Nisr

United States

Department of

Connnnerce

Technology

Adnninistration

National

Institute of

Standards and

Technology

REPORT OF THE 80TH

NATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES

as adopted by the 80th

National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1995

NIST Specia

Publication 894

1996

Report of the 80th

Notional Conference

on Weights and

Measures

Sponsored by the Notional Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

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

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

Portland, Maine, July 16-20, 1995

Editors:

Gilbert M. Ugiansky, Ph.D.

Ann H. Turner

Office of Weights & Measures

NIST

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

February 1 996

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

Tectinology Administration

Mary L. Good, Under Secretary

National Institute of Standards and

Tectinology

Arcti Prabhakar, Director

NIST . Special PublicotionV^
Abstract

The 80th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held July 16 through 20, 1995,

at the Holiday Inn By the Bay, Portland, Maine. The theme of the meeting was "Quality Partnerships and Programs through

Education."

Reports by the standing and annual committees of the Conference comprise the major portion of this publication, along with

the addresses delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from government and industry.

Special meetings included those of the Metrologists, the Associate Membership Committee, the Retired Officials Committee,

the Scale Manufacturers' Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling,

the regional weights and measures associations, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Weights

and Measures Division.

Key words: grain moisture; legal metrology; motor-fuel dispensers; safety; scales; specifications and tolerances; training; type

evaluation; uniform laws and regulations; weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766.

Note: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use 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. 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.

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 894, 303 Pages (Feb. 1996)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1996

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government F*rinting Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

-.Li
Contents

Page

Abstract ii Past Chairmen of the Conference jv State Representatives 1 Organization Chart 3

General Session

President's Address 7 Raymond G. Kammer, Deputy Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Chairman's Address 9 James C. Truex, Acting Chief, Ohio Division of Weights & Measures Honor Award Presentations 12 Special Recognition Awards 12

President's Award 13

President's Certificate 15

Standing Committee Reports

Report ofthe Executive Committee 17 Report ofthe Laws and Regulations Committee 81 Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee 161 Report ofthe Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs 239

Metrology Report 273

Annual Committee Reports

Report of the Resolutions Committee 280

Report ofthe Nominating Committee 282

Report of the Auditing Committee 283

Treasurer's Report 284

New Chairman's Address 288

Charles Gardner, Director, Suffolk County, NY Weights and Measures

List of Participants 291

iii
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. TumbuU, WA

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL

61st 1976 Richard Thompson, MD

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR

70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI

72nd 1987 Frank Nagele, MI

73rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA

74th 1989 John J. Bartfai, NY

75th 1990 Fred A. Gerk, NM

76th 1991 N. David Smith, NC

77th 1992 Sidney A. Colbrook, IL

78th 1993 Allan M. Nelson, CT

79th 1994 Thomas F. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

iv
State Representatives

State Representatives

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

and annual committees.

State Representative Alternate

Alabama Larry Turberville None

Alaska Aves D. Thompson None

American Samoa None None

Arizona Sharon Rhoades John Hays

Arkansas Mike Hile None

California Darrell A. Guensler Barbara J. Bloch

Colorado David R. Wallace None

Connecticut Allan M. Nelson Michael Dynia

Delaware William Lagemann None

District of Columbia None None

Florida Max Gray Eric Hamilton

Georgia Jerr>^ Flanders Curtis Williams

Guam None None

Hawaii None None

Idaho Jim Boatman None

Illinois Sidney A. Colbrook Richard Philmon

Indiana Larry J. Stump Herman R. Hochstetler

Iowa Darr>'l L. Brown None

Kansas Maureen Henzler None

Kentucky Danny Willis Randy Wise

Louisiana None None

Maine Clavton F. Davis Stanley K. Millay

Mar\"land Louis Straub Richard Wotthlie

Massachusetts Charles H. Carroll None

Michigan Edward C. Heffron Michael Pinagel

Minnesota Michael F. Blacik None

Mississippi None None

Missouri Roy L. Humphreys None

1
State Representatives

State Representative Alternate

Montana Jack Kane None

Nebraska Steve Malone Richard Suiter

Nevada None None

New Hampshire None None

New Jersey Joe Silvestro None

New Mexico Gary D. West None

New York John J. Bartfai Ross J. Andersen

North Carolina N. David Smith Ronald D. Murdock

North Dakota None None

Ohio James C. Truex Barbara DeSalvo

Oklahoma Charles Carter Ken Fraley

Oregon Ken Simila None

Pennsylvania Dean F. Ely A. Courtney Yelle

Puerto Rico Jose A. Torres-Ferrer None

Rhode Island None None

South Carolina None None

South Dakota Michael J. Mehlhafi None

Tennessee Robert G. Williams Randy F. Jennings

Texas Edwin J. Price James H. Eskew

Utah David McKay None

Vermont Bruce Martell Phil Benedict

Virginia J. Alan Rogers G. Wes Diggs

Virgin Islands None None

W/qcVi W 1 n ofr\n oollillgLUll R nhprt D A rrin (rtnn

West Virginia Karl Angell None

Wisconsin Alan Porter James Akey

Wyoming None None

2
NCWM Organization Chart

National Conference on Weights and Measures Organization Chart

1994-1995

Executive Committee and NTEP Board of Governors (BoG)

Chairman: J. Truex, OH

Chairman-Elect: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Past Chairman &

Chairman, BoG: T. Geiler, Town of Barnstable, MA

Acting Treasurer: J. Alan Roger, VA

Members: B. Adams, MN (3) B. Bloch, CA (3)

S. Colbrook, IL (1) C. Fulmer, SC (2)

J. Alan Rogers, VA (1) A. Thompson, AK (2)

President: A. Prabhakar, NIST Director Executive Secretary: G. Ugiansky, NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Technical Advisor: R. Bruce, Canada (Exec. Committee only)

Weights and Measures Coordinator: A. Turner, NIST

See Working Groups and Annual Committees to the Executive Committee after the Standing Committees.

Laws & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee

Chairman: S. Rhoades, AZ (1) Chairman: R. Suiter, NE (1) Members: K. Angell, WV (5) Members: D. Brown, lA (5) R. Gunja, Kansas City, KS (4) R. Kelley, NYC, NY (3)

S. Millay, ME (3) R. Murdock, NC, (4) L. Straub, MD (2) G. West, NM (2) NIST Technical Advisors: NIST Technical Advisors: K. Butcher T. Butcher

T. Coleman C. Cotsoradis

J. Koenig NIST Technical Staff: Canadian J. Williams

Technical Advisors: G. Vinet Canadian

G. Jorowski Technical Advisor: S. Roussy, Canada

Petroleum Subcommittee

Chairman: E. Hamilton, FL Solid Volume Measuring Devices Working Group

Technical Advisor: R. Jennings, TN Chairman: C. Skonberg, United Parcel Service Technical Advisor: N. Dupuis-Desormeaux, Canada

NIST Handbook 133 Working Group

Chairman: B. Bloch, CA

Technical Advisor: K. Butcher, NIST

3
NCWM Organization Chart

Education, Administration, & Consumer Affairs Nominating Committee

Committee Chairman: T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

Chairman: M. Gray FL (1) Members: D. Guensler, CA

Members: B. DeSalvo, OH (2) R. Greek, San Luis Obispo, CA

(5) B. Martell, VT (4) E. Price, TX (3)

S. Malone, NE

A. Nelson, CT

G. Shefcheck, OR

N. David Smith, NC

L. Straub, MD

NIST Technical

Advisors: T. Coleman

J. Mindte

NCWM Safety Liaison: C. Gardner, Suffolk Co, NY

Program Evaluation Work Group

Chairman: D. Guensler, CA

Members: K. Fraley, OK

S. Malone, NE

A. Nelson, CT

E. Price, TX

M. Belue, Belue Associates W. Corey, American Frozen Foods

Chairman:

IViCUlUCro.

Budget Review Committee

J. Truex, OH

IN. LJavlil oiilllii, INv^ yij u. ij/ngHdn, ivicdaurcmeni oysiems

International (4) D. Guensler, CA (3) H. Lodge, Dunbar (2)

R. St. John, PA Food Merchants Assn.

T. Stabler, Mettler-Toledo

R. Williams, TN

c tjardner, aurtoiR Co., NY

G. Ugiansky, NIST

Technical

Advisors: J. Williams, NIST

T. Coleman, NIST

Auditing Committee ————Credentials Committee

Chairman: J. H. Eskew, TX (1) Chairman: D. Ely, PA (1) Members: M. Hopper, Kern Co., CA (3) R. Kalentkowski, CT (2)

Members: Cosmo Insalaco, Fresno Co., CA (3) A. McCoy, City of Columbus, OH (3)

Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST

Resolutions Committee Other Appointed Officers

Chairman: B. Martell, VT (1) Parliamentarian: Members: C. Fulmer, SC (1) K. Simila, OR

W. Lagemann, DE (1) Chaplain: W. Lagemann, DE

R. Philmon, IL (1) Assistant Treasurer:

J. Bane, lA (3) F. Clem, Columbus, OH

C. Davis, ME (3) Sergeants-At-Arms

D. Wallace, CO (3) D. Newcombe, ME

C. Brown, ME

Coordinator: J. Mindte, NIST

Other Elected Officers Associate Membership Committee

Vice Chairmen: Chairman: W. Corey, American Frozen Foods

F. Clem, Columbus, OH Vice Chair: R. Davis, James River Corp.

D. Ely, PA Secretary: J. Colman, Food Marketing Institute D. Guensler, CA Treasurer: T. Stabler, Mettler-Toledo D. Willis, KY Members: W. Braun, WHB Resources

R. Fuehne, Ralston Purina

C. Guay, Procter & Gamble

G. Prince, The Kroger Co. D. Quinn, Fairbanks Scales

P. Zalon, Nestle USA

4
NCWM Organization Chart

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee

(Reports to NTEP Board of Governors)

Weighing sector Measunng sector

Lnairi M. Mills, riouart corp. Chair: N. Alston, Daniel Flow Products, Inc. Technical Advisor: Technical Advisor:

I . DUtciier, Nibi 1. hsutcner, Nioi —

Public Members: Public Sector Members:

R. Andersen, NY IV. Anaersen, in y A. tiuie, jviu \j. ouensier,

c L-otsoraciis, inisji J. Jeffries, PL

(j. W. UlggS, VA a. Malone, rsb

J. Elengo, Consultant R. Marceau, Canada

L). Lruensier, L-A K. MuraocK, iNL- r. reierson, UoUA-OlroA \j. warnioi, inioi D nfnr^ TTCr\A /^TDC A K. rtorr, UoUA-Ljlr5>A w, west, UH

J. iruex, uri J.I Williamc Wliilainb, >JI<sT iNiol U. Wamior, JNlal w. wonnne, ivhj K. Yee, NISI Private Sector Members:

Private Sector Members: F. M. Belue, Belue Associates

M. Adams, Fairbanks Scales R. Fonger, Bennett Pump

J. Antkowiak, Hottinger Baldwm M. Hankel, Liquid Controls

Msmts. F. Holland, Schlumberger

J. Elengo, Consultant Technologies

W. (joodpaster, cardinai/uetecto R. Huff, Universal Epsco

K. Maker, BLH Electronics D. Joines, Dresser Wayne

T. Johnson, Sensortronics G. Johnson, Gilbarco D. Hawkins, Thurman Scale \^ X^olli^/ \^ir»i*rt \^rtfir\Ti iTif* H

ivi. jvciiiy, iviiLio iviuilun, inL. U. Kjueger, Ai&i u. i\Tueger, inl-is. L-orp. G. Lameris, PMI Food Equipment o. Ketrum, oneii uu co./Ari

H. Lockery, Lockery Assoc. T. Scott, Brooks Instrument Co.

T. Luna, Scales Unlimited, Inc. J. Skuce, Smith Meter, Inc.

J. iVlddVUllaiLl, V^lUUll^d IvlUllai UoWll D Smith William M Wilson's Sons

J. Reimer, Weigh-Tronix R. Traettino, Liquid Controls

J. Robinson, Assoc. of American R. Tucker, Tokheim Corp.

Railroads

T. Stabler, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers

Assoc.

J. Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc.

Automatic Weighing Systems Working Group

Chair: D. Johannes, CA

Technical Advisor:

C. Cotsoradis, NIST

5
NCWM Organization Chart

Belt Conveyor Scales Sector Grain Moisture Meter Sector and Near Infrared

Protein Analyzer Sector

Chair: N. Johnson, Merrick Corp. Chair: L. Hill, Univ. of Illinois Technical Advisor: Technical Advisor: C. Cotsoradis, NIST J. Barber, J.B. Associates

Public Members: Public Members:

C. Bertrand, Canada Canadian Grain Commission

A. Buie, MD R. Bums, AR

T. Butcher, NIST T. Butcher, NIST

R. Miller, CO D. Funk, USDA-FGIS

L. Turberville, AL D. Onwiler, NE

0. Wamlof, NIST R. Pierce, USDA-GIPSA

Private Sector Members: D. Lee-London, NIST

W. Brasher, Southern Co. Services J. Rothleder, CA

G. Burger, Consultant C. Tew, NC

M. Casanova, Ramsey Technology R. Wittenberger, MO

P. Chase, Envirotech R. Wotthlie, MD

D. Cockrell, Consultant Private Sector Members:

R. Dietrich, Kaskaskia Valley Scale J. Bair, Millers Nat'l Federation

R. DeSolIar, Central IL Pub. Service J. W. Barber, Dickey-John

S. Hawkins, ABC Scale A. Butler, Perten Instruments

T. Johnson, Sensortronics M. Emori, Kett Electric Laboratory* K. Knapp, Milltronics C. Hurburgh, Jr., lA State Univ.

F. Joe Loyd, CSX Transportation D. Kaminsky, Trebor

J. MacFarlane, CST Auto Weigh J. McClenethan, Growmark, Inc.

J. Oliver, Virginia Power M. Hall, Sartorius Instruments N. Ortyl, III, Dresser Industries T. O'Connor, Nat'l Grain & Feed

R. Penner, Riede Systems Assoc.

J. Robinson, Assoc. of American A. Pflug, CSC Scientific* Railroads T. Runyon, Seedboro Equipment

P. Sanford, Thayer Scale F. Seeber, Shore Sales Co., Grain

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Assoc. Elevator & Processors Soc. C. Watson, Stein Labs, Perstorp

Analytical, Foss Foods

* (Grain Moisture Meter Sector only)

6
President's Address

President's Address to the 80th Annual Meeting

Of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

Presented by Raymond G. Kammer, Deputy Director of NIST

Introduction

I am pleased to be here today. In fact, the way things have been going in the Congress lately, I am extremely pleased

to be here at all. For instance, one bill introduced in Congress would eliminate NIST except for the Office of Weights

and Measures, which would be moved to the National Science Foundation. When Gil Ugiansky heard that, he called me

and said if I would agree to talk at this meeting, he would hold a job for me in his office. So here I am.

You may have heard a lot of rumors about the future of the Department of Commerce, NIST, and OWM. If so, you are probably wondering what is really happening and how your Conference might be affected by any potential changes. I will review for you the current status of proposals under consideration by the Congress; however, please understand that what I tell you could change at any time.

Status of Proposals Affecting NIST in Congress

Bills have been introduced in both houses of the Congress to dismantle the Department of Commerce: Chrysler Bill in the House (HR 1756); and Abraham Bill in the Senate (S.929). They are very similar. According to these bills, the Director of NIST, the "Weights and Measures Functions," and the Quality Program would be transferred to the National

Science Foundation. The remaining functions and the NIST property and facilities would be sold to private entity to perform NIST functions. Hearings on both bills are ongoing. These efforts are unlikely to become law in the current form but likely will pass the House.

On the authorization and appropriations side, the House Science Committee proposes to preserve the Scientific and

Technical Research Services (STRS) (referred to in House documents as "the NIST Core") and Construction of Research

Facilities, CRF, in FY 1996 at approximately FY 1995 levels. This translates to $263M for laboratories, and $60M for

construction. But they provide no authorizations for the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP) and the Advanced

Technology Program (ATP). The House Appropriations Committee has allocated $81.1M for MEP, $263M for the

laboratories, and no funding for ATP. The Senate Commerce Committee is working on an authorization bill for NIST

for FYs 96, 97, and 98. (On August 10, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation approved the FY 1996 NIST authorization. The marks are $263M for STRS, $427M for Industrial Technology Services, ITS, which

includes funds for a new program, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology, EPSCOT, and $60M

for CRF for a total of $750M. No appropriations are authorized for ATP grants awarded after 10/1/95.) The full Senate

vote on this will not occur until after the Labor Day.

While these bills are progressing through different committees in the two houses, the President has threatened to veto any

bill sent to him that does not contain funding for ATP. The President's support appears to be very strong for technology

and infrastructure-related programs like the ATP. There are major differences between the President's budget proposal

and congressional bills. If these differences are not resolved, we may see problems in the fall. You may have noted in the media many disturbing predictions about the potential for a congressional "train wreck" later in the fall which may lead

to a temporary shutdown of government. We are keeping a close watch on these developments.

NIST Support of the NCWM

Based on the information now, I'm guessing that there will be no reduction in the level of support that NIST now gives

to the National Conference on Weights and Measures. We will continue to provide administrative support to the NCWM,

issue its publications, operate the National Type Evaluation Program, maintain programs with Canada, and carry on other programs for the Conference. In addition, we will continue to provide training programs, such as the recent very

successful course on NIST Handbook 133 procedures for checking the net contents of packaged goods in which 20 State

instructors were trained and they in turn will train over 700 field staff by the first of the year. Our support for State metrology programs will also continue. In fact, we will be able to offer training in a new, state-of-the-art metrology

laboratory at NIST. I hope that you will visit the laboratory the next time you are in the Gaithersburg area - it is a very

impressive facility.

7
President's Address

Because of the uncertainty of the future, however, OWM and this Conference should consider ways to conserve resources,

if necessary. I know that Gil Ugiansky and his staff will be working to develop a plan to reorganize OWM so that it is more efficient and more responsive to your needs. They also will be evaluating their work load and assigning priorities to the many projects assigned to them. I am sure they will be looking to you for help in selecting the tasks that are most

important to the membership of this organization.

We are very pleased with the work that Gil has done since he came to OWM at the beginning of April. We have received

many favorable comments about him from a number of individuals in the States and in industry. Consequently, we have

appointed Gil Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures. I know that he is looking forward to working with you to continue the important work of this Conference. I hope you will give him your fiill' support.

NCWM Partnerships with Industry/Government

I understand that this week you will be voting on proposals to appoint industry representatives to some of your standing

committees. It has always been a great strength of this organization that all interested parties have a voice in its deliberations. The NCWM is widely recognized as a model of cooperation between government and industry. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designed its new National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference,

it used the NCWM's structure and procedures as a guide. Also, in a recent report on Standards, Conformity Assessment,

and Trade, the National Research Council recommended that NIST develop a 10-year strategic plan to eliminate

duplication in State and local criteria for accrediting testing laboratories and product certifiers. They went on to say that the National Conference on Weights and Measures should be the model for the plan. This type of recognition is well deserved and you should be proud of it.

The diversity of interests represented at this meeting is impressive. There are, of course, government officials from State,

local, Federal, and foreign governments. In addition, there are manufacturers of weighing and measuring devices, users of this equipment, packagers, manufacturers of all types of products, major retailers, representatives of major technical and trade associations, and consumer representatives.

The Conference is working with many of these different interests to accomplish mutual objectives. An excellent example

is the development of a 5-year Cooperative Research and Development Agreement to improve grain moisture measurements that is the result of a partnership between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Grain Inspection Packers and

Stockyards Administration, the grain industry, and NIST on behalf of the NCWM. Other examples include support

received from industry and from Lou Straub and the State of Maryland for NCWM's training class on NIST Handbook

133 and cooperation between the Food and Drug Administration and NCWM to establish national standards for checking

net contents of packaged goods.

Another outstanding example is the cooperation between NCWM, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Retail Federation, and other trade associations to develop the Examination Procedure for Price Verification that you will be

considering for adoption this week.

The willingness of these various interests to work with you attests to the recognition of the NCWM reputation for fairness and that it has been successful in maintaining "a level playing field" that is essential to commerce. I commend your

efforts and I encourage you to continue and expand your partnerships with others.

8
Chairman's Address

Chairman's Address to the 80th Annual Meeting 1995

Presented by James C. Truex, Acting Chief

Ohio Division of Weights & Measures

Honored guests, fellow members, welcome to the 80th Annual National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM).

I am pleased that Ray Kammer, NCWM President Prabhakar's Deputy Director at the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) is here with us today. Mr. Kammer has been very supportive of the NCWM for many years with Dr. Ambler, Dr. Lyons, and now Dr. Prabhakar at the helm of NIST. I want to publicly thank you on behalf of the Conference for your support and assistance over the years. You should also know that Dr. Peter Heydemann and David

Edgerly have played an active role in the Conference in the last couple of years. They too have been very supportive for the NCWM and have put some money with their words. Dr. Heydemann has increased the number of NIST/Offlce of

Weights and Measures (OWM) support staff. He has also told us that money will be made available for other NCWM

needs, a national communications system and a national training academy, to name two. As you know, weights and measures is one of the core NIST programs that affects every U.S. citizen, every single day. Ray, 1 hope you, Peter, David, and others at NIST will continue to play an active role in the Conference. I assure you that NIST has the support

of the NCWM.

Isn't Maine a beautiful State? I am impressed by the very warm welcome extended to us. We appreciate the assistance provided by Clayton Davis, Stan Millay and their staff in preparation for and during this meeting. On behalf of the Conference, thanks to all of you.

Being Chairman of the NCW^ is a 3-year appointment nowadays. You spend the first 2 years traveling around the country making presentations, answering numerous phone calls, giving advice and getting a lot of advice. I can assure you that not all of that advice was requested or wanted. I have to admit that all of this was a little overwhelming at times

for this country boy from rural Ohio. And now, for the third year, I get to be Chairman of the Board of Governors. On

one hand, it has been exciting, fiilfilling, rewarding, a true learning experience that I'm sure will make me better at my

job in years to come and for that I am truly greatfiil to the Conference. On the other hand, thank God you only get to do it once.

The road to the 80th NCWM was not always straight. It had some turns and surprise "s" curves. Many of the curves

resulted because of changes at NIST. I remember my first meeting with Peter Heydemarm. I was attending a working

group meeting in the Gaithersburg area when the Conference was informed that NIST/OWM was being reassigned to Technology Services and Dr. Peter Heydemann was the Director of that section. Allan Nelson, then NCWM Chairman,

called and asked if I would take the time to visit Peter and inform him of our needs while I was in the area and I agreed.

A meeting time was arranged. I was greeted at the door by Peter who promptly handed me a business card, which read, "Dr. Peter L. M. Heydemann, AHSM, Director of Technology Services." He wasted no time in informing me that "AHSM' was an acronym for Attila the Hun school of management, and the look on his face told me that he meant every word. That attitude scared us a little, but the questions he asked that day were very appropriate from a manager's

perspective. Still we knew that we had to find a way of proving the Conference to Peter. Tom Geiler, then Chairman

of the NCWM, decided it was best to take Peter to the grass roots of weights and measures - to a State office and

laboratories. California was selected and we spent a week with Peter. He was shown anything he wanted to see and we

answered any question he asked. Our relationship with Peter has been excellent ever since. In addition, not long after the Conference last July, we learned that Henry Oppermann was moving on to new adventures south of the border. Then,

early in 1995, we were informed that Carroll Brickenkamp was transferring into another area at NIST. I do not think

there is a NCWM member that would have thought, a year ago today, that we would be holding this 80th Annual Meeting

without Henry and Carroll. These two people were as dedicated to weights and measures as anyone could be over the

last twenty years. They both worked tireless, long hours on behalf of the conference. I know I speak for the entire NCWM when I publicly wish them our best in their new endeavors.

So, we have witnessed some transitions the last couple of years. It was amazing to me that the Conference did not lose a heartbeat during the transitions. There was no stagnant period. That says a lot for the strength of the NCWM and the

abilities of the Conference members. The Conference is a strong organization with many strong leaders representing both

the public sector and private sector. We can be proud to be a part of this organization.

9
Chairman's Address

The theme of the NCWM in this 80th year, "Quality Partnerships and Programs through Education," is appropriate because

of the challenges facing us this year and every year. The Conference has proven to be a perfect forum for the discussion

and resolution of diverse issues. Many of us have stated that the NCWM is a model that could be copied by other groups

to improve their effectiveness. Nonetheless, what the Conference decides this week loses some effectiveness if we don't

go home, implement the actions, and take the results of this Conference to every state, county, and city weights and

measures jurisdiction in this country. We must continue to improve our communications and education processes.

There are several current Conference activities I would like to mention at this time. U.S./Canada mutual recognition of

type evaluations is expanding into other weighing devices and liquid measuring devices. This agreement between two

countries' weights and measures leaders is truly a success story. I am very proud to have played a small part in this

project. We have succeeded in reducing a trade barrier for our industries. Another example of what the Conference can help achieve when we buckle up and get down to business. I also tip my hat to the Canada representatives for their professional work on this project.

NIST has officially recognized NTEP as the issuing authority for International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)

R76 (non-automatic weighing instruments) and R60 (load cell) certificates. NTEP is nearing the issuance of our first U.S. /OIML Certificate. Equipment has been purchased. Initial training of NTEP technicians has been conducted. If David Smith was correct when he labeled NTEP oiu- crowning accomplishment, then this project will add another jewel

to our crown. A Program Evaluation Work Group was established after the Annual Meeting last year in San Diego. Some very knowledgeable and influential NCWM members have agreed to work on this project which is being guided by Darrell Guensler, their chairman. Recent NCWM chairmen have acknowledged our responsibility to successfully guide our programs into the 21st century, and to guide us in our reactions to challenges such as budget cutting, program downsizing

and privatization. The Program Evaluation Work Group has a very exciting agenda that touches on all these issues. A

national communications system, the ability to assess program benefits and costs, and ideas to optimize and assess program

efficiency and effectiveness, and program accreditation are all issues being discussed by the Work Group. No weights

and measures jurisdiction should find it necessary to stand alone. With the help of the Work Group, the NCWM and

a core group of members should be able to respond at the drop of a hat to jurisdictions in need. This project may prove

to be one of the most important and influential ever undertaken by the Conference.

The NCWM Executive Committee has begun woricing on a strategic plan. Peter Heydemann and David Edgerly have both

told the Executive Committee that the Conference needed a long range plan. Major projects needed to be identified and

priorities needed to be set for appropriate NIST funding to be budgeted. NIST felt strong enough about this that David

Edgerly provided the strategic planning session facilitator. Many of the same issues being discussed by the Program

Evaluation Work Group, i.e., alternatives for the delivery of weights and measures services, a national training academy,

weights and measures accreditation, and a national weights and measures information system, also were listed by the Executive Committee as goals or objectives. That alone should tell us we're headed in the right direction. The process

has been started but there is still a lot of work to be done. I have asked Tom Geiler and David Smith to take the plan

initially developed, to be bold, aggressive, wide-eyed dreamers and carry it to the outer limits. They have already taken

it a step further and I know they will do a tremendous job. I won't go into any more detail on this subject for fear of

stealing some of Charlie Gardner's thunder. My message to you is that some of the proposed actions that are likely to

surface again as a result of the strategic plan, e.g., program accreditation, strategic device testing vs. 100% device testing,

increased OIML participation, and updating Handbook 44 every 3 or 4 years, may not be popular. However, we need

to put these proposed actions on the floor of the Conference for open discussion. We have to look at all sides of the

issues. We need to woric smarter. We need to build quality into our weights and measures programs and our U.S. weights

and measures system. I urge you to listen, discuss, understand, and think before you judge.

There are many people I need to thank. First is my staff in Ohio. I have turned many of the daily operations over to my staff at home. They have performed so well that I'm not sure I feel needed anymore. I owe them much gratitude.

Without their efforts and support I would not be here today.

I have a high regard and appreciation for the NIST/OWM staff I have had to call on each and every one of them at some

time in need of assistance. I thank all of you for your help and support.

10
Chairman's Address

Gil UgianskA' walked on to the Conference path in the middle of one of those "s" curves. Gil had the title of Acting Chief

of OWAl and Acting Executive Secretarv'. 1 have the title of Acting Chief in Ohio. There are many that believe we fit our "acting" titles literally Gil, and that we are just doing the best we can to "act" our way through things. At least that was my perception but now you are permanent and Fm outgoing - doesn't do much for my ego. Gil and I have helped

guide each other the last few months. I can assure you that Gil jumped right into the issues of concern at OWM and of

the NCWM. I should also report that I am convinced that Gil has the best intentions for OWM and the NCWM in mind.

Thank you Gil for your dedication, patience, and guidance over the past months and congratulations on your appointment

as Chief of OWTvl,

Thanks to the standing committees: Executive, Specifications and Tolerances, Laws and Regulations, and Education for your dedication and many hours of work. A personal word of appreciation to the officers, other committee members, task force and work group members, and other members of the NCWTvl who have done so much for the Conference and to help me.

Special thanks to Tom Geiler. Tom must be given the credit for preparing me for my year as Chairman. There is no

question in my mind that Tom is totally dedicated to the NCUM and 1 don't think he himself would admit to, or can see,

all the good he did for the Conference, the direction he provided in critical times, and how much he taught me.

Special thanks to Otto Wamlof and his wife Irene for their support and tutoring. Otto has served this Conference well

for many years. I had the pleasure of working with Otto when he was technical advisor to the S&T Committee and he

has helped guide me with OlML issues. In fact, as late as last week Otto was critiquing an OIML paper I am scheduled

to present in September, for me. Thank you, my friends.

During my term as chairman. I found m>-self always reacting in a manner which I determined was best for the Conference,

even though there were a few times that I did not believe personall>' that this was the correct action. That is difficult for one to do, difficult to rationalize and even more difficult to explain. I'm confident that your next two chairmen, Charlie

Gardner and Barbara Bloch. will react in the same unexplainable marmer. I thank all of you for the opporttmity to be

Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Again, I sincerely appreciate all the support that has been

given to me. I know that you all will do the same for Charlie Gardner and Barbara Bloch.

11
Honor Awards

HONOR AWARDS

10 Years

William Brasher

Clayton Davis

Cathryn Pittman

Victor Gerber

15 Years

Fred Clem

Richard Davis

Robert Fonger

Charles A. Gardner

Walter Kupper

Joseph Rothleder

20 Years

Darrell Guensler

John J. Robinson

Steven Malone

Allan Nelson

Daryl Tonini

25 Years

Richard Claussen

30 Years

Thomas Stabler

Special Recognition Awards

The work of the members we now honor is not complete until the official closing of the 80th annual meeting on

Thursday. However, we would like to recognize them at the general session for their contributions over the past years within their respective committees and for their contributions to the National Conference in general.

Executive Committee

Sidney Colbrook, State of Illinois

J. Alan Rogers, State of Virginia

Laws and Regulations Committee

Sharon Rhoades, State of Arizona

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Richard Suiter, State of Nebraska

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

Max Gray, State of Florida

12
Honor Awards

Vice-chairmen

Fred Clem, Columbus, Ohio

Dean Ely, State of Pennsylvania

Darrell Guensler, State of California

Danny Willis, State of Kentucky

Sergeants-at-Arms

Harold Prince, State of Maine

Conrad Brown, State of Maine

Associate Membership Committee

William Corey, American Frozen Foods

Annual Committees

Resolutions Committee:

Bruce Martell, State of Vermont

Carol Fulmer, State of South Carolina

William Lagemann, State of Delaware

Richard Philmon, State of Illinois

Budget Review Committee

N. David Smith, State of North Carolina

Credentials Committee

Dean Ely, State of Pennsylvania

Auditing Committee

Herb Eskew, State of Texas

Nominating Committee

Thomas Geiler, Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts

Darrell Guensler, State of California Steve Malone, State of Nebraska

Allan Nelson, State of Connecticut

Louis Straub, State of Maryland

George Shefcheck, State of Oregon

N, David Smith, State of North Carolina

President's Award

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

A banner is presented to those directors representing States that have 100% membership in the National Conference on Weights and Measures for both State and local weights and measures officials. The membership year for this award is July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995.

Those States that repeat with 100% membership are awarded a streamer for their banner. A streamer is presented for each year the State qualifies.

The second level of the President's Award is a certificate presented to any State in which all of the weights and

measures officials from the State office are members of the Conference.

13
Honor Awards

Awards for First Year Banner

There are no new banners for the 1994-1995 membership year. However, the following States continue to sustain

their 100% membership.

Streamer Award for the Second Year

State of Tennessee

Streamer Awards for the Third Year

Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands

State of Iowa

Streamer Awards for the Fourth Year

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

State of West Virginia

State of Indiana

State of Colorado

Streamer Awards for the Sixth Year

Six States Qualify for Streamers for the Sixth Year

State of Montana

State of Oregon

State of Utah

State of Vermont

State of Washington

State of Wyoming

Streamer Awards for the Seventh Year

Four States Qualify for Streamers for the Sixth Year

State of Arizona

State of Michigan

State of New Hampshire

State of Virginia

Streamer Awards for the Ninth Year

Six States Qualify for 100% Membership

State of Alaska

State of Delaware

State of Idaho

State of Kansas

State of New Mexico

State of South Dakota

Streamer Awards for the Tenth Year

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

State of Arkansas

and

State of Nebraska

14
Honor Awards

President's Certificate Award

Seven States qualify for the President's Certificate, with 100% of their State Office Staff members for the 1994-95

Conference Year

Second Year Award

State of Connecticut

State of Missouri

Third Year Award

State of Massachusetts

Fourth Year Awards

State of Illinois

Sixth Year Awards

State of Maine

State of New York

State of Wisconsin

Thirty States, overall, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands, have been awarded banners throughout the years; nine States have certificates, for a total of 39

States and Territories.

15

Executive Committee

Report of the Executive Committee and

National Type Evaluation Program Board of Governors

James Truex, Chairman

Acting Chief of Weights and Measures Ohio Department of Agriculture

Thomas F. Geiler, Chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors

Director of Barnstable Consumer Affairs Hyannis, Massachusetts

100 Introduction

This is the Report of the Executive Committee and the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Board of Governors

for the 80th Aimual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Report is based on the Interim

Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, Program and Committee Reports; the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual

Meeting; and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting.

The Report is divided into two parts: (1) management of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (items in the 101 Series) and (2) management of NTEP (items in the 102 Series), as addressed by the Committee in its role as the NTEP Board of Governors. Table A, which is an index of reference key items included in the report, lists the reference key number, title, and page number for each item. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item number.

Consent calendar items are marked with a "VC." An "I" denotes issues that are reported for information and items

marked with a "W" have been withdrawn by the Committee. Table B lists the Appendices to the report, and Table C

provides a summary' of the results of the voting on the Committee's items and the report in entirety.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

Part I - Executive Committee 20

101-1 Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Standing Committees 20

lOl-lA V Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Executive Committee 20

101-lB V Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs Committee 20

101-lC V Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Laws and Regulations (L&R)

Committee 21 101-lD I Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Specifications and Tolerances (S&T)

21 101-2 VC Constitution and Bylaws: Change Title and Add Mission Statement and Objectives for Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee 22

101-3 VC Constitution and Bylaws: Extend Tenure and Specify Membership of Budget Review

23

101-4 I Constitution and Bylaws: Addition of Mission Statement and Need for Long Range Planning

Group as a Permanent Part of the NCWM Organization 24

101-5 I Constitution and Bylaws: Duties of Officers . 24

17
Executive Committee

Table A (Continued)

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

101-6 VC Constitution and Bylaws: Liaison with Retirees v 25

101-7 I Finances, Treasurer's Report 25

101-8 I Finances, Auditing Committee 26

101-9 I Finances, Associate Membership Committee 26

101-10 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments, Status Report 26

101-11 I Publications, Status Report 27

101-12 I Membership, Status Report 28

101-13 I Meetings, Networking with Other Associations 29

101-14 I Meetings, Annual and Interim, Future 29

101-15 I Program, OWM and NIST 30

101- 16 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology 30

Part II - NTEP Board of Governors 30

102- 1 I Plans for NTEP to Issue an OIML Certificate 30

102-2 I U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program Report 31

102-3 VC Policy: U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program 31

102-4 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by the States 32

102-5 VC NTEP Policy: NCWM Publication 14, Part I, Administrative Procedures 34

102-6A V NTEP Policy: Due Process to be Followed When It Is Claimed that Production Does Not Meet

Type 34

102-6B I NTEP Policy: Verification that Production Meets Type 35

102-7A VC NTEP Policy: NTEP Name and Logo 36

102-7B I NTEP Policy: Examples of Appropriate Use of NTEP Logo 36

102-8 VC NTEP Policy: Remanufactured and Repaired Devices 37^

102-9 I NTEP Policy: Separate CCs for Software 38

102-10 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report 39

102-11 I NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Reports 39

102-12 I Program, NTETC Sectors on Grain Moisture Meters and Protein Analyzers 40

102-13 W NTEP Policy: NTEP Advisory Committee 40

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A Associate Membership Committee Proposal 101-1 42

B NCWM Budgets for 1995 & 1996 101-7 45

C Membership Status Report 101-12 52

D NCWM Publication 14, Part I, Administrative

Procedures, Redlined Version 102-5 53

18
Executive Committee

Table B (Continued)

Appendices

E NTEP Participating Laboratories Report 102-10 - 74

F Report on OIML Activities 101-16 75

G NIST & NCWM Publication Summary - FY 1995 101-11 79

Table C

Voting Results

Reference House of State House of Delegates Results Key No. Representatives

Yes No Yes No

Consent Calendar 41 0 54 0 Passed

101-1 A (Motion to 30 6 33 11 Passed

Hear Amendment)

101-lA (Motion to 11 29 8 44 Failed

Amend)

101-lA 33 6 44 12 Passed

101-lB 36 4 46 8 Passed

101- lC (Decided by vote 28 14 29 29 Passed

in the House of State Representatives due to tie vote in the House of Delegates)

102-6A 42 0 57 0 Passed

100 (Report in its 42 0 46 1 Passed

Entirety)

19
Executive Committee

Detail of Items

Part I - Executive Committee

101-1 Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Standing

Committees

This item is carried over from Item 101-3 from the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994, plage 31.

Recommendation: The Executive Committee generally endorses the Associate Membership Committee proposal

described in the "Background" section at the end of this item. There is unanimous support by Executive Conmiittee

members for adding a nonvoting Committee Associate member to the Executive and Education Committees, and mixed

support for adding an Associate member to the Laws and Regulations Committee. Both the Associate Membership and

the Executive Committee have reservations to adding an Associate member to the Specifications and Tolerances

Committee at this time.

Because there seems to be general endorsement for putting nonvoting Associate members on some, but not all, of the Standing Committees, the Executive Committee is dividing this item into four parts, putting the question of membership on each of three Standing Committees to a separate vote, while postponing action on the S&T Committee at this time.

The Executive Committee is not recommending a change to the Constitution and Bylaws this year. Instead, the Committee recommends a vote on placing Associate members as nonvoting members on three standing committees on

a trial basis, to try out the process before changing the Constitution and Bylaws. Some members of the Executive

Committee were under the impression that the Bylaws already permitted appointment of Associate members to the standing committees. Article V, Section 2, of the Bylaws provides: "At his or her option, the Chairman designates one

or more advisory or associate members as consultants to a standing committee. " However, without arguing whether or

not this section already permits the Chairman to act, in view of the importance of these recommendations, the Executive

Committee recommends a trial period during which the Conference can assess the efficacy of the change to Conference

operations. This recommendation is not unprecedented. When the Conference adopted new voting procedures, they were

tried out before the vote to formally adopt the procedures.

No term was set for the trial period; however, it was scheduled to begin at the NCWM's 1995 Aimual Meeting, subject

to the adoption of items 101-1 A through 101-lC. The Associate Membership Committee was asked to nominate an

Associate Member Representative for each committee. (For more information, see the Background discussion that follows the item 101 -ID recommendation.) The separate voting items were as follows.

101-1A V Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Executive

Committee

(This item was adopted.)

Recommendation: Add a NONVOTING Associate member to the Executive Committee on a trial basis. The member

will be called an "Associate Member Representative" (AMR). The Associate member will sit as a member of the Executive Committee ONLY and will not sit as a member of the NTEP Board of Governors, nor will the Associate

member be privy to NTEP Board of Governors executive sessions. In order to signify this, the Associate member will

sit with the Executive Committee at the head table during discussion and decisions on items in the 101 series, but will join the audience, if the meeting is open, during discussion of all items in the 102 series.

101-lB V Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

(This item was adopted.)

Recommendation: Add a NONVOTING Associate member, to be called an "Associate Member Representative" to the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee on a trial basis.

20
Executive Committee

101-lC V Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Laws and

Regulations (L&R) Committee

(This item was adopted.)

Recommendation: Add a NONVOTING Associate member, to be called an "Associate, Member Representative," to the Laws and Regulations Committee on a trial basis.

There was strong support for an AMR for the L&R Committee among the industry representatives present at the Interim

Meeting.

101-lD I Constitution and Bylaws: Add Associate Membership to Specifications and

Tolerances (S&T) Committee

Recommendation: An Associate Member Representative (AMR) to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee is not

currently recommended by either the Associate membership or the Executive Committee. There is still disagreement

among the Associate members with respect to this part of the Committee's proposal. The Scale Manufacturers

Association (SMA), the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA), the AMC, and other interested participants will continue to evaluate and develop this proposal.

101-1 Background: In the past, the Associate Membership Committee (AMC) has been primarily responsible for hosting

social events. While there is a place for this activity, the scope of industry involvement has broadened over the past several years for the betterment of the NCWM. The new NCWM dues structure allows the AMC and the NCWM to jointly sponsor events and allocate excess monies to worthwhile mutual projects, such as the completion of the consumer

pamphlet published by the Liaison Committee, in an attempt to increase Weights and Measures visibility and awareness. The regional Associate Membership Committees have allocated part of their funds for purchasing video equipment for Weights and Measures training. This is a model for how the two sectors can and should continue to work together, but

additional representation and participation by Associate members has been proposed by the AMC. AMC Chairman Bill Corey, American Frozen Foods, Inc., appointed past AMC chair Chris Guay, Procter and Gamble, to continue to head

the AMC task force. Members of this task force are Bill Braun (WHB Resources), Bill Corey (American Frozen Foods),

Richard Davis (James River), Chip Kloos (Hunt-Wesson), and David Quinn (Fairbanks Scales). They have worked with

the standing committee members and the remaining AMC members to prepare a plan having broad-based industry input

and agreement. A first draft proposal was provided by the AMC task force to the Executive Committee in January 1994. A draft was printed as part of the 79th Annual Meeting final report to allow the Conference to vote on changes to the Constitution and Bylaws at the 1995 Annual Meeting.

The AMC proposed that nonvoting "Associate Member Representatives" (AMR) be created for the Executive; Laws and

Regulations; Specifications and Tolerances; and Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committees. Each

AMR would have a term of 3 years. Candidates would be identified for the Conference by the Associate membership

and each candidate would either be appointed by the Chairman or nominated by the Nominating Committee, depending

upon the Committee for which the candidate is recommended, consistent with the NCWM Bylaws.

There was not unanimity within the Executive Committee or the standing cormnittees concerning placing an Associate

member on the L&R Committee. There was some concern that the presence of an Associate member at the head table with the active members of the Committee at any time during their deliberations, whether or not the Associate member

excused himself/herself from any discussions about items concerning his/her own industry, would send a negative

message to any competitor of that Associate member who had to defend his/her position before the Committee.

The 1993/94 AMC Chairman, Chris Guay, discussed the concept of this proposal at the Western (Reno, NV) and

Southern (Charleston, SC) Weights and Measures Associations Annual Meetings. In October 1993, the AMC formally

proposed the concept of AMRs and discussed the proposal with the Executive Committee at the 1994 Interim Meeting.

The proposal was modified and discussed at the Central (Des Moines, lA) and Northeastern (Portland, ME) Weights and Measures Associations Armual Meetings and was presented at the Annual Meeting of the NCWM in July 1994. It was

21
Executive Committee

also discussed at the Western (Anchorage, AK) and Southern (Atlanta, GA) Weights and Measures Associations meetings

as well as the 1994 Central and Northeastern Interim Meetings.

Both private and public sector members of the NCWM strive for equity, fair value, and a level "playing field" in the marketplace. Over the past 10 years. Associate members have become key members and have chaired the National Type

Evaluation Technical Committee and its sectors. Associate members provide important technical membership on many

NCWM task forces and other work groups, including the Petroleum Subcommittee. With funding becoming harder to get and staffing being reduced in industry and govenmient programs, mutually shared goals and objectives must be better coordinated. Industry members must justify attending Conference meetings when there are no "burning issues" for their individual companies. Increased integration of public and private sector's abilities, knowledge, and experience will provide the NCWM with the talent and resources to prosper in a complex marketplace enviroimient.

The Executive Committee viewed the creation of the AMC as a positive step in the evolution of the NCWM and believes

that the AMC should continue to pursue its charter. Several concerns were discussed at the Interim Meeting:

1. If the AMRs were required to be members of the AMC, or if the AMC nominated the AMR candidates, the Constitution and Bylaws of the AMC should ensure balanced representation by all segments of industry, probably

by incorporation or reference in the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws. The Executive Committee recommended that the AMC review and revise its charter with this issue in mind and forward its recommended revisions to the Executive Committee for action. The Executive Committee continues to recommend incorporation of the Associate

Membership Charter into the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws.

2. Even if the AMR were to excuse himself/herself on issues of a competitive nature, there is concern that the NCWM

might be subject to legal challenge from industries that did not achieve their objectives at the NCWM if a competitor were on the committee. For example, how could a petroleum or alcohol industry representative be a member of the L&R Committee (even if excusing himself/herself when the issues were discussed) when issues of the Petroleum

Subcommittee came before it? The Associate Membership Committee explored this issue by seeking outside legal

opinion. Legal advice was that there were no impediments to Associate membership on the standing committees.

A trial period will permit the Conference to determine whether specific protections would have to be incorporated

in procedure, due process, and even presence at the Committee table during specific issues. After the NCWM

Liaison Committee was disbanded in 1992, an AMR from that Committee completed his term by serving on the L&R

Committee as a nonvoting liaison representative for a year.

3. The Associate Membership Committee states that it will elect AMRs at an open AMC meeting. Representative

balance between device and packaging industries, as well as type of device manufacturers and service agencies, would seem to be very important at this meeting. A number of issues still need to be resolved. For example, what mix

of representation of members would constitute a quorum at the AMC meeting? Could a slate of candidates be sent

to all Associate members prior to the voting session? Could the Associate membership have the opportunity to vote

at the Annual Meeting or Interim Meeting from a slate of alternatives? What would the roles of the AMC and the Associate membership be in the nomination and selection process? For example, the AMC has no membership from

the liquid-measuring industry. How can this be addressed? The AMC will revise and update its bylaws and

operating procedures prior to the 1995 Aimual Meeting.

The Associate Membership Committee proposal made at the 1995 Interim Meeting appears as Appendix A.

101-2 VC Constitution and Bylaws: Change Title and Add Mission Statement and

Objectives for Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Committee

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

This is carried over from the Committee's 1994 Report in which it was item 101-5.

Recommendation: Add the following Mission Statement for the Committee to the Bylaws:

22
Executive Committee

To provide leadership to develop and implement uniform, quality weights and measures services in the areas of:

effective program management,

education, and

public relations.

Proposed revision of Committee Scope for the NCWM Bylaws:

The Committee on Administration and Public Affairs annually presents a report for Conference Action.

Its scope embraces all matters dealing with:

1. development and recommendation of administrative procedures; _

2. education and training of weights and measures officials;

3. promotion of weights and measures principles and techniques among users of weights and measures

devices and the general public; and

4. liaison with Federal agencies. State agencies, and other groups and organizations on issues within

the purview of the committee. This entails explaining, advocating, and coordinating Conference

positions, recommendations, and needs before Federal Government agencies, consumer groups, the

Associate NCWM membership, domestic and international standards organizations, industry, trade

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

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

Background: In April 1994, the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee met with Associate

members and with members of the Executive Committee to set new goals and objectives and to prioritize its work. The

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee decided that the NCWM should change the name of the Committee to Administration and Public Affairs in order to indicate the importance of quality management of weights

and measures programs in the Conference. Education will remain a primary objective of this Committee, but the objective of all administrators should be education for themselves and their staffs.

The Executive Committee commends the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee for its work and

recommends its proposed goals and objectives for adoption by the Conference. The proposal was printed in the 1994 final report in anticipation of its adoption into the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws in 1995.

The Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee met at the 1994 Annual Meeting and again on November 4 and 5, 1994, to finalize its recommendations to the Executive Committee and the Conference with respect

to its management plan and the subgroups that would be recommended for establishment to carry out the work of the Committee.

Chairman Jim Truex has established a Program Evaluation Work Group under this Committee. The Program Evaluation

Work Group held its inaugural meeting December 12-13, 1994. See the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee report for a status report on the work group.

101-3 VC Constitution and Bylaws: Extend Tenure and Specify Membership of

Budget Review Committee

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

This is carried over from the Committee's 1994 Report in which it was Item 101-2.

Recommendation: Revise NCWM Bylaws:

23
Executive Committee

The Finance Committee, which shall also serve as the Budget Review Committee, shall bo appointed by

the Conference Chairman.—It shall consist of him/her the NCWM Chairman as Chairman of the

Committee, two weights and measures officials as voting members (each with a two-year term); and the

Treasurer and Executive Secretary as ex-officio voting members. One associate member shall sen^c in an

advisory capacity^ without vote . In addition, the Chairman shall appoint two Active and two Associate

members to serve on a rotating basis for 4-vear terms.

Background: It was decided to expand the membership of the Budget Review Committee beyond the Active members,

and to add Associate members as voting members. It was therefore decided that: (1) the Chairman, Treasurer, and

Executive Secretary would continue to be members on the Budget Review Committee and that these members would

represent the Executive Committee; (2) the tenure of the Budget Review Committee would be increased from 2 to 4

years; (3) two Active and two Associate members would be named to the committee, with the first appointments made

for staggered terms. Since the recommendation involves a change in the Bylaws, the recommendation was published in the Interim Report and Final Report of 1994 in preparation for a vote in July 1995. The changes proposed are intended

to add to the experience and knowledge of the Budget Review Committee and will not incur additional expenses on the

part of the Conference. Both Associate members would have their expenses reimbursed by their companies. Since there were no objections from the floor, the incoming Chairman in July 1994 appointed two Associate members rather than

just one member to the Budget Review Committee as if the change to the Bylaws had been adopted by the Conference.

101-4 I Constitution and Bylaws: Addition of Mission Statement and Need for

Long Range Planning Group as a Permanent Part of the NCWM

Organization

The Executive Committee endorses the need for a permanent long-range plaiming group. The initial step in the process was to conduct a "strategic planning session" attended by the Executive Committee. Individuals selected for composing

the long range planning document were: Tom Geiler, Barnstable, MA, and N. David Smith, NC. NIST Technology

Services Deputy Director David Edgerly provided a planning facilitator, Mr. Richard Lefante, The Lefante Group, for the first session. This meeting was held in Alexandria, VA, on March 23 and 24, 1995. At the meeting, the Executive

Committee began development of a long-range plan that includes a new mission statement. The long-range plan will be

put out for comment when completed. See also priorities discussed with NIST Technology Services management in Item

101-15, as well as the work reported by the Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century (Report of the 77th NCWM

1992) and by the Privatization Work Group (Report of the 79th NCWM 1994).

101-5 I Constitution and Bylaws: Duties of Officers

Source: NCWM Past-Chairman and Chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors, Thomas Geiler.

Background: The NCWM has grown substantially in recent years, both in membership and scope of services. Committee structure has changed to meet the needs of the membership and to provide a better level of service to members. The Executive Committee is planning to review the duties of officers to determine whether they are as clearly

defined as necessary and whether the organization chart reflects the appropriate structure to guide the NCWM in the

future. Past-Chairman Geiler reported that he had referred to Article IV of the Bylaws many times to better understand

his duties, responsibilities, or authority and had found that the section was not always clear. At the Interim Meeting,

the Executive Secretary was asked to gather all policies passed by the Committee for the operation of the NCWM, but

not included in the NCWM Constitution and Bylaws, and to provide this information to the Executive Committee by the Annual Meeting. Detailed discussions and decisions regarding the duties of officers will be delayed pending work on

a long-range plan for the Conference. NCWM Bylaws will be reviewed with respect to incorporating appropriate policy

and process already adopted and appearing in other NCWM meeting reports. An additional issue that will be addressed

is the need to provide for due process when the voting membership of the NCWM decides to incorporate changes into Handbook 44, for example, and it is subsequently determined that modification is required prior to the next procedural

cycle of NCWM action. For example, if the NCWM votes on changes to NIST Handbook 44 in July, those changes

become effective January 1 of the following year. Changes may be needed following the NCWM decision in July, but

the NCWM does not vote again until the following July. The question to be addressed is how the NCWM should

formally handle such rare, but not impossible, emergencies.

24
Executive Committee

At the .\iinual Meeting, the Executive Committee reinforced the need to update the Constitution and Bylaws and thanked Joan Koenig for her worlc in starting this process.

101-6 VC Constitution and Bylaws: Liaison with Retirees

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Executive Committee Member Barbara Bloch, CA

Recommendation: Add the Retiree Organization to the list of organizations that fall within the liaison responsibilities

of the Executive Committee in the NC\\TvI Bylaws, Article V. Committees, Section 5. Duties and Fields of Operation

of Committees, A. Executive Committee:

The Committee serv es as a policy and coordinating body in matters of national and international signifi- cance which may include such areas as metrication, International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML),

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), International Organization for Standardization (ISO),

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), National Conference of Standards Laboratories

(NCSL), and such internal matters as may be required, including, for example, the Retiree Organization.

Background: The former Liaison Committee listed collaboration with other organizations, specifically mentioning the

retiree membership. When the Conference in July 1994 allocated liaison responsibilities to the other standing committees,

the retirees were not specifically mentioned; hence, there is no specific reporting relationship or organizational focus for them. The Executive Committee proposes that the retirees report their activities to the Executive Committee. The

retirees will be invited to make such a report at the 80th Annual Meeting.

101-7 I Finances, Treasurer's Report

Charles Gardner, Chairman-Elect, presented his final report as NCWM Treasurer and prepared to pass the NCWM books

at the end of the Interim Meeting to J. Alan Rogers, who will act as Treasurer until a new Treasurer is elected in July.

Transfer of bank accounts and accounting will begin as soon as Interim Meeting bills are paid.

The 1995 Calendar Year Budget for the NCWM was modified to indicate:

1. a small increase in membership and registration fees expected for 1995;

2. 515,000 added to account 513 for the Executive Committee to meet in Washington in March for Long-Range

Planning and a visit to Capitol Hill;

3. 56,000 added to account 514 for a second meeting for the Program Evaluation Work Group.

The NTEP 1995 Calendar Year Budget was also modified to indicate:

1. 512.500 added to accoimt 583.6 to increase NCWM participation in OIML standards participation (costs

jointly shared with NIST).

Invoicing for the NTEP maintenance fee has continued to result in approximately 20 percent late payments (after January

1) for the second year in a row. The invoice letter will be reworded to explain the absolute necessity to pay by

December 1. If pa\ments are late next year (end of the calendar year 1995), a late fee (perhaps 10 percent) may be

considered by the Board of Governors in 1996 for any payment received after December 1, 1995.

See the 1995 NCWM Budget in Appendix B.

At the Aimual Meeting, the proposal of the Budget Review Committee for the 1996 Operating Budget was reviewed and

accepted by the Executive Committee. (See Appendix B for the 1996 NCWTvl budget.)

25
Executive Committee

101-8 I Finances, Auditing Committee

Only one member of the Auditing Committee was able to attend the 1995 Interim Meeting. Therefore, Chairman Truex

asked members of the Budget Review Committee to assist Monty Hopper in completing a review of the books. N. David

Smith (NC), Darrell Guensler (CA), and Harvey Lx)dge (Cargotec), met with outgoing Treasurer Charles Gardner,

incoming Treasurer J. Alan Rogers, and Monty Hopper (Kern County, CA) on January 9 and reported to the Executive

Committee on January 10. The financial reports of the Treasurer were found to be in order and correct (see the Auditing

Committee report for more information).

The actual income and expenses for 1994 were provided to the Auditing Committee at the Interim Meeting. The Auditing

Committee reported to the Executive Committee that the books were in order.

101-9 I Finances, Associate Membership Committee

A status report was provided. The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) provided $11,000 for 22 $500 scholarships

for training weights and measures officials. The entire Executive Committee publicly thanked the AMC for their contribution to the professional growth of field officials. A report on the status of this project appears in the Education,

Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee Interim Report.

At the Aimual Meeting, it was reported that all but two of the States requesting scholarship funds had completed the

training for which the funds were requested, and they were scheduled to complete their training sessions by the end of

July 1995. (See the Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs for more information.)

101-10 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments, Status Report

Chairman Truex presented a review of his appointments and provided a status report on the organization of the NCWM

and other issues.

Chairman Truex' s appointments include:

J. Alan Rogers, VA, Acting Treasurer Fred P. Clem, Columbus OH, Assistant Treasurer

To the Laws and Regulations Committee:

Karl H. Angell, Jr., WV, 5 years

To the Petroleum Subcommittee (which reports to the Laws and Regulations Committee):

Eric Hamilton, FL, Chairman

Randy Jennings, TN, Technical Advisor

To the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group (which

reports to the Laws and Regulations Committee):

Edwin J. Price, TX, representing SWMA

To the Specifications and Tolerances Committee:

Darryl L. Brown, lA, 5 years

To the Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs Committee:

Richard D. Greek, San Luis Obispo County, CA, 5

years

Chairman Truex appointed a new work group in program

evaluation, reporting to the Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs Committee:

Darrell A. Guensler, CA, Chair

Allan M. Nelson, CT

Steven A. Malone, NE

Ken L. Fraley, OK

Robert G. Williams, TN

Edwin J. Price, TX

Michael F. Belue, Belue Associates

Thomas M. Stabler, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. Randy St. John, Jr., PA Food Merchants Assn

William J. Corey, Jr., American Frozen Foods

[Dennis Beattie and Gilles Vinet, Legal Metrology

Branch, Industry Canada were appointed after the Interim

Meeting.]

A report was provided the Executive Committee by Chairman

Guensler at the Interim Meeting. The full report is contained

in the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee interim report. NIST OWM plans to underwrite

software development for a standardized national data

collection effort. Two pilot studies with different software

firms are planned in 1995.

26
Executive Committee

To the Nominating Committee:

Steven A. Malone, NE, 1 year Louis E. Straub, MD, 1 year N. David Smith, NC, 1 year George Shefcheck, OR, 1 year

Darrell Guensler, CA, 1 year A. Nelson, CT, 1 year

To the Resolutions Committee:

Clayton F. Davis, ME, 3 years

Jerry L. Bane, lA, 3 years David R. Wallace, CO, 3 years

As Sergeant-at-Arms:

Daniel Newcome, ME

Conrad Brown, ME

To the Auditing Committee:

Monty H. Hopper, Kern County, CA, 3 years

To the Credentials Committee:

Cosmo C. Insalaco, Fresno County, CA, 3 years Angelique McCoy, Columbus, OH, 3 years

To the Budget Review Committee:

David C. English, Measurement Systems

International, 4 years Harvey M. Lodge, Cargotec, Inc., 2 years

Darrell Guensler, CA, 3 years

101-11 I Publications, Status Report

To the NTETC Weighing Sector: Nigel Mills, Hobart, Chairman

John Elengo, Contractor David Hawkins, Thurman Scale Andrea Buie, MD

Tom Luna, Scales Unlimited, Inc.

To the NTETC Measuring Sector: Richard Wotthlie, MD

William West, OH

[Robert Traettino, Liquid Controls, was appointed to replace Mel Hankel after the Interim Meeting.]

To the NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector: Steve Cook, CA

Larry M. Turberville, AL

Andrea Buie, MD

To the NTETC Weighing Sector, Automatic Weighing Work

Group:

Andrea Buie, MD

Between the Interim and the Annual Meetings, Chairman

Truex made the following appointments:

To the NTETC Weighing Sector: William G. GeMeiner, Union Pacific Railroad

Larry Burrow, Sensortronics (replacing Ted Johnson)

To the Petroleum Subcommittee:

Gene Mittermaier, Petroleum Marketers Association of

America

The status of NIST and NCWM publications was reviewed, including the distribution level, income, and their costs. NIST documents include NIST Handbooks 44, 130, 133, the NCWM Final Reports, and the metrology series of

handbooks and publications. NCWM documents include the Interim Agenda, the Interim Reports, Publication 5 (NTEP

Certificates and Index), Publication 14 (NTEP Administrative Policy, Test Procedures and Criteria, and Evaluation

Checklists), Training Modules, Examination Procedure Outlines, the consumer brochure "Getting What You Pay For,"

the W&M Today newsletter, and other membership publications.

There was some discussion that NCWM Publication 5 is awkward to use because it is almost the size of several phone

books. It was suggested that an electronic version of Publication 5 (for example, a CD ROM version) might be more

satisfactory; however, until weights and measures jurisdictions obtain laptop computers with CD ROM drives, such a product could not be widely used in the field.

Plans are underway to provide NIST Handbooks and NCWM publications in electronic forms, for example, on floppy

disks or compact discs or through the WAMIS bulletin board. It was decided that only NCWM members will be able

to obtain electronic versions of hard-copy publications.

A summary of the estimated and actual costs of publishing NCWM documents and NIST documents issued in support

of the NCWM in fiscal year 1995 is given in Appendix G.

27
Executive Committee

At the Amiual Meeting, Gil Ugiansky reported that OWM staff had completed the third edition of NCWM Publication

14, "NTEP Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures." He also announced that a fax-on-demand service has been developed for the NCWM that will permit members 24-hour access to NCWM

publications lists, newsletters, NTEP applications, and a variety of other materials by calling an 800 number and using

a touch-tone telephone to enter a fax number and document number. Following a test period, the fax-on-demand service

will be made available to NCWM members. Future plans are to advertise the fax-on-demand service to other organizations with an interest in weights and measures, thereby promoting the NCWM's objectives.

101-12 I Membership, Status Report

A status report on the continuing effort to increase NCWM membership was discussed. See Appendix C for a numerical

summary of the current membership breakdown in the various categories. Ideas for increasing NCWM membership

include: (1) investigating the cost of advertising NCWM membership in International Society of Weighing and

Measurement (ISWM) publications; (2) contributing articles about the benefits of NCWM membership to regional

association newsletters; and (3) setting up a booth on the NCWM at the National Conference on Standards Laboratories

(NCSL) and at the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) Govenunent Relations area at their Chicago exposition.

The following charts illustrate the composition of NCWM membership as of June 30, 1995, and NCWM membership

growth from 1990 to 1995.

1995 NCWM Membership

Types of Members - July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1995

12.4% (443)

6.0%

(214)^

U«*1.5% (52)

(''') hH.7% (60) -1.0% (36)

M State County

City ^ U.S. Industry

[ID Foreign industry

m U.S. Govt. Foreign Govt. H SL & Local (notW&M)

63.0%

(1893)

28
Executive Committee

NCWM Membership Growth

(Excluding Retirees)

Membership as of June 30 Each Year Shown

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

101-13 I Meetings, Networking with Other Associations

The Executive Committee has made a commitment to increase its networking with the Congress and other organizations

with interests in the area of weights and measures. Since the 1995 Interim Meeting, Executive Committee members,

along with NIST officials and NCWM associate members, have visited Capitol Hill three times to talk to key

Congressmen and Congressional staff. The Committee feels strongly that this level of outreach should continue in the

future, especially because of the current climate in Congress.

During the past \'ear, members of the Executive Conmiittee have participated in a number of association meetings,

including those of the Scale Manufacturers Association, the National Industrial Scale Association, the Food Marketing

Institute, the International Societ}' of Weighing and Measurement, and all four regional weights and measures

associations. Attendance at these meetings has been very beneficial in establishing or strengthening relationships with

the concerned groups.

At the Annual Meeting, Alan Rogers presented a draft report to the Executive Committee with recommendations for linking the regional associations with the NCWM. This draft report will be further refmed and sent to the regionals for review and comment.

101-14 I Meetings, Annual and Interim, Future

81st Interim and Annual Meetings

The 1996 Interim Meeting will be held January 21 to 25 in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The 81st Annual Meeting will be held July 21 to 25, 1996, in New Orleans, LA.

82nd and 83rd Annual Meetings

The 82nd Annual Meeting (1997) is planned for the Chicago, IL, area. The 83rd Annual Meeting (1998) is planned for the Portland, OR, area.

29
Executive Committee

101-15 I Program, OWM and NIST

Since July 1994, a number of changes have been made to the OWM staff and management. Major changes included

Henry Oppermann leaving to take a position as a U.S. representative in Mexico and Carroll Brickenkamp leaving to accept another position in NIST's Technology Services. At the beginning of April 1995, Gilbert M. Ugiansky was named

Acting Chief of OWM. In July he was named the Chief of the Office. He has been working with the NIST staff to establish priorities for the more than 60 projects assigned to the Office. NCWM members will be asked to assist OWM

in determining what the priorities should be. As part of this effort, OWM identified the completion of NCWM

Publication 14, "NTEP Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures," as a high priority

of the Conference. Other OWM work was postponed or reassigned to complete this project. In addition, OWM is in the test phase of a fax-on-demand service that will free staff from spending time responding to routine requests for information and enable them to spend more time on higher priority activities. (See Item 101-11 for more information on Publication 14 and the fax-on-demand service.)

101-16 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology

Dr. Sam Chappell, Chief of the NIST Standards Management Program, reported on U.S. participation in OIML standards development activities in legal metrology.

