

to recover any loss in NCWM, Inc. revenue that would result from the elimination of the second certificate. 

The Sector agreed to ask the NTEP Committee to consider recommending that NCWM, Inc. authorize issuing a single CC 

for devices successfully type evaluated using two inter-related codes (e.g., a “Grain Moisture Meter CC with Near 

Infrared Grain Analyzer Certification” or, simply, “NIR Grain Analyzer with Dual Certification”). 

The NTEP Committee reviewed the recommendation during the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting in Jacksonville, FL. and

accepted the Sector recommendation to issue a single Certificate of Conformance for a device that has been evaluated 

using two inter-related codes. 

L. Straub, Maryland, Chairman 

R. Andersen, New York, NCWM Chairman

D. Ehrhart, Arizona, NCWM Chairman-Elect 

D. Onwiler, Nebraska

M. Gray, Florida 

NTEP Technical Advisor: S. Patoray, NTEP Director 

NIST Technical Advisor: S. Cook, NIST WMD 

National Type Evaluation Program Committee

NTEP - 7 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix A 

NTEP Status by State 

Puerto Rico

Indiana

2

Michigan

1

New York - 2

2

Oregon

Alaska

1

Hawaii

1

Current as of

April 2003

 NTEP: Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation

 VRR: Uniform Regulation for Voluntary Registration of Service Persons and Service Agents

Louisiana

1

Texas

3-4

Florida

1

Georgia

1 Alabama

1

Mississippi

1

Arkansas

1

Oklahoma

1

Tennessee

1 South

Carolina

1

North

Carolina - 1

Virginia

1

West

Virginia

1

Kentucky

1

Ohio

1

Pennsylvania

1

Wisconsin

1

Iowa

1

Illinois

1

Missouri

1

Kansas

1

Nebraska

1

South Dakota

1

Wyoming

1

Idaho

1

California

1

Nevada

1 Utah

1

Arizona

1 New Mexico

3-4

Colorado

1

Massachusetts - 2

Rhode Island - 5

Connecticut - 1

New Jersey - 1

Delaware - 1

Maryland -2

Minnesota

1

North Dakota

3

Montana

1

Washington

1

Vermont

3-4 Maine

1

New Hampshire - 1

U.S. Virgin Islands

5

1: NTEP and VRR (38)

2: NTEP, No VRR (7)

3: VRR, No NTEP (1)

4: VRR, Considering NTEP (4)

5: No NTEP, No VRR (2)

1

NTEP - A1 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix B 

NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report 

NTEP Application Statistics - June 2003 

2001-2002 2002-2003 Total

10/1/01

6/19/02 

10/1/02-

6/19/03 

10/1/00- 

6/19/03 

Applications Processed 230 188 687(41) 

Applications Completed 182 67 466 

New Certificates Issued 193 164 636 

Certificates Distributed to State Directors 187 160 618 

Certificates Posted To Web Site 1103 158 3148

Active NTEP Certificates - - 1549

Average Median

Time For NCWM To Assign An Evaluation 

12 days 8 days

Time For NCWM To Review A Draft Certificate 8 days 6 days

Time For Complete Evaluation (Completed NCWM Assignments) 145 days 101 days

NTEP - B1 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix C 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Sector 

August 21-22, 2002 - Kansas City, MO

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items 

 1. NIST/Office of Weights and Measures Reorganization 

2. Report on Proposed Revisions to OIML IR 59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds" 

3. Proposed Changes and Additions to Publication 14

a. Identification Marking Requirements 

b. Miscellaneous Editorial Changes 

4. Update on Field Evaluation of Proposed Test Weight per Bushel Tolerances 

a. Review of Phase I and Phase II data 

b. Proposal to move the Developing Issue for Test Weight per Bushel forward as a Voting Item

5. Review Latest Draft of Evaluation Procedure Outline (EPO) and Test Procedures for the Field Evaluation of 

NTEP GMM Devices (air-oven method) 

 6. A Message from the NCWM Board of Directors 

7. Update on NTEP Type Evaluation and OCP (Phase II) Testing 

 8. A Quality Control Procedure for Grain Analysis at a Country Elevator 

 9. Time and Place for Next Meeting 

Note: Because of common interest, items marked with a star () will be considered in joint session of the NIR Grain

Analyzer and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors.

1. NIST/Office of Weights and Measures Reorganization 

Discussion: As part of a broader reorganization within NIST Technology Services (TS), the Office of Weights and

Measures (OWM) has been raised from the program level with the Office of Measurement Services (now the

Measurement Services Division) to the Division level within the TS organization structure. Henry Oppermann has been 

named Chief of the new Weights and Measures Division. In addition to national weights and measures matters, OWM

will be responsible for NIST’s Metric Program and for international matters relating to legal metrology, including U.S. 

participation in the OIML. This will provide a closer tie between national and international interests in standards matters. 

 

2. Report on Proposed Revisions to OIML IR 59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds"

Background: At the OIML TC17/SC1 meeting in Berlin, Germany on June 22, 2001, the U.S. delegation, put forth a 

series of proposals relating to the revision of OIML Recommendation IR 59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and

Oilseeds." The U.S. proposals are summarized below: 

Document Purpose. - The purpose of the revision of IR 59 is to define technical and metrological requirements for

type approval and verification of measuring instruments using physical principles to determine the moisture content 

of cereal grains and oil seeds. These type-approved instruments are intended to be used for moisture measurements in

commercial transactions. 

Document Application. - This document is to be developed for implementation in the OIML Certificate System,

therefore necessitating an internationally agreed test procedure and test report format. 

Document Direction. - The document should be developed for fully automatic direct indicating moisture meters. 

This means instruments for which all necessary measurements are internal and are self-calculating. Directions for 

NTEP - C1 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

dealing with instruments of comparable accuracies but a lesser degree of automation would be contained in an annex. 

This would define a direction for future instruments without precluding existing instruments. 

Maximum Permissible Errors (MPES). - The testing of the instruments should be carried out with naturally occurring 

grain samples and the evaluation of instrument errors will be conducted statistically. Grain samples have a large

degree of natural variability due to region and climate. A statistical evaluation accounts for this natural variability and

is consistent with the U.S. NTEP program.

Moisture Reference Method. - The state-of-the-art in grain moisture reference methods has not reached international

consensus and application on the best method. The U.S. uses a documented GIPSA air oven reference method and 

several other methods exist and are utilized internationally. All of these methods suffer to some extent in their 

absolute accuracy. The U.S. believes that it would be best to separate the international type approval of instruments 

from the definition of the reference method and proposes that the reference method should be established by the 

national legal metrology authority in that country and that manufacturers submitting for type approval in that country

should take into account the national reference in the calibration of the type approved instrument. 

The U.S. proposals were well received, in particular by France, the previous Secretariat, and Germany. Dr. Gunter

Scholtz of Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), who chaired the meeting, asked the USA to prepare an OIML

draft based on the U.S. NTEP program for review by an IWG composed of France, Germany, Poland, China and the 

USA. The U.S. agreed to this. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed a partial draft of Revised IR59 (dated August 2002) prepared by Dr. Ambler Thompson

of NIST. Sector members offered the following comments and suggestions:

1. No moisture ranges have been specified for any of the type approval tests. Although some of the tolerances 

presently suggested are broader than those in Publication 14, it was pointed out that the type approval tolerances

in Publication 14 are based on testing specific grains over a specified 6 % moisture range (12 %-18 % for corn;

10 %-16 % for all wheats, soybeans, sorghum, oats, barley and rice; and 6 %-12 % for sunflower). Sample

condition, moisture range, and individual grain characteristics all influence the performance of a grain moisture 

meter and have to be considered in establishing realistic tolerances. Testing at higher moisture levels may cause 

problems due to sample instability. Sample instability is especially troublesome on tests involving temperature 

cycling of the samples and on long-term stability tests where samples must be stored for an extended period of

time. If Handbook 44 tolerances are specified in place of the existing OIML Maximum Permissible Errors

(MPES), type approval testing should be limited to the grain types and moisture ranges specified in Publication 

14. 

2. There appear to be fundamental differences between the U.S. and proposed OIML approach to moisture meter 

type approval. In the U.S. initial type evaluation focuses on the instrument itself. Basic instrument tests, which

include all of the influence factors listed in Section 5.6.1 of IR59, except grain temperature sensitivity, are 

conducted using only hard red winter wheat. Calibrations for corn, HRW wheat and soybeans are initially

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 are approved based upon data collected as part

of the ongoing national calibration program. Continued type approval requires participation in the ongoing

national calibration program. Over the moisture range for each of the grains for which a meter is approved, none 

of the average differences between predicted and reference values for the respective 2 % moisture intervals can

exceed one-half the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance plus a 95 % confidence interval. Revised IR 59 proposes

to subject all grains to all influence factors over unspecified moisture ranges. 

3. No field evaluation method has been specified. Appropriate values for MPES will depend on the field test 

method used (meter-to-meter vs. air-oven, number of replicates, sample selection, etc.). The field test method on

which the MPES are based should be referenced. 

4. Section 3. Terminology. - Definitions of terms appearing in the “Terminology” section should be replaced with 

corresponding definitions from Handbook 44. 

NTEP - C2 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

5. Section 3.2. Moisture and Volatile Matter Content. - The need for a definition of “moisture and volatile matter 

content” was questioned. It was recommended that this term be dropped from the definitions, and that the 

possible loss of mass due to volatile matter content (other than water) be addressed in a footnote if necessary. 

6. Section 3.4. Conversion Tables. - The definition shown is the Handbook 44 definition for “Correction Tables.”

Fully automated grain moisture meters do not require the use of either Correction Tables or Conversion Tables. 

If the purpose of defining Conversion Tables is to cover terminology that will be used in an annex to IR 59, then 

a definition of Correction Tables should also be included.

7. Section 3.5. Zero Value and Test Value. - This paragraph states that moisture meters may give a (zero) 

indication. The Sector noted that there is no allowance for a zero indication in Section 5.56.(a) of Handbook 44. 

Paragraph S.1.1.(d) states:

A digital indicating element shall not display, and a recording element shall not record, any moisture content

values before the end of the measurement cycle. 

Paragraph S.1.1.(f) further states: 

A meter shall not display or record any moisture content values when the moisture content of the grain

sample is beyond the operating range of the device, unless the moisture representation includes a clear error

indication (and recorded error message with the recorded representation). 

To comply with these requirements, several manufacturers have chosen to blank the moisture display when the 

test cell is empty (and do not display a “zero”). A moisture value is not displayed until the end of the

measurement cycle. Even though the present wording of 3.5 is permissive (“may” display a zero), it would be 

preferable to include additional wording to indicate that direct reading instruments “may but are not required to

display a (zero) indication.” 

8. Section 3.6. Test Value. - The wording of this section needs to be revised to make it clear that test values are

produced by a meter’s built-in self-test features to verify the correct functioning of those elements having a

critical effect on the measurement. Grain samples are not required for these self-tests. 

9. Section 5.3.2. MPES During Type Approval Testing, Including All Influence Quantity Testing, and on Initial

Verification. - The equations add 0.2 % to the MPES for all tests, but Paragraph 5.6.1. shows ∆M = 0.35 % for

both instrument temperature sensitivity and grain temperature sensitivity tests and ∆M = 0.20 % for the other

influence factor tests. 

10. Sections 5.5.4 and 5.5.5. - The reference to “MPES in 5.5.1” should be changed to read, “MPES in 5.3.1”. 

11. Section 5.6.1. - The reference to “relevant conditions specified in 5.3” for influence factor testing appears to be

in error. Paragraph 5.6.2 states, “A description of performance tests for influence factors is given in Annex B.”

Should 5.6.1 reference “relevant conditions specified in Annex B” or will a table of relevant conditions be added 

elsewhere?

12. Section 6.2 does not mention near-infrared absorbance as one of the possible quantities that may be related to 

moisture. 

Conclusion: Dr. Thompson asked Sector participants and manufacturers to submit additional comments, especially those 

related to test procedures and MPES, within the next two months so he can obtain a consensus from interested U.S. 

parties and complete another draft by December. Dr. Thompson can be reached at the following address: 

Dr. Ambler Thompson 

NIST/TSAP

NIST North (820) Room 248

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2150

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

e-mail: ambler@nist.gov

NTEP - C3 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

3. Proposed Changes and Additions to Publication 14

3.a. Identification Marking Requirements

Discussion: The 86th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) in 2001 adopted changes to the

General Code section of Handbook 44 that require corresponding changes to the Grain Moisture Meter Check List in 

Publication 14. The changes include: 

• A specification of acceptable abbreviations for the word “Model” 

• A requirement that devices be permanently marked with the applicable Certificate of Conformance (CC) 

number or a corresponding CC addendum number. 

[For a detailed discussion of the above changes see the report 86th NCWM. NIST Special Publication 976.] 

Because grain moisture meter (GMM) CCs are reissued annually with incremented addendum numbers, the Sector 

considered whether devices should be marked with only the original “parent” CC number and not with the addendum

number; for example, "CC Number 03-123" and NOT "CC Number 03-123A4.” State Weights and Measures 

representatives indicated that there would be no confusion if CC marking included the addendum number. Inspectors 

would know to refer to the current version of the CC regardless of the addendum number marked on the device. It

was suggested that including the addendum number might be of assistance in helping field inspectors determine 

whether nonretroactive requirements applied to a particular device. 

Also, paragraph S.1.5. of Handbook 44, Section 5.56.(a) was changed by action of the 81st NCWM in 1996 to remove 

the requirement to mark the operating temperature range on the device. The original draft of the 2002 issue of the 

grain moisture meter checklist in Publication 14 does not reflect this change. 

Conclusion and Recommendation: The Sector decided that it would not be necessary to include a note 

recommending restricting CC marking of GMM’s to the “parent” CC number. The Sector agreed to recommend 

amending and modifying Publication 14, GMM Checklist, Section 1. General, to combine related marking 

requirements and to address the above issues. In addition, the Sector recommended removing the requirements for 

marking the operating temperature range on the device and moving the paragraph related to Code Reference G-S.1.1., 

to a more appropriate location following the list of marking requirements. Recommended changes are shown below. 

1. General

Code Reference: G-S.1. Identification

Virtually all measuring equipment (except separate parts necessary to the measurement process but not

having any metrological effect) must be clearly and permanently marked with the manufacturer's name or

trademark, model designation, and serial number. Additionally, devices that have (or will have) an NTEP 

Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number, must be marked with the CC number or a corresponding CC

addendum number. "Permanent" markings addresses two aspects: (1) the printed information will 

withstand wear and cleaning, and (2) if the markings are on a plate or badge, then the marking badge must 

be "permanently" attached to the device. A permanently attached badge means that the identification

information required by G-S.1. is not easily removed, and if removed, then it must be obvious that the badge 

or plate containing this information has been removed. All markings must be clear and easily readable. The 

following test procedure shall be used to determine the permanence of the identification markings. 

Permanence of Lettering: The lettering for the markings are subjected to the following tests to simulate 

accelerated wear. The markings are then compared with a typical set of labels exhibiting various degrees of 

wear, graded from minimal effect (1) to excessive unacceptable wear (7). 

Attempts are made to remove the marked information, whether on a badge (plate) or on the device itself,

using the following means. 

1. Rub over one letter of the marking at least 20 times using an ink eraser in the same manner and

force as one would normally exert while erasing an inscription written with a ball point pen.

NTEP - C4 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

2. Clean the marking or badge with the following cleaners presumed to be "readily available." 

a. Disinfecting cleaning liquid and a damp cloth. 

b. "Soft" household cleaning powder and a damp cloth. 

c. Window cleaning fluids and a damp cloth.

Permanence of Attachment Badge is an attempt to remove the badge by pulling it off or prying off a metal

badge that is attached using only adhesive; removal must be "difficult" at all temperatures. If the badge can 

be removed, it must show obvious evidence that the badge was removed. Acceptable indications are 

destruction of the badge by tearing, permanent and extensive wrinkling, or repeated exposure of the word 

"VOID" upon removal of the badge. 

As a practical matter, remote moisture displays are not required to have serial numbers because they 

typically only repeat the moisture information received from the measuring element. Similarly, external

printers are not required to have serial numbers because they do not alter the information received from the

measuring element. 

If the required information is located on the back of a device, the same information must also appear on the 

side, front, or top. The bottom of a device is not an acceptable surface for these markings. 

The identification marking must be permanent and attached with pop rivets, adhesive, or other permanent

means. Removable bolts or screws are not permitted. A foil badge may be used provided that it is durable, 

difficult to remove, and exhibits obvious evidence of an attempt to remove the marking or badge. 

The system must be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior surface, visible after installation with the 

following information:

1.1 The name, initials or trademark of the manufacturer. A remote

display is required to have the manufacturer's name or trademark 

and model designation. (Code Reference GS.1.(a)) 

Yes No NA

1.2 A model designation that positively identifies the pattern or

design of the device. The Model designation shall be prefaced by

the word “Model”, “Type”, or “Pattern.” These terms may be 

followed by the term “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. 

The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum,

begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation for 

the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” [Effective January 

1, 2003]. (Code Reference G-S.1.(b)&(c)) 

Yes No NA

1.3 A nonrepetitive serial number prefaced by words “Serial 

Number” or an abbreviation of that term. Abbreviations for the 

word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and

abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser.No, and S No.). (Code 

Reference G-S.1.(d),(e), & (f)). 

Yes No NA

NTEP - C5 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

1.4 The NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a 

corresponding CC addendum number for devices that have (or 

will have) a CC. The number shall be prefaced by the terms 

“NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be 

followed by the term “Number” or an abbreviation of the word

“Number”. The abbreviation shall, as a minimum, begin with the 

letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). (Code Reference G-S.1.(g). Effective 

January 1, 2003). 

The device must have an area, either on the identification plate or 

on the device itself, suitable for the application of the CC 

number. If the area for the CC number is not part of an 

identification plate, note its intended location and how it will be

applied. 

Location of CC Number if not located with the identification 

information: ________________________________________

Yes No NA

1.5 If the information required by G-S.1. is placed on a badge or

plate, the badge or plate must be permanently attached to the 

device. 

(See criteria above for permanence of Attachment of Badge.) 

Yes No NA

1.6 Identifying information shall be so located that it is readily 

observable without the necessity of the disassembly of a part

requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

Yes No NA

1.7 All markings must be clear and easily readable. Yes No NA

1.8 The lettering for all markings must be permanent. Record the 

grade for the permanence of markings. __________________. 

Yes No NA

1.9 If the markings for other than device identification required by

G-S.1. are placed on a badge or decal, then the badge or decal 

must be durable (difficult to remove at all temperatures). 

Yes No NA

Code Reference: G-S.1.1. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. 

Refer to the Section Policy on Remanufactured and Repaired Devices in the NCWM Publication 14 Administrative 

Policy. 

1.10 If the manufacturer specifies a temperature range, the range shall 

be at least 20 °C (36 °F). 

Yes No NA

3.b. Miscellaneous Editorial Changes 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the original draft of the 2002 issue of the grain moisture meter checklist in Publication 

14. Several typographical errors were noted.

Recommendation: The Sector recommended changes to correct typographical errors. The Sector also recommended 

changing formulas to use a “bar” over variables that are intended to indicate an “average” or “mean”. Recommended 

changes are shown below. 

NTEP - C6 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Accuracy. The two tests for accuracy 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 % moisture intervals. Each instrument will be

individually tested. 

n

x r

Bias

n

i

∑ i i

=

−

= 1

)

where, 

(

i x = average predicted moisture content for sample i (3 replicates) 

= reference moisture content for sample i

 = number of samples per 2 % moisture interval = 10) 

ir 

n ( n

1

( )

1

2

−

−

=

∑=

n

y y

SDD

n

i

i

where, 

i y = i i x − r (see above) 

y = 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 max nce toleranc re the toleran with the moisture content,

(i.e., in the 16 %-18 % interval for corn use 0.5 x 0.0 .45 for the tolerance ecific tolerances are:

Grain Type Moi ent To

imum accepta e for intervals whe ce changes

5 x 18 = 0 ). Sp

sture Cont lerance 

Corn 

12-14 % 

14-16 % 

16-18 % 

0.40 

0.40 

0.45 

HRW wheat 10-12 % 

14-16 % 

0.35 

0.35 

and 

Soybeans 

12-14 % 0.35 

The manufacturer may adjust the calibration bias to compensate for differences from the type evaluation laboratory in 

reference methods or sample sets. 

Repeatability. 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: 

n

P P

SD

n

i j

ij i

2

( )

1

3

1

2

∑∑= =

−

=

NTEP - C7 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

predicted moisture for sample i and replicate j

where, 

Pij =

Pi = average of the three re values for sam

number of samples pe sture interval 10) 

Tolerances for rep 0.25 x the maximum 44 acceptance toleranc e 2 % moisture interval. 

Specific tolerances are

Grain Type Moisture Range Tolerance 

predicted moistu ple i

n = r 2 % moi ( n =

eatability are Handbook e for th

:

Corn 

12-14 % 

14-16 % 

0.200 

0.200 

16-18 % 0.225 

HRW wheat 

and 

Soybeans 

10-12 % 

12-14 % 

14-16 % 

0.175 

0.175 

0.175 

eproducibility. The results for each of the three replicates will be averaged for each instrument using samples over 

the 6 % mo e and the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD) between instruments will be calculated 

using the following equation:

R

isture rang

1

( )

2

∑ d − d i

1

− = =n

SDD i

where

n

,

i d = P1i − P2i

P1i = average of three replicates for sample i on instrument 1 

P2i = average of three replicates for sample i on instrument 2 

d =

isture ranges = 30) 

Grain Type Moisture Range Tolerance 

average of the i d

n = number of samples in all three 2 % mo ( n

Tolerances for reproducibility are 0.3 x the maximum Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance for the 6 % moisture range. 

Specific tolerances are: 

Corn 12-18 % 0.27 

HRW wheat 10-16 % 0.21 

Soybeans 10-16 % 0.21 

V. Criteria for NTEP Moisture Calibration Review 

The following criteria are to be applied along with criteria listed in Part IV above to determine "approved" and 

"pending approval" moisture ranges. 

NTEP - C8 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Special Cases Dealing with Inadequately Represented Moisture Intervals:

VI. Standardization of Instruments 

Continuing participation in the ongoing data collection and calibration review program (Phase II) is mandatory for all

grain moisture meters. Annually, prior to Phase II data collection, device manufacturers are required to make a sideby-side comparison1

 between their reference standard instruments and instruments of like type in the NTEP

Participating Laboratory. The specific details of the comparison tests will vary with the technology involved, but

manufacturers will be required to provide details of their test procedures to the NTEP Participating Laboratory and

will be required to show that the mean moisture difference between Manufacturer's Laboratory Standard Meters and

the corresponding NTEP Laboratory Meters (path A in figure below) does not exceed ±0.2 x the Handbook 44

acceptance tolerance. Manufacturers must demonstrate that their methods for standardizing units in production result 

in "as shipped" units which agree with the corresponding NTEP Laboratory units (path D in figure below) within ±0.3

x the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. Manufacturers must also demonstrate that once units are standardized, 

moisture results between units of like type will not exceed these tolerances when a grain calibration change is made. 

1

 an exchange of samples may be used in lieu of side-by-side testing if mutually agreeable to the NTEP Laboratory

and the Manufacturer. 

4. Update on Field Evaluation of Proposed Test Weight per Bushel Tolerances 

4.a. Review of Phase I and Phase II Data 

Background: At the Sector's September 1999 meeting, maintenance tolerances of 0.8 pounds per bushel for corn and 

oats; 0.5 pounds per bushel for all classes of wheat; and 0.7 for soybeans, barley, rice, sunflower, and sorghum were

proposed for further study. States agreeing to participate in a field evaluation of the proposed tolerances and test 

methods included:

Arkansas Nebraska Maryland

Illinois North Carolina Missouri

The Field Evaluation of Tolerances project was conducted in two phases:

Phase 1. Standardization of Quart Kettle Test Weight Apparatus. - In late September 2000, the USDA/Grain

Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) sent one portion of a hard red winter wheat HRW

standardizing sample to each of the participating State Laboratories. Participating laboratories verified that the quart 

kettle used in their standard test weight per bushel (TW) apparatus met the requirements spelled out in GIPSA's

volume test. They also verified that the apparatus was set up according to GIPSA standards before testing the HRW 

standardizing samples. 

To obtain base-line performance data on the standard quart kettle test method for corn and soybeans, GIPSA sent corn 

and soybeans samples to the participating laboratories prior to the Sector’s August 2002 meeting. Tests were run on

each State’s standard quart kettle TW apparatus and on any NTEP model Grain Moisture Meter with TW capability 

that the State had in its laboratory. 

Phase 2. Field Tests of Test Weight per Bushel Capability. - Participating laboratories obtained their own samples 

for this test. Each participating laboratory was to make an initial determination of the test weight per bushel of each

sample portion with the standard quart kettle apparatus before sending it to the field. Tests were to be run on TW 

capable NTEP grain moisture meters and on the kettle test weight apparatus used at each commercial location selected 

for field-testing. Kettle tests at each location were to be made by the operator who normally made test weight per

bushel determinations for commercial transactions. No instruction was to be given to the operator on how to perform

the test. The participating laboratory was to make a final determination of test weight per bushel when the sample

was returned to the lab. Data was to be collected on no more than twenty instruments per grain sample. 

Discussion: Diane Lee, OWM, reported on the current status of this project. Phase I data for corn and soybeans had 

been received from all six participating states. (Wheat samples were sent to the states in late September 2000. With

the exception of one State, the test weight apparatuses were within GIPSA’s tolerance. GIPSA has since worked with 

NTEP - C9 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

the State to correct the test weight apparatus that was out of tolerance.) The results for corn and soybeans are

summarized below: 

Quart Kettle Method Test Weight per Bushel Test Results 

for 

Participating State Grain Moisture Labs 

with

GIPSA Measurements as Reference

Corn Soybeans

Bias

(pounds per bushel)

(avg. of 3 replicates) 

Individual Lab

Precision 

(pounds per bushel)

(3 replicates) 

Bias 

(pounds per bushel) 

(avg. of 3 replicates) 

Individual Lab

Precision 

(pounds per bushel) 

(3 replicates) 

State 1 0.23 0.06 0.13 0.06 

State 2 -0.60 0.00 -0.50 0.00 

State 3 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 

State 4 0.27 0.06 0.27 0.06 

State 5 -0.07 0.06 -0.13 0.06 

State 6 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.06 

Avg Bias 0.03 --- -0.03 --- 

Intralab

SDD --- 0.34 --- 0.27

With the exception of State 2 that reported results significantly lower than the reference for both corn and soybeans,

the results indicate that in a laboratory setting the quart kettle method can achieve accuracies (based on the average of

3 readings) that are approximately one-half to one-third the proposed maintenance tolerances of ∀0.8 pounds per

bushel for corn and ∀0.7 pounds per bushel for soybeans. 

In state moisture labs and in the ongoing calibration maintenance program at GIPSA, the bias on NTEP meters using 

TW calibrations that had been standardized met the proposed tolerance requirements for corn and soybeans with one 

exception. The exception, with an error at least seven times greater than meters of the same type, was judged to be an 

isolated case, most likely indicating the need for service, as results for nine other meters of like type were well within

the proposed tolerance limits. Consistent biases on the majority of meter models with TW calibrations that had not

been standardized suggest that with proper standardization, these models would also meet the proposed tolerance

requirements. The laboratory TW results (from both NTEP and State labs) for GMM’s are summarized below. 

NTEP - C10 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Test Weight per Bushel Test Results 

for 

Grain Moisture Meters in Participating State Grain Moisture Labs and at the NTEP Laboratory 

with

GIPSA Quart Kettle Measurements as Reference 

Corn Soybeans

Model

number 

of

meters

tested

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

SDD 

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3

replicates per meter

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

SDD 

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 

replicates per meter

Model 1 2 -0.35 0.21 0.08 0.12

Model 2 9* -0.29 0.17 -0.04 0.16 

Model 3 3 -1.14 0.21 -0.66 0.07 

Model 4 2 -1.12 0.40 -0.37 0.38 

Model 5 2 -1.48 0.35 -1.35 0.07 

* net of 1 outlier 

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, remarked that the repeatability of the meters was impressive, especially in light of the fact 

that the SD between two inspectors at GIPSA is typically 0.25 pounds per bushel for official inspections. This 

translates to 0.5 pounds per bushel at a 95 % confidence level. 

One Sector member remarked that the samples used for Phase I tests were fairly dry (corn: approximately 13.3 % and 

soybeans: approximately 10 %). The use of low moisture samples, plus the fact that the samples were also clean and 

free of foreign material and broken kernels may have contributed to the excellent results obtained in Phase I tests. 

Official TW determinations by GIPSA, for most large grains, are obtained prior to removal of dockage and foreign

material.

It was also pointed out that TW measurements on high moisture samples are not reliable. In normal years, TW will

increase as a grain samples loses moisture. The grain kernel tends to shrink somewhat as it dries. In fact, the volume

reduction is normally greater, percentage wise, than the reduction in mass due to drying. As a result, TW (weight per

unit volume) increases. The surface condition of high moisture corn may also contribute to additional variance in the 

packing density as the sample is loaded into the test kettle or test cell of a GMM. 

Phase II field data were received from Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas. The results are summarized below.

The Sector noted that TW errors were essentially the same for both GMM’s with TW capability and for the various 

kinds of stand-alone TW apparatus currently in use in the field. The results for corn and soybeans were especially 

encouraging considering that most of the field GMM’s had not been adjusted for optimum performance on TW. 

Phase II biases reported by Arkansas were significantly greater (and all negative with respect to their reference) than 

those reported for wheat and soybeans by other states on both GMM devices and on kettle test weight apparatus. The 

Arkansas weights and measures representative said that he would review the data to see if a cause for this difference

could be determined. 

NTEP - C11 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Field Evaluation – Bushel Test Weight

Hard Red Winter Wheat & Soft Red Winter Wheat 

State Quart Kettle Apparatus as Reference

Grain Moisture Meters TW Apparatus 

State 

SDD 

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 replicates 

per meter 

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to reference

sample 

SDD 

(pounds per bushel) 

Based on 3 replicates 

per device 

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel) 

with respect to

reference sample 

All participating

states 0.47 -0.47 0.31 -0.23 

Illinois 0.43 -0.52 0.50 0.02

Missouri 0.26 -0.55 0.32 -0.31

Nebraska 0.29 -0.02 0.23 -0.19

Arkansas 

(net of 1 outlier) 0.45 -0.92 0.23 -0.36 

Field Evaluation – Bushel Test Weight

Soybeans 

State Quart Kettle Apparatus as Reference

Grain Moisture Meters TW Apparatus 

State 

SDD 

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 replicates 

per meter 

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to reference

sample 

SDD 

(pounds per bushel) 

Based on 3 replicates 

per device 

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel) 

with respect to

reference sample 

All participating states 0.79 -0.05 0.64 0.06 

Illinois 0.40 -0.09 0.41 0.25

Nebraska 0.32 0.66 0.20 0.36

Arkansas 

(net of 1 outlier) 0.41 -1.10 0.56 -1.04 

Field Evaluation – Bushel Test Weight

Corn

State Quart Kettle Apparatus as Reference

Grain Moisture Meters TW Apparatus 

State

SDD 

(pounds per bushel)

Based on 3 replicates 

per meter 

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel)

with respect to reference

sample 

SDD 

(pounds per bushel) 

Based on 3 replicates 

per device 

Average Bias

(pounds per bushel) 

with respect to

reference sample 

All participating states 0.55 0.05 0.61 -0.27 

Illinois 0.60 0.33 0.46 0.37

Nebraska 0.38 -0.18 0.37 -0.59

4.b. Proposal to move the Developing Issue for Test Weight per Bushel forward as a Voting Item 

Discussion: [For additional background, see also S&T Committee 2002 Interim Report, Developing Issues – Grain

Moisture Meters, Item 1, Recognize Indications and Recorded Representations of Test Weight per Bushel, in NCWM

Publication 16 dated April 2002.]

Knowledge of test weight per bushel (TW) is important not only in determining the price a producer receives for grain 

delivered to a grain elevator; it is also important to the grain elevator when grain stocks in storage are audited for 

quantity. Grain industry members reported that the proposed tolerances for TW are acceptable to the industry.

NTEP - C12 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Stressing that the grain industry urgently needed the capability to simultaneously (and easily) make TW

determinations, they urged the Sector to recommend moving forward on this issue. Some members were hesitant

about moving forward at this time, citing concern about the unresolved issue of large negative bias in the Arkansas

Phase II data. It was pointed out that even if the Sector recommended moving ahead at this time, the earliest date that

changes in the code would become effective was January 1, 2004. 

The Sector considered whether the recommended changes should be retroactive or nonretroactive. Discussion 

centered on the requirement that meters measuring TW must provide some means to ensure that measurements of

TW are not allowed to be displayed or printed when insufficient sample volume has been supplied. Although the 

proposed code does not specify how this will be accomplished, it is generally assumed that the means will include a 

level sensor of some sort installed in either the sample hopper or the test cell. 

Those favoring making the proposed code retroactive reminded the Sector that although moisture measurements are 

not significantly affected when samples are not of sufficient size to completely fill the measuring cell of a GMM, the 

TW measurement is greatly affected when the cell is not filled. Measurement of TW requires determination of two

parameters: volume and mass. The vast majority of GMM’s with TW capability presently in the field do not have

means to assure that the measuring cell is completely full. If the cell is not filled completely, TW indications will be

lower than they should be to the disadvantage of the producer selling grain. Some of those favoring making the code

nonretroactive felt that GMM’s with a window, through which the test cell could be seen, provided adequate means 

to verify that the cell had been filled. A grain industry member expressed the belief that compared to how test weight

measurements are being made now; the worry about a sensor was trivial. As long as the GMM could produce an

accurate TW measurement when properly used, whether the hopper had a sensor or not was not important. Some

thought this was a facilitation of fraud issue and favored making the sensor requirement retroactive. Others thought

that making the code retroactive would unfairly penalize users of existing NTEP meters with TW capability. 

Cassie Eigenmann of DICKEY-john, supporting making the sensor requirement retroactive, pointed out that all 

existing DICKEY-john GMM’s covered by an NTEP CC were hard coded to add the words “approx” or

“approximate” to the display and print out of TW measurements. She asked how devices displaying “approximate” 

TW would be regulated if the sensor requirement was nonretroactive. Weights and measures members were at first

divided on this question. Some were of the opinion that they would permit the continued use and display of

“approximate” TW if the device met the tolerance requirements, since “approximate” was added at the request of 

jurisdictions permitting a display of TW when tolerances didn’t exist for regulation. Others were concerned about

what would happen in a court case when printed tickets presented in evidence of a claim showed “approximate”. 

States that presently do not permit “approximate” TW to be displayed or recorded indicated they would not change

their policy. 

On a related issue, Don Onwiler, Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture, Div. of Weights and Measures, proposed that

Sec.5.56(b) of Handbook 44 be amended to add tolerances for grain moisture meters with test weight per bushel 

capability. Because new devices with test weight per bushel capability will be required to determine if sufficient 

sample volume has been provided for an accurate measurement, and because Section 5.56(b) applies to non-NTEP 

devices which are not within the purview of the Sector, the Sector decided that it was not appropriate for the Sector to

recommend modification of Sec. 5.56(b) of the Code to add tolerances for grain moisture meters with test weight per 

bushel capability. Weights and Measures members suggested that paragraph T.3. should be revised to clarify that it

applies to separate accessory devices (such as a beam balance test weight apparatus) used to determine test weight 

per bushel of grain samples for the purpose of making density corrections in moisture determinations. Don Onwiler 

offered to recommend this change to paragraph T.3 at the September meeting of the Central Weights and Measures

Association. 

Conclusion: By a vote of 9 to 4, the Sector agreed that the addition to paragraph S.2.6. relating to a means of

sensing adequate sample volume should be nonretroactive and recommended that the Specifications and Tolerances

(S&T) Committee place the GMM developing issue relating to Indications and Recorded Representations of Test

Weight per Bushel, on the NCWM interim agenda with the intent to make it a voting item at the NCWM annual

meeting in July 2003. The Sector also agreed to modify paragraph N.1.1.(b) of the developing issue to remove the

words “at least” and to several editorial changes. The change to N.1.1.(b) was made to insure that only the lowest 

moisture sample of each grain used in tests of moisture indications would be used in tests of test weight per bushel

indications. The final recommendation is shown below.

NTEP - C13 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Recommendation: Modify 5.56(a) Grain Moisture Meter Code Section in NIST Handbook 44 to recognize 

indications and recorded representations of test weight per bushel as follows: 

Amend the following paragraphs:

A.1. This code applies to grain moisture meters; that is, devices used to indicate directly the moisture

content of cereal grain and oil seeds. The code consists of general requirements applicable to all moisture 

meters and specific requirements applicable only to certain types of moisture meters. Requirements cited 

for "test weight per bushel" indications or recorded representations are applicable only to moisture

meters incorporating an optional automatic test weight per bushel measuring feature.

S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements.

(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, test weight per bushel results

and calibration version identification. 

(d) A digital indicating element shall not display, and a recording element shall not record, any moisture

content values or test weight per bushel values before the end of the measurement cycle. 

(e) Moisture content results shall be displayed and recorded as percent moisture content, wet basis. Test 

weight per bushel results shall be displayed and recorded as pounds per bushel. Subdivisions of this

these units shall be in terms of decimal subdivisions (not fractions). 

(f) A meter shall not display or record any moisture content or test weight per bushel values when the 

moisture content of the grain sample is beyond the operating range of the device, unless the moisture 

and test weight representations includes a clear error indication (and recorded error message with the 

recorded representation). 

S.1.3. Operating Range. - A meter shall automatically and clearly indicate when the operating range of 

the meter has been exceeded. The operating range shall specify the following:

(c) Moisture Range of the Grain or Seed. The moisture range for each grain or seed for which the meter

is to be used shall be specified. A moisture Moisture and test weight per bushel values may be

displayed when the moisture range is exceeded if accompanied by a clear indication that the moisture 

range has been exceeded. 

S.1.4. Value of Smallest Unit. - The display shall permit constituent moisture value determination to both 

0.01 % and 0.1 % resolution. The 0.1 % resolution is for commercial transactions; the 0.01 % resolution 

is for type evaluation and calibration purposes only, not for commercial purposes. Test weight per bushel

values shall be determined to the nearest 0.1 pound per bushel. 

S.2.4.1. Calibration Version. - A meter must be capable of displaying 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 moisture content and test weight per bushel

determinations. 

S.2.6. 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. 

In addition, if the meter is capable of measuring test weight per bushel, determination of sample volume

and weight for this measurement shall be fully automatic, and means shall be provided to ensure that

measurements of test weight per bushel are not allowed to be displayed or printed when insufficient sample 

volume is available to provide an accurate measurement. 

S.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 

NTEP - C14 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

use of accessory equipment necessary in obtaining a moisture content. Operating instructions shall 

include the following information: 

(d) the kind or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture content and

test weight per bushel; 

N.1.1. Transfer Standards.1 - Official grain samples shall be used as the official transfer standards with 

moisture content and test weight per bushel values assigned by the reference methods. The reference 

methods for moisture shall be the oven drying methods as specified by the USDA GIPSA. The test weight

per bushel value assigned to a test weight transfer standard shall be the average of 10 test weight per

bushel determinations using the quart kettle test weight per bushel apparatus as specified by the USDA 

GIPSA. Tolerances shall be applied to the average of at least three measurements on each official grain

sample. Official grain samples shall be clean and naturally moist, but not tempered (i.e., water not added). 

(Amended 1992)

N.1.2. Minimum Test. - A minimum test of a grain moisture meter shall consist of tests: (a) with using

samples (need not exceed three) of each grain or seed type for which the device is used, and for each grain 

or seed type shall include the following:

(a) tests of moisture indications (b) with using samples having at least two different moisture content

values within the operating range of the device, and if applicable,

(b) tests of test weight indications, with the lowest moisture samples used in (a) above. 

T.3. For Test Weight Per Bushel Indications or Recorded Representations. - The maintenance and 

acceptance tolerances on test weight per bushel indications or recorded representations shall be

0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 lb/bu. The test methods used shall be those specified by the USDA GIPSA as shown in

Table T.3. Tolerances are (+) positive or (!) negative with respect to the value assigned to the official grain

sample. 

Table T.3. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances

Test Weight per Bushel

Type of Grain or Seed Tolerance

(pounds per bushel)

Corn, oats 0.8 

All wheat classes 0.5

Soybeans, barley, rice, sunflower, sorghum 0.7

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary Indicating and Recording Elements. - The resolution of the

moisture meter display shall be 0.1 % moisture and 0.1 pounds per bushel test weight during commercial 

use. 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets.

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type, grain moisture results, test

weight per bushel, and calibration version identification. The ticket shall be generated by the grain 

moisture meter system. 

5. Review Latest Draft of Evaluation Procedure Outline (EPO) and Test Procedures for the Field Evaluation of

NTEP GMM Devices (air-oven reference method) 

Background: At the March 1998 GMM/NIR Sector meetings three working groups were established to develop

Examination Procedure Outlines (EPOs) and Field Evaluation Test Procedures (Inspection Procedures) for GMM and NIR 

devices to provide guidance to States on implementing NIST Handbook 44 (HB44) as it applies to these devices. The

NTEP - C15 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

output of the working groups was first reviewed at the Sector's September 1999 meeting. At the Sector’s August 2000

meeting Revised drafts of the Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Field Evaluation Test Procedures for the air oven reference

method and the meter-to-meter method were distributed for review. Because of time limitations, only the meter-to-meter

method was reviewed in detail. Following that meeting, the GMM Inspection Procedure – Air-oven Reference Method

was split into two separate procedures: The first based on HB-44, §5.56(a), applicable to all NTEP meters as well as any 

meters manufactured or placed into service after January 1, 1998; and the second based on HB-44, §5.56(b), applicable to

all other meters. A similar change was made in the corresponding EPOs. Revised drafts (dated May 2001) were reviewed

by the Sector at its August 2001 meeting.

Subsequent to the Sector’s 2001 meeting, OWM discussed formatting for EPOs considering what would be best for field 

inspectors. During these discussions it was noted that EPOs should be in outline form and should remain relatively short 

so that an inspector has a quick reference to code requirements while testing is being performed. In contrast to EPOs, field 

manuals should contain more detail to include pictures of the device and more instructions for testing. Field manuals are 

also intended to be used as teaching tools. 

Discussion: In the latest round of editing, Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, has revised the GMM Inspection Procedure to address 

comments and suggestions from the Sector’s August 2001 meeting. The revised Inspection Procedure has been rearranged

and incorporated into a draft Field Manual titled. Examination of Grain Moisture Meters. The GMM EPO also has been

revised to address comments and suggestions from the Sector’s August 2001 meeting. It has been incorporated into the

Field Manual as Appendix A. The Field Manual includes the following sections: (1) Foreword, (2) References, 

(3) Definitions, (4) Testing Methods (a description of the test method), (5) Testing Apparatus/equipment, (6) Inspection of 

Commercial Devices (intended to include pictures, diagrams, or outline drawings), (7) Preparation and Testing of

Commercial Devices, (8) Test Report Forms, (9) Reporting a Test, and (10) Appendix A, GMM EPO. 

Richard Pierce, GIPSA, noted that the EPO included several checklist items that duplicated evaluations performed during

NTEP testing. Ms. Lee pointed out that the phrase “if conditions exist such that they can be evaluated” precedes such 

checklist items. She explained that these were included, because they represented situations that might be encountered

during routine field evaluation. For example, paragraph 6.11, relating to the requirement that power interruption does not

cause indicating or recording of values outside of tolerance, would apply only if a power interruption were encountered

while the inspector was performing normal accuracy tests on the device. 

One attendee mentioned that a significant number of GMM rejections during field test are caused by high moisture grain

samples that are beginning to deteriorate. There is a limit to how long high moisture samples can be stored and still

remain stable when removed from storage and put into use. The stability problem may not be evident when the samples

leave the laboratory, but it becomes evident after the samples have been used several times. 

Conclusion: The Sector was in general agreement that Section 6.2 Official Samples should incorporate additional

precautions relating to the use of high moisture samples. Specific suggestions related to high moisture samples included: 

6.2.1.4. There is some evidence that moisture level of samples may begin to change after 24 drops (18 drops for high

moisture corn and soybeans), as such samples should not be used for more than 24 drops. Samples with moistures 

over 18 % for corn and over 16 % for soybeans are not recommended for use. 

Editorial revisions and suggestions relating to other issues in the main body of the Field Examination Procedure included: 

3.1. The method for testing grain moisture meters that is addressed in this handbook is using grain samples with

known moisture values. The grain samples must be maintained when using this method to ensure that the samples 

retain their original moisture values and do not deteriorate biologically. 

4.11. Certified digital heat probe thermometer, probe, and carrying case 

[Note: This requirement is not applicable to NTEP meters.] 

and in Appendix A, 

NTEP - C16 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

4.3 T.3. Test Weight per Bushel Tolerance. - The tolerance for test 

weight per bushel is shown in Table T.3. The tolerance is

assigned (plus or minus) to the average of three measurements.

Yes No NA

[Note: The above change assumes that the NCWM will approve the Sector’s recommendations to modify the GMM

Code in section 5.56(a) of HB-44 to recognize indications and recorded representations of test weight per bushel. 

See preceding agenda item 4.(b)] 

Inspection Report – Will need provisions for 3 TW indications, average TW, reference (or standard) TW, and 

TW error when the GMM Code in section 5.56(a) of HB-44 is amended to recognize indications and recorded

representations of test weight per bushel. 

Inspection Report – Change heading of next to last column of data field to make it clear that this is where the 

moisture value of the transfer standard is to be entered:

-% 

moisture 

(standard) 

Time constraints did not allow a complete review of the draft. Additional comments and suggestions should be 

forwarded to Diane Lee at diane.lee@nist.gov by November 15, 2002. 

Manufacturers were urged to forward line drawings/diagrams of their devices via e-mail to Diane Lee at 

diane.lee@nist.gov for inclusion in the next draft. Especially useful would be drawings of key-pads, control panels, 

and line drawings of the device identifying components likely to be used, examined, or accessed during a field

inspection.

6. A Message from the NCWM Board of Directors 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights & Measures, representing the NCWM Board of

Directors (BOD), informed the Sector that the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) is working well, largely due to 

the efforts of the staff of NIST’s Office of Weights and Measures and NCWM, Inc.’s NTEP Director, Steve Patoray. 

NTEP is solvent; however, the BOD believes that the major work of the GMM & NIR Sectors has been completed and it

questions whether annual Sector meetings will be required in the future. The GMM Sector contributes only $500 

annually to NTEP. The BOD figures the total staff costs associated with the GMM/NIR Sector is about $15,000. In a cost 

cutting effort for 2002, no state members received funding for travel to attend this GMM/NIR Sector meeting. However, 

the Board paid Don Onwiler’s travel costs to attend the sector meeting and to provide the sector with an explanation of 

the BOD’s cost cutting efforts, answer questions and address the concerns of the sector. 

Discussion: Sector members were disturbed about what they heard. Several members believed that the cost of the Sector 

meeting was a small portion of the $15,000 cited as the cost of Sector support. The 2000, 2001, and 2002 meetings have

all been held in Kansas City, MO at the National Weather Service Training Center with no cost for the meeting room or 

for digital projectors when needed. Sector meeting agendas and meeting summaries are distributed by e-mail. Other than

cookies, soft drinks, and Steve Patoray’s time and travel, the cost of a Sector meeting should be very small now that

funding of public member travel had been withdrawn. One member expressed the hope that the Board would obtain a 

detailed breakdown of costs directly related to the Sector’s recent meeting before making any decisions about

withdrawing support for annual meetings. There was concern that support for the GMM NTEP certificate program would 

be the next thing to be withdrawn. The Sector has always known that there would never be a large number of GMM (or

NIR) CC’s, but the value of the program to regulating agencies, producers, the grain trade, and industry is many times

greater than the annual cost of the program. Rich Pierce, GIPSA, reported that GIPSA and OWM continue to support the

program, with each providing $18,000 per year for the NTEP Phase II program. He said GIPSA was interested in 

expanding the NTEP program to encompass additional devices. GIPSA is making increased use of cross-utilized

equipment, in which devices owned by industry are also used by GIPSA for on-site official inspection. The NTEP

program is a critical element in that regard. Don Onwiler responded that NCWM is committed to continuing the NTEP 

program for grain moisture meters. There is no reason for the Sector to go away, but it may not need to meet every year. 

Diane Lee, NIST-OWM, suggested that it might be possible for OWM to host a technical session for NIST Handbook 44

NTEP - C17 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

issues that need to be resolved or that require additional discussion if the NCWM BOD chooses not to host a sector

meeting. Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Jr., ISU, suggested that the possibility of obtaining funding through Federal grant 

programs, for some of the work done by the Sector, should be explored. He noted that requests for funding of projects 

involving joint efforts of regulators, producers, the grain trade, and industry are usually received positively by the funding 

authority. 

In order to promote greater uniformity in commercial grain inspection results, Congress passed the Grain Quality 

Incentives Act of 1990 that authorized the Federal Grain Inspection Service to work in conjunction with the National

Institute for Standards and Technology and the National Conference on Weights and Measures to: 

1) identify inspection instruments requiring standardization; 

2) establish performance criteria for commercial grain inspection instruments; 

3) develop a national program to approve grain inspection instruments for commercial inspection; and 

4) develop standard reference materials or other means necessary for calibration or testing of approved instruments. 

In 1992, partly through the efforts of Sid Colbrook, Illinois Department of Agriculture, who was then NCWM Chairman, 

the GMM and NIR Sectors were established. The Sectors became not only working groups for the development of device 

standards and test/evaluation methods; they also provided a forum for manufacturers, user groups, state regulators,

GIPSA/FGIS, and NIST-OWM to air issues of mutual concern relating to grain inspection and measurement, including 

Handbook 44 issues and the GMM ongoing calibration maintenance program. If the NCWM Board views the current 

purpose of the Sectors as limited to dealing with Publication 14 issues uncovered during NTEP testing, then another

forum will have to be found for these other issues of interest (and importance) to members of the Sector. 

7. Update on NTEP Type Evaluation and OCP (Phase II) Testing 

Rich Pierce of the Grain Inspection, Processors and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the NTEP Participating 

Laboratory for Grain Moisture Meters, reported that there were currently no active applications for examination of new

devices. 

The number of meter types in the ongoing calibration maintenance program remains at five, the same as last year. Phase

II calibration data are being collected for 2002 crop samples on the following meter types. 

DICKEY-john Corporation GAC2000NTEP, GAC2100, GAC2100A

Foss North America, Inc. Infratec 1227, Infratec 1229

Foss North America, Inc. Infratec 1241 

Motomco, Ins. 919E, 919E-S 

The Steinlite Corporation SL 95

With five types in the OCP (Phase II), the cost to manufacturers remains at $3,600 per type. 

8. A Quality Control Procedure for Grain Analysis at a Country Elevator 

Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Jr., Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering - Iowa State University, described a quality control

system implemented by Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company at its Odebolt, Iowa facility. The system was developed 

under a grant from the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative with the intention of learning how to develop a quality system and

then to replicate it at 32 other locations in northwest Iowa. The initial concept was to use the quality management system

for market differentiation – to be able to certify the identity of specialty crops through a documented identity preservation 

system. During the early stages of the project it became apparent that the quality system had benefits as a management

system and had improved operations to the extent that the system was worth implementing even without the prospects of 

market differentiation through identity preservation. In fact, Dr. Hurburgh estimated that the system has generated two 

dollars for every one dollar invested. 

Four important criteria were deemed necessary for the system: 1) it must be a certified system; 2) it must have established

credibility; 3) there must be 3rd party auditing; and 4) it must have international recognition. The system implemented is

based on the American Institute of Baking (AIB) International Gold Standard Certification Program which, with

certification and auditing through AIB’s Quality System Evaluation, includes about 80 % of the requirements of ISO9000. Some of the key elements of the system include: written work procedures, flowcharts for sampling and grading 

NTEP - C18 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

processes, setting tolerances for grade factors, using grade factor control charts and comparison charts (in-house 

measurements compared to official measurements) for both inbound and outbound grade factors. The objective being to

make house grades just as accurate as official grades, and to provide documented evidence of this equivalence. 

Quality control data was used to evaluate the accuracy of house grades. The initial target was that no more than 5 % of 

the individual tests would be out of tolerance. Operator training and incentives were based on these data. Control charts

and comparison charts made it easy to identify trends and apply corrections before the trends became problems –

continuous data is more useful than spot checks. Better accuracy on inbound measurements resulted in more accurate

inventory records and assisted in merchandising. The documentation of quality control (QC) data gave customers

confidence in house grades. 

The widespread implementation of quality management systems (QMS) like the one in Odebolt, Iowa could have major 

implications on regulatory programs such as those used for grain moisture meters and (soon) near-infrared grain

analyzers. If documented references are used, a certified QMS may create more useful data than annual device

inspections. The structure of regulatory programs may change to auditing and verification that a quality system is in

place. Review of data may replace testing of devices and reference standards may replace monitoring. 

Discussion: 

Following Dr. Hurburgh’s presentation, Don Onwiler, Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Weights & Measures,

suggested that in the case of prepackaging scales (automatic weighing systems) there is already precedence for process 

verification rather than device inspection. In some states such scales are not checked; instead, the packaged product is

checked for correct weight. 

9. Time and Place for Next Meeting 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for the week of August 18, 2003 in the Kansas City, MO area. Meetings will be

held in one of the meeting rooms at the National Weather Service Training Center if available. A tentative schedule is

shown below. 

Wednesday, August 20 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm GMM Sector Meeting

Thursday, August 21 8:00 am - 12:00 noon GMM Sector Meeting

Thursday, August 21 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm Joint Session GMM & NIR Analyzer 

Friday, August 22 8:00 am - 12:00 noon NIR Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting 

NTEP - C19 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix D 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer Sector 

August 22-23, 2002 - Kansas City, MO

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items 

 1. NIST/Office of Weights and Measures Reorganization 

2. Report on the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings

a. S&T Items 357-1A and 357-1B 

b. Specialty or Proprietary Calibrations 

3. Type Evaluation Issues – Pub 14, Table 2 - Tolerances for Barley, Corn, Soybeans 

4. Proposed Changes and Additions to Publication 14 – Identification Marking Requirements 

5. Proposed Changes and Additions to Publication 14 to Add Additional Grains and Criteria for Moisture Basis 

6. Dual Certification – Could a Single Certificate be Used?

 7. A Message from the NCWM Board of Directors 

 8. A Quality Control Procedure for Grain Analysis at a Country Elevator 

 9. Time and Place for Next Meeting 

Note: Because of common interest, items marked with a star () will be considered in joint session of the NIR Grain

Analyzer and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors

1. NIST/Office of Weights and Measures Reorganization 

Discussion: As part of a broader reorganization within NIST Technology Services (TS), the Office of Weights and

Measures (OWM) has been raised from the program level with the Office of Measurement (now the Measurement 

Services Division) to the Division level within the TS organization structure. Henry Oppermann has been named Chief of

the new Weights and Measures Division. In addition to national weights and measures matters, OWM will be responsible

for NIST’s Metric Program and for international matters relating to legal metrology, including U.S. participation in the 

OIML. This will provide a closer tie between national and international interests in standards matters. 

2. Report on the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings 

2.a S&T Items 357-1A and 357-1B

At the NCWM Interim Meeting held January 27-30, 2002, the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

considered the Sector’s proposal to amend the scope of the Tentative Code to include a code exemption for specialty

crops and to recommend that the amended Tentative Code be made permanent. During the interim meeting the 

original proposal, Agenda Item 357-1, was separated into two parts to facilitate review of the issues. 

Agenda Item 357-1A - The S&T Committee recommended that the status of the Near Infrared Grain Analyzer 

Code be changed from tentative to permanent. This item was given a voting (V) status for the 2002 NCWM

Annual Meeting. 

Agenda Item 357-1B - The S&T Committee opposed the proposal to exempt specialty crop from the entire

NIST Handbook 44 (HB-44) NIR Code on the basis that it has no technical merit and would set a precedence for

anyone wanting to gain exemptions simply because they operate on a contractual basis. Additionally, the 

proposal included no definition for specialty crop. To address specialty crop transactions where industry is

concerned about the proprietary nature of calibration information, the Committee recommended amending NIST 

NTEP - D1 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

HB 44 NIR Code, paragraph S.1.2 to include "If more than one calibration is included for a given grain type, the

calibrations must be clearly distinguished from one another." This item was given Informational (I) status. 

For additional background refer to Committee Reports for the 87th Annual Meeting, NCWM Publication 16, April

2002 and to OWM Position Statement, “2002 S&T Interim Agenda Item 357-1 - Tentative Status of NIR Grain 

Analyzers Code.” 

At the 87th Annual Meeting held July 14 – 18, 2002 the Conference voted to accept Agenda Item 357-1A, elevating 

the Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Code to permanent status, effective January 1, 2003. 

2.b. Specialty Crops and Proprietary Calibrations 

Discussion: Sector members discussed NCWM Conference Agenda Item 357-1B at length. In an attempt to arrive 

at a definition of “specialty crop” it was suggested that a specialty crop might be one in which the constituents 

recognized by the CC for that crop type (e.g., soybeans: protein, & oil) could not be measured accurately using the 

normal calibration because the specialty crop had a spectral response that differed significantly from the spectral 

response of normal varieties of that crop. High oleaic soybeans (soybean varieties developed specifically to yield

high concentrations of oleaic acid) were cited as a good example of a specialty crop requiring special oil and protein 

calibrations. In contrast, “high oil” corn was not considered a good example of a specialty crop, although seed 

companies may market it as such. It was pointed out that although “normal” corn typically has an oil content in the

3-4 % range, the GIPSA corn oil calibration contains low (3-4 %), mid-range (5-6 %), and high (>7 %) oil samples

from three major seed companies. Sector members were in general agreement that it would be misleading to imply 

that this, or similar, "standard" calibrations are somehow unsuitable for use with high-oil corn samples. There was

similar agreement that, from a regulatory point of view, it would not be desirable to allow the use of multiple

calibrations (on the same device) for essentially the same commodity. 

The Sector searched for wording that would restrict the unnecessary use of multiple calibrations for the same basic 

grain type but would still permit the use of proprietary calibrations where there was a legitimate need. The following

wording was proposed as an amendment to paragraph S.1.2 of NIST HB 44, NIR Code, "If a non-NTEP calibration is

included for a given grain type, it must be clearly distinguished from other calibrations. The calibration description 

must clearly identify the unique end use property addressed by the calibration.” Several variations of the foregoing 

were also considered. 

Conclusion: In the end, the Sector decided that it would be best to add new text to current paragraph S.1.2. of the

NIR Analyzer Code, as shown in the recommendation below, to address specialty crop transactions where industry is 

concerned about the proprietary nature of calibration information. This is the same wording recommended by the 

S&T Committee in Conference Agenda Item 357-1B. 

Recommendation: Amend paragraph S.1.2. as follows: 

S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent. – Provision shall be made for selecting, 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 of grain and 

constituents(s) selected is permitted provided that it is clearly defined adjacent to the display. 

Minimum acceptable abbreviations are listed in Table S.1.2. Meters shall have the capability 

(i.e., display capacity) of indicating the grain type using a minimum of four characters in order 

to accommodate the abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2. If more than one calibration is included 

for a given grain type, the calibrations must be clearly distinguished from one another.

3. Type Evaluation Issues – Pub 14, Table 2 - Tolerances for Barley, Corn, Soybeans 

Background: At its August 2001 meeting, the Sector recommended the addition of Table 2 listing tolerances applicable

to the Sample Temperature Sensitivity test as well as tolerances for Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility. Only wheat 

tolerance values were known at that time. Consideration of tolerance values for barley, corn, and soybeans was deferred 

pending further investigation. 

NTEP - D2 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Discussion: The Table 2 Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility tolerance values for protein in all classes of wheat are 

based on the following: 

Accuracy Tolerance: 1/2 the HB 44 acceptance tolerance applied to individual samples 

Repeatability Tolerance: 1/4 the HB 44 acceptance tolerance applied to individual samples 

Reproducibility Tolerance: 1/3 the HB 44 acceptance tolerance applied to individual samples 

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, representing the NTEP Laboratory, reported that it was reasonable to use the above 

multipliers for the repeatability and reproducibility tolerances for barley, corn, and soybeans, but due to uncertainties with

the standard reference methods for the larger grains and oil seeds, accuracy tolerances would have to be increased for 

corn and soybeans beyond the values obtained using the above multipliers. 

The tolerance value of ± 0.35 for the Sample Temperature Sensitivity Test for all classes of wheat was not originally

expressed as a fraction of the HB 44 acceptance tolerance applied to individual samples, but Dr. Pierce indicated that an

appropriate tolerance for this test would be ± 0.45 for all the constituents of the added grain types. 

Accordingly, the repeatability and reproducibility tolerances proposed for barley, corn, and soybeans, were derived using

the multipliers mentioned above and rounding the results to the next highest 0.05. Accuracy tolerances proposed for 

barley were also derived using the multipliers mentioned above and rounding the results to the next highest 0.05. 

Accuracy tolerances proposed for corn and soybeans were derived by first using the multipliers mentioned above,

rounding the results to the next highest 0.05, and then adding an additional allowance to account for uncertainties in the

standard reference methods. The calculation of the overall accuracy tolerance for Corn and Soybeans is shown below: 

Grain Type Constituent 

1/2 the acceptance tolerance applied 

to individual samples 

(rounded up to the next highest 0.05) 

Additional 

allowance 

Overall 

accuracy 

tolerance 

Protein 0.45 0.05 0.50 

Corn Oil 0.40 0.10 0.50 

Starch 0.55 0.45 1.00 

Protein 0.45 0.10 0.55 Soybeans 

Oil 0.40 0.05 0.45 

Recommendation: Add tolerance values for barley, corn, and soybeans to Table 2 as shown. 

Table 2. Tolerances 

Grain Type Constituent 

Sample 

Temperature 

Sensitivity Test 

Tolerance 

Accuracy 

Tolerance 

Repeatability 

Tolerance 

Reproducibility 

Tolerance 

Durum Wheat Protein 

Hard Red Spring Wheat Protein 

Hard Red Winter Wheat Protein 

Hard White Wheat Protein

Soft Red Winter Wheat Protein 

Soft White Wheat Protein 

“All-Class” Wheat Calibration Protein

± 0.35 0.30 0.15 0.20 

Two-rowed Barley Protein 

Six-rowed Barley Protein 

“All-Class” Barley Calibration Protein

± 0.45 0.40 0.20 0.25 

Protein ± 0.45 0.50 0.25 0.30

Corn Oil ± 0.45 0.50 0.20 0.25

Starch ± 0.45 1.0 0.30 0.35

Protein ± 0.45 0.55 0.25 0.30 Soybeans 

Oil ± 0.45 0.45 0.20 0.25

NTEP - D3 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

4. Proposed Changes and Additions to Publication 14

4.a. Identification Marking Requirements 

Background: The 86th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) in 2001 adopted changes to the 

General Code section of Handbook 44 that require corresponding changes to the Grain Moisture Meter Check List in 

Publication 14. The changes include: 

• a specification of acceptable abbreviations for the word “Model” 

• a requirement that devices be permanently marked with the applicable Certificate of Conformance (CC) 

number or a corresponding CC addendum number. 

[For a detailed discussion of the above changes see the report 86th NCWM. NIST Special Publication 976.] 

Conclusion and Recommendation: The Sector agreed to recommend amending and modifying Publication 14, NIR 

Checklist, Section 1. General, to combine related marking requirements and to address the above issues. In addition, 

the Sector recommended moving the paragraph related to Code Reference G-S.1.1. to a more appropriate location 

following the list of marking requirements. Recommended changes are shown below. 

1. General 

Code Reference: G-S.1. Identification 

Virtually all measuring equipment (except separate parts necessary to the measurement process but not having

any metrological effect) must be clearly and permanently marked with the manufacturer's name or trademark, 

model designation, and serial number. Additionally, devices that have (or will have) an NTEP Certificate of

Conformance (CC) Number, must be marked with the CC number or a corresponding CC addendum number.

"Permanent" markings addresses two aspects: (1) the printed information will withstand wear and cleaning, and

(2) if the markings are on a plate or badge, then the marking badge must be "permanently" attached to the device. 

Permanently attached means that the identification information required by G-S.1. is not easily removed from the

badge. If it is removed, then it must be obvious that the badge or plate containing this information has been

removed. All markings must be clear and easily readable. The following test procedure shall be used to 

determine the permanence of the identification markings. 

Permanence of Lettering: The lettering for the markings are subjected to the following tests to simulate accelerated

wear. The markings are then compared with a typical set of labels exhibiting various degrees of wear, graded from

minimal effect (1) to excessive unacceptable wear (7). 

Attempts are made to remove the marked information, whether on a badge (plate) or on the device itself, using the

following means: 

1. Rub over one letter of the marking at least 20 times using an ink eraser in the same manner and force as one 

would normally exert while erasing an inscription written with a ballpoint pen. 

2. Clean the marking or badge with the following cleaners presumed to be "readily available." 

a. Disinfecting cleaning liquid and a damp cloth. 

b. "Soft" household cleaning powder and a damp cloth. 

c. Window cleaning fluids and a damp cloth.

Permanence of Attachment of Badge: Attempt to remove the badge by pulling it off or prying off a metal badge

that is attached using only adhesive; removal must be "difficult" at all temperatures. If the badge can be removed, it 

must show obvious evidence that the badge was removed. Acceptable indications are destruction of the badge by

tearing, permanent and extensive wrinkling, or repeated exposure of the word "VOID" upon removal of the badge.

NTEP - D4 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

As a practical matter, remote constituent displays are not required to have serial numbers because they typically only 

repeat the moisture information received from the measuring element. Similarly, external printers are not required to

have serial numbers because they do not alter the information received from the measuring element. 

If the required information is located on the back of a device, the same information must also appear on the side,

front, or top. The bottom of a device is not an acceptable surface. The identification marking must be permanent and

attached with pop rivets, adhesive, or other permanent means. Removable bolts or screws are not permitted. A foil

badge may be used provided that it is durable, difficult to remove, and exhibits obvious evidence of an attempt to

remove the marking or badge. 

The system must be clearly and permanently marked with the following information on an exterior surface that is

visible after installation, with the following information:

1.1 The name, initials or trademark of the manufacturer. A remote display is

required to have the manufacturer's name or trademark and model

designation. (Code Reference GS.1.(a)) 

Yes No NA

1.2 A model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the 

device. The Model designation shall be prefaced by the word “Model”,

“Type”, or “Pattern.” These terms may be followed by the term “Number” or

an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, 

as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation 

for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” 

(Effective January 1, 2003). (Code Reference G-S.1.(b)&(c)) 

Yes No NA

1.3 A nonrepetitive serial number prefaced by words “Serial Number” or an 

abbreviation of that term. Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a 

minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and abbreviations for the word “Number” 

shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser.No, and S 

No.). (Code Reference G-S.1.(d),(e), & (f)).

Yes No NA

1.4 The NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a corresponding CC 

addendum number for devices that have (or will have) a CC. The number 

shall be prefaced by the terms “NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These 

terms may be followed by the term “Number” or an abbreviation of the word

“Number”. The abbreviation shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” 

(e.g., No or No.). (Code Reference G-S.1.(g). Effective January 1, 2003). 

The device must have an area, either on the identification plate or on the 

device itself, suitable for the application of the CC number. If the area for the 

CC number is not part of an identification plate, note its intended location and 

how it will be applied. 

Location of CC Number if not located with the identification information:

______________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

Yes No NA

1.5 If the information required by G-S.1. is placed on a badge or plate, the badge 

or plate must be permanently attached to the device. (See criteria below for 

Permanence of Attachment of Badge.) 

(Code Reference G-S-1.) 

Yes No NA

1.6 Identifying information shall be so located that it is readily observable 

without the necessity of the disassembly of a part requiring the use of any 

means separate from the device. 

Yes No NA

NTEP - D5 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

1.7 All markings must be clear and easily readable. Yes No NA

1.8 The lettering for all markings must be permanent. Record the grade for the 

permanence of markings. ___________________________. 

Yes No NA

1.9 If the markings for other than device identification required by G-S.1. are 

placed on a badge or decal, then the badge or decal must be durable 

(difficult to remove at all temperatures). 

Yes No NA

Code Reference: G-S.1.1. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements

Refer to the Section Policy on Remanufactured and Repaired Devices in the NCWM Publication 14 Administrative 

Policy. 

4.b. Miscellaneous Editorial Changes 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the original draft of the 2002 issue of the Near Infrared (NIR) checklist in Publication

14. Several typographical errors were noted. 

Conclusion and Recommendation: The Sector recommended changes to correct typographical errors and to

remove text referring to sample temperature sensitivity from the first paragraph of part I. Basic Instrument Tests. 

This change was overlooked when sample temperature sensitivity was moved to part II in an earlier change. The 

Sector also recommended:

• Adding text defining “room temperature” to part II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity; 

• Changing equations and variable definitions to use a “bar” over variables that are intended to indicate an

“average” or “mean”, and add missing definition of variables for SEP equation. 

• Deleting part IV. Tolerances for Calibration Performance in its entirety. This change was recommended at

the Sector’s 2001 meeting but had not been made in the 2002 review copy provided to the Sector. 

Recommended changes follow: 

Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances 

I. Basic Instrument Tests 

Basic instrument tests will be conducted using a stable moisture, mid-range protein HRW wheat sample to check

the effect of power supply fluctuations, storage temperature, leveling, warm-up time, humidity, instrument

stability, and instrument temperature sensitivity. All instrument tests will be conducted on each of the two

instruments submitted by a manufacturer. For purposes of these tests, room temperature will be defined as 22 oC

± 2 oC. 

II. Sample Temperature Sensitivity.

Testing is required to verify that accurate results are provided when the sample and instrument are at different 

temperatures. This will be referred to as the sample temperature sensitivity test. Tests will be conducted with

the instrument at room temperature and the sample temperature varying from room temperature + ∆TH to room

temperature ∆TC, where ∆TH is the manufacturer-specified difference for grain above room temperature, and

∆TC is the manufacturer-specified difference for grain below room temperature. In no case will room

temperature + ∆TH be allowed to exceed 45 °C, but ∆TH need not equal ∆TC. For purposes of these tests, room

temperature will be defined as 22 oC ± 2 oC. 

Accuracy. The first replicate for each sample will be used to calculate the Standard Error of Performance (SEP) for 

each instrument with respect to the reference method. Each instrument will be tested individually. 

NTEP - D6 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

1

( )

1

2

−

−

=

∑=

n

y y

SEP

n

i

i

where, 

i x = average predicted constituent concentration for sample i (3 replicates) 

ir = reference constituent concentration for sample i

i y = i i x − r

y = average of i y

n = number of samples in the test set for the constituent calibration being evaluated

( n = 50, see Note 1 below regarding “all class” calibrations.) 

Repeatability. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the three replicates will be calculated and pooled across samples for 

each class. Each instrument will be tested individually. The equation used to calculate SD is: 

n

P P

SD

n

i j

ij i

2

( )

1

3

1

2

∑∑= =

−

=

where, 

Pij = predicted constituent concentration for sample i and replicate j

Pi = average of the three predicted constituent concentration values for sample i 

n = number of samples in the test set for constituent calibration being evaluated = 

50, see Note below regarding “all class” calibrations.) 

ation of the Differences (SDD) between instruments will be calculated using 

e following equation:

here, 

 = 

( n

. 

Reproducibility. The results for each of the three replicates obtained for samples in the test set will be averaged for

each instrument and the Standard Devi

th

w

i d P1i − P2i

P1i = average of three replicates for sample i on instrument 1 

2i P = average of three replicates for sample i on instrument 2 

d = average of the di 

( )

n −1

1

2

−

=

∑=

d d

SDD

n

i

i

NTEP - D7 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

= number of samples in the test set for constituent calibration being evaluated = 

lass” calibrations.) 

that require corresponding changes to Publication 14, Near Infrared 

ra tions and §3.

Desi o

iscussi s to the NIR Grain Analyzer Checklist included two paragraphs

relating t

Code Ref

2.17 ed moisture basis, the "native" 

the converted results and the manually entered moisture basis. 

ent

 time of set-up) is a straightforward mathematical conversion. It could also be accomplished using a

en if the indicated moisture basis is an erroneously entered value), is the fact that some

nstr e oduced by the calibration selected for use.

Typ

n ( n

50, see Note below regarding “all c

and delete all of part IV. Tolerances for Calibration Performance. 

5. Proposed Changes and Additions to Publication 14 to Add Additional Grains and Criteria for Moisture Basis

Background: The 86th National Conference on Weights and Measures in 2001 adopted changes to the Handbook 44 

tentative code for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers

G in Analyzer Checklist, §2. Indicating Elements, Recording Elements, and Recorded Representa

gn f NIR Analyzers. The changes include:

• adding requirements for corn protein, oil, and starch; barley protein; and soybeans protein and oil

• adding criteria for moisture basis 

[For a detailed discussion of these changes see NIST Special Publication 976, Report of the 86th National Conference 

on Weights and Measures Annual Meeting.] 

D on: The draft copy of the proposed change

o Code Reference: UR.2.3. Printed Tickets: 

erence: UR.2.3. Printed Tickets 

If the analyzer converts constituent results to a manually enter

concentration and the "native" moisture basis must appear on the printed ticket in addition to

2.18 The information presented on the ticket is arranged in a consistent and unambiguous manner. 

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, reminded the Sector that NTEP does not evaluate User Requirements. A review of the

NIR code in Handbook 44 (HB-44) revealed that, under the circumstances described in UR.2.3, there was nothing in the 

specifications that required the device to be capable of transmitting the “native” moisture basis and constitu

concentration (at that basis) or that information on the ticket be arranged in a consistent and unambiguous manner when

the device either contains a built-in printer or when a printer is offered by the manufacturer as an optional accessory. 

Consideration of the requirements of UR.2.3. led to a discussion of why a user might want to manually enter a moisture

basis and whether a manually entered moisture basis should be “flagged” on the ticket. 

It was explained that NIR calibrations can be derived using constituent concentration data expressed on any one of a 

variety of moisture bases. As an example, in the U.S., wheat protein is commonly traded on a 12 % moisture basis. Partly 

for this reason, some manufacturers have chosen to develop their wheat protein calibrations on a 12 % moisture basis.

Russian contracts, however, frequently specify protein values on a dry basis (0 % moisture basis). Other contracts may 

specify protein on an “as-is” basis. By entering the desired moisture basis using the instrument keyboard, the instrument

can produce indications (and recorded representations) not only of the wheat protein value at its “native” moisture basis

(in this example, 12 %) but also at the keyboard entered moisture basis, whether the basis is 0 % or any other value. The 

conversion from “native” moisture basis to any other moisture basis (whether entered via the keyboard or selected for a 

particular grain at

pocket calculator with knowledge of: 1) the moisture basis of the NIR instrument’s protein result and 2) the desired 

moisture basis. 

Of greater concern than a keyboard entered moisture basis, which will result in calculation of the correct protein value for 

the indicated moisture basis (ev

i um nts offer several options for processing the measured value pr

ically, the options include: 

1. No transformation. - Results are displayed without modification. 

NTEP - D8 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

2.

this mode has been set up for use with a given calibration, the same specified moisture basis is used to transform

m

corr

. Constituent measurement at a fixed native moisture basis (other than “as is”) is transformed to a different

. “As is” constituent measurement at an internally measured “as is” moisture value is transformed to a 

3.

r use in transforming the measured value produced by the calibration to

its value at the target moisture basis. Instead, the user enters the target moisture basis via the keyboard for each

ically significant" and are to be sealable [S.2.5.2]. Some members

uestioned if the option setting should also appear on the printed ticket so that, in the event of challenges or complaints, 

ierce, GIPSA, speaking for the NTEP Laboratory, stated that for practical reasons, instruments submitted for NTEP

valuation must be capable of being set up to transmit results at the standard moisture bases listed in Table N.1.1. of the 

pecified moisture basis” be inserted at the 

nd of the first sentence of item 2.5 for correctness, and to emphasize that the total mass depends not only on the 

o final decision was made on the

uggestion to flag manually entered moisture bases or the suggestion to include option settings on the printed ticket.

Recommendation: Amend and modify Publication 14, NIR Grain Analyzer Checklist, §2. Indicating Elements, 

Recording Elements, and Recorded Representations and §3. Design of NIR Analyzers as shown below.

Transformation to a “fixed” moisture basis. - In some instruments, the installer, when setting up this mode, 

selects one moisture basis from a list of “standard” moisture bases. In other instruments, choosing this mode 

prompts the installer to enter, via the keyboard, the fixed moisture basis that will be used. In either instance, once 

all easurements made using that calibration. There are 2 subcategories to this option. The selection of the

ect subcategory depends on whether or not the native calibration had been derived on a fixed moisture basis. 

a

“fixed” moisture basis for display on the instrument. The installer must specify the native moisture basis for 

the calibration at time of installation. The instrument does not have to measure moisture in this case. 

b

different “fixed” moisture basis for display on the instrument. This subcategory requires that the instrument

measure moisture. 

Transformation to a “variable” moisture basis. - Same as 2a and 2b above except that the target moisture 

basis is not stored in device memory fo

sample measured by the device. The result of a measurement will not be displayed until the user has entered the 

moisture basis desired for that sample. 

To obtain correct results, instrument option settings must be appropriate for the calibration used. Selection of the wrong 

option for a given calibration will result in incorrect constituent values for that calibration. Paragraph S.2.5.2 of the NIR 

Code requires that CC’s (and user instructions) indicate the instrument settings that are appropriate for use with each 

calibration. These settings are considered "metrolog

q

the ticket would contain sufficient information to resolve the issue. Others were of the opinion that errors due to improper 

set up would be discovered during field inspection. 

Rich P

e

NIR code. Once set up, instruments must not require manual entry of either a moisture measurement or a target moisture

basis. 

In reviewing the checklist, several members suggested that the words, “at the s

e

constituent mass but also upon the mass of moisture at the specified moisture basis. Thus, the percent of total mass

represented by the constituent will also depend on the specified moisture basis. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that references to user requirements should not appear in the checklist. They also agreed

that HB 44 should be amended to add specifications requiring the device to be capable of transmitting the “native”

moisture basis and constituent value in addition to the constituent value and keyed-in moisture basis as described in 

UR2.3.(b). The Sector did not decide on the exact text for that code change. N

s

These will be considered at a future meeting. The Sector agreed that the NIR Grain Analyzer Checklist of 2002 should be

amended and modified as shown below, including the suggested addition to item 2.5.

NTEP - D9 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

2. Indicating Elements, Recording Elements, and Recorded Representations 

Code Reference: S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements 

2.1 The analyzer shall be equipped with a digital indicating element. Yes No NA

2.2 The minimum height for digits used to display constituent values is 10 mm. Yes No NA

2.3 The analyzer is equipped with a communication interface that permits 

interfacing with a recording element and can transmit the date, grain type or 

class, constituent values, the moisture basis for each constituent value 

(except moisture), and calibration version identification.

Yes No NA

2.4 A digital indicating element shall not display, and recording element shall 

not record, any constituent value before the end of the measurement cycle. 

Yes No NA

2.5 Constituent content is recorded and displayed as a percent of total mass at

the specified moisture basis. The moisture basis is also displayed and 

recorded for each constituent content result (except moisture). 

Yes No NA

2.5.1 If a whole grain analyzer that is calibrated to display results on an 

“as is” moisture basis does NOT display or record a moisture

value, it clearly indicates that results are expressed on an “as is”

moisture basis. 

Yes No NA

2.5.2 Ground grain analyzers must ALWAYS display and record a

moisture measurement for “as is” content results (except moisture). 

Yes No NA

2.6 Digital and recording elements shall not display or record any constituent 

values 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). 

Yes No NA

2.7 If an NIR analyzer is used to determine a moisture value, either to

determine the moisture of an "as is" constituent content measurement or to

convert from one moisture basis to another, the moisture measurement must

be concurrent with the measurement of other constituents. 

Yes No NA

Code Reference: S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent

2.8 The means to select and display the grain type or class and constituent(s)

shall be readily visible and the type or class of grain and constituents

selected shall be clearly and definitely identified in letters (such as HRWW,

HRSW, SWW, etc., or PROT, etc.) or with symbols clearly defined 

adjacent to the display. The device shall be capable of indicating grain type 

using a minimum of four characters. 

Yes No NA

2.8.1 If the device uses abbreviations for grain names, they conform to

the minimum acceptable abbreviations listed below: 

Yes No NA

NTEP - D10 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Grain Type Minimum

Acceptable 

Abbreviation

Durum Wheat 

Hard Red Spring Wheat

Hard Red Winter Wheat 

Hard White Wheat 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 

Soft White Wheat

Soybeans 

Two-rowed Barley

Six-rowed Barley

Corn

DURW 

HRSW

HRWW 

HDWW

SRWW 

SWW 

SOYB 

TRB 

SRB 

CORN

Code Reference: S.1.3. Operating Range 

An analyzer shall automatically and clearly indicate when the operating range of the device has been 

exceeded. Analyzers shall not display constituent values when the operating temperature ranges are 

exceeded. The statement of operating range shall be specified in the operator's manual. A 5 ΕC tolerance is 

applied to temperature ranges when testing to verify that results are not displayed or recorded when the 

temperature range is exceeded. 

2.9 The ambient temperature range over which the analyzer may be used is

specified and covers a range no less than 10 ΕC to 30 ΕC. No constituent

values 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. 

Yes No NA

2.10

The constituent range at the moisture basis specified in Table N.1.1 is

specified for each grain or seed for which the analyzer is to be used. If a

constituent value is displayed when the constituent range is exceeded the 

device gives a clear indication that the constituent range has been exceeded.

Yes No NA

Table N.1.1. Constant Moisture Basis for Type Evaluation and Field Inspection

Grain Type or Class Constituents(s) Moisture Basis

Durum Wheat, Hard Red

Spring Wheat, Hard Red

Winter Wheat, Hard White 

Wheat, Soft Red Winter 

Wheat, Soft White Wheat

Protein 12 %

Soybeans Protein 

Oil

13 %

Two-rowed Barley 

Six-rowed Barley

Protein 0 % (dry basis)

Corn Protein 

Oil 

Starch

0 % (dry basis)

NTEP - D11 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

2.11 For whole grain analyzers only (this item is not applicable to ground grain 

instruments). The temperature range is specified for each grain or seed for 

which the analyzer is to be used. The specified range covers a range no 

less than 10 ΕC to 30 ΕC. No constituent values may be displayed when

the temperature range is exceeded. An appropriate error message is

displayed when the temperature of the grain sample exceeds the range for

the grain. 

Yes No NA

2.12 For whole grain analyzers only (this item is not applicable to ground grain 

instruments). The maximum allowable difference in temperature between 

the instrument environment (ambient temperature) and the sample for

which an accurate constituent determination can be made is specified. The 

minimum temperature range shall cover at least 10 ΕC. For temperature 

differences outside this range, constituent values are not displayed and an

appropriate error message is displayed. 

Yes No NA

Code Reference: S.1.4.1. Operating Temperature

2.13 An analyzer shall not display or record any usable values until the 

operating temperature necessary for accurate determination has been

attained, or

Yes No NA

2.14 The analyzer shall bear a conspicuous statement adjacent to the indication 

stating that the analyzer shall be turned on for a time period specified by

the manufacturer prior to use. 

Yes No NA

2.15 If the analyzer will 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, a means of sensing and indicating an over-temperature

condition shall be provided. 

Yes No NA

Code Reference: S.1.5 Value of Smallest Unit 

2.16 The display permits constituent value determination to both 0.01 % and 

0.1 % resolution. (The 0.1 % resolution is for commercial transactions; the

0.01 % resolution is for calibration purposes only, not for commercial

purposes.) 

Yes No NA

3. Design of NIR Analyzers 

Code Reference: S.2.5.1. Calibration Transfer

3.6 Instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures permit 

calibration development, and calibrations can be mathematically

transferred between instruments of like models. 

Yes No NA

Code Reference: S.4. Operating Instructions 

Operating instructions shall be furnished by the manufacturer with each device and accessories. Complete 

information concerning the accuracy, sensitivity, and use of accessory equipment necessary in obtaining a 

constituent value shall be included. 

In addition, operating instructions shall include the following information:

NTEP - D12 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

3.13 Name and address or trademark of the manufacturer. Yes No NA

3.14 The type or design of the device for which the operating instructions are 

intended to be used. 

Yes No NA

3.15 Date of issue. Yes No NA

3.16 The kind of classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to

measure constituent values. 

Yes No NA

3.17 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 interference, and necessary 

accessory equipment. 

Yes No NA

3.18 The appropriate user selectable options or settings for each calibration

installed in the device. 

Yes No NA

6. Dual Certification – Could a Single Certificate be Used? 

Background: Of the five Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) types with active NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CC's) two 

are whole-grain Near Infrared (NIR) Instruments with the potential to seek certification as NIR Grain Analyzers. In a

previous Sector meeting, the question was raised as to whether a single CC could be issued to cover devices certified as 

both GMM’s and NIR Grain Analyzers. Because of time constraints consideration of this question was postponed to a 

future meeting.

Discussion: In deciding whether a single CC could be issued to cover devices certified as both GMM’s and NIR Grain 

Analyzers, there are two requirements to consider: 

1) CC's for GMM’s automatically expire July 1. To maintain "active" status, meters must remain in the 

NTEP on-going calibration program and the CC's must be re-issued annually with valid calibration

constants for moisture. 

2) NIR Grain Analyzers that display a measured whole grain moisture value are required to comply with

the requirements of the GMM Code and be type approved as a grain moisture meter. 

When an instrument has been approved under both codes, it would seem that NIR Grain Analyzer CC’s are subordinate to 

GMM CC’s, because failure to maintain an “active” GMM CC would automatically invalidate the corresponding NIR

Grain Analyzer CC. A single CC, such as a “GMM CC with NIR Grain Analyzer Certification” would have to be

re-issued annually (and whenever a calibration change is made), there would be no ambiguity regarding the NTEP status 

of the instrument and its calibrations. With a single certificate, Weights and Measures (W&M) personnel would have

only one CC number to check. Manufacturers would have only one CC to maintain per instrument type. Marking

requirements would be simplified. The maintenance fee structure for a CC with a “certification” for compliance with

another code could be set to recover any loss in NCWM, Inc. revenue that would result from the elimination of the second

certificate. 

Conclusion and Recommendation: The Sector agreed to ask the NTEP Committee to consider recommending that

NCWM, Inc. authorize issuing a single CC for devices successfully type evaluated under two inter-related codes (e.g., a

“Grain Moisture Meter CC with Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Certification” or, simply, “NIR Grain Analyzer with Dual

Certification”). 

7. A Message from the NCWM Board of Directors 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights & Measures, representing the NCWM Board of

Directors (BOD), informed the Sector that the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) is working well, largely due to 

NTEP - D13 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

the efforts of the staff of NIST’s Office of Weights and Measures and NCWM, Inc.’s NTEP Director, Steve Patoray. 

NTEP is solvent; however, the BOD believes that the major work the GMM & NIR Sectors has been completed and it

questions whether annual Sector meetings will be required in the future. The GMM Sector contributes only $500 

annually to NTEP. The BOD figures the total staff costs associated with the GMM/NIR Sector is about $15,000. In a cost 

cutting effort for 2002, no state members received funding for travel to attend this GMM/NIR Sector meeting. However, 

the Board paid Don Onwiler’s travel costs to attend the sector meeting and to provide the sector with an explanation of 

the BOD’s cost cutting efforts, answer questions and address the concerns of the sector. 

Discussion: Sector members were disturbed about what they heard. Several members believed that the cost of the Sector 

meeting was a small portion of the $15,000 cited as the cost of Sector support. The 2000, 2001, and 2002 meetings have

all been held in Kansas City, MO at the National Weather Service Training Center with no cost for the meeting room or 

for digital projectors when needed. Sector meeting agendas and meeting summaries are distributed by e-mail. Other than

cookies, soft drinks, and Steve Patoray’s time and travel, the cost of a Sector meeting should be very small now that

funding of public member travel had been withdrawn. One member expressed the hope that the Board would obtain a 

detailed breakdown of costs directly related to the Sector’s recent meeting before making any decisions about

withdrawing support for annual meetings. There was concern that support for the GMM NTEP certificate program would 

be the next thing to be withdrawn. The Sector has always known that there would never be a large number of GMM (or

NIR) CC’s, but the value of the program to regulating agencies, producers, the grain trade, and industry is many times

greater than the annual cost of the program. Rich Pierce, GIPSA, reported that GIPSA and OWM continue to support the

program, with each providing $18,000 per year for the NTEP Phase II program. He said GIPSA was interested in 

expanding the NTEP program to encompass additional devices. GIPSA is making increased use of cross-utilized

equipment, in which devices owned by industry are also used by GIPSA for on-site official inspection. The NTEP

program is a critical element in that regard. Don Onwiler responded that NCWM is committed to continuing the NTEP 

program for grain moisture meters. There is no reason for the Sector to go away, but it may not need to meet every year. 

Diane Lee, NIST-OWM, suggested that it might be possible for OWM to host a technical session for NIST Handbook 44

issues that need to be resolved or that require additional discussion if the NCWM BOD chooses not to host a sector

meeting. Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Jr., ISU, suggested that the possibility of obtaining funding through Federal grant 

programs, for some of the work done by the Sector, should be explored. He noted that requests for funding of projects 

involving joint efforts of regulators, producers, the grain trade, and industry are usually received positively by the funding 

authority. 

In order to promote greater uniformity in commercial grain inspection results, Congress passed the Grain Quality 

Incentives Act of 1990 that authorized the Federal Grain Inspection Service to work in conjunction with the National

Institute for Standards and Technology and the National Conference on Weights and Measures to: 

1) identify inspection instruments requiring standardization; 

2) establish performance criteria for commercial grain inspection instruments; 

3) develop a national program to approve grain inspection instruments for commercial inspection; and 

4) develop standard reference materials or other means necessary for calibration or testing of approved instruments. 

In 1992, partly through the efforts of Sid Colbrook, Illinois Department of Agriculture, who was then NCWM Chairman, 

the GMM and NIR Sectors were established. The Sectors became not only working groups for the development of device 

standards and test/evaluation methods; they also provided a forum for manufacturers, user groups, state regulators,

GIPSA/FGIS, and NIST-OWM to air issues of mutual concern relating to grain inspection and measurement, including 

Handbook 44 issues and the GMM ongoing calibration maintenance program. If the NCWM Board views the current 

purpose of the Sectors as limited to dealing with Publication 14 issues uncovered during NTEP testing, then another

forum will have to be found for these other issues of interest (and importance) to members of the Sector. 

8. A Quality Control Procedure for Grain Analysis at a Country Elevator 

Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Jr., Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering - Iowa State University, described a quality control

system implemented by Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company at its Odebolt, Iowa facility. The system was developed 

under a grant from the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative with the intention of learning how to develop a quality system and

then to replicate it at 32 other locations in its northwest Iowa. The initial concept was to use the quality management

system for market differentiation – to be able to certify the identity of specialty crops through a documented identity

preservation system. During the early stages of the project it became apparent that the quality system had benefits as a

management system and had improved operations to the extent that the system was worth implementing even without the 

NTEP - D14 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

prospects of market differentiation by identity preservation. In fact, Dr. Hurburgh estimated that the system has generated 

two dollars for every one dollar invested. 

Four important criteria were deemed necessary for the system: 1) it must be a certified system; 2) it must have established

credibility; 3) there must be 3rd party auditing; and 4) it must have international recognition. The system implemented is

based on the American Institute of Baking (AIB) International Gold Standard Certification Program which with 

certification and auditing through AIB’s Quality System Evaluation includes about 80 % of the requirements of ISO9000. Some of the key elements of the system include: written work procedures, flowcharts for sampling and grading 

processes, setting tolerances for grade factors, using grade factor control charts and comparison charts (in-house 

measurements compared to official measurements) for both inbound and outbound grade factors. The objective being to

make house grades as just accurate as official grades, and to provide documented evidence of this equivalence. 