Over the last 3 years, the NCWM has redirected its international standards resources to the U.S. /Canada Mutual

Recognition of Type Evaluation Program. In the past year, device manufacturers have asked that the National Type

Evaluation Program offer OIML Certificates of Conformance as soon as OIML Recommendations are revised to enter

the OIML Certificate System. Although U.S. device standards are quite similar to comparable international standards,

they are not identical due to significant philosophical differences between OIML standards and U.S. standards. The

United States, and NCWM in particular, could play an important role in explaining the more cost effective U.S.

approaches to legal metrology administration and regulation in international standards forums but has reduced its participation in OIML meetings in the last year.

David Edgerly, NIST Technology Services Deputy Director, offered to share the costs of sending NCWM representation

to as many as five OIML meetings during calendar year 1995 in order to achieve greater NCWM participation in OIML

activities. Estimated costs for international meeting participation will be approximately $25,000. Therefore, the Executive

Committee recommended that $12,500 of NTEP funds be set aside to provide additional U.S. participation in the OIML

process.

At the Annual Meeting, Samuel Chappell of NIST provided the Committee with an updated status report on OIML

activities (see Appendix F).

Part II - NTEP Board of Governors

102-1 I Plans for NTEP to Issue an OIML Certificate

This is carried over from the Committee's 1994 Report in which it was Item 102-6.

The NIST Force Group completed modifications to its test protocol to be able to provide OIML R60 tests for load cells. Force Group staff reported that they achieved equivalent test results on a load cell that had previously been tested by the Netherlands. The NCWM Executive Secretary notified Sam Chappell, U.S. OIML Representative, that the National Type

Evaluation Program is prepared to offer OIML R60 Certificates, and Dr. Chappell informed the International Bureau of

Legal Metrology (BIML) that the National Type Evaluation Program is the Issuing Authority for the United States for load cells. U.S. manufacturers can now have both tests done at one location.

NTEP customers have asked that NTEP provide OIML Certificates for Recommendation 76 for non-automatic weighing

devices so that U.S. weighing device manufacturers can obtain entry into global markets. OIML R76 evaluations require

electromagnetic tests. A significant investment was made by NIST Technology Services Director Peter Heydemaim to

30
Executive Committee

purchase electromagnetic testing equipment for one NTEP Participating Laboratory. Electromagnetic interference tests must still be contracted to an outside laboratory.

NTEP conducted a survey of NTEP CC holders, and Ohio was voted as the first choice for OIML testing (23 votes),

with California a close second (20 votes). Maryland and New York were distant third and fourth choices. Outside

contractor laboratories that can conduct both the electromagnetic interference and other electromagnetic tests required

for OIML Recommendation 76 will be sought so that both Ohio and California can provide OIML Certificates.

Representatives from the Ohio and California NTEP Participating Laboratories, NIST OWM, and LMB Canada plan to

visit European laboratories this summer or fall to observe OIML R76 tests. A training session was conducted in Columbus, OH, in Jime 1994, by Otto Wamlof, NIST, Office of Standards Management, to review the R76 test procedures and preparation of the certificate. John Elengo, consultant, has contracted with OWM to document that the elements of quality assurance are in place in the NTEP system so as to comply with ISO 25 guidelines.

102-2 I U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program Report

The U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program began on April 1, 1994. See Item 101-7 in the Committee's 1994 Report for a copy of the Mutual Recognition Agreement. At least one NTEP Certificate of

Conformance and a Canadian Notice of Approval have been issued under this program since its start. At its October 1994

meeting, the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector discussed the need to broaden

this agreement to include measuring devices. An analysis of the Canadian, U.S., and OIML requirements will be made

before a meeting in April, 1995, in Ottawa to determine priorities and directions. The NTETC Weighing Sector discussed broadening the areas of mutual recognition at its December 1994 meeting. The Weighing Sector and Canadian

representatives agreed that the Mutual Recognition program could be immediately broadened to include weighing systems

with capacities up to 1000 kg. More complex weighing devices will need further intercomparison of requirements.

A meeting was held April 10 to 12 in Ottawa, Canada, to discuss type evaluation tests for measuring devices. Representatives from the NIST Office of Weights and Measures, NTEP State laboratories, Canada's Legal Metrology

Branch, and industry reviewed a comparison of U.S. and Canadian requirements and type evaluation tests for measuring

devices compiled by Renald Marceau. One significant difference identified is that Canada does temperature tests on

measuring devices and the United States does not. In addition, differences were noted between the requirements of the two countries for on-site versus laboratory testing of devices. All of the differences identified at the meeting will be

documented, and another meeting will be held to address the differences and discuss type evaluation policy and

procedures for measuring devices.

At the April meeting, it also was decided that the weighing program could be expanded in the future to include: 1) mechanical scales, 2) complex indicators, and 3) computing scales.

102-3 VC Policy: U.S. - Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Adopt the policy proposed by the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing

Sector in December:

A manufacturer may request two separate evaluations on a device, rather than using the joint protocol

developed by the U.S.-Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group, which tests the device to the most severe requirements wherever possible. This protocol was developed to save time for the laboratory and cost to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer requests separate evaluations, separate application numbers will be assigned, scheduled, and tracked.

If a manufacturer requests an evaluation for one country and then, after that evaluation is completed,

requests another evaluation for the other country, the second evaluation will be considered to be a new

request for evaluation, even though the device is available in the testing laboratory, and will be placed at the end of queue.

31
Executive Committee

A device manufacturer may seek a single evaluation for either Canada or the United States by applying

to either Canada or the United States. For example, a device manufacturer can apply to Canada for a

U.S. evaluation or to the United States for a Canadian approval.

Background: When the U.S. -Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program was first established, the NTEP

Participating Laboratory and Canadian representatives devised test procedures with the understanding that only devices

for which approval in both nations was being sought would be accepted under the Mutual Recognition Program.

A 300 percent overload test had been the first step in the protocol developed for the mutual recbgnition program for small

scales. One manufacturer feared that this test might have caused the device to subsequently fail the evaluation; therefore,

he requested that separate evaluations be conducted first for U.S. approval and then for Canadian approval. Since the

joint protocol had been developed, the U.S. Participating Laboratory was uncertain whether separate tests could be

performed within the framework of the mutual recognition program. The NTETC Weighing Sector met in December

1994 in order to carry out the broader policy statement that was adopted at the 79th Annual Meeting in July 1994. The

Sector considered how the test procedures would have to be modified if manufacturers requested two separate tests (e.g., one complete test to Canadian requirements and one complete test to U.S. requirements) rather than have the device

subjected to the test protocol that was developed by the U.S. /Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group.

In discussions at the NTETC Weighing Sector, test methods were changed and the U.S. -Canada policies were reviewed.

Canada informed the NTETC Weighing Sector in December that the 300 percent overload test (part of the Canadian test procedure) could be conducted at the end of the test protocol. At the Interim Meeting, Canada told the Board of

Governors that it had decided to recommend deletion of the 300 percent overload test. The Board believes these changes

to the test protocol will remove the need for manufacturers to request separate evaluations. Neither the United States nor Canada believes that it would be in the best interests of a manufacturer or of the type evaluation program of each

nation to separately evaluate devices against each nation's requirements.

The NTEP Board of Governors reaffirms the U.S. -Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Program policy that type evaluations will be assigned to Canada in order to ensure that adequate work is apportioned to Canada.

102-4 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by the

States

Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA), updated the Board of Governors 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). The map on the next page indicates the level of adoption of each regulation.

The Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation is being revised. A draft of the revision is included in the Laws

and Regulations Committee's interim report. Many sections in the proposed regulation address policy issues still being

standardized by the NTEP Board of Governors and the regulating States. Therefore, the L&R Committee will carry the item over as an informational item for further development.

During the Annual Meeting, Daryl Tonini provided the Committee with an updated status report on the adoption of the URNTE.

32

Executive Committee

102-5 VC NTEP Policy: NCWM Publication 14, Part I, Administrative Procedures

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Adopt the revised Administrative Procedures, Part I, appearing in Appendix D.

Background: NCWM Publication 14 was last published in its entirety in 1989. A new complete edition is being readied

for publication. At the 1994 Annual Meeting, a redlined version of Part I, Administrative Policy and Procedures, was

provided to members of the NTEP Board of Governors for their review; in this version, all the policy adopted by the Board since 1989 was shaded (redlined). A redlined version and a version with no shading was made available at the Interim Meeting. The redlined version appears as Appendix D. The Board has reviewed the entire policy as it now

stands to ensure that it meets the needs of NTEP and its customers. Because the most recent edition was published in 1989, and because Part I was not republished after every modification and revision individually adopted by the Conference, the entire revision is printed in Appendix D for adoption as a whole.

Since different sections need to be modified at different times, every page of the new publication will be dated. Expected

publication date is March 1995. Subsequent updates will be made and dated section by section, with the table of contents

printed and distributed annually, noting the latest publication dates so that users of Publication 14 can determine whether

they have the most recent versions. NTEP will charge for sections and for the total Publication 14 on a cost-reimbursable

basis.

102-6A V NTEP Policy: Due Process to be Followed When It Is Claimed that

Production Does Not Meet Type

(This item was adopted.)

This is carried over from the 1994 Report, in which it was Item 102-2.

Recommendation: Adopt the following revision to NTEP Administrative Policy to provide for due process when claims

are made that an NTEP CC should be withdrawn.

6. Post-Evaluation Responsibility of Manufacturer

As a result of requesting an evaluation and accepting the Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer

implicitly claims that all devices manufactured as the type referenced in the Certificate of Conformance

are the same type. If a production device with a model number corresponding to that referenced in the

Certificate of Conformance is found not to conform to the type, the Certificate of Conformance may be

withdrawn.

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

Conformance was issued will be addressed using the existing verification system based on the following

premises:

a. current NTEP policies are sufficient to address production devices;

b. NTEP is limited to the initial type evaluation of devices but is intended to work with enforcement

programs to provide feedback and validation of type (a Certiflcate may be withdrawn because

production is not equivalent to the type) (see Part M.S. Feedback);

c. the field enforcement process and verification of production using NTEP administrative resources

is responsible for ensuring that production devices comply with Handbook 44 (this may include

obtaining production devices or components and subsequent evaluation of these devices or components); and

34
Executive Committee

di weights and measures field enforcement officials, service technicians, service agencies, manufacturers,

and other industry may report in writing to the NTEP Board of Governors that devices in service do

not comply with Handbook 44 or are not traceable to the NTEP Certificate of Conformance. However,

in these cases, noncompliance must be verified by NTEP; and

ed. if

(i) the field verification process reveals a history of abnormally high device failure; or

(ii) the field verification process reveals that production devices do not match the type for whi ch the

Certificat e was issued are not traceable to the NTEP Certificate of Conformance; or

(iii) subsequent laboratory evaluation of the device or component reveals that it does not comply with

the influence factors requirements specified in Handbook 44, this information may be used by the NTEP

Board of Governors in withdrawing a Certificate of Conformance for cause.

Prior to the withdrawal of a Certificate of Conformance by the NTEP Board of Governors, the manufacturer

will be notified in writing of the reason for the proposed withdrawal of the Certificate of Conformance. The

manufacturer has 30 days to appeal in writing to the NTEP Board of Governors and has the opportunity to show that production devices meet type and comply with Handbook 44. This process may include:

a. submitting a production device or devices to NTEP for reevaluation (the cost of which will be borne by

the manufacturer);

b. submitting adequate information and data to NTEP to show that the quality assurance procedures in place in their manufacturing process show compliance with Handbook 44 and that production meets

type; c. other means determined acceptable by the NTEP Board of Governors.

Background: The Chairman pointed out that further clarification is needed as to who can report compliance information

to NTEP and how NTEP will evaluate the information received.

102-6B I NTEP Policy: Verification that Production Meets Type

The integrity of NTEP and of some NTEP Certificates of Conformance are being challenged. States report that some

installed devices do not conform to their Certificates. Manufacturers also report noncompliance of competitors' devices. NTEP labs have found devices and main elements that differ from the original type. NTEP needs to establish a means

of evaluating production devices to ensure that production meets type. It would be difficult, mainly due to lack of NTEP

funding, to reevaluate all models covered by an NTEP CC. However, NTEP should at least reevaluate suspect models

to preserve the integrity of NTEP.

The Board believes that a more rigorous system is needed to ensure that production devices and components match the

original types. The original intent was that State enforcement agencies would provide such assurance. As Publication

14, Subpart K.2., Feedback, reads:

"The evaluation process under NTEP can generate only limited data. The data gathered during the initial and

subsequent verifications of a larger number of devices of a given type will, when systematically analyzed, often yield information not available from the type evaluation. Such feedback can be used as the basisfor revising the conditions of approval when the situation so warrants.

"Depending on circumstances, experience gained during verifications mayjustify later changes in the Certificate of Conformance; in extreme cases, it may dictate reevaluation of the type.

"

The Board of Governors discussed what action should be taken to monitor the compliance with the influence factors requirements of both scales and load cells in production. It was understood that compliance with the influence factor requirements cannot be determined by ordinary field testing. For example, in a series of evaluations on production floor

scales conducted last year, as many as six scales out of eight failed accurate temperature requirements at -10 °C. Although

floor scales may be used at low temperatures, weights and measures field inspections are rarely conducted in such extreme conditions.

35
Executive Committee

However, the floor scale results challenge the integrity of NTEP. The Board of Governors feels that a Certificate should

be withdrawn when production devices do not match type. Unfortunately, many scales complied with Handbook 44 at room temperature, while most of the scales failed at low temperature; this indicates how difficult it would be to determine

full compliance in the field. John Robechek, Mettler-Toledo, presented mathematical information suggesting that a totally

independent sample of two production devices could indicate within 95 percent confidence that, if both failed type

evaluation tests, the production devices do not match type.

In many other areas of weights and measures, the NCWM has noted the need for national data sharing. This is a prime

area needing field data from all over the nation to feed back to NTEP to identify possible problems indicating that production does not meet type.

Should NTEP Consider Production Quality Assurance Data or In-Plant Sampling and Testing?

As an augmentation of field verification, the Board discussed additional approaches to verify that production meets type.

One possibility is voluntary cooperation by manufacturers with in-plant inspection visits by NTEP. Although some

manufacturers will cooperate with this approach, not all are in favor. Other conformity assessment organizations, such

as Factory Mutual (FM) and Underwriters Laboratories (UL), have procedures contractually in place to sample from

manufacturers' products to determine that production complies with type; NCWM could develop similar procedures.

Mettler Toledo proposes that a voluntary program be initiated with NTEP and manufacturers to assure that production

devices conform with their CCs. Mettler Toledo requests the opportunity to serve as a pilot manufacturer in this regard

at their manufacturing plants to audit the quality assurance systems in place at their facilities.

The question of paying for sampling and testing production devices is of concern to the Board. Estimated cost figures

will have to be developed to determine the role that voluntary sampling will have to play, or whether mandatory testing, similar to that required in UL or FM contracts, might have to be considered.

102-7A VC NTEP Policy: NTEP Name and Logo

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

This is carried over from the 1994 Report in which it was Item 102-1.

Recommendation: Add the following text to NTEP Policy, Section S. References to NTEP, after items 2.a.(l) and

2.a.(2):

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

Where reference is made to NTEP or an NTEP CC, it is essential to clearly identify which products are NTEP certified if the copy also includes products that are not certified. Reference to NTEP must always

be located in close proximity to any reference to a certified product when uncertified products are shown

on the same page.

Background: Policy for the use of the NTEP name and logo is needed to protect the integrity of NTEP and eliminate

false or misleading advertising that implies NTEP certification. A policy was drafted by Mettler-Toledo at the request

of the Board and revised in time for review at the 79th Annual Meeting. The policy was reviewed by the Scale Manufacturers Association NTEP Integrity Committee, but not endorsed. The SMA recommends that the NCWM

register the NTEP logo as a registered trademark. The Board of Governors agreed to pursue trademark registration.

102-7B I NTEP Policy: Examples of Appropriate Use of IVTEP Logo

The Board endorses the general principles and guidelines of fair marketing embodied in the Mettler-Toledo draft; however, the Board does not want to establish the kind of administrative structure that the proposal would require. The

proposal would require an officer of a company holding a Certificate of Conformance to sign an annual advertising

agreement with NTEP. The Board recommends that the following examples developed by Mettler-Toledo (Amiex A of

36
Executive Committee

their proposal) be printed as an appendix to Part I in Publication 14.

Specific Examples for the Use of the NTEP Logo

Truck Scale

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

of Conformance, Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Floor Scale

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

of Conformance, Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

Indicating Element

The Model XXXX Weight Indicator meets or exceeds Class II, 60,000 division and Class Hl/m L, 10,000

division accuracy requirements in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate of Conformance, Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National

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

Load Cell

The Model XXXX Load cell meets or exceeds Class III L, 10,000 division accuracy requirements in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. A Certificate

of Conformance, Number XX-XXX, was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Certificate of Conformance specifies the maximum

number of scale divisions (n^^x)* load cell verification interval (v^jn), and capacities for the Model XXXX

load cell family.

The Committee intends to make this a voting item next year. It will consider the concerns raised by GPMA and the Grain Moisture Sector.

102-8 VC NTEP Policy: Remanufactured and Repaired Devices

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Add the following to NTEP Policy, Part I, NCWM Publication 14:

a. If a company or individual makes changes to a device to the extent that the metrological

characteristics are changed, that specific device is no longer traceable to the NTEP CC.

b. If companies or individuals repair or remanufacture a device, they are obligated to repair or remanufacture it consistent with the manufacturer's original design; otherwise, that specific device

is no longer traceable to the NTEP CC.

Background: Determining whether the original NTEP CC applies to a device after "remanufacture" or "repair" has been

a concern for some time. Discussions centered on whether remanufactured devices can be defined as those devices which

have been (a) moved from their original location; (b) sold by one owner to another; or (c) serviced (with parts replaced or repaired) by other than the original equipment manufacturer. Discussions at regional weights and measures meetings

indicated that these definitions were not enforceable by field weights and measures officials.

37
Executive Committee

At the October 1994 meeting, the NTETC Measuring Sector reviewed the existing policy for remanufactured measuring

equipment and concluded that the existing policy was unenforceable. They recommended to the Board of Governors that the policy for remanufactured measuring equipment be replaced with the following (some rewording was done by NCWM

Chairman and Executive Secretary):

a. If a company or individual makes changes to a device to the extent that the design is changed, the device

is no longer covered by that CC.

b. If a company or individual repairs a device, they are obligated to repair it consistent with the manufacturer's original design; otherwise, that device is no longer covered by that NTEP CC.

c. It is up to the weights and measures jurisdiction to report to NTEP when the design has been changed.

This issue was discussed at the NTETC Weighing Sector meeting in December 1994 for the purpose of developing

recommendations to the Board concerning weighing equipment. The SMA devised the language the Board is recommending to the NCWM. This policy augments existing policy concerning the repair and remanufacture of load cells.

102-9 I NTEP Policy: Separate CCs for Software

Recoininendations:

A. NTEP will continue to evaluate stand-alone software with the same procedures used to evaluate software that is part

of a measuring or weighing system. NTEP will generally evaluate equipment to the first indicated or recorded

representation of the fmal quantity on which the transaction is based. Software is not evaluated in terms of its computer compatibility or other standard.

B . The Board of Governors endorses the establishment of a software work group composed of volunteers from weighing,

measuring, and other sectors, as well as participants from the NTEP Participating Laboratories, the S&T Committee,

and Canada.

Background: The Scale Manufacturers Association asked the NTEP Board of Governors to look at the issue of software

as it applies to NTEP. Concern was expressed over the NTEP policy of issuing separate CCs for software. Although

the issue was initiated at SMA's request, it applies to all types of devices. As part of the Weighing Sector meeting in December 1994, the Board of Governors met with the NTETC Weighing Sector and significant portions of the Measuring

Sector on the issue of NTEP CCs for software.

Evolution of Component Evaluation:

At one time, NTEP issued Certificates of Conformance only for complete devices. However, manufacturers wanted the

flexibility of "mixing and matching" components of systems, such as indicating elements and weighing elements, or

indicating elements and meters, with their own and other manufacturers' components. This approach extended to software in electronic equipment. For example, NTEP initially evaluated electronic cash registers as complete systems

and issued CCs to cover both the hardware and software used in the systems, but manufacturers began to request separate

CCs for the software used in these systems. This gave the manufacturer the flexibility to offer software that could be

installed on compatible hardware already owned by the device user. These CCs have been issued either to the manufacturer of the hardware on which the software is installed or to the company that writes the software (sometimes

referred to as "third-party software") for use on compatible hardware. For personal computer-based systems, an NTEP

CC on the software provides the user the flexibility of employing equipment already used for other business functions

to interface with and control weighing and measuring equipment.

How Software is Evaluated:

Questions have been raised about the criteria that should be applied to evaluate software during an NTEP evaluation. In discussions as to whether or not a separate checklist is needed to evaluate software, NTETC decided that a separate set of criteria is not needed. NTEP evaluation of the software determines whether or not a device using the software

complies operationally with the applicable requirements of Handbook 44. Software controls the functioning of an

38
Executive Committee

electronic device, and it was determined that, whether evaluating a complete device or evaluating the software alone, the same checklist can be used to evaluate either.

Most electronic weighing and measuring devices use software as the means of performing basic device functions; software

is the critical element in the operation of any electronic system. NTEP has seen a wide range of capabilities in software- based equipment, including devices that use software programmed by the manufacturer and not intended to be modified

by the user; devices offering a menu of options from which the user selects ("user-configurable software"); and devices

using software that can be modified by the user ("user-programmable software").

Field Examination Issues: Related to NTEP evaluation of software is how weights and measures field enforcement officials can identify, operate,

and test software installed in the field. Software must meet the same identification requirements of the General Code

G-S.l. as hardware: name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer; model designation; nonrepetitive serial number;

and words identifying the serial number as such. Typically this information is either displayed on the screen or can be

recalled by pressing a function key. Weights and measures officials may have to verify whether the software is covered

by an NTEP CC since the CC may be issued for the software only. The NTEP CC will provide some information

concerning how to operate the system, but additional information is needed in examination procedure outlines to guide

the official, including how to determine whether or not a system is covered by an NTEP CC or whether an NTEP CC

applies to separate components, including separate software. Finally, an issue that repeatedly concerns weights and

measures officials is how to determine whether metrologically significant changes have been made to software, whether

or not it has its own CC.

Work Group Formed:

In December 1994, a work group was formed to address this issue. Michael Adams, Fairbanks Scales, was named

Chairman. The work group had its initial meeting in April 1995 and a second meeting during the 1995 Aimual Meeting.

The work group is scheduled to report on progress to the NTETC Sectors late in 1995.

102-10 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report

This was item 102-10 in the NTEP Board of Governors Interim Meeting agenda.

A report on the NTEP Participating Laboratories was given by NTEP Administrator Lynn Sebring, of NIST, OWM.

There was an increase in the total number of NTEP Certificates issued in 1994 (203) as compared with 1993 (177). The

backlog of remaining evaluations decreased slightly from 136 in 1993 to 133 in 1994.

During the Annual Meeting, Lynn Sebring, gave the Committee an updated report on the progress of the Participating

Laboratories (see Appendix E).

102-11 I NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Reports

This was item 102-11 in the NTEP Board of Governors Interim Meeting agenda.

Weighing, Measuring, and Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector meetings were held this fall. Reports of these meetings will be

incorporated in the Executive Committee Final Report appendices when they have been finalized. Throughout the Interim

Meetings, the Board of Governors discussed improvements to the meeting and report process for the different NTEP

customers. Conclusions reached are reported below.

Process of Meetings

The NCWM approach is to achieve consensus (which is roughly defined as greater than a simple majority but less than

unanimity) as much as possible on all issues rather than to vote on every issue and determine a final recommendation

based on a simple majority. Therefore, sector chairmen seek to avoid votes as much as possible. Instead, they announce

the consensus as they determine it on an item-by-item basis.

Process of NTEP Participating Laboratory use of NCWM actions:

39
Executive Committee

NTEP Participating Laboratories use results of Araiual Meeting results of S&T Committee votes immediately after Annual Meeting.

NTEP Participating laboratories use results of NTETC sector meetings immediately after conclusion of meetings

(unless meeting results in recommendation for action by another group within the NCWM).

Meeting Conclusions Need More Timely Publication

Unfortunately, the sector and other meeting reports have been delayed in many cases so much that participants forget

the details of the meeting and sometimes have different recollections of the decisions made. Therefore, the Board of

Governors requests that a summary of decisions and actions be prepared within 10 days of each meeting (ideally before

the meeting adjourns) so that participants, NTEP Participating Laboratories, and other interested parties, including

potential NTEP CC applicants and the NTEP Board of Governors are aware of the changes that NTEP Participating

Laboratories will be implementing.

102-12 I Program, NTETC Sectors on Grain Moisture Meters and Protein

Analyzers

This was item 102-12 in the NTEP Board of Governors Interim Meeting agenda.

See Item 102-7 from the 1994 Report for background information. The first grain moisture meter to have met Phase

I evaluation under the National Type Evaluation Program will soon be issued an NTEP Certificate of Conformance.

Although grain moisture meter manufacturers expected to obtain immediate approval of their prototypes during the Spring

of 1994, several models required retesting. Because the additional testing necessitated the use of many of the grain

samples saved for Phase II of the type evaluation process, the National Calibration Program had to be delayed until June

of 1995. A notice was sent to grain moisture meter manufacturers to announce the delay in calibration start-up.

An Interagency Agreement has been signed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Grain Inspection Service (now

the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration [GIPSA]) and NIST to provide funding for the National

Calibration Program for 5 years. This program will begin June 1995.

The GIPSA Kansas City laboratory will soon be authorized as the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Near-Infrared Grain

Analyzers.

An update on the status of the moisture meter evaluations was provided by Richard Pierce, GIPSA, during the Annual

Meeting. Dr. Pierce reported that Certificate of Conformance Numbers have been issued to four models of grain

moisture meters and successful testing has been completed on a fifth device. He also indicated that three of these instruments were resubmitted and successfully retested to extend the allowable temperature difference between the instrument and the grain sample. A new submission was received in late May for complete NTEP testing.

Phase II of the NTEP Grain Moisture Meter Program (the Ongoing Calibration Program) is underway, and calibration data is being collected for five grain moisture meter models.

102-13 W NTEP Policy: NTEP Advisory Committee

(This item was withdrawn.)

The following subject was discussed during the course of other items. It was not included in the Executive Committee

or NTEP Board of Governors agenda.

One NTETC Weighing Sector member recommended that the "NTEP Advisory Committee," the Associate members on

the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, be consulted by the NTEP Board of Governors or that the NTEP

Policy creating the Advisory Committee be revised. One recommendation by this member was to take a separate vote of the Associate membership when votes are taken. Other Associate members of the NTETC Sectors noted that names

are called when votes are taken so that the results are recorded and can be analyzed according to public and private

representative votes. However, one Sector member recommended against separate votes being taken too obviously; he

40
Executive Committee

declared that he was satisfied with the present policy. The Board will continue to discuss best ways to use the expenise

of the NTEP Advisory Committee.

At the Annual Meeting, the Board decided to withdraw this item because no input on it had been received from industry

or from weights and measures officials.

J. Truex, Ohio, Chairman

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA, Chairman of the NTEP Board of Governors

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Treasurer and Chairman-Elect

B. Adams, Minnesota

B. Bloch, California

S. Colbrook, Illinois _

C. Fulmer, South Carolina

J. A. Rogers, Virginia A. Thompson, Alaska

G. Ugiansky, NIST, Executive Secretary

J. Koenig, NIST, Technical Advisor

R. Magnan, Canada Legal Metrology Branch, Advisor when meeting as Executive Committee

Executive Committee

41
Executive Committee

Appendix A

Associate Membership Committee Proposal for Associate Member Representatives

On the Standing Committees

The Associate Membership of the NCWM proposes the creation of one Associate Member Representative (AMR) position

for each of the following NCWM committees: Executive, Education, Laws and Regulations (L&R), and Specifications

and Tolerances (S&T). AMC support for this proposal was unanimous at the AMC meeting hejd during the 79th Annual

Meeting of the NCWM. We propose that AMR's on each specified committee serve a 3-year term. This proposal will require modifications to the existing NCWM Bylaws and to the AMC Bylaws.

At the 78th National Conference in Kansas City, 1993, Chairman Geiler discussed the impact of reduced funding and

staffing on the Conference and the need for everyone in the public and private sectors to participate in the NCWM to the fullest. Generally, the Associate Membership has felt that our ability to contribute to the NCWM was underutilized.

The abolition of the NCWM Liaison Committee at the 79th Annual Meeting eliminated the Associate Membership's one

formal role in the NCWM at the Standing Committee level, leaving this constituency, comprising approximately

52 percent of the Conference, without formal representation.

The proposal presented by the Associate Membership is believed to adhere to the guidelines set forth by AMC Chairman

Guay:

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

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

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

advantage.

4. It must benefit the NCWM.

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

implementation.

6. It must be actionable.

The AMC has obtained a opinion on the legal implications to the NCWM and the Associate Membership of this proposal:

the Boston law firm of Cosgrove, Eisenberg, and Kiley identifies no material legal issues. There are many other

industry/government instances where industry representative roles have been and are being used successfully.

The AMC recommends the following:

1 . Creation of one Associate Member Representative (AMR) position on each of the following NCWM committees:

Executive, Education, Laws & Regulations (L&R) and Specifications and Tolerances (S&T).

2. Designation of AMRs as Nonvoting Members.

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

4. AMR election/appointment will be consistent with existing NCWM procedures for conrniittee election/appointment. The AMC will propose AMR candidates to the NCWM Nominating Committee (for the Executive Committee) and to the Conference Chairman (for the other standing committees).

5. AMR candidates must be NCWM Associate members.

42
Executive Committee

6. AMR candidates require approval by a minimum 2/3 majority of Associate members present at an openly

scheduled AMC meeting.

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

as confidential.

8. With the NCWM Chairperson's concurrence, an AMR can select an AMR Alternate (AMRA) or "Backup" to temporarily participate in committee discussions in place of the AMR.

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

responsible for reimbursing these expenses.

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

AMR's are intended to provide industry perspective on items and issues coming before the NCWM conomittee on which

they serve. This will provide important advantages to the NCWM, including enlisting industry input and resources on

subjects such as conference policy, planning, management, and outreach and more efficient information flow on issues between NCWM meetings. Generally, the responsibilities of the AMR are as follows:

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

general industry perspective and facilitating industry/committee communication.

A. An AMR does not represent any particular organization or group but rather represents all mterested persons

within the jurisdiction of the assigned committee.

B. The AMR represents all members of an industry, not any particular association or company. If a matter comes before the committee that directly or indirectly affects the organization employing the AMR, the AMR should inform the committee but need not be absent from the discussion or abstain from participation.

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

efficient review of items.

D. The AMR may not engage in unseemly advocacy or attempt to exert imdue influence over the other members of the committee. An AMR may be removed for good cause (excessive absenteeism,

demonstrated bias that interferes with objective advice, violation of applicable rules and regulations).

2. An AMR is a nonvoting member of the NCWM committee. The AMR cannot participate in votes pertaining to committee issues or policies.

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

financial information.

4. An AMR is subject to and shall abide by all rules and regulations adopted by the NCWM and the committee.

Proposal: The AMC recommends the following changes to the NCWM Bylaws: Underlined text is proposed to be

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

Article V; § 2; A Membership (other than Executive, Finance, and Credentials Committee)

The membership of each of the standing committees is a normal complement of five members appointed by the Conference Chairman from the active membership on a rotating basis for 5-year terms, or until a successor is appointed , and one nonvoting member appointed by the Conference Chairman from the Associate Membership for a 3-vear term.

43
Executive Committee

When it is necessary to make an appointment to any of the standing committees to fill a vacancy caused by the death,

resignation, or retirement from active service by a committee member from the active membership , the appointment

is for the unexpired portion of the member's term. Such an appointment from the Associate membership would begin

a new 3 -year term.

Article V; § 2; B

The Executive Committee consists of the President, Executive Secretary, the Conference Chairman, the ChairmanElect, the most recent still active Past Chairman, the Treasurer, and six members elected at large from the active membership the latter to serve 3-year staggered terms, and one member elected from the Associate Membership.

The President^ aad Executive Secretary, and Associate Member Representative do not have votes on matters before

the Executive Committee.

44
Executive Committee

Appendix B - NCWM Budgets for 1995 & 1996

Budget for 1995 (Jan 1 - Dec 31)

Compared with 1994 Actual and 1994 Budget

Table 1. Income

Account

Category Description

Number

FY 94

Budget

Proposed FY

95

Budget

FY 94 Actual

General Funds

411 Registration Fees $66,000 $69,000 $71,665

412 Membership Fees $122,500 $129,500 $127,315

413 Interest $1,000 $1,000 52,361.47

414 Associate Membership Account -0- -0- -0- 416 Other Income -0- -0- $188.45

410 Income, General Fund $189,500 $199,500 $201,530.72

Expense & Income (Reimbursable)

481 Special Events $2,000 $2,000 $2,485

482 Publications $20,000 $3,500 S5030.93

484 NTP, Seminars $6,000 $3,800

485 Promotional $2,000 -0- -0-

486 Grain Equipment Cooperative Agreement$15,000 $4,645.32

480 Income, E&I $45,000 $5,500 15,961.25

Total Income

400 Total Income $234,500 $205,000 $217,491.97

Canyover from 1993: $42,798.10

Table 3. Expenses

Account

Category Description

Number

FY 94

Budget

Proposed FY

95

Budget

FY 94

Actual

General Funds

511 Annual Meeting $44,000 47,200 $39,979.69

512 Interim Meeting $35,500 31,000 $25,658.53

513 Travel - Committees $24,000 33,500 $24,865.78

514 Travel-Task Forces/Special Committees $17,700 $22,000 $5,492.60

515 Chairman/Chair Elect $22,000 20,500 $18,432.08

516 Administration $36,500 23,500 $19,679.42

517 Printing/Publications $8,500 $19,500 $7,487.40

518 Training & Train-the-Trainer -0- -0- 510 Expenses, General Fund 188,200.00 $197,200 $141,d9:> 50

Expense & Income (Reimbursable)

581 Special Events $2,000 $2,000 -0- 582 Publications $13,500 $3,500 $3,074.30

584 NTP, Seminars $6,000 $3,371.30

45
Executive Committee

Account

Category Description

Number

FY 94

Budget

Proposed FY

95

Budget

FY 94

Actual

585 Promotional $1,000 -0- -0-

586

m

Grain Equipment Cooperative Agreement

Expenses, E&I

$15,000

37,500.00

*

5.500.00

$9,780.04

500

Total Ej

Total Expenses

^penses

225,moo

^ 202,700>00 $157.82144

Table 6. NTEP Accounts

INCOME

Category

Number

Account Description FY 94

Budget

Proposed

FY 95

Budget

FY 94 Actual

483.1 NTEP Lx)go Sales $1,500 $1,000 $1,400

483.2 NTEP Maintenance Fee $87,500 $105,000 $79,000

483.3 NTEP Publications Sales (Publication 5) $10,000 $10,000 $9,804

Carryover from 1993 $86,600

483 NTEP Operations $99,000 $116,000 $176,804

483: The fall of 1993 was the first time we collected an NTEP maintenance fee. We had estimated 875

CCs would remain active and 1040 were maintained ($104,000) by the end of January 1994 (*collected in FY 1993). We expect the number of CCs to the issued and maintenance fees to be paid to offset the loss of income from CCs allowed to become inactive next year. Therefore, we estimate 1995 maintenance fees

to be $105,000 (approximately matching income of 1994). Logo and Publication 5 are expected to generate another $11,000 (shown under category 482 in 1993).

EXPENSES

583.1 NTEP Board of Governors $7,000 $7,000 $981.35

This account will pay for the event of a hearing on an appeal that might not be conveniently scheduled as part of the Interim or Annual Meeting. It also pays for meetings of the Board on other NTEP issues (1994 Software).

583.2 NTETC: Weighing Sector $12,000 $7,000 8,542.16

$2,288.54

$1,723.19

583.3 NTETC: Measuring Sector $5,000 $5,000

583.4 NTETC: Belt Conveyor Scale Sector $3,500 $3,500

583.5 Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group $6,000 $10,000 $3,668.98

46
Executive Conunittee

Table 6. NTEP Accounts

Category

Number

Account Description FY 94

Budget

Proposed

FY 95

Budget

FY 94 Actual

Multiple Dimensions Device Work Group

The ongoing work of the sectors to develop and maintain type evaluation criteria, checklists, and policy

requires from one to two meetings per year. 583.2: The Weighing Sector costs were predicted too high for 1994 since it now appears that only one

meeting per year will be necessary. Therefore, costs for a single meeting have been estimated for 1995 as well. 583.4: The Belt Conveyor Scale Sector did not meet in 1993 but is expected to meet in 1994 and perhaps

in 1995.

583.5: The Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group reports to the Weighing Sector. When their work

is concluded on systems for meat and poultry plants, they have been asked to develop type evaluation

criteria for the shipping industry.

No Account Number: It is expected that once a code is developed by the Multiple Dimension Devices

Work Group (operating in 1994 under 513.3 S«&T Committee), there may need to be developed checklists and type evaluation criteria under a new cost center in the NTEP accounts. No decision was made about

this group because it was not known how close the group is to a tentative code in H44 and therefore what

their needs in type evaluation criteria development might be.

583.6 U.S. /Canada Mutual Recognition Work Group $10,000 $22,500 $4,550.46

The two countries have been asked to expand in two specific areas: liquid measuring devices and to issue OIML certificates. Recommendation: OIML $12,500 to be shared with NIST for international meetings for OIML

583.7 Participating Laboratory Conference $10,000 $10,000 $2,383.54

It is hoped that the Participating Laboratories can meet as part of the U.S. /Canada Mutual Recognition

Work Group meetings, and these costs can then be reduced.

583.8 NTEP Persoimel - cashier - clerk $22,000 $20,000 $750.95

Since this is the first year for this program, we cannot yet predict what the specific external costs for maintenance of the NTEP Certificates will be. Costs for NTEP maintenance fee administration was inadvertently paid out of NCWM general account; before accounts closed out, approximately $5,000 will be shifted to this account.

583.9 NTEP Publication Pub 5; Pub 14; Logo

Printing

$12,000 $12,000 $2,575.30

The expense of printing Publication 5 was accounted in 582.2 in 1993.

583 NTEP Operations $87,500 $107,000 $27,464.47

Carryover 1994: $149,348.47

Outstanding bills: $10,000

47
Executive Committee

Appendix B (Continued)

NCWM Budget for 1996 (Jan 1 - Dec 31)

Compared with 1994 Actual and 1995 Budget

Category FY 94 FY 95 Proposed

Number Account Description Actual Budget FY 96 Budget

INCOME

410 General Revenues

411 Registration Fees $ 71,915 $ 69,000 $ 72,000

411.1 Arniual Meeting 50,315

411.2 Interim Meeting 21,600

412 Membership Fees 128,890 129,500 128,000

413 Interest 2,605.92 1,000 1,000

416 Other Income 188.45

480 Service Revenues

481 Special Events 2,485 2,000 2,000

482 Publications 5,030.93 3,500 1,500

484 NTP Seminars 3,800 3,000

485 Promotional -0- -0- -0- TOTAL INCOME $219,796.92 $205,000 $207,500

EXPENSES

510 fireneral Exoenses

511 AtiTiiial Meetin? $ 39 979 69 $ 47 200 $ 50 000

Tntf*T*im iiilC-i Xiii A^pptino IVlV^lillg 25 032 03 31 000 33 000

24 865 78 33 500 40 000

513.1 Fxecutive Committee 1 232 80 15 000

513.2 L&R Committee -558.89 6,000

513.3 S&T Committee 11,395.48 5,000

513.4 Education Committee 10,524.61 11,500

513.7 Annual Committees 2,271.78 2,500

514 Task Forces & Special Committees 5,492.60 22,000 18,000

515 Chairman/Chairman Elect 18,432.08 20,500 20,000

48
Executive Committee

Category FY 94 FY 95 Proposed

Number Account Description Actual Budget FY 96 Budget

516 Administration 19,686.42 23,500 25,000

517 Printing and Publications 7,487.40 19,500 9,000

518 Train the Trainers -0- -0- -0-

580 Service Revenues

581 Special Events -0- 2,000 2,000

582 Publications 3,074.30 3,500 1,500

584 NTP Seminars 3,371.30 -0- 3,000

585 Promotional -0- -0- 500

TOTAL EXPENSES $147,421.60 $202,700 $202,000

49
Executive Committee

Appendix B (Continued)

Proposed 1996 NTEP Budget with Category Codes

600 GENERAL REVENUE

600.1 Maintenance Fees $105,000.00

650 DEDICATED INCOME

651 Grant-Grain Equipment Cooperative Agreement 5,000.00

660 SALES

661 Publications

661.1 Publication 14 10,000.00

661.2 Publication 5 10,000.00

665 NTEP LOGO

665.1 Seals 1,000.00

670 INTEREST INCOME

680 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME

700 EXPENSES

700 Administration 10,000.00

702 Personal Services

705 Supplies

710 BOARD OF GOVERNORS 10,000.00

710.1 Chairman Expenses

710.2 Interim Meeting

710.3 Annual Meeting

710.4 Appeal Hearing

710.5 Technical Committee Meeting

50
Executive Committee

715 PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES nnn no

170 TNTFRNATIONAL MFFTTNGS

721 OIML 12 sno on

722 USA/Canada Work Group 10X J 000 WWV/ . 00\J\J

725 SPECIAL COMMITTEES

725 1 Snftwflrp iJvll.VVCIXW Cirniin VJ 1 VWL* 1 ^nn no

TFCHNTCAI X J-/\_^X XI ^ XV-'iT.X-* COMMITTEE V_*V/1VX1V1X X X X-^J_^ - WEIGHING TY X^XVJXXXi^VJ kjX^V_y SFCTOR X \-/X\.

JS , 000 www .WW 00

7'?0 2 xLUlV7iilclllV Aiitomatir AVpiphinp TV Iv-lgliill^ Sv<jtpm<j kjyoi^iixo J ,,JWW SOO . 00WW

K/fiiltinlp r)impn<;inTial F)pvipp<i 1 'son no

7^1 TECHNICAI X x^v^x xi ^ xv^i&x^ COMMITTEE v^vyivxiTxx x x x^xw - BEI xjx^a_«xT CONVEYOR v^vyi^ v x^ x vyxv

Tpplrnipjil r^nrnmittpp N4^pptincy X CLfiJiliL-aX V^vJiiiiliilLV^ IVX^^llilg 1 500 no

740 TFCHNTCAI X lJf\_^XXl^ XV_-xVX-* COMMITTFF V^V-/1VX1VXX X I. CdlZi - MFASTIRINfi iVXX-</\iJ vJXVXIt VJ OJDV-- SFCTOR X VxXV

741 1 TppHtiifal r^nmmittpp N^pptincr S J 000 WWW . 00WW

750 J-i/ZVX EXPENDITURE X-*l 'I X^X X \^ X\.X_/ OF\-/X DEDICATED XV X^X^XV^xV X JL/X-r XFUNDING ^^-Z i 1 X-r Xi VJ

750.1 Crrain VJXdliX PniiinmPTit X-«U UlL/lIiWiil ("^nnnpr^itivp V.'V/WL/WX Clli W xiglWliiWlll Af^rppmpnt (~*nmmittpp \^v/XXXXXXltt^W mJ5 ^ 000 \J\J\J ,\J\J 00

/uu

/Ul X UUllL/allUlld

761 1 r UUiiLallUli It- ^ 000 00

761 1 X UUiiL'aLlUIi J _^ , 000 www . 00WW

/ UJ MTFP i\ 1 XLx TL(V_/vJV-/ nno

/OJ. 1

1 000 00

770 TNTFRFST Xi ^ X X^XXX-^O X FXPFNSE X-i^A-X X_«i ^ <iJl~t

780 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 1,000.00

INCOME $131,000.00

EXPENSE $84,500.00

51
3 iS

,3 I ? = 3 Hp e

C/3 o ^ (TQ woo 2 s i_

00

U)

00o o3o<

00

ON

QtQO

00O

00O

to

00o06

AO

'Jl

On

tn

0\

t7l

00

00

soo

04o

oo

U1oVO

ONoo

VO

OS

00

bo

NO

(71

to

-J

00

to

00

4^

NO

00

to

<^00

to

to

ON

toNO

NO

too

00o

03O

0\

-4

—J

On

NONO

n c

era 2- w ^o

On

(/3 aB

On

*^

-J

-ooto

00NO

-JNOo

00

NO

00u

NO

NO

NO

NO

4^

kO

-JOn00

-J00

toON

too00

ONo

-J

NO

NO

In

-o

NO

NO

to

NO

NO

00

NO00

ON

to

to

NO

00

-o

NO

NO e

O"o»

NOo

1—1

n

to

NO

to

nOBS(-

ON

-o

•o

C/1

00

oo

00

ko

toono:

04o

to

NO

NO

-4

4i.

4^

ONo

00NO

NO

00

00

too

NO

00

^o00

NO

-o

00

to

NO

OS

~oo

OS

On

as

-o

00

NO

OS os»n

(reo

NO

M

\o o

(>) a. I NO O

so

W ^ 5Q, I VO O

(Jt

—>

2:c

V)

rt >.(s vo

M S a

S£ ? ^ o

NO

NO

4^

VO

(Jt

NO

NO

4i>

SO

NO 2os33

orn

NO

Ho s ^ i 2s

o.o 5 » 2
Executive Committee

Appendix D

NCWM Publication 14, Section 1, Administrative Policy and Procedures

Redlined and Strikethrough Version

February 16, 1995

The following version of the National Type Evaluation Program Administrative Policy is shown as it differs from the last published version of 1989.

Added text is shown redlined (shaded), and deleted text is shown with strike-through.

Amendments and additions are shown with the year adopted below the modified text, for example, (Added 1992).

Several additions and modifications are recommended for editorial clarity. They are:

-Definitions for the Legal Metrology Branch and Notice of Approval for Canada and the U.S. /Canada Mutual Recognition

Program were added, as well as Appendix A, U.S./Cajiada Mutual Recognition Agreement.

-Conference members refer to the "National Type Evaluation Technical Committee" rather than the "Technical Committee

for National Type Evaluation" so references were changed to the NTETC.

-The present organizational structure under the National Type Evaluation Program Board of Governors was added.

-Examples of devices to be submitted for type evaluation were added in table format as well as a new Section C, Devices

to be Submitted for Type Evaluation. This new section is based on memoranda from NTEP Manager Henry Oppermann

and the rewrites and redrafts appearing in the Applicant's Guide of the U.S. /Canada Mutual Recognition of Type

Evaluation Program.

-Appendix B, Authorized Areas and Other Services, was added.

These additions were made as an interim measure until an applicant's guide for NTEP can be prepared since the Administrative Policy is not fully explanatory for those initially contacting NTEP at the Office of Weights and Measures,

NIST, nor at the Participating Laboratories for information about NTEP.

53
Executive Committee

Part I

Administrative Procedures

^ Contents

Section Page

A. Definitions 55

B. Administration 56

C. Devices to Be Sabniiited for Type Evattiatioji 57

G p. Type Evaluation Process 58

D M- Request for Type Evaluation 58

E i|. Steps in the Type Evaluation Process 59

¥ p. Full or Provisional Certificate of Conformance 60

G f|. Variations in Type Evaluation 61

H I. Evaluation of New Technology 62

J* "One of a Kind" Devices 62

I H. What Constitutes a "Different" Type? 62

J II Considerations Preceding Evaluation 63

K M. Period of Validity Status of Certificate of Conformance; MaiBienance Fee 63

h H . Results of Evaluation 64

M M. Certificate of Conformance 65

N %. Report of Deficiencies 66

O Q» Appeal Process 66

P % Distribution of Outputs of Evaluation 66

Q |. References to NTEP 67

Appendix A 70

Appendix B. Authorized Areas and Other Services 72

NOTE: Part I contains changes in Administrative Procedures as of June 1994 and supersedes the 1989 edition

of Publication #14.

54
Executive Committee

Administrative Procedures

A. Definitions and Technology, in accordance with its program for

1. National Type Evaluation Program

A program of cooperation between the National

Institute of Standards and Technology, the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, the states, and

the private sector for determining, on a uniform

basis, conformance of a type (q.v.) with the relevant

provisions of:

NIST Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and

Measuring Devices";

NIST Handbook 105-1, "Specifications and

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field

Standard Weights and Measures", "Specifications

and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NIST

Class F)";

NIST Handbook 105-2, "Specifications and

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field

Standard Weights and Measures", "Specifications

and Tolerances for Field Standard Measuring

Flasks"; or

NIST Handbook 105-3, "Specifications and

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field

Standard Weights and Measures, Specifications and

Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric

Field Standards".

2. Type Evaluation

A process for the testing, examination, and/or

evaluation of a type (q.v.) by a Participating

Laboratory (q.v.) under the National Type

Evaluation Program.

3. Type

A model or models of a particular measurement

system, instrument, element, or a field standard that

positively identifies the design. A specific type may

vary in its measurement ranges, size, performance,

and operating characteristics as specified in the

Certificate of Conformance (q.v.).

4. Participating Laboratory

A Federal or a State Measurement Laboratory

authorized by the National Institute of Standards

the Certification of Capability of State Measurement

Laboratories, to conduct a type evaluation under the National Type Evaluation Program. The National

Institute of Standards and Technology is a Participating Laboratory.

5. CertiGcate of Conformance (US.)

A document issued by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology based on testing^ by a Participating Laboratory, said document constituting

evidence of conformance of a type with the

requirements of this document and the NIST Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2, or 105-3. ^ i>egal Metrology Branch (LMB), Industry

CTanada

The legal authority in Canada to examine, test, and

dp{>FOve (i^vices uoder the Weights and Measures

Act of Canada. Hereafler^ whe» the term

**I**rti<5ipatii»g Laboratory** is used, it is understood

to include the Weights aad Measures Laboratory of

XMBi Industry Canada for tbose devices subject to

the U<^&/Canada Mutual Recognition of Type

7, Notice of Aj^rov)^ (Canada)

A doemnent is^w^ hy Legal Metrology Branefc,

Tttdostry Canada., said document constituting

evidmeeof^onlDrinitAce atn type to the legal

ntetrologiy requirenteni&of Canada.

& V^SL/Caaada Hfutuai Recasnftion of Type

Both the tJnited States <U.S,) and Canada operate

type evaluation {q^v^ programs. Canada and the United State* have readied a bilateral agreement bj! which, for certain types one country will recognize

tlie examinatton and tests performed by the other

country. This agreement is known as the 1l,$x/Caoada Mutual Recognition of T>pe Evaluatioi

Program- See Appendix A for the agreement. On

the basi$ of the evaluatiou and test results, each

country will continue to issue its own (U.S.)

Certificate of Conformance (q.^.) or (Canadian)

Notice of Approval (q.v,).

55
Executive Committee

B. Administration

The National Type Evaluation Program is operated

by the following organizations.

1. Board of Governors

The NCWM Executive Committee acts as the NTEP

Board of Governors and is responsible for the

operation of this program, including the establishment of policy and procedures and the resolution of

policy, technical and appeals issues. (See Bylaws,

Article V, Section 5.)

3 2. Technical Committee on National Type

Evaluation Technical Committee

The Technical Committee on National Type

Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) consists of the NTEP Advis ory Comm i ttee plus Active

Members of the NCWM appointed by the NCWM

Chairman. It is responsible for the development of

test criteria and procedures for use in the evaluation process by the Participating Laboratories. The

membership and voting status of the NTETC is as

a. Associate Members. The NCWM Chairperson

will ^ppoiot mw Associate members on the

advice of the sector chairpej-soji and technical

ad\isyr, tJhere is m fixed term lor tbis representation; the Associate member lyllt serve

until remfoved by the NCWM Chairi^rsOJi, by

the sponsoring company, or wlien the mejoiber

resigns. If one company owns another, or if t^i> companies are owned by the same parent

comptsny. only ofic vote per parent company

Will be permitted. The compa»y(les) Involved

will decide who will \ote. The A;^$oebte

Members also serve as the NTEP Advisory

Committee {see betow).

h. Active Memtw^Si

(1) F^nicipating Laboratory Representation* Tbe

NCWM Chairperson will appoint a votlnj^

representative from every MTEl? fdrtielpilting

Laboratory conducting complete evaluations in

the particular device sector* (Those performing

only field tests will not necessarily be

appointed.) There will be no fixed term for this representation^::

(2) S&T Committee Representation* Iffnndsare

available, (he NCWM Chairperson Witl appoint

a representative frott mitteej

based on the recomn S&T

Committee. The terv r will be

con€urrent::«ifitb ) on::;ihe $&T Committee.

Other Active Membf

Additional Active mi oe appointed

Cwi^ voting statits) { Chairperson

with the advice of th< $ecloi' ehairpet^on a> Snanciaiiy feasible, t

miitee

- - '^Wii

Serwrite

£heir p^r:ttcipatlon to jnal weights

and measnres perspective.

Aovisory Memsers* on

will appoint appropr

Federal agencies witi

chairper

advisor;

the techi

noa from

he

hnleal

il]:::appoinl

^ itber$haye

voting ::right& seetonii

Although the Chairperson will appoint members^ an

appointed representative r 'temate

with full voting rights whenever necessary*

(Added 1993.)

3 3. NTEP Advisory Committee

The NTEP Advisory Committee is composed of

part of the National Type Evaloation Technical

Committee who are^e Associate Members of the

NCWM appointed by the NCWM Chairman to advise the Board of Governors and represent the

interests of industry. (See Bylaws, Article V, § 5.)

The Organizatioft Chart for the Administration of

^he National t^pelvai«at;lon Prt^ram isihowo in

Sligsre;:::!*

4. The National Institute of Standards and

Technology

The NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM)

provides:

a. technical and administrative support to the

National Type Evaluation Program (see NIST

SP 250); and

b. the Secretariat for the National Conference on Weights and Measures (see NIST SP 250).

56
Executive Committee

NTEP Standards Development System

NT? Boirt of OoMcren

(EiBGuBv* CannMw)

fMoralTyptenluaton

Scat>8«ckir ftKior 1 MeMn k U¥m 1

SeoKir 1

c. l>^lm

In these roles, the OWM:

a. administers the Program, including the receipt,

recording, and review of requests for evaluation;

b. assigns responsibility for evaluation to a Participating Laboratory and maintains records

of the progress of evaluations;

c. evaluates the qualifications of potential

Participating Laboratories and issues Certificate

of Authorization to those that comply (see NIST

Handbook H3, Part 11 for criteria) ;

d. functions as a Participating Laboratory;

e. reviews Reports of Test ii|l|i|ifliS|i|:iii^

iiiiiSS|^iitiaii|| prepared by Participating

Laboratories, makes decisions regarding

compliance of the tested types with NIST

Handbooks, and issues Certificates of

Conformance; and

mltted far Typt

Only ised in trade or applications are subject to wei and measures

TierciaJ devices are no? subject to

oval. or weights and measures

i sitbject to weights aM

type evaluations

tflfc

fte!

rroHed through routing

"^EP: evaliiations is formai type

-riterta exist hicfi definitive

ctit I in HandbtK

iif chsoicai scate$|ii

« ^1 ec affects, the ttt^^jsur^eat pr<Krcs5

Psgisteis. ifttsf^ed^ rvice $taticaj ct»tsoies {Qterfacedwi^ retail fuei dispensers;)

e quantity m

WUl U4 eased.

The fSt

tfi.a

1:?

sd

E for tvpe

A able L rhe lis*

IS r

f. maintains records of Certificates of Confor- mance and Reports of Test that have been

issued and updates the composite record

annually pmMlshes a new editiDn of NCWM

P)t&li«9l|ltHt 5^ ^Tadex tff Device lv«lai(1lon$^%

»iHiita%ti

liar B £»r more: ififorfltatlcHnix

57
Executive Committee

Table i

Wetgbiiig j^vic^Sf Blemeitts and %sleros Liquid-Measuring D«vke$» lleiB4»i.ls^ %stc;iki«

Cdmptete scaJteSh, sveh as jewelers^ balajBces^ coBipufiiig

beKHMmveyor scales.

Comptefe ftquid-Bieasurtng sysiems,

sKcfe 9$ di)$|3ie»$«ri$ mvi mm flow m«tei%

Indte«tl]ig «lenL«Bi$ (both m«chaftleaf and digital

element (i.e., automalic butk-weigbing system

Indleating etements sepaiate from ttie measariiig

flieieii^lng: $yste»ts)i

indie&filiig e]em«nls 0>«*9 vehicle scale weighing

M««se(rliiit«Nnt^e%$ $^r3te fr^m Jfte i«dt<f«^«|

ele0L«Bis 0>e.!, positive dlspiaeemeat meters;, turbiae

tempershire range, particularly If the complete scale cannot be tested in an environmental! chamber).

Major elements of a mea$tti^ng Sfj«tem 4«ch

pressore sensors/trsMssd&eers^temperatare

$en$0T4f/triWsdac«3r«f, anti<>n»at$c ten>peratnre

campeaisatarsi

Data processing systems that perform metrologleal funetlonsK (In Canada, certain metroiogicai fanction» such

as t^rtal p»i<j»«om|>nf»6ons» ti<*et prln^g* do not re<|n»re approval but are $ab|«ot to Peid enforcements

Software tbat performs me^oi<^{e«l fttuctlotts!. The software may rm m personal tompnters nnd/«r hardware

that is speciKlcaliy designed as a weighing or measuring device.

Other ^pes of weighing and measuring deviees such as linear measnring devices and solid volume measaring

devices are also snhject to type evalaation or approval.

€ |i. Type Evaluation Process

The type evaluation process follows a sequence of steps

(further explained in Sections D and E and F):

1. Request for type evaluation (usually by the manufacturer) tO KIST, or tO the Le^aJ MetroJ<^

Branch (LMB), Canada**.

2. Decision by NIST to accept (or reject) the request.

3. Assignment by NIST of Participating Laborator>ii|

to LMB Canada*.

4. Decision by NIST on extent of evaluation necessary.

5. Conduct of the type evaluation by the Participating

Laboratory or by LMB Canada*.

6. Report of deficiencies, if any, by the Participating

Laboratory (Kit by tMB Canada*) to the manufacturer, who must correct these deficiencies before

the process can continue.

7. Decision on conformance or nonconformance by the

Participating Laboratory (or by LMB Canada*); if non-conformance, the manufacturer must correct deficiencies before the process can continue.

8. Review of the type evaluation results by NIST.

9. Preparation of the typ«—valuation results—by

Certificate of Ccmfoitnance fey the Patticipatliei

Lahiaratojjfjorsby NIST.

10. Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance by NIST.

*KDtie: See Appendix A Ibi mtsre Infonaadon.

& H. Request for Type Evaluation

Examples of potential applicants for evaluation are:

1. the manufacturer, including assemblers of systems

comprised of subsystems produced by various

manufacturers; and

58
Executive Committee

2. manufacturers' sales representatives.

To obtain a type evaluation, the applicant shall:

1. address a letter requesting an evaluation to:

National Type Evaluation Program

c/o Executive S e cretary' NTEP Administrator

National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Physics Bldg. 221, Room A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

For certain devices,^ application- cai? also be made to £>MB

(Sanada; See Appendix A for mare iiiformatiDti.

2. attach the appropriate Application Form (see Part II of this publication), describing the type (including

drawings with dimensions and specifications of large

capacity scales), its operating characteristics and

instructions, intended application, model number,

capacity, size, and shipping weight;

3. authorize the billing of all associated costs incurred

by pIST Administradoft.. NC'^^ distribtitim;;!^

WM.F maintenance of the Certificate, and the Participating Laborator)' (or for ceitain^d^ Canada) conducting the evaluation;

(Amended 1993.)

4. following acknowledgement of a request by OWM,

ship the type, intact and ready for evaluation, to the assigned testing location. (If special installation arrangements are required, they must be made by the requestor prior to the time of evaluation.)

The physical and metrological characteristics of copies of

a t>'pe submitted for evaluation under NTEP are expected

to be representative of production devices. A company that is marketing a device (e.g. scale, indicator, or load cell) from a manufacturer and relabeling

it under its own name must submit a separate request for

a Certificate of Conformance. The request must include

a statement that, except for the change in proprietary

markings, the device is not changed from the original

type. The original manufacturer must send a letter to NTEP stating that:

1. the manufacturer is providing the device to the company;

2. the relabeling is authorized by them; and

3. the device provided to the company is identical to the original type for which the manufacturer has

received a Certificate of Conformance and

requirements.

If a company relabels equivalent devices (e.g. load cells) from multiple suppliers, the company must:

1. satisfy the requirements above for each

manufacturer; and

2. assign a unique model designation to each type from

each manufacturer. The same model series may be

used, but unique prefixes or suffixes must be used. E J|. Steps in the Type Evaluation Process

The type evaluation process is the first step of regulatory

involvement in the legal metrology confrol system.

1. Conditions for Evaluation

a. Test criteria and procedures are contained in Part 11 of this publication.

b. Facilities are available to conduct the evaluation. (See options available to Participating Laboratories, m paragraph 4 below.)

2. Initiation of Evaluation Process

One or more copies of the type will be submitted with a

request for device evaluation. Engineering specifications

and operating descriptions that characterize the type must

be submitted.

3. Choice of Participating Laboratories

The manufacturer may request that a particular

Participating Laboratory conduct the evaluation, probably

based on location. Cooperation between manufacturer and

NTEP is considered to be advantageous.

NTEP will try to honor the request, but NTEP has the

final authority to assign the Participating Laboratorv'. If another Participating Laboratory could conduct the evaluation sooner, the manufacturer will usually be given

an opportunity to withdraw the request. Under Sie

U.S.'Canada Muteal Recognition Agreement, certain devices may be directed to LMB Canada in order to ensujE a sufficient and diversified workload to Canada to

Inaintain the viability of its laboratory' and competence of

59
Executive Committee

4. Participating Laboratories - Options

The type evaluation process will normally be conducted in Participating Laboratories.

a. Minimizing Program Cost

NTEP policy is to minimize the cost of the Program to all parties. In some circumstances, testing in U.S laboratories other than Participating Laboratories might be warranted,

but only if supervised by representative(s) of a

Participating Laboratory. Participating Laboratories may

consider augmenting their own capabilities by using:

a. manufacturers;

b. independent testing organizations; or

c. Federal or state government agencies.; or

d. U S./Canada Mutual Recognition of Typ^

EvalttatJ<ai Program if applicable,

b. Considerations

NTEP will consider the following before proceeding with

full evaluation:

(1) Is the amount and credibility of the test data provided by the manufacturer as evidence of

conformity of the type to NIST Handbooks

equivalent to that which would be produced by a

Participating Laboratory?

(2) Does the type apply new technology with which

NTEP has not dealt before, and/or does a Participating Laboratory have the facilities or knowledge necessary to carry out the required

evaluations?

(3) In the absence of adequate test facilities in a Participating Laboratory, are suitable manufacturer or

third-party test facilities available?

(4) Must the testing be done in situ because the type is not portable and must be assembled at a user site? Different aspects of a given evaluation may be

carried out at different sites for convenience, such as

at the factory, in a laboratory, and at a user location.

5. Safeguarding Proprietary Information

In the course of the process, the NTEP (and Participating

Laboratories) often become privy to proprietary

information related to the device, manufacturing

techniques, etc. These agencies are bound to protect this information and must limit access to it, or to data developed during the NTEP process, to properly

authorized organizations or individuals, e.g., only the applicant and the manufacturer.

¥ i|. Full or Provisional Certificate of

Conformance

The NTEP will normally conduct a complete evaluation

which will result in the issuance of a Full Certificate of

Conformance if the type meets the requirements. Under

certain circumstances, the NTEP will issue a Provisional

Certificate of Conformance.

1. Full Certificate of Conformance

a. Conditions

Under some conditions, the scope of an evaluation may

justifiably be limited but still result in the issuance of a

Full Certificate of Conformance.

These conditions include:

(1) restricted application of the type,

(2) special requirements concerning installation,

safeguarding, maintenance, and/or recalibration. These conditions may be inclusive or exclusive, as in

"...for use in measuring the volume of water only..." or "...not for use in measuring corrosive liquids..."

b. Permanence Test

In those cases where a permanence field test is required

under NTEP, it is a part of the full type evaluation.

2. Provisional Certificate of Conformance

A Provisional Certificate of Conformance may

infrequently be issued under some circumstances without

a fiill evaluation, but only after authorization by the Board

of Governors.

In accepting a Provisional Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer shall agree in writing that:

a. further evaluation will take place before a Full

Certificate of Conformance can be issued; and

b. existing copies of the type will be modified or

retrofitted if required.

60
Executive Committee

As an example, a Provisional Certificate of Conformance

may be issued after partial or limited evaluation if there is an urgent need for use of the type and the NTEP is temporarily unable to carry out a complete evaluation. (See also Section U I.) G M' Variations in Type Evaluation

Variations in the type evaluation process may result from

consideration of the history of the type.

1. Initial Evaluation

An Initial Evaluation is conducted on a type not previously submitted to the NTEP. In most cases, the

Initial Evaluation will entail full testing of the type.

However, some tests may be waived based on previous

experience with the manufacturer and'or with similar

types.

2. Reevaluation

NTEP may decide to reevaluate a previously evaluated

type, whether or not a Certificate of Conformance has

been issued. Reevaluation must be justified based

on considerations such as the following:

a. Devices manufactured after the effective date of any new nonretroactive regulations must meet the new

requirements; devices manufactured prior to the

effective date of such regulations must meet

retroactive requirements only.

b. The devices in use fail to meet requirements.

Reevaluation may result in reconfirmation, amendraentto,

or withdrawal of the Certificate of Conformance.

3. Expansion of the Certificate of Conformance

A type with a valid Certificate of Conformance may be

reevaluated in order to encompass additional features, such

as the range of the measured quantity or the kinds of

commodities that may be measured.

In most such cases, it will be sufficient to determine the

validity of the added features: the evaluation(s) will not go

through the entire checklist, but will test the new features through their range(s) of performance.