Quality control data was used to evaluate the accuracy of house grades. The initial target was that no more than 5 % of 

the individual tests would be out of tolerance. Operator training and incentives were based on these data. Control charts

and comparison charts made it easy to identify trends and apply corrections before the trends became problems –

continuous data is more useful than spot checks. Better accuracy on inbound measurements resulted in more accurate

inventory records and assisted in merchandising. The documentation of QC data gave customers confidence in house 

grades. 

The widespread implementation of quality management systems (QMS) like the one in Odebolt, Iowa could have major 

implications on regulatory programs such as those used for grain moisture meters and (soon) near-infrared grain

analyzers. If documented references are used, a certified QMS creates more useful data than annual device inspections. 

The structure of regulatory programs may change to auditing and verification that a quality system is in place. Review of

data may replace testing of devices and reference standards may replace monitoring. 

Discussion: Following Dr. Hurburgh’s presentation, Don Onwiler, Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Weights

& Measures, suggested that in the case of prepackaging scales (automatic weighing systems) there is already precedence 

for process verification rather than device inspection. In some such states scales are not checked; instead, the packaged 

product is checked for correct weight. 

9. Time and Place for Next Meeting 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for the week of August 18, 2003, in the Kansas City, MO area. Meetings will be

held in one of the meeting rooms at the National Weather Service Training Center if available. A tentative schedule is 

shown below. 

Wednesday, August 20 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm GMM Sector Meeting

Thursday, August 21 8:00 am - 12:00 noon GMM Sector Meeting

Thursday, August 21 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm Joint Session GMM & NIR Analyzer 

Friday, August 22 8:00 am - 12:00 noon NIR Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting 

NTEP - D15 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix E 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Measuring Sector Annual Meeting 

October 11-12, 2002, Richmond, Virginia 

Final Summary 

Carry-over Items............................................................................................................................................................... 1 

1. Recommendations to Update NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44..........................1 

2. Test Draft Size for Initial and Permanence Test for Mass Flow Meters..................................................................6 

3. Testing Required for an Electronic Indicator with a CC, Interfaced with a Measuring Element with a CC not 

Previously Evaluated Together................................................................................................................................7 

4. On Screen Display of Model and Version Number for Software ............................................................................8 

New Items ................................................................................................................................................................. 11 

5. Marking of Product Measured on Meters in Multi-Product Dispensers................................................................11 

6. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing Adjustable Components................................13 

7. Tolerance for Product Depletion Test....................................................................................................................13 

8. Product Family Tables for MAG Meters...............................................................................................................14 

9. Use of Discount and Loyalty Cards and Discounts for Actions After the Completion of a Retail Motor-Fuel 

Delivery .................................................................................................................................................................14 

10. Acceptable Symbols or Wording to Identify Unit Price, Total Price, and Quantity on a Retail Motor-Fuel

Dispenser...............................................................................................................................................................15 

11. NTEP Laboratory Recommendations for Changes to NCWM Publication 14......................................................15 

12. Definition for Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Device .............................................................................................17 

13. Next Meeting.........................................................................................................................................................17 

Additional Item:.............................................................................................................................................................. 18 

14. Update LMD Section of Publication 14 ................................................................................................................18 

Carry-over Items 

1. Recommendations to Update NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44 

Source: NIST/WMD

Background: The 87th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) adopted the following items that will be 

reflected in the 2003 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14. These items are part of the agenda to

inform the Measuring Sector of the NCWM actions and recommend changes to NCWM Publication 14. 

Recommendation: The Sector reviewed the following recommended changes to Publication 14 based on changes to

NIST Handbook 44:

A) S.3.2.(b) Exceptions for Diversion of Measured Liquid 

During its 2002 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to amend Handbook 44 LMD Code paragraph S.3.2. 

Exceptions as follows: 

S.3.2. Exceptions. - The provisions of S.3.1. Diversion Prohibited shall not apply to:

(a) truck refueling devices when diversion of flow to other than the receiving vehicle cannot readily be 

accomplished and is readily apparent. Allowable deterrents include, but are not limited to, physical barriers

to adjacent driveways, visible valves, or lighting systems that indicate which outlets are in operation, and

explanatory signs; 

NTEP - E1 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

(b) other devices, when all discharge outlets designed to operate simultaneously are 3.8 cm (1.5 in) 

in diameter or larger.

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider the removal of the reference to discharge lines with a diameter

of 3.8 cm (1 1⁄2 in) or larger in Code reference S.3.2. and paragraph 10.5 from Section 10 on page LMD-33 of the 

Checklist and Test Procedures of NCWM Publication 14, Measuring Devices, Chapter 2, 2002 edition as follows: 

10. Discharge Lines and Discharge Line Valves 

Code Reference: S.3.2. Exceptions 

If suitable means are provided to prevent the diversion of liquid flow to other than the receiving vehicle, devices that 

are specifically installed for fueling trucks are exempt from the provisions of S.3.1. and may have two outlets

operating simultaneously. Similarly, the requirements of S.3.1. do not apply to devices on which all discharge outlets

designed to operate simultaneously are 3.8 cm (1-1/2 in) in diameter or larger.

10.4. For devices that are specifically installed for fueling trucks, two outlets may 

be operated simultaneously only if suitable means are provided to ensure

that diversion of flow to other than the receiving vehicle cannot readily be

accomplished and is readily apparent. Such means include, but are not 

limited to, physical barriers to adjacent driveways, visible valves or lighting

systems indicating which outlets are in operation, and explanatory signs. 

Yes No NA

10.5. For other devices, two outlets may be simultaneously operated only if all 

discharge outlets designed to operate simultaneously are 3.8 cm (1-1/2 in).

Yes No NA 

Discussion/Conclusion: There was no discussion on the amended language for Publication 14, Section 10. The 

Sector recommends that the NTEP Committee amend Publication 14, Section 10 as shown above. 

B) S.4.4.1 Discharge Rates and S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information

During its 2002 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to amend Handbook 44 LMD Code paragraph S.4.4. Retail

Devices as follows: 

S.4.4. Retail Devices. 

S.4.4.1. Discharge Rates. - On a retail device with a designed maximum discharge rate of 100 115 L (25 30

gal) per minute or greater, the maximum and minimum discharge rates shall be marked on an exterior 

surface of the device and shall be visible after installation. The minimum discharge rate shall not exceed 

20 % of the maximum discharge rate. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1985.]

S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. – The required marking

information in the General Code, Paragraph G-S.1. shall appear as follows:

(a) Placement of this information shall not be on a portion of the device that can be readily removed or

interchanged without the use of a tool separate from the device 

(b) The information shall appear 24 to 60 inches from the base of the dispenser when placed on the outside

of the device.

(c) When placed behind an access door or panel the information shall appear 24 inches to 60 inches from 

the base of the dispenser in a readily legible position. The use of a dispenser key shall not be considered a

tool separate from the device.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

NTEP - E2 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider amending Code Reference S.4.4. in Section 11 on page LMD33 of the Checklist and Test Procedures of NCWM Publication 14, Measuring Devices, Chapter 2, 2002 edition and 

add Code Reference S.4.4.2. as follows:

11. Marking

Code Reference: S.4.4.1. Marking Requirements For Retail Devices Only

11.2 On a retail device with a designed maximum discharge rate of rates 100 115

L/min (25 30 gpm) or greater, the maximum and minimum discharge rates 

shall be marked on an exterior surface of the device and be visible after 

installation. The minimum rate shall not exceed 20 % of the maximum 

discharge rate.

Yes No NA

Code Reference: S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information

11.3 The required marking information in the General Code, Paragraph G-S.1. 

shall be located as follows:

Yes No NA

(a) Placement of this information shall not be on a portion of the device

that can readily removed or interchanged without the use of a tool

separate from the device.

Yes No NA

(b) When placed on the outside to the device the information shall 

appear 24 to 60 inches from the base of the dispenser.

Yes No NA

(c) When placed behind an access door or panel the information shall

appear 24 to 60 inches from the base of the dispenser in a readily

legible position. The use of a dispenser key shall not be considered 

a tool separate from the device.

Yes No NA

Discussion/Conclusion: During the 2002 Measuring Sector meeting, there was no discussion on the 

recommendation to amend Publication 14, Section 11. The Sector recommends that the NCWM NTEP committee

approve the changes shown above. 

The Sector also noted that marking requirements for discharge rates are required to be located on an external surface

of the device without any reference to being located within a specified height range. The Sector members also 

indicated that it is also appropriate to include the markings for discharge rates required in paragraph S.4.4.1. with the 

other markings in accordance with the requirements of paragraph S.4.4.2. One NTEP laboratory stated that some

weights and measures officials have incorrectly interpreted paragraph S.4.4.1. to mean that a flow rate greater than or

less than 20 % of the maximum discharge is not acceptable. The Sector agreed to forward to the S&T Committee

through the SWMA a proposal to modify S.4.4.1. that includes an example of how the requirement should be applied

as follows: 

S.4.4.1. Discharge Rates. - On a retail device with a designed maximum discharge rate of 115 L (30 gal) per

minute or greater, the maximum and minimum discharge rates shall be marked on an exterior surface of the 

device and shall be visible after installation in accordance with S.4.4.2. The minimum discharge rate shall 

not exceed 20 % of the maximum discharge rate. 

Example: With a marked maximum discharge rate of 230 L/m (60 gpm), the marked minimum discharge 

rate shall be 45 L/m (12 gpm) or less (e.g., 40 L/m (10 gpm) is acceptable). A marked minimum discharge

rate greater than 45 L/m (12 gpm) (e.g., 60 L/m (15 gpm)) is not acceptable.

C) Recognize Mass Units of Measurement 

During its 2002 Annual Meeting the NCWM agreed to amend the Handbook 44 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring

Devices Code to recognize units of mass as follows: 

S.1.1.2. Units. - A device shall indicate and record, if equipped to record, its deliveries in terms of: 

kilograms or pounds; liters or gallons of liquid at the normal boiling point of the specific cryogenic 

product; cubic meters (cubic feet) of gas at a normal temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) and an absolute

NTEP - E3 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

pressure of 101.325 kPa (14.696 psia); or decimal subdivisions or multiples of the measured units cited 

above. 

S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit. - The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery, and recorded 

delivery, if the device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of: 

(a) for small delivery devices 

 (1) 1 L

 (2) 0.1 gal

(3) 0.1 m3

 of gas1 kg

(4) 10 cubic feet of gas 1 lb 

(5) 0.1 m3 of gas

 (6) 10 cubic feet of gas

(b) for large delivery devices 

 (1) 10 L

 (2) 1 gal

 (3) 1 m3

 of gas 10 kg

 (4) 100 ft3

 of gas 10 lb

(5) 1 m3 of gas

(6) 100 ft3 of gas

S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation. - A device shall be equipped with automatic 

means for adjusting the indication and/or recorded representation of the measured quantity of the

product, to indicate and/or record in terms of: kilograms or pounds; or 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 lb/in2

 absolute).

When 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 marked annunciator, recorded

statement, or other obvious means.*

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1992.]

Code Reference: S.1.1.2. Units

7.7 The device shall indicate, and record if equipped to record, its deliveries in 

terms of: kilograms or pounds; liters or gallons of liquid at the normal

boiling point of the specific cryogenic product; cubic meters, or cubic feet

of gas at a normal temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) and an absolute pressure of

101.325 kPa (14.696 psia); subdivisions or multiples of the measured units

cited above. 

Yes No NA

Code Reference: 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: 

7.8 (a) for small delivery devices (max. rated flow 75 gpm or less) 

(1) 1 L 

(2) 0.1 gal

(3) 1 kg 

(4) 1 lb

(5) 0.1 m3

 of gas 

(6) 10 cu. ft of gas

Yes No NA

NTEP - E4 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

7.9 (b) for large delivery devices (max. rated flow greater than 75 gpm) 

(1) 10 L 

(2) 1 gal

(3) 10 kg

(4) 10 lb

(5) 1 m3

 of gas

(6) 100 ft3

 of gas

Yes No NA

Discussion/Conclusion: During the 2002 Measuring Sector meeting, there was no discussion. The Sector 

recommends that the NCWM NTEP committee approve the changes shown above. 

D) Repeatability on Milk Meters 

During its 2002 Annual Meeting the NCWM agreed to include repeatability test notes and tolerances in the 

Handbook 44 Milk Meters Code as Follows: 

N.4.1.1. Repeatability Tests. – Tests for repeatability should include a minimum of three consecutive test 

drafts of approximately the same size and be conducted under controlled conditions where variations in

factors, such as temperature, pressure, and flow rate are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the 

results obtained.

T.3. Repeatability. - When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate and draft 

size, the range of the test results for the flow rate shall not exceed 40 % of the absolute value of the

maintenance tolerance and the results of each test shall be within the applicable tolerance. See also

N.4.1.1.

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider adding a new Section K on page LMD-77 of the Checklist and 

Test Procedures of NCWM Publication 14, Measuring Devices, Chapter 2, 2002 edition and re-letter existing

Sections K through N as follows: 

K. Repeatability on Milk Meters (Code Reference N.4.1.1. and T.3.)

When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate and draft size, the range of the test results 

for the flow rate shall not exceed 40 % of the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance and the results of each 

test shall be within the applicable tolerance.

Tests for repeatability shall include a minimum of three consecutive test drafts of approximately the same size

and be conducted under controlled conditions where variations in factors, such as temperature, pressure, and

flow rate are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the results obtained.

K.L. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test For Turbine Meters 

L.M. Permanence Tests for Mass Flow Meters

M.N. Testing of Lubricating Oil Meters 

N.O. Testing of Hot Oil Meters

Discussion/Conclusion: During the 2002 Measuring Sector meeting, there was no discussion. The Sector 

recommends that the NCWM NTEP committee approve the changes shown above.

NTEP - E5 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

2. Test Draft Size for Initial and Permanence Test for Mass Flow Meters

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: At its last meeting the Sector asked the NTEP Laboratories to review the requirement that all test drafts

except a test draft for testing Minimum Measured Quantity (MMQ), be equal to at least the quantity that is delivered in

one minute at the maximum flow rate, and if appropriate, make recommendations for changes to be considered by the 

Sector at this meeting. At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, the Measuring Labs agreed that when appropriate 

scales of different capacities are available, the test draft sizes at lower flow rates do not need to equal one minute of flow

at the maximum flow rate of the device under test. 

The Sector was asked to consider modifying Section L. on page LMD-78 and LMD-79 of the Checklist and Test 

Procedures of NCWM Publication 14, Measuring Devices, Chapter 2, 2002 edition as follows:

L. Permanence Tests for Mass Flow Meters 

The following tests are considered to be appropriate for mass flow meters:

Test Drafts. When only one appropriate scale is available for gravimetric testing Any any test draft (except a

test draft for testing the MMQ) shall be equal to at least the quantity that is delivered in one minute at the

maximum flow rate. If more that one appropriate scale is available for gravimetric testing, The all test drafts at 

each flow rate tested shall be equal in quantity regardless of and equal to at least one minutes flow at the rate of

flow flow rate being tested. Establish proper flowmeter calibration conditions - steady state conditions at each 

flow rate. Collect the test data for the selected flow rates. The indication shall be on the basis of apparent mass. 

A test draft for the test of the MMQ shall be made with a draft size equal to the MMQ at the marked minimum 

flow rate for the meter being evaluated.

Discussion/Conclusion: A member stated that in some cases a single scale could be acceptable for testing with drafts of

less than one minutes flow. Multiple range scales and high resolution Class II scales may be appropriate if the uncertainty 

is within stated limits. The Sector concurred and agreed to recommend the following guidelines on test draft sizes to the 

NCWM NTEP Committee for addition to Publication 14. 

Test Drafts. Any test draft (except a test draft fro testing the MMQ) shall be equal to at least the quantity that is 

delivered in one minute at the maximum flow rate. The test drafts shall be equal in quantity regardless of the rate of

flow. Establish proper flowmeter calibration conditions - steady state conditions at each flow rate. Collect the test 

data for the selected flow rates. The indication shall be on the basis of apparent mass. A test draft for the test of the 

MMQ shall be made with a draft size equal to the MMQ at the marked minimum flow rate for the meter being

evaluated. All test drafts shall meet the following criteria

(a) The minimum quantity for any test draft shall be equal to or greater than the amount delivered in one

minute at the flow rate being tested, and

(b) any test draft shall be equal to or greater than ten times the division size of the available reference 

scale(s) divided by the applicable draft tolerance in percent for the device under test. As a formula:

Minimum draft size ∃10 (scale “d”) /Applicable Draft Tolerance for one minutes flow

For example: With a scale division of 0.1 lb (or 1 lb with 10:1 expanded resolution or by using error weights)

and an applicable tolerance of 0.2 %, the minimum draft must be equal to or greater than 500 lb.

 

With a scale division of 0.5 lb (or 5 lb with 10:1 expanded resolution / error weights) and an applicable

tolerance of 0.3 %, the minimum draft must be equal to or greater than 1667 lb.

Gravimetric Standard. As a general guideline for the gravimetric standard, the value of the scale division

should not be larger than one-tenth of the tolerance times the smallest test draft. The combined error of the 

standard used for testing measuring instruments shall not exceed 20 % of the maximum permissible error to be 

applied. Using known weight (field standard), determine the error present in the weighing instrument over the 

NTEP - E6 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

weighing range that will be used in the test. The inherent error, if present, is to be factored out of the measurement. 

The scale will then be used as a transfer standard. 

3. Testing Required for an Electronic Indicator with a CC, Interfaced with a Measuring Element with a CC not 

Previously Evaluated Together 

Source: NTEP Measuring Laboratories

Background: At the May 2001 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, one of the participating laboratories asked for input

regarding what testing should be required if the manufacturer of an indicator wanted the CC to recognize the indicator for 

use with different types of measuring devices, such as PD meters, turbine meters, and mass flow meters. Dan Reiswig

(CA NTEP Laboratory) agreed to provide a draft of changes to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist and Procedures 

that included requirements for indicators intended to be used with more than one device type. 

Dan Reiswig was not able to attend the September 2001 Measuring Sector Meeting. The Sector agreed to carry this item

forward to the agenda for its next meeting. The following groups and individuals agreed to provide input: the NTEP 

Measuring Laboratories, Measurement Canada, RichTucker (Tokhiem representing GPMA), John Skuce (FMC-Smith

Meter representing MMA), Mike Keilty (Micro Motion), and David Hoffman (Toptech). 

At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, the laboratories agreed that an initial performance test conducted by an 

approved NTEP Laboratory is required. The testing criteria applied should be the same as that applied to a new metering

system. Subsequent permanence testing should be at the discretion of NTEP based on the initial performance and could 

be conducted by a local Weights and Measures Official under the direction and control of the NTEP evaluator performing

the initial test. 

Prior to the 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting Rich Tucker (Tokhiem representing GPMA) submitted the following for 

consideration by the labs. 

Testing Required for an Electronic Indicator with a CC Interfaced with a Measuring Element with a CC not 

previously Evaluated Together. 

Significant Assumptions 

The metering element has already been through NTEP so all the accuracy, permanence, and flow rate information has

been tested and meets all requirements of Handbook 44. 

The Electronic Indicator has already been through NTEP and all electronic functions and other requirements have

been tested and meets all requirements of Handbook 44. 

For the Dispenser, the manufacturer can only request flow rates that fall within the meter approval flow limits and

products. 

With the above scenario, the only open issue is the electronic interface to the pulser and the electronic calculator. The

electronic calculator receives pulses directly from the pulser. The calculator converts the pulses into a volume by 

knowing how many pulses make up a gallon of delivery. For an example Tokheim uses almost explicitly 1000 pulses 

per gallon of delivery. This is not a standard so other manufacturers use other pulse counts. So the only verification is

to make sure the manufacturer has set up the software correctly to match the pulser output and meter delivery. 

Test 

Run calibration test drafts to verify compatibility 

Testing Options (The manufacturer will, at its option, do the following) 

Have a representative from the NTEP go to a test site or the Manufacturers lab to verify compatibility. The 

manufacturer shall submit data from its lab testing and follow-up test data from an initial verification at one of the

first installed sites. Data supplied would be a copy of the Weights and Measures calibration tests performed at the 

time the equipment is placed in service. 

The Sector was asked to consider adding a new Section T to Publication 14, Technical Policy for Liquid-Measuring 

Devices as follows: 

NTEP - E7 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

T. Testing Required for an Electronic Indicator with a CC Interfaced With a Measuring Element With a CC

not Previously Evaluated Together.

An authorized NTEP Laboratory must conduct an initial evaluation following the same performance criteria 

required for a new device. Subsequent permanence testing may be at the discretion of NTEP based on the initial

performance of the system being evaluated. Subsequent permanence testing if required may be performed by a

local Weights and Measures Official under the direction and control of the NTEP Official performing the initial 

evaluation.

Discussion/Conclusion: The manufacturers represented want to keep the amount of required testing to a minimum.

Several expressed the view that the system will either work or not work properly depending on whether or not the 

indicator and the measuring element can communicate. If the system is acceptable on an initial inspection, a permanence 

test is not necessary. The only thing that may cause the system to stop working appropriately is an electronic component 

failure. The NTEP Laboratories are not comfortable with only an initial evaluation. The Sector agreed that a work group 

should be formed to consider the issues and provide a proposal for consideration prior to the Spring 2003 meeting of the 

NTEP Laboratories. The work group members are; Maurice Forkert (Tuthill Transfer Systems), Mark Butler (Micro

Motion), Peter Goodier (Syltone), David Hoffman (TopTech Systems Inc.), Rodney Cooper (Actaris Neptune), Charlene

Numrych (Liquid Controls), Dave Resch (FMC Measurement Solutions), Mike Keilty (Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG ), 

and Dan Reiswig (CA NTEP Laboratory). Measurement Canada and NIST agreed to provide input as needed. 

4. On Screen Display of Model and Version Number for Software 

Source: NTEP Measuring Laboratories

Background: At the May 2001 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, the laboratories discussed marking requirements for 

software-based devices, such as electronic cash registers (ECR) or control consoles connected to liquid measuring 

devices. In some cases the indicator for the system is a generic computer display. If the required markings are physically

placed on the display at the time of installation and then at some future time the display is replaced, the required markings

may be lost. The laboratories agreed that a real time display of the model and software version information on the display

screen is preferable. The laboratories also agreed that the information could either be displayed continuously or by

pressing a single key or a series of keys if instructions for access are clearly provided when a series of keystrokes is 

required. The laboratories agreed to develop and forward a proposal to modify G-S.1. to allow real time display of the

model and software version number for software-based systems to the Measuring Sector for consideration at its next 

meeting. 

The Sector reviewed the proposal. Ted Kingsbury (Measurement Canada) stated that Canada has a similar requirement 

for specifications relating to metrological software used in software-based measurement systems. The requirements do 

not apply to software in devices that are built-for-purpose. Built-for-purpose devices are defined in the Canadian 

specifications. 

The Sector agreed to forward the following recommendation to the NCWM S&T Committee for addition to NIST 

Handbook 44. The Sector also forwarded a definition for “built-for-purpose device,” based on the Canadian definition to

be included in the recommendation to the S&T Committee. 

The Sector recommended the following modification to Handbook 44, Section 1.10. General Code, G-S.1:

G-S.1. Identification. - All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement

process, but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor;

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

NTEP - E8 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

(c) the model designation shall be prefaced by the term "Model," "Type," or "Pattern." These terms may be 

followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word

"Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive January 1, 2003] (Added 2000)

[Note: Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals or all lower case.]

(d) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts, a nonrepetitive serial number; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

(e) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the 

number as the required serial number; and 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(f) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Serial Number" or an abbreviation of that term.

Abbreviations for the word "Serial" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "S," and abbreviations for 

the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the disassembly

of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

Note: For software-based devices not built-for-purpose the required markings may be shown on the

display screen provided the required information is either displayed continuously or by pressing a single

key or a series of keys. When a series of keystrokes is required clear, instructions for accessing the

marking information must be provided.

Definition: built-for-purpose device. Any main element which was manufactured with the primary 

intent that it be used as, or as part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. 

At the 2002 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee also received the following proposal from the NTETC

Weighing Sector. 

G-S.1. Identification. - All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

The required markings may be shown on the display screen provided the required information is displayed 

either continuously or by an operator action (such as keyboard entries, touch pad, etc). Clear instructions for

accessing the information shall be provided, as a minimum, on the Certificate of Conformance unless the

information is continuously displayed during normal operation. 

The manufacture and model designation shall either be continuously displayed or permanently marked on the

device.

G-S.7. Lettering. - All required markings and instructions shall be distinct and easily readable and shall be of 

such character that they will not tend to become obliterated or illegible. 

The required markings may be shown on the display screen provided the required information is displayed 

either continuously or by an operator action (such as keyboard entries, touch pad, etc). Clear instructions for

accessing the information shall be provided, as a minimum, on the Certificate of Conformance unless the

information is continuously displayed during normal operation. 

At the 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee asked that the NTETC Weighing and Measuring Sectors 

review both proposals and attempt to agree on a single proposal that is acceptable to all parties. The Measuring Sector 

will review both proposals and make recommendations to the S&T Committee for an appropriate compromise. 

NTEP - E9 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Discussion/Conclusion: At its September 2002 Meeting, the NTETC Weighing Sector developed a new proposal based 

on both of the proposals submitted last year. That proposal was forwarded to the NTETC Measuring Sector for review

and comment. The Measuring Sector reviewed the proposal developed by the Weighing Sector and concurred with the 

intent of the proposal. One member indicated that the software version number is more important for identification

purposes than a serial number. The Measuring Sector recommended some changes to the Weighing Sector proposal and

agreed to forward it to the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. The modified proposal to amend G-S.1. as shown

below was also sent to the Weighing Sector members along with a ballot requesting approval of the modifications. The 

results of the ballot was (9) affirmative, (2) negative, and (3) abstain in favor of the Measuring Sector language. 

G-S.1. Identification. - All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor;

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(c) the model designation shall be prefaced by the term "Model," "Type," or "Pattern." These terms

may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the

word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation 

for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” 

[Nonretroactive January 1, 2003]

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001)

[Note: Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals or all lower case.]

(d) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and software-based not 

built-for-purpose devices, a nonrepetitive serial number; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

(e) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol that clearly identifies the

number as the required serial number; and

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(f) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Serial Number" or an abbreviation of that term.

Abbreviations for the word "Serial" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "S," and abbreviations for 

the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001]

(g) For devices that have an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a corresponding CC 

addendum number, the NTEP CC shall be prefaced by the terms "NTEP CC," "CC," or "Approval." 

These terms may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation 

for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999 and 2000)

NTEP - E10 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Add new paragraph G-S.1.1. and renumber existing paragraph G-S.1.1. as follows:

G-S.1.1. Software-Based, Not Built–For–Purpose Devices. - For software based, not built–for–purpose devices, 

the following shall apply: 

(a) the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation may be continuously displayed or marked on

the device*, or

(b) the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number may be continuously displayed or marked on the device*, 

or 

(c) all required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), (g), and the software version designation 

may be continuously displayed. Alternatively, a clearly identified System Identification, G-S.1. 

Identification, or Weights and Measures Identification may be accessible through the “Help” menu. 

Required information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the 

same type that was evaluated.

*Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required information shall be listed on the CC. Required

information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type

that was evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

G-S.1.12. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. - All remanufactured devices and 

remanufactured main elements shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purpose of identification with 

the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the last remanufacturer or distributor; 

(b) the remanufacturer's or distributor's model designation if different than the original model designation. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002]

Add a new definition for “built-for-purpose” devices as follows:

built-for-purpose device. Any main device or element which was manufactured with the intent that it be used 

as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system.

New Items 

5. Marking of Product Measured on Meters in Multi-Product Dispensers 

Source: Maryland Weights and Measures 

Background: At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, one of the participating laboratories indicated that field

officials in their jurisdiction are sometimes not able to determine which measuring element is associated with a particular 

grade or blend of fuel on multi-product dispensers. During a field examination of a multi-product dispenser one grade or

blend is rejected for not meeting performance requirements and the official does not know which measuring element to

mark or tag as rejected. During the performance of a subsequent inspection following adjustment or repair of the device 

the field official may be required to test all grades and blends offered through the rejected dispenser to determine that the 

correct measuring element and only that element was adjusted. 

The Sector was asked to consider the following proposed, developed by Maryland weights and measures and the 

Technical Advisor, to modify Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices UR.2.5. as follows: 

NTEP - E11 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification. 

UR.2.5.1. Measuring Element Identification.

(a) The measuring elements of any multi-product dispenser shall be permanently, plainly, and visibly 

marked as to product being measured.

(b) When the measuring elements of any multi-product is marked by means of a color code, the color code 

key shall be conspicuously displayed at the place of business.

(Added 200X)

UR.2.5.2. Product Storage Identification.

(a) The fill connection for any petroleum product storage tank or vessel supplying motor-fuel devices shall

be permanently, plainly, and visibly marked as to product contained. 

(b) When the fill connection device is marked by means of a color code, the color code key shall be conspicuously displayed at the place of business. 

(Added 1975 and Amended 1976 and renumbered 200X) 

Discussion: One of the NTEP Laboratories stated that it is often difficult to identify which meter is associated with a

particular product on dispensers with multiple measuring elements. One manufacturer questioned why it was necessary to

physically mark a meter if it has no mechanism for adjustment and no means for a attaching a physical seal directly to the

meter. This manufacturer stated that for their equipment it is possible to identify a particular meter in the audit trail. 

Conclusion: The Sector modified the proposal to require a measuring element without an individual physical seal within

any multi-product dispenser be plainly and visibly identified as to the product being measured. The Sector agreed to 

forward the following proposal to the S&T Committee through the SWMA with the recommendation that the item be

given the status of information item or developing issue.

The Sector recommended amending NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices UR.2.5 as follows:

UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification. 

UR.2.5.1. Measuring Element Identification.

(a) The measuring elements with an individual physical seal of any multi-product dispenser shall be 

plainly and visibly identified as to product being measured.

(b) When the measuring elements of any multi-product dispenser is marked by means of a color 

code, the color code key shall be conspicuously displayed at the place of business.

(Added 200X)

UR.2.5.2. Product Storage Identification.

(a) The fill connection for any petroleum product storage tank or vessel supplying motor-fuel devices 

shall be permanently, plainly, and visibly marked as to product contained. 

(b) When the fill connection device is marked by means of a color code, the color code key shall be 

conspicuously displayed at the place of business. 

(Added 1975 and Amended 1976 and renumbered 200X) 

NTEP - E12 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

6. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing Adjustable Components 

Source: Maryland Weights and Measures 

Background: At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, one of the participating laboratories indicated that field

officials in their jurisdiction are having difficulty with multi-product dispensers that have only one sealing mechanism for 

two or more measuring elements. If field officials reject a meter for not meeting performance requirements they have no 

way of determining what measuring elements have been recalibrated when they return to re-inspect the dispenser after a 

service agency has made adjustments or repairs on the rejected device. If a physical seal is broken or has been replaced 

the official must test all products to verify that no tampering or misadjustment has occurred on any measuring element. 

The Sector was asked to consider the recommendation in agenda item 5, developed by Maryland Weights and Measures

and the Technical Advisor, to modify Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices UR.2.5. 

Discussion/Conclusion: A manufacturer of devices that utilizes a single security seal for the adjustment mechanism of

multiple measuring elements agreed that at present there is no way for a field official to easily identify what element or

elements have been adjusted. The adjustment information is recorded in memory but that information is not readily 

accessible through the audit trail. The Sector agreed to forward the following proposal to the S&T Committee through the 

SWMA with the recommendation that the item be given the status of information item or developing issue.

The Sector recommended adding the following new paragraph to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring

Devices S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing.

S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing. - A change to the adjustment of any

measuring element within any multi-product dispenser with a single provision for sealing multiple measuring 

elements must be identified.

7. Tolerance for Product Depletion Test 

Source/Background: At the September 2001 Measuring Sector Meeting during the discussion of agenda item 5 

comparing single compartment testing to split compartment testing a member suggested that it would be appropriate to 

have separate tolerances for a product depletion test. The Sector agreed to discuss that as a separate agenda item if time

permitted. During further discussion of the need for specific tolerances for a product depletion test, a member pointed out 

that the present criteria is affected by the test draft size. It is possible for a meter to fail at particular draft size; and by

sufficiently increasing the draft size for a subsequent test, the same meter could pass without any repairs or adjustments

being made. Ross Anderson (NY) indicated that NEWMA at one point had developed a proposal to the tolerance for a 

product depletion test on the rated maximum flow rate for the meter. That proposal was not available for review. The 

Sector agreed to include the discussion of a product depletion test tolerance on the agenda for the next Sector meeting.

Ross Anderson agreed to prepare a proposal for Sector consideration at that meeting. 

Since the 2001 meeting New York began a study to compare the results of a product depletion test conducted on the same

meter using different size provers. Mr. Anderson will update the Sector on the progress of the study and may be able to

provide guidance to the Sector on how to proceed. 

Discussion/Conclusion: Mr. Anderson was unable to attend the Sector meeting. The Sector did review the proposal

from NEWMA to modify N.4.2. and to add new paragraphs N.4.5. and T.5. shown below. Several Sector members 

disagreed with the NEWMA proposal for a tolerance based on one minute of flow at the maximum flow rate for the 

device under test. The Sector believes that the allowable error for a product depletion test should not be dependent on the 

size of the test draft. The Sector agreed that the item should be carried over to the agenda for the next Sector meeting to

allow time for completion of the study being conducted by New York. 

NEWMA Proposal: 

N.4.2. - Special Tests (except Milk Metering Systems). “Special” tests shall be made to develop the operating

characteristics of a measuring system and any special elements and accessories attached to or associated with the

device. Any test except as set forth in N.4.1. or N.4.5. shall be considered a special test. Special test of a measuring 

system shall be made as follows: 

NTEP - E13 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

(a) at a minimum discharge rate of 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate or at the minimum rate marked

on the device whichever is less, 

(b) to develop operating characteristics of the measuring system during a split-compartment delivery. 

(Amended 1978) 

N.4.5. Product Depletion Test - The effectiveness of the vapor eliminator shall be tested by depleting the product

supply and continuing until the lack of fluid causes the meter register to stop absolutely. The test shall be completed 

by switching to another compartment with sufficient product on a multi-compartment vehicle, or by adding sufficient

product to a single compartment vehicle. When adding product to a single compartment vehicle, allow appropriate

time for any entrapped vapor to disperse before continuing the test.

T.5. Product Depletion Test - The difference between the results of the normal test and the product depletion test

shall not exceed 0.5 % of the equivalent of one minute of flow at the maximum rated flow rate for the system.

8. Product Family Tables for MAG Meters 

Source: Liquid Controls LLC 

Background: At present, there is no product family criteria for Mag Meters. If a manufacturer wants a CC which covers 

multiple products, testing must be conducted on each product. Liquid Controls is asking the Sector to consider the 

adoption of a product family of liquids criteria for MAG Meters and will provide a specific proposal for Sector

consideration at the September 2002 Meeting. 

Discussion/Conclusion: Liquid Controls provided a handout base on input from an Italian mag meter manufacturer for

the members to review as a starting point for developing a product family table for mag meters. One member stated that 

the performance for mag meters is very installation dependent. Measurement Canada indicated having had difficulty 

trying to categorize products. Some of the key factors include corrosiveness, coating factors, and abrasiveness. At 

present they prefer to test each product separately. The Sector agreed to form a small work group to develop the issue, 

collect data, and provide input for the next Sector meeting. Measurement Canada agreed to prepare a list of concerns for

the work group. The work group members are; Mike Keilty (Endress & Hauser), Charlene Numrych (Liquid Controls), 

Paul Glowacki (Murray Equipment), Krone America (TBD), California NTEP Laboratory (TBD), and Measurement 

Canada. 

9. Use of Discount and Loyalty Cards and Discounts for Actions After the Completion of a Retail Motor-Fuel

Delivery 

Source: NTEP Laboratories 

Background: At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, the laboratories agreed that there is a need for guidance for

determining whether or not a specific discount program or application is appropriate and meets NTEP requirements. 

Examples include: The change to a discount price when a club card is inserted and the automatic return to the 

nonmember price at the completion of the delivery; a change in the posted price to include a discount for the purchase of

a car wash or other item when a credit card is used at the pump but is not available at the pump in a post pay situation; a

discount to the unit price for the purchases of certain items after the delivery has been completed.

The Laboratories did not have a specific recommendation, but asked the Sector to organize a work group to identify the 

issues and develop consistent guidelines and requirements for the use of various discount programs. 

Discussion/Conclusion: At the meeting, one of the NTEP Laboratories provided examples of problems with the use of 

loyalty cards. One example was that of a super market selling fuel where the unit price could be discounted after the

delivery was completed by purchasing one or more specific items. The Laboratories asked if tests need to be developed 

for the use of loyalty cards during type evaluation. One manufacturer stated that marketing schemes come from device 

users not the device manufacturers. The manufacturers have no control over the various types of loyalty card programs. 

The Sector agreed that a work group should be formed to develop the issue and provide input for the next Sector meeting. 

NTEP - E14 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

The work group members are; Gary Castro (CA NTEP), Rich Tucker (Tokheim), Mike Roach (VeriFone), Steve 

Covington (AutoGas Systems), Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco), Dresser Wayne (TDB), and Mike Belue (Belue Associates). 

10. Acceptable Symbols or Wording to Identify Unit Price, Total Price, and Quantity on a Retail Motor-Fuel

Dispenser 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory

Background: At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, one of the participating laboratories requested guidance on 

what are acceptable symbols or wording to identify the unit price, total sale, and quantity delivered on a retail motor-fuel

dispenser. The Laboratories recommended that the question be added to the 2002 Measuring Sector Agenda. 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider the following proposal to modify to NCWM Publication

14, Chapter 2 Measuring Devices. 

A. Add a new Paragraph 7.41.1. as follows: 

7.41 The unit price shall be expressed in dollars and decimals of dollars using a

dollar sign. A common fraction shall not appear in the unit price, (e.g., 

$1.299 not $1.29 9/10).

Yes No NA

7.41.1. Examples of Acceptable Unit Price Identity

Unit Price, Price per Gallon (or Liter), $/Gallon (or Liter), $/Gal , Price/Gal (or Liter). This list is neither

exclusive or all inclusive. NTEP may or may not approve other forms of identity.

B. Add a new Paragraph 7.43. as follows: 

7.43. Examples of Acceptable Delivered Quantity Identity 

Total Gallons (Liters), Total Gal, Gallons, Gal. This list is neither exclusive or all inclusive. NTEP may or

may not approve other forms of identity.

C. Add a new paragraph 7.44. as follows: 

7.44. Examples of Acceptable Total Price Identity

Total Sale, Sale $, Total $, $. This list is neither exclusive or all inclusive. NTEP may or may not approve 

other forms of identity. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector was unable to reach a consensus on a list of acceptable symbols or wording to 

identify the unit price, total sale, and quantity delivered on a retail motor-fuel dispenser. The GPMA agreed to develop 

guidelines and provide input on this issue for the Sector to consider. The Sector agreed to carry this item over for the 

agenda of its next Sector meeting. 

11. NTEP Laboratory Recommendations for Changes to NCWM Publication 14

Source: NTEP Laboratories 

Background: At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, the laboratories identified a need for several minor editorial

changes to Publication 14 to clarify particular sections or paragraphs. 

NTEP - E15 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider the following modifications to NCWM Publication 14 as shown in

the following items: 

A. Modify Section B. Tolerance Application, Normal Test on page LMD-2 as follows:

B. Tolerance Application

Normal Test Tolerances

Based on Handbook 44, for For the purposes of calculating tolerances, normal tests conducted in an NTEP 

evaluation may be performed at any flow rate down to: 

[50 % of the rated maximum flow rate + the rated minimum flow rate]/2 

For example: For a meter with a rated maximum flow rate of 60 gallons/minute (gpm) and a minimum flow rate

of 12 gpm, the maximum discharge rate developed in an actual installation may be as low as 30 gpm. Therefore, 

for NTEP tests, calculate the "breakpoint" between normal and special tests as: 

[(50 % x 60) + 12]/2 = 21

Thus, in the example, NTEP test runs at flow rates between 60 and 21 gpm are considered normal tests. 

C. Modify paragraph 5.4.2. on page LMD-21 as follows:

Code Reference: S.1.5.3. Width

5.4. Width of the index of an indicator: 

5.4.1. The width of the index shall not exceed the width of narrowest graduation.

This requirement applies to liquid measuring devices covered in Handbook

44 Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices (effective 2002).

Yes No NA

5.4.1. The width of the index shall not exceed the width of widest grad uation. 

This requirement applies to liquid measuring devices not covered in

Handbook 44 Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices (effective 2002).

Yes No NA

D. Modify paragraph 7.7.2 on page LMD-24 to include examples of rounding as follows: 

7.7.2. The indicated or recorded quantity, unit price, and total sales price values 

shall be in mathematical agreement to the closest cent (i.e., within each 

element, the values indicated or recorded must meet the formula [quantity x 

unit price = total sales price] to the closest cent). 

Examples: $1.5549 rounds to $1.55

$1.5551 rounds to $1.56

$1.5550 may round to either $1.55 or $1.56

Yes No NA

E. Modify the note to paragraph 16.2.5. on page LMD-36 as follows:

16.2.5. Authorize with card #1 (do not turn the "handle" on) and interrupt power 

for at least 10 seconds. This should de-authorize the dispenser. 

Resupply power; turn the "handle" on; try to dispense. The dispenser shall 

not deliver product.

Yes No NA

Note: The term "handle" generically refers to the handle, flapper, start button, on/off switch, or other 

mechanism used to activate or deactivate the dispenser. 

NTEP - E16 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

F. Add a note to 16.2.6. on page LMD-35 as follows:

16.2.6. Authorize with card #1; turn the "handle" on, and then interrupt power. This 

should de-authorize the dispenser.

Resupply power and authorize the dispenser with card #2. Then, complete

a delivery. 

Verify that the transaction is charged to card #2. 

Yes No NA

Note: This test is not required if the device under test complies with paragraph 16.1.

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector supported the changes suggested by the NTEP Laboratories recommends that the 

NCWM NTEP committee approve the changes shown above. 

During the discussion of the above changes a member noted that the tolerances shown in Section I on page LMD-77 of

Publication 14 also need to be updated to be consistent with Handbook 44. The Sector agreed and recommended that the 

tolerances be changed to 1.0 % of the test draft for mechanical automatic temperature compensating systems; and 0.5 % 

of the test draft for electronic automatic temperature compensating systems. 

12. Definition for Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Device 

Source: NIST/OWM

Background: In 1986 paragraph A.1. of Section 3.34. Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Device and the definition for 

cryogenic liquid-measuring devices were modified to include on-board-weighing systems for measuring cryogenic liquid. 

In 1995 the reference to scales for measuring cryogenic liquids was removed from paragraph A.1., but not from the

definition for cryogenic liquid-measuring device. 

The Sector was asked to review the following proposal to modify the following NIST Handbook 44 definition for 

cryogenic liquid-measuring device and if acceptable, forward it to the S&T Committee for consideration. 

cryogenic liquid-measuring device. A system including a mechanism or machine of (a) the meter of the positive 

displacement, turbine, or mass flow type, or (b) a weighing type of device mounted on a vehicle, designed to measure 

and deliver cryogenic liquids in the liquid state. Means may be provided to indicate automatically, for one of a series 

of unit prices, the total money value of the liquid measured.[3.34] 

(Amended 1986, 200X) 

Discussion/Conclusion: During the meeting a member recommended that “meter of the positive displacement, turbine, 

or mass flow type” be changed to “liquid measuring element” to recognize other measurement technologies. The Sector 

concurred and agreed that the following proposal be forwarded to the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

The Sector recommends modifying the NIST Handbook 44 definition for cryogenic liquid-measuring device as follows:

cryogenic liquid-measuring device. A system including a liquid measuring element mechanism or machine of (a) 

the meter of the positive displacement, turbine, or mass flow type, or (b) a weighing type of device mounted on a 

vehicle, designed to measure and deliver cryogenic liquids in the liquid state. Means may be provided to indicate 

automatically, for one of a series of unit prices, the total money value of the liquid measured.[3.34] 

(Amended 1986, 200X) 

13. Next Meeting 

The Sector discussed the time and location for its next meeting. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector recommended that the next meeting of the NTETC Measuring Sector be scheduled 

for October 3-4, 2003 at the Hyatt Charlotte in Charlotte, NC immediately prior to the next Southern Weights and

Measures Association Annual Meeting. 