4. Evaluation of a Type Previously Approved by

Pre-NTEP Jurisdiction

A type already approved in one or more jurisdictions may

be submitted for evaluation under NTEP.

Discussions with the approving jurisdiction(s) may lead to the conclusion that the type meets all requirements of

NTEP, in which case a Certificate of Conformance may

be issued without formal testing.

The NTEP may accept data obtained in, or conclusions

drawn from, prior evaluation.

The NTEP may conclude that limited evaluation will suffice to check for differences in the requirements of the

testing jurisdiction and NTEP.

Prior to an NTEP evaluation, OWM will examine the

report of the previous evaluation and the regulations under

which the prior evaluation was made and will determine

the extent to which the results can be accepted. The

decision may be based in part on the similarity of

requirements in the two cases and on the policies and

reputation for competence of the pre-NTEP jurisdiction.

5. Recognition of Pre-NTEP Approved Devices

a. Pre-NTEP Provisional Certificates of Conformance

will be issued to those devices that: (a) are not

affected by the influence factors; (b) satisfy the NTEP requirements; and (c) are based upon the evaluation by another jurisdiction.

b. Manufacturers of these devices must request that a

Certificate of Conformance be issued and provide

copies of the certificates of approval.

c. If NTEP determines that adequate testing was

performed and the device has not been modified

from the original device design, then a Pre-NTEP

certificate will be issued.

d. The provisional Pre-NTEP certificates will be

distributed to the States. State Directors will be

asked to report (within 90 days of receipt) if their experience indicates that the devices do not comply

with Handbook 44. Any objections will be reviewed

by the Board.

e. If there are no unfavorable responses, a full Certificate of Conformance will be issued for the device within 120 days from the date the provisional

Pi^-NTEP certificate was distributed to the States.

6. Evaluation of a type in use but not previously

approved

Many types in use have never undergone type evaluation,

neither at the NIST nor by a state. A manufacturer may

61
Executive Committee

choose to request evaluation under NTEP or, if the device

is to be installed in a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction may require that the type be evaluated.

Some devices may not meet the requirements of the NTEP; however, it is assumed that all types in use meet

the requirements of Handbook 44 since they have

undergone testing in the state(s) in which they are

installed. The NTEP has no authority to change the status quo in these instances. However, for the continued sales of these types, they must be evaluated and a Certificate of

Conformance issued. H I. Evaluation of New Technology

Type evaluation must deal with innovation and the application of new technology. It is anticipated that the NTEP will encounter features for which test criteria or procedures have not yet been developed.

In such cases:

1. the necessary criteria and/or procedures will be

developed, ad hoc, by the NIST and participating

laboratory representatives as expeditiously as possible;

2. these criteria and/or procedures will be submitted to the appropriate sector of the National Typ^

Ivaiuation Technical Committee, N FEP Te chnical

Subcommittee, either by letter ballot, regularly

scheduled meeting, or at a specially called meeting,

depending on the complexity or sensitivity of the material; and

3. material accepted by the Technical Committee will be introduced into the normal NCWM process.

4. Pending completion of the normal NCWM

administrative process, the NTEP will issue a Provisional Certificate of Conformance, provided the device meets the requirements of the proposed

criteria and/or test procedures.

NCWM administrative process normally follows the steps

described below:

1 . If no changes are required to NIST Handbook 44,

proposed criteria and/or procedures will be submitted

through the Executive Committee (Board of

Governors), to the NCWM membership in sequence. Adopted test criteria and procedures will be made a

part of NCWM Publication 14.

2. Any changes required in NIST Handbook 44 will be

submitted to the S&T Committee, the Executive

Committee (Board of Governors), and the NCWM

membership in sequence. Adopted changes will be

made a part of NIST Handbook 44. Test criteria and

procedures will be made a part of NCWM

Publication 14. A new feature or technology incorporated in the type

being evaluated may not meet current NTEP requirements,

but nonetheless be appropriate for its intended commercial

use. The NTEP may then WAIVE or ALTER current

practice and issue a Provisional Certificate of Confor- mance pending adoption of the change(s) by the NCWM

process.

If there is NTEP consensus on the recommended criteria and procedures, AND the type meets the new

requirements, the follow-up process will be administrative. If no consensus can be reached on the criteria or procedures, but the type meets the requirements as proposed by the NIST and Participating Laboratories, a

Provisional Certificate of Conformance will be issued. If more demanding criteria or procedures are subsequently

proposed and adopted, the type will be tested under those

criteria or procedures.

,es

If a device manufactured for sale by a company has

categorijKdand te >of*a*ldjftd" deviise aa4 the amftufacturer t?- - to m^u&tcture an addi£i<»ia1 device drdevit a "one-of-a-kii

-e Will RO laager bfr etmsid^red

pplies to a deviee t -^-a*k{a<J*' device by a

weights and

m ani. ,ase, the

tn one state and. me

" iftstall the device

manufacturer of liie dcvic

ffirouc alteac

^EP evaluation m the device

ch will noi

tors and load cells m all

* one-

(Added 1993)

I H. What Constitutes a "Different" Type?

With two similar types from a single manufacturer, a decision must be made whether to conduct one or two

separate evaluation processes. The following guidelines

should be followed:

62
Executive Committee

1. Superficial Differences Between Devices

Types that are identical in design, materials and

components used, and measurement ranges, but that differ superficially in their enclosures, detailed size, color, or

location ofnon-metrological appointments (function lights,

display location, operational key locations, etc.) will usually be submitted to a single evaluation.

2. Component Variations

Types produced by the same manufacturer with nominally

identical components or materials procured from different suppliers can usually be regarded as the same type. They

will be covered by a single evaluation if the different components or materials are not likely to affect the regulated metrological characteristics, reliability, or life of the

types.

If changes in components or materials are likely to affect the performance or operational characteristics of a device,

separate evaluations will generally be required. A type is considered MODIFIED if a change alters a metrological

or technical characteristic.

J M. Considerations Preceding Evaluation

Certain considerations that precede the type evaluation process itself are discussed in the following paragraphs.

1. Reasons For Initiating Process

Reasons for initiatmg evaluation are listed below:

a. new t>'pe;

b. existing type not previously evaluated for legal use

or not evaluated by NTEP;

c. new application of an evaluated type;

d. modification of an approved type; or

e. previous rejection or withdrawal of Certificate of

Conformance coupled with newly-presented facts concerning the type, improvements to the type, or a change in regulations.

2. Responsibility for Reporting Occurrence of

Modifications

When a manufacturer makes changes to an approved type,

evaluation of the modification may be necessary.

The manufacturer must report changes that might require the attention of the NTEP; the decision to report is dictated by the significance of the modification.

a. Notification of Change.

The manufacturer notifies the NTEP that a change to an approved device has been made or is contemplated. The

manufacturer may make judgments concerning the modification and request issuance of an approval of a modification by citing the existing Certificate of Conformance, detailing the changes, and giving any data,

analysis, and conclusions concerning the technical or metrological consequences of the changes.

b. NTEP Options

On the basis of the manufacturer's notification, the NTEP

will decide whether or not to require an evaluation for ap- proving the modification or issuance of a new Certificate of Conformance. NTEP will inform the manufacturer

accordingly.

c. Marking

Any device modified to meet the influence factors requirements must carry a model designation different from the previous model. The differentiation may simply

be a prefix or suffix to the original model designation.

The device may still carry the same model series designation on the device, but the model designation on

the identification badge must be unique.

K 11. Period of Validit>^ BUim of

Certificate of Conformance; Malntena||||

A C^tScateotCoafiismancedoes not have an explnttloa

^owfew, ihe 4l&vlCid t£ia)atiefactur^r mast uepdate the: tiesisx ofA device to meet new wtnodifted reqoifements

^ KCWH^ <;i3t$rge$ a {Qaiittenance fee far ac iiiicates to support the ivitie^oftbe NCWM

L DectaratloC^^^^^^ll^older. Wt

Peti^<^^^^^^^^»l^ the si^mifaetiii-er ts 1^^^0^et^aeMarcs Hsteot lo $^tiaue to :^retl^^^pa>tng

£Bi:;anitmal maintenance fee fm }&^^^mSoate. If the

fifltaajtefiaRce fee Is not paid (or'l^^ out^tandiRg

bills have - r arranged to be paid for the i$s«3n^i|^^^^^4a Certifjc^eX. the Certificate "inaett^e*'

63

I
Executive Committee

2. Active X^w^ m'}!i^^.mmMmi<^

ISETEP Certificate of Cofifotmaoce,

Z Inactive S^tu$. Devices ar^5 00 longer being

" reraanufactured for commercial

applicattofis. However, devices

maRufactured installed or in inventory, but not yet

sotd^ may it^ed^ $old, r^palrd^,

^r^sold^ md&r

aa Inactive Certificate of Conformance,

4, WitfedrawH Stafeis. The Certificate of Conformance

remains valid unless withdrawn as the result of a

specific determination by NTEP. (See paragraphs 1 and 2, below.)

(Amended 1993)

Withdrawal—of

Certificate—©fConformance - Approval A Certificate of Coafofm^nc^ may be

withdrawn

|. for deficiencies in the type, ili

h. when prodactloR on devices do not meet type,

but only as an action of last resort. (Amended 1993)

|. Feedback. The evaluation process under NTEP can

generate only limited data. The data gathered during

the initial and subsequent verifications of a larger

number of devices of a given type will, when

systematically analyzed, often yield information not

available fi-om the type evaluation. Such feedback

can be used as the basis for revising the conditions

of approval when the situation so warrants.

Depending on circumstances, experience gained

during verifications may justify later changes in the

Certificate of Conformance; in extreme cases, it may

dictate reevaluation of the type.

t H . Results of Evaluation

The results of evaluation include both a report of objective

findings and a report of conclusions and recommendations

concerning approval. These may be given in a single

document or in two separate documents, as indicated

below. Separate documents are especially appropriate

when evaluation and a Certificate of Conformance are the

responsibilities of different officials (for example, when

testing of the type is carried out in a state laboratory and

a Certificate of Conformance is issued by NIST). These

reports will be retained permanently by the NCWM.

1. Report of Objective Findings

The report will be a permanent, objective record of the evaluation process and its results, against which fiiture evaluations can be compared. It will identify the type,

components and salient documents examined, personnel

and laboratories that carried out the evaluation, and any

special procedures, standards, and equipment used in the

process. It will contain important data, ambient

conditions, and the time data were taken, or identify the

repositories of such data and the values of measured

metrological characteristics and the associated

uncertainties.

The report will include all characteristics subject to requirements in regulations and those that form the basis

for defining the type. To the extent that findings are based not on measurement, but on visual inspection, they

will be in each instance as objective as possible.

2. Report of Conclusions and Recommendations Resulting from Evaluation

The report giving conclusions and recommendations will be based on the findings of the Participating Laboratory

and will provide the basis for a decision by NIST

regarding issuance of a Certificate of Conformance. The

recommendation may include the following:

a. Certificate of Conformance,

b. Provisional Certificate of Conformance,

c. unqualified rejection giving the main reasons for

rejection,

d. qualified rejection (recommendation that the type be

rejected, but that it be subsequently approved if specified modifications are made to the satisfaction of the Participating Laboratory, as may be

demonstrated by a partial reevaluation), or

e. recommendation that the type be rejected, that the

applicant be adequately informed about its deficiencies, and that the type be accepted for a complete reevaluation in the future, provided the applicant declares that the deficiencies have been

corrected.

3. Deficient Evaluation

If a significant area of non-compliance was overlooked by

a Participating Laboratory in evaluating a type, costs of

re-evaluation will be borne by the Participating

Laboratory. In such cases, every effort will be made to

64
Executive Committee

provide the manufacturer with adequate time to meet the requirements, including time to modify and/or retrofit the devices in use.

If a type for which a Certificate of Conformance was

issued is found in use to have a feature that was not

operational or not present during the evaluation, costs of

re-evaluation will be borne by the manufacturer. If the manufacturer requests a re-evaluation with the new

feature, and the type is approved, an amendment to the

Certificate of Conformance will be issued. If the type

does not meet approval as a resuh of the new feature, the

Certificate of Conformance will be withdrawn.

M Certificate of Conformance

The Certificate of Conformance (see next page) includes

the following kinds of information:

1. Application of the Type

a. approved ranges

b. maximum capacity

c. reference conditions

d. normal conditions of use

e. approved subjects of measurement: physical

quantities, commodities, materials, objects, or phenomena that may be measured

f. special restrictions on application

2. Accuracy

a. accuracy class

b. nominal error(s); maximum permissible error(s)

c. required use of calibration charts, corrections, or instrument constants

3. Required of Manufacturer

Required name plate information, stamps, marks, and seals affixed at the factory

4. Requirements for Use

a. installation requirements

b. legally required auxiliary equipment and

corresponding minimum characteristics

c. for approved auxiliary equipment, identification of

the measuring instruments in conjunction with which

it may be legally used

d. operating instructions

5. Summary of Findings

The summary lists the characteristics, attributes, and

conditions of the type that are subject to regulation.

6. Post-Evaluation Responsibility of Manufacturer

As a result of requesting an evaluation and accepting the

Certificate of Conformance, the manufacturer implicitly

asserts that all devices manufactured as the type

referenced in the Certificate of Conformance are the same

type. If a production device is foumi with a model

number correspoiiiiiBg to that refBran.cedin the Certifl<^afi^ of Conformance but which does not conform to ths i^^^

the Certificate of Conformance may be withdrawn.

Questions regarding the conformance of manufactured

devices to the type for which a Certificate of

Conformance was issued will be addressed using the

existing verification system based on the following

premises:

a. existing NTEP policies are sufficient to address

production devices;

b. NTEP is limited to the initial type evaluation of

devices lait is intended to work with existing

eaffflrcejn«ftt fxrograms

vaJtdatim <jf type Ct

to

rtlf

provide

Icate may

feedback and

be xvitbdrawti because prodactioii js noii. egyiivalent to Si? type) (sefii jWL5; Feedbsck);

c. the field enforcement process and verification of

production using NTEP administrative resources is responsible for ensuring that production devices

comply with Handbook 44 (this may include

obtaining production devices or components and

sul?5equent evaluation af these devices or

coniponents); and

d. if $^ the field verification process reveals a history

of abnormally high device failure; ©r (ii) the field verification process reveals that production devicei

do not match the t>'pe for which the Certificate wa§

issued; or (Lii) stibsequeni kborator\' evaluation of

the device or component reveals that it does not

Ci)nip]y with the influence f^qior^ . requirements

specified in Handbook 44. this information may be

65
Executive Committee

used in withdrawing a Certificate of Conformance

for cause. (Amended 1993)

N H. Report of Deficiencies

A report of deficiencies will include the following

information:

1 . applicant, manufacturer, and type for which application was made;

2. applicable regulations;

3. specific components and salient documents

examined;

4. characteristics and their parametric values found to be deficient, and the corresponding acceptable

values; and

5. other unfiilfilled conditions (when there are many

reasons for rejection, only the major reasons will be

given).

If non-conformance is based on relatively minor deficiencies or deficiencies that can be easily corrected, the report

may list changes to make the type acceptable.

O Appeal Prwess

At any stage in the evaluation process, especially after a decision NOT to issue a Certificate of Conformance or to WITHDRAW a previously-issued Certificate of

Conformance, a manufacturer may appeal to the NTEP

Board of Governors. A state or other party may also appeal a decision of the NTEP, including the issuance of

a Certificate of Conformance.

Upon request, the NTEP Board of Governors will review

the case and issue a decision, which may result in withdrawal of a Certificate of Conformance. For its evaluation, the Board may request the advice of the Advisory Committee.

Ute MUmia$ procedures wlil be followed wiy&t Misg m

2. 1"he partv upon who'5e actioin or inaction the appeal

IS lodged wili be given the opportunity to provide

Vvrilten conimcnts coin. ^tnmg the appeal Copies of

3 c^py oi Hie lettesf reqaestlHji appeal wili be sent to all !»eniber& of

i Oif <Jovem<8«* to the NTB? uiastM^ment

i^MST^ aad to the ParticijaatingLaboratoty <x other

ai4>tof>jfi&te jasrtj' 8|«>tJ A^vtose mimof ifiaetieft the

a^^^&A is l&dged^ or with whom the dispute coneems.

Board of Governors and to the party lodging the

appeal.

In order to preserve obiectivity on the part of the Board of Governors, no oral arguments or oral comments or di'ji.ii'jsions will be heard by any

member or ineinbers .he Board Governors

unless or Lirilil ,i hearing is jheld to decide the appeal

1 + 4 The Chairman may ask for assistaace or testimony

from a third party (fDr examjplet from 3 Participating

5. The Chairman will notify both parties to an appeal

orally immediately foUowiflg a decision, and follow

up with WRtten notification,

7. The reports of the S^T CojHmittee will he

considered as r^onaJe for the fitandard^, ^miliar ta

legislative history as a toot to «ndensfand the intent of the Committee and Gonferetjeei

(Added 1992)

The NIST serves as a second level of review in its role as the issuer of NTEP Certificates of Conformance. If the NIST confirms the recommendation of the NTEP, the applicant may appeal to the Federal Trade Commission

through the established Federal Government process. P M' Distribution of Outputs of Evaluation

A Certificate of Conformance, a report of deficiencies, an amendment to an existing certificate, or a similar

document reflecting the approval decision will always be

sent to the applicant at the earliest possible time. NTEP

will send to the applicant copies of, or excerpts from, the

reports of evaluation and of conclusions and

recommendations.

The Certificate of Conformance will be sent to all the

states and majorjurisdictions. NCWM Publication #5 will be updated annually to incorporate all Certificates of

Conformance issued during the previous calendar year.

The Publication* includes the information listed below.

1 . Number assigned to each Certificate of Conformance

2. Date that Certificate of Conformance was issued

3. Company name

66
Executive Committee

4. Model designation

5. Device type

6. Capacity, flow rate, or size

7. Copy of the Certificate

*Note: See Appendix B for more information.

Q |. References to NTEP

The effectiveness of the NTEP system will depend on widespread awareness of its utility. Manufacturers and

state authorities are encouraged to publicize the system

subject to the guidelines below.

1. Restriction

Recipients must avoid any implication that the Certificate of Conformance carries with it an endorsement or approval of the product by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology.

Issuance of a Certificate of Conformance by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology only constitutes evidence of the conformance of a type with the requirements of this publication and NIST Handbooks 44,

105-1, 105-2, and 105-3. (See Paragraph A.5 of this document.)

2. Permissible Use of Statements and NTEP Logo

a. The Manufacturer

The manufacturer may communicate to clients and the public the fact that a Certificate of Conformance was

issued for a type. State officials will automatically

receive copies of all Certificates of Conformance issued

and need not be advised of this fact by the manufacturer.

(1) Statement

The following statement may be used in company cor- respondence, brochures, and professional, technical, and

trade publications;

Certificate of Conformance (insert Certificate number) was issued under the National Type Evaluation

Program of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

(2) Logo

The NTEP logo may be:

(a) used in conjunction with the above statement and

in advertising materials for the device for which

the Certificate of Conformance was issued; and

(b) affixed to any device manufactured to be the same

as the NTEP-approved device. However, sale and

use of individual manufactured devices are subject

to acceptance testing by state and local jurisdictions.

b. The States

States participating in the NTEP (that is, permitting the

sale of devices in their states based on the NTEP

Certificate of Conformance) and/or states operating NTEP

Participating Laboratories are encouraged to communicate

their activities to potential clients and the public. NTEP

authorization means that a laboratory is competent to perform standard tests of specific weighing or measuring

devices.

A statement about a state's participation and/or

authorization and the NTEP logo may be used in correspondence, brochures, and test reports and data sheets (provided the tests or services are performed in accordance with the terms of its authorization).

(1) Statement A state whose laboratory has been authorized may use the following statement:

Authorized by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology under the National Type Evaluation Program

(NTEP) for testing —(identify device types covered by the Authorization Certificate).

A state accepting Certificates of Conformance may use the following statement:

(Name of State) ~ permits the sale of weighing or measuring devices for use based on the issuance of the NTEP Certificate of Conformance.

(2) Logo

The NTEP Logo (see below) may be used in conjunction

with the above statements or alone in materials dealing

with the NTEP.

c. Questions About Use of Statements or Logo

Any questions regarding the use of the statements or logo

not specifically covered above, or any questions

concerning the propriety or acceptability of their use in a

67
Executive Committee

particular situation, should be brought to the attention of

the NTEP Board of Governors through the NCWM

Executive Secretary.

d. The NTEP Logo

Glossy black and white positives and pressure sensitive NTEP color Logos are available from the NCWM office.

i?Dr further information please contact;

National Conference on WeigblS aQ<t M^ttr^s

Conference Coordinator

PvOv Box 40^5

Gaitjbersbarg, MD 20885
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Certificate Number:

Page

National Type Evaluation Program

Certificate of Conformance

for Weighing and Measuring Devices

For:

Type of Device

Description

Model:

Capacity:

Platform: Section cap. & # sect>

Accuracy Class:

Submitted by:

name

street address

street address

city, state, zip

Tel: tele number

Fax: fax number

Contact: contact name

Standard Features and Options

Standard Features & Options

Temperature Range: -10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F)

This device was evaluated under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) and was found to comply with the applicable technical requirements ofHandbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices." Evaluation

results and device characteristics necessary for inspection and use in commerce are on the following pages.

Effective Date:

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

Issue Date:

Note: The National Institute of Standards and Technology does not "approve", "recommend", or "endorse" any proprietary product or material,

either as a single item or as a class or group. Results shall not be used in advertising or sales promotion to indicate explicit or implicit endorsement of the product or material by the Institute. (See NTEP Policy and Procedures).
Administrative Procedures

iiliiiiiiiiii

iJ.S./Canada Mutual Recognition Agreement on Type EvaNlllil

X. Furpose

>rhe purpose of this Mutual Recognition Agreement

(MRA) IS to set out a working relationship to impicraeut

applicable provisions of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

by providing for the mutual recognition of the device

evaluations adramistered and performed by the Legal

Ivlctrology Branch (LMB) of Industry and Science Canada

and by the National Type Evaluation Program (N'TEP) of

the National Conference on Weights and Measures

|mCWM) of the p^-|.g(j gjgtgg;

••^^^

2y BackgrouiHl

The Government ofthe United States of America and the Government of Canada are parties to the FTA. Chapter

Six of the FTA applies to technical standards, and Article 604 of this agreement provides in part 1 that;

To the greatest extent possible. and taking into account

intern ational stanclardization ac tivities, each party shall make ccompatible its standards^ related measures and

procedures for product appro va 1 \vith thos^. of th«,o|he::r

Tlie LMB and NTEP operate ongoing t\pe evaluation

isystems for commercia} measuring devices. Canada, many

States and several U.S. Federal agencies require the evaluation and approval of the design and performance of

device prototypes prior to their sale for commercial use;

Rather than submitting commercial devices for the United

States market to NTEP laboratories and essenfially the same devices for the Canadian market to LMB's

laboratory, manufacturers requested that the United States ind Canada (1) combine their evaluation tests and (2)

recognize either NTEP laboratory or LMB laboratory

results of the combined evaluation as the basis upon which

NTEP and LMB would each issue their evaluation

locum ents (either the NTEP Certificate of Conformance

or the Canadian Notice of Approval; Expected benefits

iticlude: increased uniformity of test methods reducing

unnecessary differences, misunderstandings, and

linnecessary duplications; rcduced costs and improved

turn-around time by accessing a single s for type

evaluation for both nations; increased competitiveness for

Iboth U.$+ and Canadian manufacturers by speeding, the time from design to the end marketSi

The following policy was adopted in January 1993 by the

Ipational Conference on Weights and Measures^ in concert with the Legal Metrology Branch, Canada;

Witfj te&pectto weights Md niea$»res <ieyic^!s» ths |>arties agree that the most effective means to remove bairierg to

free trade i$ to achieve mvttmi recogidtitsft of<3evice type

evaluation testing This will necessarily invoive ^e

comparati^ i. analysis; of type evaluation codes aod

procedures together with the tntent of streamlinim and

miniratzin^[ d'lierences ii1 so ^ possible m a$ to enable cftlcteni device evaluation while preserving the techn ic< capability and compcteoce of th^if muttml

laboratories.

The United States National Type EvaJuation Program

(NTEP) and Canada*& Lcga! Metrology mmth (LMB)

agree to recognize each other^'s type evaluatioB results:

NTEP wiii recognize the results of the tests

l^etfOJtned. by

issuitig NTEP

the LMB for the purpose

Certificates of Conformance

Of

for the device types Set mt in the annex to ihh

agreement.

LMB will recognize i tiie: results of the. tes^

coiulucted the 'mm Bsttkii^dfitlg

Laboratories for ^e purpose of issuing a

Canadian Notice* of Approval for the device

types set out in the annex to this agreeKient

Each party will continue to issue its own document (either the Certificate of Conformance or thiB Cm&4m

Noiue of Approval)

Bach party wiS

make all information, availabfe to the other

party^Hi&intainiagcohjft^lentJatityofpfoprietattSi*

ififormatiOHj

collaborate in Sie development: of addiftonal areas of tJititeal recopittton;

collaborate iji the deveiof^mettt of requirements

and test methods for commercial devices afid systems;

col laboratein the developmetit^d maintenance

of proficiency and uniformity of evaluation;

and

collaborate to preserve th« techttic^ capability

and competence of their mutual lafeomtories.

70
4. Colfaboration

Both parties wiil collabonate to eliminate or minimize

differences in requtrement* and list methods as

Citable efficieBt device evaluation

S. Resolution of Coin{daints

This MRA

complaint

not create obUgatiQn& hindmg xindar

-..1. party wUl im&sti$m

-gs forvfar4^ and both

jIutiOT! of

such compiainjts,

6> ~ JOB

This aareementwin become effective

mav he <»Tit*>nADnApni i, 1994. It

fivf: (5} veafs and mav hp

teitninatedata.

7.^ Appllcaiioa fer l^P* Approval

Under this agreement, any applicant for

free to apply to either country when

type approvai b

requiting type

States : or

cc[uiiti*ie$-

1 coa bencia aiid platform

e

c ,iy <111 Li i-ri-CiUuii

=

--

2, Electroaic indicators for use with weigh scales. (Added 1994)

71
Administrative Procedures

Appendix B. Authertz^tl Areas and Other Services

1, Authorized Ar^as^ oJt E>ahiation by UxS*

Participatiitg Laboj-atories

See figure on the next page,

1. Pubiiealioii5

In addition to the annual edition of Publication 5, two

supplements

Weights and

are isvicd annually

Measutos concemiof

CootafOt m Ooice of

; it& avaUahility in imd

copy. Monthly updates of tbe index only are

availahlo through the Electronic Bulletin Board (300

dtso 569-

J 665.

bulletii

For further infot'n iiion on

1 boatd plca<ie call (30') 975-

how

4004

acccsi. the

X AdiRinlstrattv^ Fees

A<ja<fetimstJ4tiv^feecf $300 (ifaparticipating lab drafts gie certificate other than NIST) or $55^ s Ih* certificate) is charged for maiiagemfM e iH-eparatioa, duplication, and disEtribution. o ? G$tti6cat^$ofCoiifonRance. Itiis^ charge is 1 o NTBP evaluation labor and expe-^ - y

jBjainf$nantefe«, and k bVltd ^^pma^iy. t,aou»4WA7 co;>is are provided belowi4 NT£P Logo Seats

:

"

, : t

NTEP FarUdpaliBg Labarali»iies

Currcaat Labor Ciiaj^ges Fw Hour*

Alabama S45/hr**

Cialifornia S73Jhr

Legal Metrology Canada Sm/Mv (Caitadtanli

force "Group $4^1100 for 1 ceil; $2^000 for 2M identical eeU

submitted int the same tikne mm

Railroad Scales: $44^00 pirn expenses

Mar:3/;land $4S/hr

Nebraska $70/hr

iNfew York $75/hr

NIST S70/hr

North Carolina $45/hr

Ohio $70/hr

Oregon S60/hr

* The charges listed below are subject to changei ** The hourly labor charges do not include travel e7^penses i^app^icable;

72
03

ii

O

CD ^

mm

mm

Im

i

m

m m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Mi

m

m m m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m m m

m

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

m

•4> >

m

13:

e

M

<

1

>

00

a.

3

"to

o

>

2

>

ii!

a>: a.

it

ess

S3

I

j2o

J

a.

•fOS is: V :

5J> e

<

4>

>:«<:

;:<!> O

o
Appendix E. NTEP Participating Laboratories Report

Participating Laboratories Evaluation July 1, 1995

All Labs 1992 1993. 1004 tatai iHjS . , dates

Requests Assigned' 296 313 364 1?

21

11 138 43

US Mutual Recognition Requests Assigned

Certificates Effective^ 83 35 68

'J4 63 11

Certificates Issued 297 237 164 76 48 28

Average Time (wks) to Perform A<

"Date Assigned" to "Equipment Received"

| "Equipment Received" to "Type Evaluation

Complete"

|

:tivities for Successful Type I

TEs: (CCs

Issued 1994)

6

6

^valuations

TEs: Updates:

(CCs (CCs

1 - 6/95) 1 - 6/95)

6

11

"Type Evaluation Complete" to "CC 1 Effective" 1 "CC Effective" to "Draft Certificate To f

NIST"

"Draft Certificate To NIST" to "Certificate Issued"

"Date Assigned" to "Certificate Issued" 24

4

'

1 6

if: ii 9 lllll

1 28 23 2!

4

11

4 4

5 31 14

Activity CA MD NY OH NIST OTHER TOTAL

Number of Requests Assigned'

1992 49 22 15 69 141 296

1993 65 24 21 60 134 304

1994 103 39 32 73 93 24 364

1995 (1/1/95 - 6/30/95)

Number of Certificates Effective^

31 24 17 29 67 13 181

1992 7 3 3 11 59 83

1993 8 5 4 4 14 35

1994 14 4 2 23 22 3 68

1995 (as of 6/30/95)

Number of Certiflcates Issued

17 3 6 19 25 8 78

1992 79 16 18 84 100 297

1993 42 11 15 38 131 237

1994 42 9 19 21 71 2 164

1995 (as of 6/30/95) 20 4 3 9 39 4 79

' Beginning in 1994, if a device fails a type evaluation, it is then entered as a new request for a new type evaluation.

Previous to 1994, multiple failures of the same device were still considered as a single type evaluation.

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

74
Executive Committee

Appendix F. Report on OIML Activities

Prepared By

Samuel E. Chappell, Chief

Standards Management Program, NIST

International Committee of Legal Metrology (CEVIL)

The CIML establishes the policy and approves the technical plans and work of the various OIML Technical Committees.

Its 29th meeting was in Paris, France, from October 12-14, 1994. Representatives for 45 of the 53 member nations

attended. The following significant reports and decisions were made at the meeting:

Reports presented:

o Status of technical Committees (TCs) and Subcommittees (SCs). Responsible member nations (Secretariats) were requested to review the status of projects assigned. Member nations were urged to participate in the committees and to review their collaboration in the work as either a participating (voting) member or as an observing (non-voting) member.

0 OIML Certificate System

- More than 40 OIML Certificates have been issued mainly for R76 "Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments" and

a few for R60 "Load Cells."

- Several other instruments are eligible to be included under the Certificate System which requires that the OIML Recommendation for the instrument include at least (a) metrological and technical requirements, (b) a

test procedure, and (c) a test report format.

- A report was presented by the International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) on the results of a questionnaire sent to member nations concerning participation in, implementation of, and future acceptance of

the Certificate System.

0 OIML Information

- The new format of the OIML Bulletin has been well received.

- A long term policy Document developed by the Presidential Council of CIML was approved and it is expected

to be published in 1995. It comprises three parts: (a) Metrology, (b) OIML Today, and (c) Long Term

Strategy.

- A new brochure on OIML prepared, designed, and edited by BIML is expected to be published in 1995.

0 OIML Development Council

The Development Council met in Paris just before the CIML meeting. It established four task groups: (1) Training in Metrology, (2) Planning and Equipping Metrology Laboratories, (3) Documentation and Information,

and (4) Organization of Metrology Services.

Decisions:

o Recommendations. Nine new and five revised or amended Recommendations (14 total) were approved.

Seven of these are of interest to the NCWM:

- Pipe Provers for Testing Measuring Systems for Liquids

- Characteristics of Standard Capacity Measures and Test Methods for Measuring Systems

- Testing Procedures for Pattern Examination of Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles

- Measuring Assemblies for Liquids Other Than Water (Combining R5, R27, R57, R67, and R77)

- Diaphragm Gas Meters (Revision of R31)

- Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments (Amendment to R76)

- Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Annex -test procedures- R107)

75
Executive Committee

0 OIML Certificate System. It was decided to establish a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the System in order to monitor, improve, and facilitate its development. BIML will be the Secretariat, and the United States will be a member among some 10 other OIML member nations.

0 Leadership. G. Faber, CIML member for the Netherlands, was elected President of CIML, and S. Chappell was reelected to continue as Vice President of CIML. Outgoing President Knut Birkeland received numerous

commendations regarding his leadership of CIML over the past 14 years, 1980-1994. On behalf of the United

States, Chappell presented him a "Certificate of Recognition," signed by the Director of NIST, for his outstanding leadership.

o Meetings. It was agreed to hold the 30th meeting of CIML in Beijing, China, from October 23 - 27, 1995.

The Development Council will also meet and hold a symposium during that period. The CIML Presidential Council was scheduled to meet for January 31 - February 1, 1995. An invitation from Canada was accepted

to host the 3 1st meeting of CIML and the 10th Conference of Legal Metrology in Vancouver, British Columbia,

in the fall of 1996.

CIML Presidential Council

The Presidential Council of CIML is its executive steering committee. Its last meeting was from January 31 - February

1, 1994 in Paris, France. The principal items on the agenda were as follows:

A review of the current work of the Technical Committees and the status of the OIML Certificate System.

A review of the communications efforts of BIML. A new brochure on OIML has been developed and will be

published soon.

President Faber will not consider enlarging the membership of the Presidential Council at this time. He made

the following assignments to members of the Council: • Chappell (U.S.A.) - monitor and report on the work of the TCs and SCs. • Kochsiek (Germany) - monitor and report on the activities of the OIML Certificate System and the Development Council. • Bennett (U.K.) - chair the OIML Symposium on "weighing" to be held in September 1995. • Birch (Australia) - develop a draft policy on the relationship of OIML with relevant international and regional

organizations. • Issaev (Russia) - examine and prepare a report on the role of the Presidential Council.

Activities of OIML Secretariats

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

developed in Technical Committees (TCs) and Technical Subcommittees (SCs) of specific interest to the NCWM and (2) a schedule of activities of secretariats, the U.S. National Working Groups (NWGs), and the International Working

Groups (IWGs) of committees and subcommittees that have recently taken place or are planned for the near future. More

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

0 TCI Terminology (Poland)

A revision of the "Vocabulary of Legal Metrology" (1978 Edition) has been initiated. A preliminary list of

words to be defined has been distributed by the Secretariat for comment. A initial revised draft is expected to be distributed by the end of 1995. This vocabulary will complement the "International Vocabulary of Basic and

General Terms in Metrology" developed by BIPM, lEC, IFCC, ISO, lUPAC, lUPAP, and OIML (latest Edition

1993 published by ISO).

0 TC3 Pattern Evaluation and Verification (U.S.A.) and TC4 Measurement Standards and Calibration and verification Devices (Slovakia)

76
Executive Committee

A joint meeting of tlie IWGs of TC3 and TC4 was held in Paris, France, from June 12 through 15, 1995 to discuss work programs and projects of common interest. Decisions were taken that affect some 16 existing

OIML Documents, most of which will undergo revision. Detailed minutes of the meeting are available upon

request. In particular, the draft OIML Document "Initial Verification of Measuring Instruments Utilizing the Manufacturers Quality System" will be sent soon by the Secretariat (U.S.A.) of TC3/SC1 to BIML for distribution to CIML for review and vote.

TC5 Electronic Instruments (The Netherlands)

The revision of DU "General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments" was approved by CIML.

It has been published and is now available.

TC6 Prepackaged Products (U.S.A.)

The committee draft revision of R79 "Information on Packaged Products" has been approved by the IWG. A

draft revision is now being prepared by the Secretariat taking into account comments received from the IWG.

It will then be sent to BIML for distribution to CIML for review and vote.

TC7 Instruments for Measuring Length and Associated Quantities (United Kingdom)

A first committee draft OIML Recommendation on "Multi-dimensional Measuring Instruments for Parcels" has

been developed by the Secretariat (Australia) of TC7/SC5. The United States submitted comments. This draft will be discussed at an IWG meeting scheduled for September II - 12, 1995 in Paris, France.

TC8 Instruments for Measuring Quantities of Fluids (Switzerland)

- TS8/SC2 "Direct Static Mass Measurement of Quantities of Liquids" (Australia)

The Secretariat prepared a 2nd committee draft R "Direct Mass Measuring Systems for Quantities of Liquids"

for comment and vote July 31, 1995.

- TS8/SC4 Dynamic Mass Measurement (U.S.A.)

A format of the test report for R105 "Direct Mass Flow Measuring Assemblies for Quantities of Liquids" has

been developed and submitted for approval by CIML.

- TC8/SC6 Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids (U.S.A.)

A revised committee draft for OIML R81 "Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids" is being

developed by the NWG.

TC9 Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density (U.S.A.)

A revision of R60 is being developed by the NWG.

A meeting of the IWG for TC9 will be held in conjunction with TC9/SC2 in Paris, France, from September 18 -

20, 1995. The status of the current work projects will be reviewed.

- TC9/SC1 Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments (Germany and France)

An OIML Seminar "Weighing Towards the Year 2000" will be held in Paris, France, from September 13 - 15, 1995. Five papers will be presented at the Seminar by persons attending from the United States.

- TC9/SC2 Automatic Weighing Instruments (United Kingdom)

77
Executive Committee

The draft revision of R51 on "Checkweighing and Weight Grading Machines" including test procedures and

report forms was distributed to CIML for comment and vote. The U.S.A. voted yes with comments.

The draft revision of R61 on "Automatic Gravimetric Filling Machines (Hoppers)" including test procedures and

report forms was distributed to CIML for review and vote. The U.S.A. voted yes with comments.

The draft revision of R 106 "Automatic Rail Weighbridges" including test procedures and a report form was

distributed to CIML for comment and vote. The U.S.A. voted no with comments.

A meeting of the IWG for TC9/SC2 will be held in conjunction with TC9 in Paris, France, from September 18 - 20, 1995. The status of the current work projects will be reviewed.

78
Executive Conunittee

Appendix G. NIST and NCWM Publication Summary

Fiscal Year 1995

NIST Publfcations - Actual Costs

NIST

Publication Title

Quantity Total Printing Costs Total Postage

(NIST)

Total Printing

& Postage

Handbook 44 1995 edition 3,900 $5,767 $5,772 $11,539

SP 854 Report of 79th NCWM 4,200 10,785 5.624 16,409

Handbook 130 1995 edition 3,800 6,893 3,200 10,093

Handbook 133 Fourth Supplement 2,100 2,174 2,205 4,379

Totals (AH NIST Expense) 14.000 $25,619 $16,801 $42,420

NCWM Publications and Membership Mailing • Estimated Costs

(Printed at Conference Expense

Publications Mailed at NIST Expense)

1995 Pub 2 Membership Directory 2,700 $9,500

(NCWM)

$3,996 $13,496

Pub 5 Index of Dev Evals, 7th Ed 500 $2,580 (NTEP) 740 3,320

Pub 15 Interim Agenda 3,700 3,700 (NCWM) 6,965

(First Class)

10,665

Pub 16 Prog & Committee

Reports (Announcement Book)

4,000 9,200 5,624 14,824

Totals 10,900 $22,400

(NCWM)

$2,580

(NTEP)

$17,325 $42,305

1995-96 NCWM Membership Renewals and Invitations to Join - Actual Costs

(In May of 1996, NtST will pay postage & mailing service costs)

Renewals and Invitations

(All at NCWM Expense)

Quantity Total Printing &

Mailing Service

Total Postage Total Printing,

Postage &

Mailing Service

Totals 27,000 ($1,130 printing

$1,165 mail serv) Total $2,295

$8,640 $10,935

Summary

Total Printing at NIST Expense Total Postage at NIST Expense NIST Grand Total (Postage and

Printing)

$25,619 $34,126 $59,745

Total NCWM Printing

Costs

NCWM Postage (1995

Only)

NCWM Grand Total (1995

Only: Postage, Printing, &

Mailing Service)

NTEP

(Printing Only

Applicable)

$23,530 $8,640 $33,335 $2,580

79

Laws and Regulations Committee

Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee

Sharon Rhoades, Chairman

Chief Enforcement Officer

Arizona Department of Weights and Measures

200 Introduction

This is the Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee for the 80th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures (NCWM). It is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and Committee

Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting. _

Table A identifies items in the report by Reference Key Number, item 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 issues are indicated with a "V" after the item number. Consent calendar items are marked with a "VC." Items marked with an "V after the item number are for information. The items marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. Table B

identifies appendices A-F, and Table C shows the voting results from the 80th NCWM. This Report contains

recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 130, 1995 edition,

"Uniform Laws and Regulations," or NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods," Third

Edition and Supplements 1 (1990), 2 (1991), 3 (1992), and 4 (1994). Revisions proposed by the Laws and Regulations

Committee are shown in bold face print by crosoing out what is to be deleted and underlining what is 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 otherwise identified as informational. "SI" means the International System

of Units. "FPLA" means the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The section mark, "§," is used in most

references to sections in the text and is followed by the section number and title, (for example, § 1.2. Weight.) When

used in this report the term "weight" means "mass."

Subject Series

Uniform Regulations

Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR)

Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation (MSCR)

Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR)

Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies

for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices Regulation (VREG)

Open Dating Regulation (ODR)

National Type Evaluation Regulation (NTER)

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation

Uniform Laws

Weights and Measures Law (WML)

Weighmaster Law (WL)

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law

Handbook 130 - General 210

220

221

222

223

230

231

232

233

Series

Series

Series Series

Series

Series

Series

Series

Series

234

235

236

Series

Series Series

Price Verification

Interpretations and Guidelines 238

239

Series

Series

NIST Handbook 133 - General

Other Items

250

260

Series

Series

81
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

210 NIST Handbook 130 - General . . 85

210-1 I Ensuring that the PLR is Identical to Federal Regulations 85

221 Uniform Weights and Measures Law 85

221-1 VC § 1. Definitions 85

22 1-2A VC § 12. Powers and Duties of the Director - Amend Paragraph (i) 86

221-2B VC § 12. Powers and Duties of the Director - Amend Paragraph (1) 86

221-3 VC § 23. Civil Penalties - Section Review 87

221-4 Additional Amendments to the WML Regarding Price Verification 88

223 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Law , 88

223-1 VC Revisions to the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection

Law 88

231 Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation 88

231-1 VC Removal of Sections on Variations From Declared Dimensions 88

231-2 VC § 10.10. Packaged Seed - Metric Labeling 89

231-3 W § 13. Retail Sale Price Representations - Section Review 90

232 Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities 90

232- 1 V § 1.6. Fluid Milk Products and § 1.7. Other Milk Products - Eliminate Size Restrictions ... 90

232-2 VC § 3.3. Machine-Vended Commodities 92

232-3 I Lunch Packages - Packages of Meat and Other Foods Including Drinks 92

232-4 W § 2.12. Hardwood Lumber - Retail Sales 93

232-5 W § 2.13. Polyethylene Products 93

232-6 Standardized Size Descriptions for Shrimp 93

233 Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation 94

233- 1 I Review of the Regulation 94

236 Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation 94

236- 1 I Draft Revision of the National Type Evaluation Regulation 94

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Regulation 95

237- 1 VC Revisions to the Regulation 95

237-2 I Define Grades for Diesel Fuel Based on Cetane Ratings 96

238 NIST Handbook 130 - Interpretations and Guidelines 97

238- 1 I Editorial Revisions 97

238-2 VC Standardized Size Descriptions for Shrimp 97

239 Price Verification 98

82
Laws and Regulations Committee

239-1 A VC Examination Procedure for Price Verification 98

239- IB VC Amend the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to Include Authority to Conduct Price

Verification Inspections 101 239- IC W Amend the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to Require Customer Indications on Point- of-Sale Systems 102

250 NIST Handbook 133 103

250-1 I Status of NIST Handbook 133 103

250-2 I Moisture Loss for Pasta 104

250-3 I Moisture Loss for Rice 104

250-4 I Moisture Loss for Bar Soap 104

250-5 I Moisture Loss for Meat and Poultry Products 107

250-6 W Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Packaged in 20-lb Cylinders ^ . . . . 107

250-7 W Maximum Allowable Variations for Kitchenware Labeled by Capacity or with Dimensions . . 107

250-8 I Count Declarations on Agricultural Seed 108

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

Appendix A: Draft of a Revised Uniform Regulation for National Type

Evaluation 236-1 Ill

Appendix B: Report of the Petroleum Subcommittee to the Laws and Regulations Committee 223-1, 237-1, & 237-2 . 116

Appendix C: Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Law 223-1 118

Appendix D: Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products,

and Automotive Lubricants 237-1 121

Appendix E: Examination Procedure for Price Verification 239-1 130

Appendix F: USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service Policy Memo 232-3 160

83
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table C

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results

Yes No Yes No

Consent Calendar 40 0 45 0 Passed

232-1 36 2 45 3 Passed

239- IC (Motion to Hear Amendment) 29 2 36 3 Passed

239- IC (Motion to Amend Withdrawal of

Item)

21 16 38 8 Failed

250-1 (Measure of Conference Support of

Informational Item)

39 0 43 0 Passed

200 (Report in its Entirety) 40 0 46 0 Passed

84
Laws and Regulations Committee

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

210 NIST Handbook 130 - General

210-1 I Ensuring that the PLR is Identical to Federal Regulations

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may publish final regulations on metric labeling in 1995. These regulations

will be reviewed and additional changes made to NIST Handbook 130 to ensure that the requirements in the NCWM

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation are identical to those in Federal regulations, as required under the Fair Packaging and Labeling and Nutrition Labeling and Education Acts. If the FDA issues its revised regulations prior to the publication of the 1996 edition of Handbook 130, and if the revisions change the requirements in the Handbook that are applicable to products regulated by the FDA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology will issue an addendum to the 1995 Handbook.

One possible difference between the PLR and the FDA regulations involves the "largest whole unit" requirement. The

PLR and the Federal Trade Commission's packaging and labeling regulations require use of the largest whole unit in quantity declarations; therefore, quantity declarations of more than 16 ounces have to be declared in pounds and fractions of a pound rather than in ounces. Some manufacturers have requested that the FDA permit the use of either pounds or ounces on some food products. If the FDA permits the use of either pounds or ounces for quantities over 16 ounces,

the PLR will be amended to indicate the change and note that it applies only to food products.

221 Uniform Weights and Measures Law

Recommendation: Amend Section 1 . Definitions of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law by adding the definition

for commercial weighing and measuring equipment from NIST Handbook 44, General Code G-A.l. Commercial and

Law Enforcement Equipment:

1.13. Commercial Weighing and Measuring Equipment. — The term "commercial weighing and

measuring equipment" means weights and measures and weighing and measuring devices

commercially used or employed in establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement

of quantities, things, produce, or articles for distribution or consumption, purchased, offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in computing any basic charge or payment for services

rendered on the basis of weight or measure.

Background: The NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs (Administration Committee)

has recommended changes to the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to more clearly define the scope of weights and

measures activities and to reflect current enforcement practices. (See Item 403-1 and Appendix I in the Administration

Conunittee's Report to the 79th NCWM and Item 404 in its Report to the 78th NCWM for more information.) The

proposed changes were developed by a weights and measures director who had experienced problems with a State program auditor as a result of wording in NIST Handbooks 130 and 44. The Administration Committee proposed that Section 1. of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law (WML) be amended to include the definition for "commercial

weighing and measuring equipment" that is given in paragraph G-A.l. of the General Code in NIST Handbook 44 (see

also Item 221-2).

The Administration Committee's justification for the proposed change is that the current definition of "weights and/or measures" includes weights and measures of every kind, including such devices as measuring cups, bathroom scales.

221-1 VC § 1. Definitions

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

85
Laws and Regulations Committee

carpenter's tapes, wristwatches, etc. Weights and Measures officials are aware of the intent of the definition and the law, but some non-weights and measures people (such as auditors and lawyers) may have different interpretations, causing

confusion and problems. The Committee supports the recommendation of the Administration Committee and proposes

the recommended changes to Section 1. presented above.

221-2A VC § 12. Powers and Duties of the Director - Amend Paragraph (i)

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Amend Section 12 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to read:

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director

The director shall:

(i) Have the authority to inspect and test commercial weights and measures kept, offered, or exposed for sale.

Background: See Item 221-1 for background. The Administration Committee has recommended a change to Section

12, paragraph (i) of the WML to make it clear that the director has the authority, but is not required, to inspect weights

and measures kept, offered, or exposed for sale.

The Administration Committee's justification for the proposed change is that the current wording, as interpreted by

potentially influential non-weights and measures officials, places a burden and responsibility on the director to inspect

weights and measures kept, offered, or exposed for sale. In most cases, workload demands prevent any inspection or

testing of devices that are kept for sale until they are sold and installed in a commercial application. Also, much of the inspection portion of the examination of a device kept or exposed for sale would generally be wasted effort since the final installation is often critical to a device's correctness and performance. Additionally, it is all but impossible to test many

devices kept or offered for sale, such as livestock and vehicle scales and many liquid-measuring devices, without

incurring the expense of installing them. The Committee supports the recommendation of the Administration Committee

and recommends the change to Section 12 presented above.

221-2B VC § 12. Powers and Duties of the Director - Amend Paragraph (1)

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Amend Section 12, paragraph (1) of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law as follows:

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director

The director shall:

(1) Approve for use, and may mark, such commercial weights and measures as are found to be

correct, and shall reject and order to be corrected, replaced, or removed and mark as rejected

such commercial weights and measures as are found to be incorrect. Weights and measures that

have been rejected may be seized if not corrected within the time specified or if used or disposed

of in a manner not specifically authorized. The director shall remove from service condemn and

may seize the weights and measures found to be incorrect that are not capable of being made

correct.

Background: The Administration Committee proposes amending Section 12, paragraph (1), of the WML to reflect more

accurately the enforcement actions now taken by most jurisdictions. The justification for the proposed change is that the only definition of "reject" found in NCWM documents appears in Section 5.2. of the Fundamental Considerations

86
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix in Handbook 44. That section states that if an official finds a device "that does not conform to all official requirements, the official is required to reject it and prohibit its use until the device is brought into proper conformance."

A survey conducted by the Central Weights and Measures Association indicated that most jurisdictions finding a device

that fails to meet certain official requirements (such as marking requirements; access for testing; or even small

out-of-tolerance errors, especially those in favor of the customer) allow a reasonable amount of time for the owner to bring the device into conformance before prohibiting its use and possibly putting the owner out of business. The survey

also indicated that many jurisdictions have different definitions of "condemn," many of which conflict with the implied

definition of "condemned" found in sections 6 and 7 of Fundamental Considerations, that is, "permanently out of

service." Replacing the word "condemned" with "remove from service" allows for flexibility in a jurisdiction's actions and use of terminology. The Committee supports the recommendation to change Section 12, paragraph (1) presented

above.

221-3 VC § 23. Civil Penalties - Section Review

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Reorganize and revise § 23. Civil Penalties as follows. If this change is adopted the same revisions

will be made in other uniform laws and regulations that include similar requirements.

Section 23. Civil Penalties

23 . 1 . Assessment of Penalties. Any person who by himself or herself, by his or her servant

or agent, or as the servant or agent of another person, commits any of the acts enumerated in

§ 22 may be assessed by the a civil penalty of:

(a) not less than $ nor more than $ for a first violation,

(b) not less than $ nor more than $ for a second violation within from the date of the

first violation, and

(c) not less than $ nor more than $ for a third violation within from the date of the first violation.

23.2. Administrative Hearing. Any person subject to a civil penalty shall have a right to request an administrative hearing within days of receipt of the notice of the penalty. The

director or his/her designee shall be authorized to conduct the hearing after giving appropriate

notice to the respondent. The decision of the director shall be subject to appropriate judicial

review.

23.3. Collection of Penalties. If the respondent has exhausted his or her administrative

appeals and the civil penalty has been upheld, he or she shall pay the civil penalty within days

after the effective date of the final decision. If the respondent fails to pay the penalty, a civil action may be brought by the director in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover the

penalty. Any civil penalty collected under this Act shall be transmitted to .

Background: Since this section was incorporated into the WML, several States have had to make various modifications

to get the section to conform to their constitutional requirements. The Committee has also received comments requesting

that the section be reviewed to determine if any revisions or amendments are needed to update the section. At the Interim

Meeting, the Committee decided to survey the States to determine if more uniform wording could be developed for § 23. Following the meeting, the Committee asked the States for copies of the civil penalties section in their weights and

measures laws. Twenty-eight States responded. The submittals have little in common except for a listing of offenses and amounts of the penalties, which also vary considerably. Since there is not enough agreement between the States to

87
Laws and Regulations Committee

suggest alternative wording for § 23, the Committee is recommending only minor changes to the section to clearly

differentiate between civil penalties and civil actions.

221-4 Additional Amendments to tiie WML Regarding Price Verification

See Items 239- IB and 239- IC in this agenda for proposed amendments to the WML that are related to the Examination

Procedure for Price Verification.

223 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants

Inspection Law

223-1 VC Revisions to the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Adopt the proposed law as shown in Appendix C.

Background: At the Aimual Meeting, the Petroleum Subcommittee (Subcommittee) reported on its recommendations

for revisions to the Law. (See Appendix B on page 232 of "Report of the 79th NCWM" for a discussion of the proposed

revisions.) At the Interim Meeting, the Committee and the Subcommittee held a joint public hearing on the proposed

revisions where all of the comments received supported adoption of the changes. The Subcommittee met after the joint

meeting with the Committee to plan future work. See Appendix B for a summary of the meeting and additional proposed

changes to the Uniform Law that were adopted at the NCWM Annual Meeting.

Additional amendments to the uniform law were recommended by the Petroleum Subcommittee following the 1995

Interim Meeting of the Committee. These recommendations are described in Appendix B of this Report, the Committee

will consider these recommendations at the 1996 Interim Meeting.

231 Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

231-1 VC Removal of Sections on Variations From Declared Dimensions

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Remove the following sections relating to variations from the labeled quantities of various

commodities from the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation of Handbook 130 and make editorial changes to § 12.2 to reflect these changes:

10.9.3. Textiles: Variations from Declared Dimensions. ~

(a) For an item with any declared dimension equal to or greater than 60 centimeters or 24

inches, a minus variation greater than 3 percent of the declared dimension and a plus variation

greater than 6 percent of the declared dimension should be considered unreasonable.

(b) For an item with any declared dimension less than 60 centimeters or 24 inches, a minus

variation greater than 6 percent of that declared dimension and a plus variation greater than

12 percent of that declared dimension should be considered unreasonable. (Added 1971)

10.11. Mulch: Variations from Declared Volume.^*^*^ -- An individual package

minus variation greater than 5 percent of the declared volume shall be considered unreasonable.

88
Laws and Regulations Committee

NOTE 8: In addition, the average net contents of lots, shipments, or deliveries must equal or exceed

the labeled net contents. See § 12.1. Packaging Variations.

10.12. Polyethylene Products: Variations from Declared Thickness'^^^

(a) Any single measurement of thickness:

(1) When the labeled thickness is less than 25.4 micrometers [1 mil (0.001 in)], any in- dividual thickness measurement of a polyethylene product may be as much as 35 percent

below the labeled thickness (i.e., at least 65% of the labeled thickness).

(2) When the labeled thickness is 25.4 micrometers [1 mil (0.001 in)] or larger, any

individual thickness measurement of a polyethylene product may be as much as 20

percent below the labeled thickness (i.e., at least 80% of the labeled thickness).

(b) Average thickness for a single package:

The average thickness of a single package of polyethylene sheeting. Him, or bags may be as much

as 4 percent below the labeled thickness (i.e., at least 96% of the labeled thickness).

NOTE 9: ASTM Standard D2103-92, "Standard Specification of Polyethylene Film and Sheeting, " 1992.

NOTE 10: ASTM Standard D-4397-91, "Specification for Polyethylene Sheeting for Construction,

Industrial and Agricultural Applications, " 1991.

10.13. Polyethylene Products: Variations from Declared Weighf^*^* -- An

individual package minus variation greater than 4 percent of the declared weight shall be

considered unreasonable.

Background: The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) recommended removal of those sections in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR) that relate to variations from the labeled quantities of various

commodities. One reason they cite is that there have been instances where manufacturers have used these variations as tolerances; as long as they were within the limits stated in Handbook 130, the manufacturers believed they were in compliance, when in fact their products were short measure. In addition, WWMA thinks that the sections on variations from the labeled quantity do not belong in Handbook 130 because they have no relevance to labeling requirements.

According to the WWMA, references to Maximum Allowable Variations (MAV's) in NIST Handbook 133, Checking

the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, (HB 133) are understandable because they are described in the context of the HB

133 sampling procedure. However, a person unfamiliar with or unaware of HB 133 may, when reading HB 130,

misunderstand the use of the variations and use them as tolerances. The Committee supports the WWMA

recommendation.

231-2 VC § 10.10. Packaged Seed - Metric Labeling

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Amend Section 10.10. (b)(ii) by striking the word "or" and inserting "and" as shown below:

10.10. Packaged Seed. — Packages of seeds intended for planting, weighing less than 225 grams

or 8 ounces, shall be labeled in full accord with this regulation except as follows:

(a) The quantity statement shall appear in the upper 30 percent of the principal display panel.

89
Laws and Regulations Committee

(b) The quantity statement shall be in terms of:

(i) the largest whole SI unit for all packages with weights up to 7 grams, and

(ii) in grams and ©f in ounces for all other packages with weights less than 225 grams or 8 ounces.

(c) The quantity statement for coated seed, encapsulated seed, pelletized seed, preplanters, seed tapes,

etc., shall be in terms of count.

Background: In 1992, the National Conference on Weights and Measures adopted metric revisions to the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation. During the revision process, § 10.10. Packaged Seed was not amended to require

packers to include both SI metric and inch-pound units on package labels for seed weighing between 7 grams and

225 grams (8 oz). This omission has resulted in an inconsistency in the metric requirements for packages of seeds of

different sizes. Specifically, the current subsection (b)(i), allows packages of seed weighing over 7 grams up to 225

grams to be labeled in either grams or ounces; however, packages weighing more than 225 grams must have SI and inch- pound units. To correct this inconsistency, the change shown above is recommended for adoption.

231-3 W § 13. Retail Sale Price Representations - Section Review

(This item was withdrawn.)

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee discussed the need to prioritize its time and resources to focus on issues that provide the greatest benefit to a majority of NCWM members. The Committee reviewed the agenda and withdrew items

that it believes are not issues of national importance at this time. Since the Committee received no comments on this item it is being withdrawn until recommendations for revisions are received from the regional associations.

Background: This section relates to "cents-off" representations, "introductory offers," and "economy" size packages

and was incorporated into the PLR more than 20 years ago. Similar requirements are contained in Federal regulations

adopted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Over the past few

years, several States have indicated that they do not enforce the provisions of these sections because they appear to be

out-of-date, consume too much inspection time for the benefit received, or are in some cases impossible to enforce. Several retailers have indicated that compliance with the sections would be burdensome or impractical and that consumers would probably not benefit from rigid enforcement. Consequently, the Committee initiated a review of Section 13.

At the 1995 NCWM Interim Meeting, it was reported that the FTC and the FDA have indicated an interest in retaining the retail sale price requirements in their regulations; however, they said they would consider changes recommended by

the Conference. The Committee asked the Office of Weights and Measures to work with industry trade associations through the Price Verification Work Group and with representatives of concerned Federal agencies to identify problems

with the current requirements and develop recommendations for changes that would make the requirements less burdensome and easier to enforce.

232 Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

232-1 V § 1.6. Fluid Milk Products and § 1.7. Other Milk

Products - Eliminate Size Restrictions

(This item was adopted.)

Recommendation: Remove the size restrictions from § 1 .6. and § 1 .7., but retain the general method of sale, and delete Note 5 from § 1.7.1.:

1.6. Fluid Milk Products. ~ All fluid milk products, including but not limited to milk,

lowfat milk, skim milk, cultured milks, and cream shall be sold in terms of fluid volume.

90
Laws and Regulations Committee

packaged for retail sal e only in volumes per § 1.6. (a); or § 1.6.(b), provided SI sizes less than 100

milliliters and inch- pound sizes l ess than 1 gill shall be permitted.

(a) SI Volumes

- 125 milliliters, 250 milliliters, 350 milliliters , 500 milliliters, 1 liter, or multiples

of 1 liter.

(b) Inch-Pound Volumes

1 gill, 1/2 liquid pint, 10 fluid ounces, 12 fluid ounces, 1 liquid pint,

1 liquid quart, 1/2 gallon, 3 liquid quarts , 1 gallon, 1 1/2 gallons, 2 gallons, 2 1/2 gallons, or

multiples of 1 gallon.

1.7. Other Milk Products. -- Cottage cheese, cottage cheese products, and other milk

products that are solid, semi-solid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid, as defined in the

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance of the U.S. Public Health Service, as amended in 1965, shall be sold

in terms of weighU , provided cottage cheese, cottage cheese products, sour cream, and yogurt shall be packaged for retail sale only in weights per § 1.7. (a) or § 1.7.(b) and provided further, the

total net weight of multiunit packages need not comply with § 1.7. (a) or (b) if their individual

units comply.

NOTE 4: Except see 1.7.1. for frozen yogurt.

(a) SI Masses—25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250. 375, 500, 750 grams; 1, 2, and 4 kilograms .

(b) Inch Pound Weights

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 , 12, 16, 24 , 32, 64 , 80, and 128 ounces avoirdupois.

1.7.1. Factory Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products. ~ Ice cream, ice milk, frozen yogurt, and similar products shall be kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold in terms of fluid volume.

NOTE 5:—For prepackaged measure- containers, intended to be used only once, to determine in advance of sale the quantity of a commodity such as ice cream, ice milk, or sherbet on the basis of

liquid measure, the size restrictions noted in § 4.43., Measure- Containers, of National Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44,—"Specifications,—Tolerances,—and Other Technical

Requirementsfor Weighing and Measuring Devices, " apply. Handbook 44 requires capacities ofsuch measure containers to be a multiple of or a binary submultiple of a quart or liter, except that any

capacity less than 0.25 liter or 1/2 liquid pint is permittedi

Background: This was item 232-3 on page 212 in the "Report of the 79th NCWM. " Please see that section for further discussion of this issue. The Western and Southern Weights and Measures Associations support the elimination of the

size restrictions for dairy products contained in § 1.6. Fluid Milk Products and § 1.7. Other Milk Products. The

Committee recommends the elimination of size restrictions for these products for the following reasons: (1) the

availability of unit pricing reduces the need to limit sizes; (2) manufacturers of products subject to size limitations are

at a disadvantage in providing their product in a variety of sizes that compete with other products; (3) package size restrictions limit a manufacturer's flexibility to respond to consumer preference and the changing demographics of the marketplace; (4) requiring industry to continually request changes through the NCWM for package sizes is timeconsuming and hampers industry's ability to respond to consumer preference; (5) enforcement of package size requirements is difficult or impossible to justify, especially if the products are offered for sale in stores where unit pricing

is available; (6) enforcement of specific sizes can limit competition and may hurt consumers more than help them; (7) package proliferation is controlled by market factors, such as the cost of store shelf space, competition, and consumer

choice; and (8) consumers purchase millions of other products in hundreds of different sizes using only the net quantity

information declared on the package to perform value comparisons. The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA),

which includes the Milk Industry Foundation and the International Ice Cream Association, supports the elimination of

package size requirements for dairy products so that consumers can have more choice. Consumers have not experienced

the potential benefits of unrestricted package size selection for milk and ice cream products. The industry is also aware

91
Laws and Regulations Committee

that, for the most part, other fluid drink products are not subject to similar restrictions. Finally, some members of the IDFA believe that the elimination of the package size requirements could enable their products to compete more

effectively within the marketplace. Comments on this proposal are solicited from consumers, trade groups, and other

interested parties.

232-2 VC § 3.3. Machine-Vended Commodities

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Amend § 3.3. as follows:

3.3. Labeling of Machines That Dispense Packaged Commodities. ~ All vending

machines dispensing packaged commodities shall indicate:

(a) product identity;

(b) net quantity; and

(c) name, address, and telephone number of the party responsible for the vending machine.

(Examples: "For service or refunds contact: the XYZ Cola Company, Rockville, MP 20800;

Telephone no.: 301-598-1000." or "See attendant inside for refunds."

(d) The requirements for product identity and net quantity can be met either by display of the

package or by information posted on the outside of the machine.

Background: This was item 232-7 on page 219 in the "Report of the 79th NCWM. " The recommendation is to amend

(c) in § 3.3. Machine Vended Commodities to exempt firms from having to indicate a statement of responsibility on a vending machine at a location where the responsible party is available to resolve any monetary discrepancies for consumers. The amendment will bring the section into agreement with Paragraph G-UR.3.4. in the General Code of

NIST Handbook 44, which was amended at the 78th NCWM to include this exemption (see Item 310-3 UR.3.4.

Responsibility, Money-Operated Devices in the Report of the 78th NCWM 1993, page 292). Section 3.3. was originally

intended to apply to equipment installed either in unattended sites or those where the identity of the party responsible to correct any problems is not readily apparent. The Committee believes that a statement of responsibility is not needed

in situations where the responsible party is readily known and available. Comments received on this item at the 79th

Armual Meeting suggested additional changes that could not be made before consulting with the S&T Committee. It was

then changed from a voting issue to an information item so that the suggested amendments can be considered in cooperation with the S&T Committee at the 1995 Interim Meeting. During the discussion of the item at the Armual

Meeting, it was noted that the title of the section was confusing. The Central Weights and Measures Association

suggested that the title be changed to "Machines That Vend Commodities" or something else that more clearly relates

to the content of the section.