NTEP - E17 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

NTEP - E18 

Additional Item 

14. Update LMD Section of Publication 14 

During the meeting a member stated that the entire LMD Section of Publication 14 should be reviewed, updated, and 

reorganized as necessary. When conducting evaluations of some devices it is necessary to look in several places to find 

all the requirements that may apply. The Sector concurred and agreed to add it to the agenda for the next Sector Meeting. 
NTEP C

NTEP - E19 

Name Company/Agency Address Telephone # 

Alain Casademont Measurement Canada Stds Bldg #4 Tunney’s Pasture – Ottawa Ontario K1A0C9 613 952 0636 CasadCharlene Numrych Liquid Controls 105 Albrecht Dr - Lake Bluff IL 60044 847 283 8330 cnumDavid Hoffman Toptech Systems 280 Hunt Park Cove - Longwood FL 32750 407 332 1774 dhoffmDavid Resch FMC Measurement Solutions 1602 Wagner Ave, Box 10428 – Erie, PA 16514 814 898 5214 Dave.Douglas Long RDM Industrial Electronics 850 Harmony Grove Rd – Nebo, NC 28761 828 652 8346 doug@Gary Castro State of California Meas Stds 8500 Fruitridge Rd - Sacramento CA 95826 916 229 3026 gcastrGordon Johnson Marconi Commerce Systems Inc 7300 W Friendly Ave – Greensboro NC 27420 336 547 5375 gordoJohn Skuce FMC - Smith Meter 1602 Wagner Ave Box 10428 - Erie PA 16514 814 898 5405 john.sMark Butler Micro Motion 7070 Winchester Circle - Boulder CO 80301 303 530 8231 mark.Maurice Forkert Tuthill Transfer Systems 8825 Aviation Dr - Ft Wayne IN 46809 219 747 7529 mforkMike Belue Belue Associates 1319 Knight Dr - Murfreesboro TN 37128 615 867 1010 bassoMike Keilty Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG 2350 Endress Place - Greenwood IN 46143 317 535 2745 michaMike Roach VeriFone 4011 Barwood Court – Tampa, FL 33624 813 205 0876 Mike_Paul Glowacki Murray Equipment, Inc. 2515 Charleston Place – Fort Wayne, IN 46808 260 484 0382 pglowPeter Goodier Syltone Industries Inc. 2501 Constant Comment Place – Louisville, KY 40299 502 266 6677 pgoodRandy Byrtus Measurement Canada Stds Bldg Tunney's Pasture – Ottawa Ontario K1A OC9 byrtusRich Tucker Tokheim P.O. Box 360 - Ft Wayne IN 46801 260 470 4610 RichaRichard Wotthlie State of Maryland 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway - Annapolis MD 21771 410 841 5790 wotthRichard C. Suiter NIST/OWM Stop 2350 100 Bureau Dr - Gaithersburg MD 20878 301 975 4406 rsuiteRodney Cooper Schlumberger Neptune 1310 Emerald Rd - Greenwood SC 29646 864 942 2226 rcoopSteve Patoray NTEP/NCWM 1239 Carolina Dr - Tryon NC 28782 828 859 6178 spatorSteve Covington AutoGas Systems, Inc. 1000 N. Walnut Suite 201 – New Braunfels, TX 71830 830 620 6252 SteveSteven Cook NIST/OWM Stop 2350 100 Bureau Dr - Gaithersburg MD 20878 301 975 4003 stevenTed Kingsbury Measurement Canada Stds Bldg Tunney's Pasture – Ottawa Ontario K1A OC9 613 941 8919 kingsbTrevor Poulter Syltone Industries Inc. 2501 Constant Comment Place – Louisville, KY 40299 502 266 6677 tjpoulWilliam D. West State of Ohio Dept of Agriculture 8995 E Main St - Reynoldsburg OH 43068 614 728 6290 west@
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Appendix F 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Weighing Sector Annual Meeting 

September 29 to October 1, 2002, Annapolis, MD 

Final Summary 

Carry-Over Items.............................................................................................................................................................. 2 

1. CLC on Livestock Scales ........................................................................................................................................2 

2. NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy E, Modification of Type - Conversion of a Vehicle Scale to a

Livestock Scale........................................................................................................................................................3 

3. T.7.3.1. Power Supply, Voltage, and Frequency Tests for Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS).........................6 

4. Listing of Device Types (Families of Scales with Capacities Above and Below 30 000 lb)...................................7 

5. Scope of the Certificate of Conformance ................................................................................................................8 

6. Policy for Initial Test Only vs. Full Evaluation when a Modification is Made which Requires Testing ................9 

7. NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Procedures – Conformity Assessment ......................................................9

8. Multiple Load-Receiving Elements Attached To One Indicator ...........................................................................10 

9. G-S.1. Identification, and Table S.6.3. Markings; Software Based Built-for-Purpose Devices............................12 

10. Zero and Tare on a Single Indicating Element Interfaced with Multiple Platforms..............................................15 

11. Screen Savers on Electronic Cash Registers and Point-of-Sale Systems (ECR/POS)...........................................15

12. NTEP Evaluations and User Requirements in the Scales Code.............................................................................20 

13. NTEP Technical Policy Publication 14 Section B.5.b. Change Platform Area to Length and Width ...................20 

 New Items.............................................................................................................................................................. 21 

14. Publication 14 Changes to Reflect NCWM Changes to Handbook 44, 2003 Edition ...........................................21 

15. Publication 14, Incorporation of OIML R 60 with Exceptions..............................................................................24 

16. Vehicle Scale Testing Procedures..........................................................................................................................25 

17. Publication 14, Section 7, Footnote 1 on DES-3 ...................................................................................................27 

18. Define Bench/Counter Scales................................................................................................................................28 

19. Definitions of Hanging and Crane Scales..............................................................................................................31 

20. List of Acceptable Abbreviations and Symbols.....................................................................................................32 

22. Manual Multi-Interval Scale..................................................................................................................................33 

23. Inconsistent Information on a CC..........................................................................................................................34 

25. Audit Trail Information During Power Failure......................................................................................................36 

26. Performance and Permanence Testing...................................................................................................................37 

27. Center Dump Option on Vehicle Scales................................................................................................................37 

28. ECR Loyalty Programs..........................................................................................................................................40 

29. Range of IZSM on Indicating Elements................................................................................................................42 

30. IZSM Test Procedures...........................................................................................................................................43 

31. Weight Accumulators............................................................................................................................................46 

32. Last Item: Tentative Date and Location of Next Meeting ....................................................................................47 

Reference Item Attachment Description 

Attachment to Item 1 Scale Manufacturers Association Letter dated September 20, 2002 Attachment to Item 16 Proposals for Vehicle Scale Test Procedures

NTEP - F1
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Carry-Over Items 

1. CLC on Livestock Scales 

Background: For additional background information, refer to the October 2001 Weighing Sector Summary Agenda Item

and the Report of the 77th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM),

Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T) Agenda Item 320-1B. As a result of the vote of the NCWM, the item

was been returned to the S&T Committee and the Weighing Sector for additional development. 

The Sector should make a recommendation to the NCWM S&T Committee that the proposed amendment to the CLC 

definition be treated as a separate agenda item. The Sector may also want to consider reducing the amount of test load

prescribed in proposed paragraph N.1.3.4.2. to approximately 500 d. This number has been selected because it complies

with the minimum load requirements in paragraph UR.3.8. Minimum Load for Weighing Livestock, test loads can be

safely applied to the scale, and the minimum test load is an adequate test load to verify that individual load bearing points

are accurately adjusted. The NIST Technical advisor suggested the following language for consideration by the Sector: 

N.1.3.4.2. Prescribed Test Pattern and Test Loads for Livestock Scales with More Than Two Sections and

Combination Vehicle/Livestock Scales. A minimum test load of 5000 kg (10 000 lb) or one-half of the rated section 

capacity, whichever is less, shall be placed, as nearly as possible, successively over each main load support as shown 

in the diagram below. For livestock scales manufactured between January 1, 1989, and January 1, 2003, the required

loading shall be no greater than one-half CLC. (Two-section livestock scales shall be tested consistent with N.1.3.8.)

Discussion: At its 2002 meeting, the Weighing Sector supported the recommendation that the definition for concentrated

load capacity (CLC) be considered as a separate agenda item from the proposals for paragraphs N.1.3.4., N.1.3.4.1., 

N.1.3.4.2., and N.1.3.8. 

The Sector also discussed the proper test patterns and test loads described in Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph

N.1.3.4.2. Prescribed Test Pattern and Test Loads for Livestock Scales with More Than Two Sections and Combination

Vehicle/Livestock Scales. The Sector considered the Central Weights and Measures Association recommendation that

the shift test load be 12.5 % of scale capacity, but no more than 1⁄2 section capacity, to be an adequate test of a main load 

support. The NIST Technical Advisor recommended that a minimum test load of 10 000 lb be specified to facilitate the 

safe application of test weights while applying a load that more closely simulates the potential concentration of livestock 

in the corner of the scale. The Sector noted that a test load of 12.5 % of scale capacity that does not exceed the 1⁄2 section 

capacity is an appropriate test of the performance of the load support and also addresses the safety concerns associated

with stacking weights. Public sector members expressed concerns that the test load changes to N.1.3.4.2. should include

language that allows the field official or an NTEP evaluator to apply test loads for load supports of up to 1⁄2 section 

capacity. 

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) distributed a letter dated September 20, 2002 documenting their concerns on

S&T Agenda Item 320-5. The letter stated that the test loads were too large; the test patterns were undefined; and that the

shift test pattern for livestock scales be simply defined as it was prior to 1988:

N.1.3.4.2. Livestock Scales With More Than Two Sections. - A shift test equal to one-half the rated sectional 

capacity shall be conducted with test loads distributed over each section of the scale. (Two section livestock scales

shall be tested consistent with N.1.3.8.) 

The Weighing Sector discussed the SMA proposal and continues to believe that testing which includes test loads 

positioned over the main load supports more accurately reflects the actual usage of livestock scales. 

One of the private sector members noted that the test loads can not be centered over the main load bearing point and

suggested adding lines to the diagram for paragraph N.1.3.4.2. similar to the lines in the diagram for paragraph N.1.3.8.

(a) All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and Portable

Axle-Load Weighers. 

Conclusion: At its 2002 meeting, the Weighing Sector agreed to support a separate proposal making the definition for 

concentrated load capacity a separate agenda item from the item to establish test patterns and test loads for livestock

scales. The Weighing Sector agreed with the Central Weights and Measures Association recommendation that a test load 

NTEP - F2
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

of 12.5 % of scale capacity, not to exceed one-half section capacity is an adequate test of a main load support. The Sector

noted that a test load of 12.5 % of scale capacity addresses safety concerns when stacking weights however those test

loads are excessive should not be required for subsequent tests. The Weighing Sector proposes an alternate new 

paragraph N.1.3.4.2. and associated diagram shown in the recommendation above that specifies a minimum test load of

10 000 lb to facilitate the safe application of test weights while applying a load that more closely simulates the potential

concentration of livestock in the corner of the scale. The language is also intended to permit weights and measures

officials and NTEP laboratories to conduct a shift test of up to 12.5 % of scale capacity. 

N.1.3.4.2. Prescribed Test Pattern and Test Loads for Livestock Scales with More Than Two Sections and

Combination Vehicle/Livestock Scales. A minimum test load of 5000 kg (10 000 lb) or one-half of the rated section 

capacity, whichever is less, shall be placed, as nearly as possible, successively over each main load support as shown 

in the diagram below. For livestock scales manufactured between January 1, 1989, and January 1, 2003, the required

loading shall be no greater than one-half CLC. (Two-section livestock scales shall be tested consistent with N.1.3.8.)

2. NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy E, Modification of Type - Conversion of a Vehicle Scale to a 

Livestock Scale 

Background: See the 2001 NTETC-Weighing Sector Final Summary, agenda item 4, for additional background

information.

NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy E, Modification of Type, - Conversion of a Vehicle Scale to a Livestock Scale 

(including vehicle scales used to weigh livestock or combination vehicle/livestock scales) requires the device 

manufacturer to request on the NTEP application that a Certificate of Conformance (CC) cover both a vehicle and

livestock scale application. The evaluation must include an NTEP test of the livestock scale if this is a new application.

To include the livestock application on an existing CC, NTEP requires at least a “one time” test to 90 % of the CLC

rating. 

The Sector acknowledges that the S&T Committee reviewed an item that removes the CLC marking requirements and 

includes section capacity markings for livestock scales. The proposal to remove livestock scales from CLC marking 

requirements was adopted by the NCWM at its 2002 Annual Meeting. As a result, a vehicle scale used for weighing

livestock would also be required to have a section capacity marking, and a livestock scale used to weigh vehicles would 

also have to have a CLC marking. 

This subject was also discussed at the NTEP Participating Laboratories 2002 meeting in Albany, New York. It was

determined that a consistent policy is needed, not only for vehicle scales used to weigh livestock, but also platform scales

used to weigh single animals and railroad track scales used to weigh highway vehicles. Combination vehicle/axle load

scales will not be evaluated because axle scales can’t be used to determine legal-for-trade axle weights (unless the vehicle

is weighed as a single draft) or are Accuracy Class IIII devices. 

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, suggested an approach used for vehicle scale deck types be considered as a possible

solution. An applicant requesting multiple “use applications” at the time an evaluation is requested would have the choice 

of two separate evaluations or a combined evaluation. If two separate evaluations were the preferred option, the second

 

Position 1

Position 

2

Position 

6

Position 

5

Position 

3

Position 

4

= Load Bearing Point

NTEP - F3
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

evaluation would only consist of an initial evaluation and an applicable follow-up test from NIST Handbook 112 to verify 

the device is still working correctly after 21-days and that the minimum use requirements have been met. Additionally,

the sentence “Only loads which have been applied using a method representative of the scales intended use can be 

counted.” needs to be changed, e.g., dynamic vs. static load, vehicle vs. livestock, railroad cars vs. vehicles, animals vs. 

pallet load applied by forklift or overhead crane. 

At their 2002 meeting, the Sector, considered the following underlined amendments developed by the participating

laboratories at their 2002 meeting in Albany, NY. 

Section 62. Performance and Permanence Tests for Counter (Bench) Scales (including Computing Scales) 

61.11.2. Only static loads which have been applied using a method representative of the scales intended use can 

be counted. 

Section 63. Performance and Permanence Tests for Floor Scales 

63.1.3. Only pallet or container loads, which have been applied using a method representative of the scales 

intended use, can be counted. 

Section 64. Performance and Permanence Tests for Livestock Scales 

64.32. Only loads of livestock which have been applied using a method representative of the scales intended 

use, can be counted. 

Section 65(x) Performance and Permanence Tests for (X) Vehicle Scales and Permanently-Installed Axle-Load

Load-receiving elements 

65(x).7.2. Only static loads, which have been applied using a method representative of the scales intended use,

can be counted. 

Section 67. Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh In-Motion

Permanence Tests - Note: There are no minimum use requirements. 

Section 68. Performance and Permanence Tests for railway Track Scales Used to Weigh Statically 

Permanence Tests - Note: There are no minimum use requirements. 

Section 69. Performance and Permanence Tests for Dynamic Monorail Scales 

Permanence Testing: 

During the permanence period, the system will be run with the following: 

• Only livestock carcasses, which have been applied using a method representative of the scales 

intended use, can be counted.

• At least 100 % of the loads must be above 20 % capacity of the device capacity. 

• At least 50 % of the loads must be above 50 % of device capacity. 

Discussion: Some of the public sector members expressed continued concern about the differences in the way loads of

livestock are placed on vehicle scales. The forces induced by highway vehicles are typically along the length of the scale 

and that vehicle scales are appropriately designed for the weight and direction of these forces. The forces induced by 

livestock on vehicle scales are in all directions and it can’t be assumed that all vehicle scale designs can continue to 

perform within tolerance over an extended period of time due to the effect of the direction and violent movement of

livestock. A public sector member cited an example of a vehicle scale that was used in an installation where vehicles 

were making short turns off the end of the scale and that the scale failed to maintain tolerances. The service agent added 

a side-to-side checking system designed for vehicle scales used to weigh livestock in order to maintain scale calibration.

NTEP - F4
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Another comment indicated that the addition of stock racks and/or concrete barriers as part of the stock racks may be of 

sufficient weight and location to cause a detrimental effect on the performance of the scale. One of the public sector 

members also indicated a preference for the compromise test policy and procedures developed by the NTEP Participating

Laboratories at their meeting in June 2002 (see background information above). 

The Scale Manufacturers Association technical committee disagrees with the positions in the previous paragraph and

responded with the following comments as part of a letter to the NCWM S&T Committee dated September 20, 2002: 

1. The movement of a vehicle on the scale deck causes the deck to move in an elliptical pattern, which is why all

vehicle scales limit transverse as well as longitudinal movement. The recent use of “rocker” type load cells 

drives this point home. These cells will rotate because of the elliptical deck movement and if rotation is not 

controlled by design, the cell cable will wind around the cell and break. To conclude that vehicle scales are not 

checked for transverse movement is simply not factual and to conclude that scale movement created by moving 

livestock is more abusive to a vehicle scale than the movement of a vehicle is technically incorrect. 

2. The load capacity of an average vehicle scale section is 100 000 pounds (50 000 pound capacity load cells). 

Assuming a 4-section concrete deck scale, the dead load on each section will be in the area of 9 000 pounds and 

the live load on each section at maximum rated capacity will be less than 50 000 pounds. Total load on the

section is 59 000 pounds or only 59 % of section capacity. The addition of racks and gates to the scale adds an

additional 4500 to 5000 pounds at most and is well within scale design limits. These modifications are subject to

Handbook 44 UR.2.7, UR.4.1., and UR.4.3., and are usually approved by the manufacturers of the scale. In

addition, because the live load uses such a small portion of the total output of each load cell, an increase in dead

load will not change the linearity of the device. 

3. A legal highway truck can have a gross weight of 80 000 pounds. For the sake of this discussion, assume a

maximum gross weight of 60 000 pounds. Also assume an average vehicle scale size of 70 feet x 10 feet (700

square feet). The average speed for a vehicle entering onto a vehicle scale load receiver is between 3 and 5 mph. 

The load receiver is at rest when the front axle of the vehicle first touches the load receiver causing the load

receiver to move in the direction of the truck movement. The average 70 foot x 10 foot concrete deck load

receiver weighs about 35 000 pounds so the dynamic forces of the load receiver moving from rest is severe. 

When the truck stops on the load receiver, the inertial force created by stopping the moving 60 000-pound load 

causes an equal force on the load receiver. The same dynamics take place when the vehicle begins to accelerate 

to leave the scale. By loading the same 700 square feet of load receiver with cattle the average maximum load 

would be 77 000 pounds. The cattle enter the load receiver, not as a single 77 000-pound mass like a vehicle; but 

rather randomly until the load receiver has no space for more. Loaded to 110 pounds per square foot, the cattle 

cannot move at all. To reduce the load of cattle to 60 000 pounds (same as vehicle) the square footage they 

would occupy gathered together would be 545 square feet allowing 155 square feet of open area in which to

move freely. For these cattle to even simulate the dynamics of the vehicle the entire herd would have to move as

one single mass coming onto the scale and leaving the scale in like manner. Experience dictates this is not likely. 

What if an individual animal ran from side-to-side or attempted to get off the scale by climbing the stock racks?

An average head of commercial beef cattle weighs less than 1300 pounds and certainly cannot create dynamic

forces that come close to the vehicle scale design limits.

Ross Andersen, New York, strongly believes that vehicle scales can be used with livestock without additional evaluation. 

It is a platform that weighs. 

The NIST Technical Advisor and one of the private sector members noted that the results of testing for permanence using 

livestock to meet the minimum use requirements might not be repeatable from one evaluation to another. One location 

may be at a feedlot with passive livestock, where another location might be a livestock receiving and slaughtering facility

with very active livestock. It was also noted that it is frequently difficult for an applicant to find a test site that will permit 

an interruption to their operation to conduct type evaluation testing.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that there may be differences in test procedures between livestock scales and vehicle

scales pending the action of the NCWM at its 2003 Annual Meeting on the proposed new paragraph 2.20. Scales Code

paragraph N.1.3.4.2. Prescribed Test Pattern and Test Loads for Livestock Scales With More Than Two Sections. If the

item is adopted by the NCWM, NTEP may be able to justify different type evaluation procedures between livestock and 

vehicle scales based upon the different test procedures in Handbook 44. Additionally, there will be Handbook 44

NTEP - F5
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

justification to establish NTEP technical policies for adding an option for weighing livestock to new and existing vehicle 

scale certificates, and adding an option for weighing vehicles to new and existing livestock scale certificates. 

The Sector did not come to a conclusion on the language recommended by the participating laboratories at their 2002

meeting in Albany, NY. Additionally, the Sector could not reach a consensus on whether livestock shall be used as the 

loads necessary to meet permanence test minimum use requirements, or if static loads such as vehicles, lift trucks, pallets,

etc. can be used to meet minimum use requirements. 

The Sector Chairman requested a vote. The Sector voted against “requiring livestock be used to meet minimum use

requirements for permanence testing” (4 in favor, 10 opposed). Depending on the actions of the NCWM Board of 

Directors and NTEP Committee, this item will be carried over to the 2003 Weighing Sector. 

3. T.7.3.1. Power Supply, Voltage, and Frequency Tests for Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory and NIST Weights and Measures Division (formerly OWM)

Background: This item was resolved with recommended language for voltage testing that was incorporated into 

Publication 14. The NTEP Participating Laboratories were to discuss the reasoning for not conducting frequency variation 

tests at their 2002 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting. 

This item was not discussed at the 2002 NTEP Participating Laboratory meeting. Scale Code paragraph T.N.8.3.1. Power

Supply, Voltage, and Frequency includes language similar to the AWS Code and has never been included as part of the 

influence testing required in Publication 14. 

Discussion: The NTETC Weighing Sector reviewed the Canadian and OIML voltage requirements. In the Canadian 

requirements for maximum and minimum specified voltage, devices may be marked with a nominal voltage of 117 V or 

225 V or other voltage. When a device is marked with a voltage range the midpoint is taken as the nominal voltage. The 

device is tested at –15 % and +10 % of the marked nominal voltage. Devices marked with a range are tested to the 

greater of –15 % and +10 % of the midpoint nominal voltage or the maximum and minimum marked voltage range

values. OIML R 76-1, Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments, Part 1: Metrological and Technical Requirements – Tests 

(Edition 1992 E) requires test of the device at –15 % of the maximum marked voltage and +10 % of the minimum marked 

voltage. 

There was also discussion of test requirements for compliance with line frequency variations. Several of the 

manufacturers indicated that there is no need to do this with today’s power supplies built into the scales. The devices can 

easily meet performance requirement with the narrow range of line frequency variation specified in Handbook 44 and

OIML R 76. The manufacturers state that the tests for compliance with line frequency variations are not conducted 

during OIML R 76 evaluations. The Sector noted that similar requirements and language are also in Handbook 44 codes 

for Automatic Weighing Systems and Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers. 

Conclusion: The Weighing Sector recommended that a proposal to modify paragraph T.N.8.3.1.(a) that require tests over

the marked voltage range rather than a specified voltage range be developed. Performance tests would be conducted at

the device’s marked maximum voltage, minimum voltage, and nominal voltage (voltage value at the midpoint of the

range). 

NTEP does not test for a change in line frequency of ∀ 0.5 Hz because the test equipment is very expensive. The Sector 

agreed to recommend continuing the existing policy and consistently apply the same policy to other devices covered by

NCWM Publication 14. 

The NIST Technical Advisor developed and submitted the following language to the Southern Weights and Measures 

Association (SWMA) Specifications and Tolerance Committee for consideration at their 2002 Annual Conference. The 

language is based on OIML R 76 recommendations and test procedures to modify paragraph T.N.8.3.1.(a) as follows:

T.N.8.3.1.(a) Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

NTEP - F6
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

(a) Weighing devices that operate using alternating current must perform within the conditions defined in

paragraphs T.N. 3. through T. N. 7., inclusive, over the line voltage range as marked of 100 V to 130 V or

200 V to 250 V rms as appropriate, and over the frequency range of 59.5 Hz to at 60.5 Hz. 

NIST Technical Advisor note: At their 2002 Annual Meeting, the SWMA recommended alternative changes to

paragraph T.N.8.3.1.(a) as follows: 

T.N.8.3.1.(a) Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

(a) Weighing devices that operate from a main power supply must perform within the conditions defined in

paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N.7., inclusive if the power supply varies in voltage from – 15 % to + 10 % of 

the value marked on the device. If a range of voltage is marked, the device shall operate within the 

conditions defined in paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N. 7., inclusive at a voltage of + 10 % of the maximum 

voltage marked on the device and at a voltage of –15 % of the minimum voltage marked on the device 

using alternating current must perform within the conditions defined in paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N.7.,

inclusive, over the line voltage range of 100 V to 130 V or 200 V to 250 V rms as appropriate, and over the

frequency range of 59.5 Hz to 60.5 Hz. 

4. Listing of Device Types (Families of Scales with Capacities Above and Below 30 000 lb) 

Source: 2001 Carryover Item 8a

Background: At the 2001 NTEP Participating Laboratories meeting, the Participating Labs and the NIST Technical 

Advisor were assigned to create an outline of device types based upon accuracy class, special use (e.g., vehicle, livestock, 

etc.), and physical design. Refer to Attachment to Item 4 for a complete draft copy of the outline. 

The NIST Technical Advisor and the Participating Labs have made no progress on this item. 

Discussion: The Sector considered if further development of the outline format is necessary. The Sector noted that one 

of the concerns has come from the fact that more than 10 types of flat platform scales can be considered as a bench scales

in Handbook 44. Additionally, there are several different types of references to vehicle scales, and livestock scales on 

NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CC) (e.g. livestock or vehicle scales, load-receiving elements, weighing elements, 

and weighing/load-receiving elements). One of the consequences of the inconsistency of the terminology is trying to 

search for CCs by device type on the Internet. Some devices and their manufacturers are not listed in queries because of 

variations in wording. 

Several manufacturers are in favor of limiting device types to Handbook 44 Accuracy Class designations with suitability

determined by factors such as capacity, minimum interval, minimum use, size and conditions of the installation. For

example, a Class III hanging scale can be used in place of a Class III bench scale (if both are suitable for the installation).

Many regulators prefer that Handbook 44 device types continue to be “application driven” rather than “Accuracy Class” 

driven. They are concerned that scale purchasers assume a scale is suitable for an application, without considering

division size, typical usage and etc., if it has an NTEP CC. Purchasers may verify that a scale has a CC (e.g. on the 

internet) and buy a scale that is unsuitable for the application. This makes it difficult for regulators to reject a scale on

suitability requirements after it has been purchased and installed. 

One of the participating laboratories indicated that there is inconsistent language used in the certificates and suggested

that the idea of templates and “drop down menu selections for device types” be further developed. 

There was also a suggestion that the NTEP database be upgraded to include word search capability in order to obtain a

more comprehensive list of device type and help the regulator find certificates by “device type.” The NTEP Director 

agreed that a “keyword search” is useful on occasion, but stated that there would be costs involved and added that there 

would have to be an increased interest of this feature to justify the costs. 

Conclusion: The Sector recommends that the NTEP Board of Directors consider adding a “keyword search” capability

to the NTEP CC database. The Sector also agreed that Handbook 44 has an excessive number of device types in the

Scale Code and that the list of device types could be shortened and used consistently by the participating laboratories and

in Handbook 44. The NIST Technical Advisor mailed the list of device types submitted in the 2001 Sector agenda and

NTEP - F7
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

requested specific suggestions for developing a shortened list of device types. The NTEP Director, NIST Technical 

Advisor, and the Sector Chairman will compile the comments and develop a recommendation for the 2003 Participating 

Laboratories and Weighing Sector meetings.

5. Scope of the Certificate of Conformance 

Source: 2001 Weighing Sector Item 8b - See attachment to Agenda Item 5 for the copy of the 2001 Sector Summary for 

Item 8b. 

Background: This item was discussed during the 2001 Sector meeting. There was no consensus on the scope of the 

Certificate of Conformance and whether the Certificate should list the manufacturer’s intended application(s). 

Discussion: Ross Andersen, NY, stated that the Certificate of Conformance (CC) should not be application specific or

limiting, however, there are application specific devices according to Handbook 44. Some of the Sector members

commented that an applicant should be able to request that the device under evaluation be limited to specific applications. 

The NTEP Director commented that an applicant to NTEP should indicate what they want covered on the certificate. 

After that, the participating laboratory will test the device to applicable checklist requirements and will draft the CC

according to the features and option that have been evaluated (and passed). Many of the current applications have a

place for the applicant to describe the intended use, applications, particular installation requirements, or other 

observations and comments. 

A participating laboratory suggested that the NTEP Application not include “general purpose” as an open-ended 

description of intended use and that the applicant must make a selection of one or more checkboxes relating to the 

Handbook 44 application device types. 

Some of the participating laboratories indicated that the term “general purpose” listed in the “Application” paragraph of

the certificate give the appearance that the device is suitable for any application regardless of division size since 

Handbook 44 does not provide enough guidance to determine suitability. One of the manufactures stated that scale 

dealers and distributors should be capable of determining suitable devices to sell to their customers. 

The NTEP Director indicated that most states have indicated that the “Application” paragraph of the CC is limiting. One

of the participating laboratories indicated that limiting CCs is also a problem in that some devices certified for one 

application are perfectly suitable for other Handbook 44 applications. 

Conclusion: There was no consensus on whether the Certificates of Conformance, as a rule, should limit device 

applications. The Sector agreed that greater responsibility should be placed on the applicant in providing information on

device limitations when filling out the NTEP application. No changes on the scope of the NTEP Certificate of

Conformance are recommended by the Sector. 

The Sector further recommends that the NTEP application be modified to indicate appropriate boxes to identify the 

intended use and applications; and add a statement that based on the information provided and the results of the 

evaluation; NTEP will determine the applicable tests to be conducted and information to be included on the Certificate of 

Conformance. The Sector did not submit specific amendments to the NTEP Application. This item will be carried over 

to the next meetings of the NTEP Participating Laboratories and NTETC Weighing Sector.

NTEP - F8
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

6. Policy for Initial Test Only vs. Full Evaluation when a Modification is Made which Requires Testing 

Source: 2001 Weighing Sector Item 10 

Background: See 2001 Sector Summary Agenda Item 10 for additional background information.

Discussion: The NTEP Director reported that NTEP has been implementing the 2001 Sector recommendation and has

encountered no major problems. Most of the requests for amendments have involved repeating influence factor or

permanence testing. The NIST Technical Advisor and some of the sector members indicated that the policy would 

promote uniformity among the labs and provide some advance notification to NTEP applicants if the policy were 

documented and published as part of the NTEP application, administrative policies, or technical policies. 

SMA reported that their document is still an “in-house” draft but could be used by the NTEP Director and the 

participating laboratories as guidelines to assist in making a decision on the extent of NTEP re-evaluations. 

There was also discussion that a minimum list of metrologically significant components be developed with a statement

relating to a minimum amount of re-evaluation associated with each component. A consensus could be gathered using 

information from the NTEP Director, participating laboratories, original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and other 

knowledgeable parties. Manufacturers are typically reasonable and it is to the OEMs benefit to agree on a common list 

Conclusion: The Sector recommended that the NTEP Committee consider the following underlined amendments for 

Publication 14, NTEP Administrative Policy, paragraph D.2. 

D.2 Responsibility for Reporting Occurrence of Modification 

b. NTEP Options 

On the basis of the manufacturer’s notification, NTEP will decide whether or not to require an evaluation for

approving the modification or issuance of a new Certificate of Conformance (CC). When a metrologically

significant modification is to be applied to a device with an existing CC, the manufacturer and NTEP shall 

attempt to agree upon the extent of reevaluation that might be required before such modification is applied. In

the event of a disagreement, a full reevaluation shall take place. NTEP will notify the manufacturer accordingly. 

The decision of NTEP can be appealed to the NCWM Board of Directors according to NCWM Publication 14

Administrative Policies, Section T. Appeal and Review Process. 

Additionally, SMA Guidelines are to be to be submitted to the Sector by the middle of May 2003 for consideration at the 

next Sector meeting. 

7. NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Procedures – Conformity Assessment 

Source: NCWM

Background: At the 2002 Annual Meeting, Mr. Patoray reported that the Work Group was formed and included Dennis

Krueger (NCR), Bill West (Ohio NTEP lab), Steve Cook (NIST Technical Advisor), Joe Dhillon, (NIST Conformity

Assessment Advisor), Ray Bales (Weigh-Tronix and Scale Manufacturers Association member), and Frank Rusk (First 

Weigh), with additional input from Rich Tucker (Tokheim and Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association member). The 

Work Group met twice and developed a preliminary outline for an NTEP Conformity Assessment Program. Mr. Patoray

discussed the ideas and possible direction during a presentation to the NCWM Board of Directors (BOD). The BOD 

requested that Mr. Patoray present the outline to other interested parties so that they may provide the BOD with additional

feedback

Discussion/Conclusion: A presentation on Conformity Assessment was made available for review and comment by

interested parties. No action was recommended by the Sector. 

NTEP - F9
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

8. Multiple Load-Receiving Elements Attached To One Indicator 

(This item has been combined with agenda item 10) 

Source: 2001 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 13 - NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: An application was submitted for an indicator with the capability to display the weight reading for up to 32

load-receiving elements. The Digital Electronic Scales Checklist, Section 34 lists the criteria for evaluation of a single

indicator connected to two or more load-receiving elements. Currently, indicating elements have been connected with up 

to four load-receiving elements with the ability to continually monitor or display each one. It is not clear how the 

operator will be able to monitor 32 scales connected to the indicator. Additionally, it is not clear how the technology

actually performs its task. NCWM Publication 14 does not specify how many load-receiving elements must be simulated

and or/submitted for type evaluation.

At the 2001 Sector meeting, there appeared to be a consensus that the number of load-receiving elements interfaced with 

a single indicating element should not be limited by NTEP. However, there was no consensus on specific 

recommendations for type evaluation procedures. The Ohio Participating Laboratory was requested to evaluate the 

device in question with all load inputs connected to the indicating element. The inputs would include a combination of at 

least two scales and simulated power loads on the remaining inputs. The Ohio Participating Laboratory was to draft 

suggested test procedures for review and comment at the next NTEP laboratory meeting in June 2002. The draft

procedures and any additional concerns will be submitted to the Weighing Sector during the 2002 Sector meeting for 

review and comment.

Discussion: The Sector reviewed on the language submitted by Bill West and Darrell Flocken. The Sector generally

agreed with the language at their meeting but wished to reserve final agreement until paragraph numbers were added to 

the language. 

Conclusion: The Sector was balloted on this item which recommended the language in the following underlined text be

added to NCWM Publication 14, Weighing Devices Chapter 1, Section 34, Page DES-54 for ZERO and TARE on

indicators interfaced to multiple load-receiving elements. The results of the ballot were 6 in favor (with one affirmative

vote requesting language clarification) and 4 voters abstaining (one voter abstained pending changes to the wording for

clarification) and no negative votes. The following language has been edited for clarification based on the comments. 

34. Multiple Load-Receiving Elements (Page DES-54 2002 Edition) 

(No changes to current contents before this point!) 

34.7. Zero-setting mechanism. 

There must be means for setting each load-receiving element to a zero 

balance indication. The zero-setting mechanism shall not operate 

independently on a summed weight indication when values for individual 

load-receiving elements can be displayed. 

34.7.1. Individual indications for each load-receiving element - no summed 

indication. There must be means for setting each load-receiving element to 

a zero balance condition. Each load-receiving element shall be evaluated as

an independent scale and must meet appropriate requirements.

Yes No NA

34.7.2. Single indicator with two or more load-receiving elements that can be

selected individually – The indicator must provide some means to monitor 

zero for each of the load-receiving elements individually, regardless of 

whether or not they can be summed. (This may require a “center of zero”

indication for each load-receiving element.)

Yes No NA

NTEP - F10 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

34.7.3 Individual indications for each load-receiving element - with summed 

indication. Each individual load-receiving element display must operate

within the guidelines defined in section 34.7.1. or 34.7.4. If the instrument

has the ability to operate in a “Sum Only” mode, the summed display must

operate within the guidelines in section 34.7.4. 

In this case, when the system is zeroed;

(a) all indications must be set to zero, including the summed display, or

(b) the zero command must be rejected by the indicator.

Yes No NA

34.7.4. Sum only indication. The summed display shall be evaluated as an

individual scale and must meet appropriate requirements. The indicator 

may provide a display for each load-receiving element, but the only display 

that will be considered “legal for trade” will be the summed display. In this 

case, the total number of divisions for the system shall not exceed 10 000 

for Class III and IIIL.

When testing these configurations;

• at least two load-receiving elements must be connected to the indicator 

if the A/D converter for the load-receiving elements is not in the

indicator.

• the evaluation will be performed with the maximum number of loadreceiving elements requested by the manufacturer (to be covered by the 

CC) if the indicator has A/D converters for each load-receiving 

element.

• proper operation shall be confirmed with test weights applied to all 

individual load-receiving elements, and then in combination if the

system has a summed display. Testing may be performed in the 

laboratory using load cell simulators or load-receiving elements, or a

combination of both load cell simulators and load-receiving elements.

• the capacity by division for each load-receiving element in the system

must appear adjacent to the weight display or on the display itself.

• each load-receiving element must be identified, and the load-receiving 

element that is in use must be automatically identified by the indicator

and if connected to a printer the recorded representation shall identify

the load-receiving element (or elements) from which the weight was

obtained.

Yes No NA

34.8. Tare mechanism.

34.8.1. Individual indications for each load-receiving element - no summed 

indication. Each load-receiving element shall be evaluated as an 

independent scale and must meet appropriate requirements.

Yes No NA

34.8.2. Individual indications for each load-receiving element - with summed 

indication. If the instrument has the ability to select individual

load-receiving elements and sum, each must operate within the guidelines 

defined in section 34.8.1. or 34.8.3.

Yes No NA

NTEP - F11 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

34.8.3. Sum only indication. The summed display shall be evaluated as an

individual scale and must meet appropriate requirements. 

Yes No NA

When testing these configurations;

• At least two load-receiving elements must be connected to the 

indicator. 

• Proper operation shall be confirmed with test weights applied to all 

individual load-receiving elements and then in combination if the

system has summed display capability. Testing may be performed in

the laboratory using load cell simulators and load-receiving elements or 

a combination of load cell simulators and load-receiving elements.

• The indication for each load-receiving element in the system must

indicate whether it is in gross or net mode. If the system is capable of 

summing the weights, the summed indication must also indicate 

whether it is in gross or net mode.

• Depending on the application, when tare is entered, it may be

appropriate to either (check all that apply):

 Switch all indications in the system to net

 Switch only the scales involved plus the summed indication to net

 Leave all the individual scales at gross and only switch the 

summed weight to net 

Note: It is not appropriate to switch all scales in the system to net

mode if any platforms are at zero load. This would in effect allow 

taking zero tare on those platforms that are at zero.

• Each load-receiving element must be identified, and the load-receiving 

element that is in use must be automatically identified by the indicator

and if connected to a printer the recorded representation shall identify

the load-receiving element (or elements) from which the weight was

obtained. (Technical Advisors note. This has been deleted since the 

information required is the same as paragraphs 34.3 and 34.4)

34.9. Capacity by division markings.

34.8.1.34.9.1. no change to current contents..... 

34.8.2.34.9.2. no change to current contents....

34.8.3.34.9.3. no change to current contents..... 

34.8.4.34.9.4. no change to current contents..... 

9. G-S.1. Identification, and Table S.6.3. Markings; Software Based Built-for-Purpose Devices 

Source: 2001 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 16

Background: At the May 2001 NTEP Laboratory meeting, the Measuring Sector Laboratories discussed marking 

requirements for “software-based” devices such as electronic cash registers or “smart recording elements” interfaced with

devices. In some cases, the indicator for the system is a generic computer display. If the required markings are placed on 

the display at the time of installation and then at some time future time the display is replaced, the required markings may 

NTEP - F12 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

be lost. The laboratories agreed that a real time or “software-based” display of the model, capacity, unit of measurement,

and other required markings on the display are preferable. The laboratories also agreed that the information could either 

be continuously displayed or displayed by pressing a single key (a series of keystrokes could be permitted with on-screen

prompts and directions). The laboratories forwarded the following proposed language to the Measuring Sector for

consideration at its 2001 meeting. The intent of the proposal is to modify Handbook 44 paragraph G-S.1.1 to allow a real

time display of the required marking information for software-based systems. 

The NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T) has already addressed the issue of capacity marking

requirements of video display terminals. At the 77th NCWM Annual Meeting in 1992, the NCWM adopted the following: 

The Committee recommends that Table S.6.3.a. and S.6.3.b. (note 3) be interpreted to permit the required capacity 

and scale division marking to be presented as part of the scale display (e.g., displayed on a video terminal or in a 

liquid crystal display), rather than be physically marked on the device. As part of the current language in the tables 

and this interpretation, the capacity by division statement must be adjacent to the weight display and continuously 

displayed when in the weighing mode. However, if the weighing mode of the scale permits different menus for

selecting operations to be displayed, the weight information and capacity by division statement must be continuously

displayed if this display is the customer's only display. These requirements apply to all of the weighing modes that

may be selected for commercial transactions. The statement does not have to be displayed when the indicating

element operates in modes other than the weighing mode. This does not require a change to Handbook 44. This

interpretation will be included in NCWM Publication 14 and NCWM Publication 3.

The statement that the capacity by scale division is not required to be displayed when in modes other than the 

weighing mode refers to situations where the scale is in the supervisor's mode and manager functions are being

performed. 

For additional background information, see the Report of the 87th National Conference on Weights and Measures,

Specifications and Tolerances Committee agenda item 310-1. 

This item is currently before the NCWM S&T Committee. The Committee asked that the NTETC Weighing and 

Measuring Sectors review both proposals and attempt to agree on a single proposal that is acceptable to all parties. 

Additionally, the NIST Technical Advisor will develop language for Publication 14, Section 1, Marking-Complete Scales, 

page DES-13 and Section 2, Marking-Indicating Elements, page DES-18. 

Discussion: The Weighing Sector, at its 2002 meeting, discussed this item at length and reviewed comments from the 

NCWM S&T Committee and from other interested parties at the 2002 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings. The Sector 

also discussed the above information and agreed to limit the scope of the proposal to not built-for-purpose devices. 

Will Whottlie, Maryland, (NTETC Measuring Sector, NCWM S&T Committee, and SWMA S&T Committee) also 

participated in the discussions and presented the concerns of the 2001 Measuring Sector, and the regional and national

S&T Committees. He stated that Measuring Sector manufacturers were concerned about requiring G-S.1. Identification. 

information to be continuously displayed in the video terminal since all the area (real estate) on the display is needed for

other purposes during the normal mode of operation.

The Weighing Sector discussed the use of keyboard/keypad entries but was concerned that without a standardized access 

method, there would be no information on the device or system to help locate the appropriate Certificate of Conformance.

As a minimum, the device needs to display minimum information needed to find the Certificate of Conformance Number 

in order to look up, among other things, the instructions for accessing the identification information. 

The Weighing Sector agreed that minimum information would not have to be displayed on the device if there was a single

standardized method to access the information documented in Handbook 44. The Sector felt that the standardized method 

should be determined by a consensus of weighing and measuring device manufacturers. 

The Weighing Sector considered location of the proposed added language in paragraph G-S.1. Identification. The NIST 

Technical Advisor suggested that adding another note to G-S.1. may be confusing in that the note may not be clear that it 

applies to all of G-S.1. The majority of the Sector did not show a strong preference whether the proposed language be

part of G-S.1. or be written as a sub paragraph of G-S.1.

NTEP - F13 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Recommendation: The 2002 Weighing Sector recommends the following language be incorporated into Handbook 44

General Code 1.10, paragraph G-S.1.1.- Software Based, Not Built–For–Purpose Devices., renumber existing paragraph

G-S.1.1. and add a definition for “built-for-purpose device:” 

G-S.1. Identification. - 

G-S.1.1.- Software Based, Not Built–For–Purpose Devices. For software based, not built–for–purpose devices, 

the manufacturer and a model designation, or the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number, shall be

continuously displayed or permanently marked on the device. Clear instructions for accessing the remaining 

required information shall be listed on the CC. Alternatively, all required information in G-S.1. Identification.

(a) through (g), may be continuously displayed or accessible by (a specified H-44 method such as Help/About).

Renumber existing G-S.1.1. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. to G-S.1.2. 

Add a new definition for “built-for-purpose” devices as follows:

built-for-purpose device. Any main element, which was manufactured with the primary intent that it be used as or

part of a weighing or measuring device or system. 

The NIST Technical Advisor reported the recommendations of the 2002 Weighing Sector to the 2003 Measuring Sector. 

The following changes recommended by the Measuring Sector at their 2002 meeting were balloted to the Weighing

Sector for their concurrence. 

Amend G-S.1. Identification (d) as follows: 

G-S.1. Identification. - 

(d) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and software-based not 

built-for-purpose devices, a nonrepetitive serial number; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

Add new paragraph G-S.1.1. and renumber existing paragraph G-S.1.1. as follows:

G-S.1.1.- Software Based, Not Built–For–Purpose Devices. For software based, not built–for–purpose devices, the 

following shall apply:

(a) the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation may be continuously displayed or marked on the

device*, or

(b) the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number may be continuously displayed or marked on the device*, or

(c) all required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), (g), and the software version designation may

be continuously displayed. Alternatively, a clearly identified System Identification, G-S.1. Identification, or

Weights and Measures Identification may be accessible through the “Help” menu. Required information 

includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was 

evaluated.

*Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required information shall be listed on the CC. Required 

information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was 

evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

G-S.1.12. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. - 

Add a new definition for “built-for-purpose” devices as follows:

NTEP - F14 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

built-for-purpose device. Any main device or element which was manufactured with the intent that it be used as or

part of a weighing or measuring device or system. 

The vote count for the Weighing Sector was as follows: 

AFFIRMATIVE: (9), NEGATIVE: (1), ABSTAIN: (3). Five ballots were not returned. The NIST Technical Advisor

forwarded the results and comments to the 2003 NCWM S&T Committee for their consideration.

10. Zero and Tare on a Single Indicating Element Interfaced with Multiple Platforms

(This item was combined with the 2002 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 8) 

Source: 2001 Sector Agenda Item 18 

Background: The Ohio NTEP Participating Laboratory has received several applications for indicating elements with 

multiple displays interfaced with multiple load-receiving elements that have the ability to simultaneously display the 

indication of each load-receiving element in addition to a summed weight display. 

Publication 14 for Digital Electronic Scales, Section 34.7. Multiple Load Receiving Elements states: 

“There must be a means for setting each load-receiving element to a zero balance indication. The zero-setting 

mechanism shall not operate independently on a summed weight indication when values for individual load-receiving

elements can be displayed.” 

Discussion/Conclusion: This item was combined with agenda item 8. Please see the Discussion and Conclusion for 

agenda item 8. 