At the 1995 Interim, a new title was developed for § 3.3. In addition, the Committee decided that labeling was needed on all vending machines to ensure that consumers know whom to contact to request a refund. Committee members

agreed, however, that vending machines at locations where employees are present and responsible for resolving any monetary discrepancies for customers should not be required to be labeled with such information as the address and

telephone number of the responsible party. New wording was developed for § 3.3.(c) that will provide more flexibility in labeling and will still provide information for consumers.

232-3 I Lunch Packages - Packages of Meat and Other Foods Including Drinks

Background: A lack of uniformity in the labeling of combination packages sold in retail food stores as lunchpacks or snackpacks raised questions about the appropriate quantity declarations for these packages. In most cases, the packages

include products such as meat or poultry that fall under United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) jurisdiction,

and cheese, crackers, candy bars, and fruit juices that fall under FDA jurisdiction. FDA and USDA have discussed this

92
Laws and Regulations Committee

issue, and USDA has decided to address the problem through a rulemaking process. As an interim measure, the USDA

Food Safety and Inspection Service has issued a policy memorandum (No. 124) to its Branch Chiefs on the Declaration

of Net Quantity of Contents on Combination Packages Containing Liquid and Solid Products (see Appendix F). The

Committee recommends that weights and measures jurisdictions refer to this policy memo for guidance on the labeling

requirements for these products. This item will be reconsidered by the Committee when USDA completes its rulemaking

process to determine if changes are needed to the PLR.

232-4 W § 2.12. Hardwood Lumber - Retail Sales

(This item was withdrawn.)

The Committee discussed the need to prioritize its time and resources to focus on issues that provide the greatest benefit

to a majority of NCWM members. The Committee reviewed the agenda and withdrew items that it believes are not

issues of national importance at this time. Since the Committee received no comments on this item, it is being withdrawn

until the Committee receives recommendations for proposed revisions from the regional associations.

Background: In 1993 the NCWM adopted § 2. 12.. Hardwood Lumber as the method of sale for retail sales of all hardwood lumber except flooring. Please see Item 232-4 on page 223 in the Repon of the 78th NCWM for additional background on this issue. Since the adoption of this section, the NIST Office of Weights and Measures has received

comments from several jurisdictions requesting that § 2.12. be amended to include hardwood flooring. These

jurisdictions believe that the requirements of the section would be effective in addressing the same types of errors in quantity claims for hardwood flooring as those cited for lumber during discussions on the need for § 2.12.

Prior to the 1995 Interim Meeting, the Committee proposed to revision to § 2.12. to include hardwood flooring and

requested comments from weights and measures officials, trade associations, and consumers to determine if the proposal was acceptable. The Committee received comments from the National Oak Flooring Manufacturers' Association

(NOFMA) and the National Hardwood Lumber Association indicating that the requirements in § 2.12. may not be

appropriate for hardwood flooring. NOFMA submitted an alternative method of sale based on current industry practices.

The Committee will carry this item over and work with industry representatives to develop a proposed method of sale for consideration at the next Interim Meeting.

232-5 W § 2.13. Polyethylene Products

(This item was withdrawn.)

Background: The Committee received and considered a proposal from the California Film Extruders & Converters

Association (CFE&CA) to eliminate the requirements for "area" declarations on polyethylene sheeting products in favor

of modifying the length and width requirement to be in terms of lineal meters or lineal feet. They also recommended

the elimination of "capacity" declarations on sandwich bags and bags used for nonconsumer uses. Comments were

requested on this issue prior to the Interim Meeting. The Committee heard from other segments of the polyethylene

industry that were not in support of CFE&CA's proposal. Due to of the lack of consensus within the industry, the Committee decided to withdraw this item.

232-6 Standardized Size Descriptions for Shrimp

Comment: This was item 232-2 under the MSCR in the 1995 NCWM Interim Meeting Agenda. It has been moved to Series 238 - NIST Handbook 130, Interpretations and Guidelines under Item 238-2 in this agenda.

93
Laws and Regulations Committee

233 Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

233-1 I Review of the Regulation

a. Review of the Regulation - The Committee received comments from weights and measures officials and industry

indicating that revisions to this regulation are needed to make it more effective in providing guidance so that retailers can

provide meaningful information to consumers in order to make value comparisons. The Committee requests that interested parties provide comments and suggested revisions by November 1, 1995, so this item can be considered at the Interim Meeting in 1996.

b. Cost-per-Load for Laundry Detergent - The Committee considered the proposal to base the unit price for laundry

detergents on a 7-pound load of laundry. We have not received any comments from weights and measures officials supporting the cost-per-load approach to unit pricing. Based on information received at the public hearing, the Committee

believes that there is very little industry support for this proposal. Procter and Gamble does not support the recommendation because: (1) the proposal is not supported by the Soap and Detergent Association; (2) it is based on a derived unit of measure; and (3) a specific derived value may restrict the industry's ability to provide meaningful

information on the number of loads of clothes that may be washed as laundry products, washing machine technology,

and consumer habit change. However, a spokesperson for Church & Dwight Company supported this proposal. As

stated above, the Committee is reviewing its agenda and is withdrawing items that it believes are not issues of national importance at this time. The Committee decided not to consider this proposal until it is clear that (1) weights and

measures officials support this item, (2) there is widespread industry support, and (3) a recommendation for adoption of

a specific recommendation is received from the regional associations.

Background: The Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) was contacted by several retail trade associations requesting

that the Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) be reviewed to determine if the various commodity groups and pricing

requirements provide consumers with the information they need for value comparisons. The Associations note that many

commodity groups for nonfood products are not included in the table and several of the required units may not be

appropriate for many of the new products now being sold in stores. The appropriate SI metric units and pricing also need

to be considered.

At the Interim Meeting, it was reported that the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) believes that it would be

worthwhile to expand the commodity listing in the UPR. GMA recommends that any consideration of metric units at this time should be in the context of providing metric listings in addition to, and not in place of, the current inch-pound

units. They also suggest that the current list be reviewed and possibly amended to reflect market practices, especially

the units (for example, pounds versus ounces) on which unit pricing is based for various commodities. A representative

of the Food Marketing Institute said that her association agrees with GMA that portions of the uniform regulation need

to be updated.

236 Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation

236-1 I Draft Revision of the National Type Evaluation Regulation

Background: A draft revision of the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation has been prepared to incorporate

several of the policies and guidelines adopted by the NCWM Executive Committee and appearing in NCWM Publication

14. A draft reflecting the last revisions is presented in Appendix A (page 104) of this Report. Comments received at the Interim Meeting persuaded the Committee that additional time is needed to make improvements and changes to the

draft. The Committee will work with the NTEP Board of Governors to be sure the regulation reflects the latest NTEP

policies and guidelines.

94
Laws and Regulations Committee

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Automotive Lubricants Regulation

237-1 VC Revisions to the Regulation

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Adopt the revised Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive

Lubricants shown in Appendix D.

a. The Conmiittee is amending its Interim Report by deleting the parenthetical statement in Section 2.8. The Committee

agrees with the Petroleum Subcommittee that, for uniformity, only ASTM standards should be referenced in the Uniform

Regulation. The Committee believes that a regulation should not offer choices between two different standards, since confusion or conflict may result if one of the standards is amended.

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."

b. The Committee believes that language addressing enforcement action should not be included in the regulation. The

proposed language may cause problems for some States that adopt this regulation automatically. The interpretation of

"statistically significant" is not specified and interpretations could vary widely, leaving fuel testing programs to guess

at the appropriate numbers of samples. This situation could compromise some State programs and does not reflect current practices in fuel testing programs.

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.

7.2. Reproducibility Limits

7.2.1. AKI Limits. — When determining the antiknock index (AKI) acceptance or rejection

of a gasoline sample, the AKI reproducibility limits as outlined in ASTM D 4814 Appendix XI

shall be acknowledged for enforcement purposes, with the exception outlined in 7i2. 4 i

7.2.2. The reproducibility limits of the ASTM standard test method used for each test performed shall be acknowledged for enforcement purposes except as indicated in 7.2.1.

7.2.3. Dispute Resolution. — In the event of a dispute over a reported test value, the

guidelines presented in the most recent version of ASTM D 3244, "Standard Practice for

Utilization of Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications," shall be used to determine the acceptance or rejection of the sample.

7.2. 4. When Enforcement Action May Be Talicn. The Director may initiate enforcement action in the event that» based upon a statistically significant number of samples ^ the average test result for products sampled from a particular person is greater than the maximum

or l ess than the minimum legal limits (specification value), post ed values > certifi ed values; or

registered values^

95
Laws and Regulations Committee

c. Petroleum Subcommittee - The Conmiittee wishes to commend the members of the Petroleum Subcommittee for

all their hard work and the excellent product they produced in the proposed revisions of the Uniform laws and

regulations. The Subcommittee will continue to serve as the focal point for petroleum-related issues for the NCWM and

will be called on to provide technical guidance and assistance in other NCWM projects when the need arises.

In view of the need to prioritize the Committee's projects and make the best use of NCWM resources, the Committee

intends to focus on issues that provide the greatest benefit to the NCWM membership and the public. As part of this

effort, the Committee will provide the Subcommittee with guidance on the issues that it should address on its agenda.

The Committee has identified two tasks for the Subcommittee to complete:

1 . The Committee has assigned the Subcommittee the task of defining grades for diesel fuel based on

Cetane ratings that cannot be addressed until the ASTM finishes its ongoing work on the issue. The

Chairman of the Subcommittee will be asked to keep the Committee advised of the status of the ASTM

work and the Committee will work with the Subcommittee to develop a proposal for NCWM

consideration at the appropriate time.

2. The Subcommittee should complete its work on the "Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and

Safety Manual" by the 1996 Interim Meetings so that this important publication can be distributed to the NCWM membership and other interested parties early next year.

To ensure coordination between the Committee and the Subconmiittee, the Chairman of the Subcommittee will work

closely with the Chairman of the Committee to develop and prioritize the Subcommittee's future work plan, meeting

agendas, and other matters as issues arise.

Gasoline-Oxygenate Labeling. - The Committee does not believe that there is enough support in the NCWM for the Subcommittee to undertake any further work regarding the labeling of gasoline-oxygenate blends at this time. The

Committee noted that the Northeastern Association is on record as opposing further consideration of this issue now. The

Committee agreed that it would not consider this issue because it is clear that there is no consensus among the interested industries on whether the current requirements needs to be changed. Another reason for this action is that the Committee

is concerned that the NCWM does not have the financial resources to support further work on this issue under these circumstances. Therefore, the Committee will not address this issue until it is clear that weights and measures officials support reconsideration, there is substantial industry consensus for the work, and recommendations for proposed revisions

are received from the regional associations.

Background: At the NCWM Annual Meeting, the Petroleum Subcommittee (Subcommittee) reported on its recommendations for revisions to the Regulation (see Appendix B on page 232 of the "Report of the 79th NCWM" for

a discussion of the proposed revisions.) During the public hearing conducted at the 1995 Interim Meeting, no negative

comments were received on the regulation. At a joint session of the Committee and the Subcommittee following the public hearing, it was reported that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) had published SAE J1616, Recommended

Practice for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel." On the recommendation of the Subcommittee, SAE J1616 was

incorporated by reference into the proposed regulation as the fuel quality standard for CNG.

Other changes to the proposed regulation include: addition of the definition for "Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use"

that was included in the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Law; amendment of the

definitions for "E85 Fuel Ethanol" and "M85 Fuel Methanol" to make them consistent with current American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) definitions; and division of § 3.11. Natural Gas into two sections: § 3.11. Compressed Natural Gas and § 3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas. At the end of the joint meeting, it was decided to go

forward with a vote on the revised draft. The Subcommittee met after the joint meeting with the Committee to plan

future work. See Appendix B for a summary of the meeting.

237-2 I Define Grades for Diesel Fuel Based on Cetane Ratings

Background: The Southern Weights and Measures Association proposed that a meaningful definition of "regular" diesel

fuel (e.g., a cetane rating below 45) and "premium" diesel fuels (e.g., a cetane rating of 45 or more) be established so

that these fuels can be accurately and clearly identified through dispenser labeling or other means. Refiners have

96
Laws and Regulations Committee

requested product registration from State Motor Fuel programs for diesel fuels that have been formulated to provide

cleaner emissions or higher performance. Several refiners and marketers want to differentiate these grades of diesel fuels

in marketing. A cetane rating could be an indicator of fuel quality similar (but not equivalent to) to the octane rating

used for gasolines, and could aid motorists in comparing the value and cost of the different "grades" of diesel fuels.

The Committee discussed this issue with the Petroleum Subcommittee (Subcommittee) at the Interim Meeting. It was

reported that ASTM is currently working on a standard for premium diesel fuel that covers more than cetane rating in specifying the quality of diesel fuels. (See the Subcommittee's report in Appendix B for more information on the ASTM

standard.) The Committee agreed to carry this item over to permit the Subcommittee time to study the issue and develop

a proposal. The Chairman of the Subcommittee will write to the Chairman of the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) D-2 Committee on Petroleum Products and Lubricants encouraging ASTM to move forward on the

diesel standard. The Subcommittee will then monitor the progress made on the standard to determine future action in

this area.

238 NIST Handbook 130 - Interpretations and Guidelines

238-1 I Editorial Revisions

Background: The Committee agreed that this section of Handbook 130 needs to be updated. Revisions will include the addition of metric conversions and the elimination of material that is either out-of-date or no longer relevant because the

issue has been addressed by the adoption of specific requirements to deal with the concerns contained in the interpretation or guideline. A draft of the proposed revisions is being prepared for consideration over the next year.

238-2 VC Standardized Size Descriptions for Shrimp

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Add the following information to the Interpretations and Guidelines in NIST Handbook 130:

2.6.9. Size Descriptors for Raw, Shell-On Shrimp Products

Guideline ~ If size descriptor terms for shrimp (e.g., small, medium, large, or colossal) are used on packages, advertisements, or on signs when offering shrimp for sale from bulk, a statement

of count-per-kilogram, if sold by kilogram, or count-per-pound, if sold by pound, should be

included adjacent to the size descriptor (e.g., medium-large, 31-40 shrimp per pound).

Background: This was Item 232-2 in the 1995 NCWM Interim Meeting Agenda. The National Fisheries Institute, Inc. (NFI), a trade association, requested that the Uniform Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation include requirements

that specify standardized size descriptors for shrimp sold from bulk or in package form. The requirement would have

applied when a seller included a size claim in cormection with advertising shrimp for sale from bulk or in labeling

packaged shrimp. The size descriptors suggested by NFI included 14 terms associated with a specific "count-per-pound."

The terms used to describe sizes ranged from "extra small" (if more than 90 shrimp weigh a pound) to "super colossal" (when 9 shrimp or fewer weigh a pound). NFI members requested action because many sellers use inconsistent size declarations which can confuse or mislead consumers. The Western Weights and Measures Association and the Committee did not support the NFI recommendation because the proposal included several terms that would not provide

meaningful information to consumers.

The Committee believes that the goal of the NFI could be partially achieved if retailers included a "count-per-pound"

declaration whenever they use size descriptors in advertisements, on package labels, or in conjunction with bulk sales. The Committee felt that this information may help consumers compare values; consequently, it developed a proposed

method of sale requiring a count-per-pound statement along with a size declaration.

When it met in the Fall of 1994, the WWMA opposed adoption of the proposed method of sale because many retailers already provide this information voluntarily, and because enforcement would have consumed inspection resources that

97
Laws and Regulations Committee

could be better used in net quantity of contents inspections. Instead, the WWMA suggested that a guideline urging

retailers and packers to provide the count-per-pound information when size descriptors are presented be incorporated into the Interpretations and Guidelines of HB130. When the Southern Association met in the Fall of 1994, it voted to supported adoption of the original method of sale proposal. The Committee supported the WWMA position on this item

and recommends that the guideline proposed above be added to the Interpretations and Guidelines section of HB 130 to encourage packers and retailers to provide the information voluntarily.

239 Price Verification

239-1A VC Examination Procedure for Price Verification

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: The Committee finds that the establishment of price verification programs to ensure the price integrity

in all retail stores should be a national priority and recommends adoption of the Examination Procedure for Price

Verification contained in Appendix E.

Action at the Annual Meeting

The Committee appreciates the comments received on the 5th draft and thanks all of those who participated in its development. If adopted, the procedure will be published in the 1996 edition of NIST Handbook 130.

The Committee recommends that the NCWM adopt the Examination Procedure for Price Verification with a minimum

of changes so that the procedure can be implemented in a wide variety of stores and jurisdictions before significant revisions are considered. Therefore, the Committee recommends that weights and measures officials and industry work

closely to resolve concerns, violations, and other problems as the procedures are implemented in each jurisdiction. The

Committee is amending its Interim Report to address some of the significant issues identified in comments received on

the 5th Draft. Minor editorial revisions such as restructuring sentences for clarity and correcting typos and spellings will be completed when the final report is prepared.

1. Page 111, Section 1. Scope, amend the last sentence as follows:

"Nothing in this procedure should be construed or interpreted to redefine any State or local law, or limit any jurisdiction

from enforcing any law, of regulation, or procedure that relates to the accuracy of advertisements of retail prices, or any

other legal requirement."

2. Page 112,, 2.14, (e) amend the last sentence by deleting the reference to a time limit:

"(e) Intentional Undercharge. - Undercharges found within 24 hours of the changes are not counted as errors if the store provides, at the time of inspection, information that confirms the price

charged was intentional."

3. Page 113, amend 3.2 Confidentiality of Findings as follows:

"Inspection findings should only be discussed with an authorized store representative and only released

in accordance with applicable public records laws."

4. Page 114, 6.2. Other - add the words "and legibility" after "the."

5. Page 116, 7.3. Sample Collection Procedures - replace the third note with the following:

"Note: In some stores price reductions are not programmed into the point of sale system. Instead,

discounts are manually entered by a sales clerk; however, the sales clerk should have a means to identify

98
Laws and Regulations Committee

this as a sale item. When conducting normal inspections, you should verify the price of the sale items

by allowing the sales clerk to determine the price of the item using the store 's customary procedures.

This will ensure that the customer receives the correct price regardless of the location where the checkout occurs.

6. Page 126, 11.1. Enforcement Steps - add the following note:

"Note: Many computer systems do not allow for the immediate correction of errors in the database.

Downloading information throughout the day may not be possible. Therefore, for the purposes of this section, "immediate " correction of errors may entail the removal or correction of problem signs,

manually changing marked prices, or communicating notice of the corrected price to all applicable

stores through facsimile, e-mail, or any other appropriate medium which ensures that consumers are charged the correct price.

7. Page 127, 13.2 Follow-up Inspections - delete the last sentence.

Background: The NCWM established the Price Verification Working Group in 1993 to respond to public concern about

price accuracy in retail stores. Numerous news stories have accused both retailers and public officials of failing to ensure

that "scanned" prices match advertised prices. Consumer advocates and others have requested firmer standards, and many

have cited the need for strong sanctions. Some stories cite large numbers of pricing errors, predominantly in favor of the

retailer. Most studies and news stories have focussed on scanner errors even though there is evidence that pricing errors occur in stores that use price look-up codes, item pricing, manual key entry, or other methods of entering prices into a cash register. At the Interim Meeting the Food Marketing Institute, the National Retail Federation, and the International Mass Retail Association, trade groups that represent the majority of the retail industry in the United States, expressed

support for adoption of the Examination Procedure.

This procedure applies to all retail stores, including food, hardware, general merchandise, drug, automotive supply,

convenience, and club or other stores. Model inspection reports have been developed to promote the collection of uniform

data. The model reports and uniform procedures will serve as the foundation for the collection and summarization of price accuracy data on a national basis. This information can then be used to provide reliable information on price accuracy with a national perspective. This procedure provides administrators with the tools, guidance, and background information,

as well as uniform test procedures and enforcement practices, to enhance the economic well-being of consumers and retail businesses in their jurisdiction. By implementing this program in cooperation with industry, officials will help to restore and maintain consumer confidence in retail pricing practices and technologies, such as scanners, and provide economic

benefits for consumers and the business community alike.

Additional Background for Item 239 Price Verification

Meetings and Hearings - In June 1993, the NCWM invited weights and measures and other public officials, retailers, and trade organizations to participate in the Working Group chaired by Barbara J. Bloch, Assistant Director, Division of

Measurement Standards, State of California. Members of the Food Marketing Institute, National Retail Hardware

Association, the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association (PFMA), several supermarket companies, and weights and

measures officials from several States and Canada attended the first meeting. Based on comments received at the first meeting, the first draft of the "Examination Procedure for Price Verification" (Procedure) was published in September

1993. A second meeting was held in November 1993. Comments on the first draft were discussed and changes

incorporated in a second draft published in December 1993. At the Interim Meeting of the 79th NCWM, the Working

Group and the Laws and Regulations Committee (Committee) held a public hearing on the second draft. Based on the comments received, a third draft of the Procedure was published in March 1994. Additional public hearings were held

at the 79th Annual Meeting and the comments were used to develop a fourth draft. The Committee recommendation

included in Appendix E is based on comments received at public hearings at the Interim Meeting for the 80th NCWM

in January 1995.

Surveys and Other Information - The Working Group reviewed a wide range of information on this issue, including

a 1993 survey of weights and measures jurisdictions from across the country. Also included were academic, government.

99
Laws and Regulations Committee

and industry studies dating back to 1965, as well as media stories and news articles. The following information represents a few of the issues that are considered most significant to this work:

• At least 20 States are using test procedures to ensure that inspections are uniformly and routinely conducted. Twelve

States responded that they had informal test procedures. For States that have procedures, the definition of a "good"

inspection result ranges from 90 percent to 100 percent accuracy on sample sizes from 10 to 300 items. Most procedures

do not provide guidance for inspectors to "balance" inspections between "sale" and "nonsale" items and commodities

offered for sale from bulk, nor do most include items from meat or deli counters where coded prices are generated by

scales in the store. Some jurisdictions look at the total monetary value of overcharges on th6 sample or individual items

and consider this in judging what constitutes a good or bad inspection result.

• The type, degree, and timing of enforcement actions or follow-up inspections vary widely. Some States limit their actions to requiring immediate correction of price errors, while others conduct follow-up inspections and take enforcement

action based on the level of inaccuracy found on subsequent inspections.

• Several States focus on food stores due to the lack of adequate resources to expand efforts beyond establishments where

inspections are conducted for net contents and scale accuracy. This situation exposes food retailers to intense scrutiny and

legal action for having price errors, whereas other types of retailers are not held to the same standard. This may indicate a national problem; one State reported an inaccuracy rate of 3.8 percent for supermarkets and an 8 percent to 1 1 percent

error rate in hardware and convenience stores.

• Some officials reported compliance rates of 98 percent to 100 percent, but indicated that inspections are conducted only

in response to consumer complaints. Other officials indicated that they had never received complaints about stores that had a history of poor compliance. This is consistent with the experience that weights and measures officials have had in other areas of enforcement.

• Some States reported that they do not perform this type of inspection due to lack of adequate resources and budgets.

However, there was overwhelming support for developing an NCWM examination procedure for price verification, and

a majority agreed that it should be a priority on the L&R Committee agenda.

Other information:

• Errors in pricing are often the result of human mistakes or oversights. Regardless of cause, pricing errors have a negative effect on consumers and businesses. Stores lose profits on undercharges and consumers lose on overcharges,

while inaccurate prices frustrate value comparisons. Incorrect charges are primarily caused by poor pricing practices and

ineffective management control, not intentional acts to defraud consumers. However, retailers with poor price integrity

have not had strong incentives to improve their pricing practices.

• Some studies indicate that error rates on manually entered prices may be 5 percent to 6 percent or more. Pricing errors may occur on any transaction, so inspection programs must use verification procedures that include manual price entries.

• Media stories continue to point out the failure of some businesses to correct pricing errors promptly. A news broadcast

reported that as many as ten purchasers had been overcharged on some products without the prices being corrected after the errors were reported. This has led a few regulatory agencies to impose stringent enforcement action when the same

errors are found on a follow-up visit.

• Results from one study tested the assumption that prices are more likely to be correct several days into a sale because

the store would have had ample opportunity to identify and correct the errors. Results indicate that the day of purchase

has little impact on errors. This indicates that stores involved in this study have no validation or correction procedures once prices are supposedly changed.

• Failure to use random sampling techniques, nonuniform test procedures, and/or small sample sizes may result in misleading information regarding the overall accuracy of prices in retail stores. For example; it is misleading to say that a store with 40,000 items overcharges on 4,000 items if the statement was based on a 10 percent error found in a sample

of 10 sale priced items.

100
Laws and Regulations Committee

• Accuracy tests conducted in jurisdictions tiiat require item pricing hiave indicated errors ranging from 4 percent

to 7 percent.

Accuracy

A. General - This Procedure does not set a "tolerance" since laws require prices to be accurate. This procedure should

not be construed or interpreted to prohibit any jurisdiction from enforcing any law or regulation. The "accuracy"

guidelines in this procedure are based on the same logic that governs other weights and measures enforcement practices

(i.e., errors are minimized so that the permitted number of errors is sufficiently small that there is no serious injury to either the buyer or seller, yet not so small as to make compliance or enforcement costs disproportionately high). Retail

stores can meet or exceed the 98 percent accuracy guideline using available technology and the "good pricing practices"

currently used in many stores. This procedure recognizes that enforcement agencies have limited resources with which

to conduct price verification inspections. Indeed, it is unlikely that any jurisdiction has the resources to devote the amount

of time necessary to conduct frequent inspections in all of the stores under its coverage, let alone the staff time it would

require to achieve a 99 percent or 100 percent level of compliance in just a few hundred stores. The 98 percent accuracy

guideline allows jurisdictions to focus attention on serious violations (e.g., the thousands of stores that may have accuracies

of 75% to 95%).

B. Other Comments - No assumptions can be made about the accuracy of price in any type of retail store. Stores must

be considered on a case-by-case basis because price accuracy in each store depends on management and employees

effectively implementing good pricing policies, practices, and procedures. The evaluation of the "accuracy" of prices must

be based on the verification of all pricing methods used in the store, not just the "scanner" prices. Stores that use

"scanners" also use price-look-up codes and manually enter prices to charge for some items. Many pricing errors result from inaccurate entries of price-look-up codes or mistakes in identify ing products. This document includes procedures

for use in a wide variety of stores and utilizes a combination of "randomized" and/or "stratified" sample selection. This

ensures that the test results provide an overall picture of a store's pricing practices. As stated, price accuracy depends on

the control and procedures in each store. Therefore, a single chain store "failing" an inspection does not mean all stores

in the chain fail. This reinforces the need for routine inspections to ensure that control of price accuracy is maintained

on a continuous basis and ensure that subsequent changes in store personnel and practices do not have a detrimental impact on price accuracy.

239-lB VC Amend the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to Include Authority to Conduct Price Verification Inspections

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Recommendation: Add a new requirement to Section 12 to give the Weights and Measures Director authority to adopt

uniform test procedures to verify advertised prices, test "point-of-sale" devices, and conduct inspections.

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director - The Director shall:

(q) Verify advertised prices, price representations, and point-of-sale systems, as deemed

necessary, to determine: (a) the accuracy of prices and computations and the correct use of the equipment, and (b) if such system utilizes scanning or coding means in lieu of manual entry, the

accuracy of prices printed or recalled from a database. In carrying out the provisions of this section, the director shall: (1) employ recognized procedures, such as are designated in National

Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 130, "Price Verification," (2) issue necessary

rules and regulations regarding the accuracy of advertised prices and automated systems for retail price charging (referred to as "point-of-sale systems") for the enforcement of this section which

shall have the force and effect of law, and (3) conduct investigations to ensure compliance.

Background: Several jurisdictions expressed concern that the scope and requirements of their laws would not permit them

to conduct a price verification inspection on any product sold by other than weight or measure. Another concern is the need for specific authority to conduct inspections of prices if a store's point-of-sale system is not attached to a scale or measuring device. The Committee recommends amending the WML to ensure that State and local weights and measures

101
Laws and Regulations Committee

programs have the authority to conduct price verification inspection in all types of retail stores on a routine basis according

to uniform standards and procedures.

NIST has historically taken the position that weights and measures enforcement activities should be funded from general

tax revenues. However, some State and local governments require the operations of their weights and measures programs

to be fimded from a variety of other sources (e.g., business or device registration fees, or inspection service charges).

Implementation of a price verification program may impose additional costs and require some jurisdictions to review

funding so that the costs of such inspections are recovered in accordance with local policies.

239-1 C W Amend the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to Require Customer

Indications on Point-of-Sale Systems

(This item was withdrawn.)

Recommendation: Add a new Section 22 (current Sections will be renumbered accordingly) to the Uniform Weights

and Measures Law to require the price display on "point-of-sale" devices to be visible to consumers when prices are being

totaled. The proposed section includes a nonretroactive provision for existing equipment.

Section 22. Customer Indications on Point-of-Sale Systems

A point-of-sale system, or other device for totaling the monetary value of consumer purchases

installed after January 1, 19 , shall be positioned so that its indications may be accurately read

from a "reasonable" customer position.

Recommendation: Add the following definition to Section 1. Definitions. ~

Definition:

Point-of-sale system. - A point-of-sale system includes cash register(s), or device(s) and system(s)

capable of recovering stored information related to the price of individual retail items.

Background: Comments submitted to the Committee described widespread instances where consumers were unable to see the price of items being rung-up on cash registers and point-of-sale systems. Most of these devices were not attached

to a scale; therefore, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of NIST Handbook 44, General Code, User Requirement, 3.3 Position of Equipment, which reads: "A device equipped with a primary indication element and used in direct sales shall be so positioned that its indications may be accurately read and the weighing and measuring operation may be observed

from some 'reasonable' customer position." Consumers deserve access to the cash register display of product information

and price in retail stores. The need for consumers to view the price of items as they are rung-up cannot be overstated.

If consumers cannot verify prices as the items are being scanned or rung-up, they must wait until the transaction is completed (e.g., they must pay by cash or check) before they receive the receipt and can confirm the prices charged for the items. The Committee received several comments recommending that the NCWM consider a revision to the uniform

weights and measures law to require that cash registers displays be positioned so that they can be read from some

reasonable customer position. The above recommendation is consistent with the existing provision in NIST Handbook

44 that has been effectively enforced for decades in tens of thousands of retail stores and is based on a requirement in the Massachusetts Weights and Measures Law that has proven effective in ensuring that consumers can see the prices charged

as they are totaled.

102
Laws and Regulations Committee

250 NIST Handbook 133

250-1 I Status of NIST Handbook 133

The Committee is amending its Interim Report to address the issues raised during the presentation made by the Grocery

Manufacturers of America (GMA) during the public hearing. The Committee appreciates GMA's candor in notifying the NCWM that representatives of its "Food Industry Weights and Measures Task Force" met last week with Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) officials to discuss GMA's recommendation that FDA incorporate what GMA calls "Preprosecution

Enforcement Procedures" in its proposed rules to adopt NIST Handbook 133.

Since adopting the 4th supplement to NIST Handbook 1 33 at the 1 994 Annual Meeting, the NCWM has made tremendous

strides in achieving national uniformity among the States in package checking procedures. Since then, USDA has adopted

the 4th supplement, and the NCWM, NIST, and the State of Maryland have sponsored a very successful Instructor Training School that will result in more than 700 weights and measures officials being trained in the new Category A test procedures by the end of the year. Clearly, the NCWM has taken the leadership role in implementing net content procedures that ensure consumer protection while maintaining fair competition in the marketplace. The Committee is concerned that incorporating the GMA proposal into FDA's final regulations would require officials to request "production

records" on every lot found to be short weight or short measure before any enforcement action could be taken. If the "production records" are provided, and if they indicate that the "production lot" failed, the official could then take action.

The Committee recommends that the NCWM immediately go on record with FDA as strongly opposing the GMA proposal

because it would place a tremendous burden on enforcement officials and may, in effect, eliminate most net content

inspections of FDA-regulated foods. The Committee urges the NCWM to support FDA's proposal if the GMA

recommendations are not included. If the GMA proposal is included, the Committee recommends that NCWM strongly

oppose any provisions that implement the GMA recommendations. The Committee urges all industry members of the NCWM to review the GMA proposal to consider its impact on the marketplace. The Committee believes that retailers and wholesalers may be affected adversely when product lots are placed on hold pending receipt of production records from the packer. Retailers and wholesalers might be placed in the position of having to obtain records from manufacturers

to get lots released. The Committee believes that the GMA proposal would also create a serious problem for many

industries which may be inundated with requests for production records that may not even exist because many packers

do not maintain adequate production records on a lot-by-lot basis. The Committee believes that the GMA proposal is shortsighted, ill conceived, and unnecessary because the NCWM already encourages jurisdictions to check products as

far up the chain of distribution as possible. If adopted, the GMA proposal would create a situation where meat and poultry

products and non-FDA regulated goods would be treated differently and might have similar implications for imported

products.

The Committee urges GMA to reconsider its proposal and withdraw its request to FDA immediately. The agency could

then issue a proposal free of provisions limiting an enforcement official's actions beyond establishing a national standard

that ensures that identical procedures be applied to all food products. The Committee believes that this was the intent of

the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The Committee also urges GMA to continue to work with the NIST Handbook

133 Working Group and develop proposals that would facilitate point-of-pack inspections, define "good manufacturing

practices," and help ensure that "due process" procedures are followed.

Background: This was Item 240-2 in the Report of the 78th NCWM, 1993, (page 236) and Item 250-1 in the Report

of the 79th NCWM, 1994 (page 222). In the NCWM's petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November

9, 1992, States requested an exemption from preemption under Section 403 A(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act to permit continued use of NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods," for testing foods

for the accuracy of their quantity declarations. Extensive revisions were made to the handbook at the 79th NCWM Annual

Meeting, and were published in November 1994 in a 4th supplement to the handbook. The Office of Weights and

Measures has provided several successful training classes on the 4th supplement since its adoption, and its acceptance and

implementation are already underway in many States. As of the 1995 Interim Meeting, FDA had not responded to the NCWM proposal nor published proposed regulations concerning the adoption of NIST Handbook 133. The Committee

decided to contact FDA to express concern over the status of NIST Handbook 133 and to urge the Agency to move

103
Laws and Regulations Committee

forward with its anticipated proposal to adopt NIST Handbook 133. If the FDA publishes proposed regulations prior to the Interim Meeting in 1996, a presentation will be made on the proposal during the public sessions.

250-2 I Moisture Loss for Pasta

Background: See Item 240-5 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990 (page 107); Item 240-4 in the Report of the 76th

NCWM, 1991 (page 219); Item 240-4 in the Report of the 77th NCWM, 1992 (page 154); Item 240-3 in the Report of

the 78th NCWM, 1993 (page 237); and Item 250-2 in the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994, (page 225) for background.

A field study protocol has been developed by the National Pasta Association (NPA) for nationwide study to determine

the moisture losses on various pasta products in different packaging materials. The study will be used to develop a gray

area proposal for pasta products which lose moisture to the atmosphere. The Committee will continue to work with the Association on this issue over the next year.

250-3 I Moisture Loss for Rice

Background: This was Item 240-7 in the Report of the 76th NCWM, 1991, (pages 221-222); Item 240-5 in the Report

of the 77th NCWM, 1992 (page 154); and Item 250-3 in the Report of the 79th NCWM, 1994 (page 225). The U.S.A. Rice Federation (Federation) (formerly known as the Rice Millers Association) has requested that the Conference address

the moisture loss of packaged rice in a manner similar to that used for flour, namely, to establish a gray area for packaged

rice. A field study protocol has been developed by the Federation for a nationwide study to determine the moisture losses of various rices in different packaging materials. The Committee will continue to work with the Federation on this issue over the next year.

250-4 I Moisture Loss for Bar Soap

The Committee will ask the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group to update Section 2.5.6." Guidelines for NCWM

Resolution of Requests for Recognition of Moisture Loss in Other Packaged Products" when the group resumes its work

following FDA publication of its proposal.

Background: At the Interim Meeting, representatives of the Dial Corporation (Dial) presented extensive moisture loss studies on Tone Complexion Soap ("Tone") that the firm has conducted for more than 10 years. The studies were

presented in support of a request to NCWM for establishment of a gray area for bar soap. The Committee found the Dial

studies extensively detailed and supported with well-documented statistical data and other materials which confirm that "Tone" losses up to 10 percent of its weight due to moisture loss over its typical shelf life. The proposal also included

a September 26, 1984, letter regarding moisture allowances on bar soap from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

to a weights and measures jurisdiction indicating that FDA "would not consider a moisture loss as high as 10 percent or

greater ... to be unreasonable." The FDA guidance is consistent with the findings of a weight loss study on bar soap conducted by the NIST Office of Weights and Measures in the I970's which found that some soap bars in the study lost up to 15 percent of their weight due to moisture loss though, on the average, the soap bars lost about 7 percent.

The Committee reviewed Dial's proposal and decided that the moisture loss data in the proposal, though well-documented

in nationwide studies, can only be used with "Tone" and no other brand or type of soap bar. Therefore the Committee

decided not to recommend adoption of a gray area for a single brand of soap. The gray areas adopted for flour and dry

pet food, for example, were based on studies conducted on a wide range of products from several manufacturers and apply

to all brands and types of flour and dry pet food products, not to individual brands.

Recommendation: Because moisture loss information for a wide range of packaged goods, determined using scientific methods that are statistically sound, is not readily available, weights and measures administrators are often unable to provide guidance on moisture allowances to their field personnel. When an inspector takes enforcement action (e.g., issues a stop-sale or citation) against any underweight product that is subject to moisture loss, there is no question that the inspector is required by law to recognize reasonable variations caused by moisture loss. If reasonable moisture loss is not

recognized, the weights and measures agency is exposed to legal action for failing to provide the owner of the product

due process under the law.

104
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Committee believes that weights and measures administrators and field officials should be provided with as much

information and guidance as possible to help in making enforcement decisions involving products subject to moisture loss so that jurisdictions can continue to enforce net weight requirements on all types of products. As a step towards this goal, the Committee is presenting the moisture loss data for Dial's "Tone Complexion Soap" so that it can be used when the net weight of this brand of soap bar is verified. Dial's data was developed by collecting hundreds of bars from retail locations around the country and testing them in a laboratory to develop moisture loss curves that were then verified through additional retail sampling. According to both Dial and several weights and measures officials, these studies have

been accepted and used by several jurisdictions around the country to recognize moisture loss issues. The approach used

by Dial to develop this information on "Tone Complexion Soap" can serve as a model approach that could be used by

any soap manufacturer to develop moisture loss data for other bar soaps.

The Committee recommends that weights and measures administrators and officials use the procedures described below

to determine whether lots of "Tone Complexion Soap" that average less than the labeled net weight may be underweight

due to reasonable moisture loss. The Committee will continue to work with Dial to ensure that the data is routinely

reverified and updated to ensure that it reflects any changes that may occur in the formulation of the bar soap, changes

in packaging material, or significant shifts in distribution or handling practices.

How to use the Moisture Loss Data for "Tone Cosmetic Soap"

The following guidance applies to "Tone" products manufactured by the Dial Corporation. This information includes guidance in how to read product code dates, which allows you to determine the production date of the "Tone" soap bars being inspected so that reasonable moisture loss can be determined in increments of 10 days beginning from time of pack

up to 450 days of shelf life. This approach is different from the gray area approach for other products because it limits the moisture allowance to an amount determined by data linked to the length of time the product has been exposed to various environments during shipping, handling, and retail display.

How the Tables are Used to Determine Moisture Loss

The following example will illustrate how to use the look up tables. While conducting a package inspection on March

12, 1994, in a retail drug store, you find a lot of Tone Complexion Soap, labeled with a net weight of 99 g (3.5 oz), underweight with an average negative error of 4.5 grams. You determine that the code date stamped on the packaging

is "J123A1."

Step 1. Determine when the product was manufactured by interpreting the code date J123A1 using Table 1 below.

According to the code date "J123A1," the soap bars in this example were made on October 12, 1993, and are 150 days

old on March 12, 1994.

Step 2. From Table 2 look up the average predicted moisture loss that can be expected to occur "Tone Complexion Soap"

within 150 days of manufacture.

105
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table 1. Code Date Information for Tone Complexion Soap

Determine the Date of Manufacture from Code Date:

• The first four characters in the Code Date stamped on the end flap of the package identify the date the product was packaged (the additional characters are used to identify the plant, shift, and production line).

• The first character, a letter, designates the month.

A = Jan B = Feb

C = Mar

D = Apr

E = May

F = Jun G = Jul H = Aug

I = Sep

J = Oct

K = Nov

L = Dec

• The second and third characters are numbers, which designate the day of the month:

02 = 2nd 16 = 16th 23 = 23rd

• The fourth character designates the year of the decade: 1 = 1991 2 = 1992 3 = 1993

Table 2. Moisture Loss Data for Tone Complexion Soap

Days from Mfg

Moisture Loss %Days from Mfg

Moisture Loss %Days from MfgMoisture Loss %

16 i 166 6.6i 516 7.4<> 16 iM 1'76 6.1 m 7.53 30 4.44 180 6.78 330 7.57 46 4.S1 1% 6.85 546 7.61 50 5.1 200 6.91 350 7.64 ^6 5.34 216 6M 366 7.68 70 5.54 220 7.04 370 7.72 S6 5.1i m 7.1 386 7.75 90 5.87 240 7.15 390 7.79 160 6.61 256 7.2 466 7.82 110 6.13 260 7.26 410 7.85 126 6.ii 276 l.ii 426 7.88 130 6.35 280 7.35 430 7.91 146 6.45 296 7.4 446 7.54

150 6.54 300 7.44 450 7.97

According to Table 2, soap bars 150 days old have had an average moisture loss of 6.54 percent.

Step 3. To convert this percentage to weight multiply the moisture loss in percent from Table 2. times the labeled

quantity. The computed value represents the value of the weight loss that can occur due to moisture loss.

For example: 6.54 % x 99 g = 6.47 g

Step 4. Compare the average error to the value computed in Step 3. If the average error is larger than the value

computed in Step 3, the lot fails. If the average error is less, the lot passes.

For example: The average error for this lot was 4.5 g, which is less than the moisture loss value of 6.47 g, so the lot passes. For moisture loss information on this, or other soap products manufactured by Dial Corporation contact: Ann

E. Cote, Quality Process Improvement, Dial Corporation, 2000 Aucutt Road, Montgomery, Illinois 60538, or by

telephone on 708-801-4686 or fax on 708-892-5635.

106
Laws and Regulations Committee

250-5 I Moisture Loss for Meat and Poultry Products

The Committee will solicit comments on this item at the Interim Meetings in January 1996 to determine if there is sufficient justification, support, and resources to develop gray areas for these products.

Background: See Item 240-7 on page 239 in the Report of the 78th NCWM for background on this issue. The NIST

Handbook 133 Working Group will develop a workplan to implement studies on one or more of the following commodity

groups at its next meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for June 1995. Parties interested in participating in these

studies should contact one of the Committee's Technical Advisors at the Office of Weights and Measures.

1 . Ice-packed bulk poultry

2. Raw meat products (chopped beef, ground beef, hamburger, and beef patties) _

3. Cured pork products (hams, shoulders, and loins)

4. Cured beef products (corned beef, corned beef brisket, and tongues)

5. Ham patties, chopped ham, pressed ham, and similar products

6. Dry salami and other meat or poultry products that lose moisture to the atmosphere

250-6 W Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Packaged in 20-lb Cylinders

(This item was withdrawn.)

Background: The Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) was contacted by representatives of the Southern Weights

and Measures Association and county jurisdictions in Indiana and Pennsylvania concerning the weighing practices and

tare procedures used to fill 20-lb cylinders of LPG for home use, such as barbecue grills, heating units, and for some

recreational vehicles. In some cases, after finding underweight cylinders offered for sale at several locations, inspectors

have been told that some shortweighing is a direct result of safety regulations that limit the amount of LPG that can be

put into a cylinder.

At the Interim Meeting the Committee reviewed inspection findings from Wisconsin, New Jersey, California, Indiana,

and the Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) of Industry Canada. The summary of inspections revealed that 20-lb cylinders

of LPG had been found underweight on a significant number of inspections. The shortages appear to be caused primarily

by improper weighing procedures (e.g., leaving the fill nozzle attached during the final weighing process), inaccurate

tare weights, and scale inaccuracies. There was no clear indication in the material received that cylinders are being

underfilled for safety reasons; however, the Committee position is that if cylinders are filled to less than 20-lb for safety reasons, then the declared net weight on cylinder labels, signs, or other advertisements, must be based on the actual net weight. The Committee encourages weights and measures jurisdictions to conduct net quantity inspections on 20-lb

cylinders of LPG. The National Propane Gas Association has volunteered to help with an industry education program

to help eliminate weighing errors like the ones mentioned above. Based on its review of this item, the Committee agreed

that no changes are needed in existing laws or test procedures, so this item is being withdrawn.

250-7 W Maximum Allowable Variations for Kitchenware Labeled by Capacity

or with Dimensions

(This item was withdrawn.)

The Committee withdrew this item at the request of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association, the Cookware

Manufacturers Association, and General Mills Inc.

107
Laws and Regulations Committee

Recommendation: Add the following subsection to § 2.13. Exceptions to the MAV's in NIST Handbook 133:

2.13.5. Kitchenware

Whenever the dimensions or capacity of kitchenware such as cookware, bakeware, household dry

measures, and similar items are declared on or for a product, the following maximum allowable

variations shall apply:

(a) minus 6 millimeters (1/4 in) for items labeled by dimensions.

(b) minus 5 percent of the stated capacity for items labeled by capacity.

Background: The NIST Handbook 133 Working Group received a request to amend the handbook so that the maximum

allowable variations (MAV's) for packages labeled in terms of volume would be applied to cookware, bakeware, or any

other item that is labeled in terms of volume. The Working Group did not support the proposal because the MAV's in the handbook are based on variations in the volume of fill of packages of liquid commodities, not on studies of the

variations in the capacity of products such as cookware labeled in terms of volume.

Kitchenware, usually labeled by capacity or dimensions, includes household dry measures, mixing bowls, pots, cooking

pots and pans, bakeware, disposable cups and bowls, beverage containers, storage containers, buckets, utility pans and

tubs, drink dispensers, canteens, ice chests, etc. Many of these items (with the exception of the dry measures) may be

purchased just for their ability to hold a commodity, although not necessarily any specific amount of that commodity.

Most cookware, bakeware, and other items are manufactured by casting, molding, or pressing materials using equipment

or manufacturing processes developed to meet voluntary industry standards. The Cookware Manufacturers Association

(CMA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) have adopted a voluntary standard that allows a + 5 percent tolerance for capacity (+1/4 inch [6 mm] for dimensional measurements) on cookware, bakeware, and measuring

cups and spoons. In the past, several State officials contacted OWM for guidance in responding to consumer complaints

about the accuracy of crockpots, cookware, and bakeware. OWM advised officials to permit the allowable difference

specified in the CMA/ANSI standards when determining if these products comply. Consequently, OWM recommended

that the Committee consider adding a section to NIST Handbook 130 or Handbook 133, as appropriate, which would

establish an allowable difference of plus or minus 6 millimeters (1/4 in) for items labeled by dimensions and an allowable

difference of plus or minus 5 percent of the stated capacity for items labeled by capacity. The proposal for an "allowable

difference" was supported by CMA and General Mills, Inc.

Prior to and during the Interim Meeting several weights and measures officials opposed the adoption of an "allowable

difference" for kitchenware because they are concerned that it will be used as a tolerance for these consumer products.

Instead, these officials recommended adoption of a "maximum allowable variation" to be applied in conjunction with the "average requirement" in Handbook 133. The Committee agreed with the comments and modified the proposal to make

it clear that the proposed value would be a MAV, not an "allowable difference." The proposal was also amended to make it clear that the MAV would apply only to kitchenware, not to commercial measuring equipment.

250-8 I Count Declarations on Agricultural Seed

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee received an update on this activity from the American Seed Trade Association

(ASTA) and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Pioneer) during the public hearing and will continue to urge the NIST

Handbook 133 Working Group to work with industry, trade associations, and other interested parties to develop a proposal for consideration by the NCWM at an appropriate time.

Recommendation: The Committee decided to coordinate a study to determine if the values contained in HB 133, Table

2-7. Maximum Allowable Variations for Packages Labeled by Count, are appropriate for agricultural seed labeled by

count. The Committee is referring this item to the Handbook 133 Working Group so that this work can be coordinated

with the seed and farming industry and members of the Society of Commercial Seed Technologists (SCST), Association

of American Seed Control Officials (AASCO), and the Association of Official Seed Analysts (AOSA).

108
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Office of Weights and Measures will contact the ASIA, SCST, AASCO, AOSA, and other interested panics to determine if a working group can be formed in the near future to: (1) define the scope of and develop a woricplan for

this project; (2) identify individuals (e.g., packers, farmers, and seed control and weights and measures officials) who

are willing to participate in this work; (3) evaluate the appropriateness of current test methods for verifying count to determine their utility; and (4) determine the environmental and other factors that must be recognized as influencing the

test results.

Background: At the Interim Meeting, the Committee received information regarding the declaration of count on

packages of agricultural seed from several representatives of the seed industry, the ASTA, and several State weights and measures officials. The issue is whether the values contained in Table 2-7, Maximum Allowable Variations (MAV's)

for Packages Labeled by Count, are appropriate to apply to packages of agricultural seed labeled by count. A representative of Pioneer gave a presentation concerning the difficulty that several seed companies had encountered

with their count declarations when State Weights and Measures Officials applied the values in Table 2-7 in NIST HB133

to the actual count found in bags of corn and soybean seed. These bags are often labeled with count declarations up to 120,000. Pioneer produces, markets, and sells hybrid com, sorghum, sunflower, soybeans, wheat, alfalfa, and canola

seed. In 1994 the Illinois Agriculture Department launched a study to determine if, under the present set of regulations, the seed industry is labeling accurately, and if the seed industry can indeed meet the MAV's in Table 2-7. The practice

of labeling the number of seeds per pound on these crops began as a service to assist farmers in achieving optimum

planting levels and is not the unit of measure for selling the product. Seed com and sunflower seed are the major types

of seed labeled by count.

Pioneer stated that the MAV of 1.5 percent for individual packages declared to contain more than 1,334 seeds may not be appropriate for agricultural seed. Pioneer based this position on the fact that seed is a biological product that is substantially affected by uncontrollable environmental conditions. Examples of environmental factors that cause seed size variability are growing season length, heat unit accumulation, rainfall, soil type, fertility and individual variety response

to stress conditions. In reviewing the background material on how the current MAV values were established, industry

believes that the values are only appropriate for packages of manufactured products that can be better controlled for size, density, and weight through a manufacturing process.

Packages Labeled with Total Seed Count

Pioneer and other packers now label and sell seed com and sunflower seed primarily by seed count. However, they also include net weight on the label. Seed com and sunflower seed are graded for size so that farm equipment can plant a

specific number of seed per acre to maximize yield potential. The company sells com by weight in packages labeled as containing either 60,000 kemels, 80,000 kemels or 120,000 kemels, and sunflower seed in packages labeled either 100,000 or 200,000 seeds per package.

Packages are also Labeled with Seed Count Per Poimd

Soybean, wheat, and sorghum are typically sold in 50-pound packages. The count for soybeans ranges from 90,000 to 200,000 seeds per 50-pound package. The varieties and growing conditions determine the count. Wheat ranges from

475,000 to 900,000 seeds per 50-pound package. Sorghum seed has a range of 425,000 to 825,000 seeds per 50-pound

package. Packages of these seeds are also labeled with the number of "seeds per pound." Firms like Pioneer include seed count as a service to customers to assist with planting accuracy. These three crops do not require the planting and

population accuracy that com and sunflowers require; consequently, the seed is not graded for size. This should not suggest that seed count (thus plant population per acre) is not important, just that it is not as critical for those crops.

109
Laws and Regulations Committee

Summary: Pioneer believes that labeling by seed count may not realistically be enforceable under the present guidelines

for non-sized agricultural seeds. For seeds graded for size, industry may be able to meet the current MAV, however

no data is available either to prove or disprove this. Pioneer is undertaking a statistically designed study of com and

soybeans to determine what levels of labeling accuracy are achievable. Upon completing the com and soybean study,

they will test sunflower, wheat, and sorghum and share the results with the Committee for evaluation. Pioneer also requested that the Committee review the procedures used by seed control officials and industry for sampling, testing, and

enforcement to see if they are consistent with HB 133 because other States may implement programs to verify seed count.

S. Rhoades, Arizona, Chairman

K. Angell, West Virginia R. Gunja, Kansas City, Kansas

S. Millay, Maine

L. Straub, Maryland

HB-133 and Price Verification Working Groups: B. Bloch, Califomia, Chairman

Petroleum Subcommittee: E. Hamilton, Florida, Chairman

R. Jennings, Tennessee, Technical Advisor

Technical Advisors: K. Butcher, NIST G. Jorowski, Industry and Science Canada

T. Coleman, NIST G. Vinet, Legal Metrology Canada

J. Koenig, NIST

Committee on Laws and Regulations

110
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix A

Draft of a Revised

Uniform Regulation for National Type

Evaluation

1. Background 2. Intent

The Uniform Regulation for National Type

Evaluation is a necessary adjunct to recognize and

enable participation in the National Type Evaluation

Program administered by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology. The Regulation

specifically authorizes: type evaluation; recognition

of a National Institute of Standards and Technology

"Certificate of Conformance" of type; the State Measurement Laboratory to operate as a Participating

Laboratory, if authorized by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology under its program of

accreditation of State Measurement Laboratories; and

the State to charge fees to those persons who seek

type evaluation of weighing and measuring devices.

The intent of this regulation is to encourage all States

to use the National Type Evaluation Program, as ap- proved by the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, as their examining procedure.

3. Status of Promulgation

The table beginning on page 5 (in Handbook 130)

shows the status of adoption of the Uniform

Regulation for National Type Evaluation.

Ill
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table of Contents

Section Page

Section 1. Application : 113

Section 2. Definitions 113

2.1. Certificate of Conformance 113

2.2. Director 113

2.3. National Type Evaluation Program 113

2.4. One-of-a-Kind Device 113

2.5. Participating Laboratory 113

2.6. Remanufactured Devices 113

2.7. Repaired Devices 113

2.8. Type 113

2.9. Type Evaluation 113

2.10. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment 113

Sections. Certificate of Conformance 113

Section 4. Certificate of Conformance; Specific Requirements 114

Section 5. Participating Laboratory

and Agreements 114

Section 6. Unlawful Acts 115

Section 7. Revocation of Conflicting Regulations 115

Sections. Effective Date 115

112
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix A. Uniform Regulation for

National Type Evaluation

conduct a type evaluation under the National Type

Evaluation Program.

Section 1. Application

This regulation shall apply to all classes of devices

and/or equipment covered in National Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44.

Section 2. Definitions

2.1. Certificate of Conformance . -- A

National Type Evaluation Program Certificate of

Conformance issued by the Chief of the Office of

Weights and Measures of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology establishing that the commercial weighing and measuring device, based on

testing, meets the requirements of National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44;

2.2. Director. -- means the of the department of ._

2.3. National Type Evaluation Program.

— A program of cooperation between the National

Institute of Standards and Technology, the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, the States, and

the private sector for determining, on a uniform

basis, conformance of a type with the relevant provisions of National Institute of Standards and

Technology Handbook 44, "Specifications,

Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.

2.4. One-of-a-Kind Device. - A device

manufactured for sale that has been categorized and

tested as a "one-of-a-kind" device. If the manufacturer constructs an additional device or

devices, the device is no longer considered to be

"one-of-a-kind." This definition also applies to any

device that has been determined to be a "one-of-a-kind" device by a weights and measures

jurisdiction in one state and the manufacturer decides

to manufacture and install the device in another state. In this case, the manufacturer must request an NTEP

evaluation on the device through the normal

application process, unless NTEP has already decided

that such evaluation will not be conducted.

2.5. Participating Laboratory. - Any State Measurement Laboratory that has been accredited by

the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

in accordance with its program for the Certification of Capability of State Measurement Laboratories, to

2.6. Remanufactured Devices. - Devices to which an overhaul or replacement of parts has been

performed so the device can be installed in a new

location.

2.7. Repaired Devices. - The maintenance or replacement of parts for devices to remain or return

to service in the same location.

2.8. Type. — A model or models of a particular

measurement system, instrument, or element that positively identifies the design. A specific type may

vary in its measurement ranges, size, performance,

and operating characteristics as specified in the

Certificate of Conformance.

2.9. Type Evaluation. - The testing,

examination, and/or evaluation of a type by a

Participating Laboratory under the National Type

Evaluation Program.

2.10. Commercial and Law Enforcement

Equipment. - (a) Weighing and measuring

equipment commercially used or employed in establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or

articles for distribution or consumption, purchased,

offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in computing any basic charge or payment for services rendered on the basis of weight or measure, (b) Any

accessory attached to or used in connection with a commercial weighing or measuring device when such

accessory is so designed that its operation affects the accuracy of the device, (c) Weighing and measuring

equipment in official use for the enforcement of law

or for the collection of statistical information by

government agencies. ^^'^'^ i, see page ii4

Section 3. Certificate of Conformance

The Director shall require Commercial or Law

Enforcement Equipment to be covered by an NTEP

Certificate of Conformance prior to its installation or use for commercial or law enforcement purposes.

113
Laws and Regulations Committee

Note 1: The section is identical to G-A.l., § 1.10,

General Code, National Institute of Standards and

Technology Handbook 44 for definition of "commercial " and "law enforcement equipment.

Section 4. Certificate of Conformance;

Specific Requirements.

(1) No person shall sell a commercial weighing or measuring device unless a Certificate of Conformance

has been issued for the device, except when the device is exempted by this section.

(2) No person shall use a commercial weighing or measuring device unless a Certificate of Conformance

has been issued for the device prior to use, except

when the device is exempted by subsection (3), (4), or (5) of this section.

(3) Commercial weighing or measuring devices in service prior to , 19_, which meet the

specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements of National Institute of Standards and

Technology Handbook 44 shall be exempt from

meeting the requirements for the Certificate of

Conformance.

(4) Commercial weighing or measuring devices in service prior to ^ 19 , removed from service by the owner or on which the department has issued a removal order after , 19_, and returned

to service at a later date shall be modified to meet all specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements of National Institute of Standards and

Technology Handbook 44 as adopted by the Legislature, on the date of the return to service. Such commercial weighing and measuring devices

shall not be required to have a Certificate of

Conformance.

(5) Commercial weighing or measuring devices in service prior to , 19 , which are remanufactured, modified, or upgraded after such

date shall meet all specifications, tolerances, and

other technical requirements of National Institute of

Standards and Technology Handbook 44 adopted by

the Legislature on the date of the modification or upgrading. Such commercial weighing and

measuring devices shall not be required to have a

Certificate of Conformance.

(6) Devices in service prior to , 19_, that are

still in use and are no longer being manufactured may

be sold to another jurisdiction, provided that the device meets current requirements as of the date of

installation in the new jurisdiction; however, no NTEP Certificate of Conformance is required.

(7) One-of-a-kind Devices

"One-of-a-kind Devices" do not require an NTEP

Certificate of Conformance. However, if the manufacturer decides to make an additional device or

devices, the device will no longer be considered to be

"one-of-a-kind" and an NTEP evaluation must be

conducted on the device. For scales, load cells and

electronic indicators must have an NTEP Certificate of Conformance.

(8) Repaired Devices

a. If a company or individual makes changes to a device to the extent that the metrological

characteristics are changed, that specific device is no

longer covered by the NTEP Certificate of

Conformance.

(9) Remanufactured Devices

b. If a company or individual repairs or remanufactures a device, they are obligated to repair or remanufacture it consistent with the manufacturer's

original design; otherwise, that specific device is no

longer covered by the NTEP CC.

(10) Copies of Devices

If a company copies the design of a device made by

another company that has a Certificate of

Conformance for the device, the Certificate of

Conformance does not apply to the model that is a copy. The company that copied the device must get

its own type evaluation on the device.

(11) Scale or Weighing System Components

If a person buys NTEP load cells and an NTEP

indicating element and then manufactures a scale or weighing system from the parts, the complete device

must be submitted for type evaluation.

Section 5. Participating Laboratory

and Agreements

The Director is authorized to:

(1) Operate a Participating Laboratory as part of the National Type Evaluation Program. In this regard,

the Director is authorized to charge and collect fees for type evaluation services.

114
Laws and Regulations Committee

(2) Cooperate with and enter into agreements with

any person in order to carry out the purposes of the

act. Section 6. Unlawful Acts

It shall be unlawful for any person to:

(1) Use any commercial weighing and measuring

device in a commercial application unless a

Certificate of Conformance has been issued for such

device unless exempt in Section 4.

(2) Sell any weighing and measuring device for use

in a commercial application unless a Certificate of

Conformance has been issued for such devices unless exempt in Section 4.

Section 7. Revocation of Conflicting

Regulations

All provisions of all orders and regulations heretofore

issued on this same subject that are contrary to or

inconsistent with the provisions of this regulation, and

specifically , are hereby revoked.

Section 8. Effective Date

This regulation shall become effective on .

115
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix B

Report of the Petroleum Subcommittee

to the Laws and Regulations Committee

Eric Hamilton, Chairman

Chief, Bureau of Petroleum Inspection

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Summary

The Subcommittee met on January 11, 1995, at the NCWM Interim Meeting in Costa Mesa, CA, to review the current

state of proposed documents and to discuss other issues it had been assigned to address.

This report contains recommendations to the Laws and Regulations Committee as a result of discussions and material presented at the Subcommittee meeting. Additionally, the need for surveys to be developed and distributed to the States

in order to capture information necessary to determine priorities for future Subcommittee activities is discussed.

The following items were addressed at the Subcommittee meeting:

1. Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual

2. Specification for Premium Diesel

3. Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law

4. Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Regulation/Need for Survey

5. Future Activities Survey

These items are covered below along with the Subcommittee's reconmiendations to the Committee.

Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures and Safety Manual

The Subcommittee felt that numerous items should be amended in the most recent draft version of this manual. Many

items are essentially editorial in nature, i.e., there are no controversial issues to be resolved. The draft will be editorially

revised by the Subcommittee. The goal is to present the final version to the Committee at the 1996 NCWM Interim

Meeting for consideration as a voting item at the 1996 NCWM Aimual Meeting.

Define Grades for Diesel Fuel

The Subcommittee was charged with investigating the means of defining "premium" and "regular" grades for diesel fuel. Cetane rating had been suggested as a means to distinguish between "premium" (e.g., cetane number greater than or equal

to 45) and "regular" (e.g., cetane number less than 45). However, the Engine Manufacturers Association (a technical organization that represents diesel engine manufacturers) is proposing specifications to ASTM that would set limits for "premium" diesel that include properties in addition to cetane number to distinguish between grades. Specifically,

lubricity, maximum API gravity, detergency requirements, among other limits, are being proposed along with cetane

limits as a "premium" standard. Considering the current activity within ASTM, the Subcommittee Chairman agreed to send a letter encouraging ASTM to move forward as quickly as possible in developing a standard for "premium" diesel

fuel. The Subcommittee will closely monitor the ASTM efforts and determine if the issue is progressing at a rate that will offer a solution to the States.

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law

The Subcommittee received comments from Chevron USA Products Company on Section 8. Prohibited Acts of the most

recent draft version of the uniform law. Amendments were proposed in an attempt to strengthen this section. Specifically, language was recommended to prohibit falsely representing the brand of a product to the purchaser, and

ensure that lubricants marketed to the purchaser have the S.A.E. number classification specified by the purchaser. There was a consensus among Subcommittee members that there is significant merit to the concepts proposed.

116
Laws and Regulations Committee

Falsely Representing the Brand of a Product

The Subcommittee felt that if a purchaser makes an effort to acquire a particular brand, the purchaser should have some

assurance that the product offered for sale truly represents that brand. This is considered basic consumer protection that weights and measures/petroleum quality regulatory programs should provide to the public. Although it was pointed out

that enforcement of this provision would entail procedures other than routine sampling and testing of the products, there

are various means by which jurisdictions can effectively regulate this requirement. Reasonable and effective methods

that are proven include audit of product bill of lading, cooperative programs with industry to analyze for proprietary

additives, and surveillance programs whereby inspectors witness and document product commingling.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the following amendment be made to the most recent published

draft ofthe Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law. Amend Section 8.1

to read: "Represent engine fuels, petroleum products, or automotive lubricants in any manner that may deceive or tend

to deceive the purchaser as to the nature, brand, price, quantity and/or quality of such products.

S.A.E. Number Classification for Automotive Lubricants

The Subcommittee agreed that the inclusion of a section to reference the S.A.E. number classification would be an

appropriate addition to Section 8. Prohibited Acts. The proposal would provide consumer protection to the purchaser

by ensuring that the purchased product is truly as represented by the S.A.E. number classification designated.

Recommendation: Amend Section 8. Prohibited Acts by inserting a new section as Section 8.X. that reads: "Represent

automotive lubricants with an S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers) number classification other than the S.A.E. number classification as specified by the intended purchaser. "

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Regulation/Need for Survey

Comments were received regarding Section 3.2.6. of the proposed draft (Section 3 . L in the most recent NIST Handbook

130 published uniform regulation). The discussion again centered around the difficulty for marketers to comply with this section due to the wide variety of oxygenates, particularly ethers, that are available for use in today's market. The

Subcommittee felt that more information from the States would be needed before a recommendation could be made. The

Subcommittee agreed to design a survey to distribute to State agencies in order to gain opinions on the need for oxygenate

labeling. After the information is obtained and data is reviewed, the Subcommittee will have the input necessary to properly evaluate this section.