11. Screen Savers on Electronic Cash Registers and Point-of-Sale Systems (ECR/POS) 

Source: 2001 Sector Agenda Item 19 

Background: In the past few years, ECR manufacturers have been adding screen saver features to CRT displays. The 

function of the screen saver can be metrologically significant because zero information may not be available to the 

customer and operator at the start of a transaction. Therefore the screen saver feature needs to be evaluated by NTEP to

insure compliance to all requirements. This is particularly important if the CRT is also the primary display. 

At its 2001 meeting, the Sector agreed to recommend that the three examples listed in the agenda be incorporated into 

Publication 14 ECRs Interfaced with Scales checklist and, where applicable, in the Digital Electronic Scales Checklist. 

The NIST Technical Advisor developed language for both checklists. The language was circulated and balloted among

the sector members in mid-December 2001 with comments and suggestions due by January 4, 2002. 

The Sector voted in favor of recommending language proposed by the NIST Technical Advisor for the 2002 Edition of 

NCWM 14 to the NTEP Committee (9 Affirm, 3 Neg., 3 Abst.) on the language for the Scales Checklist and (8 Affirm, 3 

Neg., 4 Abst.) on the language for the ECR Interfaced with Scales Checklist. Based upon comments received, there

appeared to be some confusion in the proposed language to be included in the weighing devices checklist and a technical 

issue on the language for the electronic cash register interfaced with scales checklist. The participating weighing device 

laboratories reviewed the proposed language and provided the NIST Technical Advisor with additional guidance. 

Ballot Discussion (sleep/screen saver mode on scales): One of the comments during the ballot process indicated that it

was not clear if a scale had to comply with one or all of the solutions listed in the proposed language. The NIST

Technical Advisor modified the language to make it clear that a scale with a sleep or screen saver mode had to comply 

with only one of the solutions in the proposed language (see attachment to item 11). 

Additional comments indicated that the marking of a legend that describes the indication other than zero (such as a 

scrolling message or a series of dashes across the display) is a new marking requirement and is not supported by language

in Handbook 44. 

NTEP - F15 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

The NIST Technical Advisor and one of participating laboratories report that it was the intent of the NCWM that a label 

defining the other than digital zero indication is necessary if the indication representing the zero condition is not clear in

its meaning.

The following is from the 1992 Weighing Sector Meeting:

Conclusions: Those commenting on this issue indicated that it is appropriate to allow the use of other than a 

continuous indication of zero provided that the device inhibits use or otherwise clearly indicates an out-of-balance 

condition if present. The Committee generally agreed this issue is most appropriately addressed by the NCWM. 

The following is from the Report of the 78th of the NCWM Annual Meeting, Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Item 320-1 S.1.1. Zero Indication (page 293):

Discussion: Scale manufacturers are designing scales with indications for zero other than a digital representation.

Alternative indications may be a zero annunciator, a series of sequencing dashes moving across the display, or a

scrolling message moving across the customer display. These latter indications must be clearly defined on the device 

as the zero indication as required by General Code paragraph G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and 

Features. 

When a shared weight display was incorporated into a point-of-sale scanner scale in 1986 and 1987, many

Conference members had serious reservations about the absence of a digital zero indication. Since that time, weights

and measures officials appear to have become much more comfortable with devices having zero indications other

than the digital zero. Comments submitted to the Committee indicate that weights and measures officials are willing 

to accept alternative forms for indicating the zero balance condition if clearly defined. 

Consequently, the Committee recommends that all scales be permitted to indicate the zero balance condition by

means other than a digital zero indication; however, scales using other than a digital zero indication for the zerobalance condition must either inhibit the weighing operation or return to a continuous digital weight indication when 

the scale is no longer at zero. This alternative is also extended to point-of-sale systems, as indicated by deleting the 

qualifying phrase at the beginning of S.1.1. (c) which previously restricted part (c) to point-of-sale systems. 

It appears that the intent of the NCWM was to allow alternate forms of the zero balance condition, provided that it is 

clearly defined and that the scale “inhibit the weighing operation or return to a continuous digital weight indication when 

the scale is no longer at zero.” Ballot Discussion (sleep/screen saver mode on ECR interfaced with scales): One of the

comments received during the ballot process indicated that the intent of the of the NCWM S&T Committee in the 

previous discussion also apply to electronic cash registers interfaced with scales (ECR). Therefore, the screen saver (or 

other information is displayed on the ECR) is intended to represent a zero indication other than a digital zero, and that the

ECR display needs to be labeled with a statement defining the other than zero indication. 

The NIST Technical Advisor agreed that the zero indication would have to be defined in the case a transaction could be

continued or initiated without requiring operator intervention, giving the operator and customer time to verify the zero 

condition of the scale. In many cases, the ECR automatically logs off the cashier requiring the cashier to log back on to 

the ECR to initiate or continue a transaction. This allows sufficient time for the operator to verify the zero condition of

the scale as required in UR.4.1. Balance Condition.

The commenter indicated that field inspectors have reported that ECR operators still ignore the zero indication of the POS

scale during the log in process and that items have been on the scale during the log in of an ECR. Additionally, most

electronic stand-alone scales display to a zero or an error condition (if weight on the scale is out of range of the zero 

limits) when turning on a scale where the video display immediately goes from the screen saver/sleep mode to displaying 

the information sent from the POS scale. 

Participating Laboratory Discussion: At the 2002 Participating Laboratories meeting in Albany NY, the weighing

devices laboratories discussed this item and information from past discussions of the NCWM S&T Committee. The 

weighing labs generally agreed that the procedures for evaluating the sleep mode on scales are technically correct. They 

have not reviewed the amended language in the attachment. Additionally, the weighing labs did not reach a consensus on

the ECR sleep/screen saver mode and agreed that the NIST Technical Advisor agreed to develop two versions of the

language for ECRs interfaced with scales. One version did not require a label defining the other than zero indication if 

NTEP - F16 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

the operator is required to log on to the ECR (after the ECR automatically logged off to enter the sleep mode) to continue

or initiate a transaction. The other version would require that “zero indication” be defined and labeled regardless of the 

automatic log off and operator log in procedures (see attachment to item 11). 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the proposed language in the attachment for Sector agenda item 11. The attachment 

contained language to evaluate sleep modes on scales and two versions for evaluating the sleep/screen saver mode on 

ECRs interfaced with scales. 

The discussion focused on two different issues. 

Part 1. Some of the Sector members (both manufactures and participating laboratories) indicated that a zero condition 

was adequately represented by scrolling messages or other non-weight information; and a label defining the zero 

indication is not required provided that there are automatic means for the scale to return to an active weighing mode when 

the scale is in a non zero condition. The NIST Technical Advisor and other sector members agreed that that adequate 

customer protection was provided. However, the customer does not know what the scrolling messages in place of the

weight information (other than a digital zero indication) represents. The Sector members referred to the 1993 Report of

the 78th NCWM (S&T Item 320-1), which discussed the need for a descriptive label as required by General Code

paragraph G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features. 

Part 2. In the case of electronic cash registers (ECRs) interfaced with scales, the issue the Sector considered was whether 

or not the act of logging onto the ECR was considered adequate operator intervention in order to verify the zero condition

of the scale prior to a new transaction without requiring a descriptive label. Two versions of the “ECRs Interfaced with

Scales” checklist were submitted to the sector. The proposals differed in that version 1 allows the customer to put a load 

on the scale and then, the operator must log on and check the zero condition of the system (the POS system does not have

to label and define the screen saver/sleep mode as zero). Version 2 requires the system to be labeled that the screen 

saver/sleep mode represents a zero indication; or that the system be interlocked from weighing until a digital zero has 

been displayed to the customer and operator. 

During the discussion of part 2, one of the participating laboratories reported that field inspectors have observed that

operators were logging onto ECRs with an operational sleep/screen saver where items were already on the scale. The 

operators were not checking the zero condition of the scale and proceeded with the transaction. 

One of the ECR manufacturers stated that there is a problem with current Publication 14 language and that there are

inconsistencies among the participating laboratories. Additionally, after-market modifications are being made to the way 

the scale display is represented on ECRs. This is a metrological change to the system (and should require a version

change) that is frequently not submitted for evaluation or detected by the field official during subsequent testing.

Jurisdictions are experiencing problems with minor inconsistencies. Additionally it is aggravating and costly for 

manufacturers to compete with others that do not comply. The manufacturer also noted that there is a problem with

“screen saver” terminology. 

Conclusion: 

Part 1. The Sector voted on the following: 

Should an indication other than a digital zero be considered a form of zero indication without defining it on the 

device? 

The results were; 1 yes vote (yes this is okay), 15 no votes (this is not okay), and 3 abstaining votes. 

Part 2. There was general support of version 2 and little support for version 1 in the attachment for sector item 11. The 

Sector agreed not to include the proposed language in version 2 because: (1) the proposed language is nearly identical to

the language recommended for the DES checklist; (2) it has the same requirements; and (3) the introduction to the ECRs 

Interfaced with Scale states that ECR checklist is a supplement to the DES checklist. Additionally, the participating 

laboratories will continue to develop a proposal for reporting size of the weight display, its location, and weight

information area on Certificates of Conformance for consideration during the 2003 meeting of the Weighing Sector. 

The Sector recommends the following amendments to Publication 14, Chapter 1, Digital Electronic Scales (DES), Section

11. Additionally, the NIST Technical Advisor recommends an additional statement be added to Publication 14, Chapter 

NTEP - F17 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

6, ECRs Interfaced with Scales, Section 8, Indicating and Recording Elements informing applicants and participating 

laboratories to refer to Publication 14, Chapter 1 DES for applicable requirement and test procedures for ECRs and

systems that provide the only representation of the primary weight indication. 

11. Indicating and Recording Elements - General (DES-33) 

Code Reference: G-S.5.1., G-S.2., G-S.6., S.1.1., and S.1.12. 

11.8.4. When in the “sleep” or “screen saver” mode the zero indication must be defined. Does the scale or 

indicating element have a screen saver, sleep mode or power save feature?

Yes No 

Note: Other than a continuous zero indication may be used to indicate zero; however, some indication must be used 

and the indication must be clearly defined. For example, when in the sleep mode, a scale may display dashes while

at zero. In this case, a legend must be included adjacent to the display to indicate that the dashes in display indicates

the scale is on zero (See also Code Reference S.1.1. Zero Indication).

Manufacturers have been adding screen savers and sleep modes to scales for the purpose of prolonging the useful life 

of displays or provide promotional or other information on displays during periods of scale inactivity. 

Additionally, some scales have automatic shut-off, or power (battery) save modes. These features promote energy

conservation or prolong battery life in battery-operated scales. This feature either automatically turns off the scale 

after a period of inactivity or only turns off the display. If the power or battery save mode only turns off the display 

to save power, the feature is considered to be a sleep mode and should be evaluated using the screen saver/sleep 

mode criteria.

The function of a screen saver, sleep mode and power save feature can be metrologically significant because zero

information may not be available to the customer and operator at the start of a transaction. 

NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.1.1. (c) Zero Indication. states that the zero-balance condition can be

indicated by other than a continuous digital zero indication provided that effective means are provided to inhibit a 

weighing operation or to return to a continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition.

The zero indication must be defined if the zero condition of the scale is represented by other than a digital 

representation. In this case, a legend must be included as part of, or adjacent to the display to indicate that 

indications other than a digital zero (e.g. dashes in display or other indications such as scrolling messages) indicate 

the scale is on zero (See also General Code Reference G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and

Features).

The following are examples of acceptable screen saver/sleep mode operations. Checks the method(s) used by the

scale or describe the screen saver, sleep mode, or power save feature operation if it is not one of the examples listed 

below.

• The primary weight indication is continuously displayed while in the screen saver/sleep mode.

• A clearly defined zero annunciator that is active only when the scale is in a zero gross load condition.

• Activation of the sleep or battery/power save mode turns off the scale requiring the operator to turn on the 

scale before a weighing operation can be performed. 

• Activation of the sleep or battery/power save mode only turns off the primary weight display or the primary 

weight display is replaced by scrolling messages or dashes. The method of indicating a zero balance 

condition must be clearly defined as the zero indication as required by General Code paragraph G.S.6. 

Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features. The legend must state, “scrolling messages 

indicates scale is at zero” or similar statement. 

NTEP - F18 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

If the scale goes off of zero, the scale must either: 

 return to the active weight display, or 

 prevent the initiation of a weighing transaction until the scale has returned to a digital zero

indication.



At least one of the following methods in 11.8.4.1. through 11.8.4.3. must be used to determine screen 

saver/sleep mode compliance.

11.8.4.1. The scale shall not enter the screen saver/sleep mode when the scale is at 

other than a zero load condition unless the scale is automatically powered

off.

To verify that power has been turned off during the sleep mode, apply a test

load on the scale and monitor the condition of the display until the screen 

saver/sleep mode is enabled and the display goes blank. Changing the load

on the scale and depressing operator or customer-operated keys cannot

activate the display.

Turned the scale back on with the power switch/button weight on the scale, 

the scale must return to zero, or display an error code or other meaningless 

information. 

Yes No NA

As soon as the scale is ready to weigh, check the “warm-up” accuracy of 

the scale by placing a test load of one-half scale capacity (or maximum 

available weight if one-half capacity is not available). The weight

indication shall be within applicable tolerance.

Yes No NA

11.8.4.2. If the primary weight display disappears in the screen saver/sleep mode

with the scale at zero and the power to the scale is not automatically shut

off, the display must comply with a or b below:

(a) The zero indication or zero annunciator must be displayed, or

defined if zero is indicated by other than a digital zero indication or

annunciator.

Yes No NA

If a legend is used to define zero, it must be included adjacent to the

display to indicate that the information (dashes, scrolling message, 

and etc.) indicate the scale is on zero.

Yes No NA

The screen saver/sleep mode shall be deactivated and the continuous 

weight display automatically returns under the following conditions

unless means are provided to inhibit a weighing transaction until the 

scale has returned to a digital zero indication:

Yes No NA

The scale drifts above zero Yes No NA

Weight is added to the scale Yes No NA

The scale drifts below zero Yes No NA

The scale is in an overcapacity condition. Yes No NA

(b) Means are provided to inhibit a weighing transaction until the 

operator has returned the scale to a digital zero indication.

Yes No NA

8. Indicating and Recording Elements - General (page ECRS-10)

NTEP - F19 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Code Reference: G-S.5.1., G-S.2., and S.1.12. 

A point-of-sale (POS) system shall be designed to provide clear, definite, and adequate indications. Its features and

operations shall be designed so that they minimize the potential of both intentional or unintentional errors. The pricelook-up (PLU) capability shall prevent the interaction of weight and nonweight PLUs, (e.g., weight-related PLUs

must require a weight input and nonweight PLUs shall not respond to weight input). Manual weight entries are

permitted only under specific conditions. Transaction information shall not be lost or unrecorded in the event of a 

power failure. 

Computing scales that have both the multiple sales accumulation capability and price-look-up capability that can

operate simultaneously are considered to be electronic cash registers. These systems shall issue sales receipt tapes

that are similar to those issued by cash registers. If the total prices computed using PLUs cannot be included in the

sales accumulation capability, the scale is not required to issue a cash register receipt. 

An increasing number of POS system manufacturers and distributors have been replacing the primary gross weight

indication provided by the POS scale (either built into the scale or a pedestal mounted display) with a primary and

continuous gross weight indication included as part of the customer display provided by the POS manufacturer or

distributor. The primary and continuous weigh indications, that are the only source of the primary gross weight

information, are considered primary indicating elements and shall be evaluated according to Publication 14,

Chapter 1, Digital Electronic Scales. 

Paragraphs 8.1. through 8.9. remain unchanged. 

12. NTEP Evaluations and User Requirements in the Scales Code 

Source: Maryland NTEP Participating Laboratory 

Background: There has been some recent discussion that NTEP should not be evaluating devices for user requirements. 

At its 2001 meeting, the Sector recommended that Steve Cook, NIST Technical Advisor, and Stephen Patoray, NTEP

Director, work together and review Publication 14 to verify that all checklist requirements and procedures are referenced

to applicable Handbook 44 paragraphs. During the process of converting NCWM Publication 14 2000 edition from

WordPerfect to MS Word, the NTEP Director and the NIST Technical Advisor corrected any remaining references to

“User Requirements.” 

Recommendation: The NIST Technical Advisor and NTEP Director have deleted nearly all references to User 

Requirements and replaced them with appropriate references to Specifications, Tolerances, and Test Notes. No evaluation 

criteria were deleted. No further action was required on this item.

13. NTEP Technical Policy Publication 14 Section B.5.b. Change Platform Area to Length and Width

Source: 2001 Weighing Sector Item 22

Background: During a discussion of a proposal from the Maryland Participating Laboratory to change Publication 14

Section B.5.b. Weighing Systems, Scales, or Load-receiving elements of 30 000 lb or Less, the Sector asked the SMA 

technical committee to draft platform size criteria (for scales less than or equal to 30 000 lb) for capacities that are 

between the capacities submitted for evaluation. For example, if two scales are submitted for evaluation (a 3'x3', 2000 lb

and a 8'x10', 10 000 lb), what are the platform size parameters that can accepted on the CC for intermediate capacities 

(8'x10', 2500 lb)?

Discussion/Conclusion: The participating Laboratories discussed this item prior to the sector meeting and agreed that 

the only way to interpret the existing guidelines is that any capacity not tested can be as large as the next higher capacity 

tested. The Sector concurred with the participating laboratories interpretation and reported that there have been no

reported problems. The Sector agreed to recommend that Publication 14, Section B. Certificate of Conformance 

Parameters, guideline 7. Weighing Systems, Scales, or Load-Receiving Elements of 30 000 lb or Less be amended as 

NTEP - F20 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

follows to clarify that in a family of scales, the next size larger or smaller of the device tested can be covered on the

Certificate of Conformance provided they do not exceed the next size of device tested. 

7. Weighing Systems, Scales Or Load-Receiving Elements Of 30 000 lb Capacity or Less 

Note: When submitting a family of devices that has capacities above and below 30 000 lb, the average of the highest

and lowest capacities listed on the application will be determined. If the average is at or below 30 000 lb, the 

guidelines in Section 7 will be used as the selection criteria. If the average is above 30 000 lb, the guidelines in

Section 8 will be used as the selection criteria. Scale families that are evaluated under Section 7 guidelines cannot 

extend the maximum capacity of the family without further evaluation. The applicant may request that Section 8 

criteria be applied to take advantage of the 50 % to 135 % capacity range (8.1.a.) provided all other requirements of 

Sections 8 and 8.1 are met. The applicant should be aware of the differences in the selection criteria and what can be

covered on the Certificate of Conformance based upon the applicable criteria. 

The models to be submitted for evaluation shall be those having:

a. the lowest capacity and the highest capacity1

b. the largest platform area for each of the capacities submitted

c. the most resolution (highest number of scale divisions)

d. the smallest scale division value (d). 

A CC will apply to all models that: 

a. are within the range of capacities, 

b. have platform areas up to but not larger than that evaluated at each capacity, with lengths or widths no 

greater than 125 % of either dimension tested (i.e. If a 5’ x 5’ scale is tested and passes evaluation, then a 6’

x 4’ scale could be included on the CC. A 3’ x 8’ scale could not be included without additional testing),

i. have platform areas for intermediate capacities not submitted for evaluation up to but not larger than the 

next higher capacity submitted for evaluation, (i.e. If a 2000 lb 3’ x 3’ and 10 000 lb 8’ x 10’ scales

were submitted for evaluation, then the CC would cover a 3000 lb capacity scale a platform area up to 

80 ft2), 

c. have platform areas for intermediate capacities not submitted for evaluation down to but no smaller than the 

next lower capacity submitted for evaluation and no larger than the next higher capacity submitted (i.e. If a 

2000 lb 3’ x 3’, 10 000 lb 8’ x 10’ and a 25 000 lb 12’ x 12’ scales were submitted for evaluation, then the

CC would cover a 5000 lb capacity scale with a platform area down to 9 ft2 and up to 80 ft2), 

cd. have the same number of scale divisions or fewer,

de. are within the range of the values of the scale division, 

ef. have a platform construction with material similar to that of the equipment evaluated. 

New Items 

14. Publication 14 Changes to Reflect NCWM Changes to Handbook 44, 2003 Edition 

Source: NIST WMD (formerly OWM)

Background: The following items (a to c) represent amendments to NIST Handbook 44 requirements based on changes 

accepted at the July 2002 NCWM Annual Meeting. Recommendations from the Sector will be submitted to the NTEP 

Committee for consideration to amend NCWM Publication 14 Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures. 

NTEP - F21 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

14.(a). Examples of Manufactured, Repaired, and Remanufactures Devices and Elements

Background: During its 2002 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed that the examples of manufactured, repaired, and 

remanufactured devices and elements be posted on the NCWM or NIST websites for review and comment. The 

NCWM agreed with the S&T Committee’s recommendation that new examples of these devices not currently listed

be reviewed by the appropriate NTETC Sector for a recommendation on whether the device needs supplemental 

markings indicating that it has been remanufactured or that the repair or remanufacture results in a device that is no 

longer covered by its CC. If the Sector determines that the example results in a device no longer covered by a CC,

then the Sector will provide the NTEP Committee references to existing Publication 14 technical policies or technical 

justification and suggested language to amend existing policies. 

Recommendation/Conclusion: The Sector recommended no further action on this item.

14.(b). Definition of “Element” 

Background: At its 2002 Annual Meeting, the NCWM adopted the following definition of “element.” 

element. A portion of a weighing or measuring device or system which performs a specific function and 

can be separated, evaluated separately, and is subject to specified full or partial error limits. 

Recommendation/Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the definition appears to be consistent with existing 

references to element in NCWM Publication 14 and recommended no further action on this item.

14.(c). S.6.5. Livestock Scales, Nominal Capacity and Marking Requirements

Background: At its 2002 Annual Meeting, the NCWM adopted the following new paragraph for the determination 

of the nominal capacity and marking requirements for livestock scales manufactured after January 1, 2003. 

S.6.5. Livestock Scales. - A livestock scale shall be marked with the maximum capacity of each section of the 

load-receiving element of the scale. Such marking shall be accurately and conspicuously presented on, or

adjacent to, the identification or nomenclature plate that is attached to the indicating element of the scale.

The nominal capacity of a scale with more than two sections shall not exceed twice its rated section capacity. 

The nominal capacity of a two-section scale shall not exceed its rated section capacity*. 

*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

Recommendation/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the proposed language developed by the NIST Technical

Advisor and agreed to delete the terms “vehicle scale used as livestock scales.” The Sector further recommended that

NCWM Publication 14, Chapter 1, Section 5 and Section 64 be amended as follows:

Page DES-22 Section 5 

5. Marking - Livestock, Vehicle, and Railway Track Scales

Code References: S.6., S.6.5., Table S.6.3.a., and Table S.6.3.b.

5.1. The section capacity of a railway track and livestock scales shall be marked 

on or adjacent to the identification badge on the indicating element. 

Yes No NA

5.2. A vVehicle, or axle-load, or livestock scales shall be marked with the 

concentrated load capacity of the scale. Such marking shall be identified as 

"concentrated load capacity" or by the abbreviation "CLC" and shall be 

accurately and conspicuously shown: 

Yes No NA

5.2.1. On, or adjacent to, the identification or nomenclature plate that is attached to 

the indicating element of the scale; and 

Yes No NA

NTEP - F22 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

5.2.2. On the load-receiving element of the scale. These capacity markings shall 

be added to the load-receiving element of any such scale not previously 

marked at the time of modification. 

Yes No NA

5.3. If a vehicle scale is marked with maximum load ratings in addition to the 

required CLC, the ratings shall not exceed the maximum specified in 

UR.3.2.1. below and the accompanying table.

Yes No NA

5.3. 5.4. The marked nominal capacity on all vehicle, and axle-load, and livestock

scales shall not exceed the concentrated load capacity times the quantity of 

the number of sections in the scale minus 0.5. 

Yes No NA

5.4 5.5 Combination railway track/vehicle, and combination vehicle/livestock scales

shall be marked with (1) the nominal capacity and CLC for vehicle

weighing, and (2) the nominal capacity and section capacity for railway and 

livestock weighing. The emin for both vehicle weighing and railway

weighing shall also be marked. 

Yes No NA

Note: Combination scales (railway track /vehicle, and vehicle/livestock) 

shall be marked with all required information.

Page DES-25 Section 5 Marking - Livestock, Vehicle and Railway Track Scale. Delete Table UR.3.2.1. Span

Maximum Load (references a User Requirement) 

Page DES-84 Section 64 Performance and Permanence Tests for Livestock Scales 

64. Performance and Permanence Tests for Livestock Scales

64.1. Initial Type Evaluation (Field) Performance Tests 

64.1.1. Performance Tests for Livestock Scales with 2 Sections: 

64.1.1.1.Conduct two sets of increasing load and shift tests over each corner at 1/4 the nominal 

capacity of the scale. Be careful not to exceed the CLC section capacity of a section 

when loading the weights. Record increasing/decreasing load indications as you add

weights to or remove weights from the platform in at least five equal intervals. For 

the first set, perform this test on each corner and check zero balance before going on

to the next corner. For the second set, complete the increasing load build up on one 

corner and move the weights to the next corner without unloading the scale. For each 

set when all the weights have been removed, record the return to zero. The scale must 

return to zero within one-half of a scale division. When analyzing the return to zero, 

consider the length of time the load was on the scale and for possible temperature

changes that may have occurred during the test. Next, conduct an

increasing/decreasing load test to the scale nominal capacity or at least to the used 

capacity by distributing the test load over the platform in at least five equal intervals 

and record the error for each interval. 

64.1.2. Performance Tests for Livestock Scales with More than 2 Sections: 

64.1.2.1. At least two complete sets of shift tests shall be conducted over each section. This is 

to determine the repeatability of the scale. Each set must include determination of

error at a minimum of five intervals of test loads up to 90 % of the CLCsection 

capacity repeated over each section. For the first set, perform this test on each

section, unloading the weights and checking zero balance before going on to the next

section. For the second set, complete the increasing load build-up on one section and 

move the weights to the next section without unloading the scale. Take several

readings as the weights are being removed. When all the weights have been removed,

record the return to zero. The scale must return to zero within one-half of a scale 

NTEP - F23 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

division. When analyzing the return to zero, consider the length of time the load was 

on the scale and for possible temperature changes that may have occurred during the

test. Determine scale errors at more points if desired. Avoid decreasing load tests 

when testing a section. Next, conduct an increasing load test to the scale nominal

capacity or at least to the used capacity by distributing the test load over the platform

in at least five intervals and record the error for each interval. Be careful not to 

exceed the CLCsection capacity or a section when loading the weights and distribute

loads across the section. Record decreasing load indications as you remove weights

from the platform in at least five intervals. 

Conduct decreasing load tests after the sections have been tested to their maximum load and

the weights are removed from the scale. 

Note: Decreasing load tests only apply to automatic indicating devices. 

64.1.3. At least one complete set of shift tests to at least 90 % of the CLC section capacity shall be

conducted at mid-span between sections. 

64.3. Permanence Test Minimum Use Requirements 

64.3.3. For livestock scales with a nominal capacity over 75 000 lb: 

64.3.3.1.50 % of the loads must be above 50 000 lb or 80 % of the CLCsection capacity, 

whichever is greater; and 

64.3.3.2.100 % of the loads must be above 20 000 lb or 50 % of the CLCsection capacity, 

whichever is greater. 

64.3.4. For all other scales:

64.3.4.1.50 % of the loads must be above 50 % of the scale capacity; and 

64.3.4.2.100 % of the loads must be above 20 % of the scale capacity. 

64.3.5. The minimum number of days that a device is required to be in use is 20 days. A minimum

number of weighing operations to be conducted each day for the test period is not specified;

however, the weighments should represent the scale’s normal in-service use. 

64.3.6. The device will be tested to at least the CLC section capacity on the second test. 

Note: Substitution or strain test methods are acceptable as long as all conditions above are met. 

15. Publication 14, Incorporation of OIML R 60 with Exceptions 

Source: NTEP Committee 

Background: In view of the increased interest for bilateral and mutual recognition of test data agreements, it has been 

suggested to the NCWM NTEP Committee and the Board of Directors that the incorporation of OIML R 60 Edition 2000 

(E) Metrological Regulation for Load Cells into Publication 14 would be a logical step towards these agreements. There 

are a very few NIST Handbook 44 references to load cells. Therefore, few changes would be necessary to make OIML

R 60 compatible with Handbook 44. The load cell test facilities at the NIST Force Group have already demonstrated that

they can generate internationally accepted test data. The Force Group also has the ability to test for changes in barometric

pressure. 

NTEP - F24 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

For load cells without electronics (analog load cells), the major differences that must be addressed are: 

1. There is an extra tolerance step (Table 2, page LC-3) currently in Publication 14 that is supported by Handbook 

44 tolerances for scales. Harmonization would likely require a change to Handbook 44 to support the

application of OIML R 60 tolerances. 

2. One-hour time dependence test in Publication 14 is not compatible with the OIML R 60 30-minute Creep Test. 

This may also require a change to Handbook 44 paragraph T.N.4.5. Time Dependence (either as separate 

language for load cells or as an amendment to the one-hour time requirement to more closely align with R 76 

and R 50). 

3. There is no equivalent Accuracy Class III L in OIML R 60. This may have to remain in Publication 14 as an

exception. 

4. Accuracy class marking requirements (A, B, C, D) in OIML R 60. This may also require a change in NIST

Handbook 44 (for load cells manufactured after January 1, 200X). 

5. Humidity markings and testing in OIML R 60 would require a change in Handbook 44 to support marking and 

testing of load cells for humidity. 

Other differences include the selection criteria for the load cell to be submitted for test and is described on page 16 and 

Annex B in OIML R 60. 

The NIST Technical Advisor is not aware of any discussions regarding the testing of load cells with electronics (digital 

load cells). Additional OIML R 60 testing includes tests for warm-up time, power supply variations, short-term power

reductions, bursts, electrostatic discharge, electromagnetic susceptibility, and span stability. 

Recommendation/Conclusion: The Sector discussed the above recommendations. The NTEP Director provided 

additional background information and indicated that no changes need to be made to Handbook 44 because load cell

certificates are based upon data evaluation and the same data can be used to verify compliance with Handbook 44 and

OIML R 60. Darrell Tonini stated that he would bring this subject up to the Scale Manufacturers Association Technical 

Committee and refer their comments to the NTEP Director. 

The Sector recommends no action on this item. 

16. Vehicle Scale Testing Procedures

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: At the 2002 Participating Laboratory Meeting, the various labs demonstrated the procedures used to test

vehicle scales. The exercise demonstrated that the participating labs were correctly testing the scales. However the 

language in the current procedures may cause an evaluator to conduct additional testing. The NTEP Participating

Laboratories have amended the existing vehicle scale test procedure that offers additional clarity to the procedures and 

promotes the uniform application of test weights and test loads. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed and discussed the two proposals to amend the vehicle scale test procedures. The 

procedures are included with the attachment for Agenda Item 16. 

The first proposal breaks up the long paragraphs in Publication 14, 2002 Edition vehicle scale test procedures in

(hopefully) easier to follow steps. The second proposal is included in a letter from Ross Anderson, NY, describing the 

vehicle test procedures that include the steps in a table format and describes test weights and weight cart positions and 

usage. Ross Anderson will present additional proposed language, at the Sector meeting. The Sector also reviewed a 

Power Point presentation developed by Ross Anderson. Additionally, the Sector reviewed information provided by the

Ohio participating laboratory for possible Checklist Items and Test Report Forms. 

The Maryland participating laboratory indicated that section 65.a.3.1.(a) is confusing and recommended deleting the last

half of the paragraph. 

The manufacturers were concerned about conducting a 5-point increasing load test in conjunction with the shift test. For 

scales with a large concentrated load capacity rating, this represents a lot of weight on the scale for a long lime and 

increases the possibility of a zero change due to creep. It was pointed out that Publication 14 recognizes that 

consideration must be given for the length of time the load was on the scale and possible temperature changes that may 

NTEP - F25 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

have occurred during the test. (The NIST Technical Advisor noted the above consideration is located in Section 65a.4.5.

Strain Load Test and will add a similar statement to Section 65a.3. Shift Tests in the list of recommended editorial

changes to the 2003 Edition of Publication 14.) 

It was noted that the basic differences between the two proposals is that the proposal from Ross Andersen includes the 

5-step increasing and decreasing load while conducting the strain test. Publication 14, as written in Section 65a.4., does 

not include the 5-step increasing load test as part of the strain test. 

The discussion shifted to the concern raised in the Ross Andersen proposal regarding the use of weight carts because the 

position of the fully loaded carts would place a large load in an area of the deck that is smaller than the typical truck 

wheel span. 

Many of the manufacturers indicated that there was no problem with using weight carts in this manner. The maximum 

amount of weight down the centerline of the scale using typical weight carts would be 20 000 lb to 30 000 lb. The 

manufactures have a greater concern with placing weight carts end to end thereby increasing the test pattern, which results

in an inadequate test to the CLC rating of the scale. 

The participating laboratories indicated that applicants should be made aware of the test equipment provided by the labs

selected to conduct the evaluation. Applicants are already responsible for providing additional weights and equipment

necessary to conduct the evaluation. If the applicant is concerned about the use of weight carts, then they should be

responsible for providing adequate test weights and equipment. 

Conclusion: This subject will be carried over to the next meetings of the NTEP Participating Laboratories and the 

NTETC Weighing Sector for further clarification of the strain load test procedures and how to respond to changes to zero 

when a test load is on the scale for an extended period of time.

The Sector agreed to support the proposal developed by the participating laboratories with the clarification recommended 

by the Maryland participating laboratory and recommends the following amendments to Publication 14, Chapter 1,

Section 65(a)3.1. through 65(a).3.3. (page DES-86):

65a.3.1. Shift Tests. Conduct at least two complete sets of shift tests over each section to at least 90 % of the rated

concentrated load capacity (CLC) of the scale. This is to determine the repeatability of the scale. Determine

the scale error at a minimum of five equally spaced test loads. Determine scale errors more points if desired.

If two weight carts are used, they should travel along the paths the wheels of a vehicle would take when

moving across the scale. Decreasing load tests are to be avoided when testing a section. Do not back a 

truck onto the scale in order to place weights on the inner sections. Conduct decreasing load tests after 

testing the sections to their maximum load and remove the weights from the scale. Do not exceed the CLC 

capacity. Distribute the load across the section. A single complete shift test is defined in steps a through d.

When analyzing the return to zero, consideration must be given for the length of time the load was on the 

scale and possible temperature changes that may have occurred during the test.

a. The shift test will be conducted by loading one end section to the first of at least five test loads, moving

the load to each section.

b. Record the error moving the load to each section until the opposite end of the scale is reached, 

recording the error at each section and at each load.

c. d. Repeat the shift test procedure above in steps a, and b above for each weight increment until at least

90 % of the CLC is reached. While at the maximum test load, locate the test weights and record the 

errors at each section, mid-span between sections, and on modular scales, each on the right and left side 

of the module connection line located at each section. 

d. c. Conduct a decreasing load lest on the section at the end of the scale where the weights can be 

reloaded. 

NTEP - F26 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

(Note) If possible, the first increment of test weights should equal 500e. If weights cannot be conveniently

applied that equal 500e, the first load should equal just below 500e as nearly as possible. The other 

tolerance breakpoints should be tested if possible.

65a.3.3. If a scale consists of modules that are connected together to comprise the weighbridge, conduct shift

tests by placing the load so that it straddles the connection between the modules. Later, conduct at least 

one shift test on the scale with the test load placed first on one side of the connection line off the

module then on the other side of the connection line.

65a.3.4. The results of shift tests must agree within the absolute value of the applicable maintenance tolerances 

and must be within acceptance tolerances

65a.4. Strain Load Test . . . . 

17. Publication 14, Section 7, Footnote 1 on DES-3 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories

Background: In footnote for Publication 14, Section 7 the phrase “narrow range” is confusing and facilitates different

interpretations of device selection criteria. The current location of the footnote in (a) makes it impossible to comply with

(d) without having to submit a second device. Additionally, there is a problem with the interpretation of the language in 

the footnote. Is the capacity in the middle of the 2:1 range of capacities submitted for test defined as a narrow range or is 

a narrow range defined as a 4:1 range of capacities? If the range is 50, 100, and 200, do you test the 100. If the range is

only 2:1, which scale is tested, the 100 or the 200? – Footnote is useless or does the footnote supersede the specific

requirements in d? 

Discussion: There were several suggestions to delete the footnote. However, it was noted that the problem of narrow

range families of scales still existed. One of the manufactures suggested establishing upper limits to the range of

capacities in defining a family of scales similar to what they have experienced with other countries in addition to better 

defining what is considered a narrow range and suggested the ratio of capacities be limited to 10:1 when defining the 

limits to a range of capacities. 

There were also concerns among the participating laboratories about eliminating the requirements for testing smallest 

division size (emin) and largest capacity for families with a narrow range. Many of the Sector members stated that it is not 

technically correct to test a single device with two different capacities and emin values because it was likely the 

manufacturer would use different load cells and strengths of steel for the different scales. 

The Sector requested that the NTEP Director and NIST Technical Advisor develop criteria and examples to clarify the 

existing language. The criteria and examples were developed overnight and reviewed the next day. The guidelines 

established that the highest and lowest capacities must be submitted for evaluation if the range of capacities in the family

is 10:1 or less. Additional capacities must be submitted if the range is wider than 10:1. A narrow range is defined as a 2:1

range of capacities. Only one device is required for evaluation if conditions 7(b), 7(c), and 7(d) are met; otherwise, two 

devices shall be submitted. There was general agreement on the amended criteria, footnotes and examples. 

Conclusion: The Sector recommended that Publication 14, Chapter 1, Technical Policies B7 for Weighing Systems,

Scales, or Load-Receiving elements of 30 000 lb or Less be amended as follows: 

7. Weighing Systems, Scales or Weighing Load-Receiving Elements of 30 000 lb Capacity or Less 

7.1. The models to be submitted for evaluation shall be those having: 

a. The lowest capacity and the highest capacity1

 1

 For the family, the range of capacities from lowest to highest shall not exceed a 10:1 ratio. To cover a wider range of 

capacities additional devices in the family will be tested. If the range of capacities is quite narrow and is a ration of less

than or equal to 2:1, it may be that only one device near the mid-range needs to be submitted. For example, a family of

scales with a narrow range of capacities from 500 lb to 1000 lb, the manufacturer could submit one model near the

NTEP - F27 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

b. The largest platform area for each of the capacities submitted 

c. The most resolution (highest number of scale divisions) 

d. The smallest scale division value (d). 

1 If the range of capacities is quite narrow (e.g., 50 lb, 100 lb, and 200 lb) and is a ratio of less than or equal to

2:1, it may be that only a device near mid-range needs to be submitted. If the range of capacities is extremely

wide (e.g., 10 lb to 10 000), it may be necessary that a device near mid-range also be submitted.

Example: For a family of scales with a range of capacities from 500 lb to 999 lb, the manufacturer could submit 

one model with a capacity of 750 lb. If the 750-lb model successfully passed full evaluation, the entire family 

could be covered by the CC. If the range for a family included capacities from 10 lb to 100 lb, the manufacturer 

would be required to submit three devices. The devices required to be submitted for evaluation would include 

the highest and lowest capacity as well as one near mid-range.

For the family, the range of capacities from lowest to highest shall not exceed a 10:1 ratio. To cover a wider 

range of capacities additional devices in the family will be tested. If the range of capacities is quite narrow and is 

a ratio of less than or equal to 2:1, it may be that only one device near the mid-range needs to be submitted. For

example, a family of scales with a narrow range of capacities from 500 lb to 1000 lb, the manufacturer could

submit one model near the midrange with a capacity of 750 lb. If no midrange device is available, the largest

capacity device may be evaluated. In all cases, requirements found in items b. c. and d. must be met. 

Examples: for a family from 10 lb to 100 lb, a 10 lb and a 100 lb would be evaluated

for a family from 10 lb to 1000 lb, a 10 lb, a 100 lb and a 1000 lb device would be evaluated

for a family of 30 x 0.01 lb and 50 x 0.01 lb, the 50 lb device would be evaluated

for a family of 30 x 0.01 lb and 50 x 0.02 lb, the 30 lb device would be evaluated

for a family of 15 x 0.005 lb and 30 x 0.01 lb, the 15 lb device would to be evaluated (meets b, c, & d)

for a family of 2500 x 0.5 lb and 5000 x 1 lb the 2500 lb device would be evaluated (meets b, c, & d)

7.2. A CC will apply to all models that: 

18. Define Bench/Counter Scales

Source: NTEP Laboratories 

Background: There is some confusion in the classification of bench/counter scales and floor scales and the location of 

test load while performing a shift test. Bench and counter scale shift tests are conducted with a half capacity test load 

centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back and the right edges of the loadreceiving element (N.1.3.1.). Shift tests on other platform scales are conducted with a one-half capacity test load 

centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the center of each quadrant. Additionally, manufacturers frequently

design a family of scales that can be used on a bench or on the floor. Automatic zero setting mechanism requirements are 

different based upon the classification of the scale. Bench or counter scales have an automatic zero-setting mechanism

(AZSM) limitation of 0.6 e where “other than bench or counter” scales have an AZSM limitation of 1.0 e. 

Discussion: The Sector considered amending the current definition of a counter scale that limits the capacity or

recognize the differences in the test pattern based upon the number of load bearing points and Handbook 44 shift test 

paragraphs as shown below: (Note: If it is determined that a capacity limitation is suitable for the definition, the Canadian

Technical Advisor would prefer that 100 kg (200 lb) be the limit between bench and floor scale.) 

 midrange with a capacity of 750 lb. If no midrange device is available, the largest capacity device may be evaluated. In 

all cases, requirements found in the items b. c. and d. must be met. 

Examples: for a family from 10 lb to 100 lb, a 10 lb and a 100 lb would be evaluated 

for a family from 10 lb to 1000 lb, a 10 lb, a 100 lb, and a 1000 lb device would be evaluated

for a family of 30 x 0.01 lb and 50 x 0.01 lb, the 50 lb device would be evaluated 

for a family of 30 x 0.01 lb and 50 x 0.02 lb, the 30 lb device would be evaluated 

for a family of 15 x 0.005 lb and 30 x 0.01 lb, the 15 lb device would be evaluated (meets b., c., & d.) 

for a family of 2500 x 0.5 lb and 5000 x 1 lb, the 2500 lb device would be evaluated (meets b., c., & d.) 

NTEP - F28 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

counter scale. One that, by reason of its size, arrangement of parts, and moderate nominal capacity no greater than

100 kg (200 lb), is adapted for use on a counter or bench. Sometimes called “Bench scale” [2.20] (Note: There are

single load cell load-receiving elements up to 600 lb capacities and there are four load cell load-receiving elements

down to at least 25 lb capacities.)

N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales. – For bench or counter scales with a single platform support, a A shift test shall

be conducted with a half capacity test load centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and the 

front, left, back, and right edges of the load-receiving element. Bench or counter scales with four platform supports, 

a shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the center 

of each quarter of the load receiving element, or with a quarter-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, 

successively over each main load support.

N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and 

Portable Axle-Load Weighers. - For all scales with four platform supports, a A shift test shall be conducted with a 

half-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the center of each quarter of the load-receiving 

element, or with a quarter-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively over each main load 

support. For scales with a single platform support, a A shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load 

centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back, and right edges of the 

load-receiving element. 

The Sector also considered the following alternative language submitted by Bill West and Darrell Flocken:

counter scale. A scale One that, by reason of its size, arrangement of its parts and moderate nominal capacity no

larger than 200 lb (100 kg), is adapted for use on a counter, table, or bench,. Sometimes called a “bench scale”. A 

counter scale will be a class III scale. [2.20] 

floor scale. A scale designed to be placed on the floor or permanently installed in a pit. Nominal capacity will

generally be larger than 200 lb (100 kg). Sometimes called a “platform scale”. A floor scale may be either class III 

or III L, depending on the intended use, as long as all parameters for the intended class are met. [2.20]

The Sector also discussed the bench/counter scale terminology in NCWM Publication 14 2002 Edition, Section 62.3,

Shift Test Procedures (page DES 77). The Sector agreed to remove the bench, counter and “other platform scale” 

terminology and conduct the shift test based upon the design of the scale (single load cell or more than one load support). 

Further Sector discussions noted that the classification of bench/counter scales as floor scales has lead to confusion about 

where to place the test load when performing a shift test. Sometimes the same scale could be placed either on a counter 

or bench resulting in different shift test positions since paragraph N.1.3.1. describes test load positions for bench/counter 

that are different than the test load positions described in N.1.3.8. for other (platform) scales. Currently NIST Handbook 

44 for bench/counter scale shift tests are conducted with a half capacity test load centered successively at four points

equidistant between the center and the front, left, back and the right edges of the load-receiving element (paragraph

N.1.3.1.). Shift tests on other types of platform scales are conducted with a one-half capacity test load centered, as nearly 

as possible, successively at the center of each quadrant. Additionally, manufacturers have indicated that it is an unfair test

to place one-quarter scale capacity on the corners of a single load cell scale when compared to placing one-quarter scale 

capacity in the corners of a scale with four load supports. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to submit a recommendation to the NCWM S&T Committee amending the definition of 

counter scales and paragraphs N.1.3.1. and N.1.3.8. as follows:

counter scale. One that A scale, that by reason of its size, arrangement of parts, and moderate nominal capacity no 

greater than 100 kg, is adapted for use on a counter or bench. Sometimes called “bench scale” [2.20] 

N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales. – For bench and counter scales with a single platform support, a A shift test shall 

be conducted with a half capacity test load centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and the 

front, left, back, and right edges of the load-receiving element. For bench and counter scales with four platform 

supports, a shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively at 

the center of each quarter of the load receiving element, or with a quarter-capacity test load centered, as nearly as

possible, successively over each main load support.

NTEP - F29 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and 

Portable Axle-Load Weighers. - For all scales with four platform supports, a A shift test shall be conducted with a 

half-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the center of each quarter of the load-receiving 

element, or with a quarter-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively over each main load 

support. For scales with a single platform support, a A shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load 

centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back, and right edges of the 

load-receiving element.

NTEP - F30 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Additionally, the Sector recommends the following changes to NCWM Publication 14, Section 62.3, page DES-77 as 

follows: 

Bench, Counter or Hanging Scales Other Platform Scales

 (one single load cell) (More than one single load cell)

Platform Scales With One Single Load Cell Platform Scales With More Than One Load Support

19. Definitions of Hanging and Crane Scales 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories

Background: It has been recognized that there are some inconsistencies in NIST Handbook 44 and NTEP Certificates of

Conformance (CC) with reference to crane scales. Table 3 footnote 3 indicates that a crane scale can have a capacity as

low as 500 lb. The only difference appears to be that hanging scales can only be installed where suspended from fixed

supports and crane scales can only be installed in overhead track-mounted cranes. CCs have been issued with capacities 

of scales from 250 lb to 5000 lb, with both III and III L Accuracy Class designations, and both hanging and crane scale

device classifications. The NIST Technical Advisor has observed large-capacity scales installed on overhead trackmounted cranes that can just as easily be installed on other types of cranes and supporting structures. The participating

laboratories are of the opinion that the condition of the scale support (overhead crane, fixed support, etc.) should not be a 

factor in determining device type. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector agreed to make the following recommendation to the S&T Committee to remove the

crane scale definition, define hanging scale, remove the reference to crane scale from Table 7a and paragraph N.1.3.8., 

and change remaining crane scales references to hanging scale in NIST Handbook 44: 

Add a definition of hanging scale and remove the definition of crane scale, and amend Table 3 Parameters for Accuracy

Classes footnote 3, paragraph N.1.3.8. and paragraph T.N.3.4., and Tables 7a and 7b as follows: 

hanging scale. A scale designed to weigh loads while they are suspended from a hook on the scale or loads resting

on a platter or platform that is suspended from the scale. Hanging scales may be any capacity and may be Class III or 

III L, whichever is appropriate for the intended use, as long as all parameters for the intended class are met.

Sometimes called “crane scale.” 

crane scale. One with a nominal capacity of 5000 pounds or more designed to weigh loads while they are suspended 

freely from and overhead, track mounted, crane. [2.20]

3

 The values of a scale division for crane Class III L hanging and hopper (other than grain hopper) scales shall not

be less than 0.2 kg (0.5 lb). The minimum number of scale divisions shall be not less than 1000.

N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and Portable

Axle-Load Weighers. 

T.N.3.4. Crane Class III L Hanging and Hopper (Other than Grain Hopper) Scales. – The maintenance and 

acceptance tolerances shall be as specified in T.N.3.1. and T.N. 3.2. for Class III L, except that the tolerance for crane

Class III L hanging and construction materials hopper scales shall not be less than 1d or 0.1 % of the scale capacity, 

whichever is less. 

 

 

NTEP - F31 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Table 7a. 

Typical Class or Type of Device for Weighing Operations

Class Weighing Application or Scale Type 

I Precision laboratory weighing

II Laboratory weighing, precious metals and gem weighing, grain test scales 

III All commercial weighing not otherwise specified, grain test scales, retail precious metals and 

semi-precious gem weighing, animal scales, postal scales, scales used to determine laundry 

charges, hanging, and vehicle on-board weighing systems 

III L Vehicle, axle-load, livestock, railway track scales, cranehanging, hopper (other than grain hopper) scales, and vehicle on-board weighing systems 

IIII Wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load weighers used for highway weight enforcement

Note: A scale with a higher accuracy class than that specified as "typical" may be used. 

(Amended 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, and 1995)

Table 7b. 

Applicable to Devices not Marked With a Class Designation

Scale Type or Design Maximum Value of d 

Retail Food Scales, 50-lb capacity and less 1 ounce 

Animal Scales 1 pound 

Grain Hopper Scales 

 Capacity up to and incl. 50 000 lb

 Capacity over 50 000 lb 

10 pounds (not greater than 0.05 % of capacity) 

20 pounds 

Crane Hanging Scales – Capacity 5000 lb and over not greater than 0.2 % of capacity 

Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales Used in Combination 

 Capacity up to and including 200 000 lb 

 Capacity over 200 000 lb

20 pounds 

50 pounds 

Railway Track Scales 

 With weighbeam

 Automatic indicating 

20 pounds 

100 pounds 

Scales with capacities greater than 500 lb except otherwise specified 0.1 % capacity (but not greater than 50 lb) 

Wheel-Load Weighers 0.25 % capacity (but not greater than 50 lb) 

Note: For scales not specified in this table, G-UR.1.1. and UR.1. apply. 

(Added 1985) (Amended 1989) 

20. List of Acceptable Abbreviations and Symbols 

Source: New York Participating Laboratory

Background: The participating laboratories reviewed a document titled “General Letters, Symbols mathematical - 

statistical Symbols, and Markings for Legal Metrology” (German) provided by Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo. 

Previous sector meetings discussed the German (CECIP) list but decided that many of the symbols were not acceptable to

the group. 

Canada’s list is an interpretation of the existing statute, and items not on the list are not acceptable for viewing by the

customer. 

The NIST Technical Advisor has sent a copy of the document to the participating weighing labs for their suggestions of

acceptable symbols and symbols that are not acceptable to be viewed by the customer. 

 

NTEP - F32 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

The participating Measuring Device Laboratories are also concerned with the use of symbols. Where practical, proposed

lists of symbols should be consistent among the Weighing Devices, Liquid Measuring Devices and other applicable

sections in NCWM Publication 14. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The participating laboratories reported that there has been no progress on this item. Darrell

Tonini (SMA) reported that the SMA Technical Committee was working on a similar document that should be ready in 

time for the next meeting of the participating laboratories. The NIST Technical Advisor will distribute the SMA 

document as soon as it becomes available. The Sector Chairman requested that the participating laboratories review and

comment on abbreviations in both documents and prepare a proposal for consideration prior to the 2003 meeting of the 

Weighing Sector. Examples of questionable symbols and abbreviations that are part of an active evaluation will be

reviewed by participating laboratories and NTEP Director on a case-by-case basis for a determination of the acceptability 

of the symbol or abbreviation.

21. Shift Testing on Multi-Interval Scales 

Source: Ohio Participating Laboratory 

Background: Publication 14, Section 31, page DES-49 does not address shift tests on multi-interval scales. The 

participating laboratories have been taught to treat each range as a separate scale for the determination of tolerances. 

Publication 14 is unclear if shift tests for multi-interval devices should be conducted at one-half capacity of each 

weighing range where the shift test load might end up in the first range; or, if the shift test load should be determined

based on the maximum capacity of the scale with the tolerance being based upon the weighing range of the test load. 

The NIST Technical Advisor reviewed both OIML and Handbook 44 documents for references to shift tests. Neither 

document makes any special references to shift test for multi-interval scales. 

OIML R 76 paragraph 3.6.2.1. Eccentric loading (page 25) states:

3.6.2.1. Unless otherwise specified hereafter, a load corresponding to one-third (1/3) of the sum of the maximum

capacity and the corresponding maximum additive tare effect shall be applied.” There are no additional

references to eccentric loading with respect to multi-interval scales. 

NIST Handbook 44 states: 

N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales. - A shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load centered

successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back, and right edges of the 

load-receiving element. 

Discussion: Some of the Sector members indicated that it is possible to have two test loads in the same range if testing is 

performed at 1⁄2 capacity of each range. Manufacturers also noted that multi-interval and multiple range scales should be 

treated differently because a multiple range scale with n ranges is essentially n number of scales (where n represents the

number of ranges). A multi-interval scale with more than one minimum interval is still one scale. It is technically

incorrect for Publication 14 to state that a multi-interval scale has ranges. 

Conclusion: Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, volunteered to review US/Canadian training manuals to identify

differences between U.S. and Canada. Additionally, they agreed to work with the NIST Technical Advisor in developing 

Publication 14 shift test procedures for multi-interval scales. The 2003 meetings of the participating laboratories and 

Weighing Sector will review the procedures. 

22. Manual Multi-Interval Scale 

Source: Ohio Participating Laboratory 

Background: NCWM Publication 14, Chapter 1, Section 32, page DES-51discusses the performance of manual

multi-interval scales. The participating laboratories, the NIST Technical Advisor, and the NTEP Director are unaware of 

any such devices and believe that the language has been carried over from earlier editions where manual multi-interval 

scales were redefined as multiple range scales. 

NTEP - F33 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Discussion/Conclusion: The manufacturers reported that no devices of this type are being manufactured. The NIST

Technical Advisor reported that this section was drafted prior to the adoption of the current definitions of multi-interval

and multiple range devices and that it was intended for scales and indicators that had a physical switch that toggled 

between two scales or one scale with different capacities and minimum increments. The Sector agreed to recommend that

Publication 14 Section 32 Manual Multi-Interval Scales (page DES –52) be deleted. 

23. Inconsistent Information on a CC

Source: Maryland Participating Laboratory 

Background: It was noted that features and options both metrological and non-metrological are still being included on

NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CCs). For example, screen tare should be defined if it is not a well-understood term

and “memory recall” should describe what is stored in memory (e.g., tare, gross, net, weights, unit prices, customer

information). Features on CCs that have not been successfully tested or evaluated should not be listed on the CC. It was

also noted that it is important to list peripheral equipment in test conditions. This subject was discussed during the 1992 

Weighing Sector (item 6) but never made it into the Pub 14. Section “Models” to be submitted.

The following is from the June 1992 Weighing Sector Agenda item 6:

6. Identifying the Main Elements of a Scale on Certificates of Conformance 

Background and Discussion: It was proposed that CCs for Class III L scales should be written for complete scales 

(that is, list all of the main elements and components used during the evaluation) and that the CC should not be 

issued for just the weighing/load-receiving elements. It was also commented that the main elements and load cells 

used to comprise the complete system must be certified components. 

NTEP issues separate CCs for main elements and load cells in order that the manufacturer, installer, and user will 

have the flexibility of choosing from among compatible main elements that have been evaluated by NTEP. It was

stated that this substitution can only be made if information about the indicator used in the evaluation of the 

weighing/load-receiving element is known; this, along with the use of applicable formulas, would enable the 

customer and weights and measures official to judge whether or not a given indicator is compatible for substitution.

This information has not been consistently identified on the CC in the past. 

The primary area of concern with this issue appeared to be that of indicators (separable indicating elements) without

NTEP CCs being used during NTEP evaluations of large-capacity weighing/load-receiving elements. It was 

commented that the load cell(s) used during an NTEP evaluation is (are) required to have a valid NTEP CC and that 

the indicator should also be required to have a valid CC. NTEP has not always required the indicator used during

an NTEP evaluation of a weighing/load-receiving element to have a valid NTEP CC. If an indicator without an

NTEP CC performed worse than an indicator with an NTEP CC, then the performance of the weighing/loadreceiving element may not be as good. If the manufacturer is willing to risk the results of the evaluation by using a 

non-NTEP indicator, the NTEP laboratories feel that the manufacturer should be permitted to make this choice. It

is expected that use of the weighing/load-receiving element with an indicator that has an NTEP CC (as would be

required by the weights and measures official) should be better than the performance observed with the non-NTEP

indicator. 

Conclusions: The Committee agreed that CCs should detail the main elements, load cells, and auxiliary

devices used during an evaluation, including model designation and other significant parameters, under the 

"Test Conditions" portion of the CC. The Committee agreed that Certificates should not limit a scale

system to the specific combination of load cell, indicator, and weighing/load-receiving element used during

the type evaluation; substitutions ("mixing and matching") of metrologically equivalent components should

continue to be recognized according to current NTEP policy. Each weights and measures jurisdiction should

require that the individual main elements and load cells comprising a weighing system (the indicator, load 

cell(s), and weighing/load-receiving element) each have a valid NTEP CC and that the components are 

compatible and suitable for the installation. The Committee agreed that NTEP will continue to permit nonNTEP evaluated indicators and peripheral equipment to be used in the evaluation of a weighing/loadreceiving element under certain conditions; however, the load cell used in electronic or electro-mechanical 

devices must have a current NTEP CC. 

NTEP - F34 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the above background information and agreed that the language in the 

conclusion of the June 1992 Sector Summary would benefit field inspectors and NTEP evaluators. The Sector

reconfirmed that non-metrological accessories and peripheral equipment (printing elements, video displays, and etc.) used 

as part of the evaluation should be listed in the “Test Conditions” paragraph as verification that metrological features such

as indicated and recorded representations have been evaluated. Additionally, the Sector reconfirmed that the CC does not

limit the use of non-metrological peripheral equipment to those listed. 

The Sector recommended that the following underlined language be added to the NTEP Publication 14 Administrative 

Procedures in paragraph P. Certificate of Conformance to facilitate consistent information included on the Certificate of

Conformance. 

P.6. CCs should detail the main elements, load cells, and auxiliary devices used during an evaluation, including model

designation and other significant parameters, under the "Test Conditions" portion of the CC. Only the standard features 

and options that have been evaluated will be included on the CC. 

Technical Advisor Note: The NTEP Committee considered the above recommendation during the 2003 NCWM Interim

Meeting. The Committee did not agree with the Weighing Sector and stated that the recommended policy does not affect 

the administration of NTEP and should be considered as a technical policy. The Committee recommends the 

participating laboratories and Weighing Sector reconsider the item at their next meetings. The NIST Technical Advisor 

will submit the following addition to Publication 14., Chapter 1, NTEP Technical Policy for Scales for consideration by

the participating laboratories during their next meeting: 

B. Certificate of Conformance Parameters (Page DES-1)

Certificates of Conformance (CC) should detail the main elements, load cells, and auxiliary devices used during an

evaluation, including model designation and other significant parameters, under the "Test Conditions" portion of 

the CC. Only the standard features and options that have been evaluated will be included on the CC.

The following guidelines apply.

24. 85 to 240 VAC Voltage NTEP Submissions 

Source: Maryland Participating Laboratory 

Background: Handbook 44 paragraph T.N. 8.3.1. Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency currently states:

T.N.8.3.1. Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

(a) Weighing devices that operate using alternating current must perform within the conditions defined in

paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N.7., inclusive, over the line voltage range of 100 V to 130 V or 200 V to

250 V rms as appropriate, and over the frequency range of 59.5 Hz to 60.5 Hz. 

More devices are being submitted to NTEP for evaluation with larger ranges of voltages than those listed in the above 

paragraph. The Participating Laboratories reviewed language used for Canadian requirements. The consensus of the 

laboratories is to recommend the Canadian language to amend Handbook 44 paragraph T.N. 8.3.1. Power Supply,

Voltage and Frequency. The following language has been submitted by Canada for review. 

Maximum and minimum voltage specified

1. If the nominal voltage is not indicated on the marking plate, 117 volts or 225 volts is deemed to be the

nominal voltage. Then, the minimum and maximum voltages are 100 volts or 191 volts (-15 %) and 129 

volts or 247.5 volts (+10 %) respectively. 

2. If the marking plate indicates a nominal voltage other than 117 volts, the indicated voltage will be

considered as the nominal voltage. The minimum and maximum voltage will be calculated from the

nominal voltage indicated on the plate. 

NTEP - F35 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

3. If a voltage range is indicated (i.e. 100 volts to 130 volts), the mid point of the range will be taken as the

nominal voltage. The device will be tested to the greater of: 1) the nominal voltage -15 % / +10 % or 2)

the voltage range indicated on the plate. 

If a voltage range is indicated (i.e., 117 volts to 225 volts), the mid point of the range will be taken as the 

nominal voltage (i.e., 171 volts). The device will be tested to the greater of: 1) the nominal voltage -15 % 

/ +10 % (i.e., 145 volts and 118 volts) or 2) the voltage range indicated on the plate (i.e., 117 and 225 volts).

Therefore, in this case the greater of the two is 117/225 volts and the device would (only) be tested at these

extremes. 

4. If the device ceases to indicate weight values while the voltage is well within the -15 % / +10 % range

limits, the tests will be performed at the limits of indication.

Discussion: The Sector agreed that testing over the entire range is not supported by current NIST Handbook 44

language. The NTETC Weighing Sector reviewed language used in Canadian requirements. The consensus of the Sector 

is to recommend that Handbook 44 paragraph T.N. 8.3.1. Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency be amended to eliminate 

specific voltage ranges. Additionally, there is confusion regarding the frequency range reference in the existing language. 

NTEP does not test for a change of line frequency of plus or minus one half cycle because testing equipment is very

expensive. Manufacturers have stated that power supplies in current weighing devices are capable of performing over a 

much larger voltage and frequency range than specified in Handbook 44 because they only manufacture or purchase one

version of power supply that is suitable for the worldwide marketplace. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to make the following recommendation to the NCWM S&T committee to amend NIST 

Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph T.N8.3.1.(a) Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency as follows:

T.N.8.3.1. Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

(a) Weighing devices that operate using alternating current must perform within the conditions defined in

paragraphs T.N.3. through T.N.7., inclusive, over the line voltage range as marked of 100 V to 130 V or

200 V to 250 V rms as appropriate, and over the frequency range of 59.5 Hz to 60.5 at 60 Hz. 

(Note: The Weighing Sector proposal was considered at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Southern Weights and Measures 

Association, Specifications and Tolerance Committee. The committee recommended additional language be added to the 

proposal stating that a weighing device shall perform at minus 15 % of the lowest stated nominal voltage and at plus

10 % of the highest states nominal voltage.) 

25. Audit Trail Information During Power Failure 

Source: Ohio Participating Laboratory 

Background: During the evaluation of a device with an electronic means of sealing, the laboratory noted that the device

accepted the updated calibration and configuration, but the event counters remained at their previous count if there was a 

power loss while in the calibration mode. The Participating Laboratories agreed that this could be used fraudulently to

avoid giving an indication that a calibration or configuration adjustment had occurred and that NCWM Publication 14

should be amended to look for this condition.

Discussion: The participating laboratories reported that this and similar conditions have been discovered on more than

one type of device. In another example, a scale appeared to accept calibration and configuration changes. However, the

final act of pressing a button to accept the change was not performed. The scale appeared to be operating with the 

updated parameters until power was turned off. The scale reverted to the previously stored parameters and event counter 

information. 

One of the manufacturers was concerned about changes to the count indicated on the event counter. Replacement of the

event counters or a master reset on a computer causes a change of audit trail information that can be investigated by the 

field inspector. One of the manufactures stated that it is unlikely that a non-resetable event counter can be set to specific 

counts in order to match the counter that is being replaced. 

NTEP - F36 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

Some of the participating laboratories indicated that a change in event counters or a master reset of the computer is not the

issue of this item because there is a change in the audit trail information that can be investigated by an inspector. The

issue at hand is primarily the intentional or unintentional change in calibration or configuration parameters without

advancing the information on the event counters. 

The manufacturers understand that an event is when there is a change. The reported problems are likely caused by

programmers who did not specify that sealable parameter settings and event counter information should be stored in the 

event of a power failure (or provide an error indication). 

Conclusion: The Sector recognized that replacing printed circuit boards may clear existing audit trail information and

that the resultant change in event counter information is in compliance with Handbook 44. It is the responsibility of the 

inspector to investigate the change(s) before enforcement action can be taken. Additionally, service and repair companies 

would likely have information available to the inspector documenting changes to calibration and configuration and even 

the replacement of printed circuit boards and microprocessor chips affecting event counter information. 

The Ohio and California participating laboratories agreed to develop language to verify audit trail change information

during the event of power interruptions and improper calibration procedures. The language should be available for

review and comment prior to the 2003 meeting of the participating laboratories and Weighing Sector. 

26. Performance and Permanence Testing 

Source: NTEP Director and NIST Technical Advisor 

Background: The NTEP Director has noted inconsistencies in the following performance and permanence sections in

Chapter 1: 

Section 62. Performance and Permanence Tests for Counter (Bench) Scales (including Computing Scales).

Section 62.9.5.1. is not consistent with 62.9.10. in that the 500-lb maximum test load is not 

mentioned in 62.9.10. 

Section 63. Performance and Permanence Tests for Floor Scales, Paragraphs 63.2. Initial Review and 62.3 Initial 

Type Evaluation Permanence Test, and 63.4. Subsequent Type Evaluation Permanence Test. 

Paragraph 62.4 can be misinterpreted as meaning that if a device fails, the scale is then adjusted and 

retested as an initial test in 63.2 and test ed 20-30 days later as a subsequent test. The terminology

used should be consistent. Similar concerns are noted in paragraphs 65.5.5. 

Section 65 (x). Performance and Permanence Tests for . . . Vehicle Scales. . ., paragraphs 65(x).5.1., 65(x).7, and 

65(x)7.6. Paragraph 65x.5.1. states that a minimum of 40 000 lb of known test weights are required

for the subsequent type evaluation field permanence test and appears to be in conflict with 65x.7.6.

that states that the device will be tested to at least the CLC on the second test. Testing to the CLC

does not appear to be supported in doing research into past Sector Summaries. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The NIST Technical Advisor and NTEP Director will make the referenced editorial corrections

and submit the amended language to the Sector and the NTEP Committee prior to publishing the 2003 edition of

Publication 14. 

27. Center Dump Option on Vehicle Scales 

Source: NTEP Director

Background: Clarification has been requested regarding the acceptability of a center dump option on mechanical vehicle 

scales. The following is from the June 1991, November 1996, and 1997 Sector Summaries:

(June 1991)

C. Several manufacturers have modified the design of a lever system by moving the backbone lever that runs along

the longitudinal centerline of the scale to outside the edge of the scale (see attachment). The manufacturers have

contended that this change does not require another type evaluation, claiming the design has not changed 

NTEP - F37 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

significantly. The NTEP policy has been to require these scales to undergo another type evaluation. The NTEP

Technical Committee is requested to review this issue as part of the technical policy. 

NTEP requires that scales of different designs must be evaluated separately. NTEP laboratories have had to

make judgments as to what comprise significant modifications to designs that necessitate additional NTEP

testing. For example, NTEP considers a load-cell-based scale with the main girders of the weighbridge under the

platform under the path of tires to be significantly different from a scale with the main girders forming side rails

for the platform. The specific issue being addressed by this agenda item is the design of mechanical lever 

systems where the location of the transverse lever is changed. The following figure illustrates the variations

(figure not available). 

The Committee agreed that the design differences in examples B and C were relatively minor and that the two

designs were sufficiently similar so that one type evaluation could cover both designs. However, the Committee

agreed that the design illustrated in example A required the weighing/load-receiving element to be engineered 

differently. Consequently, that design had to be evaluated separately. Hence, based on G-S.1. and this decision

for type evaluation, the design illustrated in example A shall have a different model designation since a separate 

type evaluation is required. In the case of examples B and C, the same model designation may be used; but the

specific design that was evaluated must be described in the test conditions of the NTEP Certificate. The 

Committee will continue to rely on the judgment of the NTEP laboratories when a new Type evaluation is 

required. 

4. Modification of Type (1996)

Dump Option

Conclusion: The Sector heard arguments for and against allowing the modification of an NTEP approved 

scale with a dumping mechanism without additional testing. Some believed that this would be considered 

a modification of type and needed additional testing. Others were unsure what effect, if any, this would 

have on the scales performance. Still others believed that this was not a modification of type and should be 

allowed. No clear agreement or disagreement was reached in the discussion. The Sector may want to 

revisit this at a later date. The Sector also asked for input from Scale Manufacturers Association’s (SMA) 

Technical Committee. 

Replacement of Concrete Decks with New Steel Decks 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that changing deck material (for example, concrete vs. steel) on a scale is a 

modification of type in some designs of scales and, in those designs, both types of decks would have to be

tested to include both types on the Certificate of Conformance. The Sector noted that there are some

designs where replacement of the deck material would not affect the performance of the scale. 

b) Adding a dump option (1997) 

Background and Discussion:

b) At the last Sector meeting the issue of adding a dump option was not resolved. The SMA Technical 

Committee was asked to provide input. The sector has been asked to reconsider this item (Attachment;

Carry-over Item I b) 

Discussion: Comments were made that this is a design consideration, not a performance consideration. Field

officials have expressed concern that the addition of this option may, over time, cause performance problems

with the repeated lifting and lowering of the deck. The Sector generally agreed that, if it is a new device and new

technology, it might require testing. However, since the option does require field verification, there is no reason

to require an additional permanence test. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that a dump-type option could be added to a scale with an existing NTEP 

CC without the need to perform additional testing. With a dump option the original load-receiving 

NTEP - F38 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

element (deck) is replaced with the dumping mechanism. The original structural weighbridge is still in 

place and keeps the load-receiving elements (levers or load cells) in place. 

Discussion: The past discussions have dealt primarily with mechanical scales with a deck that lifts or tilts off of the 

weighbridge to dump the commodity. 

A member of the railroad industry commented that an improvement to a railway track scale changes the structure of the

scale. Many railroads require that existing railway track scales must be brought up to all railroad requirements when

these modifications or improvements are made. This sector member considers a center-dump option a modification of

type that requires new evaluation. Any proposal to permit such a modification without additional evaluation should apply

only to vehicle scales. 

Additionally, there are low profile railway track scales that do not meet AREMA standards and are allowed to use the 

deck plate for structural integrity. Although changes can be done properly without affecting the structural integrity of the 

scale, that does not mean changes will always be done properly. Therefore, a jurisdiction should verify the changed 

device complies. Typically, the jurisdictions do not look at the construction or may not have the expertise to evaluate 

structural changes. 

Some of the manufactures commented that modifications should be evaluated and certified by a scale engineer according

to Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph UR.4.3. Scale Modification. One of the Sector members stated that if guidelines 

are not documented in Publication 14 and the NTEP Director is not familiar with a type of modification, then further 

testing may be required depending upon the NTEP Director, participating laboratory, or field official that is being asked 

to make the determination. 

The Sector was directed to the existing diagrams in Publication 14 (pages DES-8 and DES-9) that dealt with large 

capacity scale platforms and whether or not additional evaluations would be required if the manufacturer requested a

change to the deck type. Previous Sectors agreed that no additional evaluations would be required for a change in deck 

material if the deck were not part of the support structure of the weighbridge. Additional evaluation for modification of

deck types would be required if the deck is part of the weighbridge support structure. 

The Sector was asked if the same rationale could be used to determine if additional evaluations would be required for a 

“dump through” feature. Many Sector members agreed that this rationale would be a useful guideline for use by the

NTEP Director, participating laboratories and field officials. Some of the Sector members stated that the “dump through” 

feature or option should however be listed on the Certificate of Conformance for the device. Some of the manufacturers

disagreed with this stating that it is up to the manufacturer to determine if a modification to the type is metrologically

significant. 

The Sector also agreed that changes to the position of the lever or load cells would be considered a metrologically

significant modification that would require additional type evaluation testing.

Conclusion: There was no clear consensus on this item however, the majority of the Sector voting members voted to

recommend that the following language be added to Publication 14, Chapter 1, NTEP Technical Policy for Scales, 

Section E. Modification of Type (6 yes, 3 no, 5 abstain): 

7. Adding a dump-through option/modification, without modifying the lever system or load cell placement, to

vehicles scales where the vehicle support primarily comes from the beams and girders on a scale with a 

combination steel and concrete weighbridge or all steel weighbridge construction, does not require evaluation for

an existing CC to apply, however, the modification option must be listed on the CC.

8. Adding a dump-through option/modification, to vehicle scales with composite construction; unitized steel deck

(vehicle support primarily come from the scale deck) requires an evaluation to be listed on a new or existing CC.

Note. One of the manufacturers voting against the proposed language commented that changes to create a dump scale fall 

under the structural design requirements in the rail codes. Modifications to create a dump scale are not typically done to a 

truck scale. The manufacture acknowledges that NCWM comes to the manufacturers for general guidance. The

manufacturer further stated that the best policy is to rely on the original equipment manufacturer to report metrologically

significant changes. 

NTEP - F39 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

28. ECR Loyalty Programs

Source: Maryland Participating Laboratory 

Background: From the 1998 Weighing Sector Meeting:

NTEP continues to receive questions as to the proper method for presenting information relative to “frequent

shopper” discount programs on customer receipts. NTEP has also heard complaints related to the accuracy of price 

computations on some of the receipts. The Sector was asked to provide guidance to the NCWM for the development 

of possible requirements or regulations in this area. 

Conclusion: The Sector recognized that some issues related to frequent shopper programs are under the purview of

the Sector (those functions related to the interface with the point-of-sale scale) and some are under the purview of the 

Laws and Regulations Committee (those functions related to method of pricing and printing of package labels). The 

Sector acknowledged the need for input from other groups. Dennis Krueger, NCR, agreed to contact representatives 

from FMI (Food Marketing Institute) to investigate how the Sector might work with representatives from FMI on this

issue. Dennis will work with Steve Cook, (formerly from CA), to bring back recommendations to the Sector on how

to proceed further with this issue. 

This issue has not been resolved. Nearly every major supermarket chain has some form of member discount

program. The NTEP labs and the field inspector need a uniform method of examining this feature. 

Handbook 44 indirectly addresses the method of recording member discount prices:

Section S.1.8.4. of Handbook 44 notes: 

S.1.8.4. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems. - The sales information recorded by cash registers when 

interfaced with a load-receiving element shall contain the following information for items weighed at the checkout

stand: 

(a) the net weight,

1

(b) the unit price,1

(c) the total price, and

(d) the product class or, in a system equipped with price look-up capability, the product name or code number. 

Unit price is defined in Handbook 44 as: 

unit price. The price at which the product is being sold and expressed in whole units of measurement.[3.30]

(Added 1992)

The two sections noted above indicate that the unit price noted on the receipt must be the price at which the sale was 

determined. Noting an original unit price for an item and a total discount for the transaction does not meet HB 44. 

ex: regular price is $3.00/ lb and the member price is $1.50 lb

1.00 lb @ 3.00/lb 3.00 

 -1.50 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the language recommended by the earlier weighing sector and considered making the 

following recommendation to the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee: 

To clarify Handbook 44, amend the footnote to paragraph S.1.8.4. as follows: 

S.1.8.4 (a) the net weight 1

S.1.8.4 (b) the unit price 1

1

 Weight values shall be identified by kilogram, kg, grams, g, ounces, oz, pound, lb, or the sign “#.” For devices 

interfaced with scales indicating in metric units, the unit price may be expressed in price per 100 grams. If the 

NTEP - F40 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

system utilizes a member discount feature, the unit price at which the product is being sold must be recorded on 

the receipt. The net weight of pre-weighed items shall not be altered by the system.

The Sector also reviewed the proposed language for incorporation into NCWM Publication 14 submitted by the Maryland

Participating Laboratory. 

The Sector members agreed that manipulating weights facilitates fraud. Additionally, NIST Handbook 130 defines net 

weight as the gross weight minus the weight of the packaging material or container and does not permit the manipulation 

of a legal measurement. Unintentional manipulation of the original weight (due to mathematical rounding) can also occur 

when discounts are given because net weights are determined by dividing the original total price by the original unit price. 

A member of the Measuring Sector stated that there are similar concerns with discount programs, but the proposed 

language for Publication 14 would not solve the problems associated with liquid measuring devices 

Several Sector members supported the language proposed for Publication 14, stated that it is sufficiently backed up by 

Handbook 44, and that no changes to Handbook 44 are required for this item. 

One of the manufacturers agreed with the proposed language for Publication 14. However, the following note should be

deleted because is may be confusing and is not appropriate for a national document: 

“Please note that this feature may not be acceptable in some jurisdictions. The suitability of this feature is

determined by the enforcement policy of each jurisdiction.” 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to recommend that the following underlined language be added to Publication 14,

Chapter 6, Section 12 (new): 

Section 12 of Electronic Cash Register Interfaced with Scales

Member Discount Program Feature

Code References: G-S.2, G-S.5.1, G-S.5.5, and S.1.8.4

A "member discount" feature applies discounts to applicable items in the store. To receive the discount(s), the

customer must be enrolled in the program and must present their member number before the total sales transaction is 

tendered. This feature applies to weighed and non-weighed items.

Because the feature has a significant potential to facilitate fraud if not properly designed, the following type 

evaluation criteria must be met. 

Check all that apply:

Discounted weighed transactions

Discounted non-weighed transactions

Original net weight (count) and original total price determined at the POS 

Original net weight (count) and original total price determined at the pre-packaging scale 

12.1 The net weight shall not be altered. Yes No NA

12.2 The total price of all weighed items shall be determined using the original

net weight determination.

Yes No NA

12.3 All calculations shall be rounded to the nearest cent. Yes No NA

12.4 The receipt shall be clear, easily understood when reading from left to right. Yes No NA

12.5 The receipt shall be mathematically correct for all calculations. Yes No NA

NTEP - F41 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

12.6 If the discount is based on a percentage or a fixed cents off of the total price, 

the receipt shall indicate the following:

8.6.1 The original unit price and total price. Yes No NA

8.6.2 The monetary discount, or the new total price. Yes No NA

8.6.3 The net weight (If applicable). Yes No NA

Note: If the Member Discount number is entered before the item to be

discounted (or the receipt is not generated until the completion of the

customer transaction), the original unit price and the original total price 

are not required

12.7 If the discount is based on a percentage or a fixed cents off of unit price 

reduction (ex. $ .10/lb discount off the original total price), the receipt shall 

indicate the following:

12.7.1 The original unit price and total price, Yes No NA

12.7.2 The unit price discount, Yes No NA

12.7.3 The monetary discount or the new total price, and Yes No NA

12.7.4 The net weight (If applicable). Yes No NA

Note: If the Member Discount number is entered before the item to be

discounted (or the receipt is not generated until the completion of the

customer transaction), the original unit price and the original total price 

are not required.

12.8 If the discount is based on a discount unit price, the receipt shall indicate the 

following:

12.8.1 The original unit price and the original total price, Yes No NA

12.8.2 The discount unit price and the discount total price, and Yes No NA

12.8.3 The net weight (If applicable). Yes No NA

Note: If the Member Discount number is entered before the item to be

discounted (or the receipt is not generated until the completion of the

customer transaction), the original unit price and the original total price 

are not required.

12.9 If the total price, of a random weight pre-packaged item, is determined by

weight and the final calculation is made at the POS system, the information 

that the calculation is based on must be provided on the receipt.

Yes No NA

29. Range of IZSM on Indicating Elements 

Source: Maryland Participating Laboratory

Background: Electronic indicating elements have been submitted with an Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism (IZSM) of 

100 % of the configured capacity of the indicator. When the participating laboratories inform the manufacturer that the

indicator would have to be tested up to the maximum IZSM range with a load-receiving element, they have always

reduced the IZSM range. 

NTEP - F42 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

NTEP does not test load-receiving elements up to 200 % of their configured capacity. Therefore NTEP should not allow

an indicating element to have an IZSM range up to 100 % of the capacity of the load-receiving element used during the

evaluation of the indicator. The NIST Technical Advisor notes that load-receiving elements, from bench scales to 

railroad track scale load-receiving elements have not been submitted or tested with an IZSM feature unless the submission 

was to be treated as a complete scale with a specific indicating element. Therefore, the possibility exists that many loadreceiving elements, that consist of only load cell support structures may not comply with an indication element configured

with IZSM enabled. Should electronic indicating elements have IZSM? If so, how much? Should IZSM be limited to

just complete scales?

The Sector reviewed the following Canadian requirements. 

LG-15.04 IZSM Range (Maximum Range of Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism) 

The load-receiving element to which an electronic indicator tested and approved separately will be interfaced will not 

have been tested up to 200 % of Max. Consequently, the maximum Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism range of 

electronic indicators must be limited to 20 % of Max. 

An electronic indicator tested and approved separately is deemed to comply with the requirements when the total

range of the Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism (absolute value of -ve portion of the range plus the +ve portion of the 

range) does not exceed 20 % (or can be set to a maximum of 20 % and sealed) of the DUT's maximum capacity 

(Max); The IZSM range of a complete electronic device may exceed 20 % of Max if the device performs within 

tolerances when the IZSM is set at the minimum and maximum points of its range. 

When the IZSM range is limited to 20 %, performance tests are conducted once: at the maximum IZSM setting.

When the IZSM range exceeds 20 %, certain performance tests are conducted twice: at the minimum and at the

maximum setting of the range. See description of the performance tests in Part 3. 

Some of the manufacturers stated that IAZM on separable indicating elements is just an electronic starting point and that

there should be not performance difference settings up to 100 %. The manufacturer of the load-receiving element has the 

responsibility to make their device perform with the maximum live and dead load (i.e. a 100 lb load-receiving element

with a 500 lb load cell). 

Other Sector members stated that if the IZSM is adjustable to 20 % or less on an indication element, no additional testing 

should be required. If the IZSM is adjustable beyond 20 %, applicant shall provide equipment (load-receiving element, a

switch box, etc) to facilitate testing up to the IZSM limit. 

Many of the manufacturers were concerned that prohibiting or limiting the size of IZSM on separable indicating elements 

may restrict the modular “mix and match” approach because the manufacturer of the indicating element may not know the 

amount of IZSM permitted on devices the indicating element will be interfaced to. 

Canada reported that IZSM above 20 % is permitted on indicating elements. However, Canada will test all IZSM above 

where the IZSM can be adjusted above 20 %. 

One of the manufacturers suggested that the Sector review European Cooperation in Legal Metrolog (WELMEC) 2.1

Guide for Testing Indicators.

Conclusion: The Sector discontinued discussion due to lack of time. The Sector has been requested to review

US/Canadian checklist requirements for possible harmonization and WELMEC 2.1 Guide for Testing Indicators - (NonAutomatic Weighing Instruments) (http://www.welmec.org/publications/2-1.asp). This item will be carried over to the 

next meeting of the Weighing Sector. 

30. IZSM Test Procedures

Source: Maryland Participating Laboratory 

Background: The following is from the 1998 Weighing Sector Report: 

NTEP - F43 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Background: At the June 1998 meeting of the NTEP Laboratories the participants were asked to review a procedure

for testing the initial zero-setting mechanism (IZSM) of a scale in the field. At this time, there also is no procedure in 

Publication 14 for testing this feature during an evaluation.

During a September 1998, Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) R76 training class a procedure was 

presented for testing IZSM. That procedure has been revised and adapted for possible inclusion in Publication 14 as 

outlined in the Appendix G below. Unless the Sector objects, the procedure was proposed to be included in the next

edition of Publication 14. (See Attachment below) 

Discussion: The Sector Discussed the proposed procedure and pointed out that the last sentence needs to be changed 

from “determine if the device complies” to “indicates that additional testing should be performed”. One of the labs

indicated that some field officials have a difficult time determining if a device has an IZSM, particularly when the

“on/off” switch is used to activate the zero setting mechanism. The proposed procedure can be used for both lab and

field evaluations. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the laboratories would (will) begin using the procedure included in Appendix G. 

The procedure will be incorporated in Publication 14. The last sentence of the draft procedure will be changed from

"determine if the device complies" to "indicates that additional testing should be performed." The laboratories are 

asked to provide feedback to the Sector on any problems they encounter with the procedures. 

The 1998 Weighing Sector proposed the following:

1. Change to Handbook 44 Scales Code

S.2.1.5. Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism. -

(a) Scales of accuracy classes I, II, and III may be equipped with an initial zero-setting device. 

(b) Complete Scales. An initial zero-setting mechanism shall not zero a load in excess of 20 % of the maximum

capacity of the scale unless tests show that the scale meets all applicable tolerances for any amount of initial 

load compensated by this device within the specified range. 

(c) Separable Indicating Element Covered by a Separate CC. The maximum Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism

range (absolute value of the maximum load that can be removed from the dead load plus the maximum load

that can be added to the dead load) of electronic indicators must be limited to 20 % of the scale capacity.

2. Changes to PUB 14 (2002 edition, page DES-61) 

40. Zero Indication

Code References: S.1.1., S.1.1.1., S.2.1.5, and G-S.5.1.

A digital electronic scale must indicate or record a zero balance condition. An out-of-zero-balance

indication on both sides of zero is required. The zero balance indication may be a continuous digital zero 

indication or indicated by some other means, provided the scale either automatically inhibits the scale

operation or returns to a digital weight indication when an out-of-zero-balance condition exists. The

alternative zero indication must be defined on the front of the device. 

A digital zero balance indication shall represent zero within ±0.5 scale division (±0.5 d). A digital indicating 

scale shall either automatically maintain a "center-of-zero" condition to ±0.25 d or less (through AZSM) or have

a supplemental center-of-zero indicator that defines the zero-balance condition to ±0.25 d or less. The center of 

zero requirement applies to the gross load zero, but the center of zero indication may also be operational at the 

net load zero. 

Neither a + or - sign may appear with the zero indication. Appropriate indications for the zero balance and outof-zero balance conditions are specified. 

NTEP - F44 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

If the scale is equipped with an initial zero-setting mechanism (IZSM), then the scale must be tested for

compliance with the influence factors with the maximum load zeroed through the IZSM. 

This is mandatory if the range When the IZSM range (absolute value of the maximum load that can be removed 

from the dead load plus the maximum load that can be added to the dead load) exceeds 20 % of the scale

capacity, performance tests are conducted at the maximum setting of the range. 

The IZSM range of a complete electronic scale may exceed 20 % of capacity if the device performs within 

tolerances.

When the IZSM range is # 20 %, performance tests are conducted once: at the maximum IZSM setting. 

40.1 Is the scale equipped with an IZSM? Yes No NA

If yes, then what is the range of the IZSM? Yes No NA

40.2 The maximum Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism range of an electronic 

indicator tested and approved separately:

40.2.1 does not exceed 20 % of the scale capacity Yes No NA

40.2.2 can be set to a maximum of 20 % and sealed Yes No NA

40.1.3 The scale defines zero within ±0.5 d by a continuous zero indication. Yes No NA

Record the type of weight unit, (e.g., lb/kg) selection.

 EXTERNAL INTERNAL N/A 

Record the actual zero width in d (note whether avoirdupois, metric, or other unit). 

AVOIRDUPOIS d 

METRIC d 

OTHER UNITS: Specify Unit ; d 

40.24 For indicators without a continuous zero indication, an automatic means 

inhibits the weighing operation or returns the device to a continuous digital

indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition.

Yes No NA

Note: See also Code Reference G-S.6. elsewhere in this checklist pertaining 

to marking of indications, and see Code Reference G-S.5.2.2., and S.1.2.

elsewhere in this checklist pertaining to identification of the zero indication 

when a sleep mode is used.

40.3.5 A + or - sign must not appear when the scale is indicating zero in any of the 

available weight units. 

Yes No NA

40.4.6 The device automatically maintains the "center of zero" to ±0.25 d, or Yes No NA

40.5.7 If the device does not automatically maintain the "center of zero", then there 

is a center of zero indicator that defines zero within ±0.25 d scale division.

Yes No NA

40.6.8 If provided, the "center of zero" indicator is inhibited at all displayed 

positive weight values other than zero. 

Yes No NA

Conclusion: The Sector did not have time to review this item and it will be carried over until the next meeting of the 

Weighing Sector. The Sector is requested to review the above recommendation from the 1997 Weighing Sector. If there 

NTEP - F45 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

are no major discussions on this item or significant updates to the proposed language, the Sector will consider 

recommending the above underlined language into NCWM Publication 14, Weighing Devices Technical Policy,

Checklist, and Test Procedures. 

31. Weight Accumulators 

Source: Maryland Participating Laboratory 

Background: The following is from the 1997 Weighing Sector final Summary: 

Source: NTEP Weighing Labs 

Background: Publication 14 does not adequately address the new features that labs are seeing on scales with 

weight accumulation features. 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to review language in the attachment to item 5 (see below) submitted

by the NTEP labs for addition to Publication 14 under the section on scales with weight accumulation features. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to add the proposed procedure and criteria in the attachments to Publication 14. 

The Maryland Participating Laboratory proposed the following language:

Weight Accumulation

This section is not applicable to automatic bulk weighing systems and automatic weighing systems. The weight

accumulation feature adds and/or subtracts multiple weighments. Please note that total weight accumulators may not 

be acceptable in some jurisdictions and is not acceptable in all applications. The suitability of this feature is 

determined by the enforcement policy of each jurisdiction. Because the accumulation feature has a significant

potential to facilitate fraud if not properly designed, the following type evaluation criteria must be met.

Identify the methods of weight accumulation:

• Manual Total: The operator must enable the mechanism for each weighment added to (or subtracted from) 

the accumulated total.

• Auto Total: Once this mode is enabled, the device will automatically add each weighment to the 

accumulated total. The auto total feature may not be acceptable in all jurisdictions and is not acceptable in 

all applications. The auto total feature is not acceptable when the loading or unloading of the device is likely 

to activate the auto total feature.

1. GROSS and NET weighments cannot be added to (or subtracted from) the

same TOTAL accumulator.

Yes No NA

2. The device has motion detection capability that prevents the device from

accumulating weighments before the weight display has stabilized within

specified limits. The limits for motion detection are:

Yes No NA

(a) ∀ 3 scale divisions for axle load, railway track, vehicle scales, and 

hopper (other than grain hoppers) scales with a capacity exceeding 

22 000 kg (50 000 lb); and 

Yes No NA

(b) ∀ 1 scale division for all other scales. Yes No NA

It is recommended that the indicator simultaneously display the TOTAL 

weight and the current weight on the load-receiving element. Devices 

equipped with accumulation capability must provide a clear indication that a 

weighment has been entered. This indication may be a TOTAL display

NTEP - F46 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report 

mode, a lighted legend, or an annunciator such as total entered.

3. The method used to indicate that a weighment has been entered:

3.1. A separate continuous indication of the TOTAL weight display mode. Yes No NA

3.2. The device has selectable “current weight” and “TOTAL weight “ 

display modes with proper descriptors.

Yes No NA

3.3. A lighted legend or annunciator of “weight entered” or a similar 

statement is used to indicate that a weighment has been added to the TOTAL 

weight.

Yes No NA

3.3.1. An entry of “zero” should not activate the annunciator, or the

item count.

Yes No NA

3.4. Other:_________________________________________________ Yes No NA

3.4.1. The method is acceptable. Yes No NA

4. If units are converted, the weight unit selector switch must convert both the 

current weight display and the TOTAL weight display.

Yes No NA

5. If the device has a current/total switch, the TOTAL weight display must be

inhibited when a load is on the platform.