Future Activities of the Subcommittee

The Subcommittee would like to receive direction from the States regarding priority issues that should be addressed in the future. The subcommittee has been charged with expanding the scope of the uniform law and regulation to adequately cover other types of automotive lubricant and fluids. A survey will be developed and distributed to State directors. The

survey will solicit opinions on the most important issues that the Subcommittee should address to meet State needs.

117
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix C

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and

Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law

Section 1. Purpose

There should be uniform requirements for engine fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants among the several States. This Act provides for the establishment of

quality specifications for these products.

Section 2. Scope

The Act establishes a sampling, testing, and enforcement

program, provides authority for fee collection, requires

registration of engine fuels, and empowers the State to promulgate regulations as needed to carry out the provisions of the Act. It also provides for administrative,

civil, and criminal penalties.

Section 3. Definitions

As used in this act:

3.1. Engine Fuel. — means any liquid or gaseous

matter used for the generation of power in an internal combustion engine.

3.2. Director. — means the of the Department

of and designated agents.

3.3. Person. — means an individual, corporation,

company, society, association, partnership, or governmental entity.

3.4. ASTM. -- means the American Society for Testing and Materials, a national voluntary consensus

standards organization formed for the development of

standards on characteristics and performance of materials,

products, systems, and services, and the promotion of

related knowledge.

3.5. Petroleum Products. - means products

obtained from distilling and processing of petroleum

(crude oil), unfinished oils, recycled oils, natural gas

liquids, refinery blend stocks, and other miscellaneous

hydrocarbon compounds.

3.6. Automotive Lubricants. - means any

material interposed between two surfaces that reduces the

friction or wear between them.

3.7. Engine Fuel Designed for Special Use. -

means engine fuels designated by the Director requiring

registration. These fuels normally have no ASTM or

other national consensus standards applying to their quality or useability; common special fuels are racing

fuels and those intended for agricultural and other off- road applications.

3.8. Sold.

or sold.

means kept, offered, or exposed for sale,

Section 4. Administration, Adoption of

Standards, and Rules

The provisions of the Act shall be administered by the

Director. For the purpose of administering and giving

effect to the provisions of this Act, the specification and

test method standards set forth in the most recent edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards and supplements

thereto, and revisions thereof, are adopted except as amended or modified as required to comply with Federal

and State laws by the Director. When no ASTM standard

exists, other generally recognized national consensus

standards may be used. The Director is empowered to write rules and regulations on the advertising, posting of

prices, labeling, standards for, and identity of fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants and is authorized to establish a testing laboratory.

Section 5. General Duties and Powers

The Director shall have the authority to:

5.1. Enforce and administer all the provisions of this Act by inspections, analyses, and other appropriate

actions.

5.2. Have access during normal business hours to all places where engine fuels, petroleum products, and

automotive lubricants are kept, transferred, offered,

exposed for sale, or sold for the purpose of examination,

inspection, taking of samples.

118
Laws and Regulations Committee

and investigation. If such access shall be refused by the owner or agent or other persons leasing the same, the Director may obtain an administrative search warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.

5.3. Collect, or cause to be collected, samples of engine

fuels, petroleum products, and automotive lubricants marketed in this State, and cause such samples to be

tested or analyzed for compliance with the provisions of

this Act.

5.4. Define engine fuels for special use and refuse,

revoke, suspend, or issue a stop-order if found not to be

in compliance and remand stop-order if the engine fuel for

special use is brought into full compliance with this Act.

5.5. Issue a stop-sale order for any engine fuel, petroleum product, and automotive lubricant found not to be in compliance and remand stop-sale order if the engine

fuel, petroleum product, or automotive lubricant is brought into full compliance with this Act.

5.6. Refuse, revoke, or suspend the registration of an engine fuel, petroleum product, or automotive lubricant.

5.7. Delegate to appropriate personnel any of these

responsibilities for the proper administration of this Act.

Section 6. Registration of Engine Fuels

Designed for Special Use

All engine fuels designed for special use must be

registered with the Director. Such registration shall include:

6.1. Name, brand, or trademark under which the fuel will be sold.

6.2. Name and address of person registering the engic^

fuel.

6.3. The special use for which the engine fuel is designed.

6.4. Certification, declaration, or affidavit stating the specifications which the fuel will meet upon testing.

Section 7. Inspection Fee

There shall be a fee of $ per appropriate unit of measure on all products covered under the scope of this Act marketed within this State for the purposes of

administering and effectively enforcing the provisions of

this Act.

Section 8. Prohibited Acts

It shall be unlawful to:

8.1. Represent engine fuels, petroleum products, or automotive lubricants in any manner that may deceive or tend to deceive the purchaser as to the nature, price,

quantity and/or quality of such products.

8.2. Fail to register an engine fuel designed for special use.

8.3. Submit incorrect, misleading, or false information

regarding the registration of an engine fuel designed for special use.

8.4. Hinder or obstruct the Director in the performance

of the Director's duties.

8.5. Represent an engine fuel, petroleum product, or automotive lubricant that is contrary to the provisions of

this Act.

Section 9. Administrative and Civil Penalties

9.1. Assessment of Penalties. Any person who

by himself or herself, by his or her servant or agent, or

as the servant or agent of another person, commits any of

the acts enumerated in § 22 may be assessed by the a civil penalty of:

(a) not less than $ nor more than $ for a first violation,

(b) not less than $ nor more than $ for a second

violation within from the date of the first violation,

and

(c) not less than $ nor more than $ for a third violation within from the date of the first violation.

9.2. Administrative Hearing. Any person

subject to a civil penalty shall have a right to request an

administrative hearing within days of receipt of the notice of the penalty. The director or his/her designee

shall be authorized to conduct the hearing after giving

appropriate notice to the respondent. The decision of the director shall be subject to appropriate judicial review.

119
Laws and Regulations Committee

9.3. Collection of Penalties, if the respondent

has exhausted his or her administrative appeals and the

civil penalty has been upheld, he or she shall pay the civil penalty within days after the effective date of the final decision. If the respondent fails to pay the penalty, a civil action may be brought by the director in any court of

competent jurisdiction to recover the penalty. Any civil penalty collected under this Act shall be transmitted to _

Section 10. Criminal Penalties

10.1. Misdemeanor. Any person who violates any

provision of this Act or regulations promulgated thereto

shall be guilty of a Class misdemeanor, and upon

conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than

$ nor more than $ , or imprisonment for not

less than nor more than , or both fine and

imprisonment.

10.2. Felony. Any person who intentionally violates any provision of this Act or regulations promulgated

thereto or is convicted under the misdemeanor provisions

of this section more than three times in a 2-year period

shall be guilty of a Class felony, and upon

conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than

$ nor more than $ , or imprisonment for not

less than nor more than , or both fine and

imprisonment.

Section 11. Restraining Order and Injunction

The Director is authorized to apply to any court of

competent jurisdiction for a restraining order, or a temporary or permanent injunction, restraining any person from violating any provision of this Act.

Section 12. Severability Provisions

If any word, phrase, provision, or portion of this Act

shall be held in a court of competent jurisdiction to be

unconstitutional or invalid, the unconstitutionality or

invalidity shall apply only to such word, phrase, provision, or portion, and for this purpose the provisions of

this Act are declared to be severable.

Section 13. Repeal of Conflicting Laws

AH laws and parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent with

the provisions of this Act are repealed except as to offense committed, liabilities incurred, and claims made

thereunder prior to the effective date of this Act.

Section 14. Citation

This Act may be cited as the "Engine Fuels, Petroleum

Products, and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Act of

Section 15. Effective Date

This Act shall become effective on

120
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix D

Uniform Regulation for Engine Fuels,

Petroleum Products, and Automotive

Lubricants

1. Definitions

1.1. ASTM. ~ The American Society for Testing

and Materials means the national voluntary consensus

standards organization formed for the development of

standards on characteristics and performance of materials,

products, systems, and services; and the promotion of

related knowledge.

1.2. Antiknock Index (AKI). -- means the arithmetic average of the Research octane number (RON)

and Motor octane number (MON): AKI =

(R0N+M0N)/2. This value is called by a variety of names, in addition to antiknock index, including: Octane

rating. Posted octane, (R+M)/2 octane.

1.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. -- means the automotive fuel rating required under the amended Octane

Certification and Posting Rule (or as amended, the Fuel

Rating Rule), 16 CFR Part 306. Under this Rule, sellers of liquid automotive fuels, including alternative fuels, must determine, certily, and post an appropriate

automotive fuel rating. The automotive fuel rating for gasoline is the antiknock index (octane rating). The

automotive fuel rating for alternative liquid fuels consists of the common name of the fuel along with a disclosure of the amount, expressed as a minimum percentage by

volume, of the principal component of the fuel. For

alternative liquid automotive fuels, a disclosure of other components, expressed as a minimum percentage by

volume, may be included, if desired.

1.4. Automotive Gasoline, Automotive

Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend. -- means a type of fuel suitable for use in spark-ignition automobile engines and

also commonly used in marine and non-automotive

applications.

1.5. Aviation Gasoline. - means a type of

gasoline suitable for use as a fuel in an aviation sparkignition internal combustion engine.

1.6. Aviation Turbine Fuel. - means a refined middle distillate suitable for use as a fuel in an aviation gas turbine internal combustion engine.

1.7. Base Gasoline. - means all components other than ethanol in a blend of gasoline and ethanol.

1.8. Biodiesel. ~ means a blend consisting of

diesel fuel and a substantial amount of esterified animal

fats and/or vegetable oil(s).

1.9. Cetane Index. ~ means an approximation of

the cetane number of distillate diesel fuel, which does not

contain a cetane improver additive, calculated from the density and distillation measurements. ~

1.10. Cetane Number. - means a numerical measure of the ignition performance of a diesel fuel obtained by comparing it to reference fuels in a standardized engine test.

1.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). - means natural gas which has been compressed and

dispensed into fuel storage containers and is suitable for use as an engine fuel.

1.12. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. - means

"ethanol" as defined in § 1.19. below.

1.13. Diesel Fuel. - means a refined middle

distillate suitable for use as a fuel in a compressionignition (diesel) internal combustion engine.

1.14. Distillate. — means any product obtained by

condensing the vapors given off by boiling petroleum or

its products.

1. 15. EPA. - means the United States Environmental

Protection Agency.

1.16. E85 Fuel Ethanol. means a blend of

ethanol and hydrocarbons of which the ethanol portion is nominally 85 to 75 volume percent denatured fuel ethanol.

1.17. Engine Fuel. — means any liquid or gaseous

matter used for the generation of power in an internal combustion engine.

1.18. Engine Fuels Designed for Special Use. ~ means engine fuels designated by the Director requiring

registration. These fuels normally have no ASTM or

other national consensus standards applying to their quality or useability; common special fuels are racing

fuels and those intended for agricultural and other off- road applications.

121
Laws and Regulations Committee

1.19. 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.

1.20. 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.

1.21. 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.

1.22. Gasoline-Alcohol Blend. - means a fuel consisting primarily of gasoline and a substantial amount

(more than 0.35 mass percent oxygen, or more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen if methanol is the only oxygenate) of one or more alcohols.

1.23. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). -

Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 2.567 kilograms

(5.660 lb) of natural gas.

1.24. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). -

Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kilogram

(1.495 lb) of natural gas.

1.25. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blend. - means a

fuel consisting primarily of gasoline along with a

substantial amount (more than 0.35 mass percent oxygen,

or more than 0.15 mass oxygen if methanol is the only

oxygenate) of one or more oxygenates.

1.26. 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.

1.27. Lead Substitute. - means an eparegistered 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.

1.28. Lead Substitute Engine Fuel, means,

for labeling purposes, a gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate

blend that contains a "lead substitute."

1.29. Leaded. - means, for labeling purposes, any

gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend which contains more

than 0.013 gram 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 phosphorus per liter (0.005 g per U.S. gal), or any fuel to which lead or phosphorus is intentionally added.

1.30. LiqueHed 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 fiiel.

1.31. 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.

1.32. 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.

1.33. MlOO 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.

1.34. M85 Fuel Methanol. - means a blend of

methanol and hydrocarbons of which the methanol portion

is nominally 70 to 85 volume percent.

1.35. 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.

1.36. Oxygen Content of Gasoline. - means the percentage of oxygen by mass contained in a gasoline.

1.37. Oxygenate. ~ means an oxygen-containing,

ashless, organic compound, such as an alcohol or ether,

which can be used as a fuel or fuel supplement.

1.38. Reformulated Gasoline. - means a volatile mixture of liquid hydrocarbons and oxygenates meeting

122
Laws and Regulations Committee

the reformulated gasoline requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and suitable for use as a fuel in

a spark-ignition internal combustion engine.

1.39. 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.

1.40. SAE. -- means the Society of Automotive

Engineers, a technical organization for engineers,

scientists, technicians, and others in positions that cooperate closely in the engineering, design, manufacture,

use, and maintainability of self-propelled vehicles.

1.41. Substantially Similar, - means the EPA's

"Substantially Similar" rule, Section 211 (f) (1) of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S. C. 7545 (f) (1)].

1.42. Total Alcohol. - means the aggregate total in volume percent of all alcohol contained in any fuel defined in this Chapter.

1.43. Total Oxygenate. - means the aggregate

total in volume percent of all oxygenates contained in any

fuel defined in this Chapter.

1.44. 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 lead per liter (0.05 g lead per U.S. gal) and

not more than 0.0013 gram phosphorus per liter (0.005 g phosphorus per U.S. gal).

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 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 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(0(2) of the Clean Air Act; or

123
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.1.6.1.2. Until such a time as the EPA Administrator

develops and publishes a test procedure to determine the

additive's effectiveness in reducing valve seat wear, test results and description of the test procedures used in comparing the effectiveness of 0.026 gram per liter lead and the recommended treatment level of the lead

substitute additive shall be provided.

2.1.7. Blending. -- Leaded, lead substitute and

unleaded gasoline-oxygenate blends shall be blended

according to the EPA "substantially similar" rule or an EPA waiver for unleaded fuel

2.2. Diesel Fuel shall meet the most recent version

of ASTM D 975, "Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel

Oils."

2.3. Aviation Turbine Fuels shall meet the most

recent version of ASTM D 1655, "Standard Specification

for Aviation Turbine Fuels."

2.4. Aviation Gasoline shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 910, "Standard Specification for Aviation Gasoline."

2.5. Fuel Oils shall meet the most recent version of

ASTM D 396, "Standard Specification for Fuel Oils."

2.6. Kerosene (Kerosine) shall meet the most

recent version of ASTM D 3699, "Standard Specification

for Kerosine."

2.7. Ethanol intended for blending with gasoline

shall meet the most recent version of ASTM D 4806,

"Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive SparkIgnition 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."

Section 3. Classiflcation and Method of

Sale of Petroleum Products

3.1. General Considerations

3.1.1. Documentation. - When gasoline; gasolineoxygenate blends; reformulated gasoline; M85 and MlOO

fuel methanol; E85 and El 00 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. -

- AH automotive gasoline and automotive gasolineoxygenate 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

124
Laws and Regulations Committee

shall not be less than 12 millimeters (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 millimeters (0.930 in).

3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms. - it is prohibited to use specific terms to describe a grade of gasoline or gasoline-oxygenate blend unless it meets the minimum

antiknock index requirement shown in 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 percent by volume of any oxygenate or combination of oxygenates shall be identified as "with" or

"containing" (or similar wording) the specific t)'pe of

oxygenate(s) in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read "contains ethanol" or "with MTBE/ETBE."

This information shall be posted on the upper 50 percent

of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and

conspicuous from the driver's position, in a type at least 1/2 inch in height 1/16 inch stroke (width of type).

(Amended 1991)

3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling

Purposes. - The retailer must be provided, at the time

of delivery of the fuel, on an invoice, bill of lading,

shipping paper, or other documentation, a declaration of any oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations of at least 1 percent by volume in the fuel. This documentation is only for dispenser labeling

purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender

to determine the total oxygen content of the engine fuel before blending. (Amended 1991)

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 sulftir), 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 percent of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the drivers

position, in a type at least 12 millimeter (1/2 in) in height,

1.5 millimeter (1/16 in) stroke (width of type).

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.

Table 1. Minimum Antiknock Index Requirements

Term

Minimum Antiknock Index

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

125
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.4.2. NFPA Labeling Requirements Also

Apply. ~ Each dispenser or airport fuel truck dispensing

aviation turbine fuels shall be labeled in accordance with

the most recent edition of National Fire Protection

Association NFPA 407, "Standard for Aircraft Fuel

Servicing." NFPA 407, 1990 Edition: Section 2-3.18

Product Identification Signs. Each aircraft fuel servicing

vehicle shall have a sign on each side and the rear to indicate the product. The sign shall have letters at least 3 inches (75 mm) high of color sharply contrasting with

its background for visibility. It shall show the word

"FLAMMABLE" and the name of the product carried,

such as "JET A," "JET B," "GASOLINE," or "AVGAS." (NOTE: Refer to the most recent edition.)

3.5. Aviation Gasoline

3.5.1. Labeling of Grade Required. -Aviation

gasoline shall be identified by Grade 80, Grade 100, or Grade lOOLL.

3.5.2. NFPA Labeling Requirements Also

Apply. — Each dispenser or airport fuel truck dispensing

aviation gasoline shall be labeled in accordance with the most recent edition of National Fire Protection

Association NFPA 407, "Standard for Aircraft Fuel

Servicing."

NFPA 407, 1990 Edition: Section 2-3.18 Product

Identification Signs. Each aircraft fuel servicing vehicle

shall have a sign on each side and the rear to indicate the product. The sign shall have letters at least 3 inches (75

mm) high of color sharply contrasting with its background

for visibility. It shall show the word "FLAMMABLE"

and the name of the product carried, such as "JET A,"

"JET B," "GASOLINE," or "AVGAS." (NOTE: Refer

to the most recent edition.)

3.6. Fuel Oils

3.6.1. Labeling of Grade Required. - Fuel Oil

shall be identified by the grades of No. 1, No. 2, No. 4

(Light), No. 4, No. 5 (Light), No. 5 (Heavy), or No. 6.

3.7. Kerosene (Kerosine)

3.7.1. Labeling of Grade Required. - Kerosene

shall be identified by the grades No. 1-K or No. 2-K.

3.7.2. Additional Labeling Requirements. - Each retail dispenser of kerosene shall be labeled as 1-K Kerosene or 2-K. In addition. No. 2-K dispensers shall display the following legend:

3.7.2.1. "Warning - Not Suitable For Use In Unvented

Heaters Requiring No. 1-K."

3.7.2.2. The lettering of this legend shall not be less than 12 millimeters (1/16 in) in height by 1.5 millimeters

(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,"

126
Laws and Regulations Committee

"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 IdentiHed. ~ For the purposes of this regulation,

compressed natural gas shall be identified by the term "Compressed Natural Gas" or "CNG."

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 Ubeling

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. Liquefled 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.)

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends,

Aviation Gas, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. - No water phase greater than 6 millimeters (1/4 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, GasolineEther, and Other Fuels. Water shall not exceed

50 millimeters (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

127
Laws and Regulations Committee

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 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.

7.2. Reproducibility Limits

7.2.1. AKI Limits. - When determining the antiknock index (AKI) acceptance or rejection of a gasoline sample, the AKI reproducibility limits as outlined

in ASTM D 4814 Appendix XI shall be acknowledged for enforcement purposes.

7.2.2. The reproducibility limits of the ASTM standard

test method used for each test performed shall be

acknowledged for enforcement purposes, except as indicated in 7.2.1.

128
Laws and Regulations Committee

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.

129
Appendix E

Examination Procedure for

Price Verification

As Recommended for Adoption

at the

80th NCWM Annual Meeting

July 16-20, 1995

130
Laws and Regulations Committee

Highlights of the 5th Draft

Examination Procedure for Price Verification

This proposal is essentially the same as the fourth draft since most of the revisions made by the Laws and Regulations

Committee were editorial in nature. This proposal is based on comments presented to the Laws and Regulations

Committee of the National Conference on Weights and Measures at the Interim Meeting in January 1995 and on written comments received as of February 1, 1995. Most of the editorial revisions and significant changes are listed below.

If adopted by the NCWM, this procedure will be incorporated in a new section in NIST Handbook 130, "Uniform Laws

and Regulations."

Revisions

rv. Accuracy -

• Redundant information deleted and the section revised for clarity.

VI. Uniform Laws

• In C. Penalties - the text of the Section 23. Civil Penalties from the Uniform Weights and Measures Law was

deleted because it is available in NIST Handbook 130. The introduction was amended to make it clear that criminal penalties can also be applied.

• In C.3. Customer Indications on Cash Registers and Point-of-Sale Systems - the proposed addition to the Uniform Weights and Measures Law was amended to include a exemption for equipment already in service in a jurisdiction that adopts this requirement.

Examination Procedure for Price Verification

• The test procedure was changed to a two-column format to save space.

Section 2. Definitions

• 2.1. Area - amended to make clear that an entire store can be considered an "area."

• 2.5. Hand-held Scanning Device - the note following this definition was amended to improve clarity.

• 2.6. (a) - Lower Levels of Enforcement Action - reference to "administrative hearing" was moved to (b) Higher

Levels of Enforcement Action.

• 2.13. Price Look-Up Code - amended for clarity and the reference to verifying the cause of error during manual

entry was deleted.

• 2.14. Price - (b) Price Charged was amended for clarity.

• 2.23. Universal Product Code - the graphic and information on the structure of the U.P.C. were removed

because several comments indicated that the information was unnecessary.

Section 3. Test Notes

• 3.1. Safety and Health - Revised for clarity. References to sanitation were added.

• 3.2. Confidentiality - Revised for clarity.

Section 5. Pre-Inspection Tasks

131
Laws and Regulations Committee

Revised to make it clear that use of a hand-held scanner is optional.

Section 7. Test Procedures

In 7.3 Sample Collection Procedures - the second note was revised to eliminate reference to the sample size.

In 7.3 A note regarding "advertised" sale items in department stores was added.

In 7.3 - A new graphic (Figure 1) was added to show how to collect a storewide sample.

In 7.3. 1 . - A new graphic (Figure 5) was added to show how samples could be selected in a department

store.

Section 9. Evaluation of Inspection Results

• In 9. 1 Definition of Errors - (a) was amended for clarity to recognize that stores can intentionally undercharge

when they either raise or lower the price of an item, in (b) reference to nonstandard U.P.C. symbol deleted in response to comments which indicated the requirement was not needed because this type error rarely occurred

and could be handled in a number of different ways by a store, and in (c) the word "sign" was changed to "notice."

Section 1 1 . Enforcement Procedures

• In 11.2 Model Enforcement Levels - references to "levels of accuracy" were deleted.

Section 14. Appendices

• A Price Verification Tally Sheet for Department Stores was added.

• Appendix B. References was deleted.

132
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table of Contents

Examination Procedure for Price Verification in Retail Stores 135

Section 1. Scope I35

Section 2. Definitions 135

2.1. "Area" I35

2.2. "Cents-Off" Representation I35

2.3. Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) Item 135

2.4. Displays 135

2.5. Hand-held Scanning Device 135

2.6. Enforcement Levels 135

2.7. Inspection Types 135

2.8. Inspection Frequency 136

2.9. Inspection Lot 136

2.10. Merchandise Group 136

2.11. Not-on-File Item 136

2.12. Notification of Noncompliance 136

2.13. Price Look-Up Code (PLU) 136

2.14. Prices 136

2.15. Pricing Coordinator 136

2.16. Pricing Integrity 136

2.17. Sample 137

2.18. Scanner 137

2.19. Stock-Keeping Unit (SKU) 137

2.20. Store-Coded Item 137

2.21. Stop-Sale Order 137

2.22. Ticketed Merchandise 137

2.23. Universal Product Code (U.P.C.) 137

Section 3. Test Notes 137

3.1. Safety and Health 137

3.2. Confidenfiality of Findings 137

Section 4. Materials and Equipment 137

Section 5. Pre-Inspection Tasks 137

Section 6. Inspection 138

6.1. Position of Equipment 138

6.2. Other 138

Section 7. Test Procedures 138

7.1. Application of Sampling Plans 138

7.2. Table 1. Samples, Sample Collection, and Accuracy Requirements 138

7.2.1. How to use the table 138

7.2.2. Samples 138

7.3. Sample Collection Procedures (for use with either manual or automated inspection procedures) . . 139

7.3.1. Randomized Sample Collection 140

Example 1. Illustrations of the Randomized Sampling Procedure 140

7.3.2. Stratified Sample Collection 142

Example 2. Two-Stage Manual Inspection using the Stratified Sampling Procedure 143

133
Laws and Regulations Committee

7.4. Procedures for Test Purchases, Investigation of Consumer Complaints, and for Verification of

Manually Entered Prices 147

7.4.1. Procedure 147

7.4.2. Alternative Procedure - Consumer Complaints 147

7.4.3. Evaluation of Results 147

Section 8. Documentation of Findings , 147

Section 9. Evaluation of Inspection Results ' 148

9.1. Definition of Errors 148

9.2. Computing Sample Errors 148

Section 10. Accuracy Requirements 148

10.1. Accuracy Requirements 148

10.2. Accuracy 148

10.3. Ratio of Overcharges to Undercharges 148

Section 1 1 . Enforcement Procedures 149

11.1. Enforcement Steps 149

11.2. Model Enforcement Levels 149

Section 12. Post-Inspection Tasks 150

Section 13. Supervisory Activities 150

13.1. Baseline Surveys 150

13.2. Follow-up Inspections 150

13.3. Management Information System Support 151

Section 14. Appendices 151

Appendix A. Model Forms 152

134
!

Laws and Regulations Committee

Examination Procedure for Price Verification in Retail Stores

Section 1. Scope

These procedures may be used to conduct price

verification inspections in any type of store, including

those that use Universal Product Code (U.P.C.) scanners and price-look-up codes at the checkout counter as a means for pricing. Procedures are included for test purchases and verifying manual entries. The purpose of

the procedure is to ensure that consumers are charged the

correct prices for the items they purchase. The

"randomized" and "stratified" sampling procedures are intended for use in routine inspections to determine how

well a store is maintaining price accuracy. Nothing in this procedure should be construed or interpreted to redefine any State or local law, or limit any jurisdiction from

enforcing any law, regulation, or procedures that relates to the accuracy of advertisements of retail prices, or any

other legal requirement.

Section 2. Definitions

2.1. "Area". ~ Means an "entire store," a "department,"

"grouping of shelves or displays," or other "section" of a

store as defined by the inspector from which samples are selected for verification. "Non-public" areas of a store are not included (e.g., the area in a pharmacy where controlled drugs are kept or product store rooms).

2.2. "Cents-Off Representation. -- Means any printed matter consisting of the words "cents-off or words of

similar import placed upon any item, or on a label affixed or adjacent an item, stating or representing by implication

that it is offered for sale at a price lower than the ordinary

and customary retail selling price (e.g., 15% off, bonus

offers, 2 for 1, or 1-cent sales, etc.).

2.3. Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) Item. ~ Means an

item delivered to a store, and usually priced, by route salespeople (e.g., milk, beer or soft drinks, bread, and

snack foods like potato chips).

2.4. Displays. ~

(a) Aisle Stacks or End-of-Aisle Displays. ~ Means

displays located in freestanding units or attached at the end of or adjacent to a tier of shelves.

(b) Tie-in Displays. ~ Means displays of related products

at secondary locations in a store (e.g., barbecue sauce on

shelves in an aisle and also in the meat department of a food store).

(c) Multiple Displays. ~ Means displays of the same

product at several locations in a store.

2.5. Hand-held Scanning Device. ~ Means a portable

device that scans U.P.C. codes that allows for the comparison of the price displayed on a shelf, item, or otherwise advertised, to the price for the item in the pointof-sale database.

Note: These devices either retain a "batch"file ofentered

prices and identities for later comparison to the database, or operate "on-line" via FM radio to the database. When

usedfor price verification, they shall be used only with the

active point-of-sale database. If you use a hand-held

scanner, verify all price discrepancies by scanning the item at a checkout register and request a printed receipt

to document the price that consumers would be charged.

2.6. Enforcement Levels. —

Note: These recommendations are not intended to modify

the enforcement policy of any jurisdiction unless they are adopted by the jurisdiction.

(a) Lower levels of enforcement actions. ~ Includes

increased inspection frequency, stop-sale or correction

orders, warning letters, and other notifications of

noncompliance.

(b) Higher levels of enforcement actions. — Includes

issuance of citations, administrative hearings, civil penalties, or prosecution under criminal statues.

2.7. Inspection Types. ~

(a) Automated Inspection. ~ Means inspections that are conducted using a hand-held scarming device.

(b) Manual Inspection. — Means removing items from

displays and taking them to a check-out to verify the price

(e.g., select the items and either (1) take them to a checkout terminal for scanning or (2) record the product

identity, U.P.C. number, and shelf price for each package on an inspection report) and then manually enter the U.P.C. numbers in the register. The manual entries may

be made by the official or by a store employee.

135
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.8. Inspection Frequency. —

These recommendations do not modify the inspection

policy of any jurisdiction unless adopted by the

jurisdiction.

Inspection control — after a program has been in placefor a period oftime and a database is established, procedures can be developed to randomly select stores for inspection, or to focus inspections on stores with low levels of

compliance.

(a) Normal Inspection Frequency. -- Means an

inspection made at the customary time interval used by an enforcement agency. Inspections may be conducted during

normal business hours. Stores under this normal

frequency should be inspected on a semi-annual or annual

basis.

(b) Increased Inspection Frequency. — Means an

inspection made more often than with the customary time

interval, usually as a follow-up on prior violations. Inspections may be conducted during the normal business

hours. Stores under this increased frequency should be

inspected on a quarterly, bi-monthly, or more frequent

basis.

(c) Term of Increased Inspection Frequency. — Means

a store placed on an increased inspection frequency shall remain at that frequency until there are two consecutive

inspections with accuracy of 98 percent or higher.

(d) Special Inspection. ~ Means an inspection that is made as a follow-up to a prior inspection or to investigate a complaint.

2.9. Inspection Lot. ~ Means a group of items available

for testing in an "area" or "areas" (See 2.1. "Area")

2.10. Merchandise Group. ~ Means a group of products

identified under a common heading for inspection purposes only (e.g., "advertised sale" items, "end-of-aisle"

items, "direct delivery" items, "cents-off items, or all the items in the "men's" department in a department store).

2.11. Not-on-File Item. — Means items not found in the POS database. When found, another item is selected at random (e.g., an item on either side of the one that was

not on file) to replace the item in the sample. A "not-onfile" item is not an error unless you determine that the

price "charged" is incorrect by conducting a test purchase

or by asking the checkout clerk to determine the price by

using the store's written or stated policy or procedures. If the price is found to be inconsistent, the error is included

in the total.

2.12. Notification of Noncompliance. — Means any

written notice given to a store describing the violations of

the law that were found.

2.13. Price Look-Up Code (PLU). — Means a pricing

system where numbers are assigned to items or commodities and the price is stored in a data-base for

recall when the numbers are manually entered. PLU

codes are used with scales, cash registers, and point-of-sale

systems.

2.14. Prices. — These definitions do not amend or effect the provisions of any law, regulation, or other test procedure.

(a) Misrepresented Price. — Means the price charged

differs from the price at which the item is offered,

exposed, or advertised for sale, or that the price is different than the price on the item, shelf label or sign.

(b) Price Charged. — Means the price charged for an

item and either displayed on the automated device or on

the receipt issued by the device, whether the item is scanned, or actually purchased, the device is computing or recording while in a training or inspection mode, or by

using the hand-held device tied to the point of sale database.

(c) Overcharge. ~ Means the price charged for an item

is more than the lowest advertised, quoted, posted, or marked price.

(d) Undercharge. — Means the price charged for an item

is less than the lowest advertised, quoted, posted, or marked price.

(e) Intentional Undercharge. ~ Undercharges are not counted as errors if the store provides, at the time of

inspection, information that confirms the price error was

intentional (e.g., an undercharge that occurs when a store lowers a price in a database before they change shelf tags or signs in anticipation of selling the item at a lower price or when a store increases the price of an item, or

advertised price, and then increases the price in the

database, or when a discounted price is rounded to a lower

value).

2.15. Pricing Coordinator. ~ Means the individual designated by the store to control and maintain "pricing

integrity" in the store though the title will vary with each

retailer.

2.16. Pricing Integrity. ~ Means ensuring that the computer price file and/or the price charged to consumers

136
Laws and Regulations Committee

at a cash register is the same price that is marked on the product, in an advertisement, and/or the shelf tag.

2.17. Sample. -- Means the number of items selected for

testing from the inspection lot.

2.18. Scanner. — Means an electronic system that employs a laser bar code reader to retrieve product

identity, price and other information stored in computer

memory.

2.19. Stock-Keeping Unit (SKU). ~ Means a system of

product identity and pricing similar to PLUs.

2.20. Store-Coded Item. ~ Means the application of

U.P.C. codes to items in the store. Scales in the meat,

deli and other departments generate U.P.C. labels that include identity and price information that can be read by

point-of-sale scanners.

2.21. Stop-Sale Order. ~ Means an official document

placing off-sale a package or amount of any commodity

which is offered or exposed for sale in violation of the

law.

2.22. Ticketed Merchandise. ~ Means items from which

the price must be read from a ticket (or price sticker) and

manually keyed into a register.

2.23. Universal Product Code (U.P.C). ~ Means a unique symbol that consists of a machine readable code

and human-readable numbers. U.P.C.s are printed on

package labels or are applied with tags or labels. U.P.C. codes can be printed for random weight packages by

price-computing scales. U.P.C. symbols must meet the standards established by the Uniform Code Council (UCC)

in order for them to "scan" accurately. The size and

clarity of the print and clear area surrounding the symbol

are a few of the factors that affect accuracy. The UCC

issues codes and answers technical questions, contact the Uniform Code Council, Inc., 8163 Old Yankee Rd, Suite

J, Dayton, Ohio, 45458. Tel: 513-435-3870

Section 3. Test Notes

3.1. Safety and Health. ~ Practice safe work habits to avoid personal injuries or property damage. Be aware of

and follow all safety or sanitation rules at the inspection

site. Handle perishable, dairy, or frozen products properly

to avoid damage (e.g., avoid defrosting frozen foods or allowing dairy products to warm to room temperature

which could result in spoilage).

3.2. Confidentiality of Findings. — Inspection findings

should only be discussed with an authorized store representative and only released in accordance with

applicable public records laws.

Section 4. Materials and Equipment

The following materials and equipment are recommended

for use in conducting the inspections in this procedure:

• Inspection Report

• Copy of laws or regulations

• Hand-held counter or Price Verification Tally Sheets

• 1 lb (or 1 kg) test standard

• Merchandise cart (if required and available)

Other equipment and materials provided by the store when

available:

• Current newspaper advertisement or store sales brochures

• Hand-Held Scanning Device(s). Stores are not required

to have this equipment or to make it available for your

use. However, many stores use this equipment to maintain price integrity and on request may make it available for your use.

Section 5. Pre-Inspection Tasks

Prior to conducting an inspection, it is recommended that you contact the store management, identify yourself, and

explain the purpose of your visit. Determine if there are any health, sanitation, or safety rules. If requested,

provide information on the law or the inspection

procedure.

Note: When verifying manual price entries or conducting

test purchases, store management is not typically notified of the test until the items have been totaled and the transaction completed.

(a) Notify store representatives that they are invited to participate in the inspection.

(b) If the store makes a hand-held scanning device

available for use, request instruction on how to operate it properly. It is acceptable for the "pricing coordinator" to operate the scanning device and participate in the

inspection.

(c) If you use the manual inspection procedure, advise the

store representative that you will return the merchandise

to its display location unless the store representative wants

137
Laws and Regulations Committee

to restock the items, which is acceptable. Determine

which checkout location to use. Arrange to have the

register set so that the items you verify are not included in sales records.

(d) Conduct inspections in a manner that does not disrupt

normal business activities.

Section 6. Inspection

Perform the following inspections:

6.1. Position of Equipment. ~ Determine if customer

indications on point-of-sale systems meet NIST

Handbook 44, General Code, User Requirement, 3.3 Position of Equipment. - A device equipped with a primary indication element and used in direct sales shall be so positioned that its indications may be accurately read and the weighing and measuring operation may be

observed from some "reasonable" customer position.

NIST Handbook 44 defines "point-of-sale system" as "an assembly of elements including a weighing element,

indicating element, and a recording element (and may be

equipped with a scanner) used to complete a direct sale transaction."

Note: The importance of consumer access to the cash

register display ofproduct information and price cannot

be overstated. If consumers cannot verify prices as the items are being scanned, they must wait until the transaction is completed (e.g., they must pay by cash or

check) before they receive the receipt so they can confirm

the prices chargedfor the items.

6.2. Other. -

(a) If you use a cash register, verify the accuracy and

legibility of information provided on register receipts.

(b) Conduct inspections to enforce local requirements if your jurisdiction has specific laws or regulations relating to price marking, shelf labels, or unit pricing.

Section 7. Test Procedures

These procedures shall be used to conduct inspections in any type of store, whether the store uses scanners or automated price look-up registers, or where a clerk manually enters prices.

7.1. Application of Sampling Plans. ~

(a) For Normal or Increased Frequency Inspections - follow the procedures referred to in Columns 1, 2, and 3,

in Table 1. Samples, Sample Collection, and Accuracy

Requirements.

(b) For Special Inspections - Use the test procedures in

7.2. or 7.4., "Procedure for Test Purchases and for Verifying Manually Entered Prices."

7.2. Table 1. Samples, Sample Collection, and

Accuracy Requirements

7.2.1. How to use the table. —

(a) Look up in Column 1 the type of store you are inspecting and select the appropriate sample size from

Column 2. Then, refer to Column 3 for the type of

sample collection plan to use.

(b) Follow the single-stage or two-stage sampling plans

to conduct the inspection and collect the samples using

either the "randomized" or "stratified" sample collection procedures described in 7.3. or the procedure in 7.4.

(c) Apply the accuracy requirements for the appropriate

sample size in Column 4.

7.2.2. Samples. ~ Refer to Column 2 in Table 1 to determine how many items to select for the store type and

whether to use the single-stage or two-stage sampling plan.

You may use either the:

(a) Two-Stage Sample. — A two-stage sample is used

to save time. If the sample (usually one-half the total sample size) taken in the first-stage meets the accuracy

requirements specified in Column 4 in Table 1, the

inspection is complete. However, if the errors in the first- stage sample fall within the limits set in Colunm 4, the second-stage of the sample is taken,

or the:

(b) Single-stage Sample. ~ A single-stage sample is typically used for, but is not limited to, stores where a hand-held scanner device is available for the inspection.

138
Laws and Regulations Committee

7.3. Sample Collection Procedures (for use with either manual or automated inspection procedures). -- These

sample collection procedures can be used to conduct either manual or automated inspections with a single-stage or two-stage sample. That is, you can either use a hand-held

scanning device to verify the price of an item (automated),

or you can remove the items from display and take them

to a checkout location to verify the price of the item

(manual) regardless of which sample collection procedure

used.

Table 1. Samples, Sample Collection, and Accuracy Requirements

Column 1. Type of Store Column 2. Samples Column 3. Sample

Collection Procedures

Column 4. Accuracy

Requirements (See Section 10)

Convenience or Any

Other Small Retail Store

Note: For this procedure a small

store is typically one

with 3 or less checkout registers

Two-Stage Sample

First Stage = 25 items

Second Stage = 25 items or more

Total = 50 items or more

or

Single-Stage Sample

50 items or more

Use Randomized Sample

Collection in 7.3.1 or the

Stratified Sample Collection

in 7.3.2.

and

Use the Manual or Automated Inspection

Procedures

Note' test the store as a whole unit by taking

samples from all "areas" of

the store,

or

divide the store into "areas" and select samples from

several "areas" (e.g., at least 10 or one-third of the

"areas")

If 1 error is found in the 25 item

sample, test an additional 25

items.

If more than 1 error is found in the 50 item sample, the store fails

Note: If more than 1 error is found in the first 25 items the

store fails

All Other Retail Stores

Two-Stage Sample

First Stage = 50 items

Second Stage = 50 items or more

Total = 100 items or more

If 1 error is found in the 50 item

sample, the store passes.

If 2 errors are found in the 50

item sample, test an additional 50

items.

If more than 2 errors are found in the 100 item sample, the store

fails.

Note: If more than 2 errors are found in either stage the store

fails.

Single-stage

Sample

100 or more

items

If more than 2 errors are found in the 100 item sample the store

fails, or

If more than 100 items are sampled, the error rate shall not exceed 2 percent.

No sample collection procedure is ideal for all retail store arrangements. You can modify the procedure to fit each

store, but should adhere to the sample size and sample

collection procedures described in Table 1 . When using

any of the procedures, test the store as a whole unit by

taking samples from all parts of the store, or divide the

store into "areas" and select samples from several "areas"

(e.g., at least 10 areas, or one-third or one-half of the

"areas").

139
Laws and Regulations Committee

Note I: These sampling procedures allow flexibility in sample collection for use in any type or size ofstore. You

can take any of several different approaches and select a number of "areas" to sample using the sample sizes in Table 1. For example; to perform a 100-item inspection

in a department store with 20 "areas," you can either

verify 5 items in each of the "areas, "10 items in 10 ofthe

"areas, " or 20 items from 5 "areas.

"

Note 2: The sample sizes used for routine inspections in

this procedure should not be used to estimate the overall accuracy ofprices in a store.

Note 3: In some stores price reductions are not programmed into the point of sale system. Instead,

discounts are manually entered by a sales clerk; however,

the sales clerks should have a means to identify a sale

item. When conducting normal inspections, you should

verify the price of the sale items by allowing the sales clerk to determine the price of the item using the store 's customary procedures. This will ensure that the customer

receives the correct price regardless ofthe location where

the checkout occurs.

7.3.1. Randomized Sample Collection. -- In "randomized" sample collection, all of the items in an

"area" have an equal chance of being included in the sample. This test procedure has several benefits,

including: (1) more effective coverage and simpler to do

because you select items by count following a systematic

pattern throughout the store, and (2) randomized sampling

ensuring a wider range of items are verified, which

increases scrutiny, hence confidence in the results. With

most samples, several items will be verified in each "area" of the store. Since store sizes differ, this number will vary, but you should take samples from a wide variety of

items (and merchandise groups) from locations throughout

the store or "area."

The steps ofthe randomized sampling collection procedure

are:

(a) Count the number of "areas" in the store which have

products to be verified:

(1) Stand-alone counters and displays or whole

departments (e.g., bakery or seafood, or "mens clothing"

or "sporting goods" department, etc.) are considered and

counted as individual "areas" to be sampled.

(2) End-of-aisle displays may be considered as a

single, distinct "area" and verified separately or included

as part of either side of an aisle.

(b) The sample size (e.g., 100 items) is divided by the number of "areas" to determine the number of items to be

sampled from each "area". Depending on the number of

areas in the store, you may calculate a fractional number

of items per area. In this case, round off the sample size and select one or two additional items from an "area" to complete the full sample size of 100 items.

Example 1. Illustrations of the Randomized

Sampling Procedure

(a) Figure 1 illustrates how the randomized sampling

procedures are used in a food store. This example is based on a 100-item sample. To simplify the selection process, simply divide the store into 4 major "areas" and

select samples as follows:

• Select 5 items from all of the shelves and displays in the produce section which are grouped as a single "area," and

• Select 85 items by choosing 5 items from either side of

the 13 aisles, and

• Select 5 items from the counters along the back of the

store, and

• Select 5 items from the deli-bakery and the cash register areas which are grouped as a single "area."

(b) Figures 2 and 3 illustrate how the randomized

sampling procedures may be used in any store. The

examples are based on a 100 item sample in stores that have a total of 30 "areas" to sample. The procedure

allows the flexibility needed to adjust the sample to fit the

store layout. To simplify the selection process the stand- alone displays can be grouped together as an "area" to be

sampled.

The following breakdown of "areas" is illustrated in Figure

2 the same approach is used in Figure 3. Figure 4 provides

a illustration of sampling 100 items by selecting 20 items

from 5 different areas in a department store.

1 - All of the shelves and displays in the produce section

are grouped as a single "area."

28 - The 13 aisles (26 rows of shelves), the counters along the back of the store and the cash register areas are counted as "areas."

1 - The "end-of-aisle" displays at the front and back of

the store are grouped as a single "area."

Total "areas" - 30

140
Laws and Regulations Committee

Figure 1. Illustration of the Randomized Sampling Procedure

a. If you want to select samples from the entire store, divide 100 by 30 to calculate how many "samples" to take from each "area." In this example, 100 ^ 30 = 3.3 items per area. Rounding down to 3 items, take a total of 90

samples from the different "areas" and select 4 items in 10 of the "areas" to obtain a sample of 100 items.

b. If you round up to 4 items per area, you take a total of

120 samples, or

c. You may select 10 items from 10 "areas."

(c) Start in any "area" in the store at any shelf or rack or

display, (top or bottom, front or back, or anywhere on a

circular rack or display). Begin with the first (or second

or third) item and count either 5, 10, or 15 items along the

shelf (varying the number of items counted depending on how many items are available on the shelf) or along the

aisle. Select the' 5th, 10th, or 15th item as appropriate

(See Figures 5, 6, and 7). Only select one item from each

brand or product (if they are the same price) from a display that has two or more items of the same product,

size and price displayed side by side. You can change the number of items you count off as often as necessary during the inspection.

(d) Either verify the price with a hand-held scaiming

device or take the item (along with the other items you

select) to the check-out location to verify the price,

keeping count of the items using a hand counter or tally sheet. If an item is incorrect, record its name, description,

and price along with other information (e.g., whether the product is on sale, aisle location so that you can easily find the items again to verify the error, etc.).

(e) From the first item sampled, move down (or up) one

shelf to the item most directly below (or above) and count

5, 10, or 15 items in the same direction and sample the

5th, 10th or 15th items, as appropriate. After the number

of items to be verified in each "area" have been selected,

go to the next "area" and start on the next shelf (either

down or up) from where the previous sample was selected, count 5, 10, or 15 items, and select the appropriate item

using the count system until the required number of

samples is selected. If you have sampled an item on the bottom (or top) shelf and have more items to test in the

"area." simply go up (or down) one shelf. This will create

a "zigzag" trail up and down the display.

Note: Randomness can be increased by starting on

different shelves or at the midpoint or rear of an aisle

141
Laws and Regulations Committee

during an inspection, or by starting at different locations

in a store on subsequent inspections. Always start at a

different location on subsequent inspections ofa store. To

maintain "randomness, " do not searchfor obvious pricing

errors. If you see pricing errors, have them corrected. The sample should not include more than one of the same

item from the same display. If an item is out of stock, select the next item.

(1) This procedure is repeated for all "areas" until you

complete the sample.

Note I: Include at least 5-10 Price Look Up (PLU) and

store-coded items in the samples. In food stores, these items do not usually have to be removedfrom the produce,

bulk foods section, or deli display for use in this procedure. You can use a hand-held scanner or record

the identity and item price designated at the product sales display of the items from the different department

(produce, bakery, deli), if available, for price comparison

through either the PL U programmed in the department 's scale or at the point-of-sale system. Have the PLU

entered in the scale or point-of-sale system (or

have "store-coded" items scanned) and record the price,

comparing it with the displayed sale price. Record any

errors

'^^"^'"•'^^ When checking "store-coded" items from

the meat or other departments, remember that a "U.P.C. symbol" on a random weight label is read by a scanner to obtain the total price and identity. The price is not stored

in the point-of-sale database, but in the memory of the prepackaging scale.

Note 2: Some scales or point-of-sale systems do not

display or record the unit price associated with the PLU

unless a weight is on the scale. For these types of

devices, place a one-pound standard (or 1 kg) on the scale load-receiving element. Some systems automatically

deduct tare, so check to make sure that this does not affect the price indication.

Note 3: When you manually enter PLU codes and find

errors, reenter the PLU number to ensure that the error was not caused by a keying mistake or that the item was

not identified accurately.

1.3.2. Stratified Sample Collection. — Stratified sample

collection (i.e., selecting samples from specific

merchandise groups) of items on sale, specials, seasonal

items, or items on end-of-aisle displays) is typically used

(e.g., if a store has failed an inspection based on the randomized sample collection procedures) to focus on

specific merchandise groups that appear to have more

errors than others (e.g., you find that many of the errors found in the randomized sample were in "advertised

specials" or with "discontinued items"). You can also combine sample collection procedures by using a

"randomized/stratified" approach. The "stratified" approach may be used the first time you inspect a store, in stores that have just implemented scanning, in stores that have high error rates on particular groups of items in past

inspections, or in responding to consumer complaints

involving a particular group of items.

142
Laws and Regulations Committee

Figure 3. "Randomized Sample Collection" Using Count

For stratified sample collection, items are randomly

selected from different "merchandise groups" in a store. They are tested in the first-stage of the two-stage manual

sampling plan to determine if (1) any group has more

errors than any other and (2) the sample taken in the first stage meets accuracy requirements. This method should

be modified depending on the marketing practices of the

store in which it is used (e.g., if you are in a department

store there may be fewer groups to sample from, or the

list provided below may not include the types of groups

typically encountered in a hardware superstore). However,

the next example will show how to conduct a stratified sample and how it is used, but it should not be the sole basis for sample collection because a specific list of ite ms does not look at the store as a whole. Focusing on

specific merchandise groups takes time, but this may be

necessary when investigating a complaint or following up

on a prior noncompliance. Select only one item from

each brand or product from a display that has two or more

items of the same product, size and price displayed side by

side if they are the same price.

Example 2. Two-Stage Manual Inspection

using the Stratified Sampling Procedure

Sample Size: In this example a large food store is inspected using a two-stage sampling plan (50 items/100

total items). The inspection begins with an initial sample

of 50 items (see Column 1. Type of Store for "All Other

Retail Stores" and Column 2. Sample Sizes in Table 1).

Stratified Sample Collection - Select 50 items from the merchandise groups listed below (provided as examples

only; stores may have other groups that should be

included.) This procedure allows you to focus on specific

merchandise groups to determine if errors are occurring in any of the groups where errors are thought to occur more

frequently (e.g., sale and direct delivery items).

143
Laws and Regulations Committee

Department

Store Layout

100 Item Sample

Size

Figure 4.

RANDOMIZED SAMPLE COLLECTIGN

"End-of-Aisle" Display X - Sample

Starting point

For 1 mull diipUy S itom ue coaued

and the 5th item is selected a the sample

6 Samples were tested in this 'area.* Figure 5. Randomized Sample Collection.

If there is an insufficient number of items in any

merchandise group, or if the group of items is not

available, increase the number of "randomized" items

selected from the overall inspection lot to obtain a total 50

items. As marketing practices evolve, these groups may

change as well. You can substitute "other" or new

merchandise groups for any of those listed below (e.g., you may have identified errors in the "health and beauty

aids" section or on "manager specials" during a previous

inspection, so samples from these groups may be

substituted for any of the groups listed below). Model

"Price Verification Tally Sheets" in Appendix A are provided for your use with the test procedures to keep

frack of the number of items selected.

144
Laws and Regulations Coimnittee

Figure 7.

145
Laws and Regulations Committee

First-Stage: 50 items. Use the "randomized" sample

collection procedures described in 7.3.1 to select the following items. These sample collection procedures

simplify the inspection process and ensure that samples are collected as randomly as possible.

• 25 "Regular Priced" items. Select 1 or 2 items at random from different shelves on each "area" or limit your

sampling to shelves in one-half the "areas," in the store, and

• 25 Items. Select a total of 25 items. Include several items from any of the following merchandise groups:

• "Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD)" items. If the store allows vendors to price DSD items, include those

items in the sample.

• "End-of-Aisle" or "Tie-In-Display" items. This

group can include both regular and sale priced items.

• "Advertised Sale" items. Use the store's sales brochure or newspaper advertisements to identify sale items.

• "Special" items. This includes any item with a reduced price (e.g., items on "special" including

"cents-off' or "percentage off items, 2-for-the-priceof-I specials, manager and in-store specials, or discontinued items). Items typically discounted on a percentage basis included a manufacturer's product

line, greeting cards, magazines or books.

• "PLU" items. This includes both regular and sale priced items offered in the produce, bakery, or bulk

food departments and over scales at the direct sale counters. For direct service departments (e.g., produce, deli, specialty meats, etc.), select products

at random (include some sale or special prices) and

enter the code in the scale^^'"^"" to verify that the coded price matches the advertised price*^" ^\

• "Store-coded" items. This includes items offered

in the produce, bakery, or meat departments that have labels with the U.P.C. symbol generated by

scales and printers in the store. For store-coded

items, scan the item and determine if the total price

and identity on the label are accurately read by the point-of-sale system. When checking "store-coded" items from the meat or other departments, remember

that a "U.P.C. symbol" on a random weight label is read by a scanner to obtain the total price and

identity. The price is iiot stored in the point-of-sale database.

• "Other" items. This category is included to provide

flexibility in the selecting a sample so that "seasonal"

items, or products unique to the store or local market, can be included. Both regular and sale priced items can be included in this category.

Note 1: Some scales or point-of-sale systems do not

display or record the unit price associated with the PLU

unless weight is on the scale. For these devices, a

one-pound (or I kg) standard is placed on the scale load

receiving element. Some systems automatically deduct

tare, so make sure that this does not affect the price

indication.

Note 2: When a not-on-fde item is found, another item is selected at random to replace it in the sample. A "not-on- fde" item is not an error unless you determine (e.g., by

conducting a test purchase or by asking the checkout clerk

to determine the price of the item using the store's customary procedures) that the price "charged" for the item is incorrect. If the price determined is not correct, the error is included in the total.

Record a brief identification of the item on an inspection

report (e.g., a brief description, item number, shelf or

advertised price and aisle location. The aisle location makes it easy to find the product if errors are found and

in reshelving the items.) As the items are selected, use the

"Price Verification Tally Sheet," or other means, to keep

track of the number of items collected (See Appendix A - Model Forms. The "Model Price Verification Reports" in

this proposal were developed with the assumption that it

is only necessary to record information of items found

with price errors, not all items verified. This reduces

paperwork and saves time).

Either use a hand-held scanning device or take the items

to a cash register, verify the prices by scanning the items

or entering a PLU code into the register and printing a

receipt. The prices "charged" at the register are then

compared to the advertised price of each item. For large or perishable items, you can record the identity, U.P.C. Code, location, and price and manually enter the U.P.C. number into the register to verify the price. However, this method is subject to recording and key entry errors.

Evaluation of Results on First-Stage:

See Section 9 for guidance on which errors are considered

violations: One error is permitted in a 50-item sample. If only one error is found and verified, the store passes; if 3 items are found in error in the first 50 items, the store

fails and the inspection is complete.

146
Laws and Regulations Committee

If two errors are found, collect 50 more items using the randomized sampling procedures and verify a total of 100

items. If errors were found in any specific merchandise

group (or groups) of items (e.g., direct-store-delivery

items, PLU Codes, or specials), the additional 50 items

should include items from those merchandise groups.

Accuracy

Refer to Column 4 in Table 1 . The required accuracy is 98 percent on the 100-item sample (that is, at most two

errors are permitted in a 100-item sample). If more than two errors are found and verified, the store does not meet

the accuracy requirement.

Note: The "randomized" and "stratified" sample collection procedures in this section are intendedfor use in routine

inspections to determine how a store is maintaining price

accuracy on all of the items it offers for sale. Ifyou use

these sampling procedures in routine inspections and

uncover a significant number of errors in a particular

merchandise group (e.g., a significant number of the pricing errors arefound with "advertised sale item " items), a randomized sample can be collected entirely within this specific merchandise group. For example; if the error

rate for "advertised specials" is higher than the rate for

regular priced items, a morefocused inquiry to determine

if there is a significant error rate in this merchandise

group may be justified. If several "advertised specials"

have been the subject of consumer complaints, or if they are repeatedly found to be in error during routine

inspections, then a randomized sample can be limited to the "advertised specials " merchandise group. In this case, a randomized sample (e.g., a 50/100 item two-stage

approach) is taken from all of the "advertised sale items "

offered for sale in the store or in a specific "area. " The

results of this sample are applicable only to the "advertised specials" group and not to all items in the

store.

7.4. Procedures for Test Purchases, Investigation of

Consumer Complaints, and for Verification of

Manually Entered Prices

7.4.1. Procedure. —

This procedure may be used to (1) investigate consumer

complaints, (2) determine if a store has corrected a pricing

error after being notified that an error occurred, or (3) determine if manually keyed-in prices or PLU codes are accurate.

Note: When verifying manual price entries, store management is not typically notified of the test until the items have been totaled and the transaction completed.

(a) Do not make the clerk aware that the test purchase

procedure is being conducted. Do not ask questions

concerning any errors that you observe or offer any

information if asked the price of an item, in cases where

the item price is illegible, or the item is not on file.

(b) Use the "randomized" sampling procedures to select a sample of 10-50 items that includes regular and sale priced items, PLU items, and advertised specials from

various "areas." It is acceptable to purchase only one or

just a few items if you are investigating a complaint on a specific item. Record the name and identity of the product, as well as the labeled or advertised price, for each

item.

(c) Proceed through a check-out as if you were a customer and pay for the purchase. Obtain the original

sales receipt and compare the price charged with the labeled or advertised price for each item. Record the time

of day, lane number, and the identity of the checker. Before leaving the store, determine if any errors have

occurred. Identify yourself to the store management and

inform them that a test purchase was conducted and report the results. (In many instances the store will credit back

all of the items and refund the test purchase money.)

Record the information on the test report form and

determine the cause of the error (e.g., was it operator

error, mislabeling of the item, or incorrect price sign?).

7.4.2. Alternative Procedure - Consumer Complaints. -

- Complaints can be investigated by using any of the test procedures described above or by only verifying the price

of the item or items subject to the complaint. If the complaint is valid, you can limit your inspection to the items described in the complaint or you may conduct a complete inspection.

7.4.3. Evaluation of Results. ~ The errors for items

verified using these procedures should be evaluated according to Sections 9 and 10.

Section 8. Documentation of Findings

Several examples of Model Price Verification Reports are contained in Appendix A. These forms were developed so

that you only have to record the items found with price

errors.

(a) Record errors and provide information on the cause,

if determined. Indicate if the errors are considered to be

violations, if stop-sale orders were issued, or if the

violation was corrected.

147
Laws and Regulations Committee

(b) Notices of violations or other significant comments

should always be included on the test form (e.g., warnings

or violations ordered corrected).

(c) Cash register receipts on verified items should be

retained and attached to the inspection report as evidence.

(d) Printed advertisements and sales flyers should be

retained and attached to the inspection report whenever

errors are found in these categories.

Section 9. Evaluation of Inspection Results

9.1. Definition of Errors. -- An error found to result from of any of the following causes should not be

considered a violation for enforcement purposes:

(a) Any intentional undercharge that is found within 24

hours of the time that the price was changed in the store's database (or shelf tag or advertised price), if documentation or confirmation of the date and time of the price change is provided at the time of the inspection.

(b) Any error caused by a mistake made in any kind of

advertisement (e.g., newspaper, printed brochure, or radio or television advertisement) if the store has placed a notice adjacent to the item indicating that a mistake occurred in the advertisement.

(c) Any error obviously caused by a price label that is missing or has fallen off the shelf, or if the item or the

price label or sign has obviously been relocated by an unauthorized person.

(d) A "not-on-file" item is not an error unless you

determine that the price "charged" for the item is incorrect

(e.g., by conducting a test purchase or by asking the checkout clerk to determine the price of the item using the

store's documented or customary procedures. If the determined price is incorrect, it is considered an error.)

Note: It is recommended that you work with the store representative to identify the cause of any error and note

the problem/cause on the report. This may not change

yourfindings, but will help to identify problems related to stafferrors, failure to follow through on established store pricing procedures, data entry errors, or failure of

management to provide correct written data, etc. The

supporting information will help with enforcement

decisions as well as in-house monitoring of the pricing of

products.

9.2. Computing Sample Errors. — The following

formulas are used to determine sample error and the overcharge to undercharge ratio:

(a) Adjust the total sample by subtracting any items or

errors specified in 9.1.

(b) To compute the sample error, divide the number of

errors by the total sample size to obtain the error in percent.

For example: a sample of 100 items is verified; 3 overcharges and 1 undercharge are found for a total of 4

errors.

4 100 = 4 percent sample error.

(c) To compute the ratio of overcharges to undercharges

(used on large samples and in follow-up activities) total the overcharges/undercharges and compare the numbers:

3 overcharges/ 1 undercharge = a 3 to 1 ratio

Section 10. Accuracy Requirements

10.1. Accuracy Requirements. — Accuracy information,

based on a percentage of errors found in a sample and the

ratio of overcharges to undercharges, provides useful

criteria for evaluating the "pricing integrity" of the store. Both overcharges and undercharges should be considered

errors in taking lower level enforcement actions since (1) either type of error misrepresents the price of the item; and (2) the occurrence of any error in a randomized

sample may indicate poor pricing practices that would

result in errors on other items where additional items were

sampled. For higher levels of enforcement only

overcharges are considered.

10.2. Accuracy. -- See Column 4 in Table 1. The

accuracy requirement for a sample must be 98 percent or higher to "pass" a single inspection.

10.3. Ratio of Overcharges to Undercharges. - On

large sample sizes the overcharges should not exceed the undercharges. A high rate of overcharges to undercharges

(2 to 1 , or 3 to 1 ) may indicate systematic problems with

a store's pricing practices.

Note: As the history of store compliance develops, the number ofovercharges and undercharges can be evaluated

to determine if systematic errors or other problems exist. This ratio should be maintained when at least 10 errors are found over several inspections, or in a single large

sample size (e.g., the results of several 100 item

148
Laws and Regulations Committee

inspections collected over a period of time or if 1,000

items are sampled in one inspection.)

Table 2. Price Errors - This table shows the percentage

of errors in different sample sizes:

Percentage of Errors

Sample Size

Price Errors 25 50 100 150 200 300

1 4% 2% 1% 0.67% 0.50% 0.33%

2 8% 4% 2% 1.33% 1 .00% 0.67%

3 12% 6% 3% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00%

4 16% 8% 4% 2.67% 2.00% 1.33%

5 20% 10% 5% 3.33% 2.50% 1.67%

6 24% 12% 6% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00%

7 28% 14% 7% 4.67% 3.50% 2.33%

8 32% 16% 8% 5.33% 4.00% 2.67%

9 36% 18% 9% 6.00% 4.50% 3.00%

10 40% 20% 10% 6.67% 5.00% 3.33%

Note: Random errors are expected in pricing, but the ratio of overcharges to undercharges will rarely be exactly one

to one (e.g., of 10 errors, 5 overcharges and 5

undercharges); the ratio would likely vary both ways over

several inspections. If a store has more overcharges than

undercharges (e.g., 2 to 1, or 3 to 1), it may indicate that the store is not following good pricing practices, but enough errors must be present in order to make this determination. (Consider the example of12 pricing errors consisting of8 overcharges and 4 undercharges: the ratio of overcharges to undercharges is 2 to 1. Similarly, 10

pricing errors consisting of 6 overcharges and 4 undercharges corresponds to a ratio of 1.5 to 1; since all decimal values are truncated to whole numbers, 1.5 is truncated to 1, and the ratio becomes 1 to 1.)

The one-to-one ratio should be applied to any sample size

if at least 10 errors are present. For example, if 1,000

items are verified and 10 items are found in error, the sample has an accuracy of 99 percent. However, if 9 of

the 10 errors are overcharges (i.e., a ratio of 9

overcharges to 1 undercharge), the store should be

considered to have poor pricing practices or other problems; if 100 items are verified and a 90 percent accuracy is found, 10 items in error not meeting the overcharge to undercharge ratio can be used as evidence

ofpoor pricing practices in enforcement action.

Section 11. Enforcement Procedures

11.1. Enforcement Steps.

(a) Compliance is based on the accuracy found on a sample collected according to this procedure.

(b) Errors should be corrected immediately, or (if the correction cannot be made immediately) a stop-sale order

issued before you leave the business. If the errors are not

corrected in your presence, a follow-up inspection can be

made later in the day or the following day to determine if the store corrected the error. If a store fails to correct the

error by that time, higher level enforcement action should

be taken.

(c) Enforcement action for large monetary errors on

individual items, confirmed overcharges on items verified

in response to complaints, or errors found on follow-up

inspection of items ordered corrected, should be taken independently from any sample, giving consideration to the magnitude of the violation, corrective action by the establishment, and any other relevant information. Action

may be initiated at any time in the inspection process based on the facts of the individual case.

(d) Overcharges and undercharges are used to determine

lower levels of enforcement actions, but higher levels of

enforcement action (e.g., fines or penalties) are taken only on the overcharges found in the sample (e.g., when

overcharges exceed 2% in a sample).

Note: Many computer systems do not allow for the immediate correction of errors in the database. Downloading information throughout the day may not be

possible. Therefore, for the purposes of this section,

"immediate" correction of errors may entail the removal

or correction ofproblem signs, manually changing marked

prices, or communicating notice of the corrected price to

all applicable stores throughfacsimile, e-mail or any other appropriate medium which ensures that consumers are charged the correct price.

11.2. Model Enforcement Levels. ~

These recommendations do not modify the enforcement

policy of any jurisdiction unless they are adopted by the

jurisdiction.

(a) Ninety-Eight Percent or Higher. — If price accuracy

is 98 percent or higher on a sample of 50 or more items,

and overcharges do not exceed undercharges on sample

sizes of 100 or more items, and the store is on a normal

inspection frequency:

149
Laws and Regulations Committee

(1) A notice of noncompliance is issued on violations,

and the store is maintained on a normal inspection

frequency.

(2) If the store is on increased inspection frequency, it remains on this frequency until inspection results conform to Terms of Increased Inspection Frequency.

(b) Less Than 98 Percent. ~ If price accuracy is less than 98 percent on a sample of at least 50 items (and the overcharges do not exceed undercharges on large sample

sizes) and the store is on normal inspection frequency:

(1) A notice of noncompliance is issued, and the store placed on an increased inspection frequency.