Yes No NA

6. The device shall indicate the number of items accumulated whenever the 

TOTAL weight is displayed.

Yes No NA

7. If the device can simultaneously accumulate transactions for more than one 

customer, customer identification codes must be displayed.

Yes No NA

8. The device must return to gross load zero between each weighment 

accumulated.

Yes No NA

9. The TOTAL key does not act as a repeat key. Yes No NA

Conclusion: The Sector did not have time to review this item and it will be carried over until the next meeting of the 

Weighing Sector. The Sector is requested to review the above recommendation from Maryland Participating Laboratory. 

32. Last Item: Tentative Date and Location of Next Meeting

California is next on the rotation for meeting locations. The next meeting of the NTETC Weighing Sector has been

scheduled for September 11-13, 2003, at the Picadilly Inn in Fresno California and will be held prior to the Annual 

Western Weights and Measures Technical Conference. 

NTEP - F47 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachments 

NTEP - F48 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 1 

Attachment to Agenda Item 1 

SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

6724 Lone Oak Blvd. Naples, FL 34109 

Tel: 239-514-3441 Fax: 239-514-3470

Web Site: http://www.scalemanufacturers.org

To: NCWM S&T Committee September 20, 2002 

From: SMA Technical Committee 

Subject: S&T Item 320-1 

Reference Dave Quinn’s January 2002 letter, subject as above 

As pointed out in Dave Quinn’s above referenced letter, S&T Agenda Item 320-1B is “not a single item but a number of

normally separate items rolled into one leaving no way to discuss, much less vote, on each individual item. One simply 

has to look at the title of the agenda item to see the potential problems and complexities”. Mr. Quinn states that this “ item 

proposes that for N.1.3.4., (1) the dimensions of the shift test pattern for a vehicle scale be changed, (2) that livestock 

scales be removed from N.1.3.4., (3) a different shift test pattern be defined for livestock scales with more than two

sections, and (4) Table S.6.3. be changed to document the above changes. The item also incorporates “a new revised 

definition for Concentrated Load Capacity and some new H44 terminology for a “Combination Vehicle/ Livestock” scale

for which there is no definition and which, in fact, is not a product produced by any manufacturer. A summary of the 

current and proposed N.1.3.4. requirements is attached. 

Mr. Quinn also correctly points out that “the item also requires accepting the practice of defining devices based on 

weighing application as opposed to the design criteria required for particular class of scale.

 

Mr. Quinn goes on to remark “Item 320-1B is also proposing that a vehicle scale designed for weighing load

concentrations of 1500 pounds – 2000 pounds per square foot must also be marked as a “livestock” scale if it is to be used

to weigh livestock which create a load concentration of 110 pounds per square foot. It may seem to lack logic, and it does, 

but that is what the item proposes. We urge the S&T to step back and reconsider trying to define the infinite spectrum of 

what can or cannot be weighed on a scale and go back to classifying scales based on the worst-case design loads that are 

required. If this is not done the door is open to try and define what commodities can be weighed on a bench scale, floor 

scale, hopper scale etc.” 

The SMA Technical Committee also agrees with Mr. Quinn that “A vehicle scale is designed for the worst case

conditions dictated by the dynamic loads of weighing over the highway trucks driving on or off a scale and a livestock

scale is designed for a much lower level of dynamic loading. Weighing pallets, bins, vehicles, or livestock are within the 

design parameters of a vehicle scale as long as the minimum load requirements are met. It is not necessary to stipulate 

that the vehicle scale can be used for weighing pallets, bins, or livestock: it is simply logical that this is appropriate. On

the other hand, although the livestock scale is not designed for the rigors of highway truck weighing, it is perfectly

acceptable to weigh other items such as pallets, bins, and small vehicles like cars and pickup trucks as long as the 

minimum load requirements are met and nominal capacity not exceeded.” 

Therefore, the SMA TC joins Fairbanks’ recommendation that the shift test pattern for livestock scales be simply defined

as it was prior to 1988:

NTEP - F49 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 1 

Page 2 

NCWM S&T Committee 

N.1.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales With More Than Two Sections. 

N.1.3.4.1. Vehicle Scales and Axle Load Scales. - 

At least one shift test shall be conducted with a minimum test load of 12.5 % of scale capacity and

may be performed anywhere on the load-receiving element using the prescribed test patterns and 

maximum test loads specified below. . . .

N.1.3.4.2. Livestock Scales With More Than Two Sections. - A shift test equal to one half the rated 

sectional capacity shall be conducted with test loads distributed over each section of the scale. (Two 

section livestock scales shall be tested consistent with N.1.3.8.) 

(Amended 1991, 2000, and 200X)

We also concur that “. . .two section livestock scales should use the existing H-44 N.1.3.8. and that it is not necessary to

define the physical dimensions of the livestock scale shift test pattern

The rationale for the above recommendations and comments is contained in the following pages. 

Sincerely 

Daryl Tonini

Chairman, SMA Technical Committee 

Attach: Summary of Current and Proposed N.1.3.4 Requirements 

Cs. Regional W&M S&T Committees 

 NTEP Weighing Sector

RATIONALE: 

Subject: S&T Item 320-1B 

This particular item is difficult to comment on. It has become very complex because of the sheer number of inputs that are

based on conclusions that are neither technically correct nor factually supported and show some degree of a lack of

understanding of both history and application. Some examples are: 

1. A “Combination Vehicle/Livestock” scale requires a special design for the load-receiving elements and load 

receiver differing from that of a standard vehicle scale. 

2. Vehicle scales used to weigh livestock must be tested side to side because cattle will gather in corners. 

3. Livestock, especially cattle, are more abusive to a vehicle scale than truck traffic. 

4. Stock racks and gates added to a vehicle scale increase the dead load on the scale beyond that tested in an NTEP 

evaluation and therefore additional testing is required. 

5. A truck on a vehicle scale load-receiving element causes movement from end to end and not side-to -side as

livestock would. Vehicle scales have checking only for this end-to-end movement and therefore require 

modification to deal with livestock movement. 

NTEP - F50 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 1 

6. A new mindset that a shift-test must have a specific weight pattern detailed in H-44. 

The following is an attempt to clarify and present technical support refuting the above points: 

1. A “Combination Vehicle/Livestock” scale requires a special design for the load-receiving elements and load

receiver differing from that of a standard vehicle scale. 

The term “Combination vehicle livestock” scale dates back to at least 1958 and was used by manufacturers to describe a

standard vehicle scale and indicator package that was suitable for weighing livestock on a vehicle scale and priced as a

single catalog item. The “special” features added to a standard vehicle scale were an indicator (usually a beam) with 

5pound divisions as required by P&S, and mechanical restraints to stabilize the weight reading due to livestock 

movement. Nothing else was done to the vehicle scale. No modifications were made in the weighbridge enabling the scale

to be used for this application. Today if such a package priced item were to exist for a “Combination vehicle livestock” 

scale, it would be simply a standard vehicle scale, no special additions, and an electronic instrument with filtering capable 

of stabilizing the weight reading due to livestock movement. 

2. Vehicle scales used to weigh livestock must be tested side to side because cattle will gather in corners. 

A vehicle scale is designed for the load concentration of a dual tandem axle applied to the load receiver of the scale. This

load concentration is in an area of 4 feet x 8 feet and is defined in H-44 as Concentrated Load Capacity (CLC). A typical 

CLC would be 60,000 pounds for a dual tandem axle. Assume for this discussion that the vehicle scale platform is 10 feet

wide. The load bearing points under the load receiver are, by design, normally about 6 inches inboard from each side,

placing them 9 feet apart on a 10 foot-wide scale. Studies have shown that the drivers will tend to observe the left side of

the scale from his position in the cab to place the vehicle 6 to 12 inches from the left side of the scale platform. This 

results in the load bearing points under the dual tandem nominally sharing the load approximately 50/50. 

The H-44 Scale Code shift test pattern for a vehicle scale, N.1.3.4., describes a weight pattern of 4 feet x 10 feet, which, 

on the 10 foot-wide scale, loads the load bearing points exactly 50/50. The area of the shift test pattern is 40 square feet

and the concentrated load of 60,000 pounds is distributed at 1,500 pounds per square foot. The shift test pattern correctly

tests the scale “as used” simulating the weight distribution of a dual tandem axle over the load bearing points. It is not

necessary to test a 10 foot-wide vehicle scale side to side because an “as used” weight distribution is nominally 50/50 side

to side. Note: As a load receiver increases in width the vehicle position on the scale remains the same relative to the left 

side and the weight distribution begins to change with more of the vehicle weight on the left load-bearing points and less 

of the vehicle’s load on the right load-bearing points. With scale widths over 12 feet, side-to-side differences may begin 

to show up. The new shift test pattern dimensions adopted by NCWM in 2001 should be used to test side to side on

vehicle scales over 12 feet in width. 

Some years ago P&S conducted a study to determine the concentrated load of cattle on a scale platform. The purpose of

this study was to determine the amount of weight necessary to check a livestock scale to its used capacity. Numerous 

sized load receivers were used and cattle were pressed onto the loading surface to fill the area completely. The result was 

that when no more cattle could be squeezed onto the weighing surface the total weight averaged 110 pounds per square 

foot. (This fact was confirmed with a retired P&S employee involved in the study.) The load concentration of cattle on a 

load receiver is only 7 % of the load concentration of the shift test pattern above (1,500 pounds per square foot). A 34,000

pound legal over the highway dual tandem axle in the same design spacing of 4 feet x 8 feet would distribute the axle load

over 1063 pounds per square foot. Based on the 50/50 weight distribution to the transverse load points, the shift test

pattern would load each side of the scale to 30,000 pounds (area 4 foot x 5 foot) and the legal dual tandem axle would

load each side to 17,000 pounds (area 4 foot x 5 foot). Based on the P&S study, the worst-case condition created by cattle 

gathering in this 4 foot x 5-foot area would be a load concentration of 2,200 pounds as opposed to the 17,000 pounds 

legal dual tandem axle or the 30,000 pounds shift test pattern. Cattle do tend to gather together on a load receiver and do

so in the two corners at the end of a vehicle scale. Assuming this “gathering” weighs a total of 17,000 pounds, the weight

would be spread over 155 square feet an area 5 times that occupied by the 32 square feet of the dual tandem axle 

weighing 34,000 pounds. 

The minimum load of livestock on a vehicle scale is 500 divisions or 10,000 pounds with a division size of 20 pounds. 

This minimum load would occupy 91square feet, an area greater than twice the load distribution of the 40 square feet in

the vehicle scale shift test pattern. Testing side to side on a normal width (10 feet to 12 feet) vehicle scale is not necessary 

due to normal distribution of livestock weight. Testing the same scale side to side if it is to be used in livestock weighing 

NTEP - F51 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 1 

follows no logic. For that reason P&S did no special testing of vehicle scales used to weigh livestock, if they had been

tested and certified as a vehicle scale by local jurisdictions. If P&S did test a vehicle scale they conducted only the normal 

test over sections. (This fact was also confirmed with a retired P&S employee.) 

3. Livestock, especially cattle, are more abusive to a vehicle scale than truck traffic. 

A legal highway truck can have a gross weight of 80,000 pounds. For the sake of this discussion, assume a maximum 

gross weight of 60,000 pounds. Also assume an average vehicle scale size of 70 feet x 10 feet (700 square feet). The

average speed for a vehicle entering onto a vehicle scale load receiver is between 3 and 5 mph. The load receiver is at rest

when the front axle of the vehicle first touches the load receiver causing the load receiver to move in the direction of the 

truck movement. The average 70 foot x 10-foot concrete deck load receiver weighs about 35,000 pounds so the dynamic 

forces of the load receiver moving from rest is severe. When the truck stops on the load receiver, the inertial force created

by stopping of a the moving 60,000-pound load causes an equal force on the load receiver. The same dynamics take place

when the vehicle begins to accelerate to leave the scale. 

By loading the same 700 square feet of load receiver with cattle the average maximum load would be 77,000 pounds. The

cattle enter the load receiver not as a single 77,000-pound mass like a vehicle but rather randomly until the load receiver 

has no space for more. Loaded to 110 pounds per square foot, the cattle cannot move at all. To reduce the load of cattle to

60,000 pounds (same as vehicle) the square footage they would occupy gathered together would be 545 square feet 

allowing 155 square feet of open area in which to move freely. For these cattle to even simulate the dynamics of the

vehicle the entire herd would have to move as one single mass coming onto the scale in unison and leaving the scale in

like manner. Experience dictates this is not likely. What if an individual animal ran from side-to-side or attempted to get

off the scale by climbing the stock racks? An average head of commercial beef cattle weighs less than 1300 pounds and 

certainly cannot create dynamic forces that come close to the vehicle scale design limits. 

4. Stock racks and gates added to a vehicle scale increase the dead load on the scale beyond that tested in an 

NTEP evaluation and therefore should require additional testing. 

The load capacity of an average vehicle scale section is 100,000 pounds (50,000 pound capacity load cells). Assuming a 

4-section concrete deck scale, the dead load on each section will be in the area of 9,000 pounds and the live load on each

section at maximum rated capacity will be less than 50,000 pounds. Total load on the section is 59,000 pounds or only

59 % of section capacity. 

The addition of racks and gates to the scale adds an additional 4500 to 5000 pounds at most and is well within scale 

design limits. These modifications are subject to Handbook 44 UR.2.7, UR.4.1., and UR.4.3., and are usually approved

by the manufacturers of the scale. In addition, because the live load uses such a small portion of the total output of each 

load cell, an increase in dead load will not change the linearity of the device. 

5. A truck on a vehicle scale load receiver causes movement of the load receiver from end to end and not side-toside as livestock would. Vehicle scales have checking only for this end-to-end movement and require 

modification to deal with livestock movement. 

The movement of a vehicle on the scale deck causes the deck to move in an elliptical pattern which is why all vehicle

scales limit transverse as well as longitudinal movement. The recent use of “rocker” type load cells drives this point 

home. These cells will rotate because of the elliptical deck movement and if rotation is not controlled by design, the cell 

cable will wind around the cell and break. To conclude that vehicle scales are not checked for transverse movement is 

simply not factual and to conclude that scale movement created by moving livestock is more abusive to a vehicle scale 

than the movement of a vehicle is technically incorrect. 

6. A new mindset that shift tests must have a specific weight pattern detailed in H-44. 

The S&T item 320-1B attempts to place dimensions on a shift test pattern for livestock scales with no apparent technical 

basis for the dimensions used. Specific dimensions are essential in the shift test pattern for a vehicle scale to simulate the 

manufacturer’s concentrated design load on the load receiver as applied by a dual tandem axle with 4-foot centers and a

width of 8 feet. To provide for better use of available test equipment, NCWM and vehicle scale manufacturers agreed to

a shift test pattern of 4 feet x 10 feet. 

 

NTEP - F52 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 1 

One must ask: What is the rationale proposed by the S&T Committee for a 4 foot x 5 foot pattern concentrated over a 

load bearing point equal to 1⁄2 “sectional” capacity? Vehicle scales do not have a sectional capacity rating they have a 

CLC rating (dual tandem axle rating) which one would reasonably assume is the capacity of a section. Assume the 

60,000-pound CLC vehicle scale from the above discussion. The S&T Committee is proposing to do a shift test on a 

vehicle scale used in a livestock weighing application with a load of 30,000 pounds concentrated in a 4 foot x 5 foot

pattern. This load equates 1,500 pounds per square foot as opposed to the as used 110 pounds per square foot

concentrated load of cattle. The proposal lacks technical basis and logic. A load of 30,000 pounds of cattle would occupy

273 square feet, not 20 square feet as proposed by the S&T agenda. Spread over this 273 square feet the load is

distributed side to side across the scale. P&S did section testing of livestock scales with more than two sections, not

corner testing, and with no specific dimensions on a test pattern. In fact, other than the vehicle shift test pattern which 

must have specific dimensions to simulate the dual tandem axle for which the scale is designed, no other shift test,

regardless of scale type, is defined by dimensions in H-44.

Conclusions: It is important to understand that “floor scale”, “bench scale”, “hopper scale”, “livestock scale” and

“vehicle scale” are terminology used to describe the design criteria that a manufacturer must use to provide a product 

suitable for a type of application. However, the design is not limited to that specific application. A bench scale is designed

to take full capacity loads anywhere on the load receiver and should be tested to insure that the scale can, in fact, perform 

to that specification. During an NTEP evaluation of a bench scale, the initial verification procedure is tested with weights 

and a permanence test is conducted after a specified number of cycles of test load are applied to the scale. In the market

place it is understood that the bench scale can weigh produce, meat, hardware, etc.. The scale is not NTEP evaluated for 

each application. From a manufacturing standpoint, there is no difference in the load receiver of a grain hopper scale or 

the same hopper scale used to weigh sand or cement. The difference is in tolerances allowed in H44,. If the NTEP test of 

a hopper is based on the tightest H-44 requirements then it should be understood that less stringent applications are an

acceptable use of the hopper scale. Likewise, a vehicle scale designed for the dynamic loads created by large masses that 

stop and go quickly on the load receiver. No one would question that a pallet of metal castings could properly be weighed

on a vehicle scale as long as the load met the minimum weight requirements for a vehicle scale. Yet the S&T item

suggests that if livestock are to be weighed on a vehicle scale, the scale must be tested as a “livestock” scale. We are

letting long-standing “classifications” of scales get in the way of valid requirements. A scale classified as a “livestock” 

scale is specifically designed for livestock weighing by a manufacturer and the design criteria is based on dynamics that

are well below the dynamics that must be considered for a scale classified as a “vehicle” scale. Understanding the design 

of a vehicle scale, logic dictates that livestock weighing dynamics are well within the dynamic design limits of a vehicle 

scale. Given an appreciation of the dynamics of a livestock scale design, logic would dictate that most vehicles would 

exceed the dynamic design limits of a scale classified as a “livestock”. However, that being said, this does not preclude 

the weighing of vehicles that are obviously within the specified design limits of a scale classified as a “livestock” scale.

Example a 20 ton, 10 ton per section “livestock” scale could weigh a pick up truck of baled hay and be well within the 

design limits of the livestock scale. 

NTEP is not nor was it ever intended to define all the applications acceptable for a specific “class” of scale. It has always

been and continues to be the responsibility of the local W&M authority to determine the suitability of a scale for the 

application. This judgment has to be based on logic and understanding of both the device design and the application in

question and must be applied nationally in a uniform basis. 

NTEP - F53 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

The first proposal breaks up the long paragraphs in Publication 14, 2002 Edition vehicle scale test procedures in

(hopefully) easier to follow steps. 

The second proposal is included in a letter from Ross Anderson, NY, describing the vehicle test procedures that includes

the steps in a table format and describes test weights and weight cart positions and usage. Ross Anderson will present 

additional proposed language, at the Sector meeting. 

The Sector also reviewed information provided by the Ohio participating laboratory for possible Checklist Items and Test

Report Forms. 

Proposal 1:

65a.3.2. Shift Tests. Conduct at least two complete sets of shift tests over each section to at least 90 % of the

rated CLC. A single complete shift test is defined in steps a through d.

a. The shift test will be conducted by loading one end section to the first of at least five test loads, moving

the load to each section, increasing the load to the next increment (at the opposite end of the scale) and 

repeating up to at least 90 % of the CLC using loads that are as evenly incremented as possible with the 

available equipment. 

b. Record the error moving the load to each section until the opposite end of the scale is reached, 

recording the error at each section and at each load. 

c. Conduct a decreasing load lest on the section at the end of the scale where the weights can be reloaded. 

(Note from NIST Technical Advisor: Is step c. necessary since a decreasing load is done with 90 % CLC (worst

case) during the shift test (step e.) and during the strain-load tests? Discuss at next sector meeting?)

d. Repeat the shift test procedure above in steps a, b, and c for each weight increment until at least 90 % of 

the CLC is reached and on this test where the maximum applied test weights are loaded on the scale. 

While at the maximum test load, locate the test weights and record the errors at each section, mid-span

between sections, and on modular scales, each on the right and left side of the module connection line

located at each section. 

e. Conduct a decreasing load test on one end section of the scale. 

(Note: If possible, the first increment of test weights should equal 500e. If weights cannot be conveniently

applied that equal 500e, the first load should equal just below 500e as nearly as possible. The other tolerance

breakpoints should be tested if possible.) 

Delete 65a.3.2. and 65a.3.3. 

The weighing labs reviewed the remaining procedures for strain load testing and testing of side-by-side and extra wide

vehicle scales and felt that, other that the shift test procedures being made clearer consistent with the above

recommendation, the procedures, test patterns, and test load positions were representative of these scales potential usage. 

Proposal 2:

Outline of Typical NTEP Vehicle Scale Evaluation from Pub 14

By Ross Andersen, New York State 

August 29, 2002

This outline is my interpretation of the current Pub 14 Checklist items for testing vehicle scales. It is also based on my 

participation in the Weighing Sector meetings during their development and training from Henry Oppermann. The

diagrams below illustrate that these tests as written will evaluate performance over a fairly wide range of the scale’s

capacity. 

NTEP - F54 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Note: For each X in the tables below, the evaluator shall determine actual errors at each test load and application point.

Loading shall be within limits specified by the manufacturer as per scale capacity and CLC. All examples are based on 

the three-section scale pictured in Pub 14. Test points would be added for additional sections as necessary following the 

same patterns. 

65.3.1. Two complete Sets - Loads 1-5 should be approximately evenly spaced over the test range to 

reach 90 % of CLC. This does leave some leeway to use test loads close to the tolerance break 

points and that are convenient to using the weight carts available to maximum advantage. The

objective is to provide data that demonstrates increasing load performance over each section of 

the scale and at each mid-span. 

Load \ Location Sect 1 Mid Span 1-2 Sect 2 Mid Span 2-3 Sect 3 

1st Test Load 1 X X X 

1st Test Load 2 X X X 

1st Test Load 3 X X X 

N T EP Veh ic le Scale In itia l Performa n ceT e s ts

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

0 40000 80000 120000 160000

T est L o a d

Scale Reading

Ideal Perform anc e

S hift Tes ts (90% C LC )

Strain Tes ts (80% C ap)

NT E P V e h ic le S cale S u b seq u e n t P e rm a n e n ce T ests

0

4 0 000

8 0 000

120 000

160 000

0 4000 0 8 000 0 1200 0 0 160 000

T e s t Loa d

Scale Reading

Ideal P erform anc e

S hift Tes t(50% C LC )

S train Tes t(65% C ap)

NTEP - F55 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Load \ Location Sect 1 Mid Span 1-2 Sect 2 Mid Span 2-3 Sect 3 

1st Test Load 4 X X X 

1st Test Load 5 X X X 

2nd Test Load 1 X X X 

2nd Test Load 2 X X X 

2nd Test Load 3 X X X 

2nd Test Load 4 X X X 

2nd Test Load 5 X X X 

65.3.2. One set of shift tests at mid span (May be done in conjunction with one of the sets of shift tests in

65.3.1.) 

Load \ Location Sect 1 Mid Span 1-2 Sect 2 Mid Span 2-3 Sect 3 

Mid-span Load 1 X X 

Mid-span Load 2 X X 

Mid-span Load 3 X X 

Mid-span Load 4 X X 

Mid-span Load 5 X X 

65.3.3. Test of Module Connections for Modular Scales – Assumes tests in 65.3.1 were done with test load

straddling the joint between module 1 and 2. (May be done in conjunction with one of the sets of shift 

tests in 65.3.1.) 

Load \ Location Left Side Sect 2 Right Side Sect 2 

Maximum feasible load e.g. 5 X X 

65.4. Strain Load Tests (65.4.2. - 65.4.5.)

Load \ Location End A End B 

1st Test - Strain Load distributed on End A Strain Load Ref Val

1st Test - Inc Test Load 1 (applied to End B) Strain Load X

1st Test - Inc Test Load 2 Strain Load X

1st Test - Inc Test Load 3 Strain Load X

1st Test - Inc Test Load 4 Strain Load X

1st Test - Inc Test Load 5 Strain Load X

1st Test - Remove Test Load 5 Strain Load Ref Val 

1st Test con’t - Inc Load 1 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Inc Load 2 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Inc Load 3 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Inc Load 4 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Inc Load 5 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Dec Load 4 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Dec Load 3 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Dec Load 2 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Dec Load 1 Strain Load X 

1st Test con’t - Dec Load @ Strain load) Strain Load X 

Remove strain load and rezero scale 

2nd Test - Strain Load distributed on End B X Ref Val 

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 1 (applied to End A) X Strain Load

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 2 X Strain Load

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 3 X Strain Load

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 4 X Strain Load

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 5 X Strain Load

2nd Test - Remove Strain Load leaving Dec Test Load 5 on End A X 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load 4 X 

NTEP - F56 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Load \ Location End A End B 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load 3 X 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load 2 X 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load 1 X 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load at zero X 

Notes on Initial Performance Tests: I expect that the two sets of shift tests will probably be combined as follows to

be as efficient as possible. Note: The two tables below include all the required tests in Pub 14 Section 65.3. 

Shift Tests (Set One) 

Load \ Location Sect 1 Mid Span 1-2 Sect 2 Mid Span 2-3 Sect 3 

Test Load 1 • • • • •

Test Load 2 • • • • •

Test Load 3 • • • • •

Test Load 4 • • • • •

Test Load 5 • • • • •

It has been suggested that the strain tests should be done between the two sets of shift tests to ensure that loading the scale

near capacity does not change performance. 

Shift Tests (Set Two)

Load \ Location Sect 1 Left Joint-2 Sect 2 Right Joint 2 Sect 3 

Test Load 1 • • •

Test Load 2 • • •

Test Load 3 • • •

Test Load 4 • • •

Test Load 5 • • • • •

Remaining Questions: 

? How do you use more than one weight cart? 

The two carts must be loaded end-to-end to 

avoid loading the center of the platform. Most

carts can’t be loaded side by side since they

have wheelbases in the 5-6 foot range. Even if

they could be loaded side-by-side, the loading

pattern would not be acceptable since this

would result in 50 % of the test load being 

loaded on the centerline of the deck where no 

truck tire can ever reach. Loading the centerline of the platform was industry’s big beef on

this subject. 

? How should weights be loaded in conjunction

with a weight cart? To keep loading 

approximately symmetrical in a pattern, I 

believe that the weights should either be loaded 

equally on both sides of the cart or lined up 

completely across the test pattern immediately

in front of or behind the cart. 

? What additional tests should be done to cover 

livestock weighing? We’ll cover this subject

another day!

NTEP - F57 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

65.5. Permanence Tests 20-30 days later after period of use with test loads of at least 40,000 lb or 50 % CLC,

whichever is greater. Typically this will only result in four test loads (4 tolerance bands). 

65.5.2. Shift Test - One set minimum 

Load \ Location Sect 1 Mid Span 1-2 Sect 2 Mid Span 2-3 Sect 3 

1st Test Inc Load 1 X X X X X 

1st Test Inc Load 2 X X X X X 

1st Test Inc Load 3 X X X X X 

1st Test Inc Load 4 X X X X X 

65.5.3. Strain Load Tests - One set minimum

Load \ Location End A End B 

1st Test - Strain Load distributed on End A Ref Val X 

1st Test - Inc Test Load 1 (applied to end B) Strain Load X

1st Test - Inc Test Load 2 Strain Load X

1st Test - Inc Test Load 3 Strain Load X

1st Test - Inc Test Load 4 Strain Load X

1st Test - Dec Load 3 Strain Load X 

1st Test - Dec Load 2 Strain Load X 

1st Test - Dec Load 1 Strain Load X 

1st Test - Dec Load (Strain) Ref Val X 

1st Test - Remove strain load - Dec Load @ zero X 

Reestablish zero Reference 

2nd Test - Strain Load distributed on End B Ref Val X 

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 1 (applied to end A) X Strain Load

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 2 X Strain Load

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 3 X Strain Load

2nd Test - Inc Test Load 4 X Strain Load

2nd Test - Remove Strain Load leaving Dec Test Load 4 on end A X 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load 3 X 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load 2 X 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load 1 X 

2nd Test - Dec Test Load at zero X 

Note: The use of four test loads is based on standard procedure of taking one reading in each tolerance band over the 

range of weight used in the test. 

NTEP - F58 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

OHIO NTEP Lab Vehicle Scale Test Procedures and Report Forms 

Large Capacity Platform And Vehicle Scales Checklist

Table Of Contents

Table of Contents Page

Section 1. Information .................................................................................................................................... 

Section 2. Device ............................................................................................................................................ 

Section 3. Markings........................................................................................................................................ 

Section 4. Load Cells and Worksheets............................................................................................................ 

Section 5. Weight Information........................................................................................................................ 

Section 6. Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 

Section 7. Performance and Permanence Test for Vehicle Scales..................................................................

Section 7. Increasing Load Test...................................................................................................................... 

Section 7. Shift Test (Form)............................................................................................................................ 

Section 8. Strain Test (Form).......................................................................................................................... 

Section 9. General Considerations.................................................................................................................. 

Section 10. Scale Status.................................................................................................................................... 

Section 11. Acceptance Tolerance Table.......................................................................................................... 

Section 1. Information

Date of Test Control Number CC Number 

Scale Owner 

Address 

City State Zip Code

Manufacturer 

Address 

City State Zip Code

Telephone Fax 

Section 2. Device

Scale Model Number Scale Capacity 

Division Size Number of sections Size of Platform(s) 

Serial Number CC Number 

CLC Accuracy Class 

Section 3. Markings 

Section 4. Load Cells

Load cells for which Certificates of Conformance have been issued under the National Type Evaluation Program shall be 

marked with the following: 

1. the accuracy class of III, III L corresponding to the scale accuracy class for which its use is intended 

2. the maximum number of scale divisions (stated in units of 1 000) for which the accuracy class requirements are 

met 

3. a “S” or “M” for single or multiple cell applications, respectively, in conjunction with the maximum number of

scale divisions for each class and application in which the load cell may be used

4. the direction of loading, if not obvious 

NTEP - F59 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

5. special limits of working temperature if other than 14 °F to 104 °F (-10 °C to 40 °C); and 

6. the name and address of the manufacturer or the manufacturer’s trademark, model designation, minimum dead

load, maximum capacity safe load limit, and load cell verification interval (vmin). 

The required information may be given on a plate attached to the load cell or, alternatively, in an accompanying 

document. If the document is the source of the information, the serial number of the load cell shall be marked on the load

cell plate and also given in the document. Yes No 

Load Cell Manufacturer Model Number 

Is/Are load cell(s) NTEP approved Yes No 

CC Number Number of load cells 

Load Cell Capacity Number of divisions Vmin 

Load Cell Serial Numbers: 

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20.

 

Load Cell Formulas: 

For scales without lever system and N is the number of load cells in the scale: vmin#d ) /N

vmin of the load cell must be less than or equal to the scale division divided by the square root of the number of load cells. 

For scales with a lever system: vmin# d ) (/N x scale multiple)

vmin of the load cell must be less than or equal to the scale division divided by the square root of the number of load cells

multiplied by the scale multiple. 

WORKSHEET 

FOR NEW VEHICLE & LIVESTOCK SCALE INSTALLATIONS 

HANDBOOK 44 MARKING REQUIREMENTS & SUITABILITY CRITERIA

MARKINGS INDICATING ELEMENT WEIGHING

ELEMENT 

LOAD 

CELL(s) 

Manufacturer

Model

CC Number 

Serial Number

Class III, III L, III/III L 

Capacity NA 

"d" Scale Division Value NA NA 

NTEP - F60 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

MARKINGS INDICATING ELEMENT WEIGHING

ELEMENT 

LOAD 

CELL(s) 

"emin" Minimum Scale Division NA NA 

"nmax" Maximum Number of "d" 

"Vmin" Verification Scale Div. NA NA 

Single Cell (S) or Multiple Cells (M) NA NA 

"CLC" Concentrated Load Cap. NA 

Suitability Criteria Meets Requirements 

yes no NA 

 Is emin < d ? < 

 Is "n"(for system) < nmax (smallest of any one) ? < 

 Is capacity < [(no. sections - 0.5) x CLC]? < 

 Is Vmin # d)/N ? (scales without levers) < 

 Is Vmin # d)(/N x scale multiple)?(Lever Systems) < 

3/94 (C:\wp51\wkstIIIL) 

WORKSHEET 

FOR NEW CLASS III SCALE INSTALLATIONS (CAPACITY > 2000 lb) 

HANDBOOK 44 MARKING REQUIREMENTS & SUITABILITY CRITERIA

MARKINGS INDICATING ELEMENT WEIGHING

ELEMENT 

LOAD 

CELL(s) 

Manufacturer

Model

CC Number 

Serial Number

Class III, III/III L 

Capacity NA 

"d" Scale Division Value NA NA 

"emin" Minimum Scale Division NA NA 

"nmax" Maximum Number of "d" 

"Vmin" Verification Scale Div. NA NA 

Single Cell (S) or Multiple Cells (M) NA NA 

Suitability Criteria Meets Requirements 

yes no NA 

Is emin < d ? < 

Is "n"(for system) < nmax (smallest of any one) ? < 

Is Vmin < d ) /N ? (scales without levers) < 

Is Vmin < d ) (/N x scale multiple)? (lever systems) < 

NTEP - F61 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Section 5. Weight Information 

Vehicle scales: 

1. The minimum amount of test weights needed for the test is 90 % of the concentrated load capacity. 

2. The minimum load for the strain load test in the initial test is at least 80 % of the scale capacity. 

3. The minimum load for the strain test in the subsequent test is at least 65 % of the scale capacity. 

4. The maximum number of scale divisions for a scale cannot exceed the lesser of the number of divisions for

which the load cells and indicator were evaluated separately, i.e., if the load cells have an NTEP Certificate for a

maximum of 10 000 divisions and indicator has an NTEP Certificate of 8 000 divisions, then the scale is limited 

to a maximum of 8 000 divisions. 

Section 6. Evaluation Criteria

These evaluation criteria are to be used in conjunction with the applicable NTEP requirements for Digital Electronic 

Scales (Section 1 of NCWM Publication 14). Also see HB 44 General Code Requirements. 

Provisions for Sealing Adjustable Components on Electronic Devices

Code Reference: G-S.8., S.1.11

Due to the ease of adjusting the accuracy of electronic scales, there must be a provision for applying a security seal so that 

the security seal must be broken before any adjustment that affects the performance of the electronic device can be made. 

Performance adjustments generally refer to accuracy and sensitivity adjustments. Yes No 

Antifriction Means

Frictional effects shall be reduced to a minimum, by means of suitable antifriction, at all points where system parts may 

come into contact with each other. 

1. System components are properly designed to prevent binds or interfere with the weighing operation. 

Yes No 

2. Frictional effects have been reduced to a minimum. Yes No 

Adjustable Components 

Code Reference: S.4.2 

An adjustable component, such as a nose iron or potentiometer, shall be held securely in adjustment and shall not be 

adjustable from the outside of the device except for a component for adjusting level or a no-load reference value. 

Yes No 

Repeatability of the Device 

Code Reference: G-S.5.4, T.5

A device shall be capable of repeating its indications and recorded representations. The results obtained by several 

weights of the same load under reasonable static test conditions shall agree within the absolute value of the maintenance 

tolerance for that load, and shall be within applicable tolerances. This requirement shall be met irrespective of repeated

manipulation of any element of the device in a manner approximating normal usage and of the repeated performance of 

steps or operations that are embraced in the testing procedure. 

Repeatability - Indications. Yes No 

NTEP - F62 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Installation Requirements - Protection from Environmental Factors

Code Reference: UR.2.1

The indicating elements, the lever system or load cells, the load-receiving element, and any permanently installed test 

weights shall be adequately protected from environmental factors such as wind, weather, and RFI that may adversely 

affect system operation or performance. Yes No 

Installation Requirements - Foundation, Supports, and Clearance 

Code Reference: UR.2.2

The foundation and supports of any system shall be such as to provide strength, rigidity, and permanence of all

components. Clearance shall be provided around all live parts so that no contact can result before or during operation of

the system. 

1. Adequate system foundation and supports are provided. Yes No 

2. Sufficient clearance around all live parts is provided. Yes No 

Section 7. Performance and Permanence Tests for Vehicle Scales

Performance tests are conducted to ensure compliance with the tolerances and, in the case of nonautomatic indicating 

scales, the sensitivity requirements specified in NIST Handbook 44. 

The test described here, apply primarily, to the weighing element. It is assumed that the indicating element used during

the test has already been examined and found to comply with applicable requirements. If the design and performance of 

the indicating element is to be determined during the same test, the applicable requirements for weigh beams, poses, dials, 

electronic digital indications, etc., must also be referenced. 

Weighbeams

The sensitivity test is conducted at zero load and at maximum load. The sensitivity test is conducted by determining the

actual test weight value necessary to bring the beam from a rest point at the center of the trig loop to rest points at the top

and bottom of the trig loop. The maximum load at which the sensitivity test is conducted need not be comprised of 

known test weight. 

Increasing Load and Shift Tests

At least two complete sets of shift tests shall be conducted over each section to at least 90 % of the concentrated load 

capacity (CLC) of the scale. This is to determine the repeatability of the scale. The scale error should be determined at a

minimum of five equally spaced test loads. Scale errors may be determined at more points if desired. If two weight carts 

are used, they should travel along the paths the wheels of a vehicle would take when moving across the scale. Decreasing

load tests are to be avoided when testing a section. A truck many not be backed onto the scale in order to place weights

on the inner sections. Decreasing load test shall be conducted after the sections have been tested to their maximum load

and the weights are being removed from the scale. Do not exceed the CLC capacity. The load is to be distributed across

the section.

At least one complete set of shift tests to at least 90 % of the CLC shall be conducted at midspan between sections. 

If a scale consists of modules that are connected together to comprise the weighbridge, shift tests shall be conducted by 

placing the load so that it straddles the connection between the modules. At least one shift test is to be conducted on the

scale where the test load is placed first on one side of the connection line of the module, then on the other side of the 

connection line. 

The results of the shift tests are required to agree within the absolute value of the applicable maintenance tolerances and

must be within acceptance tolerances. 

NTEP - F63 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

NTEP Vehicle Scale Test Report 

Company: Wind Conditions: Test No: 

Model: SN : Temp:

Device Type: Capacity x Division Tech:

No. of Sections: Platform Size: CLC: Date: 

Type of Test: Shift Position Strain Weight of Strain Load:____________ Test Weight Amt:___________

Test Load / / / / Tolerance 

Comments: 

 

 

Strain Load Test

At least one strain load test shall be conducted at each end of the scale. The maximum load applied during the strain load 

shall be in the range of 80 to 100 % of scale capacity. The load is to be distributed over the load-receiving element. 

Load the scale with a vehicle or vehicles so the addition of test weights will provide a gross load of 80 to 100 % of the 

scale capacity. Determine the “reference point” for the start of the strain load test. Add the test weights to one of the

ends of the scale without exceeding the CLC. 

Do not conduct a decreasing load test or a return to the strain load referenced weights as part of this particular strain load

test. After removing the test weights from the end of the scale, reestablish the strain load reference value and reapply the 

test weights to verify that the strain load values repeat the initial values. Conduct a decreasing load test and return to the

strain load reference value as the weights are removed as part of this test cycle. The return to the strain load reference 

value shall be within one-half of a scale division with consideration given for the creep and for an temperature changes 

that may have occurred during this last cycle. 

Remove the known test weights and strain load. Zero the scale, place the strain load on the other end of the scale, and 

establish the strain load reference value. Do not use the zero setting mechanism to set the strain load to zero; the tare 

mechanism may be used to tare out the strain load. The gross load zero value is needed to conduct a decreasing load test 

as the strain load is removed in the test. 

Repeat the strain load test on the other end of the scale. After reaching the maximum test load for the strain load test,

remove the strain load but leave the known test weights on the scale. The weight indication for the decreasing load test 

must be within tolerance for the known test load. Continue the decreasing load test by removing the known test weights. 

Take several readings as the weights are being removed. When all the weights are removed, record the return zero. The

scale must return to zero within one-half of a scale division. When analyzing the return to zero, consideration must be 

given for the length of time the load was on the scale and for possible temperature changes that may have occurred during 

the test. 

NTEP - F64 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Acceptance tolerances are applied only to the known test load in the strain load test. 

Section 8. Strain Test 

Test Load Known Weight Indication Error Tolerance

 

Permanence Test

The permanence test shall be conducted at least 20 days after successful completion of the initial performance test.

Performance during both tests must be within acceptance tolerances. A minimum of 40 000 lb of known test weights or 

50 % of the CLC, whichever is greater is needed. At least one complete set of section tests shall be conducted over each 

section and at midspan between each section using the known test weights. At least one strain load test shall be

conducted at each end of the scale. The maximum applied load shall be in the range of 65 to 100 % of the scale capacity.

If a device fails a subsequent permanence test, the entire permanence test must be repeated. 

Permanence Test Use Requirements for Vehicle Scales

A minimum of 300 weighing operations are required during the test period (20-30 days). The manufacture is to log the 

date, time and weight. Each entry is to be initialed by the person conducting the weighing. Only loads which have been

applied using a method representative of the scales intended use can be counted. 

For vehicle scales with a nominal capacity over 75 000 lb:

50 % of the loads must be above 50 000 lb or 80 % of the CLC, whichever is greater and

100 % of the loads must be above 20 000 lb or 50 % of the CLC, whichever is greater. 

For all other scales:

50 % of the loads must be above 50 % of the scale capacity; and 

100 % of the load must be above 20 % of the scale capacity. 

The minimum number of days that a device is required to be in use is 20 days. The committee did not specify that a 

certain number of weighing operations needed to be conducted each day for the test period, but recommended that use of

the scale be representative of normal in service use. 

The device will be tested to the CLC on the subsequent type evaluation (field) performance test. 

NTEP - F65 
NTEP Committee 2003 Final Report

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Section 9. General Considerations

The technician shall ensure that the scale systems main elements and components are NTEP approved, have each been

issued an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC), and is a replica of that which is described in the CC. Only those 

features and options evaluated and described in the CC are allowed.

1. Suitability of Equipment

Weighing equipment shall be suitable for the application for which it is to be used, and shall conform to the 

appropriate sections of HB-44 as correct with respect to its elements of design, including but not limited to its 

weighing capacity, its computing capability, the character, number, size, and location of its indicating or

recording elements, and the value of its smallest division. 

2. Environment

Equipment shall be suitable for the environment in which it is used including, but not limited to, the effects of

wind, weather and radio frequency interference. 

3. Interchange or Reversal of Parts

Parts of a device that may readily be interchanged or reversed in the course of field assembly, or of normal

usage, shall be so constructed that their interchange or reversal will not materially affect the performance of the 

device. Parts that may be interchanged or reversed in normal field assembly shall be:

a. constructed to ensure any interchange or reversal does not affect the performance of the device, or 

b. marked to show their proper position.

Section 10. Status: Scale Meets NTEP Requirements? Yes No 

Test Performed By: NTEP:

And Witnessed State: 

By: Manufacturer 

(The following chart contains the applicable acceptance tolerances) 

Section 11: Applied Class III L Acceptance Tolerances for 10, 20, and 50 pound scale divisions 

Weight applied 10 lb “d” 20 lb “d” 50 lb “d”

d lb d lb d lb

Zero 0 0 0 0 0 

10 000 1 10 0.5 20 0.5 25 

20 000 2 20 1 20 0.5 25 

30 000 3 30 1.5 30 1.0 50 

40 000 4 40 2.0 40 1.0 50 

50 000 5 50 2.5 50 1.0 50 

60 000 6 60 3.0 60 1.5 75 

70 000 7 70 3.5 70 1.5 75 

80 000 8 80 4.0 80 2.0 100 

90 000 9 90 4.5 90 2.0 100 

NTEP - F66 
NTEP Committee 2003 Report 

Attachment to Agenda Item 16 

Weight applied 10 lb “d” 20 lb “d” 50 lb “d”

100 000 10 100 5.0 100 2.0 100 

110 000 N/A N/A 5.5 110 2.5 125 

120 000 N/A N/A 6 120 2.5 125 

130 000 N/A N/A 6.5 130 3 150 

140 000 N/A N/A 7 140 3 150 

150 000 N/A N/A 7.5 150 3 150 

160 000 N/A N/A 8 160 3.5 175 

170 000 N/A N/A 8.5 170 4 200 

180 000 N/A N/A 9 180 4 200 

190 000 N/A N/A 9.5 190 4 200 

200 000 N/A N/A 10 200 4 200 

NTEP - F67 
New Chairman’s Address 

New Chairman’s Address 

Dennis Ehrhart 

Arizona Department of Weights & Measures

July 17, 2003 

Thank you, Ross, the Members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, and their guests.

On behalf of Ross Andersen, the Chair >>> NO!! I don’t have to say that any more!!! 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the NCWM and our partners for this short time. It is an honor 

and a privilege that you are allowing me to sit in the wheelhouse for the upcoming year. I am especially thankful to all 

those who have agreed to serve on committees that will be addressing not only technical issues but also the business of

the Conference. I am proud to report to you that, to a person, every one contacted has agreed to serve. 

Forgive me for beginning with what could be construed as a trite phrase but... this is indeed a humbling experience. 

I have the great fortune of being considered for the position of Director of the Arizona Department of Weights and

Measures, as well assuming the Chair of the NCWM. I’m just a little overwhelmed. 

However, I have resigned myself to placing these two obligations just behind God and Country. 

As a member of the NCWM Board of Directors, as well as the Chairman-Elect of the Conference, I was charged with 

visiting all of the regional associations to give those attendees an idea of some of the challenges and opportunities facing

the NCWM, as well as an idea of what I would like to accomplish as Chairman of the Conference. 

It’s hard for me to put into words the gratifying experience of traveling nationwide to see how the other regional 

associations work and to meet their members. I have met quite a variety of folks in the private and public sectors and yes, 

even a few recovering metrologists. 

First, let me put your minds at ease -- the NCWM is indeed solvent. During this annual meeting the Board finalized the

Conference budget at a modest deficit, much like last year’s, of approximately $7,000. Considering that we are in the 

same economic turndown as the rest of the country, showing a minimal loss, without the bookkeeping hocus-pocus seen 

in big business and some segments of the public sector, is no less than a minor miracle. Part of that balancing act is due

to the NCWM; not unlike industry, we are experiencing increases for services and increased costs related to the meetings

to address the business of the Conference. The NCWM staff and the Board continue to explore cutting costs for the

Conference without reducing services and searching for non-dues revenue.