(2) A second inspection should be conducted within

30 business days. If the price accuracy is not 98 percent or higher, a warning is issued.

(3) A third inspection should be made within

60 business days. If the price accuracy is less than

98 percent, higher level enforcement action is taken if the overcharges are more than 2 percent.

If the store is on increased inspection frequency, a warning should be issued and the store reinspected within

30 business days. If price accuracy is less than

98 percent, higher levels of enforcement action should be

taken if overcharges are more than 2 percent.

Examples for the 100-item sample size:

• If 100 items are verified and 3 overcharges are found

in the sample, the error rate is 3 percent. In this example higher levels of enforcement action should

be taken.

• If 100 items are verified and 3 overcharges and

2 undercharges are found, the error rate on the sample is 5 percent, but overcharges are 3 percent.

In this example higher levels of enforcement action should be taken.

• If 100 items are verified and 2 overcharges and

3 undercharges are found, the error rate is still 5 percent, but overcharges are only 2 percent of the sample. In this example a lower level enforcement

action would be taken.

(c) Terms of Increased Inspection Frequency. — When

a store is on increased inspection frequency, it shall remain at that frequency until two consecutive inspections

reveal an accuracy of 98 percent or higher.

(d) Higher Levels of Enforcement Action. -

Overcharges and undercharges are used to determine lower

levels of enforcement actions, but higher levels of

enforcement action (e.g., fines or penalties) are taken only on overcharges (e.g., when the overcharges exceed 2% on

the sample). A store's history of error rates, the time it takes a store to correct errors, the difference in inaccuracy

rates found between "regul^" and "sale" priced items, the

ratio of overcharges to undercharges, a record of valid consumer complaints, and the magnitude of the error(s) may be used to support enforcement action.

Section 12. Post-Inspection Tasks

(a) You should meet with the store representative to review your findings. Have the inspection report

completed prior to the meeting and be prepared to briefly

summarize your findings and recommended actions; provide a copy to the store representative.

(b) Return borrowed safety, sanitation, and/or test equipment.

(c) If you removed items from display, ensure that the items are returned to their proper location on the store shelves unless the representative requests to have the items

returned by a store employee, which is permitted.

(d) Advise the representative of your findings. Explain

any violations and errors. Explain any orders issued and

be sure the individual acknowledges understanding what

corrective action is expected, if any.

(e) If necessary, describe the implications of the

inspection results and advise the firm of the action that you intend to take. If an increased inspection frequency

is called for due to the accuracy level found during the

inspection, advise the firm that reinspections will be made,

but do not indicate when they may occur.

Section 13. Supervisory Activities

13.1. Baseline Surveys. — Price verification programs

require management support so that the program's

objectives and desired benefits can be incorporated into the enforcement agency's work plans and budget. Surveys

to measure pre- and post- implementation accuracy should

be used to establish a base from which to measure whether

a cost/benefit has been obtained.

13.2. FoIIow-up Inspections. ~ Inspections that reveal

errors that do not meet the accuracy requirements

recommended above must include follow-up action to

150
Laws and Regulations Committee

ensure that the store fulfills it obligations to ensure

accurate prices.

13.3. Management Information System Support. -- To

ensure adequate control and follow-up, a database should

be established in each jurisdiction that provides

information on every store including:

(a) Date of inspections.

(b) Type of store

(c) Accuracy and sample size used in the inspection.

(d) Ratio of overcharges to undercharges.

(e) Average money value of overcharges and

undercharges.

Section 14. Appendices

Appendix A - Model Forms

These models can be used to develop formal report forms,

or they can be copied and used as worksheets for your use

in conducting inspections:

(a) Sample Tally Sheets: these are worksheets that can be

used to help you keep track of the number of items

verified. They include spaces to record the item's display

location (e.g., aisle or department), a description of the

item, and the shelf or advertised price. The worksheets

are set up for use with the stratified sample collection described above to help you identify the types of products

to select.

(b) Model Inspection Form I: this form can be used to document violations and record findings. A completed

sample is provided.

(c) Model Inspection Form II: this form can be used in stores where a hand-held scanning device is not available, or when it is inconvenient to take the item (e.g., a large

item such as a ladder in a hardware store) to a checkout

register to verify the price. You can record an identity, the U.P.C. or PLU code, and advertised price so that you

can manually enter the codes to verify the price. The form

can also be used to record findings. A completed sample

is provided.

151
Appendix A. Model Forms - Price Verification Tally Sheet - Food Store

T3C

o "

c

^ E o B

D r

OU

9i

uCO

>

o 2

CO "o £ n.

u

an ^ 5 Q

T3

E

o

T3C

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26. .

27.

28.

29.

30.

31- .

32.

33. .

34.

35.

36. .

37. .

38.

39.

40.

41-

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

Location

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

9. _

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17 .

18.

19.

20.

21,

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

U.P.C/Identity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Shelf Price

1.

2.

3. .

4. _

5. .

6. .

7. _

8- .

9. _

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.
Price Verification Tally Sheet -Department Stores

Identity Location Advertised Price

1. 1. 1.

2. 2. 2.

3. 3. 3.

4. 4. 4.

5. 5. 5.

6. ^6. 6.

7. 7. 7,

8. . 8. 8.

9. 9. 9.

10. 10. 10.

11. 11. 11.

12. 12. 12.

13. 13. 13.

14. 14. 14.

15. 15. 15.

16. 16. 16.

17. 17. 17.

18. 18. 18.

19. 19. 19.

20. 20. 20.

21. 21. 21.

22. 22. 22.

23. 23. ____ 23.

24. 24. 24.

25. 25. 25.

26. 26. 26.

27. 27. 27.

28. 28. 28.

29. 29. 29.

30. , 30. 30.

31. 31. 31.

32. 32. 32.

33. 33. 33.

34. 34. 34.

35. 35. 35.

36. 36. 36. .

37. 37. 37.

38. 38. 38.

39. 39. 39. _____

40. 40. 40.

41. 41. 41.

42. 42. 42.

43. 43. 43.

44. 44. 44.

45. 45. 45.

46. 46. 46.

47. 47. 47.

48. 48. 48.

49. 49. 49.

50. 50. 50.
Appendix A Model Form - Price Verification Report 1

Inspection: 1st 2nd 3rd Complaint: Frequency: Normal Increased Type: Stratified Automated Randomized

Page of

Location of Test (Store Name, Address, County, Zip Code) Date:

Manager;

Telephone:

Type of Store

Identity, Brand Name, Item or Style Number Number of Items. Size, Location m Store or U P C Code Offered

Price

Price Charged

Pnce Error

in Cents t

1.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

2.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

3.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments

4

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

5.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

6.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

7.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

8.

Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

Comments/Remarks: Evaluation of Results: Sample - Not on File = Adjusted Sample

Errors + _ Adjusted Sample = Error in V. Accuracy •/. Ratio: Overcharges

Time In: Time Out:

Report Acknowledgement

Name/Title

Inspector

Undercharges
Impaction

Appendix A Model Form - Price Verification Report I Page _1_ of _1_

jon: 1^ l8t 2nd 3rd Complaint: Fraquancy: %^ Normal Increased Type: Stratified Automated \^ Randonwzed

Location of Tost (Store Name, Address, County, Zip Code)

Barken Food Store 1361 Macon Street

Belle, New Jersey 31756

Date:

3/10/95

Manager:

C. Barker

Telephone:

(301) 975-4S6S

Type of Store:

Food Start

Identity, Brand Name, Item or Style Nunnber Number of Items, Size, Location in Store, or U.P.C.Code Offered

Price

Price Charged

Price

Error

in Cents ±

1 . Smith Cake Mix 32oz. 313461346177 3.19 4.19 +1.00

c: Stop Sale Issued 1^ Corrected

Conrvnenta: Sale Sign not removed

2. Natural Fruit Juice 1 Liter 617369345619 2.25 2.75 + .50

^ Stop Sale Issued Corrected Comments:

3. Clocks Soap 8oz. 936125376558 1.19 1.00 -.19

c Stop Sale Issued - Corrected Comments;

4.

- Stop Sale Issued - Corrected Comments:

5.

~ Stop Sale Issued ~ Corrected Corrvnents:

6.

- Stop Sale Issued - Corrected Comments:

7.

- Stop Sale Issued - Corrected Comments:

8.

^ Stop Sale Issued - Corrected Comments:

Commente/RemarVi:

Report Acknowledgement

Namemtle Qiris Barker

Evaluation of Results: 100 Sample - 0 Not on File = 100 Adjusted Sample

3 Errors + 100 Adjusted Sample = 3 Error in %

Accuracy 97 % Ratio: 2 Overcharge* 1 Undercharges

Inspectof T. Price Time In: 8:15 Time Out: 9:30
Appendix A Model Form - Price Verification Report II Page of . i

Inspection: 1st 2nd 3rd Complaint: Frequency: Normal Increased

Location of Test (Name, Address, County, Zip Code) Date:

Manager:

Item/Size or Style Number

Offered

Price

Price Charged

Price

Error

in Cents

±

1, Identity:

U.P.C/PLU: Comments;

2. Identity: UP C/PLU: Comments:

3. Identity U P C/PLU: Comments:

4. Identity: U P C/PLU: Comments:

5, ^de,^tity; U P.C/PLU; Comments:

6, Identity: U P.C/PLU; Comments:

7. Identity: U P C/PLU: Comments:

8. Identity: U P C/PLU: Comments:

9. Identity; U P C/PLU; Comments:

10. Identity; U P C/PLU: Comments:

telephone:

Type of Store:

Comments/Remarks: Evaluation of Results: Sample - Not on File = Adjusted Sample

Item/brand/descrlption/code/size

11. Identity;

U.P.C/PLU: Comments:

12. Identity:

U.P.C/PLU; Comments:

13, Identity: U P C/PLU: Comments;

14, Identity: U P C/PLU; Comments;

15, Identity: U P C/PLU; Comments;

16 Identity; U P C/PLU; Comments:

17, Identity: U P C/PLU: Comments;

18, Identity; U P C/PLU: Comments:

19, Identity: U P C/PLU; Comments:

20, Identity; U P C/PLU: Comments:

Offered

Price

Price Charged

Pric Em,

in Ce

±,

Report Acknowledgement Errors -i- Adjusted Sample = Error in %

Accuracy in Percent

Ratio: Overcharges,

Stop-Sale Order Issued

Undercharges

1
! Appendix A Model Form - Price Verification Report - li page i of i

•paction: Ist %^ 2nd 3rd Complaint: Frequancy: Normal %^ Increasad

Location of Tast (Name, Address, County, Zip Code)

Mark Downtown Department Store 11650 Main St. Atice, MN 61619

Date: 3/16/95 Telephone: (614) 916-61460

Manager: Jim ChesUr Type of Store: Department Store

1. idwHiiy: Sonj Color T.V.

U.P.C/PLU: 38569

cenwTMnta: Model: 6136X

2. id«itity: Moort Lawn Mower

U.P.C/PtU: 31619 fi Comnwnu: Shp With bagger

3. Id«mity: Tc^fi Rake

U.P.C/PLU: 39916

Comnwnt*: Mt On file

4. idMKity: Calender

UJ>.C/PLU: 615191

Commant*:

J

6. Idantity:

O.P.C/PLU:

6. Id«ntity:

U.P.C/PLU: Commanu:

7. Idanlity:

U.P.C/PLU:

CtWIMIWUlI

8, Mancity:

U.P.C/PLU:

CofivTMntt:

9. Idanlity:

U.P.C/PLU:

Cocnmants:

10. Idantity:

U.P.C/PLU: Commancs: Comments/Remarks:

Report Acknowledgement

Jim Chester

Offared

Prica

sm.oo

$96.00

$8.99

$5.50

Price CKargad

$199.00

$91.00

$7.10

Priea Error

in Canta

$+10

$-5.00

$+1.60

Nama/Titla

jr. Marlowe

Item/brand/daacriptiorVcoda/tiza

1 1 . lacncity:

UJ'.CyW.U:

Cornmenta:

12. kMTtity:

UJ>.C/PLU:

Comment*:

13. loentity:

UJ».Cff>LU:

C«mnentt:

14. Idantity:

U^.C/PLU:

Co>nment*:

16. kSanity:

UJ>.C/Pt.U: Cammenta:

16. ktantity: U^.C/PLU:

ComriMntt:

17. Idantity:

UJ».C/PLU:

Ouvraiiai ila:

18. Warcity:

UJi-CyPLU:

Canimanta:

19. laanbty:

UJ».C/PLU: Comment*:

20. Identity:

UJ».C/PtU:

Corximent*:

Oflarad

Priea

Price Charged

Evaluation of Results: 50 Sample - 1_ Not on RIa = 49 Adjusted Sample

3 Errors + 49 Adjusted Sample = 6 Enor in %

Accuracy in Percent 94 %

Ratio: 2 Overcharges 1 Undercharges

Stop-Sale Order Issued

Inspector
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix F

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service Policy Memo

To: Branch Chiefs Policy Memo 124

From: Cheryl Wade, Director

Food Labeling Division

Regulatory Programs

Subject: Declaration of Net Quantity of Contents on Combination Packages Containing Liquid and Solid Products

Issue: What are the Net Contents Labeling Requirements for Combination Packages which Contain Both Liquid and Solid

Products?

j Definition : Combination Package - A combination package is a package intended for retail sale, containing two or more

individual packages or units of dissimilar commodities (for example, a lunch pack that contains a fruit drink, meat, cheese,

crackers, and cookies).

Policy: The guidelines for stating the net quantity of contents on combination packages containing both liquid and solid products are as follows:

1. The declaration of net quantity of contents for a combination package shall be expressed in terms of fluid measure for individual products that are liquid and in terms of avoirdupois weight for individual products that are solid, semisolid, or

viscous, provided the quantity statements for identical packages or units are combined. For example, the fruit drink would

be expressed in fluid measure and the meat, cheese, crackers, and cookies would be expressed in the combined avoirdupois

weight.

2. The declaration of quantity shall be preceded by one of the following terms, as appropriate: "Net Weight," "Net Wt.," or "Net Contents."

- The net quantity of contents declaration may appear in more than one line. Therefore, both stacked and side-by-side

declarations would be considered appropriate.

- Descriptive terms may be used to identify the liquid and solid components of the package, e.g., entree, meal, or drink; however, such terms shall not include brand names.

- Connecting words such as "and" or "plus" are permitted to be used as part of the declaration of contents.

Examples of acceptable net content declarations are as follows:

(1) Entree Net Wt. 8 oz, Drink 4 fl oz (120 ml)

(2) Net Contents: lunch 8 oz plus fruit drink 4 fl oz

(3) Net Wt. 8 oz. Drink 4 fl oz (120 ml)

(4) Net Weight 8 oz. and 4 fl oz.

Federally inspected meat and poultry products are exempt from the requirements of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), including the mandatory metric labeling provisions that went into effect February 14, 1994. However, if metric

labeling is included voluntarily, such labeling should comply with the FPLA.

158
Laws and Regulations Committee

The guidelines contained in this policy memo will be subject to the provisions prescribed in 9 CFR 317.2(h) and 381.121 of

the Federal regulations.

Rationale: As prescribed by the regulations in 9 CFR 317.2(h) and 381.121, the declaration of net quantity of contents shall be expressed in terms of fluid measure for products that are liquid, or in terms of weight for products that are solid,

semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid. However, the Federal Meat and Poultry Inspection Regulations do not

address the declaration of net quantity of contents for combination products.

Traditionally, FSIS has permitted companies to declare the net quantity of contents for combination packages which

contained both liquid and solid products to be expressed only in terms of avoirdupois weight without declaring the fluid measure separately. Recently, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) informed FSIS that our practices were not consistent with the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation prescribed in the NIST Handbook 130, which

requires the declaration of both fluid and weight measiires on packages containing liquid and solid products. NIST

contended that such requirements are necessary to provide more accurate and adequate labeling information as to the identity

and quantity of contents to facilitate price and quantity comparisons by consumers.

Also, it was reported that some federally inspected products were retained by State officials because they believed that the products were mislabeled since the net content declarations did not comply with the provisions stated in the NIST Handbook

130. As a result of these occurrences, industry requested that FSIS provide regulatory guidance for the declaration of net quantity of contents for combination products.

FSIS determined that the petition had merit and should be addressed through rulemaking. The policy described herein is intended to serve as interim policy while regulatory actions are being developed and is consistent with the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation. Consequently, the guidelines described in this issuance may change as a result of the rulemaking process.

159

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Final Report of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances

Richard C. Suiter, Chairman

Division of Weights and Measures

Nebraska

Introduction

This is the Final Report of the Conmiittee on Specifications and Tolerances for the 80th Annual Meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference

"Program and Committee Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Armual Meeting, and

actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting.

Table A identifies the items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item numbers

are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item number.

Consent calendar items are marked with a "VC." Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number are information items. The items marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. Items marked with a "W"

generally will be referred back to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or did not have sufficient support of the Committee to bring them before the NCWM.

The attached Report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) Handbook 44, 1995 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 what is to be

deleted, and underlining what is to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in italics. Entirely new paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to the handbook are designated as such and shown in bold face

print.

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

its publications; however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as they were submitted and may therefore contain references to inch-pound units.

Agenda Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

General Code

310-1 VC G-UR.1.3. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment for Liquid-Measuring Devices

User-Programmable Software; Manufacturer-Modified Software

G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features; Use of Pictograms

Removal of Nonretroactive Date, G-S.l.(c) Identification, Serial Number

310-2 I 310-3 VC

310-4 W

165

167

168

168

161
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Scales Code

320-V Mmimum Load on a Vehicle Scale 169

320-2 vc S.1.7. Capacity Indication

320-3 V Tolerances for On-Board Weighing Systems; UR.1.1. Selection Requirements - General, 171 320-4 w In-Motion Tolerances for On-Board Weighing Systems 171 320-5 I Test Procedures for On-Board Weighing Systems 172

320-6 vc S. 1 .8.3. Customer's Indications and S. 1 .8.4. Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems;

Unit Pricing in Whole Units of Weight; Unit Pricing in Metric Units 174

320-7 V AAR Specifications for Railway Track Scales 175

320-8 I Concentrated Load Capacity; Declaration of Other Than Dual-Axle Configurations 175

320-9 vc S.2.5.1. Electronic Elements; Motion Detection for Large Capacity Hopper Scales 177

320-10 V UR.1.5. Recording Elements for Class III L Scales 178

320-11 I Markings on Load Cells 178

320-12 I 179

320-13 w S.6.5. Markings; Use of the ^/T*- Mark 180

320-14 vc Variable Oivision Unit Scale Oefitiition and Refprpncp in Parapranh S 5 ^

1 O 1 1 321-1 vc UK.2.2.1. ror scales Not Installed by the Manuiacturer; Concave Curve 1 O 1 181

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

330-1 V Guidelines for Applying S.2.1.1. Vapor Eliminators on Loading Rack Meters 182

330-2 V S.3.1. Diversion Prohibited 183

330-3A I T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems; Accuracy of the 184

330-3B T1 . 186

330-4 w 186

330-5 vc T.2.3.1. Measurement of Agri-Chemical Liquids; Tolerances 188

330-6 V S.2.2. Provision for Sealing; Audit Trail Requirements 189

330-7 V UR.3.3. Computing Device 191

Vehicle-Tank Meters Code

331-1 w T TR 9 9 Tirlcpt Printer* r^iistomer Tirlret - pyemntinn finr Airrraft Rpfiiplpr*; 192

VV A 1 A nr\l i/^cjtir^n Q S 9 T^i cr»}i otcta T? c»tf»e T" fV^^^QCi ifATTiAnt AX/QtAr • T^r*! Af"Qnr*f»c \c\t i\, \. , rVUUiiwaliUil , \j .J . L/ioClldl^C IxaLCb , 1 . .A. . iVlCa^UiClliClll Ui W alCi , i UlCl dilCCo iUi Vehicle-Mounted Water Meters 192

331-3 w T.2. Tolerances; Revision to Correspond to Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 194

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia

L(iquiu-ivieasuring Lievices L-ooe

332-1 I T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems; Accuracy of the Temperature Sensor . . . 196

332-2 vc S.1.5.2. Money-Value Computations; Multi-Unit Price Applications and Exclusion for Fleet 196

Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

334-1 w 197

334-2 vc 199

162
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Mass Flow Meters Code

337-1 VC UR.3.7. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero 199

337-2 VC S.3.3.1. Vapor Elimination on Loading Rack Meter Systems . .

'. 200

337-3 V Provision for Sealing; Audit Trail Requirements 201

337-4 I UR.3.7. Return of Product to Storage - Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers 202

Taximeters Code

354-lA W UR.3.1. Units for Time, Distance Intervals, and Money Values ^ 203

354- lB W UR.3. Statement of Rates 205

Timing Devices Code

355- 1 W S. 1.1.1. Operation of In-Service Indicator Light 206

Grain Moisture Meters Code

356- 1 VC Elimination of Retroactive Dates 206

356-2 VC S. 1.2. 2. (g) Digital Indications and Recording Elements 207

356-3 V Audit Trail Requirements for Grain Moisture Meters 208

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers Code

357- 1 VC UR.2. 8. Calibration Adjustments and S. 2. 5.1 208

Other Items

360-1 VC Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Code 210

360-2 VC Automatic Weighing Systems Code 210

360-3 W Reorganization of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 211

360-4 V Changes to Fundamental Considerations 211

360-5 I OIML Report 212

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A. Test Procedures for On-Board Weighing Systems 320-5 215

B. NTEP Family of Liquids Table 330-5 219

C. Proposed Tentative Code for Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices 360-1 221

D. Proposed Tentative Code for Automatic Weighing Systems 360-2 227

163
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Voting Results

Reference Key No.

House of State Representatives

House of Delegates

Results Yes No Yes No

300 (Consent Calendar) 42 0 49 0 Passed

320-1 34 5 45 3 Passed

320-3 40 0 49 0 Passed

320-7 34 3 39 5 Passed

320-10 41 0 49 0 Passed

330-1 41 0 51 0 Passed

330-2 38 1 47 1 Passed

330-6 38 0 45 1 Passed

330-7 16 17 24 18 Failed

331-2 40 0 41 0 Passed

337-3 37 0 43 0 Passed

356-3 35 0 35 0 Passed

360-4 38 0 41 0 Passed

300 (Report in its Entirety) 38 0 44 0 Passed

164
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Details of All Items

General Code

310-1 VC G-UR.1.3. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment for LiquidMeasuring Devices

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Carryover Item 310-4

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph G-UR.1.3. as follows:

G-UR.1.3. Liquid-Measuring Devices. - To be suitable for its application, the minimum delivery for liquidmeasuring devices shall be no less than 100 divisions, except that the minimum delivery for retail analog

devices shall be no less than 10 divisions. Maximum division values and tolerances are stated in the specific

codes.

Discussion: Devices based on different technologies are used to measure the same products in the same wholesale and

retail applications. Consequently, weights and measures officials must examine the suitability of equipment based on the

limits of inaccuracy (tolerances) that should be permitted for any given application. The specific codes define the performance accuracy required for a specific device technology or measurement application (for example, specific tolerances are stated for mass flow meters, retail motor-fuel dispensers, etc.); however, without further guidance,

different tolerances are permitted for the same application. Weights and measures officials have asked for guidelines to use in determining when a device is suitable for a given installation; however, they have indicated that suitability of

equipment guidelines are difficult to enforce unless specific criteria are included in Handbook 44. (Item 330-8 in the 1993 S&T Committee report and Item 310-4 in the 1994 S&T Committee report should be referenced for background

information.)

The Committee reviewed a proposal from California Division of Measurement Standards to modify the proposed

G-UR. 1 .3. to specify minimum delivery amounts; maximum division values are specified in the individual specific codes. The Committee found this proposal to be straightforward and easily understood and felt that it summarized the issue of

minimum delivery amount for liquid-measuring devices. Because suitability requirements must be established for other measuring devices than those found in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code (e.g., LPG & anhydrous ammonia meters,

vehicle-tank meters, etc.), the criteria are being proposed for inclusion in the General Code.

In its 1994 final report, the S&T Committee recommended a new paragraph G-UR.1.3. and an accompanying table (see 1994 Final Report). Comments received at the Interim Meeting indicated that there were still many questions concerning

interpretation and application of the table. In general, the table is believed to be too complex to be readily imderstood

and applied. Consequently, the Committee is no longer considering the original table.

An alternative table (see next page) was proposed by the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC)

Measuring Sector and submitted by the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (Northeastern) and Southern

Weights and Measures Association (Southern) for consideration at the 1995 Interim Meeting; these regions viewed the

alternative table as more easily understood and user friendly. The Committee noted that the proposed G-UR. 1.3. shown

in the "Recommendation" section eliminates the need for a separate table; however, the Committee believes that the table proposed by the Measuring Sector has merit and is willing to consider including it in the recommendation along with GUR.1.3. if there is a perceived need for the additional table. The proposed table is included in this report for review

and discussion purposes. The Committee has asked for clarification on how the maximum division value column is to be applied when two separate values are listed. For example, for a digital motor fuel dispenser, the maximum division value can be 0.01 L or 0.1 L; it is unclear how to select the maximum value that is appropriate for a given application.

The Committee also noted that it is studying possible revisions to the tolerance structure of the Liquid-Measuring Devices

Code (see Item 330-4) to correspond with the tolerance structure adopted in the Mass Flow Meters Code in July 1994.

165
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Suitability of Equipment Criteria for Liquid-Measuring Devices (Measuring Sector Proposal)

Application or Commodity Minimum Delivery Maximum Division Value

Motor Fuel Analog lOOd 0.01 L

n 01 pal

lOd 1.0 L

Digital lOOd 0.01 L

0 01 cral

0.1 L

0yj. 11 gdi pal

Motor Fuel LPG lOOd 0.01 L

U.Ul gol

0.1 L

n 1 pal

Home Heating Oil lOOd 0.1 L

U. X gcU

NH3 and LPG Other than Motor

Fuel

lOOd 0.1 L

nU. 11 gdl pal

1.0 L

1l.Un gdl pal

Milk and Other Food Products lOOd 0.1 L

n 1 pal

lOOd 1.0 L

1 .u gai

Cryogenic Liquids lOOd 1.0 L

u. 1 gai

10 L

1 gal

All Other Metering Applications lOOd 1.0 L

1 gal

0.1 L

0.1 gal

0.01 L

0.01 gal

0.001 L

0.001 gal

166
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table T.2. of the Mass Flow Meters Code of Handbook 44 establishes accuracy classes for mass flow meters; for each

accuracy class, the table specifies an application or commodity to be measured, along with the acceptance and

maintenance tolerance value for that class. Inclusion of such a table in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code might address some of the remaining questions of how accuracy requirements affect the suitability of a device for a given installation.

310-2 I User-Programmable Software; Manufacturer-Modified Software

Source: Carryover Item 310-3

Discussion: The Executive Committee has been questioned regarding the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP)

practice of issuing NTEP Certificates of Conformance for software that runs on PCs. Some software is programmable

by the user; other software is not programmable by the user, but is routinely modified by the manufacturer. There are some in industry who are particularly concerned about software developed by "third parties," that is, software houses

that develop software to interface directly with weighing/load-receiving elements. However, weights and measures caimot

limit technology and how it is used in commercial weights and measures applications (as long as it complies with H44).

A meeting on software was held in conjunction with the December 1994 NTEP Weighing Sector meeting. Members from

the NTEP Board of Governors, the Weighing Sector, and the Measuring Sector were present and discussed this item. Due to the complex nature of this issue, it was decided that a request should be made to the Board of Governors to form

a working group to study this issue. Representatives of the Weighing and Measuring Sectors voted to continue to the ongoing evaluation of software under NTEP, pending further recommendations by the proposed working group.

At the 1995 Interim Meeting, the Board of Governors recognized the formation of a working group chaired by Michael

Adams, Fairbanks Scales, and including representatives from the weighing and measuring industries and at least one

representative from a participating NTEP laboratory (See Item 102-9). Issues to be addressed by the group include the evaluation of software by NTEP as well as routine examinations conducted by weights and measures officials. The Board

of Governors also agreed that NTEP should continue its evaluation of software.

Canada has established a work group to investigate issues related to the security of software and how to track the changes

made to software used in commercial applications; they will collaborate with the NCWM work group on this issue.

In comments forwarded to the Committee on this issue, the Southern indicated its support for the goals for program

design and for identifying the metrologically significant portion of the software. The Southern believes that weights and

measures officials need more extensive examination procedure outlines and field manuals for the inspector to identify those critical features and device operations that must be checked in the field to ensure compliance with Handbook 44

requirements. Many device parameters and features are selectable at the time of installation, but some are more critical than others. The most critical parameters and features should be checked during routine field inspections. Mixed

comments were received from the Central on this issue. Conraients indicate a lot of confusion about how software should

be addressed by NTEP and in the field.

At the Aimual Meeting, the Committee discussed concerns in several areas dealing with software.

The Committee noted confusion on the part of some weights and measures officials and industry as to when an evaluation

of software is subject to NTEP evaluation. Minimum standards are needed for the development of the metrological

portion of software. NTEP evaluations encourage standardization of metrological information in the software and may

provide a forum to communicate Handbook 44 requirements to software programmers who are developing software for weights and measures device applications. The Committee recognizes that additional work may be needed to ensure that

all NTEP laboratories are uniformly applying criteria to software and that this information is communicated to device

manufacturers and software developers.

The Committee discussed specific applications in which a manufacturer needs maximum flexibility for marketing a product and feels that the manufacturer should not be restricted to specific hardware if weights and measures can verify

that the metrological portion of the software meets all applicable requirements of Handbook 44. Regardless of whether

or not a decision is made to continue with the NTEP evaluation of software, the Committee recognizes a need to develop

guidelines which will assist the field official in verifying that the software package is appropriate for the application, is

167
specifications and Tolerances Committee

set up to enable the weighing or measuring system to comply with Handbook 44, and, if NTEP evaluation of software

is required, that the version in the field has not been metrologically modified from the version originally evaluated by

NTEP. If NTEP discontinues evaluation of software, the Committee recognizes that a bigger burden may be placed on

weights and measures officials to evaluate software and may encourage lack of uniformity in the development of software.

Isolation and physical or electronic sealing of the metrological portion of the software is an option that has been discussed

in the past, and the Committee continues to favor such an approach.

310-3 VC G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features; Use of

Pictograms

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Ohaus Corporation

Recommendation: Modify paragraph G-S.6 as follows:

G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, Features. - AH operational controls, indications, and

features, including switches, lights, displays, push buttons, and other means, shall be clearly and

definitely identified. The use of approved pictograms or symbols shall be acceptable. [Nonretroactive

as of January 1, 1977.]

(Amended 1978)

Discussion: The Weighing Sector of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee considers some pictograms or symbols to be acceptable for marking operational controls of scales submitted for type evaluation under the National Type

Evaluation Program. The Weighing Sector has established a list of specific symbols considered to be acceptable for use

in marking scales to meet paragraph G-S.6. While the present language in G-S.6. does not prohibit the use of pictograms

or symbols to mark a device, it has been suggested that a specific statement be added to paragraph G-S.6. to clarify that pictograms or symbols may be used.

The Committee received little opposition to the proposed change to G-S.6. , particularly since it would clarify the intended

application of the paragraph with respect to symbols and pictograms. Background discussion from the Committee's

Interim Agenda is included below for reference.

While the present code does call for clear and definite identification, it does not specify marking in the English language.

Although this may be presumed, such a presumption is antiquated by today's global standards. Even in the United States, pictograms are commonly used for road signs, directional signs, rest room signs, etc.

Marking function labels or individual keys on a scale in various languages is an expensive burden to the manufacturer.

Manufacturers interested in the export market face a large variety of marking requirements in various countries. This

is particularly relevant for those who export to the European Community (EC), where there are over 11 different languages. The use of pictograms reduces cost and increases the feasibility of export to Europe and other countries.

It is common practice for the exporter to translate the direction manual for various target markets, and the manual is also

suitable for describing the functions covered by the pictograms. The use of standard pictograms will allow rapid

identification of common keys. A good analogy is the elongated space bar on a keyboard: this key is not marked, but

its function is readily identified by its shape and location by those who have experience using keyboards.

310-4 W Removal of Nonretroactive Date, G-S.l.(c) Identification, Serial Number

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: S&T Committee

Recommendation: Modify paragraph G-S.l.(c) as follows:

168
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(c) exceptfor equipment with no moving or electronic componentparts, a nonrepetitive serial number; and

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

Discussion: During its working sessions at the Interim Meeting, the Committee noted that periodic review of

nonretroactive dates in Handbook 44 is undertaken by the S&T Committee to identify nonretroactive requirements which

should be eliminated from the Handbook. Such requirements are those which have been in the Handbook for a long

period of time (generally 10 years or more) and for which there no longer appears to be a need to maintain the nonretroactive status. The Committee reviewed the Handbook and added this item as a voting item following the Interim

Meeting. The nonretroactive date in paragraph G-S.l.(c) is 27 years old, and the Committee believes that the nonretroactive status is no longer needed. Consequently, the Committee recommends that the term "nonretroactive" be

deleted. The Committee encourages input on this proposal to ensure that the recommended change would not adversely

affect devices presently in commercial use.

The Committee recognized that there is concern over the number of devices that this change would negatively impact and

believes that the nonretroactive date should not be deleted. Consequently, the Committee is withdrawing this item.

Scales Code

320-1 V Minimum Load on a Vehicle Scale

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (Western);

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (Northeastern)

Recommendation: Retain the current wording of UR.3.7.

Discussion: In 1994, the Committee was asked to consider adding an exemption to UR.3.7. to recognize different minimum load criteria for household solid waste. The Committee considered several proposals to modify paragraph

UR.3.7. by lowering the minimum load requirements or by adding an exemption for weighing household solid waste for disposal. However, the Committee did not receive adequate justification for making changes to the current requirement.

The Committee is hesitant to add further exemptions; it can be self-defeating to adopt a requirement and then attach a laundry list of exemptions to it. The Committee also noted that technology exists to permit a scale to be set up to weigh

in multiple weight ranges, each with a different division size; such technology facilitates the use of a single scale for

different minimum load applications.

The Corrunittee reconmiends keeping UR.3.7 as it is. The Committee is presenting the reconraiendation for a vote rather than withdrawing the item since many comments have been received. However, if the item should fail, the Committee

is willing to review the item again for inclusion of possible exemptions. Any proposed exemption must be justified by

conclusive evidence of need. The history of the minimum load requirement for vehicle scales is repeated below for reference.

History: The 1000-lb minimum load for vehicle scales was adopted in 1937. The requirement applied specifically to gross loads, although consideration was also given to minimum net loads. The main motivation for the 1937 discussion was the relationship of the minimum tolerance to the gross load, primarily as it related to weighing bags of coal on a

vehicle scale. The errors due to rounding to the nearest division were not considered.

In the early 1980s, the scale industry considered adoption of OIML criteria for scales. These criteria included

recommended minimum loads for scales of different accuracy classes. The minimum load requirements were based upon

both the tolerance applicable to the scale and the error associated with rounding weight values to the nearest scale

division. The maximum effect of the round-off error can be computed by dividing +0.5d by the gross load in divisions, then converting to a percentage of the gross load. For example, an error of ±0.5d at 20d represents 2.5 percent of the load being weighed; for a load of lOd, the round-off error can be as large as 5 percent of the load. The recommended

minimum load on a class III scale is 20d, which can have a potential round-off error of +0.5d or 2.5 percent. In 1984

169
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

the Conference adopted recommended minimum load criteria for scales marked with an accuracy class. The requirements were part of the revision to the Scales Code tolerances which took effect in 1986.

The issue of a minimum net load on vehicle scales was first addressed by the NCWM in the 1987 S&T Report (Item 320-

24). Because the net weight on a vehicle scale is determined by performing two weighing operations, both of which are rounded to the nearest division, the maximum potential round-off error is +ld. Consequently, a minimum net load

greater than 20d can be justified. For example, a minimum net load of 40d would give the same 2.5 percent potential error on a net load for a vehicle scale as for a single weighing operation on a class III scale at 20d. (Note that if tare

is taken to the internal resolution of the scale, rather than to the displayed resolution of the scale [as on a computing

scale] then the potential round-off error relative to the net load remains at ±0.5d. Because vehicle scales must have

mathematical agreement of gross, tare, and net weights, the gross and tare weights must be rounded to the displayed

division.) The minimum net load requirement was adopted in 1988 (Item 320-17) and was expressed as 50d.

The exemption for scrap material for recycling was adopted in 1992. The justification was based upon the cost of

handling the material compared to the value of the scrap and the desire to facilitate recycling to reduce waste and

pollution.

320-2 VC S.1.7. Capacity Indication

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures/NTEP

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.7. Capacity Indication, Weight Ranges, and Unit Weights, as follows:

S.1.7. Capacity Indication, Weight Ranges, and Unit Weights. - An indicating or recording olcmcnt

shall neither display nor record any values when the gross platform load (not counting initial deed lood that has been canceled by an ini tial zero setting device) i s in excess ofi {a)—scale capacity plus 9 scale divisions for electronic computing scales (excluding postal scales and weight

classifiers); or*

^b)105 percent of the capacity of the system for all other scalesi

(a) Gross Capacity. An indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any values when

the total platform load (not counting the initial dead load that has been canceled by an initial zerosetting mechanism) is in excess of 105 percent of scale capacity.

(b) Capacity Indication. Electronic computing scales (excluding postal scales and weight classifiers) shall neither display nor record a gross or net weight in excess of scale capacity plus 9d.

The total value of weight ranges and of unit weights in effect or in place at any time shall automatically

be accounted for on the reading face and on any recorded representation.

This requirement does not apply to: (1) single-revolution dial scales, (2) multi-revolution dial scales not equipped with unit weights, (3) scales equipped with two or more weighbeams, nor (4) devices that

indicate mathematically derived totalized values. [Nonretroactive as of January I, 1993.]

Discussion: The present subparagraph (a) was added in 1992 to limit the overcapacity indication for computing scales

to 9 divisions; it was not intended to affect the 105 percent range over which the scale could continue to operate. If industry had understood that the change for computing scales would limit the zero range of the scale to only 9 divisions while reducing the scale capacity, scale manufacturers would probably have opposed this change.

The literzd interpretation of the present language in S.1.7. implies that if a computing scale sets more than 9 scale divisions to zero, then the weighing range must be reduced to prevent any scale indication if the gross platform load

170
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

exceeds scale capacity plus 9 scale divisions. It is believed that the Conference intended to allow computing scales to continue to zero loads so that they could continue to have a weighing range up to 105 percent of the rated capacity.

For example: Prior to the changes made to S.1.7. in 1992, a 30 x 0.01 lb scale could have had a total gross load of

31.5 lb (105% of capacity) before blanking the display. With the literal interpretation of the present language, the same

scale would be restricted to a total gross load of 30.09 lb (9d). The change made in 1992 was intended to still permit

a total gross load of 105 percent of capacity, but to limit the indication to no more than 9d. If the criteria were applied

as originally intended, this 30 x 0.01 lb scale would be permitted to have a tare of as much as 1.41 lb deducted and still indicate up to 30.09 lb; the total gross load would be 1.5 lb (which does not exceed the 105% limit for total gross load)

and the indication of 30.09 would not exceed 9d. If a tare of 1 lb were deducted, this 30 x 0.01 lb scale still could not

indicate more than 30.09 lb.

320-3 V Tolerances for On-Board Weighing Systems; UR.1.1. Selection

Requirements - General, Table 7a

(This item was adopted.)

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Recommendation: Add "vehicle on-board weighing systems" to the Class III and III L categories in Table 7a.

in All commercial weighing not otherwise specified, grain test scales, retail precious metals and semiprecious gem weighing, animal scales, postal scales, emd scales used to determine laundry charges^

and vehicle on-board weighing systems

HI L Vehicle, axle-load, livestock, railway track scales, crane, a»4 hopper (other than grain hopper)

scales , and vehicle on-board weighing systems

Discussion: Over the past several years, the NCWM has discussed the issue of on-board weighing systems and has

adopted specific paragraphs in Handbook 44 to address special considerations involved in on-board weighing. These

discussions have primarily focused on the use of on-board weighing systems for curbside refuse removal which typically

involves weighing of refuse in relatively small garbage containers. These systems are usually equipped with lifting arms

to pick up the container, weigh and empty it, and determine the net quantity dumped.

More recently, NTEP has been approached by companies which have developed systems designed to weigh the entire back of the vehicle bed rather than individual containers. The quantities involved are typically much larger than those used in the homeowner curbside pickup.

A vehicle on-board weighing system that weighs the same commodities and net quantities commonly weighed on a vehicle

scale may be considered as class III L provided that it meets the parameters of Table 3 (i.e., division value of 5 lb or more and having 2000 to 10 000 divisions) and the minimum load requirement of 50d is satisfied for the application.

It is recommended that Table 7a be amended to indicate that vehicle on-board weighing systems may be either class III or III L, depending upon the application.

The Committee recognizes the need to ensure that test procedures developed for on-board weighing systems adequately cover these larger capacity systems. (See also related Item 320-5.)

320-4 W In-Motion Tolerances for On-Board Weighing Systems

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Weigh-Tronix, Inc.

Discussion: At the Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed the proposal submitted by Weigh-Tronix, Inc. to specify

a special tolerance for in-motion on-board weighing systems. The Committee concluded that it is not necessary to modify

171
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

the tolerances since there appear to be devices that are capable of meeting the current class III tolerances. Comments

received also suggest that the sample size specified in the proposal may not be adequate compared to sample sizes presently specified for other in-motion tolerances in the Scales Code. The Committee requests that additional information

be provided to justify a larger tolerance; the item will be withdrawn if no additional information is received by the July

1995 Annual Meeting. The original proposal and discussion are repeated for reference.

Weigh-Tronix Proposal and Discussion:

The proposal submitted by Weigh-Tronix is similar to paragraph TN.3.8. for in-motion monorail scales, except for the

total load tolerance. The rationale presented for this approach is to allow for the dynamic effects of an occasional shift of load in the refuse container while it is being lifted, especially in an initial installation acceptance test. Weigh-Tronix

also notes that systems such as this allow refuse disposal rate equity to the consumer through weight-based billing.

Municipalities then have an equitable means of assessing individual disposal fees. Also, weight-based billing has been

identified as the most effective incentive for encouraging recycling and waste reduction.

In-Motion Weighing, On-Board Refuse Lifter Scales. - On an in-motion test of 20 or more individual test loads, 10 percent of the individual test loads may be in error, each not to exceed two times the applicable

tolerance. The error on the total of the individual test loads shall not exceed the applicable tolerances.

Based upon input received on this Item at the Interim Meetings and a letter from the original submitter requesting that

this item be withdrawn, the Committee is withdrawing this item from its agenda.

320-5 I Test Procedures for On-Board Weighing Systems

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures/NTEP

Recominendation/Discussion: Several years ago, the Scales Code of Handbook 44 was revised to include specific

criteria for on-board weighing systems. In the process of performing a type evaluation on an on-board weighing system,

type evaluation test procedures for these devices were developed by the Ohio participating NTEP laboratory; the laboratory also developed proposed criteria for routine field testing of these devices. The test procedures are included

in Appendix A for review and comment. The procedures must be reviewed to ensure that they are adequate for testing

larger capacity systems.

The Committee has reviewed a test procedure prepared by Jim Truex, Ohio Weights and Measures, for use in routing

field testing of these items. The Committee endorses the procedures and believes that they should be used as a basis for an examination procedure outline to be included in NCWM Publication 12. The Committee plans to bring this item

before the NCWM next year for voting, and the Committee encourages NCWM members to study the procedures

included below for reference:

Performance Tests for Electronic Vehicle On-Board Weighing Systems

Note: These tests apply to systems such as lift truck scales, scales mounted on refuse vehicles, etc. It has generally

been agreed that scales with a capacity of 30 000 lb and less will be considered Class III since they would be used in a weighing operation where a Class III scale would normally be used. Likewise, scales with a capacity of more than

30 000 lb will be considered Class III L when they are used in a weighing operation where a Class III L scale would

normally be used.

Field Testing

Because of the design of the device and/or abnormal test conditions, it may be necessary for the manufacturer, owner,

or user to supply special testing apparatus (mounting frames, test baskets, etc.) for testing purposes. Likewise, a normal size commercial wood skid can be used as the load receiving element for a lift truck scale under evaluation. As

much testing as possible may be performed in a stationary condition to save evaluation time and other possible hardships.

In most cases, as-used testing will have to be conducted.

172
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

XX. 1. Initial Field Verification Test

XX. 1.1. Test Considerations

As-used testing is very important for vehicle on-board weighing systems to properly simulate actual use conditions. Asused conditions must be considered and tested when evaluating a system. Depending on the type of device, consider the following:

Performance when the vehicle engine is running.

Performance when the vehicle is moving.

Test apparatus performance versus normal load receiver performance (e.g., test pan vs. refuse container). For ease and safety reasons test apparatus may be used, but like performance must be verified. Depending on the type of vehicle and mounting of the on-board weighing system, consider performance when the wheels are on unlevel terrain and the frame is under a twisting effect.

It may not be possible or advisable to use loiown test weights, so pre-weighed loads of varying weights need to be

used (e.g., a dynamic refuse dumping system).

Load shift on dump systems such as refuse dumpers (pre-weighed sandbags may be used).

It may not be possible to utilize known test weights to capacity or at all on some larger on-board systems (e.g., a 50 000-lb tank wagon). In these cases a platform scale, vehicle scale, or mass flow meter may need to be used. Locate a safe location for out-of-level testing (e.g., a remote ramp or parking lot).

XX.1.2. Determine performance of the width of zero, center of zero, discrimination near zero, center of zero, discrimination near zero, and discrimination near capacity.

XX. 1.3. Increasing/Decreasing Load Test

Increasing load tests should be conducted. Use at least five test loads for the decreasing load test. When practical,

choose weights close to the upper range of each tolerance level.

Remember that decreasing load tests may be especially important for on-board weighing systems since they may be used

to back-weigh.

XX.1.5. Shift (off-center) Tests

XX. 1.5.1. Shift tests with one-half capacity test load centered in the center of each quadrant should be conducted.

XX.1.5.2. Shift tests with one-quarter capacity test load placed on the comers should be conducted.

Note: The shift test for a vehicle on-board weighing system shall be conducted in a manner consistent with its normal

use (N. 1.3.7.). Normal shift tests, as described above, may not be practical for some on-board weighing systems (e.g.,

when the load-receiving element is a home refuse container). These systems may be susceptible to off-center loading or to load shifting, but it may be more practical to test for these circumstances during the as-used part of the evaluation.

XX. 1.6. Out-of-Level Tests A vehicle on-board weighing system shall operate within tolerance when the weighing system is out of level up to 3 degrees (or 5%) (S.2.4.I.). The system is not prohibited from operating when out of level beyond 3 degrees (or 5%).

However, beyond the 3 degrees (or 5%), if the accuracy of the system is affected by out-of-level conditions normal to the use of the device, the system shall be equipped with an out-of-level sensor that inhibits the weighing operation when

the system is out of level to the extent that the accuracy limits are exceeded.

XX.1.6.1. Place one side of the vehicle 3 degrees (or 5 %) out-of-level. Conduct an increasing load test, decreasing load

test, and shift test. Additional tests need to be conducted to the extent that the system continues to operate while out-oflevel in this direction.

XX. 1.6.2. Place the opposite side of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) and to the extent that the system

continues to operate. Perform tests.

173
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

XX. 1.6.3. Place the front of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) to the extent that the system continues to operate.

Perform tests.

XX. 1.6. 3. Place the back of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) and to the extent that the system continues to operate. Perform tests.

320-6 VC S. 1.8.3. Customer's Indications and S. 1.8.4. Recorded Representations,

Point of Sale Systems; Unit Pricing in Whole Units of Weight; Unit Pricing

in Metric Units

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures/NTEP

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S. 1.8.3. Customer's Indications as follows to recognize pricing per 100 grams:

S.1.8.3. Customer's Indications. - Weight indications shall be shown on the customer's side of computing

scales when these are used for direct sales to retail customers. Computing scales shall be equipped on the

operator's side with digital indications, such as the net weight, unit price, or total price, shall be similarly

equipped on the customer's side. Unit price displays visible to the customer shall be in terms of single whole

units of weight and not in common or decimal fractions of the unit . Scales indicating in metric units may

indicate price per 100 grams.

Modify the footnote to paragraph S. 1.8.4. as follows:

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 mav be expressed in price per 100

grams.

Discussion: This issue was raised by a scale manufacturer wanting to manufacture a scale for the United States and

Canada. The NTEP laboratory conducting a type evaluation of the scale questioned the 100 gram pricing feature because

S.1.8.3. requires the unit price to be in terms of whole units of weight, not in common or decimal fractions. The

Committee considered the facts that (1) Canada and Europe permit pricing by 100 grams; (2) the Technical Advisor from

Canada indicated that pricing per 100 grams has been accepted there for a long period of time and has not created any

problems; and (3) pricing by kilogram would create the appearance of inflated prices and hinder acceptance of metric

in the U.S.

There was much discussion of this issue pro and con at the Interim Meeting. Of great concern to weights and measures

officials is that no proposed changes to paragraph S.1.8.3. should allow fractional pricing (e.g. , price per 1/4-lb or price per 1/2-lb) to re-enter the market. The Committee shares this concern and, consequently, specifically limited the proposed change to devices indicating in metric units and for price per 100 grams. The Committee also agreed that changes should be made to the footnote of paragraph S. 1 .8.4. Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems to include

reference to metric units and to recognize other permissible units of measure which are commonly found in point of sale systems.

The Committee is amenable to permitting pricing per 100 grams to facilitate device export and in anticipation of devices

indicating in metric units in the U.S. marketplace. It was also noted that failure to recognize this method of unit pricing

might create trade barriers for U.S. manufacturers exporting into other countries. Also significant to the Committee's

decision was the use of 100-gram unit pricing in pre-packaged commodities.

Concerns were expressed during the Interim Meeting that the present requirements in the Model Unit Pricing Regulation

in Handbook 130 do not recognize pricing per 100 grams. It was suggested that modifications proposed above be delayed

until this method of pricing is recognized in Handbook 130. The Committee carefully considered these comments;

however, it recognized that action must be taken by one committee or another in order to facilitate the use of metric in

174
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

the U.S. marketplace, and the discussion seemed to be a' "chicken and egg" dilemma. The Committee noted that the Unit

Pricing Regulation would still prohibit a device from being set up for pricing per 100 grams in jurisdictions which have

adopted the model regulation. However, the proposed change to Handbook 44 will facilitate export of devices with this feature until the Laws and Regulations Committee can consider changes to the Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation.

The S&T Committee asks that the Laws and Regulations Committee consider making similar changes to the Uniform Unit

Pricing Regulation to permit pricing per 100 grams.

The Committee did not intend to require a device indicating in metric units to have to indicate in both whole units of

weight and in price per 100 grams. Nor did the Committee intend to preclude a scale from indicating a unit price only

in whole units of weight or only in price per 100 grams. For example, if a manufacturer wants to design a scale that indicates in price per 100 grams onlv (but not price per kilogram), the language should permit this option. Thus, a scale indicating in metric units may indicate in whole units of weight and/or in price per 100 grams.

320-7 V AAR Specifications for Railway Track Scales

(This item was adopted.)

Source: CSX Transportation; Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Recommendation: The Committee recommends adding the following footnote to Scales Code paragraph UR. 1 . Selection

to alert users and purchasers of railway track scales to the existence of other requirements pertaining to the installation and design of such scales.

* Purchasers and users of scales such as railway track, hopper, and vehicle scales should be aware of

possible additional requirements for the design and installation of such devices.

Discussion: The AAR has more extensive specifications for the design and installation of railway track scales than those contained in Handbook 44. As a result, a railway track scale may meet Handbook 44 requirements and receive an NTEP

Certificate of Conformance, but the design may not be acceptable to the railroads. Since weights and measures officials have encountered such situations, this has led to questions concerning the credibility of the NTEP CC for the intended

application. There is concern that the purchaser of a such a device may not be aware of additional requirements;

therefore. Handbook 44 should alert the purchaser that additional requirements may apply. Additional suggestions include

inserting a statement in the NTEP CC that additional requirements may apply in certain installations.

There was opposition to wording of the original proposal that would have specifically referenced AAR specifications in Handbook 44. Concerns were raised over the possibility of encumbering the inspector to apply the additional requirements in the AAR Scale Handbook and citing requirements in another document by reference. The Committee

felt that the reasons for removing the reference to the AAR Scale Handbook were valid, and that the footnote without

the reference would accomplish the intent of the original proposal.

At the Armual Meeting, the Committee heard comments encouraging removal of the phrase "railway track scales"; however, the Committee felt that removing the term "railway track scales" would diminish the effectiveness of the footnote as would moving it to the General Code. The Committee recognized the concern that listing only railway track

scales in the footnote may imply that these devices are the only devices for which additional requirements may exist.

320-8 I Concentrated Load Capacity; Declaration of Other Than Dual-Axle

Configurations

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures/Carryover S&T Issue

Discussion: The Committee considered two proposals for establishing the ratings of vehicle configurations other than

dual axle load ratings: (1) The use of the FHA Bridge Gross Weight Formula B and an "r" factor as a means for establishing these ratings, as discussed in the Committee's 1994 Final Report; and (2) Permitting other axle configurations

as a percentage of the declared CLC, as proposed by Thurman Scale in the Committee's 1995 Interim Agenda. The

175
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Committee heard a presentation from Bruce Reirson, Mettler-Toledo supporting the use of the FHA Bridge Gross Weight

Formula and the "r" factor.

Comments during the open session indicated concern over the exaggeration of CLC ratings and ratings for other axle configurations in advertisements. Vehicle scale users indicated that they would like to have a pieaningful way to equitably

compare vehicle scales and determine whether or not the scale is suitable for the intended application. Some comments

supported the use of the bridge formula and the "r" factor as a reasonable way for uniformly rating scales; other comments indicated that the bridge formula is not appropriately applied to the design of scales. The Committee believes

that defining a method for other axle configurations is a marketing issue and not within the bounds of weights and

measures to resolve. If manufacturers elect to mark other configurations, the Committee feels it is not weights and

measures responsibility to verify the accuracy of the information. The Committee noted that the Conference took a clear position in 1994 on the definition of CLC, and that scales should be tested and marked with CLCs which are equal to the dual axle rating.

The Committee has maintained this item with an informational status to allow for additional comments to be made.

However, unless additional justification is provided by July 1995 to indicate why the NCWM should specify guidelines

for the declaration and marking for ratings of other axle configurations, the item will be withdrawn from the Committee's

agenda. The following excerpts from the Committee's 1994 Final Report and its 1995 Interim Agenda are included for reference as background material to this issue.

Group of Two Axles Provides Basis for Comparisons

At the 1994 Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed a proposal to relate axle loads and the different vehicle axle configurations through the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B and an "r factor." The

Committee received a second proposal suggesting that a separate definition for a dual axle rating be added to Handbook

44 and that the definition of CLC be modified so that it applied only to the test of a scale. The Committee opposed a separate definition for a dual axle rating because it had always intended for the CLC and axle-load ratings to be the same. However, since the definition of CLC did not address the various axle configurations, the Committee decided to specify

in the definition that the CLC is to be established based upon a group of two axles with a specific spacing. This is an

effort to provide a consistent basis for manufacturers to rate their scales. The axle spacing is for rating the scale with

its CLC; it does not restrict the types of vehicles that may be weighed on the scale, provided that the loading does not exceed the corresponding axle load weights computed from the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight

Formula B (see below).

Other Axle Configurations

The Committee concluded that the r factor has merit, but decided not to include it in Handbook 44 since it may be too complex for field enforcement and the ratings would be difficult to assess. However, the r factor may be a basis for scale purchasers to compare CLC ratings for vehicle scales and to relate the CLC to the types of vehicles and axle configurations that will be weighed by the scale owner. Since the r factor and the Federal Highway Administration

Bridge Gross Weight Formula B establish a way to convert axle ratings for groups of more than two axles to an

equivalent rating for a group of two axles, the Committee decided to specify that the CLC be based upon a group of two

axles with the specified spacing. Consequently, scale companies may use the r factor to relate the CLC rating to vehicles with other axle configurations to aid the scale purchaser to select the appropriate scale for the application.

Proposal 1: To make the relationship of the r factor available for comparison purposes, the relationship of the r factor and the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B is stated below.

Scale Load Limits. - The manufacturer shall specify the scale load limits for consecutive vehicle axles according to the Federal Highway Administration Bridge Gross Weight Formula B, as modified by the "r" factor":

176
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

= r X 500

LN

N - 1 + 12;^ + 36

where W is the maximum load in pounds carried on any group of two or more consecutive axles;

r is the factor assigned by the manufacturer that specifies the maximum load; L is the distance in feet between the first and last axle of that group; and

N is the number of axles of that group, where N > 2.

For a single axle, the weight limit is W = r x 20,000.

Proposal 2: The following proposal was submitted by Thurman Scale as an alternative to the use of the "r" factor:

• the dual-axle rating is specified by CLC,

• the single-axle rating shall be 85 percent of the CLC or less, and

• the tri-axle rating shall be up to 115 percent of the CLC.

This proposal establishes limits for single- and tri-axle configurations. No specific criteria have been suggested for other

axle configurations at the present time.

Thurman Scale also suggests that the single- and tri-axle ratings be marked on the scale along with the CLC rating to provide information to the customer on the proper use of the scale for single-, dual-, and tri-axle configuration vehicles.

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee decided to keep this item informational to allow industry additional time to study

the issue and provide input.

320-9 VC S.2.5. 1 . Electronic Elements; Motion Detection for Large Capacity Hopper

Scales

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Kanawha Scale and Systems, Inc.

Recomniendation: Modify paragraph S.2.5. 1. (a) as follows:

S.2.5. 1. Digital Indicating Elements. - Digital indicating elements equipped with recording elements shall be equipped with effective means to permit the recording of weight values only when the indication is stable within:

(a) plus or minus 3 scale divisions for scales of more than 2000 kg (5000 lb) capacity in service prior to January 1, 1981, hopper (other than grain hopper) scales with a capacitv exceeding 22 000 kg

(50 OOP lb), and for all vehicle, axle load, livestock, and railway track scales;

(b) plus or minus 1 scale division for all other scales.

The values recorded shall be within applicable tolerances.

Discussion: The Committee considered the use, environment, and loads of hopper scales with capacities greater than 22 000 kg (50 000 lb) and concluded that there was justification for permitting the motion detection range to be within

plus or minus 3 scale divisions. However, the Committee expressed concern over the original proposal (which applied

to all hopper scales of the specified capacity range) due to the possible impact on grain hopper scales. The Committee

agreed that it would not be appropriate to apply plus or minus three scale divisions for grain hopper scales, and therefore excluded them from the proposed modification to S.2.5. 1.

177
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-10 V UR.1.5. Recording Elements for Class III L Scales

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Norfolk Southern Railroad

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph UR.1.5. Recording Elements for Class III L Scales as follows:

UR.1.5. Recording Element, Class III L Railway Track Scales. - Class III L Railway Track Scales must

be equipped with a recording element. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1996.]

Discussion: Norfolk Southern (NS) tests a static, full-draft, dual platform railway track industry-owned scale which is under a weight agreement with NS; the scale has had a history of weight discrepancies. The Superintendent of Scales

in the jurisdiction was asked to investigate and to try to resolve the discrepancies. It was determined that there were some mechanical problems; however, the primary reason for the discrepancies was incorrect reading and transcribing

of the weight information. The scale did not have a recording device and the operator was weighing cars coupled-inmotion and writing down the weight of each car when he thought the car was on the scale, which was approximately 50

yards from the control tower. NS asked the company to provide weight tickets; however, the company noted that Handbook 44 does not require a recording element for weighing devices. Such weight discrepancies would not likely

have occurred if the operator had been able to obtain a recorded weight. It is argued that recording elements are necessary to ensure accurate weighing transactions, ensure the integrity of the weight, provide a good data trail, and

minimize human error. AREA Committee 34 voted to include in part 2 of the AAR Scale Handbook the requirement that "All automatic

indicating and fully automatic indicating scales shall be recording scales." Effective January 1, 1994.

During its discussions at the Interim Meeting, the Committee considered the possibility of limiting the proposed

requirement to certain capacities of scales. The Committee also considered a proposal to limit the requirement to railway

track scales, however, the Committee believes the requirement should apply to all capacities and applications of Class

III L scales.

Following the Interim Meeting, the Committee received comments which indicated significant opposition to proposing

a requirement that would apply to all Class III L scales. In view of these comments and additional comments heard at the Armual Meeting, the Committee decided to modify the proposal to limit the scope of the requirement to railway track

scales.

320-11 I Markings on Load Cells

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Add the following sentence to Note 11 of Table S.6.3. (b) of Handbook 44:

Effective January 1, 1996, all required markings shall be placed directly on the load cell. An accompanying

document shall no longer be substituted. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1996.]

Discussion: Weights and measures frequently encounter installations in which the certificates for the load cell (which

contain required marking information) are not with the scales at the time of inspection. Owners do not understand the importance of keeping the certificates and frequently fail to do so. Even on new installations, the service companies fail to leave certificates. Another problem is that the information marked on the load cell (specifically, the v^jj may not agree with that on the document accompanying the load cell.

Some manufacturers already include the required information directly on the load cells, and the required information

appears to fit easily on a fairly small label. Opposing arguments note that load cells come in many shapes and sizes, and

very small load cells may not accommodate this marking information.

178
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee is amenable to reducing the "size" of the information and recognizing a standardized placement and

abbreviation of the marking information. The Scale Manufacturers Association has offered to develop a standardized

format.

The Committee recognizes that accessibility of the marking information can sometimes be a problem; however, it has no recommendations for addressing this aspect. The Committee encourages input for addressing the issue of accessibility.

This concern arises not only in large capacity scales, but also in smaller capacity bench and counter scales which use load

cells with separate NTEP CCs.

The Committee recognizes that a number of questions still remain concerning how the inspector will access the marking

information. The Committee also recognized comments that indicate that jurisdictions have found successful mechanisms

for ensuring that the owner or operator maintain the necessary documentation for the equipment. The Committee believes

that additional work is needed to resolve the questions surrounding this issue; consequently, the Committee is changing

the status of this item to informational.

320-12 I Marking of Scale Multiples

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: Over the past several years, a number of changes in the Scales Code have refined the process of assembling

scale systems that are metrologically compatible. The most recent addition, S.5.4.(b), describes a mathematical

relationship between the scale multiple and the v^|„ of the load cell used in the scale system, as shown below.

(b) Vmin - fa^ scales with lever systems.

\/N X (scale multiple)

An important issue, not fully addressed in Handbook 44, is how to determine the scale multiple. Without this information, it is impossible for the field official to easily determine the suitability of load cells when interfaced with a

"lever system scale." Having the scale multiple marked with the scale's other required markings removes this obstacle and facilitates initial system testing and suitability determination for replacement load cells. A proposal was made to add a nonretroactive requirement to mark the scale multiple on the device if the multiple is greater than 1. This requirement would be added to Table S.6.3a under the category of "Weighing and load-receiving

element not permanently attached to indicating element."

It has been reported that the levers of some scales have notches for selectable ratios, allowing the multiple of the scale

to be adjusted over a limited range. For devices with adjustable multiples, the manufacturer would be faced with marking

each of the various multiples offered. As an alternative, the Committee may wish to consider requiring that the scale be marked with the multiple that reflects the "worst case" situation. Examining the equation specified in S.5.4.(b) for

scales with lever systems, a large scale multiple would result in a smaller value on the right side of the equation than a small scale multiple. Consequently, if the equation is satisfied using the largest possible scale multiple, the equation

would also be satisfied using smaller scale multiples declared by the manufacturer.

During review at the Interim Meeting, two other issues were raised that require further consideration: (1) The question

of how to calculate the multiples for levertronic devices since the multiple of the scale may vary according to the placement of the load cell in the scale; and (2) The question of whether or not this requirement will significantly benefit weights and measures officials and industry. The requirement is nonretroactive; therefore, it will only apply to new

scales. In general, only older lever-system scales not covered by this requirement will be retrofitted with load cells; it

is unlikely that a device owner will buy a new mechanical scale and covert it to an electromechanical device. Consequently, the requirement may not resolve the problem of determining the scale multiple for the type of device for which determining the scale multiple is most likely to be needed.

179
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee recognizes that instructions must be provided to assist field officials and servicepersons for calculating

scale multiples. The Committee accepts SMA's offer of assistance in developing procedures or formulas for eventual

inclusion in Handbook 44, and it encourages other comments and suggestions for addressing this issue.

320-13 W S.6.5. Markings; Use of the ^/T^ Mark

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Ohaus Corporation

Discussion: At the Interim Meeting, the Committee considered a proposal to add the following paragraph to the Scales Code:

S.6.5. Scales with capacities less than 220 lb that do not have separate indications for the customer and

vendor, that do not calculate pricing information, and do not display NET, GROSS, or TARE indications, may

use the international pictogram "-»0/T«-" to mark the Rezero key.

The opposing argument to this proposal is that Handbook 44 requires that a clear indication be given when tare has been

deducted. If tare is taken using a combination zero/tare key, the scale cannot distinguish between a zeroing operation

and a tare operation; therefore, no indication is given that tare has been taken.

The International Recommendation R76 on Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments accepts the use of a single key (marked

"-^/T«-") for the operation of both zero and tare functions. When using this key, the device is not required to indicate "NET" during the tare operation. The two exceptions that this is not permitted follows: "Direct Sales to the Public"

and "Direct Sales to the Public with price indication." In both instances, the term "Direct Sales to the Public" indicates those types of device that have a separate indication for the consumer and the "vendor." This exception is further limited

to those devices with a capacity not greater than 100 kg (220 lb).

Required labeling is different for the U.S. and European markets although the device operation is identical. The use of

a "Rezero" key has been and is an acceptable function on devices submitted in U.S. markets; however, the use of

"-O/T"^" is not permitted in the United States unless the device is capable of clearly indicating when tare has been taken.

In addition, the term "direct sales" has different meanings in the United States and in Europe. The European Union

typically denotes direct sale devices as those with two displays where the consumer is provided weight and/or price

information directly from the device.

The Committee does not believe that adequate information has been provided to justify recognizing the use of the -*0/T«-

mark and believes that its use is inconsistent with the use of the term tare in Handbook 44. Comments made at the Interim Meeting would oppose incorporating references to individual pictograms into Handbook 44. The Committee

requests additional input; if additional input is not received by the July meeting the Committee will withdraw the item

from its agenda.

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee noted that it had little input on this item since the Interim Meetings. In the absence of significant support, the Committee is withdrawing the item.

320-14 VC Variable Division Unit Scale; Definition and Reference in Paragraph S, 5. 3

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Weigh-Tronix, Inc.

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.5.3. as follows:

S.5.3. On a variable division value (multirange) multi-interval scale and multiple range scale, the value

of "e" shall be equal to the value of "d." ^

^ See Footnote 1 to Table 3, Parameters for Accuracy Classes.

180
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Delete the definition for variable division unit scale from the Definitions section of Handbook 44 and replace it with

definitions for multi-interval scale and multiple range scale as follows:

variable division unit scale. A scale so designed that the value of the verification scale division (c) in the same unit of weighty increases at certain load values within the weighing range of the scale. (Amended

1986) [2.20]

multi-interval scale. A scale having one weighing range which is divided into partial weighing ranges, each with different scale intervals, with the weighing range determined automatically according to the

load applied, both on increasing and decreasing loads.

multiple range scale. A scale having two or more weighing ranges with different maximum capacities

and different scale intervals for the same load receptor, each range extending from zero to its maximum

capacity.

Discussion: The terminology in Handbook 44 for multiple interval and multiple range scales, last changed in 1986, is not consistent with that in NCWM Publication 14, National Type Evaluation Program checklists and test procedures.

The terminology is also inconsistent with references and definitions used in OIML. The inconsistency between NCWM

Publication 14 and Handbook 44 has caused confusion in interpreting requirements for these devices, and the differences with OIML have created difficulties for scale manufacturers in marking and designing these devices. Changes are suggested to Handbook 44 to eliminate inconsistencies in terminology and to clarify the use of the terminology.

The NTETC Weighing Sector has studied this proposal as it applies to type evaluation and has accepted the new

terminology. Few additional comments were received on this item at the Interim Meeting.

Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems

321-1 VC UR.2.2.1. For Scales Not Installed by the Manufacturer; Concave Curve

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Belt-Conveyor Scales Sector

Recommendation: Modify paragraph (c) as follows to permit the installation of a belt-conveyor scale when there is a concave curve between the loading point and the scale.

UR.2.2.1. For Scales Not Installed by the Manufacturer. - Unless the scale is installed in a short

conveyor designed and furnished by the scale manufacturer or built to the scale manufacturer's

specifications, the conveyor shall comply with the following minimum requirements:

(c) There shall be no concave cun'e in the conveyor between the scale and the loading point. If there is a concave curve in the conveyor between the scale and the loading point, the scale shall be installed so that

the belt is in contact with the idlers at all times for at least 6 m (20 ft) or 5 idler spaces, whichever is greater, before and after the scale.' A concave curve beyond the scale shall start no closer than 12 m

(40 ft) from the scale.

' The performance of a belt-conveyor scale may be adversely affected by a concave curve in the conveyor

that is located between the loading point and the scale. Therefore, whenever possible, a belt-conveyor

scale should not be installed with a concave curve in the conveyor between the loading point and the

scale.

Discussion: Many installations of belt-conveyor scales have a concave curve between the loading point and the

scale. These scales were installed by the manufacturer; hence, they are exempt from the requirements of

181
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.2.2.1., which apply only to scales not installed by the manufacturer. The concave curve would have to be

removed from the installation if the system were updated by other than the original equipment manufacturer. This

limits the options for the scale user.

At its October 1994 meeting the Belt-Conveyor Scales Sector was asked to consider permitting a concave curve between the scale and loading point. The discussion focused on how the concave curve affects the performance of

the belt-conveyor scale, and what would be an adequate distance between the curve and the scale to limit the curve's

influence on the scale. It was noted that the concave curve prevents the belt from contacting the idlers, thus producing a false zero.

The Sector acknowledged that, to the extent possible, scales should not be installed with a concave curve between

the loading point and the scale. However, the Sector recognized that it may not always be possible to eliminate a concave curve from an installation. In those instances, by placing an adequate distance between the scale and the end of the curve, the scale can be installed without being affected by the curve.

To ensure that the curve does not affect the scale's performance, the Sector agreed that a minimum distance of 6

meters or 5 idler spaces, whichever is greater, should be specified. This distance is consistent with current

installation practices for scales installed by the manufacturer.

No additional comments were received on this item at the Interim Meeting.

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

330-1 V Guidelines for Applying S. 2 . 1 . 1 . Vapor Eliminators on Loading Rack

Meters

(This item was adopted.)

Source: NCWM S&T Committee

Recommendation: Adopt the following guidelines for use in applying paragraph S.2.1.1. Vapor Eliminators on

Loading Rack Meters for inclusion in NCWM Publication 3, Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines, in Examination

Procedure Outline No. 25 for Loading-Rack Meters, and in National Training Program Module 19, Loading-Rack

Meters. The guidelines are not intended for inclusion in Handbook 44.

The following guidelines, not intended to be all-inclusive, are for use by weights and measures officials to identify wholesale metering system applications in which an air eliminator is not needed. Jurisdictions

may find it necessary and appropriate to deviate from these guidelines or to implement additional

requirements based upon specific applications. These guidelines are to be used for systems dispensing

refined petroleum products, such as diesel fuel, distillate, gasoline, fuel oil, kerosene, light oil, and

spindle oil, but excluding lubricating oils, heated petroleum products, and compressed gases.

1. The storage tank is above ground.

2. Means are provided to ensure that the level of liquid in the storage tank is such that no air or vapor

can be drawn into the piping to the measuring system, and that the delivery is inhibited and cannot

be initiated unless the tank contains sufficient product. These means may consist of (a) low level sensors interlocked to the pump, or (b) an automatic tank gauging system, or (c) a terminal

automation system which monitors inventory and has automatic daily reconciliation against product

receipts and sales, and which is further backed up by manual tank gauging.

3. The pump is installed so that no section of its suction piping exceeds the elevation of the minimum

operating level of the liquid in the tank.

4. The pump supplying the meter is a non-self-priming centrifugal pump.

182
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5. The pump is installed so that there is no possibility of product vaporization at the pump inlet; that

is, the pump inlet pressure is not less than the net positive suction head for that pump when the

storage tank is at its minimum operating level. 6. Where the installation contains control or automatic valves, the sequence of valve openings begins

at the control valve nearest the storage tank and ends at the control valve downstream of the meter.

7. There is no common piping between the installation intended for delivery of the product through

the meter and the installation intended for the receipt of product into to storage tank unless proper

isolation valves are provided.

The above guidelines are for evaluating a system and are not intended to be all inclusive. _

For all other installations, an effective automatic air eliminator is required.

Discussion: At its July 1994 Annual Meeting, the NCWM adopted a new paragraph, S.2.1.1. Vapor Eliminators on Loading Rack Meters. It requires a loading rack metering system to be equipped with a vapor or air eliminator or other automatic means to prevent the passage of vapor and air through the meter unless the system is designed

or operationally controlled by a method, approved by the weights and measures jurisdiction having control over the device, such that no air or vapor can enter the system. When this paragraph was adopted, the S&T Committee

recognized that guidelines must be established to permit a uniform interpretation of this paragraph by weights and

measures officials and device owners. These guidelines should enable the weights and measures official to determine whether the design or operational control of a loading rack metering system is adequate to prevent air and/or vapor from entering the system or if an air eliminator is required.

The Committee distributed proposed guidelines to the regional weights and measures associations based on guidelines

prepared by Canada's Legal Metrology Branch for use by their field officials in assessing the operation and design

of loading rack meter systems. At the Interim Meetings, the Committee considered these guidelines and other

guidelines submitted by Chuck Michell, Shell Oil, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Following discussions at the Interim Meeting, the Committee decided to propose the guidelines submitted by API.

Several items (6,7,8, and 9) from the original proposal distributed to the regions are not included in the API

proposal. The Committee was advised that, due to regulatory requirements applied by other U.S. agencies, it is not necessary to include these items in the guidelines for applying Handbook 44 paragraph S.2.1.1.

The Committee has request feedback, provided by the API, on how well these guidelines can be implemented and

asks weights and measures jurisdictions for input on any difficulties they anticipate in applying the guidelines.

330-2 V S.3.1. Diversion Prohibited

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Office of Weights and Measures

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.3.1. as follows:

S.3.1. Diversion Prohibited of Measured Liquid - It shoH not bo possible to divert No means shall be provided by which any measured liquid can be diverted from the measuring chamber of the

meter or its discharge line.

Two or more delivery outlets may be installed only if automatic means are provided to ensure that:

(a) liquid can flow from only one outlet at a time, and

(b) the direction of flow for which the mechanism may be set at any time is clearly and

conspicuously indicated.

183
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

A manually controlled outlet that may be opened for purging or draining the measuring system shall be permitted only when the system is measuring food products. Effective means shall be provided

to prevent passage of liquid through any such outlet during normal operation of the measuring

system and to inhibit meter indications (or advancement of indications) and recorded

representations while the outlet is in operation. i (Amended 1991)

Discussion: In 1994, the NCWM voted to modify Milk Meters Code paragraph S.3.I. Diversion of Liquid to be

Measured. The modification permits a manually controlled outlet for purging or draining the measurement system

provided that the outlet cannot be used during normal operation. The scope of the language was originally intended

to apply only to mass flow meters used to dispense milk; however, the S&T Committee agreed that such a provision

would also be appropriate for other types of metering technology. Since the NCWM agreed to make the modification to the Milk Meters Code, the S&T Committee believes that a similar modification would be appropriate

for the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code.

Based on discussions of this item at the Interim Meeting, the Committee decided to add language to the proposal

to specify that device indications should be inhibited during operation of the manually controlled outlet. Questions were also raised concerning whether or not more specific language should be added to the corresponding paragraph

in the Milk Meters Code.

The Committee recognizes that there may be applications other than food products in which the system must be

purged or drained between deliveries of certain products to prevent product contamination; however, the Committee

has not heard adequate justification for manually controlled outlets in these applications.

330-3A I T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems; Accuracy of

the Temperature Sensor

Source: Carryover Item 330-3

Recommendation: Add the following definition to the Definitions section of Handbook 44.

small volume prover. - A stationary or portable testing device (prover) that has a known volume

between detectors of less than 100 gallons, and provides for less than 10 000 direct pulses from the

meter during a single pass of a displacer between detectors> and is used to test the performance -ef motors with a discharge rate in excess of 300 gallons per minute. The small volume prover measures product in a dynamic state and typically uses pulse-interpolation or similar techniques to achieve high resolution.

Modify T.2.3.4. as follows to address the application of tolerances when a small volume prover is used.

T.2.3.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - Except for tests performed using a small

volume prover, the difference between the meter error for results determined with and without the automatic temperature compensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.2 percent of the test draft for mechanical automatic temperature compensating systems;

and

(b) 0.1 percent of the test draft for electronic automatic temperature compensating systems.

The results of each test shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.]

When testing is performed using a small volume prover, the temperature probe shall be accurate

to within +0.5 °C (1 °F).

184
Specifications and Tolerances Comminee

Discussion: iThis item hg^ split into nvo parts as a result of discussions at the Interim Meeting: one item to address

current proposals to modify Handbook 44 and one item to address work being done to supportfuture modifications.)

Based on comments made at the Interim Meeting, the Committee noted that, in addition to small volume provers,

references to other t>"pes of provers, such as pipe provers and ball-type provers, along with corresponding

definitions, should evenrually be considered for incorporation into the language. Since the focus of the testing

performed in conjunction with this item has addressed only small volume provers, the Committee did not want to include specific definitions for or references to other t>pes of provers in the recommendation at this time.

The Committee agreed to put a strikeout through the present reference to "300 gallons per minute" in the definition;

the Comminee wants claritlcation of its inclusion before making a fmal decision to delete it.

The Committee had retained this item on its agenda to allow additional time for data to be collected on the use of

small voltmie provers. (See also Item 330-3B for discussion of comparison testing on small volume provers.) The

following discussion is excerpted from the S&T Committee's 1994 final report as background information:

The S&T Committee originally specified the tolerance for automatic temperature compensating systems in terms

of the meter test results for compensated and uncompensated nms because the temperamre probe is often at a considerable distance from the meter in many loading rack systems. In addition, many installations do not have a thermometer well adjacent to the temperature probe that can be tised to compare the accuracy of the system

temperature probe to a reference thermometer. The normal test draft for the application of the tolerance is a neckt>pe, large volume prover.

The Committee received comments indicating that the tolerance expressed in T.2.3.4. is not practical when small volume provers are used. The Comminee understands the term "small volume prover" to refer to a compact prover

rather than to a neck-r\-pe prover of a smaller capacitv'. Due to the small size of the test draft when small volume

provers are used, the tolerance as a percentage of the test draft is too small to be used to check the accuracy of the temperature probe. The Committee was asked to consider expressing the tolerance for a temperature probe in degrees, such as 1 "C (2 "F). particularly when small volume provers are used to test meters, and to consider

specif>'ing all tolerances for automatic temperature compensating systems as a temperature value instead of a

deviation in the test results for the compensated and imcompensated test results.

Some members of industn.' expressed opposing views to these comments, indicating that evaluating the performance

of the temperature probe alone and permitting a tolerance of 2 °F is excessive, suggesting that the proposal would

inappropriately relax the tolerances. Comments at the Interim Meeting indicated that it is reasonable to specify a

tolerance for the temperamre probe, but the variance should be no more than 0.5 "C or 1 "F.

During the discussion, it was pointed out that the temperature taken b>' a small volume prover is not representative

of the temperamre of the entire deliver.' : it represents only the temperamre of the product at a given time during

the deliver^'. The pertormance of the probe represents only part of the overall performance of the measuring

system. Consequently, it was stated that the application of the tolerances as currently wrinen is inappropriate for small volume provers and should be changed as proposed.

The API has provided to the S&T Committee four sections from its Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards

to assist the Comminee in its imderstanding of the design and use of small v olume provers. The Comminee has

received input concerning ty pical sizes of small volume provers and has identified typical configurations used in the applications addressed by paragraph T.2.3.4.

The Committee also received information from Mr. Chuck Michell. Shell Oil Company, concerning the potential difference in product temperature if the temperature probe for the metering system is not adjacent to the meter. He noted that API Chapter 7.2. indicates "ViTiere it is impractical to mount the temperature sensor in the meter,

it should be installed either immediateh- downstream or upstream of the meter... WTiere several meters are manifolded in parallel, one temperamre sensor located in the total liquid stream is acceptable,... providing the temperamre agrees within 1.0 'F of the meter temperamre."

185
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee concluded at the Annual Meeting that additional clarification is needed to identify how the proposed

tolerances will apply and to what component of the measuring device or proving system they will apply. The

Committee plans to continue work with industry on this issue and is making the item informational to allow

additional time to study the issue.

330-3B I Recognition of Small Volume Provers in Routine Field Testing

(This item was added to the Committee's agenda as a result of discussions during the Interim Meeting.)

Source: Carryover Item 330-3; NCWM S&T Committee

Discussion: This item is related to the work in conjunction with 330-3A and was added as a separate item to highlight work on comparing the performance of small volume provers with that of volumetric neck-type provers. Since this may result in recommendations to revise Handbook 44 to recognize the use of small volume provers in routine field testing, the Committee wanted to inform NCWM members and provide a forum for reporting progress.

The issue of small volume provers was discussed at the October 1993 meeting of the National Type Evaluation

Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector. Mr. Tim Scott, Brooks Instruments, is working on a project

to compare the performance of a small volume prover with that of a conventional neck-type prover. Some of the

difficulties that might typically be encountered in the testing of temperature compensating systems when using a small volume prover might be observed during this testing. These devices are currently accepted for use in routine

field tests by industry and in NTEP evaluations, and some weights and measures jurisdictions currently permit their use when witnessing tests of larger meters or meters that are used to deliver certain products. Mr. Scott seeks eventual NCWM acceptance through the NCWM Metrologists' Group.

Comparison testing of small volume and volumetric neck-type provers performed by Brooks Instruments has been

witnessed by representatives from Florida Weights and Measures and also by Ron Murdock and other

representatives of North Carolina Division of Standards. The information is being reviewed by the metrologists' group. If the assessment is favorable, the Committee may propose changes to paragraph N.3. as a future agenda

item. If review by the Metrologist's Group is favorable, the S&T Committee anticipates adding an item to its 1996

agenda to propose modifications to Handbook 44 to recognize the use of small volume provers in routine field testing. This issue will continue to be developed by industry.

The calibration procedures for small volume provers must be done very carefully to obtain a valid calibration; proper operation of small volume provers is very operator-dependent. Dr. George Mattingly, NIST, has said that companies manufacturing small volume provers (piston provers) must participate in a round robin calibration to verify that the design and calibrations of their small volume provers are correct.

330-4 W Revisions to Tolerances for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: NCWM S&T Committee

Discussion: At its July 1994 meeting, the NCWM adopted a new table. Table T. 2. in the Mass Flow Meters Code,

that establishes accuracy classes for mass flow meters. Specified for each accuracy class in the table is an

application or commodity to be measured along with the acceptance and maintenance tolerance value for each

accuracy class. The table and accompanying repeatability requirements are repeated below for reference.

T.2. Tolerances. - The tolerances for mass flow meters for specific liquids, gases, and applications are

listed in Table T.2.

186
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Mass Flow Meter Applications

Accuracy

Class

Application or Commodity Being Measured

Acceptance

Tolerance

Maintenance

Tolerance

0.3

Loading rack meters, vehicle-tank meters

(excluding LP Gas), home heating oil, milk

and other food products, large capacity motorfuel dispensers (maximum discharge flow rates greater than 100 L or 25 gallon per minute),

all other liquid applications not shown in the

table where the minimum delivery is at least 700 kg (1500 lb)

0.2% 0.3%

-

0.5

Small capacity (retail) motor-fuel dispensers,

agri-chemical liquids, all other liquid

applications not shown in the table 0.3% 0.5%

1.0 Anhydrous ammonia, LP Gas (including

vehicle tank meters)

0.6% 1.0%

2.0 Compressed natural gas as a motor fuel 1.5% 2.0%

2.5 Cryogenic liquid meters, liquefied compressed

gases other than LP Gas

1.5% 2.5%

T.3. Repeatability. - When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the range of the test results for the flow rate shall not exceed:

(a) 0.2 percent for retail liquid motor fuel devices; and

(b) 40 percent of applicable tolerance for all other devices listed in Table T.2.

Measuring device manufacturers indicated that a uniform tolerance structure for all metering codes would be

desirable and would provide for a "level playing field" for metering devices; in addition, they viewed the approach

of establishing accuracy classes and specified applications as a favorable approach for other codes.

While the approach of establishing accuracy classes and corresponding applications for all metering devices has

received favorable comments, concern has been raised that the tolerance structure for high volume retail motor-fuel

dispensers specified in the Table T.2. above may be overly restrictive compared to present requirements.

During discussions at the Interim Meeting, the Committee indicated that it is amenable to an approach in which

applications or commodities are established for a given accuracy class along with acceptance and maintenance

tolerances. The Committee has indicated its interest in developing a single tolerance table for all devices, but

recognizes that a number of questions remain concerning how a table similar to that in the Mass Flow Meters Code

might be developed for the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. These questions include:

• Whether or not present readability and uncertainty constraints would enable a field inspector to apply a tolerance of 0.2 percent of test draft in some cases.

• Whether the tolerance for high-volume retail motor-fuel dispensers, as presented in the Mass Flow Meters Code, would be unreasonable for other metering technologies. In addition, there is no clear indication

that mass flow meters can meet the tolerances now in the Mass Flow Meters Code for high-volume retail motor fuel dispensers since mass flow meters are not typically found in these applications.

• Whether the tolerance for vehicle-tank meters in Table T.2. is too large compared to the present vehicle- tank meter tolerance.

187
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

• The need to clarify the repeatability tolerance to indicate that the 0.2 percent in paragraph T.3. part (a) refers to 0.2 percent of the test draft.

• The need to specify in the Mass Flow Meters Code a separate tolerance for "special tests" and "normal

tests" as the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code does.

The Committee intends that this item remain informational to allow additional time to study the impact of such

changes on other types of liquid-measuring devices. However, the Committee recognizes that an equitable approach

to tolerance application must be found for all metering applications.

At the Annual Meeting the Committee concluded that additional study is required on this issue before

recorrmiendations to change the tolerances may be considered. Because of this and the concerns expressed to the Committee on how this might impact existing devices in specific applications, the Committee is withdrawing this item.

330-5 VC T.2.3.1. Measurement of Agri-Chemical Liquids; Tolerances

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Recommendation: Modify paragraph T.2.3.1. and delete the accompanying table as follows:

T.2.3.1. Measurement of Agri-Chemical Liquids. - Acceptance tolerances and maintenance

tolerances shall be 0.3 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively. ^

Acceptance Maintenance

Normal test

Special test

The Committee is open to considering a special test tolerance of 0.5 percent acceptance and maintenance if adequate

justification for the larger acceptance tolerance for special tests is presented to the Committee before the annual

meeting in July 1995.

Discussion: Comments over the years have suggested that the agri-chemical meter tolerances should be smaller based upon the high cost of the products. The Committee agrees that a small tolerance is warranted, but noted at the Interim Meeting that this assessment is based on more than the price alone. The Committee also recognizes that technology has advanced considerably over the years and the equity of the measurement must be considered.

The change proposed above corresponds to the tolerance for agri-chemicals adopted in Table T.2. of the Mass Flow

Meters Code. The Committee is interested in clarifying the types of products that should be classified as agrichemical liquids. A suggestion made at the Interim Meeting is to use the family of liquids table developed by the NTETC Measuring Sector, a copy of which is included in Appendix B to this report. This table was developed for identifying families of liquids for positive displacement meters during type evaluation. Additional comments and

suggestions concerning classifying agri-chemicals are encouraged.

The Central indicated an interest in seeing the tolerances tightened for agri-chemicals; comments also indicated an

interest in seeing data supporting the tighter tolerances.

188
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-6 V S.2.2. Provision for Sealing; Audit Trail Requirements

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Southern; Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.2.2. Provision for Sealing and the accompanying Table S.2.2. as follows

to permit remote configuration on retail motor-fuel dispensers:

S.2.2. Provision for Sealing. - 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 no

adjustment may be made of:

(a) any measurement element, or

(b) any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such rate tends to affect the accuracy

of deliveries.

When applicable, the adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for purposes of affixing a

security seal.

(c) Exceptfor retail motor-fuel dispensers, aAudit trails shall use the format setforth in Table S.2.2. [Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1995.]

{d)—Retail motor fuel dispensers shall not have remote configuration capabilities and shall be scaled

according to category 1 devices in Table S.2.2. [Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1995.]

(Amended 1991, 1993, and 1995)

Table S.2.2. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Method of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration

capability

Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration

parameters and one for configuration parameters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability,

but access is controlled by physical hardware.

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote configuration mode and record such

message if capable of printing in this mode or

shall not operate while in this mode.

[The hardware enabling access for remote communication must

be at the device on-site. The hardware must be and sealed

using a physical seal and nvo event counters: one for

calibration parameters and one for configuration parameters an

event counter for calibration parameters and an event counter

for configuration parameters. The event counters may be

located either at the individual measuring device or at the system controller; however, an adequate number of counters must be provided to monitor the calibration and confisuration

parameters of the individual devices at a location. If the counters are located in the system controller rather than at the individual device, means must be provided to generate a hard

copy of the information through an on-site device. ]*

[^Nonretroactive as of Januan,' 1, 19961

189
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Category 3: Remote configuration capability An event logger is required in the device; it must include an

access may be unlimited or controlled through event counter (000 to 999), the parameter ID, the date and

a software switch (e.g., password) time of the change , and the new value of the parameter. A

printed copy of the information must be available through the device or through another on-site de\>ice. The event logger

shall have a capacity to retain records equal to ten times the number of sealable parameters in the device, but not more than

1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000

changes to be stored for each parameter.

[Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1995.]

(Table added 1993)

Discussion: GPMA acknowledged that the current audit trail requirements for retail motor-fuel dispensers were

the result of a compromise that broke a stalemate on the development of audit trail criteria for inclusion in Handbook 44. However, GPMA feels that the current code hampers technological advancement. Additionally, due

to recent interpretations dealing specifically with remote configuration and applications of the code [to devices not covered by the LMD Code] , GPMA feels that an inequitable marketplace is being created because the LMD Code

specifically excludes retail motor-fuel dispensers from some of the benefits of audit trail technology.

When the audit trail criteria were added to Handbook 44, many participants in the process acknowledged that the adopted criteria represented a starting point for audit trail criteria in Handbook 44; it was acknowledged that additional modifications might be needed to facilitate the introduction of the technology into the marketplace.

Although audit trail criteria were added to the LMD Code of Handbook 44, specific audit trail criteria for devices

covered by other codes have not been addressed. Lacking specific criteria for devices not covered by the LMD

Code, NTEP has applied the criteria specified in the LMD code to these devices to the extent it deemed appropriate

for the specific application. In its review of this issue, the Southern S&T Committee emphasized the importance

of making criteria consistent for devices which may be used in the same application, but to which different codes

apply. For example, the mass flow meter code applies to a mass flow meter, but the LMD Code applies to a

positive displacement meter used in the same application.

In its discussions of this item at the Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed proposals from MicroMotion, GPMA,

and the Southern to modify the current requirements for audit trails to permit remote configuration on retail motorfuel dispensers. The Committee agreed that a modification to permit remote configuration for these devices is appropriate and concluded that the following provisions must be met in order to permit this feature:

• The hardware for enabling access for remote configuration must be on-site. The Committee was not amenable

to having an off-site device control access to the remote configuration mode; the Committee did agree that the hardware could be located at the individual device or it could be located on the device through which the individual device is remotely configured.

• The hardware must be sealed using a physical seal and two event counters must be included. This differs significantly from the original criteria and would affect retail motor-fuel dispensers as well as other Category

2 liquid-measuring devices. However, the Committee felt that this additional requirement is needed to provide

added security for the remote configuration option, particularly since the Committee is proposing that the hardware for enabling the remote configuration mode does not have to be located at the individual device.

• The event counters may be located either at the individual measuring device or the system controller (e.g.,

console or control box). The Committee has included a requirement which specifies that, if the event counters

are located in the console or controller rather than at the individual device, means must be provided to generate

a hard copy of the information through a device on-site.

The Committee feels that two event counters must be included for each individual main element. In its recommendation, the Committee has specified "meter, hose, product type, etc." as examples of the "main

190
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

element. " The Committee requests input on whether or not these examples are appropriate and on the impact

of the requirement if written this way.

• The Committee reaffirms its previous position on central event loggers: if changes are made at the individual

dispenser, rather than through a remote device, then the event counters must reflect the changes accordingly.

During the discussion of this issue, it was noted that some Category 2 devices do not provide an indication of when

the device is in the remote configuration mode; rather, the device will not operate while in this mode. The

Committee agreed that this method of operation meets the intent of the requirement and does not allow the device

to appear to be in a normal operating mode when it is actually in the remote configuration mode. The Committee

agreed that additional text should be added to Category 2 of Table S.2.2. to clarify that this method of operation

is acceptable.

(A related proposal was submitted by Micromotion, Inc. to address audit trail criteria for mass flow meters. See Item 337-2 for the discussion of this issue as it pertains to the Mass Flow Meters Code.)

330-7 V UR.3.3. Computing Device

(This item Failed.)

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.3.3. to delete section (d) as follows:

UR.3.3. Computing Device. -

(a) Any computing device placed into service after January 1, 1990, in an application where a product or grade is offered for sale at more than one unit price (excluding fleet sales and other

price contract sales), shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and displays

the sales price for the selected transaction. Individual single unit-price computing devices

installed to replace existing devices or to add to station capacity are exempt from this requirement.

(Added 1989) (Amended 1992)

(b) A computing device shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and displays

the sales price for the transaction.

(Effective and retroactive as of January 1, 1999)

(Added 1990)

(c) A truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks is exempt from the requirements

in (a) and (b) if all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt of the transaction

containing the applicable price per liter or gallon, the total liters or gallons delivered, and the

total price of the sale. (Added 1993)

^4)Unless a truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling truclts complies with S. 1.6. 4 .1. (Display of Unit Price)

, the price posted on the dispenser and the price at which the dispenser

is set to compute shall be the highest price for any transoction which may be conducted.

(Added 1993)

Discussion: Section (c) of paragraph UR.3.3. exempts truck stop dispensers from having to compute sales at all displayed prices, provided that all sales are accompanied by a sales receipt showing the applicable price per liter or gallon, the total liters or gallons delivered, and the total price of the sale. Therefore, the purchaser has written

evidence should a dispute arise over the transaction.

Truck stops have as many as twenty different prices, depending on contractual agreements. One truck stop operator

reported to a weights and measures jurisdiction that the highest unit price is charged when bank credit cards are used. Consequently, at this facility, nineteen prices were lower than the one for the four popular bank credit cards.

191
specifications and Tolerances Committee

To comply with UR.3.3., the station would have to discount nineteen unit prices. This is not practical since bank

credit cards are a small percentage of total sales.

The discussion regarding UR.3.3. in the July 1993 final report of the NCWM clearly states that "truck stops serve

a specific clientele of professional truck drivers and business persons who are informed consumers. " Questions have

been raised about whether or not jurisdictions are uniformly enforcing section (d) of paragraph UR.3.3.; if the section is not being enforced, it is suggested that it should be deleted.

The Committee received no comments on this item at the Interim Meeting and has received few comments from

the regional associations or industry.

Vehicle-Tank Meters Code

331-1 W UR.2.2. Ticket Printer; Customer Ticket - Exemption for Aircraft

Refuelers

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: CWMA/OH Weights and Measures

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.2.2. to exempt aircraft refueling trucks. No specific language was

submitted for consideration; however, based on the context of the submission, the following changes to the paragraph might be considered:

UR.2.2. Ticket Printer; Customer Ticket. - Except for meters used exclusivelv for refueling aircraft,

vVehicle-mounted metering systems shall be equipped with a ticket printer which shall be used for all sales where product is delivered through the meter. A copy of the ticket issued by the device shall be

left with the customer at the time of delivery or as otherwise specified by the customer.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1995. To become retroactive as of January 1, 1999.]

Discussion: Very few, if any, vehicle-mounted meters used to refuel aircraft now have or have ever had printers.

Requiring a printer would add cost to the users of these devices, and the submitter is unaware of complaints received

from customers about not having a printed ticket. An opposing argument is that the customer does not have any

method to verify the delivery unless a printed ticket is provided.

The Committee has not been persuaded that this exemption is justified. The Committee is generally opposed to making exceptions. The Committee encouraged additional comments on this issue in its Interim Report; however, no additional justification was provided to the Committee.

The Committee does not feel that sufficient justification has been provided for including this exemption.

Consequently, the Conunittee is withdrawing this item.

331-2 V A.l. Application, S.5.2. Discharge Rates, T.X. Measurement of

Water; Tolerances for Vehicle-Mounted Water Meters

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

192
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Recommendation: Amend the following paragraphs to increase the tolerances for vehicle-mounted water meters.

A.l. - This code applies to meters mounted on vehicle tanks including those used for the

measurement and delivery of petroleum products or agri-chemical liquids such as fertilizers, feeds,

herbicides^ pesticides, insecticides^ fungicides^ and defoliants, and bulk deliveries of water. (Amended 1985)

Add a new paragraph with accompanying tables to specify tolerances for vehicle-mounted water meters:

T.X. Measurement of Water. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in Table

X and Table X.

Table 4X. Tolerances for Water Meters

Normal Tests

Meter size (inches)Rate of flow

(gal/min)

Maximum Rate

Meter indication Tolerance on over- and under-registration

gal ft^

5/8 15 50 5

3/4 25 50 5

1 40 100 10

1 1/2 80 300 40 1.5%

2 120 500 40

3 250 500 50

4 350 1 000 100

6 700 1 000 100

Table 3X. Tolerances for Water Meters

Special Tests

Intermediate rate Minimum rate

Meter size (inches)

Rate of

flow

Meter

indication Tolerance on over- and underregistration

Rate of flow

Meter

indication

Tolerance

(gal/

min) gal ft^

(gal/

min) gal ft^ Underregistration

Overregistration

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 1.5% 1 1/2 10 1 5.0% 1.5%

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

193
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Discussion: Bulk deliveries of water to individual users and for irrigation purposes (in arid locations and areas of

ground water contamination) have become common in the southwest and may become a nationwide concern. Typical water meters are not capable of meeting the tolerances presently specified in the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code.

Typical positive displacement and turbine meters cannot maintain existing vehicle-tank meter tolerances because water has a low lubricity factor. Installing devices capable of maintaining these tolerances, such as mass flow

meters and other specifically-designed meters, would present an unreasonable expense to the purveyors of this relatively low-cost commodity.

This proposal is consistent with the goal that the minimum measurement accuracy for a product type be the same

regardless of the measurement technology. An opposing argument is that a device that cannot perform better than an accuracy of 1.5 percent may not be suitable for such an application. Newer technology, such as mass flow

meters, can maintain tighter tolerances without the lubricity concerns.

The Committee recognizes that there are an increasing number of applications for commercial delivery and

measurement of water. The Committee also recognizes that the tolerances in the Vehicle Tank Meters Code are more stringent than those in the Water Meters Code. Consequently, a tighter tolerance is now applied to vehicle- mounted water meters than to stationary meters. The proposed tolerances are the same as those presently in the Water Meters Code.

The Committee would like to see the tolerances for the VTM Code structured similar to that discussed in Item

330-4. However, the Committee does not anticipate that the issues discussed in Item 330-4 will be resolved this year, and it does not want to delay consideration of the changes proposed in the "Recommendation" above until that time.

331-3 W T.2. Tolerances; Revision to Correspond to Liquid-Measuring Devices

Code

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: The Committee considered a proposal from the Western to modify the tolerances in the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code to those in correspond to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. Although consistency in tolerances among codes is desirable, the proposal represents an enlargement of most of the tolerances in the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code, as indicated in the following table.

Acceptance Tolerances Maintenance Tolerances

Indication Present Proposed Present Proposed

(gallons)

cubic % cubic % cubic % cubic %

inches inches inches inches

50 25.0 0.216 23.1 0.2 50 0.433 34.65 0.3

100 37.5 0.162 46.2 0.2 75 0.325 60.30 0.3

200 62.5 0.135 92.4 0.2 125 0.271 138.60 0.3

500 137.5 0.119 231.0 0.2 275 0.238 346.50 0.3

750 200.0 0.115 346.5 0.2 400 0.231 519.75 0.3

1000 262.5 0.114 462.0 0.2 525 0.227 693.00 0.3

1500 387.5 0.112 693.0 0.2 775 0.224 1039.50 0.3

Since devices in the field meet the existing tolerances, there is no adequate justification for expanding them. The

Committee asks for additional input and justification so that members can better assess the proposal. Without

additional justification for enlarging these tolerances, the Committee plans to withdraw this item from its agenda.

194
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Background

This proposal is similar to Item 331-2 (Table 1. Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters Except Milk Meters, AgriChemical Meters, and Mass Flow Meters) on the Sc&T Committee's 1994 report. Tolerances in the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code are currently expressed in cubic inches; tolerances in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code are expressed as a percentage of the indication. In order to obtain uniformity in tolerance application, both code

tolerances should be expressed as a percentage.

This proposal will make the tolerance application uniform for wholesale liquid-measuring devices whether in stationary or vehicle-mounted applications. This is also consistent with the goal that the minimum measurement

accuracy for a type of product should be the same regardless of the measurement technology. ^

Additionally, vehicle-tank meters will frequently be tested at the same location as stationary wholesale meters (and

frequently the same model of meter). This will simplify tolerance application for field officials and service persons.

Among the opposing arguments to this proposal is the fact that the proposed tolerances will be slightly larger than

the current tolerances. In addition, concern has previously been expressed by Committee members that the present

tolerances for stationary loading rack meters are too large. The Committee must also consider this proposal in conjunction with its discussion of Items 330-4 (Revisions to Tolerances for Liquid-Measuring Devices Code) and

330-5 (T.2.3.1. Measurement of Agri-Chemical Liquids; Tolerances). The Committee has indicated its interest in making all of the tolerances in the metering codes consistent with the tolerances adopted for the Mass Flow Meter

Code.

The proposal recommends deleting Tables 1, la, and 2 and modifying the paragraphs under T.2. as follows:

T.2. Tolerance Values. Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in Tables 1, la and

T.3-r2.1. Tolerance Values on Meters used for the Measurement of Agri-Chemical Liquids. - The

maintenance tolerance on normal and acceptance tolerances shall be: special t ests shall be 1 percent of

the indicated quantity. The acceptance tolerance on a normal test shall be 0.5 percent of the indicated quantity and on special t ests, 1 percent of the indicated quantity. (Added 19 85, Amended 1989)

Acceptance Maintenance

Normal Test 0.3% 0.5%

Special Test 0.5% 0.5%

T.2.2. Measurement of Milk - See Section 3.35. Milk Meters Table I. Tolerances.

T.2.3. Measurement of Other Liquids. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be:

Acceptance Maintenance

Normal Test 0.2% 0.3%

Special Test 0.5% 0.5%

T.4-r3^ Repeatability. - When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the range of the test results for the flow rate shall not exceed 40 percent of the applicable tolerance. (Added 1992)

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee noted that it is in favor of making the tolerance structure consistent among

the various measuring device codes and improving ease of use of the tolerances, but is generally opposed to increasing well-established tolerances which can readily be met by existing devices. Consequently, the Committee

is withdrawing this item.

195
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

332-1 I T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems; Accuracy of the

Temperature Sensor

Source: Carryover Item 332-1

Recommendation: Modify paragraph T.4. of the LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Code as follows to address the application of tolerances when a small volume prover is used. (Note: The Committee is also considering the addition of a definition of small volume provers to the Definitions section of Handbook 44 as indicated in LMD Item 330-3A.)

T.4. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - Except for tests performed using a small

volume prover, the difference between the meter error for results determined with and without the

automatic temperature-compensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.5 percent of the test draft for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems;

and

(b) 0.25 percent of the test draft for electronic automatic temperature-compensating systems.

The results of each test shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance.

When testing is performed using a small volume prover, the temperature probe shall be accurate

to within +0.5 °C (1 °F).

Discussion: (See Items 330-3A and 330-B for background discussion on the liquid-measuring devices issues corresponding to this item.) Florida and North Carolina have performed meter tests using a small volume prover and a volumetric neck-type prover. The calibration procedures for small volume provers must be done very

carefully to obtain a valid calibration. Dr. George Mattingly, NIST, has said that companies that manufacture small volume provers (piston provers) must participate in a round robin calibration to verily that the design and

calibrations of these provers are correct. The issue of using small volume provers in routine field testing will continue to be developed by industry.

The Committee received no additional comments on this item during the Interim Meetings.

The Committee believes that additional clarification is needed to identify how the proposed tolerances will apply

and to what component of the measuring device or proving system they will apply. The Committee plans to continue work with industry on this issue and is making the item informational to allow additional time to study the

issue.

332-2 VC S. 1.5.2. Money-Value Computations; Multi-Unit Price Applications

and Exclusion for Fleet and Other Price Contract Sales

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.5.2. as follows:

S.1.5.2. Money-Value Computations. - A retail device that computes money value shall be capable

of computing such values for a single unit price or at each of a series of unit prices for fi\ery

196
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

deliver)' possible within eith er the range of measurement of the device or the range of the computing

elements^ whichever is less . A computing device shall compute the total sales price at any singlepurchase unit price (excluding fleet sales and other price contract sales) for which the product is offered for sale at any delivery possible within either the measurement range of the device or the

range of the computing elements, whichever is less. The analog money value indication shall not

differ from the mathematically computed money value (quantity x unit price = sales price), for any

delivered quantity, by an amount greater than the values shown in Table 1.

Discussion: Paragraph S.1.6.5. of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code requires that retail computing devices

compute the total sales price at any single-purchase unit price for which the product is offered for sale. The

language excludes devices used for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck stop dispensers from the requirement.

The number of fleet operations using LPG is increasing and device owners offer a variety of pricing options to

fleets. An exclusion for fleet operations similar to that for paragraph S.1.6.5. (LMD Code) is proposed to be added

to Paragraph S. 1.5.2. of the LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Code. In addition, the present language of paragraph

S.1.5.2. does not clearly specify the computing capabilities required of an LPG device used to dispense products

at more than a single unit price. Language similar to that use in paragraph S. 1.6.5. of the LMD Code is proposed

to provide consistency between the two codes. No additional comments were received on this item during the Interim Meeting.

Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

334-1 W S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Carryover Item 334-1

Discussion: In 1992 the following proposal was submitted to reverse the action taken in 1991 which required

cryogenic metering systems to be equipped with automatic temperature or density compensation systems and to inhibit meter system operation if the ATC system fails.

S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation. - If a device is shall be equipped with

automatic means for adjusting the indication and/or recorded representation of the measured quantity of

the product, it shall ^e indicate and/or record in terms of: kilograms or pounds; liters or gallons of

liquid at the normal boiling point of the specific cryogenic product; or the equivalent cubic meters (cubic

feet) of gas at a normal temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) and an absolute pressure of 101.325 kPa

(14.696 psia). \\^cn 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]

The Compressed Gas Association (CGA) and California Division of Measurement Standards (DMS) have been

working to provide the Committee with information to assess the merit of this proposal. In addition to testing

wimessed by members of the S&T Committee last year, California DMS has worked with the CGA to collect data

to support their respective positions.

At the Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed data presented by the DMS and CGA to determine what further action should be taken on the 1992 proposal. Prior to the Interim Meeting, the CGA again extended an offer to collect additional data should the Committee require further data to make its decision.

197
specifications and Tolerances Committee

The compressed gas industry has been most cooperative in the study of this issue. The Committee appreciates its assistance and that of the weights and measures jurisdictions who helped to collect the data, particularly California

DMS. However, the Committee has not been convinced by the information presented that temperature compensation

is not needed. The method of adjusting the meters proposed by the CGA would leave little allowance for normal wear and tear on the meter, and its approach is not consistent with the Fundamental Considerations which state that adjustments must be made to bring a device as close to zero error as possible. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item from its agenda.

The following excerpts from the 1995 S&T Interim Agenda are included as background information on the issue.

The CGA continues to maintain its position that temperature compensation of cryogenic meters is unnecessary due

to the narrow temperature range of the liquid at delivery conditions. California DMS continues to maintain that the data collected by its field officials contradicts CGA's position.

At an April 1994 meeting, the CGA and DMS agreed that the DMS would conduct a survey of temperatures during customer deliveries to determine if deliveries were possible with temperatures outside the range that assures

deliveries within applicable meter tolerances. This would either verily or refute the position that deliveries can not be made with high product temperatures, and that the pressure relief valves would sufficiently control the product

temperature.

With the cooperation of industry, DMS conducted a survey of five deliveries of liquid nitrogen to determine delivery pressures and temperatures and the capabilities of the delivery systems. In all cases, the recorded temperatures were

above those that would have allowed the meter to perform within maintenance tolerances if the meters had been

calibrated at the normal boiling point of the liquid. The average delivered volume difference when comparing

delivery temperatures to the normal boiling point represents approximately 6 percent overregistration. Additionally,

most of the deliveries were made above -186 °C, at temperatures which CGA contended delivery systems would

not function.

Summarizing the results of the survey, DMS noted that, although industry has been cooperative in assisting in gathering data, the data contradicts the CGA's contention that cryogenics can be delivered within applicable meter

tolerances without the benefit of temperature compensation. DMS maintains that, with the millions of dollars worth

of cryogenics metered each year, it is appropriate to ensure the accuracies of the deliveries to the maximum extent

possible, which requires the use of temperature-compensated meters. DMS also suggests that, in lieu of temperature compensation, the industry may consider seeking Code revisions to require that meter calibrations be biased to the extent that extremely warm temperature deliveries are within

tolerances. This could allow for a larger tolerance on underregistration than on overregistration. While such an approach would provide consumers with additional protection against short measure, it is not considered to be in the best interest of industry as it would likely result in giving away a significant amount of product.

CGA believes that the survey data indicates that temperature compensation is not needed to provide accurate metering. The temperature range of the test results was within an extremely narrow band that can easily be adjusted

by the calibration factor of the meter without costly and troublesome temperature compensation. CGA noted that the average change in volume due to temperature for a given set of tests ranged from a low of 5.8 percent to a high

of 6.4 percent. CGA indicates that the meter factor can be adjusted to shift the calibration based on the data observed; the calibration shift would enable the meter to meet accuracy requirements over the observed delivery

regime.

(See also Item 334-1 in the 1994 S&T Committee Final Report and Items 334-1 and 334-2 in the 1991 S&T

Committee Final Report for additional background information.)

198
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

334-2 VC A.l. Application Section of Code

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Source: Western Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Modify paragraph A.l. as follows:

A.l. - This code applies to cryogenic liquid-measuring devices used for the measurement of

cryogenic liquids such as, but not limited to oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and argon > whether such

devices are installed in a permanent location^ or mounted on a vehicle^ or mounted on a portable

(Amended 1986)

Note: The Committee does not recommend that carbon dioxide (COj) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) be included

in the application statement.

The Committee is considering adding carbon dioxide (COi) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the examples in A.l.

and deleting A.2.(c), which excludes devices measuring LNG from the Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code.

The Committee will add these products to the list specified in the above recommendation if adequate justification

is provided by the annual meeting in July.

Discussion: Current meter technology has enabled measurement of cryogenic liquids other than those listed in paragraph A.l. For example, California weights and measures officials are testing meters used for the commercial

measurement of cryogenic hydrogen. The current wording of the application section of the Cryogenic LiquidMeasuring Devices Code appears to be restricted to three cryogenic products: oxygen, nitrogen, and argon. It was

suggested that the application statement should include all cryogenic liquid applications. As a result of discussions

at the Interim Meeting, the Committee modified the original proposal submitted by the Western so that the list of

cryogenic products was not all-inclusive, but simply gives examples of cryogenics to which the code applies.

During the Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed the possibility of adding CO2 to the list of products in paragraph A.l. The Committee noted that the NCWM considered adding a separate CO2 code to Handbook 44

several years ago; however, study of the issue was not completed. At the time that proposal was made, CO,

applications were considered different enough from cryogenics covered by the Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

Code to warrant proposal of a separate code. Comments received during the Interim Meeting indicate that modifications to parts of the Cryogenic Code might be needed in order to properly address CO2 applications. It was also noted that COj is not truly a cryogenic product due to its boiling point.

The Committee also considered deleting paragraph A.2.(c), which excludes application of the code to devices used

to dispense LNG. However, the Committee first wanted to determine why LNG was initially excluded from the code. At the Annual Meeting, the Committee concluded that COj and LNG should not be included in the application

statement.

Mass Flow Meters Code

337-1 VC UR.3.7. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph UR.3.7. as follows:

199
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.3.7. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero. - The primary indicating elements

(visual), and the primary recording elements when these are returnable to zero, shall be returned

to zero immediately before each delivery.

Discussion: The Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, the LPG and NHj Code, the Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring

Devices Code, and the Milk Meters Code include "return to zero" requirements. For devices that are designed to be returned to zero, the user must return the device to a correct zero indication prior to each delivery. When

revisions were made to the Mass Flow Meters Code to include significant requirements from other measuring

devices codes, the return to zero requirement was overlooked and was not included in the Mass Flow Meters Code.

Comments at the Interim Meeting indicated general support from industry and weights and measures officials for the proposed change.

337-2 VC S.3.3.1. Vapor Elimination on Loading Rack Meter Systems

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph S.3.3.1. as follows:

S.3.3.1. Vapor Elimination on Loading Rack Liquid Metering Systems. -

(a) A loading rack liquid metering system shall be equipped with a vapor or air eliminator or

other automatic means to prevent the passage of vapor and air through the meter unless the

system is designed or operationally controlled by a method, approved by the weights and

measures jurisdiction having statutory authority over the device, such that air and/or vapor

cannot enter the system.

(b) Vent lines from the air or vapor eliminator (if present) shall be made of metal tubing or other

rigid material.

Recognize guidelines developed in conjunction with Item 330-1 (Guidelines for Applying S.2.1. Vapor Eliminators on Loading Rack Meters) for use in applying paragraph S.3.3.1. of the Mass

Flow Meters Code.

Discussion: In July 1994, the NCWM voted to include a new paragraph S.2. 1 . 1 . for vapor elimination on loading

rack meter systems; that paragraph recognizes the design of the loading rack metering system as a means for preventing vapor from being introduced into the measuring system. The NCWM agreed to recognize this provision

because many vapor eliminators installed in loading rack meter systems were not adequate to eliminate vapor from

the system or were not functioning at all, and weights and measures officials had limited means for testing the effectiveness of the vapor eliminator. If the system is designed to prevent vapor from being introduced into the system, requiring the installation of a vapor eliminator was viewed as an urmecessary expense.

Mass flow meters are often used in loading rack applications; however, the Mass Flow Meters Code does not recognize system design as an alternative to a vapor eliminator as does the liquid-measuring devices code. Since mass flow meters are subject to many of the same requirements as other types of loading rack meters (e.g., positive

displacement and turbine), it seems reasonable to include a paragraph similar to that added to the Liquid-Measuring

Devices Code in July 1994.

The proposed language in S.3.3. 1 . above is slightly different from that in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. The

proposed S. 3.3. 1 applies to "liquid" metering systems because, unlike the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, the Mass

Flow Meters Code applies to both liquid and vapor meters.

200
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

In Item 330-1, the Committee is recommending guidelines for use in applying paragraph S.2.1. of the Liquid

Measuring Devices Code to assist weights and measures officials in assessing individual loading rack meter

installations to determine whether or not the system is designed or operationally controlled such that air and/or vapor

cannot enter the system. Since this item recommends adoption of a paragraph similar to paragraph S.2.1. of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code, the Committee believes that the same guidelines should apply.

337-3 V Provision for Sealing; Audit Trail Requirements

(This item was adopted.)

Source: MicroMotion, Inc. /Southern Weights and Measures Association ~

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.3.5. Provision for Sealing to include specific criteria for audit trails:

S.3.5. Provision for Sealing. - 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

adjustment on any device that affects the measurement result cannot bo made without breaking the

security seal, no adjustment may be made of:

(a) any measurement element;

(b) any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such rate tends to affect the accuracy

of deliveries; or

(c) Provision shall be made for the zero adjustment mechanism to meet this requirement .

When applicable, the adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for purposes of affixing a security

seal.

Audit trails shall use the format set forth in Table S.3.5.

Add a new Table S.3.5. Categories of Devices and Methods of Sealing.

Table S.3.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Method of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration

capability

Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for

calibration parameters and one for configuration parameters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability,

but access is controlled by physical hardware.

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote configuration mode and record such

message if capable of printing in this mode

or shall not operate while in this mode.

[The hardware enabling access for remote communication

must be on-site. The hardware must be sealed using a

physical seal and an event counter for calibration parameters

and an event counter for configuration parameters. The

event counters may be located either at the individual

measuring device or at the system controller; however, an

adequate number of counters must be provided to monitor the

calibration and configuration parameters of the individual

devices at a location. If the counters are located in the system controller rather than at the individual device, means

must be provided to generate a hard copy of the information

through an on-site device. *]

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1996]

201
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access may be unlimited or controlled

through a software switch (e.g., password)

An event logger is required in the device; it must include an

event counter (000 to 999), the parameter ID, the date and

time of the change , and the new value of the parameter. A

printed copy of the information must be available through the device or through another on-site device. The event logger

shall have a capacity to retain records equal to ten times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more

than 1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require

1000 changes to be stored for each parameter.)

Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1995]

Discussion: The Committee reviewed a proposal submitted to the Southern by MicroMotion, Inc. to add language

to the Mass Flow Meters Code to specify audit trail criteria for mass flow meters. Although not supporting

MicroMotion's specific proposal, the Southern recognized the need for specific language in the Mass Flow Meters Code to clearly define the minimum criteria for audit trails on mass flow meters.

In reviewing Micromotion's proposal, the Southern S&T Committee emphasized the importance of making criteria consistent for devices that may be used in the same application, but to which different codes apply. For example,

the mass flow meter code applies to a mass flow meter, but the LMD Code applies to a positive displacement meter

used in the same application. The NCWM S&T Committee agrees with the position that audit trail criteria should

be consistent for all devices used in the same application. Consequently, the Committee recommends that the language currently included in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code for audit trails, along with the changes proposed

in Item 330-6, be considered for inclusion in the Mass Flow Meters Code.

(See Item 330-6 for additional background discussion on this item.)

337-4 I UR.3.7. Return of Product to Storage - Compressed Natural Gas

Dispensers

(This is a new item added by the S&T Committee during the Interim Meeting. The item was inadvertently omitted

from the Committee's Interim agenda.)

Source: 1994 NCWM Laws and Regulations Final Report

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph to the Mass Flow Meters Code as follows:

UR.3.7. Return of Product to Storage, Retail Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers. - Provision

shall be made for returning product to storage during testing operations.

Discussion: In 1994, the NCWM adopted requirements to address the sale and delivery of compressed natural gas (CNG). At that time, the Laws and Regulations Committee suggested that a user requirement be added to Handbook 44 for provisions to be made at all retail CNG locations, for returning products to storage used in testing

Weights and measures officials now encounter installations lacking a way to return product to storage once cylinders

have been filled during the testing process. In some cases, device owners and servicepersons vent the product to atmosphere to empty the cylinder used in the testing process. Weights and measures officials have expressed concern over the safety and environmental impact of this practice; however, there are no Handbook 44 requirements

to require means to return product to storage. The L&R Committee noted that the Environmental Protection Agency

has no specific regulation requiring the return of CNG test product to storage, although air quality can be preserved

only by eliminating venting to the atmosphere.

Initial discussions with the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition indicate that similar concerns may be shared by their members and that no significant opposition to such a proposal is anticipated. The lack of means to return product

to storage continues to create safety concerns on the part of weights and measures officials.

202
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

At the Interim Meeting, the Committee considered adding a sentence to require that qualified personnel be provided

by the facility for returning the product to storage. Concern was expressed that the term "qualified" was not well- defined, and weights and measures officials may not be able to assess the experience of the personnel provided by

the facility. Consequently, reference to providing a qualified operator was deleted from the recommendation.

At the Annual Meeting, based on comments from industry and weights and measures officials, the Committee

concluded that additional study is needed to identify how the product will be returned to storage and what

restrictions, such as system pressure, might create problems. To allow time to study this issue, the Committee has changed the item to Informational.

Taximeters Code

354-1A W IIR.3.1. Units for Time, Distance Intervals, and Money Values

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Carryover Item 354-1

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph UR.3.1, Units for Time, Distance Intervals, and Money Values as follows:

UR.3.1. Units for Time, Distance Intervals, and Money Value. - The display of a taximeter shall be

programmed to increment in uniform whole cent money values, at 0.1 kilometer (or 0.1 mile) intervals for distance, and at uniform time intervals. The uniform intervals for distance and time apply to both

the initial and subsequent intervals.

Discussion: Items 354-1 A and 354-lB were originally presented as a single item, 354-1 UR.3.1. Units for Time,

Distance Intervals, and Money Values. Based on the many comments received over the last several years, the Committee recognized that a number of jurisdictions feel strongly that some current representation of pricing

information is neither readily understandable nor does it readily facilitate value comparison. The Committee

considered two proposals to address these concerns. One proposal, presented when this issue was first placed on

the Committee's agenda in 1992, is outlined in Item 354-lA. It specifies permissible units of time, distance, and

money values. An alternative proposal, presented by the Western, would require posting of the rate in terms of

price per hour and price per mile or kilometer; this proposal is outlined in Item 354-lB.

Due to the strong positions presented, the Committee was concerned that a single voting item might be defeated

altogether. Consequently, the Committee separated the item into two parts to enable each proposal to be discussed on its own merits. The Committee believes that both proposals, in Items 354-lA and 354-lB, would facilitate consumer understanding and value comparison of taxicab fares. It should be noted that the proposal presented in 354-lB would facilitate value comparison; however, there may still be customer confusion when observing the meter

indications. Consider, for example, a posted rate of S9.25 per mile; the meter could be programmed for $.25 per

1/37 mile with $.25 increments, or programmed for $.37 per 1/25 mile with $.37 increments.

The Committee recognizes that, in jurisdictions where multiple rates proliferate, variations in the distance interval can create difficulties in testing devices. This also creates difficulties for consumers in making value comparisons.

Background information from the Committee 's 1995 Interim Agenda is included below as referencefor both Items 354-lA and 354-lB:

At the July 1994 annual meeting, the Committee considered the addition of a paragraph to specify that taximeter

rates be based on and programmed to increment in equal money values and at tenths of kilometers or miles as follows:

203
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.3.1, Units for Time, Distance Intervals, and Money Value. The display of a taximeter shall be programmed to increment in uniform whole cent money values, at 0.1 kilometer (or 0.1 mile)

intervals for distance, and at uniform time intervals. The uniform intervals for distance and time

apply to both the initial and subsequent intervals.

The Committee returned this issue to the regional associations for review and asked that the affected industry study

this issue. The Southern continued to support this proposal; the Western presented an alternative proposal as described in Item 354- IB.

The Committee received comments that taxicab drivers are reluctant to handle pennies; therefore, they do not want

fares which result in total amounts ending in other than five-cent increments. The recommended requirement

specifies distance rates in 0. 1 km or 0. 1 mile intervals. If taxicab companies want to avoid fares requiring pennies,

then the rates must be in integer multiples of $0.05. Since Handbook 44 currently allows any distance to be used

for taxicab rates, to increase rates a jurisdiction or taxicab company could change the distance increment without

changing the monetary value of the rate. For example, the rate of $.25 per 1/15 mile might be changed to $.25

per 1/17 mile. An opposing argument is that customers typically include differences of pennies in the tip provided

to the driver.

Comments at previous meetings (national and regional) have indicated that value comparison by consumers is a concern; this is indicated by complaints received by specific weights and measures jurisdictions. It has also been

noted that specifying rate increments for taximeters is consistent with precedents in other codes, such as the Scales Code, where the permissible increments are limited to 1, 2, or 5; the originally proposed paragraph makes no

attempt to specify the monetary rate which can be charged. The paragraph does not establish the value of the rates that can be set on a meter; it only specifies that a meter must have equal increment sizes for the money value,

distance interval, and time. The proposed change applies to both the initial and subsequent intervals for distance

and time, but the Committee recognizes that the initial money interval may differ from the subsequent money

intervals.

Comments received by the Western indicate continued opposition from taxicab drivers to establishing a fixed distance increment. It is believed that the original proposal would create problems for the drivers and traveling

public. Meters tallying fares in 0.1-mile increments increment more quickly than the leisurely pace observed with

fares based on 1/5 or 1/4-mile; this might cause customers to become suspicious about potential overcharges.

Background Information from the 1994 Final Report of the S&T Committee:

The Taximeter Code requires that rates be stated and conspicuously displayed in the cab, but does not provide for uniformity in units of distance. Modern electronic taximeters are capable of computing at a multitude of rates. Both

the amount and distance of registration units can be changed without restriction. This has led to a proliferation of

distance rates confusing to customers. Some examples of rates currently in use are listed below:

$2.00 first 5/37 mile then $.25 each 5/37 mile

$2.00 first 1/15 mile then $.25 each 1/15 mile

$2.00 first 1/7 mile then $.25 each 1/7 mile

$2.00 first 1/9 mile then $.25 each 1/9 mile

The above rate schedules inhibit value comparison and are not "readily understandable by the ordinary passenger"

as required by UR.3. Additionally, it can create difficulty in testing a meter on a measured-mile course because

there may not be a change in the fare corresponding to tenths of a mile or to the 1-mile increment marked on most

measured-mile courses. (See illustration below, which is based upon the first rate structure listed above. The top

numbers represent distance in miles; the dollar amounts represent the fare amount corresponding to the distance.)

204
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5/37 10/37 15/37 20/37 25/37 30/37 35/37 40/37

$2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $3.00 $3.25 1 $3.50 $3.75

r1 mile

The Committee heard conflicting positions. Comments in opposition to the information presented by the Western,

indicate that the proposed change to the units for rate increments will not help the consumer to make value comparisons. It was suggested that consumers do not make value comparisons among taximeter rates, hence

requiring the information to be presented in only these units would not solve the raised concerns. Comments in response to this statement indicated that some weights and measures jurisdictions have received complaints from

consumers who do make value comparisons and to whom the choice of which taxicab company to use is an economic decision. Comments also indicate that jurisdictions that use a measured-mile course for testing have

experienced difficulty in testing meters programmed with unusual rates because the distances at which the fare changes do not correspond to a fixed increment.

It was argued that establishing fixed increments for rate changes was not within the domain of weights and measures

jurisdictions, which do not typically establish taxi fares. This argument was raised in 1990 (Item 354-4) when

paragraph S.2. 1. Initial Time and Distance Intervals was adopted by the NCWM. In response to these comments,

it was noted that the proposed requirement does not set the amount of the rate, simply the size of the money value

division. It was further noted that precedence exists in other Handbook 44 codes where the maximum/minimum

values of the units of measurement and money value have been established. For example, Scales Code Paragraphs

S.I.8.I.M. and S. 1.8.1., Money-Value Graduations specify the permissible value of the graduated intervals representing money-values on a computing scale.

Comments received since the 1995 Interim Meeting indicate little support for this item from industry or from

weights and measures officials. Consequently, the Committee is withdrawing this item.

354-lB W UR.3. Statement of Rates

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Carr\'over Item 354-1

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.3. Statement of Rates as follows:

UR.3. Statement of Rates. - The distance and time rates for which a taximeter is set, including the initial distance interval and the initial time interval, and the schedule of extras when an extras indication is provided, shall be conspicuously displayed inside the front and rear passenger compartments. The words

"Rate," "Rates," or "Rates of Fare" shall precede the rate statement. The rate statement shall be fully

informative, self-explanatory, and readily understandable by the ordinary passenger, and shall either

be of a permanent character or be protected by glass or other suitable transparent material. In addition, a rate statement in terms of price per hour and price per kilometer or mile must be clearly and

conspicuously posted in a location visible to the passenger prior to entering the vehicle.

Discussion: (See also Discussion in Item 354-1 A) Rates posted in terms of price per 5/37 mile or 1/25 mile are not readily understood by the consumer and do not facilitate value comparisons. Comments received from regional

weights and measures associations and at past NCWM meetings indicate that consumers in many areas do make

value comparisons among taxi fares, particularly customers who depend upon taxis for primary transportation. The

Committee recognizes that value comparison must be facilitated for consumers. The Committee agreed that the Western's proposal for posting rates in terms of price per hour and price per kilometer or mile would facilitate this comparison. The Committee also agreed that this information should be available to the consumer prior to entering

205
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

the vehicle. Consequently, the Committee recommends that, along with the posting requirements presently specified

in paragraph UR.3., language be added to require that a rate statement in terms of price per hour and price per

kilometer or price per mile be clearly and conspicuously posted on the outside of the vehicle.

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee concluded that, while it recognizes that this proposal might facilitate value

comparison for those customers interested in value comparisons, the problem should be addressed within local jurisdictions. Since there is little support for this item from industry or from weights and measures officials, the Committee is withdrawing this item.

Timing Devices Code

355-1 W S. 1.1.1. Operation of In-Service Indicator Light

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

Discussion: Questions were raised by the manufacturers of timing devices, such as those used for tire inflators, car vacuums, and clothes dryers, over the interpretation of the phrase "in-service light or other equally effective means" in paragraph S. 1.1.1. At least one jurisdiction has interpreted this requirement to mean that only an in- service light will satisiy the requirement.

The phrase "other equally effective means" and the word "automatically" were added to paragraph S. 1 . 1 . 1 . in 1979. The intent was to recognize that a device such as a laundry dryer may not be equipped with an in-service light;

however, if the device is equipped with a glass door through which the turning of the drum is readily observable, an in-service light is not needed to indicate device operation. The S&T Committee at that time believed that the

intent was to indicate clearly that a device is in operation.

The Committee supports the position of weights and measures jurisdictions which have noted that the tactile sensation of the vibration caused by compressed air as it moves through a tire inflator, or the suction of a vacuum,

and the noise generated by these devices clearly indicate that the devices are in operation. Similarly, the vibration

and heat given off by a clothes dryer is a clear indication that it is in operation, though a dryer without a window

on the door might need additional indication that the drum is rotating. Some believe that the present language is clear and that no changes are required; the Committee agrees with this position.

The Committee and these weights and measures officials believe that the language in paragraph S. 1 . 1 . 1 . adequately

defines the appropriate means of indicating that the device is in-service. The Committee originally considered

adding language to S. 1.1.1. to provide examples of how the requirement is intended to be applied; however, the Committee is reluctant to make changes to the paragraph without additional justification. No arguments were

provided at the Interim Meeting to convince the Committee that changes are needed. Consequently, the Committee

has withdrawn this item from its agenda.

Grain Moisture Meters Code

356-1 VC Elimination of Retroactive Dates

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association

Recommendation: Delete all retroactive dates presently included in tjie Grain Moisture Meters Code.