I do my share of public speaking in front of TV cameras, consumer groups, and corporate education seminars, but far and 

away the most difficult audiences for me to address are the weights and measures professionals. That difficulty stems

from the respect I have for the work WE do and those who perform the tasks of not only protecting consumers but also

ensuring a level playing field for industry. 

I’d like to give you some idea of what I would like to pursue during my greatly anticipated year as Chairman of the 

NCWM. During my year as Chairman, I will support and urge the Board, as well as the Conference as a whole, to support

in whatever manner possible the Fair Measurement Appropriation. As you know, the idea of the FMA was brought to us

by one of my colleagues from the WWMA, Aves Thompson from Alaska. Aves made his presentation, titled “A Bold

New Challenge,” first to the Board of Director’s and then to the attendees of the last annual meeting. The idea presented 

in this paper is to woo federal funding for State weights and measures programs and let’s just say, as Aves pointed out,

“those who don’t ask, don’t get.” I would challenge each of you to read “The Fair Measurement Appropriation” and take 

the concept to your administrators, attorneys general, legislators, or whoever could say yea or nay to this concept and urge 

them to support the FMA. 

One of the challenges the NCWM faces is CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT, or “does production meet type?” 

This is one of the ongoing projects that I will support and continue the dedication of resources toward the development of

a workable and meaningful program. So many resources have been expended and the policy portion has been drafted, but

NCA - 1 
New Chairman’s Address 

as we continue to receive input, we realize there are still changes to be made. With continued hard work we can make

this a workable and meaningful program. 

At the same time, the weights and measures community must consider making some changes to our operations to really

ensure that production devices meet the same standards as the prototype that NTEP tested. Most of us need to increase

the training of our staff in this valuable exercise called “initial verification.” And this is where the weights and measures

community can initiate those changes to our operations to really ensure that production devices meet the same standards 

as the prototype that NTEP tested. In concert with training and implementation, we will need to capture the results of

initial verification so that those results can provide feedback on device type conformance. Both training and gathering of 

statistics are on the project list of the Board and they are important parts of our strategic plan. 

Another challenge the Board has addressed and that I will continue to support is the issue of a National Training Program.

I believe in the hierarchy format to minimize redundancy within training materials. The work has already begun. An

outline to organize the subject material has been created. That outline is available and I urge you to take a copy with you 

to share the direction with your region and/or staff. The format of these training materials would be interactive CD-ROM 

and or Internet. 

The State of California has a set of 14 units, which Mike Cleary and his staff have generously offered to the NCWM to

distribute, which could lay the groundwork for states to use as a guideline. 

Another challenge I would present to you is Conference Structure. We have reviewed the processes and direction of our

corporate culture. It is imperative that we as a Conference motivate volunteers to produce more Conference work 

throughout the year, as well as support the diversification of the functions of the committees. The length of commitment

to a committee may be keeping prospective members from becoming involved, and perhaps a change is needed to that

time frame, as we know it. 

The Board of Directors concluded that the A&P Committee could be better used as a redirected, renamed standing

committee called the Professional Development Committee. This committee, comprised of those members of the A&P 

wishing to remain and those chosen to fill the vacancies, will focus on the National Training Program. Under the 

direction of the Board, working groups can be given specific tasks that once appeared on the agenda of the A&P and,

when completed or near the end of the project, a new group could be assembled to follow through or begin a different 

project if need be. 

The Petroleum Sub-Committee will continue working independently and will continuously monitor ASTM for new test 

procedures or fuels. Then, as the need arises, it will notify the Board of important issues and propose those issues go 

before the L&R committee for consideration of adoption into Handbook 130. The NCWM would be well served to have

an active body to stay abreast of the changes in the volatile petroleum industry. No pun intended. 

The Metrology Committee will continue to be funded to meet annually with NIST and will continue to work on standards 

and procedures in the arenas of state laboratories and legal metrology. At the direction of the Board, this committee could 

also function as a work group to accomplish stratified projects such as weight carts. 

I’d like to take a moment to urge you all to think about the mentoring process. Each year the NCWM, as well as your 

jurisdictions and businesses, lose talented people due to retirement, changes of career path, or even to other jurisdictions. 

It becomes crucial to bring your best and brightest under your wing to expand their horizons and teach them the numerous

facets of the Weights and Measures administrator’s duties. Duties, not just in the sense of how to discharge the “administrivia” of day-to-day operations of your shop, but how to exercise authority, the art of delegation, how to regulate fairly 

and, perhaps most important of all, instill the sense of duty to the NCWM. 

We in the NCWM are part of a unique system. Our system of creating equitable regulations for weights and measures is

indeed a remarkable process. The process of meeting with regulated parties to share information and be exposed to 

industry’s idiosyncrasies in order to make informed decisions is rare. Take a moment. Who will be your successor?

Who will represent your jurisdiction at the NCWM?

I would like to address our relationship with OIML. I would hope from the presentation Gilles and Chuck delivered

Tuesday you can see that accepting and influencing OIML recommendations is not only part of the Board’s Strategic

Plan, but essential to improving the United States’ posture in the Global Marketplace. I also hope you understand the 

NCA- 2 
New Chairman’s Address 

adoption of any OIML recommendations would most likely only affect Pub 14 and type evaluation, and our day-to-day

tasks of ensuring compliance with Handbook 44 will not change. 

And finally, with all that on our plate and funds stretched at best, there is one new task I want to focus on. 

I have dedicated additional resources to a program called “Recognition through Transparency.” Transparency is a term

borrowed from the World Trade Organization’s Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement meaning, “. . .all essential

information regarding current work, draft work, proposals under consideration as well as the final results should be made

easily accessible to at least interested parties throughout all stages of standards development.” This is a body that does

not operate in secrecy. Our work is conducted in a fishbowl. We want to share the end results of the work we do here. 

One way to accomplish this is to allow--no, encourage--the media to get our story out. I want “weights and measures” to

be a household phrase. A lofty goal, eh? But I know it’s possible to at least increase the number of Americans who know 

who that unknown force is that looks out for consumers. 

In Arizona, with just the addition of a PIO who is willing and able to be persistent with media sources, we appear on the 

FOX affiliate once a month with a live consumer spot and the NBC affiliate in Tucson every other month with a taped

consumer tip or our portion of an investigative piece. Each November our UPC Scanning and Price Posting results are 

released. Every TV and radio station statewide wants an interview just in time for the upcoming holiday shopping

season. In FY ’02 we enjoyed $1.8 million of TV airtime FOR FREE. FY ’03 should be even higher. I’d like to expand

this coverage to a national level. 

There is a phenomenon known as branding. Things go better with COKE; drivers wanted – Volkswagen; and Zoom

Zoom - Mazda. We need this type of recognition. We affect 52 percent of the GDP. We are in virtually every state. We

are in hundreds of counties and cities. I think it is worth exploration. Perhaps the most advantageous effect of an 

increased media profile is that our audience can help sell our programs to those who hold the purse strings. 

There are several issues in the Strategic Plan that deal with enhancing public awareness. To that end, I will create a

working group to create an action plan to offer direction to the Board to enhance the public awareness of the NCWM and 

weights and measures in this country. I know of at least three people that are members of the Conference; my PIO, Dee

Ann Deaton, Dave Frieders’ PIO who is an IT person -- Amy Sinclair in San Francisco -- and Agatha Shields from

Franklin County, Ohio, who would jump at the chance to influence the public awareness of weights and measures

nationwide. I’m certain there are more members, given the opportunity to volunteer, a modest budget and some basic 

direction, whose work could yield big dividends. 

Item last, we have developed a strategic plan that is not static, is not collecting dust, but is being consulted to drive the

efforts and direct the resources of the NCWM. The Board heard membership Tuesday; we need to and will continue to

communicate our direction (yet another definition of Transparency). I want to invest the time necessary at our next Board

meeting to examine our Strategic Plan. Invest the time to check milestones and record and report progress to the 

membership of the Conference. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate my challenge for you to keep abreast of and support the “Fair Measurement 

Appropriation.” Forward any blinding flashes of insight about Conformity Assessment to any NCWM Board member. 

Please continue to support the National Conference and your regional association with your attendance and input. 

And, I’d like to thank you, the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, for giving me this

opportunity to serve. 

I’d also like to thank the NCWM staff for once again facilitating a seamless NCWM Conference, 

And, a special thank you to my ex-boss, my mentor and my friend, Sandy Williams, recently retired Director of the

Arizona Department of Weights and Measures, for her support. When others have not only limited, but also eliminated 

out-of-state travel, I have been allowed to attend this Conference and also continue my time and travel commitment to the

NCWM. 

Thank you very much. 

NCA - 3 
New Chairman’s Address 

And, may God bless America 

Now I’d like to take care of just one more piece of business, committee appointments. 

First, I’d like to welcome Chris Guay of Proctor and Gamble Company and Steven Pahl from the State of Texas to the

Board of Directors. I am looking forward to working with them, and I am sure they will be a great asset to the Board. 

I am appointing to the L&R Committee Vicky Dempsey, State of Ohio, to a five-year term; 

the L&R Committee as the Associate Member replacing Chris Guay, Vince Orr of ConAgra; 

the S&T Committee Carol Fulmer, State of South Carolina (5 years); 

the Professional Development Committee, the members of the former A&P Committee: 

Steve Hadder, State of Florida, (1 year) 

Ken Deitzler, State of Pennsylvania (2 years) 

Cato Fiksdal, Los Angeles, California. (1 year) 

Celeste Bennett, State of Michigan (3 years), 

to fill the vacancy on the former A&P Committee: Agatha Shields, Franklin County, Ohio (5 years), 

and to the Professional Development Committee, the Associate Member John Moore of LORE Consulting. 

NCA- 4 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Cary Ainsworth 

USDA GIPSA 

75 Spring Street, #230 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 

(404)562-5840, FAX: (404)562-5848 

Email: L.Cary.Ainsworth@usda.gov 

Ross J. Andersen

New York Bureau of Weights & 

Measures

1 Winners Circle 

Albany, NY 12235 

(518)457-3146, FAX: (518)457-5693 

Email: ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us 

Rudi Baisch 

Emery Winslow Scale Company

73 Cogwheel Lane 

Seymour, CT 6483 

(203)881-9333, FAX: (203)881-9477 

Email: rpbaisch@emerywinslow.com

John A. Baker

Pier 1 Imports 

301 Commerce Suite 600 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

(817)252-8306, FAX: (817)252-6220 

Email: jabaker@pier1.com 

Steven Beitzel 

Systems Associates, Inc. 

1932 Industrial Drive 

Libertyville, IL 60048 

(847)367-6650, FAX: (847)367-6960 

Email: sjbeitzel@systemsassoc.com

F. Michael Belue 

Belue Associates

1319 Knight Drive 

Murfreesboro, TN 37128 

(615)867-1010, FAX: (615)867-0609 

Email: Bassoc@aol.com

Paul Boch

Nevada County Weights & Measures 

255 South Auburn Street 

Grass Valley, CA 95945 

(530)273-2648, FAX: (530)273-1713 

Email: agdept@co.nevada.ca.us 

Dennis F. Bray 

Alameda County 

224 West Winton Avenue, Room 184 

Hayward, CA 94544 

(510)670-5232, FAX: (510)783-3928 

Email: dennis.bray@acgov.org 

Bartholomew Brooks 

Ocean County New Jersey

1027 Hooper Ave. Building 2 

Toms River, NJ 08754-2191 

(732) 929-2166, FAX: (732) 505-5330 

Email: bbrooks@co.ocean.nj.us

Darryl Brown 

Iowa Department of Agriculture 

502 East 9th 

Des Moines, IA 50319 

(515)281-5716, FAX: (515)281-6800 

Email: Darryl.Brown@idals.state.ia.us 

Norman R. Brucker 

Precision Measurement Standards, Inc. 

1665 135th Street West 

Rosemount, MN 55068 

(651)423-3241, FAX: (651)322-7938 

Email: sharnoma@mninter.net 

Gerald A. Buendel 

Washington Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504-2560 

(360)902-1856, FAX: (360)902-2086 

Email: jbuendel@agr.wa.gov 

Tina G. Butcher 

NIST 

Building 820 Rm 223 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

(301)975-2196, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: tina.butcher@nist.gov 

Jerry W. Butler 

North Carolina Department of

Agriculture

PO Box 27647 Dept SD 

Raleigh, NC 27611 

(919)733-3313, FAX: (919)715-0524 

Email: jerry.butler@ncmail.net

Russell Campbell 

Alaska Div of Measurement Standards/CVE 

12050 Industry Way, Bldg O, Ste. 6 

Anchorage, AK 99515 

(907)345-7750, FAX: (907)345-6835 

Email: Russ_Campbell @dot.state.ak.us 

Judy Cardin 

Wisconsin Department of Agricultural & 

Consumer Protection 

PO Box 8911 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

(608)224-4945, FAX: (608)224 4939 

Email: judy.cardin@datcp.state.wi.us 

Duane Carlile 

Foster Farms 

843 Davis Street 

Livingston, CA 95334 

(209)394-7901, FAX: 

Email: carliled@fosterfarms.com

Stacy K. Carlsen 

Marin County Weights & Measures 

1682 Novato Boulevard Ste 150-A 

Novato, CA 94947-7021 

(415)499-6700, FAX: (415)499-7543 

Email: scarlsen@co.marin.ca.us

Charles H. Carroll 

Massachusetts Division of Standards 

One Ashburton Place, Room 1115 

Boston, MA 2108 

(617)727-3480, FAX: (617)727-5705 

Email: Charles.Carroll@state.ma.us 

James P. Cassidy, Jr.

Cambridge Weights & Measures

831 Massachusetts Ave 

Cambridge, MA 2139 

(617)349-6133, FAX: (617)349-6134 

Email: jcassidy@CI.Cambridge.MA.US

Nolton Causey

McKesson Automated Prescription Systems 

Two Crown Point Court, Suite 420 

Cincinnati, OH 45241 

(513)842-0156, FAX: (513)842-0163 

Email: nolton.causey@mckesson.com

ATTEND - 1 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Richard Claussen

Porter County

155 Indiana Avenue, Room 206 

Valparaiso, IN 46383 

(219)465-3585, FAX: (219)465-3592 

Email: 

Michael Cleary

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

8500 Fruitridge Road 

Sacramento, CA 95823 

(916)229-3000, FAX: (916)229-3026 

Email: mcleary@cdfa.ca.gov 

Gary Cohrs 

Calibron Systems, Inc. 

7861 East Gray Road 

Scottsdale, AZ 85260 

(480)991-3550, FAX: (480)998-5589 

Email: gcohrs@calibron.com 

Thomas Coleman 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4868, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: t.coleman@nist.gov 

Steven E. Cook

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4003, FAX: (301)975-0647 

Email: steven.cook@nist.gov 

Clark Cooney

Oregon Department of Agriculture

635 Capitol Street, N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

(503)986-4677, FAX: (503)986-4784 

Email: ccooney@oda.state.or.us

Rodney Cooper

Actaris Neptune 

1310 Emerald Road 

Greenwood, SC 29646 

(864) 942-2226, FAX: (864) 223-0341 

Email: rcooper@actaris.com 

Kevin Coyne 

Division of Measurement Standards 

2300 McLeod Street 

Las Vegas, NV 89104 

(702)486-4690, FAX: (702)486-4695 

Email: kcoyne@govmail.state.nv.us

Mark P. Coyne 

Brockton Weights & Measures 

City Hall Rm B12 45 School Street 

Brockton, MA 02301-9927 

(508)580-7120, FAX: (508)580-7173 

Email: mcoyne@ci.brockton.ma.us 

Pasquale D’Errico

New Jersey Weights & Measures

1261 US Route 1 & 9 South 

Avenel, NJ 7001

(732)815-4842, FAX: (732)382-5298 

Email: pat.derrico@lps.state.nj.us 

Richard L. Davis 

Georgia-Pacific 

1915 Marathon Avenue 

Neenah, WI 54957-0899 

(920)729-8174, FAX: (920)729-8089 

Email: Richard.davis@gapac.com

Kenneth Deitzler 

Bureau of Ride & Measurement Standards

2301 North Cameron Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 

(717)787-9089, FAX: (717)787-4158 

Email: kdeitzler@state.pa.us

Vicky Dempsey 

Montgomery County Weights & 

Measures

451 West Third Street 

P.O. Box 972 

Dayton, OH 45422-1027 

(937)225-6309, FAX: (937)224-3927 

Email: dempseyv@mcohio.org 

John Dewald 

Tiffin Loader Crane 

4151 West State Route 18 

Tiffin, OH 44883 

(419)448-8156, FAX: (419)448-9558 

Email: john@tiffincrane.com 

G.W. (Wes) Diggs

Virginia Product & Industry Standards 

PO Box 1163 Room 402 

Richmond, VA 23218 

(804)786-2476, FAX: (804)786-1571 

Email: gdiggs@vdacs.state.va.us 

Kathryn Dresser 

NIST Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2000 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2000 

(301)975-3289, FAX: (301)948-1416 

Email: kathryn.dresser@nist.gov

L.F. Eason 

North Carolina Department of

Agriculture

4040 District Dr

Raleigh, NC 27607 

(919)733-3313, FAX: (919)733-8804 

Email: LF.Eason@ncmail.net 

John D. Edmond, Jr.

USDA GIPSA 

Room 3412 SOAGB 14 & Independence 

Ave. SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

(202) 720-5841, FAX: (202) 690-3207 

Email: john_d.edmond@usda.gov 

Dennis Ehrhart 

Arizona Department of Weights & 

Measures

4425 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 134 

Glendale, AZ 85302 

(623)463-9937, FAX: (602) 255-1950 

Email: dehrhart@wm.state.az.us

Dr. Charles Ehrlich

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4834, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov

James F. Etter 

City of Hammond

649 Conkey Street 

Hammond, IN 46324 

(219)853-6377, FAX: (219)853-6403 

Email: etterj@hmdin.com

ATTEND - 2 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Cato R. Fiksdal 

Los Angeles County Weights & 

Measures

12300 Lower Azusa Road 

Los Angeles, CA 91006-5872 

(626)575-5451, FAX: (626)350-3423 

Email: cato@acwm.co.la.ca.us

Jerry Flanders

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

Agr Building 19 MLK Drive Room 321 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

(404)656-3605, FAX: (404)656-9648 

Email: jflander@agr.state.ga.us

Darrell E. Flocken

Mettler-Toledo Inc 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

(614)438-4393, FAX: (614)438-4355 

Email: darrell.flocken@mt.com

Kurt Floren

San Diego County Dept. of Weights & 

Measures

5555 Overland Avenue, Building 3 

San Diego, CA 92123 

(858)694-2193, FAX: (858)505-6484 

Email: kurt.floren@sdcounty.ca.gov 

Maurice J. Forkert 

Tuthill Transfer Systems

8825 Aviation Drive 

Fort Wayne, IN 46809 

(206)747-7529, FAX: (260)747-7064 

Email: Mforkert@tuthill.com 

David Frieders

San Francisco City and County

501 Cesar Chavez #109A 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

(415)285-5010, FAX: (415)285-8776 

Email: dave.frieders@sfgov.org 

Carol P. Fulmer

South Carolina Department of

Agriculture

PO Box 11280 

Columbia, SC 29211 

(803)737-9690, FAX: (803)737-9703 

Email: cfulmer@scda.state.sc.us

Mark Galletta 

Nestle USA 

800 North Brand Blvd 

Glendale, CA 91203 

(818)549-6089, FAX: (818)637-3348 

Email: mark.galletta@us.nestle.com

Thomas F. Geiler 

Town of Barnstable 

PO Box 2430 230 South Street 

Hyannis, MA 2601 

(508)862-4670, FAX: (508)778-2412 

Email: Tom.Geiler@town.barnstable.ma.us

Gary R. Gist 

Howard County Weights & Measures 

100 S Union-City Hall Floor 1 

Kokomo, IN 46901 

(765)456-7466, FAX: (765)456-7571 

Email: 

Joe Gomez

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

MSC 3170, PO Box 30005 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

(505)646-1616, FAX: (505)646-2361 

Email: jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu 

Marlene Goodwin

Defiance Co Weights & Measures 

Courthouse 221 Clinton St 

Defiance, OH 43512 

(419)782-1926, FAX: (419)784-2761 

Email: 

Cindy Gordon

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202)682-8482, FAX: (202)682-8051 

Email: gordonc@api.org 

Don Goudie

Stowe Research International 

1000 Business Center Circle, Suite 207 

Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 

(805)498-5450, FAX: (805)449-3640 

Email: dgoudie@stoweresearch.com 

Sandy Goudie

Stowe Research International 

1000 Business Center Circle, Suite 207 

Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 

(805)498-5450, FAX: (805)449-3640 

Email: sgoudie@stoweresearch.com

Steven T. Grabski

Bureau of Weights & Measures

Division of Measurement Standards 

2150 Frazer Avenue 

Sparks, NV 89431 

(775)688-1166, FAX: (775)688-2533 

Email: sgrabski@govmail.state.nv.us 

Maxwell Gray 

Florida Dept of Agriculture & Consumer 

Svcs

3125 Conner Boulevard, Lab 2 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 

(850)488-9140, FAX: (850)922-6064 

Email: graym@doacs.state.fl.us 

Louis E. Greenleaf 

New Jersey Weights & Measures

1261 US Route 1 & 9 South 

Avenel, NJ 7001

(732)815-4842, FAX: (732)382-5298 

Email: louis.greenleaf@lps.state.nj.us 

Michael F. Grenier 

New Hampshire Department of 

Agriculture Markets & Food 

PO Box 2042 

Concord, NH 03302-2042 

(603)271-3709, FAX: (603)271-1109 

Email: mgrenier@agr.state.nh.us

Christopher B. Guay 

Procter & Gamble Co 

2 Procter & Gamble Plaza 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

(513)983-0530, FAX: (513)983-8984 

Email: guay.cb@pg.com

Brett Gurney

Utah Department of Agriculture & Food 

PO Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500

(801)538-7158, FAX: (801)538-4949 

Email: bgurney@utah.gov 

ATTEND - 3 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Charles Hackett 

City of Kokomo Weights and Measures 

100 South Union Street 

Kokomo, IN 46901 

(765)456-7466, FAX: 

Email: chackett@cityofkokomo.org 

Steve Hadder 

Florida Dept. of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services 

3125 Conner Boulevard, Room 14, 

Building 1 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 

(850)487-2634, FAX: (850)922-6655 

Email: hadders@doacs.state.fl.us 

Georgia Harris

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4014, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: gharris@nist.gov 

Ronald G. Hayes

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(573)751-2922, FAX: (573)751-8307 

Email: 

Ron_Hayes@mail.mda.state.mo.us 

David K. Heck

Chevron Products Co 

6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd Building L1096 

San Ramon, CA 94583-2348 

(925)842-6033, FAX: (925)842-8710 

Email: dkheck@chevrontexaco.com

Maureen Henzler 

Kansas Department of Agriculture/Weights & 

Measures Division 

PO Box 19282/Forbes Field Building 282 

Topeka, KS 66619-0282 

(785) 862-2415, FAX: (785) 862-2460 

Email: mhenzler@kda.state.ks.us

Stephen R. Hill 

Orange County Sealer’s Office 

1750 S. Douglass Road, Bldg D 

Anaheim, CA 92806-6031 

(714)447-7100, FAX: (714)567-6203 

Email: steve.hill@pfrd.ocgov.com 

Joe Hjermstad 

South Dakota Weights & Measures 

118 West Capitol Avenue 

Pierre, SD 57501-2080 

(605)773-3697, FAX: (605)773-6631 

Email: joe.hjermstad@state.sd.us 

J. Mike Honsberger 

Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC 

425 S 20th St 

Tampa, FL 33605-6025 

(813)248-6730, FAX: (813)247-2102 

Email: jmhonsberger@mapllc.com 

Jeff Humphreys 

Los Angeles County Weights & 

Measures

11012 Garfield Ave 

South Gate, CA 90280 

(562)940-8922, FAX: (562)861-0278 

Email: jeffh@acwm.co.la.ca.us

Doug Hutchinson 

Measurement Canada 

232 Yorktech Drive 

Markham, Ontario L6G 1A6 

Canada 

(905)943-8732, FAX: (905)943-8738 

Email: hutchinson.doug@ic.gc.ca 

Stanley W. Jankowski 

McKesson Automated Prescription Systems 

2309 Butler Logan Road 

Tarentum, PA 15084-3821 

(412)209-4098, FAX: (412)209-3930 

Email: stan.jankowski@mckesson.com

Randy F. Jennings

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 40627 Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204 

(615)837-5147, FAX: (615)837-5335 

Email: randy.jennings@state.tn.us 

Rafael Jimenez 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc. 

P.O. Box 11130, 55500 D.O.T. Road 

Pueblo, CO 81001 

(719)584-0691, FAX: (719)584-0770 

Email: rafael_jimenez@ttci.aar.com

Dennis Johannes

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

8500 Fruitridge Road 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

(916)229-3000, FAX: (916)229-3026 

Email: DJohannes@cdfa.ca.gov

Gordon W. Johnson 

Gilbarco, Inc. 

7300 West Friendly Avenue 

Greensboro, NC 27420 

(336)547-5375, FAX: (336)547-5516 

Email: Gordon.Johnson@gilbarco.com 

Alan Johnston 

Measurement Canada 

Main Building No. 3, Tunney’s Pasture 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C9 

Canada 

(613)952-0655, FAX: (613)957-1265 

Email: Johnston.alan@ic.gc.ca 

Jack Kane

Montana Bureau of Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 200516

Helena, MT 59620-0512 

(406)841-2240, FAX: (406)841-2060 

Email: jkane@state.mt.us

Rich Kayser 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2000 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4500, FAX: (301)975-2183 

Email: richard.kayser@nist.gov 

Michael J. Keilty 

Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG 

2350 Endress Place 

Greenwood, IN 46143 

(317)535-2745, FAX: (317)535-1341 

Email: michael.keilty@us.endress.com

Steven Kendra

ISWM 

2525 Tollgate Road 

Quakertown, PA 18951 

(215)536-4400, FAX: (215)536-4096 

Email: 

steve_kendra@precisionsolutionsinc.com 

ATTEND - 4 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Robert L. Kennington 

Quantronix Inc 

380 S 200 W PO Box 929 

Farmington, UT 84025-0929 

(801)451-7000, FAX: (801)451-0502 

Email: rkennington@cubiscan.com 

Grant Kimura 

Chevron Texaco

6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, A-2116 

San Ramun, CA 94583 

(925)842-3436, FAX: (925)842-3610 

Email: 

grantkimura@chevrontexaco.com

Ted Kingsbury 

Measurement Canada 

Standards Building #4, Tunney’s Pasture, 

Holland Avenue 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C9 

Canada 

(613)941-8919, FAX: (613)952-1736 

Email: kingsbury.ted@ic.gc.ca 

Steve Kleer 

Marathon Ashland 

2990 South Dixie Highway

Lima, OH 45804

(419)228-2049, FAX: (419)224-4568 

Email: sjkleer@mapllc.com

Chip Kloos 

Colgate-Palmolive Company 

PO Box 1343 909 River Rd 

Piscataway, NJ 08855-1343 

(732)878-7101, FAX: (732)878-7844 

Email: Chip_Kloos@colpal.com 

Ron Koch

Master Meter, Inc. 

112 Deer Valley 

Sewickley, PA 15143 

(412)749-0836, FAX: (412)741-3882 

Email: ronkoch@mastermeter.com 

Dennis A. Krueger

NCR Corporation 

2651 Satellite Boulevard 

Duluth, GA 30096 

(770)623-7743, FAX: (770)623-7827 

Email: 

dennis.krueger@atlantaga.ncr.com 

Gary Lameris

Hobart Corporation 

Executive Offices 701 Ridge Avenue

Troy, OH 45374

(937)332-3053, FAX: (937) 332-3007 

Email: gary.lameris@hobartcorp.com

Leon Lammers

Weigh-Tronix Inc. 

1000 Armstrong Dr 

Fairmont, MN 56031-1439 

(800)533-0456, FAX: (507)238-8255 

Email: leon.lammers@weigh-tronix.com

Robert L. Land 

Anderson Weights & Measures 

120 East 8th Street 

Anderson, IN 46016 

(765)648-6186, FAX: (765)648-5917 

Email: rland@cityofanderson.com 

Stephen Langford

Cardinal Scale Mfg Co 

203 East Daugherty PO Box 151 

Webb City, MO 64870 

(417)673-4631, FAX: (417)673-5001 

Email: slangford@cardet.com 

Brian Lemon 

Industry Canada-Competition Bureau 

400 St. Mary Ave 4th Floor 

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4K5 

Canada 

(204)983-8911, FAX: (204) 983-5511 

Paul A. Lewis, Sr.

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

230 West Coleman Street 

PO Box 272 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404 

(715)234-3494 x5322, FAX: (715) 234-

6967 

Email: paulew@rlws.com

Harvey Lodge 

Dunbar Manufacturing, LLC 

2400 Egg Harbor Road 

Lindenwold, NJ 8021 

(856)346-0666, FAX: (856)346-0016 

Email: hlodge@dunbarusa.com 

Douglas Long 

RDM Industrial Electronics 

850 Harmony Grove Road 

Nebo, NC 28761 

(828)652-8346, FAX: (828)652-2697 

Email: doug@wnclink.com

Robert Lopez

San Luis Obispo County Weights & 

Measures

2156 Sierra Way Suite D 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 

(805)781-5910, FAX: (805)781-1035 

Email: rnlopez@co.slo.ca.us 

Anthony Lori

Retired Weights & Measures Official

10 Troy Hills Road 

Whippany, NJ 7981

(973)887-0211, FAX: 

Email: 

L. Edward Luthy

Brechbuhler Scales Inc 

1424 Scale Street SW

Canton, OH 44706 

(330)458-2424, FAX: (330)458-3068 

Email: eluthy@brechbuhler.com

Rodney Lynch 

Navajo Nation Weights & Measures 

PO Box 663 

Window Rock, AZ 86515 

(928)871-7367, FAX: (928)871-7381 

Email: lynch_rodney@yahoo.com 

John Mack

Defiance County Auditor’s Office 

221 Clinton Street 

Defiance, OH 43512 

(419)782-5311, FAX: (419)784-2761 

Email: 

 

Keith L. Mahan 

Merced County Weights and Measures

2139 Wardrobe Ave 

Merced, CA 95340-6495 

(209)385-7431, FAX: (209)725-3961 

Email: kmahan@co.merced.ca.us

ATTEND - 5 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Steven A. Malone

Nebraska Division of Weights & 

Measures

Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall South 

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757 

(402)471-4292, FAX: (402)471-2759 

Email: stevenam@agr.state.ne.us

James Maloy

Fulcrum, Inc. 

23 Carol Street 

Clifton, NJ 7014

(973)473-6900, FAX: (973)777-8302 

Email: jq.maloy@verizon.net 

Gene Martini 

Mettler Toledo 

1900 Polaris Parkway

Columbus, OH 43240 

(614)438-4970, FAX: (614)438-4770 

Email: gene.martini@mt.com

Vernon Lee Massey 

Shelby County Weights & Measures 

157 Poplar Suite 402 

Memphis, TN 38103 

(901)545-3920, FAX: (901)545-3906 

Email: vmassey@co.shelby.tn.us 

Terence McBride 

Memphis Weights & Measures 

590 Washington St 

Memphis, TN 38105 

(901)528-2905, FAX: (901)528-2948 

Email: 

terence.mcbride@cityofmemphis.org 

Robert McGrath

City of Boston Weights & Measures 

Boston ISD, 1010 Massachusetts Avenue 

Boston, MA 02118-2606 

(617)961-3376, FAX: (617)635-5383 

Email: robert.mcrath.isd@ci.boston.ma.us

Richard McMurry 

Monroe County Weights & Measures 

119 W 7th St 

Bloomington, IN 47401 

(812)349-2566, FAX: (812)339-6481 

Email: remslm712@insightbb.com 

Val Miller 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-3602, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: val.miller@nist.gov 

Richard Miller 

FMC Measurement Solutions 

1602 Wagner Avenue 

Erie, PA 16510 

(814)898-5286, FAX: (814)899-3414 

Email: rich.miller@fmcti.com

Joseph Moran 

Henry Troemner, LLC 

201 Wolf Drive/ PO Box 87 

Thorofare, NJ 08086-0087 

(856)686-1600, FAX: (856)686-1601 

Email: jmoran@troemner.com

Thomas L. Morrow

TEC America Inc 

4401 A Bankers Circle 

Atlanta, GA 30360 

(770)449-3040 x184, FAX: (770)453-

0866 

Email: morrowtl@tecamerica.com 

Nate Moster 

McKesson Automated Prescription Systems 

Two Crowne Point Court, Suite 420 

Cincinnati, OH 45241 

(513)842-0156, FAX: (513)842-0163 

Email: nate.moster@mckessonaps.com

Robert Murnane, Jr. 

Seraphin Test Measures/ 

Pemberton Fabricators, Inc. 

PO Box 227 30 Indel Avenue

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227 

(609)267-0922, FAX: (609)261-2546 

Email: rmurnane@seraphinusa.com 

Steve Murray

Murray Equipment Inc 

2515 Charleston Place 

Fort Wayne, IN 46808 

(260)484-0382, FAX: (260)484-9230 

Email: smurray@murrayequipment.com 

Neal J. Nover 

Nover Engelstein & Assoc., Inc./Win Wam

Software 

Atrium Executive Suites 3000 Atrium Way,

Suite 2203 

Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-3910 

(856)273-6988, FAX: (856)751-0559 

Email: sales@winwam.com

O.R. "Pete" O'Bryan

Foster Farms 

PO Box 457 

Livingston, CA 95334-9900 

(209)656-5049, FAX: (209)656-5055 

Email: obryan@fosterfarms.com 

Milton O’Haire

Stanislaus County Department of

Agriculture/Weights & Measures

3800 Cornucopia Way Suite B 

Modesto, CA 95358 

(209)525-4730, FAX: (209)525-4790 

Email: miltono@mail.co.stanislaus.ca.us 

Daniel Okon

United Parcel Service 

55 Glenlake Parkway, NE B157 

Atlanta, GA 30328 

(404)828-6787, FAX: (404)828-7857 

Email: dokon@ups.com 

Don Onwiler 

Nebraska Department of 

Agriculture/Division of Weights & 

Measures

301 Centennial Mall S/PO Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-4292, FAX: (402) 471-2759 

Email: donlo@agr.state.ne.us 

Henry Oppermann

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive Room 223 M/S 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2100 

(301)975-5507, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: henry.oppermann@nist.gov 

Vincent R. Orr

ConAgra Refrigerated Prepared Foods 

3131 Wood Creek Drive 

Downers Grove, IL 60515 

(630)512-1070, FAX: (630)512-1124 

Email: vince.orr@conagrafoods.com 

ATTEND - 6 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Michelle I. Phillips 

Indianapolis Weights & Measures 

148 East Market Street, Suite 609 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

(317)324-4272, FAX: (317)327-4291 

Email: p5618@indygov.org 

Richard L. Philmon

Illinois Department of Agriculture

PO Box 19281 801 East Sangamon 

Avenue 

Springfield, IL 62794-9281 

(217)785-8301, FAX: (217)524-7801 

Email: rphilmon@agr.state.il.us 

Michael Pinagel 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895 

(517)655-8202 ext 301, FAX: (517)655-8303 

Email: PinagelM@michigan.gov 

Marvin G. Pound

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

815 Milledeville Hwy

Devereux, GA 31087 

(404)656-3605, FAX: (404)656-9648 

Email: mpound@agr.state.ga.us

Jerry Prieto, Jr. 

Fresno County Department of

Agriculture

1730 S. Maple 

Fresno, CA 93702 

(559)456-7510, FAX: (559)456-7379 

Email: jprieto@fresno.ca.gov 

Gale Prince 

Kroger Company 

1014 Vine Street 

Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100 

(513)762-4209, FAX: (513)762-4372 

Email: gale.prince@kroger.com

David W. Quinn 

Fairbanks Scales

4153 Telfair Lane SE 

Southport, NC 28461 

(910)253-1424, FAX: (910)253-1426 

Email: dave.w.quinn@mindspring.com 

Mark Quisenberry 

Sutter Co Weights & Measures

142 Garden Highway

Yuba City, CA 95991 

(530)822-7500, FAX: (530)822-7510 

Email: sutterag@co.sutter.ca.us

Robert A. Reinfried 

Scale Manufacturers Association

6724 Lone Oak Boulevard 

Naples, FL 34109 

(239)514-3441, FAX: (239)514-3470 

Email: bob@scalemanufacturers.org 

David Resch 

FMC Measurement Solutions 

1602 Wagner Avenue 

PO Box 10428 

Erie, PA 16514 

(814)898-5214, FAX: (814)899-3414 

Email: dave.resch@fmcti.com

Robert E. Reynolds 

Downstream Alternatives Inc 

PO Box 2587 

South Bend, IN 46615 

(574)231-8974, FAX: (574)231-8975 

Email: rreynolds-dai@earthlink.com

Ralph A. Richter 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive MS2150 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2150 

(301)975-4025, FAX: (301)975-5414 

Email: ralph.richter@nist.gov 

Bill Ripka 

Thermo Ramsey

501 90th Ave NW

Minneapolis, MN 55433 

(763)783-2664, FAX: (763)780-1537 

Email: bill.ripka@thermo.com 

Frank Rusk 

Coti, Inc. 

122 Export Circle 

Huntsville, AL 35806 

(256)859-6010, FAX: (256)859-5024 

Email: frankjrusk50@hotmail.com 

Mark Sakaniwa

McKesson Automated Prescription Systems 

700 Waterfront Drive 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

(412)209-3745, FAX: (412)209-2977 

Email: mark.sakaniwa@mckessonaps.com

James Santarpio 

Dunbar Manufacturing, LLC 

2400 Egg Harbor Road 

Lindenwold, NJ 8021 

(856)346-0666, FAX: (856)346-0016 

Email: hsantarpio@dunbarusa.com 

Brett Saum 

San Luis Obispo County Weights and 

Measures

2156 Sierra Way, Suite A 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-4556

(805)781-5922, FAX: (805)781-1035 

Email: BSaum@co.slo.ca.us

Alex Schuettenberg

ConocoPhillips Petroleum

148 AL, Phillips Research Center

Bartlesville, OK 74004 

(918)661-3563, FAX: (918)661-8060 

Email: 

alex.schuettenberg@conocophillips.com

Steve Schultz

Division of Measurement Standards 

2150 Frazer Avenue 

Sparks, NV 89431 

(775)688-1166, FAX: (775)688-2533 

Email: 

Lynn Sebring 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4006, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: lynn.sebring@nist.gov 

George S. Shefcheck

Oregon Department of Agriculture

635 Capitol Street, N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

(503)986-4668, FAX: (503)986-4784 

Email: gshefche@oda.state.or.us

ATTEND - 7 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Kent Shelhamer, Jr. 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

2301 North Cameron Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 

(717)787-9089, FAX: (717)783-4158 

Email: kshelhamer@state.pa.us

Agatha Shields 

Franklin County Weights & Measures 

373 South High Street 21st Floor

Columbus, OH 43215-6310 

(614)462-7380, FAX: (614)462-3111 

Email: aashield@co.franklin.oh.us

Joseph Silvestro 

Consumer Protection/Wgts & Msr 

152 North Broad Street, Box 337 

Woodbury, NJ 8096 

(856)853-3358, FAX: (856)853-6813 

Email: 

Steven B. Steinborn

Hogan & Hartson 

555 13th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

(202)637-5969, FAX: (202)637-5910 

Email: sbsteinborn@hhlaw.com

Mike Stivers

Kentucky Department of Agriculture

Capitol Annex, Room 188 

Frankfurt, KY 40601 

(502)564-5126, FAX: (502)564-5016 

Email: Mike.Stivers@Kyagr.com

Louis E. Straub 

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401 

(410)841-5790, FAX: (410)841-2765 

Email: strauble@mda.state.md.us 

Richard C. Suiter

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4406, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: rsuiter@nist.gov 

Steve Sumner 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

MSC 3170, PO Box 30005 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

(505)646-1616, FAX: (505)646-2361 

Email: ssumner@nmda-bubba.nmsu.edu 

Winston Sutton 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 27647 Dept SD 2 W Edenton St 

Raleigh, NC 27611 

(919)733-3313, FAX: (919)715-0524 

Email: Winston.Sutton@ncmail.net 

David Swogger 

Dekalb County Weights & Measures 

1390 County Road #5 

Corunna, IN 46730 

(260)281-2047, FAX: (260)281-2747 

Email: 

R.S. Tanwar 

Stowe Research International 

1000 Business Center Circle, Suite 207 

Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 

FAX: 

Email: 

Aves D. Thompson 

Alaska Div of Measurement Standards/CVE 

12050 Industry Way Bldg O, Ste. 6 

Anchorage, AK 99515 

(907)341-3210, FAX: (907)341-3220 

Email: Aves_Thompson@dot.state.ak.us

Merrill S. Thompson 

Baker & Daniels

PO Box 8500 Main Street 

Bridgeton, IN 47836 

(765)548-2211, FAX: (765)548-2214 

Email: 

Michael W. Timmons 

City of Medford

85 George P. Hassett Drive 

Medford, MA 2155 

(781)393-2463, FAX: (781)393-2415 

Email: mwtimmons@medford.org 

Daryl Tonini 

Scale Manufacturers Association

1720 Eversedge Drive 

Alpharetta, GA 30004-7165 

(540)822-4506, FAX: (540)234-0177 

Email: dtonini@earthlink.net 

Bernard Toussant 

NCR Corporation 

2651 Satellite Boulevard 

Duluth, GA 30096 

(770)623-7743, FAX: (770)813-3867 

Email: bernard.toussant@ncr.com

Robert M. Traettino

Liquid Controls LLC 

105 Albrecht Drive 

Lake Bluff, IL 60044-9951 

(847) 283-8300, FAX: (847) 295-1057 

Email: btraettino@idexcorp.com

James C. Truex 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

8995 East Main St 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399 

(614)728-6290, FAX: (614)728-6424 

Email: truex@odant.agri.state.oh.us 

Larry M. Turberville 

Alabama Department of Agriculture & 

Industry

PO Box 3336 

Montgomery, AL 36109-0336 

(334)240-7133, FAX: (334)240-7175 

Email: lturbervil@aol.com 

Craig VanBuren 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

(517)655-8202, FAX: (517)655-8303 

Email: vanburenc9@michigan.gov 

Gilles Vinet 

Measurement Canada 

Standards Building - Tunneys 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C9 

Canada 

(613)952-8918, FAX: (613)952-1736 

Email: vinet.gilles@ic.gc.ca 

ATTEND - 8 
2003 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Richard Walker Jr. 

Convergent Label Technology, Inc. 

620 Ware Blvd 

Tampa, FL 33619 

(813)621-8128, FAX: (813)620-1206 

Email: 

rwalker@convergentlabeltech.com

Guy Watelle 

Xactec Technologies Inc. 

400 boul. Jean-Lesage, West Hall, Suite 

21 

Quebec City, Quebec G1K 8W1 

Canada 

(418)681-6515, FAX: (418)681-6217 

Email: guy.watelle@xactec.net 

Rich Whiting 

American Wood Fibers

9841 Broken Land Parkway #302

Columbia, MD 21046 

(410)290-8700, FAX: (410)290-7664 

Email: rwhiting@awf.com

William M. Wilcox 

Madison County Weights & Measures 

PO Box 248 

Wampsville, NY 13163 

(315)363-5739, FAX: (315)363-5739 

Email: WMWilcox@att.net 

Juana Williams

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-3989, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: juana.williams@nist.gov

Robert G. Williams

Tennessee Dept of Agriculture Weights & 

Measures

PO Box 40627 Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204-0627 

(615)837-5109, FAX: (615)837-5015 

Email: robert.g.williams@state.tn.us 

Kathy Winters

Viterra Energy Services 

7250 Engineer Road, Suite H 

San Diego, CA 92111 

(858)737-2733, FAX: (858)244-2477 

Email: kwinters@viterrausa.com 

Richard W. Wotthlie 

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401 

(410)841-5790, FAX: (410)841-2765 

Email: wotthlrw@mda.state.md.us 

Gail Wunderlin-Beigh

McKesson Automated Prescription Systems 

Two Crowne Point Court, Suite 420 

Cincinnati, OH 45241 

(513)842-0156, FAX: (513)842-0163 

Email: gail.wunderlinbeigh@mckessonaps.com 

Walter M. Young 

Emery Winslow Scale Company

73 Cogwheel Lane 

Seymour, CT 06483-3919 

(203)881-9333, FAX: (203)881-9477 

Email: wmyoung@emerywinslow.com

James Young 

Emery Winslow Scale Company

5129 Kenneth Avenue 

Fair Oaks, CA 95628 

(916)966-8268, FAX: 

Email: ewwestscale@comcast.net 

Jesus P. Zapien

A&D Engineering Inc 

1555 McCandless Drive 

Milpitas, CA 95035 

(408)263-5333 xt 241, FAX: (408)263-0119 

Email: jzapien@andweighing.com

ATTEND - 9 
2003 Annual Meeting Guest Attendees 

Carole Andersen Dawn Beitzel 

Rose Brown Sharon Bruckner 

Lynell Causey June D’Errico

Cindy Deitzler Von Etter 

Grete Fiksdal Linda Forkert

Diane Frieders Gary Gist, Jr. 

Sandy Goudie Cynthia Greenleaf 

Denise Kayser Judy Kingsbury 

Rose Marie Lammers Lisa Lunstra 

Marcia Malone Donnie Massey 

Vendrick Massey Shirley McMurry 

Cynthia Prieto Shirley Quinn 

Sheila Santarpio Debbie Straub 

Elizabeth Sumner Carol Swogger

Phyllis Thompson Bonnie Wotthlie 

ATTEND - 10