206
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Discussion: Retroactive requirements place an undue hardship on the owners of grain moisture meters. Even if a meter meets the tolerances specified in Handbook 44, the device may not meet the specifications and other user requirements in the retroactive requirements. Consequently, when the retroactive requirements become effective, the device owner is forced to purchase a replacement meter. Elevator operators must spend thousands of dollars

to replace existing meters with new, yet unproven, meters. Nonretroactive requirements are viewed as not fair, practical, or cost-effective regulatory practices. Existing equipment that meets the tolerances prescribed by

Handbook 44 should not have to be replaced. NTEP historically does not require mechanical, non-automatic,

equipment to be removed from use and replaced with new, NTEP-evaluated equipment.

When the retroactive requirements were added to the Grain Moisture Meters Code in 1993, a delay of 5 years was

given until the non-retroactive requirements would go into effect for field enforcement; a 10-year delay was given

until the requirements became retroactive, anticipating that much of the existing equipment would be made obsolete by the new requirements. The retroactive requirements were proposed by the Grain Moisture Meter Sector in an

effort to improve the uniformity of grain moisture measurement; the requirements were intended to result in meters which facilitate and automate operation, requiring less operator intervention and improved readability. At its last meeting, the Grain Moisture Meter Sector reviewed the issue of the retroactive dates. Based on concerns raised by the grain industry and some members of the weights and measures community, the Sector agreed to recommend

that the retroactive dates be dropped.

Opposing arguments note that deletion of the retroactive dates will result in perpetuation of the non-automatic meters now in use; the fully automatic devices specified by the retroactive requirements will reduce human operator error

that occurs with non-automatic devices when the user does not follow procedures prescribed by the manufacturer.

Weights and measures jurisdictions which have already begun to notify users of the impact of the 2003 effective date have also expressed concerns over how the deletion of the retroactive date will affect their credibility in enforcing future requirements.

Concerns were expressed at the Interim Meeting that some devices in the field may meet a majority of the new

requirements and the most significant requirements to ensure that the device generates correct grain measurements; however, users will be forced to purchase new equipment to comply with the retroactive requirements. There is also reluctance to force purchasers to buy meters with the risk that a manufacturer may not support calibrations for

that meter after some period of time. While the Committee recognizes that owners of other weighing and measuring

devices risk the manufacturer going out of business, such lack of support does not create the same impact that lack of calibration data does for grain moisture meters.

356-2 VC S.1.2.2.(g) Digital Indications and Recording Elements

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph S.1.2.2.(g) Digital Indications and Recording Elements as follows:

S.1.2.2. Digital Indications and Recording Elements

(g) On multi-constituent meters (e.g., meters which also measure grain protein), provision shall be

made for displaying and recording the constituent label (such as moist, prot, etc.) so as to make

it clear which constituent is associated with each of the displayed and recorded values.

Discussion: The present code assumes that meters measure only moisture, which is to be displayed and recorded

in percent moisture wet basis. The anticipated approval of whole grain near-infrared instruments as moisture meters with the capability of measuring other constituents of grain (with results also expressed in percent), has created the

potential for confusing moisture results with protein results on a single instrument. To eliminate the possibility of

confusion, the Sector recommends the addition of a new sub-paragraph (g) to S.1.2.2.

207
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Few comments were received on this item during the Interim Meeting; the S&T Committee recommends the proposal as presented by the NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector with no changes.

356-3 V Audit Trail Requirements for Grain Moisture Meters

(This item was adopted.)

(This is a new item added by the S&T Committee during the Interim Meeting. The item was inadvertently omitted

from the Committee's Interim agenda.)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.2.3. Provision for Sealing as follows:

S.2.3. Provision for Sealing

a. Provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal

to be broken, orfor using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g., audit trail available

at the time of inspection as defined in pari (b)), before any change that affects the metrological

integrity of the device can be made to any mechanism.

bj_ If the operator is able to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of the device (e.g.,

slope, bias, etc. ) in normal operation, the device shall use an audit trail. The minimum form of

the audit trail shall be an event logger and shall include:

• An event counter (OOP to 999),

• the parameter ID,

• the date and time of the change, and

• the new value of the parameter (for calibration changes consisting of multiple constants, the

calibration version number is to be used rather than the calibration constants.

The device is not required to display this information, but a printed copy of the information must be

available through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain records equal

to twenty-five (25) times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000

records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to be stored for each parameter.)

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 1998. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2003. J

[Note: Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological characteristics and must

be sealed. J

Discussion: At its March 1994 meeting, the Grain Moisture Meter Sector suggested adding a specification to the Grain Moisture Meters Code to address audit trail requirements. This item was inadvertently omitted from the S&T

Committee's 1995 Interim Agenda. The Committee received no negative comments on the proposed change during

the discussion of this issue at the Interim Meeting.

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers Code

357-1 VC UR.2.8. Calibration Adjustments and S.2.5.1.

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: NTETC Near-Infrared Protein Analyzer Sector

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.2.8. as follows to eliminate references to user slope adjustments and to more explicitly describe the information which the user must keep to justify calibration adjustments.

208
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.2.8. Slope and Bias Adjustments. - A written explanation and record of bias and slope changes

shall bo maintained. The log shall indicate the date and magnitude of changes in bias and slope constants and shall show that these changes wore made to bring the instrum ent into closer agreement with the reference method. Bias changes shall be made only on the basis of tests run on a current set of Standard Reference Samples (SRS) traceable to FGIS Master Instruments.' A

written explanation and record of all calibration changes, including those changes made by a manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated service agency, shall be maintained. The log shall indicate the date and magnitude of changes in bias and slope constants and the instrument serial number. A Calibration Adjustment Data Sheet for each log entry shall be available for inspection

upon request by the field inspector. Data Sheets shall be retained by the user for a period of no

less than 18-months following any calibration adjustment. The Data Sheet must show: Date of test and adjustment, serial number of the instrument, calibration identification, the nature of the

adjustment, the unique identification number and source of sample sets used, and, for each sample

in the set, reference values, initial instrument results (except in the cases of instrument failure and

repair), and instrument results after calibration adjustment or instrument repair.

' Established error must be known.

Add a note to paragraph S.2.5.1. to correspond to proposed changes to UR.2.8. as follows:

S.2.5.1. Calibration Transfer. The instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures

shall permit calibration development and the mathematical transfer of calibrations between instruments

of like models.

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2000. To become retroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

Note: Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated service agency may make

calibration transfer or slope adjustments on near-infrared grain analyzers and, except for instrument failure and repair, only during a prescribed period of time during the year. This does

not preclude the possibility of the operator installing the manufacturer-specified calibration constants or standardization parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or the

manufacturer's designated service agency. Nor does it preclude operator bias adjustments when

made under the conditions specified in UR.2.8.

Discussion: The need for users of grain analyzers to determine slope adjustments (or to perform spectral matching)

has been questioned by the NIR Protein Analyzer Sector. Manufacturers have indicated that the present generation

of NIR instruments should not require slope adjustment (or spectral matching) more than once a year. Due to the

critical nature of this type of adjustment, the Sector believes that slope adjustments should not be determined by a device user. This does not preclude the possibility of the operator installing manufacturer-specified calibration constants or standardization parameters under the instructions of the manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated agency.

In the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) official system, instruments that have been standardized by slope

and bias adjustment are checked daily with Standard Reference Samples (SRS) to: 1) see if the instrument has

drifted, and 2) keep instruments in the official system lined up with the master instruments in FGIS Kansas City.

Samples for the standard reference set are selected for good repeatability. They must be clean, with no evidence

of infestation and very little dust or dockage. There is one set of SRS for each class of wheat, with five samples

in each set. SRS are matched to the Master instruments at FGIS/QARD. The value assigned to each sample in the set represents the average of multiple drops through the Master instruments. One manufacturer reported using

12 standard samples for users to bias adjustments in a national program in Europe. No slope adjustment is made

by the user.

The Sector believes that it would be desirable for users to monitor their instruments and keep them aligned with the

Official system. The large quantities of required samples makes it uncertain whether or not SRS could be obtained

directly from FGIS. However, arrangements might be made for users to obtain SRS from a source with an accuracy

traceable to FGIS. The Sector presents the proposed changes to UR.2.8. and S.2.5.1. under the assumption that a suitable source can be developed for SRS.

Few comments were received on this item during the Interim Meeting; the S&T Committee recommends the proposal as presented by the NTETC NIR Protein Analyzer Sector with no changes.

209
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Other Items

360-1 VC Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices Code

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Carryover Item 360-1 (formerly titled Volume Measuring Machines for Shipping Charges)

Recommendation: Include the code proposed in Appendix C (presented by the Multiple Dimension Measuring

Devices [MDMD] Work Group) as a tentative code in Handbook 44 with a statement that it is intended for study,

rather than enforcement of devices currently in use. Include provisions in the tentative code to specify that the

criteria apply immediately for devices submitted for type evaluation.

Discussion: Few comments were received on this Item during the Interim Meeting.

The Work Group asked the Committee to discuss the following two related issues for which the Committee did not develop positions, but requested additional input.

Tare. The Work Group notes that the use of the term "tare" in this code differs from its use in other Handbook

44 codes; therefore, the definition section of the Handbook should distinguish the different meanings of the term. For MDMDs, the term refers to a deduction from the total measurement of the dimensions of an object, such as a shipping pallet or other object used to transport the item(s) to be shipped but which is not part of the customer's

shipment; this allows the shipper to deduct the dimensions of that object from the measurement so that the customer

is not charged for the additional volume contributed by the object. For a weighing device, the term "tare" refers

to the weight of the container or packaging material which is not intended to be part of the net weight determination.

Volume and Rounding - A suggestion was made to delete the term "volume" from paragraph S. 1 .5. An alternative suggestion is to retain the term "volume" in paragraph S.I.5., but add paragraph, S. 1.4.1., to address rounding.

This latter comment notes that, except for dimensions in terms of 0.3" or 0.4", dimension increments must be in units of 1, 2, or 5; thus, the product of the three dimensions should yield results in only decimal multiples or submultiples of 1, 2, or 5. The following language is suggested to address rounding:

S. 1 .4.1 . Rounding. - For devices that display or record a volume for an object, the calculation operation shall

utilize the internal resolution of the individual dimensions. Rounding shall occur only to the final product of

the multiplication.

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended that the NCWM adopt the tentative code presented in Appendix C of the Committee's Interim Report with the following changes identified by the Committee and U.S.

manufacturers of this equipment.

Since a reference to an "out-of-zero" or "non-ready" condition is not included in part (b) of paragraph S.1.1. of

the tentative code, the Committee agreed that it was inappropriate to reference it in part (a) of the paragraph.

Consequently, the Committee decided to delete the reference to an "out-of-zero" or "non-ready" condition. Also

based upon comments received from device manufacturers, the Committee decided to modify paragraph S.1.7. Minimum Lengths to specify a minimum of length of 12 d for all increment sizes.

360-2 VC Automatic Weighing Systems Code

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Source: Carryover Item 320-7 (formerly included under Scale Issues)

Recommendation: Appendix D includes a proposed code for Automatic Weighing Systems prepared by the Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group. The Work Group recommends that this code be incorporated as a

tentative code into Handbook 44 to address automatic weighing systems.

At the Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended modifing the tentative code presented as Appendix B of the Committee's Interim Report to reflect changes proposed by the Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group at its May 1995 meeting. Changes proposed by the Automatic Weighing Systems Work Group appeared in the Addendum

Sheets of the 1995 Annual Meeting and are incorporated into Appendix B of this report.

210
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

360-3 W Reorganization of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

(This item was withdrawn.)

Source: NIST Office of Weights and Measure

Recommendation/Discussion: The S&T Committee discussed the possibility of reorganizing Handbook 44 so that requirements addressing the same subject are grouped together for ease of reference, regardless of whether the paragraphs are specifications, notes, tolerances, or user requirements. The Committee also considered combining common requirements of the metering codes into a general code for liquid metering devices, then have separate

sections for specific devices for which unique requirements apply. The General Code will still apply to these

devices. To explore the feasibility of this approach, the Office of Weights and Measures prepared a draft reorganization of the liquid-metering codes for review by the regional associations. The reaction of weights and

measures officials and industry has been generally positive, but few comments were received at the Interim Meeting.

At least 2 years will probably be required to complete the draft proposal, and input from the regional weights and

measures and industry associations is requested. Copies of the draft prepared by OWM are available on request.

Since limited resources are available to pursue this project, the Committee seeks input on the priority to be assigned

to this task and is looking for volunteers to assist.

The Committee has received few comments and no offers of assistance. There is no indication that this issue is of

high enough priority to maintain on its agenda at this time; consequently, the Committee is withdrawing it.

360-4 V Changes to Fundamental Considerations

(This item was adopted.)

Source: NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Recommendation: Rewrite, or amend, sections 5.2., 6.1., and7.1. of the Fundamental Considerations, Appendix

A, in Handbook 44 as follows to more accurately reflect actual enforcement actions in most jurisdictions, provide

flexibility in establishing jurisdictional enforcement policies, and bring material into agreement with L&R proposals

presented in the 1994 NCWM Final Report.

5. Correction of Commercial Equipment

5.2. When Corrections Should be Made. - The One of the primary duties of a weights and

measures official has one official duty> is to determine that whether equipment is or i s not suitable

for commercial use. If a device conforms to all legal requirements, the official "marks" or "seals"

it to indicate approval. If it does not conform to all official requirements, the official he is required

to reject it and prohibit its use until take action to ensure that the device is brought into proper

conformance, corrected within a reasonable period of time. Devices with performance errors that

could result in serious economic injury to either party in a transaction should be prohibited from

use immediately and not allowed to be returned to service until necessary corrections have been

made. The official should consider the most appropriate action, based on all available information

and economic factors.

Some officials contend that it is justifiable for the official to make minor corrections and

adjustments if there is no service agency nearby or if the owner or operator depends on this single

device and would be "out of business" during the repair of if the use of the device were prohibited

until repairs could be made.

Before adjustments are made at the request of the owner or his or her representative, the official should be confident that the problem is not due to faulty installation or a defective part, and that

the adjustment will correct the problem. He The official should never undertake major repairs, or even minor corrections, if services of commercial agencies are readily available. The official should always be mindful of conflicts of interest before attempting to perform any services other

than normal device examination and testing duties.

211
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

6. Rejection of Commercial Equipment

6.1. Rejection and Condemnation. - The uniform Weiglits and Measures Law contains a provision

stating that the director shall reject and mark rejected order to be corrected such physical weights

and measures or devices as he finds found to be incorrect. Weights and measures and devices that

have been rejected may be seized if not corrected within a reasonable time or if used or disposed

of in a manner not specifically authorized. The director shall condemn remove from service and

may seize weights and measures found to be incorrect that are not capable of being made correct.

(No change to the remaining portion of Section 6.1)

7. Tagging of Equipment

7.1. Rejected and Condemned. - It will ordinarily be practicable to tag or mark as rejected each

item of equipment found to be incorrect and considered susceptible of proper reconditioning. ,and

this should always be done unless the repairs are to begin immcdiatolyi However, it can be

considered justifiable not to mark as rejected incorrect devices capable of meeting acceptable

performance requirements that have been allowed to remain in service for a reasonable time until minor problems are corrected since marks of rejection may tend to be misleading about a device's

ability to produce accurate measurements during the correction period. tThe tagging of equipment

as condemned or with a similar label to indicate that it is permanently out of service Is not recommended if there is any other way in which the equipment can definitely be put out of service. Equipment that cannot successfully be repaired should be dismantled, removed from the premises, or confiscated by the official rather than merely being tagged as "condemned."

Discussion: The Committee received mixed comments on this topic at the Interim Meeting. Some comments

indicated a preference for the current language. Others supported additional language to clarify the intent of this section of the Fundamental Considerations. All comments indicated that application of the criteria in the Fundamental Considerations requires that weights and measures officials use judgement in assessing the individual

circumstances involved of each situation.

The Committee agreed that the current wording in this section might be misinterpreted. While weights and

measures jurisdictions generally understand the intent of the application, incorrect interpretations have sometimes

been made by agencies that are not familiar with weights and measures activities. Consequently, the Committee

supports the modifications proposed in the Recommendations above.

Thefollowing discussion is excerpted from the 1994final report of the NCWMEducation Committee and is included

as background information: Some of the changes are to reflect proposed changes to the Uniform Weights and

Measures Law, which uses the terms "reject," "condemn," and "mark as rejected" without defining them. These

are sections of the Fundamental Considerations where these terms are described or defined. Most jurisdictions use

these terms, but there is little uniformity as to their meaning or the governing policies. Also, there is little interest

in developing standard, uniform definitions.

Flexibility in the definitions and enforcement policies is needed because of the great number of Handbook

requirements that have little or no effect on the actual ability to measure accurately (i.e., marking requirements).

Weights and Measures programs and most other government programs are under closer scrutiny than ever before

by the political bodies that authorize them. Rigid policies that immediately remove devices from service and

possibly put customers out of business for failure to meet minor requirements are often considered unreasonable

by lawmakers. Assuring equity in the marketplace can be accomplished while sfiU allowing reasonable flexibility in enforcement actions.

360-5 I OIML Report

The following information was provided by Mr. O. K. Wamlof, Standards Management Program, NIST on OIML

activities of significant importance to the NCWM.

CIML Meeting: At the CIML Meeting in October, 1994 Gerhardt Faber, Director Nederlands Meetinstituut N.V., was elected President of the CIML. He is the 5th President to serve since the origin of the organization in 1956. He succeeds Knut Birkeland who had served the past 14 years. Mr. Birkeland also retired from his position as Director General of the National Measurement Service of Norway.

212
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Committee Activities and Document Status: The following is the present status of the work of Technical

Committees and Subcommittees that are of interest to this Committee.

TC 8 Measurement of quantities of fluids (responsibility - Switzerland)

* R 105 "Direct mass flow measuring systems for quantities of liquids (1993)

Draft Annex "Test report format for the evaluation of direct mass flow measuring systems for quantities of

liquids (1995).

* R 81 "Measuring devices and measuring systems for cryogenic liquids" (1st CD Revision 1994). 1st CD

Revision circulated to IWG in 1994. Comments received by 12/94 and circulated to NWG for discussion at meeting held February 26, 1995, at the CGA annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas. A 2nd CD was

developed and circulated March 31, 1995 to the IWG for comment There will be a meeting of the NWG at CGA, Tuesday August 29, 1995 to respond to the comments of the IWG in preparation for a meeting of the IWG to be held at NIST, October 10 - 12, 1995.

* Draft R 117 "Measuring systems for liquids other than water Part 1: Definitions, metrological and technical requirements" Part 2: Metrological control and annexes (March 1994). Adopted by CIML at 10/94 meeting.

Characteristics of standard capacity measures and test methods for measuring systems. Adopted by

CIML at its meeting 10/94.

Testing Procedures for pattern examination of fuel dispensers for motor vehicles. Adopted by CIML at

its meeting 10/94.

Pipe provers for testing measuring systems for liquids. Adopted by CIML at its meeting 10/94.

* 5th CD R "Mass measuring systems for liquids in tanks" circulated to NWG May 22, 1995 for response by

July 14, 1995. Comments returned to SC July 14, 1995. TC 9 Instruments for measuring mass and density (responsibility - U.S.)

* R 76 "Nonautomatic weighing instruments Part 1 Metrological and technical requirements - Tests" (1992).

Amendments 1994 - Adopted by CIML at its meeting 10/94.. "Part 2 - Pattern evaluation report" (1993).

(EC Directive 90/384 EEC) - (EN 45501). The printed Revisions were circulated to the NWG May 17, 1995.

* R 60 "Metrological regulation for load cells" (1991).

Annex A - Test report format for the evaluation of load cells (1993).

A recommended Revision was circulated to the NWG January 30, 1995. The responses received were

affirmative so the recommended Revision was circulated to the IWG March 16, 1995 for response by August

25, 1995.

* R 106 "Automatic Rail Weighbridges" (1993).

Annex - Test procedures and Test report format circulated to NWG April 17, 1995 for response by June 2, 1995. On the basis of the response, the United States submitted a "no" vote on the test procedures June 5, 1995.

* R 107 "Discontinuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (Automatic hopper weighers) (1993).

Annex A - Pattern Evaluation Report (1995). Adopted by CIML at its meeting 10/94.

* R 50 "Continuous totalizing automatic weighing instruments (Belt-weighers) (1994)

Test Procedures & Report Forms soon to be published.

* R 51 "Checkweighing and weight grading machines" (Catchweighers) (Draft Revision - 1995).

Draft Revision, Test Procedures, and Report Format circulated for vote to NWG February 16, 1995 for response by May 26, 1995. The United States "yes" vote was submitted to the SC on June 5, 1995. To be submitted to CIML for sanction at it's meeting in October, 1995.

* R 61 "Automatic gravimetric filling machines" (Draft Revision 1995). Draft Revision, Test Procedures, and Report Format circulated for vote to NWG February 16, 1995 for response by May 26, 1995. The United States "yes" vote was submitted to the SC on June 5, 1995.

213
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

To be submitted to CIML for sanction at it's meeting in October, 1995.

* R 74 "Electronic weighing instruments" (1993).

* 2nd CD "Automatic road weighbridges."

A meeting of the IWG is scheduled for September 18 - 20, 1995, in Paris on this clocument.

* R 111 "Weights of classes E,, E^, F,, Fj, M,, M2,.M3" (1994). Test procedures and Report format will be submitted by the Nordic Task Group at the OIML Seminar in September, 1995

Seminar: BIML has announced a Seminar "Weighing Towards the Year 2000" to be held September 13 - 15,

1995, in Paris, France. The purpose of this Seminar is to discuss new technology and other evolutions that impact

the implementation or revision of OIML International Recommendations. Similar Seminars held in the past have

greatly aided all participants in a better understanding of the work, thus more readily achieving a consensus in the development, revision, or implementation of OIML International Recommendations.

A request for papers has been made on the following subjects:

* Implementation or Revision of OIML Recommendations of TC9 "Instruments for measuring mass and density.

* Automatic road weighbridges

* Electromagnetic susceptibility tests * Interfaces and electronic devices not covered by OIML Recommendations

* Quality assurance systems applied by manufacturers and their implication on type approval and initial verification

* Modular approach for conformity assessment and certification of weighing instruments

General Information

Language: English

Papers: Experts, users, and manufacturers are invited to present original papers on any of these topics.

Fees: 2500 FRF (approx $480) includes all seminar materials, lunches, and coffee breaks. Program

participants will not be subject to this fee but are requested to contribute toward the costs of the luncheon and coffee breaks.

Dateline: December 16, 1994 to volunteer for paper. Abstract by March 1, 1995. Final paper by June 1, 1995.

Western European Legal Metrology Cooperation (WELMEC): Those who are interested in the international marketplace should be aware of the activities of the WELMEC. The 5 publications of WELMEC that are available from our Office are:

* An Introduction to WELMEC

* Common Application of Directive 90/384/EEC and EN45501

* Guide for notified bodies performing conformity assessments of measuring instruments

* The WELMEC Type Approval Agreement

* Directive 90/384/EEC: Explanation and Interpretation * Guide for Examining Software (NAWI)

Richard C. Suiter, Chairman

Darryl L. Brown, Iowa

Robert B. Kelley, New York City, NY

Ronald D. Murdock, North Carolina

Gary D. West, New Mexico

Renald Marceau, Canada, Technical Advisor

Tina G. Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor

Constantine V. Cotsoradis, NIST, Technical Advisor

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

214
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendix A (Item 320-5)

Performance and Permanence Tests for Type Evaluation

of Electronic Vehicle On-Board Weighing SystemsNote: These tests apply to systems such as lift truck scales, scales mounted on refuse vehicles, etc. It has generally been

agreed that scales with a capacity of 30 000 lb and less will be considered Class HI as they would be used in a weighing

operation where a Class III scale would normally be used. Likewise, scales with a capacity of more than 30,000 lb will be considered Class IIIL when they are used in a weighing operation where a Class IIIL scale would normally be used.

1.0 Laboratory Testing

Scales up to and including 2000-lb capacity will be tested in the laboratory. All applicable tests, including influence

factor tests, will be performed. It may be necessary for the manufacturer to supply special testing apparatus

(mounting frames, test baskets, etc.) for laboratory testing purposes. Likewise, a normal size commercial wood

skid can be used as the load receiving element for a lift truck scale under evaluation. As much testing as possible

may be performed in the laboratory to save evaluation time, travel, and expense. In most cases, the indicating

element and load cell(s) must be laboratory tested and traceable to an NTEP CC.

1.1 Test Considerations

It may be possible and advantageous to test on-board weighing systems larger than 2000 lb (e.g. , a 5000-lb lift truck

scale) at a laboratory site. Influence factor testing of the larger capacity weighing element is not applicable but

other tests (static, dynamic, as-used, out-of-level, etc.) may be performed as circumstances allow.

As-used testing is very important for vehicle on-board weighing systems since, in most cases, normal laboratory

tests cannot simulate actual use conditions. As-used conditions must be considered and tested when evaluating a system. Depending on the type of device, consider the following:

• Performance when the vehicle is running.

• Performance when the vehicle is moving.

• Test apparatus performance versus normal load receiver performance (e.g. , test pan vs. refuse container). For

ease and safety reasons test apparatus may be used but like performance must be verified.

• It may not be possible or advisable to use known test weights; therefore, pre-weighed loads of varying weights

need to be used (e.g., a dynamic refuse dumping system).

• Load shift on dump systems, such as refuse dumpers (pre-weighed sandbags may be used).

• It may not be possible to utilize known test weights to capacity or at all on some larger on-board systems (e.g.

a 50 000-lb tank wagon). In these cases a platform scale, vehicle scale, or mass flow meter may need to be

used.

• Locate a safe location for out-of-level testing (e.g., a remote ramp or parking lot).

1.2 Increasing-Load Test A minimum of four increasing-load tests should be conducted. Use at least five test loads for the increasing-load

test. When practical, choose the weights so they are close to the upper range of each tolerance level.

215
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

1.3 Decreasing-Load Test A minimum of four decreasing-load tests should be conducted. Use at least five test loads for the decreasing-load

test. When practical, choose the weights so they are close to the upper range of each tolerance level.

Remember that the decreasing-load tests may be especially important for an on-board weighing system as they may

be used to backweigh.

1.4 Shift Test

1.4.1. At least two shift tests with one-half capacity test load centered in the center of each quadrant should be

conducted.

1.4.2. At least two shift tests with one-quarter capacity test load placed on the comers should be conducted.

Note: The shift test for a vehicle on-board weighing system shall be conducted in a manner consistent with its normal use (see paragraph N.I.3.7.). Normal shift tests, as described above, may not be practical for some on-board weighing systems (e.g., when the load receiving element is a home refuse container).

These systems may be susceptible to off-center loading or load shifting, hence it may be more practical

to test for these characteristics during the as-used part of the evaluation.

1.5. Out-of-Level Tests

A vehicle on-board weighing system shall operate within tolerance when the weighing system is out-of-level up

to 3 degrees (or 5%). However, beyond the 3 degrees (or 5%), if the accuracy is affected by out-of-level conditions normal to the use of the device, the system shall be equipped with an out-of-level sensor that inhibits the weighing operation when the system is out-of-level to the extent that the accuracy limits are exceeded.

1.5.1. Place one side of the vehicle 3 degrees (or 5%) out-of-level. Conduct an increasing-load test, decreasing-load test, and shift tests. Additional tests need to be conducted to the maximum extent that the system continues to operate while out-of-level in this direction.

1.5.2. Place the opposite side of the vehicle out-of-level by 3 degrees (or 5%) and increase the condition to the maximum extent that the system continues to operate. Repeat tests.

1.5.3. Place the front of the vehicle out-of-level by 3 degrees (or 5%) and increase the condition to the maximum extent that the system continues to operate. Repeat tests.

1.5.4. Place the back of the vehicle out-of-level by 3 degrees (or 5%) and increase the condition to the maximum extent that the system continues to operate. Repeat tests.

(Note: Depending upon the specific device design, an additional out-of-level test might be considered in which one wheel or set of wheels (a corner of the vehicle) is placed at a different level than the remaining

wheels and the tests described in 1.5.1. are repeated.)

2.0 Initial Field Permanence Test

2.1. Test Considerations

As-used testing is very important for vehicle on-board weighing systems to properly simulate actual use

conditions. As-used conditions must be considered and tested when evaluating a system. Depending on the type

of device, consider the following:

• Performance when the vehicle engine is running.

216
specifications and Tolerances Committee

• Performance when the vehicle is moving. '

• Test apparatus performance versus normal load receiver performance (e.g., test pan vs. refuse container).

For ease and safety reasons test apparatus may be used but like performance must be verified.

• Load shift on dump systems such as refuse dumpers (pre-weighed sandbags may be used).

• It may not be possible to utilize know test weights to capacity or at all on some larger on-board systems

(e.g., a 50 000-lb tank wagon). In these cases a platform scale, vehicle scale, or mass flow meter may need

to be used.

• Locate a safe location for out-of-level testing (e.g., a remote ramp or parking lot).

2.2. Width of Zero, Center of Zero, and Discrimination Tests

Review performance of the width of zero, center of zero, discrimination near zero, and discrimination near

capacity.

2.3. Increasing-Load Test A minimum of four increasing-load tests should be conducted. Use at least five test loads for the increasing-load

test. Known test weights should be used. When practical, choose the weights so they are close to the upper

range of each tolerance level.

2.4. Decreasing-Load Test A minimum of four decreasing-load tests should be conducted. Use at least five test loads for the decreasing-load

test. When practical, choose the weights so they are close to the upper range of each tolerance level.

Remember that decreasing-load tests may be especially important for on-board weighing systems as they may be

used to backweigh.

2.5. Shift (Off-Center Load) Tests

2.5.1. At least two shift tests with one-half capacity test load centered in the center of each quadrant should

be conducted.

2.5.2. At least two shift tests with one-quarter capacity test load placed on the comers should be conducted.

Note: The shift test for a vehicle on-board weighing system shall be conducted in a manner consistent with

its normal use (see paragraph N.I.3.7.). Normal shift tests, as described above may not be practical

for some on-board weighing systems (e.g., when the load receiving element is a home refuse container)

These systems may be susceptible to off-center loading or load shifting, hence it may be more practical

to test for these characteristics during the as-used part of the evaluation.

2.6. Out-of-Level Tests A vehicle on-board weighing system shall operate within tolerance when the weighing system is out-of-level up

to 3 degrees (or 5 %) (S.2.4. 1 .). The system is not prohibited from operating when out-of-level beyond 3 degrees

(or 5%). However, beyond the 3 degrees (or 5%), if the accuracy of the system is affected by out-of-level conditions normal to the use of the device, the system shall be equipped with an out-of-level sensor that inhibits the weighing operation when the system is out-of-level to the maximum extent that the accuracy limits are exceeded.

217
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Place one side of the vehicle 3 degrees (or 5%) out-of-level. Conduct an increasing-load test, decreasing-load test, and shift tests. Additional tests need to be conducted to the maximum extent that the system continues to operate while out-of-level in this direction.

Place the opposite side of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) and increase the condition to the maximum extent that the system continues to operate. Repeat tests.

Place the front of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) and increase the condition to the maximum extent that the system continues to operate. Repeat tests.

Place the back of the vehicle out-of-level 3 degrees (or 5%) and increase the condition to the maximum

extent that the system continues to operate. Repeat tests.

Depending upon the specific device design, an additional out-of-level test might be considered in which one wheel or set of wheels (a corner of the vehicle) is placed at a different level than the remaining

wheels and the tests described in 2.6.1. are repeated.)

3.0 Permanence Test Requirements

3.1. Minimum Weighments

3.1.1. A minimum of 300 weighing operations are required during the test period. The manufacturer is to log the date, time, and weight. The log is to be initialed by the person conducting the weighing.

Only the loads which have been applied using a method representative of the scale's intended use can

be counted. The scale may be used to weigh other loads, but only loads falling within the criteria specified in Section 3.1. are counted as part of the permanence test.

3.1.2. Fifty percent of the loads must be above 50 percent of the scale capacity; and

3.1.3. One hundred percent of the loads must be above 20 percent of the scale capacity.

3.1.4. A device is required to be in use for a minimum of 20 days. It is not specified that a certain number

of weighing operations be conducted each day, but use of the scale should be representative of normal

in-service use.

4.0. Subsequent Field Permanence Test

At least three sets of increasing-/decreasing-load tests and shift tests as described in sections 2.3., 2.4., and 2.5. should be repeated. Out-of-level testing in all four directions as described in section 2.6. should be repeated.

2.6.1.

2.6.2.

2.6.3.

2.6.4.

(Note:

218
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendix B (Item 330-5)

Excerpt from National Conference on Weights and Measures Publication 14

Family of Liquids Table Developed by NTETC Measuring Sector

rTOdUCt

Family

Product

Subgroup

Typical Products Viscosity

(SSU')

Specific

Gravity^

%

Abrasive

Solids

Petroleum

Products

Refined

Petroleum

Products

Diesel Fuel, Distillate, Gasoline, Fuel Oil,

Kerosene, Light Oil,

Spindle Oil, etc.

20 to 500

SSU

0.68 to 1.1 None

Aviation Fuels AVgas, Jet A, Jet A-1,

Jet B, JP4, JP5, JP7,

JP8, etc.

20 to 40

SSU

0.68 to 0.85 None

Lubricating

Oils SAE Grades 500 to 5000SSU

0.75 to 1.0 None

Heated

Products

Bunker Oil, 6 Oil, Crude

Oil, Asphalt

150 to 10,000

SSU

0.8 to 1.1 Nil

Solvents Solvents

General

Acetates, Acetone, Esters, Ethylacetate, Hexane,

MEK, Naphtha, Toluene,

Xylene, etc.

2 to 35 SSU

0.3 to 7 centipoise

0.6 to 1.6 None

Solvents

Chlorinated

Carbon Tetra-Chloride,

Methylene-Chloride,

Perchloro-Ethylene,

Trichloro-Ethylene, Etc.

2 to 35 SSU

0.3 to 7 centipoise

0.6 to 1.6 None

Alcohols &

Glycols

Alcohols,

Glycols, &

Water Mixes

Thereof

Ethanol, Methanol,

Butanol, Isopropyl,

Isobutyl, Ethylene glycol.

Propylene glycol, etc.

2 to 35 SSU

0.3 to 7

centipoise

0.6 to 1.6 None

Compressed

Gases,

Liquefied

LPG Propane, Butane, Freon

11, Freon 12, Freon 22,

etc.

0.5 to 3 SSU

0.1 to 0.5

centipoise

0.5 to 0.65 None

NH3 Anhydrous Ammonia 0.5 SSU

0.1 centipoise

0.56 to 0.68 None

' SSU - Saybolt seconds universal. Some viscosity values are reported in SSU units; to convert these values

to an approximate SI value —^ = centistokes; centistokes x specific gravity = centipoise (SI Unit)

Centipoise - One himdredth (10-) of a centimeter-gram-second unit of dynamic viscosity equal to one dynesecond per square centimeter

- The specific gravity of each product family is determined as the ratio of the product mass (@ 15.6 °C

(60 °F) petroleum products and 20 °C (68 °F) all other products) to the mass of an equal volume of

distilled water at 4 °C (39 °F).

219
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Product

Family

Product

Subgroup

Typical Products Viscosity

(SSU')

Specific

Gravity^

%

Abrasive

Solids

Water Water Tap Water, Deionized,

Demineralized, Potable

0.5 SSU

1.0 centipoise

1.0 None

Agricultural

Liquids -

Fertilizers

Fertilizers,

Clear Liquid

N-P-K

10-34-0; 4-10-10; 9-18-

9; etc.

50 to 100

10 to 30 centipoise

1.0 to 1.3 None

Fertilizers,

Nitrogen

Solutions

20% Aqua-Ammonia;

28%, 30% or 32%

Nitrogen Solution; Urea; Ammonia Nitrate; etc.

30 to 100 SSU

10 to 30 centipoise

1.0 to 1.35 None

Fertilizer,

Suspensions

3-10-30; 4-4-27; etc. 100 to 1000 SSU

20 to 200

centipoise

1.0 to 1.65 4%

Agricultural

Liquids - Herbicides

Herbicides,

Thin Liquids

Eradicane, Lorox,

Princep, Round-up,

Sencor, Sutan, Sutazine,

100 to 250 SSU 0.9 to 1.2 Nil

Herbicides,

Viscous

Liquids

Dual, etc. 200 to 500 SSU 0.9 to 1.2 Nil

Herbicides,

Flowables

Atrex, Atraxine, Bleep,

Bladex, etc.

500 to 3500 SSU 0.9 to 1.2 3%

Agricultural

Liquids - Liquid Feeds

Liquid Feeds Liquid Molasses;

Molasses plus Phos Acid

and/or Urea; etc.

50 to 250,000

SSU

10 to 50,000

centipoise

1.2 to 1.5 4%

Chemicals Chemicals Sulfuric Acid,

Hydrochloric Acid,

Phosphoric Acid, etc.

75 SSU 1.1 to 1.85 None

' SSU - Saybolt seconds universal. Some viscosity values are reported in SSU units; to convert these values

to an approximate SI value —

y- = centistokes; centistokes x specific gravity = centipoise (SI Unit)

Centipoise - One hundredth (10^) of a centimeter-gram-second unit of dynamic viscosity equal to one dynesecond per square centimeter

^ The specific gravity of each product family is determined as the ratio of the product mass (@ 15.6 °C

(60 °F) petroleum products and 20 °C (68 °F) all other products) to the mass of an equal volume of

distilled water at 4 °C (39 °F).

220
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendix C (Item 360-1)

Proposed Code for Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices

772/5 tentative code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be enforced. The requirements are designed for study prior to the development arui adoption of a final Code for Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices.

If upgraded to become a permanent code, all requirements, except those for tolerances, will be non-retroactive as of the

effective date of the permanent code; tolerance requirements will apply retroactively as of the effective date of the permanent code.

A. Application

A.l. General. - This code applies to dimension and

volume measuring devices used for determining the dimensions and/or volume of objects for the purpose of

calculating freight, storage, or postal charges based on the dimensions and/or volume occupied by the object.

A.2. Insofar as they are clearly applicable, the provisions

of this code apply also to devices designed to make

multiple measurements automatically to determine a volume for other applications as defined by General Code

paragraph G-A.l.

A.3. In addition to the requirements of this code,

multiple dimension measuring devices shall meet the requirements of Section 1.10. General Code.

A.4. This Code does not apply to:

(a) devices designed to indicate automatically (with or without value-computing capabilities) the length of

fabric passed through the measuring elements (see Sec. 5.50. for Fabric-Measuring Devices),

(b) devices designed to automatically indicate the length

of cordage, rope, wire, cable, or similar flexible material passed through the measuring elements (see Sec. 5.51. for Wire- and Cordage-Measuring

Devices), or

(c) any linear measure or measure of length or devices

used to measure individual dimensions for the purpose of assessing a charge per unit of

measurement of the individual dimension (see Sec. 5.52. for Linear Measures).

A.5. Type Evaluation. - The National Type Evaluation

Program will accept for type evaluation only those devices

that comply with all requirements of this code.

S. Specifications

S.l. Design of Indicating and Recording Elements and

of Recorded Representations.

5.1.1. Zero or Ready Indication.

(a) Provision shall be made to indicate or record

either a zero or ready condition.

(b) A zero or ready condition may be indicated by

other than a continuous digital zero indication,

provided that an effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a measuring operation when

the device is in an out-of-zero or non-ready

condition.

5.1. 2. Digital Indications. - Indicated and recorded

values shall be presented digitally.

5.1. 3. Negative Values. - Except when in the tare mode, negative values shall not be indicated or

recorded.

5.1.4. Dimensions Indication. - If in normal

operation the device indicates or records only volume,

a testing mode shall be provided to indicate dimensions

for all objects measured.

5.1. 5. Value of DimensionA^olume Division Units. - The value of a device division "d" expressed in a unit of dimension shall be presented in a decimal format

with the value of the division expressed as:

(a) 1,2, or 5; or

(b) a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1 , 2, or 5; or

(c) a binary submultiple of a specific inch-pound unit of measure.

Examples: device divisions may be 0.01, 0.02, 0.05;

0.1, 0.2, or 0.5; 1, 2, or 5; 10, 20, 50, or 100; 0.5,

0.25, 0.125, 0.0625, etc.

S.l. 5.1. For Indirect Sales. - In addition to the values specified in S.I.5., the value of the division

may be 0.3 inch and 0.4 inch.

5.1. 6. Customer Indications and Recorded

Representations. - Multiple dimension measuring

systems must provide information as specified in Table

S.l. 6.

221
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5.1.7. Minimum Lengths. - The minimum length to be measured by a device is 12 d. The manufacturer

may specify a longer minimum length.

5.1.8. Indications Below Minimum and Above

Maximum. - Except for entries of tare, when objects

are smaller than the minimum dimensions identified in paragraph S.1.7. or larger than 105 percent of the maximum dimensions and/or volume marked on the device, the indicating or recording element shall either:

(a) not display or record any usable values, or

(b) identify the displayed or recorded representation

with an error indication.

5.1.9. Operating Temperature. - An indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any

usable values until the operating temperature necessary

for accurate measuring and a stable zero reference or ready condition have been attained.

5.1.10. Adjustable Components. - Adjustable

components shall be held securely in adjustment and,

except for a zeroing mechanism (when applicable),

shall be located within the housing of the element.

5.1.11. Provision for Sealing.

(a) A device shall be designed with provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be broken, or

for using other approved means of providing

security (e.g., data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of

the device can be made to any measuring element.

(b) Audit trails shall use the format set forth in Table S.1.11.

S.2. Design of Zero and Tare.

5.2.1. Zero or Ready Adjustment. - A device shall be equipped with means by which the zero reference or ready condition can be adjusted, or the zero reference or ready condition shall be automatically maintained.

The zero reference or ready control circuits shall be

interlocked so that their use is prohibited during

measurement operations.

5.2.2. Tare. - The tare function shall operate only in a backward direction (that is, in a direction of

underregistration) with respect to the zero reference or ready condition of the device. The value of the tare division or increment shall be equal to the division of

its respective axis on the device. There shall be a clear indication that tare has been taken.

5.3. Systems with Two or More Measuring Elements.

- A multiple dimension measuring system with a single

indicating or recording element, or a combination

indicating-recording element, that is coupled to two or more measuring elements with independent measuring

systems, shall be provided with means to prohibit the activation of any measuring element (or elements) not in use, and shall be provided with automatic means to indicate clearly and definitely which measuring element is in use.

5.4. Marking Requirements. [See also G-S.l.,

G-S.4., G-S.5.2.5., G-S.6., G-S.7., G-UR.2.1.1., and

G-UR.3.1.]

S.4.1. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices,

Main Elements, and Components of Measuring

Devices. - Multiple dimension measuring devices, main

elements of multiple dimension measuring devices

when not contained in a single enclosure for the entire dimension/volume measuring device, and other components shall be marked as specified in Table

5.4.1. a. and explained in the accompanying notes, Table S.4.1. b.

5.4.2. Location Of Marking Information. - The

required marking 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.

N. Notes

N.l. Test Procedures.

N.1.1. General. - The device shall be tested using

test standards and objects of known and stable dimensions.

N.1.2. Position Test.- Measurements are made using

different positions of the test object and consistent with

the manufacturer's specified use for the device.

N.l.3. Disturbance Tests, Field Evaluation. - A

disturbance test shall be conducted at a given

installation when the presence of disturbances specified

in T.7. has been verified and characterized if those

conditions are considered "usual and customary."

N.l. 4. Test Object Size. - Test objects may vary in size from the smallest dimension to the largest

dimension marked on the device, and for field

222
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table S.1.6 Information to be Provided

Situation =»

Information li

Scenario 1.1 Scenario 1.2 Scenario 1.3 Scenarios 2, 3, 4

Customer present

(printer only)

Customer present

(display only)

Customer present

(printer and display)

Customer is not present.

System ID P (only in multi- cvctAm ar\r*lipatirtnc^ D (only in multi- D or P (only in multi- P or A

Ohiprf IT) N/A N/A N/A P or A

Dimensions

and/or volume,

units

P D D and P P or A

Error indicator P D D and P N/A

Billing method P D D or P N/A

Billed weight P D D or P N/A

Total price P D D or P N/A

Dim weight (if applicable) P D D or P P or A

Scale weight

(if applicable)

P D D or P P or A

Tare (if applicable)P D D or P P or A

Oversized

indicator P D D or P P or A

Dimensions are of smallest box P or M D or M D or P or M P or A

Billing rate or

rate chart, conversion

factors

A A A P or A

D = DISPLAYED A = AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST (retained for at least 30 days after invoice) NA: NOT APPLICABLE

P = PRINTED M = MARKED ON THE DEVICE

verification examinations, shall be an integer multiple

of "d."

N.1.5. Digital Zero Stability. - A zero indication change test shall be conducted on all devices which

show a digital zero. After the removal of any test object, the zero indication shall not change. (Also see G-UR.4.2.)

T. Tolerances

T.l. Design. - The tolerance for a multiple dimension

measuring device is a performance requirement

independent of the design principle used.

T.2. Tolerance Application.

T.2.1. Type Evaluation. - For type evaluations, the tolerance values apply to tests within the influence

223
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table S.1.11. Categories of Devices and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Devices Method of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration. Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration parameters and one for configuration parameters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but access is controlled by physical hardware.

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote configuration

mode and record such message if capable of printing in this mode.

The hardware enabling access for remote communication must be at the device and

sealed using a physical seal or two event

counters: one for calibration parameters

and one for configuration parameters.

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access may be

unlimited or controlled through a software switch (e.g.,

password).

An event logger is required in the device; it must include an event counter (000 to 999),

the parameter ID, the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter.

A printed copy of the information must be

available through the device or through

another on-site device. The event logger

shall have a capacity to retain records equal

to ten times the number of scalable parameters in the device, but not more than

1000 records are required. (Note: Does

not require 1000 changes to be stored for

each parameter.)

T.5. Influence Factors. - The following factors are applicable to tests conducted under controlled conditions

only.

T.5.1. Temperature. - Devices shall satisfy the tolerance requirements under the following temperature

conditions.

T.5.1.1. Temperature Limits. - If not marked

on the device, the temperature limits shall be:

-10 °C to 40 °C (14 "¥ to 104 °F).

T.5.1.2. Minimum Temperature Range. - If temperature limits are specified for the device, the range shall be at least 30 °C or 54 °F.

T.5.1.3. Temperature Effect on Zero

Indication. - The zero indication shall not vary by more than one division per 5 °C (9 °F) change

in temperature.

T.5.2. Power Supply Voltage. - Devices shall satisfy the applicable tolerances when subjected to power

factor limits of temperature and power supply voltage

specified in T.5.1. and T.5.2.

T.2.2. Subsequent Verification. - For subsequent

verifications, the tolerance values apply regardless of

the influence factors in effect at the time of the

verification. (Also see G-N.2.)

T.2.3. Multi-interval (Variable Division-Value)

Devices. - For multi-interval devices, the tolerance values are based on the value of the device division of

the range in use.

T.3. Tolerance Values. - The maintenance and

acceptance tolerance values shall be + 1 d. These

tolerances apply regardless of the shape or material of the object being measured unless otherwise marked on the device.

T.4. Position Tests. - For a test standard measured

several times in different positions by the device all indications shall be within applicable tolerances.

224
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table S.4.1.a. Marking Requirements

To Be Marked With Multiple Dimension Measuring Equipment

Multiple

dimension

measuring

device and

indicating

element in same

Indicating

element not permanently

attached to multiple

dimension

element

Multiple

dimension

measuring

element not permanently

attached to the

iiiUlL'aliil^ element

Other

equipment (1)

Manufacturer's ID X X X X

Model Designation X X X X

Serial Number and Prefix x X X x(2)

Minimum and maximum dimensions for each side (3)

X X X

Value of measuring division, d X X X

Temperature Limits (4) X X X Minimum & Maximum speed (5) X X X

Special Application (6) X X X

Limitation of Use (7) X X X

supply voltage variation of -15 percent to +10 percent

of the voltage rating specified by the manufacturer.

T.6. Disturbances, Field Evaluation. - The

following requirements apply to devices when subjected

to disturbances which may normally exist in the surrounding environment. These disturbances include

radio frequency interference (RFI), electromagnetic

interference (EMI), acoustic changes, ambient light

emissions, etc. The difference between the measurement indication with the disturbance and the measurement indication without the disturbance shall not exceed one division "d" or the equipment shall:

(a) blank the indication, or

(b) provide an error message, or

(c) the indication shall be so completely unstable that

it could not be interpreted, or transmitted into memory or to a recording element, as a correct measurement value.

UR. User Requirements

UR.l. Selection Requirements. - Equipment shall be

suitable for the service in which it is used with respect to elements of its design, including but not limited to, its maximum capacity, value of the division, minimum

capacity, and computing capability.

UR.1.1. Value of the Indicated and Recorded Division. - The value of the division recorded shall be the same as the division value indicated.

UR.2. Installation Requirements.

UR.2.1. Supports. - A device that is portable and is being used on a counter, table, or the floor shall be so positioned that it is firmly and securely supported.

UR.2.2. Foundation, Supports, and Clearance. - The foundations and support of a device installed in a fixed location shall be such as to provide strength,

rigidity, and permanence of all components, and

clearance shall be provided around all live parts to the extent that no contacts may result when the measuring

element is empty, nor throughout the performance

225
specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table S.4.1.b

Notes for Table S.4.1.a.

1. Necessary to the dimension and/or volume measuring system, but having no effect on the measuring value, e.g. auxiliary remote display, keyboard, etc.

2. Modules without "intelligence" on a modular system (e.g., printer, keyboard module, etc.) are not required to have serial numbers.

3. The minimum and maximum dimensions can be shown as follows: Length: min. max.

Width: min. max.

Height: min. max.

4. Required if the range is other than -10 to 40 -C (14 to 104 "F),

5. If the multiple dimension measuring device requires that the object or device be moved relative to one another, the minimum and maximum

speeds are marked which enable the device to make measurements that are within the applicable tolerances shall be marked.

6. A device designed for a special application rather than general use shall be conspicuously marked with suitable words visible to the operator and the customer restricting its use to that application.

7. Materials, shapes, structures, or object orientations that are inappropriate for the device or those that are appropriate.

range of the device such that the operation or performance of the device is adversely affected.

UR.2.3. Protection From Environmental Factors. - The indicating and measuring elements of a device

shall be adequately protected from environmental

factors such as wind, weather, and RFI that may

adversely affect the operation or performance of the device.

UR.3. Use Requirements.

UR.3.1. Minimum and Maximum Measuring

Ranges. - A device shall not be used to measure

objects smaller than the minimum or larger than the maximum dimensions marked on the device.

UR.3.2. Special Designs. - A multiple dimension

measuring device designed and marked for a special

application shall not be used for other than its intended purpose.

UR.4. Maintenance Requirements.

UR.4.1. Zero or Ready Condition. - The zero-setting

adjustment of a multiple dimension measuring device

shall be maintained so that, with no object in or on the measuring element, the device shall indicate or record

a zero or ready condition.

UR.4.2. Level Condition. - If a multiple dimension

measuring device is equipped with a level-condition

indicator, the device shall be maintained in a level condition.

UR.4.3. Device Modification. - The measuring

capabilities of a device shall not be changed from the manufacturer's design unless the modification has been

approved by the manufacturer and the weights and

measures authority having jurisdiction over the device.

Deflnitions.

billed weight. The weight used in the computation of

the freight, postal, or storage charge, whether actual weight or dimensional weight.

"d", dimension division value. The smallest increment

that the device displays for any axis and length of object

in that axis.

dimensional weight (or dim. weight). A value computed

by dividing the object's volume by a conversion factor; it may be used for the calculation of charges when the value

is greater than the actual weight.

measuring element. That portion of a complete device

which does not include the indicating element.

226
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendix D (Item 360-2)

Proposed Code for Automatic Weighing Systems

This tentative Code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be enforced. The requirements are designed for study prior to the development and adoption of a final Code for Automatic Weighing Systems. If upgraded to become a permanent code, all requirements, except those for tolerances, will be non-retroactive as of

the effective date of the permanent code; tolerance requirements will apply retroactively as of the effective date of

the permanent code.

A. Application

A.l. - This code applies to devices used to weigh

packages of food products or to fill packages while the object is in motion.

This includes:

(a) Weigh-labelers

(b) Automatic checkweighers

A.2. - This code does not apply to:

(a) Belt-conveyor scales

(b) Railway Track Scales

(c) Monorail Scales

(d) Devices that measure quantity on a time basis

(e) Controllers or other auxiliary devices except as they

may effect the weighing performance

A.3. - Also see General Code requirements.

S. Specifications

S.l. Design of Indicating and Recording Elements and

of Recorded Representations.

S.1.1. Zero Indication.

(a) A weigh-labeler shall be equipped with an

indicating or recording element. It shall either indicate or record a zero-balance condition and an

out-of-balance condition on both sides of zero.

(b) An automatic checkweigher may be equipped with

an indicating or recording element.

(c) A zero-balance condition may be indicated by

other than a continuous digital zero indication,

provided that effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing operation or to return to a continuous digital indication when the device is in an out-of-balance condition.

S.l. 1.1. Digital Indicating Elements.

(a) A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is within + Vi the value of the scale division.

(b) A digital indicating device shall either automatically maintain a "center of zero" condition to + Va scale division or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental "center-of- zero" indicator that defines a zero-balance

condition to + U of a scale division or less.

(c) Verification of the accuracy of the center of

zero indication to + 14 of a scale division or

less during dynamic operation is not required on automatic checkweighers.

5.1.2. Value of Division Units. - The value of a division "d" expressed in a unit of weight shall be

equal to:

(a) 1, 2, or 5; or

(b) a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5;

S.l. 2.1. Weight Units. - An Automatic

weighing system shall indicate weight values using only a single unit of measure.

5.1. 3. Provision for Sealing.

For Automatic Checkweighers: Security seals are not required in field applications where it would prohibit an authorized user from having access to the calibration functions of the device.

For all other devices: The device shall be designed

with provision(s) for applying a security seal that must

be broken, or for using other approved means of

227
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

providing security (e.g., data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change

that detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of

the device can be made to any electronic mechanism.

S.1.4. Audit Trail. - Audit trails shall use the format set forth in Table 2.

S. 1.5. Automatic Calibration - A device may be

fitted with an automatic or a semi-automatic calibration mechanism. This mechanism shall be incorporated

inside the device. After sealing, neither the mechanism nor the calibration process shall facilitate fraud.

S.1.6. Adjustable Components. - An adjustable

component shall be held securely in adjustment and,

except for a zero-load balance mechanism, shall be

located within the housing of the element.

S.2. Design of Zero and Tare mechanisms.

5.2.1. Zero Load adjustment.

5.2.1.1. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism. - Except for automatic checkweighers, under normal

operating conditions the maximum load that can be

"rezeroed," when either placed on or removed from

the platform all at once, shall be 1.0 scale division.

5.2.1.2. Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism. - Except

for automatic checkweighers, an initial zero-setting

mechanism shall not zero a load in excess of

20 percent of the maximum capacity of the Automatic weighing system unless tests show that the scale meets all applicable tolerances for any

amount of initial load compensated by this device

within the specified range.

5.2.2. Tare. - On any automatic weighing system the value of the tare division shall be equal to the value of

the-division. The tare mechanism shall operate only in a backward direction (i.e., in a direction of

underregistration) with respect to the zero-load balance

condition of the automatic weighing system. A device

designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic clearing of tare until a complete transaction has been indicated.

Note: On a computing scale, this requires the input of

a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium.

Other devices require a complete weighing operation,

including tare, net, and gross weight determination.

5.3.1. Multiple Range and Multi-Interval

Automatic Weighing System. The value of "e" shall be equal to the value of "d."

5.3.2. Load Cell Verification interval value. - The

relationship of the value for the load cell verification

scale interval, Vn,in, to the scale division, d, for a

specific scale installation shall be: d

where N is the number of load cells in the scale.

Note: When the value of the scale division, d, is different than the verification scale division, e, for the scale, the value of e must be used in the formula

above.

S.3.3. - For automatic checkweighers the value of "e"

shall be specified by the manufacturer and may be

larger than "d," but in no case can "e" be more than

10 times the value of "d."

S.4. Weight Indicators, Weight Displays, Reports,

and Labels.

S.4.L Weight Units. - An indicating or recording

element shall indicate weight values using only a single

unit of measure.

5.4.2. Additional Digits in Displays. - Auxiliary

digital displays that provide additional digits for use

during performance evaluation may be included on

automatic checkweighers. However, in cases where

these indications are not valid for determining the

actual weight of a package (e.g., only appropriate for use in statistical process control programs by users)

they shall be clearly and distinctly differentiated from

valid weight displays by indicating them to the user. For example, the additional digits may be differentiated by color, partially covered by placing Crosshatch

overlays on the display, or made visible only after the operator presses a button or turns a key to set the device in a mode which enables the additional digits.

5.4.3. Weight Indication. - An indicating element

equipped with other than automatic recording elements

shall be equipped with effective means to permit the recording of weight values only when the indication is stable within plus or minus 1 scale division. The values recorded shall be within applicable tolerances.

5.4.4. Over Capacity Indication. - An indicating or

recording element shall not display nor record any

228
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

values when the scale capacity is exceeded by 9 scale divisions.

S.4.5. Label Printer. - A device that produces a printed ticket to be used as the label for a package

shall print all values digitally and of such size, style of

type, and color as to be clear and conspicuous on the

label.

5.5. Accuracy Class.

S.5.1. Marking. - Weigh-labelers and automatic

checkweighers shall be class III devices and marked

accordingly.

5.6. Divisions. - The number of divisions for device

capacity is designated by the manufacturer and shall comply with parameters shown in Table 1

5.7. Sealing Requirements.

5.8. Marking Requirements. [See also G-S.l.,

G-S.4., G-S.6., G-S.7., G-U .2.1.1., and UR.3.4.1.]

5.8.1. Location Of Marking Information. - Automatic weighing systems that are not permanently

attached to an indicating element, and for which the load-receiving element is the only part of the weighing/load-receiving element visible after

installation, may have the marking information

required in G-S.l. of the General Code and Table 3. a. and marking notes of the Automatic weighing system

Code located in an area that is accessible only through

the use of a tool; provided that the information is easily accessible (e.g., the information may appear on

the junction box under an access plate). The

identification information for these automatic weighing

systems shall be located on the weighbridge (loadreceiving element) near the point where the signal leaves the weighing element or beneath the nearest access cover.

5.8.2. Main Elements, and Components of

Weighing Systems or Weighing Systems. - Main

elements, and components of weighing for automatic

weighing systems when not contained in a single

enclosure for the entire automatic weighing system, or weighing systems, load cells for which Certificates of

Conformance (CC) have been issued under the National Type Evaluation Program, and other equipment necessary to a weighing system, but having no metrological effect on the weighing system, shall be

marked as specified in Table 3. a. and explained in the accompanying notes.

N. Notes

N.l. Test Requirements for Automatic Weighing

Systems.

N.1.1. Test Pucks and Packages. - Test pucks and

packages shall be:

(a) Representative of the type, size, and weight ranges

to be weighed on the device; constructed of a solid, constant mass, non-hygroscopic, non-electrostatic, and

non-magnetic type of material.

(b) Constructed so that metal-to-metal contact is avoided.

(c) Be stable while in motion, thus the length and

width of a puck or package should be greater than its height.

(d) For type evaluation the manufacturer shall supply

the test pucks or packages for each weight range of

testing.

N.l.2. Accuracy of Test Pucks or Packages. - The

error in any test puck or package shall not exceed onefourth (1/4) of the acceptance tolerance. If packages

are used to conduct field tests on automatic weighing

systems, the package weights shall be determined on a

reference scale or balance with an inaccuracy that does

not exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the smallest tolerance that can be applied to the device under test.

N.l.3. Verification (Testing) Standards. - Field standard weights used in verifying weighing devices

shall comply with requirements of NIST Handbook

105-1 (Class F) or the tolerances expressed in Fundamental Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., onethird of the smallest tolerance applied.)

N.l. 4. Label Printing. - If an automatic

checkweigher prints a label containing weight

information that will be used in a commercial

transaction, it must conform to all the requirements

specified for weigh labelers so that the printed ticket meets appropriate requirements.

N.2. Test Requirements for Automatic Weighing

Systems.

N.2.1. Tests Loads. - A performance evaluation shall consist of four separate test runs conducted at different

test loads according Table 5:

229
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 1 Parameters for Accuracy Classes

Number of

divisions (n)

Class Value of the verification division (d or e) Minimum Maximum

SI Units

III

0.1 to 2g inclusive 100 10,000

equal to or greater than 5g 500 10,000

INCH-POUND Units

III 0.0002 lb to 0.005 lb, inclusive 100 10,000

0.005 oz to 0.125 oz, inclusive 100 10,000

equal to or greater than 0.01 lbs 500 10,000

equal to or greater than 0.25 oz 500 10,000

For Class III devices, the value of "e" is specified by the manufacturer as marked on the device; "d" shall not be smaller than 0.1 "e." "e" shall be differentiated from "d" by size shape, or color.

N.2.2. Influence Factor Testing. - Influence factor

testing shall be conducted statically.

N.3. Test Procedures - Weigh Labelers. - If the device

is designed for use in static weighing, it shall be tested

statically using mass standards. Note: If the device is designed for only dynamic weighing it shall only be tested dynamically.

N.3.1. Laboratory - Static Tests.

N.3.1.1. Increasing-Load Test. - The

increasing-load test shall be conducted with the test loads approximately centered on the load-receiving

element of the scale.

N.3.1.2. Decreasing-Load Test. - The

decreasing-load test shall be conducted with the test loads approximately centered on the load- receiving

element of the scale.

N.3.1.3. Shift Test. - To determine the effect of

off-center loading, a test load equal to one-half (Vi)

maximum capacity shall be placed in the center of

each of the four points equidistant between the

center and front, left, back and right edges of the load receiver.

N.3.1.4. Discrimination Test. - A discrimination

test shall be conducted with the weighing device in equilibrium at zero load and at maximum test load,

and under controlled conditions in which environmental factors are reduced to the extent that they

will not affect the results obtained. This test is conducted from just below the lower edge of the zone of uncertainty for increasing load tests, or from

just above the upper edge of the zone of uncertainty

for decreasing-load tests.

N.3.1.5. Zero-Load Balance Change. - A

zero-load balance change test shall be conducted on

all automatic weighing systems after the removal of

any test load. The zero-load balance should not change by more than the minimum tolerance

applicable. (Also see G-UR.4.2.)

N.3.1.6. Influence Factor Testing. - Influence

factor testing shall be conducted.

230
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 2 Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Method of Sealmg

Category 1 : No Remote configuration capability Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration parameters and one for configuration

parameters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but access

is controlled by physical hardware

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote

configuration mode and record such message if capable

of printing in this mode.

The hardware enabling access for remote communication must be at the device and sealed using a physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration parameters and one for configuration parameters.

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access may

be unlimited or controlled through a software switch

(e.g., password)

An event logger is required in the device; it must

include an event counter (000 to 999), the parameter

ID, the date and time of the change, and the new value

of the parameter. A printed copy of the information must be available through the device or through another

on-site device. The event logger shall have a capacity

to retain records equal to ten time the number of

sealable parameters in the device, but not more than

1000 records are required. (Note: Does not require

1000 changes to be stored for each parameter.)

Figure 2

N.3.2. Laboratory - Dynamic Tests. - The device

shall be tested at the highest speed for each weight

range using standardized test pucks or packages. Test runs shall be conducted using four test loads as described in Table 5. Each test load shall be run a minimum of 10 consecutive times.

N.3.3.2. Dynamic Tests. - The device shall be

tested at the normal operating speed using-packages.

Test runs should be conducted using at least two test loads distributed over its normal weighing range

(e.g., at the lowest and highest ranges in which the device is typically operated.) Each test load should

be run a minimum of 10 consecutive times.

N.3.2. 1. Shift Test. - To determine the effect of

eccentric loading, for devices without a means to align packages, a test load equal to One-third (1/3)

maximum capacity shall be passed over the load

receiver or transport belt (1) half-way between the center and front edge, and (2) halfway between the center and back edge.

N.3.3. Field Test Procedures

N.3.3.1. Static Tests. - If the automatic weighing

system is designed to operate statically, and used in that manner, during normal use operation, it shall be

tested statically using mass standards. The device

shall not be tested statically if it is used only

dynamically

N.4. Test Procedures - Automatic Checkweigher

N.4.1. Laboratory - Static Tests. - If the scale is designed to operate statically during normal user

operation, it shall be tested statically using the applicable weigh labeler requirements.

N.4.2. Laboratory - Dynamic Tests. - The device

shall be tested athe highest speed in each weight range

using standardized test pucks or packages. Test runs

shall be conducted using four test loads. The number

of consecutive test weighments shall be as described in Table 4.

231
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 3.a. Marking Requirements

Weighing

Equipment

To Be

Marked With

Weighing,

loadreceiving, and

indicating element in same housing

Indicating element not permanently

attached to weighing and

load- receiving element

Weighing and

load- receiving element not permanently

attached to indicating element

Load >

cell with CC

(11)

Other

equip- ment or

device

(10)

Manufacturer's

ID (1)

X X X X

Model

Designation( 1

X X X X

Serial Number

and Prefix(2)

X X X X

Accuracy Class

(14)

X X (8) X X X

Nominal

Capacity(3)(15)

X X X X

Value of

Division, d (3)

X X x(13)

AY A Temperature

Limits (5)

X X X X

Special

Application (11)

X X X

Maximum

Number of

"max (6)

X (8) X X

IVllllllIlUlll Verification

Division

(emm)

X

"S" or "M" (7) X

Direction of

Loading (13)

X

Minimum Dead

Load

X

Maximum

Capacity (Max)

X X

Minimum

Capacity (Min)

X

Safe Load Limit X Load Cell Verification

Interval {v^J

X

^ote: See Table 3.b. for applicable notes.

232
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 3.b.

1. Manufacturer's identification and model

designation. (SeeG-S.l.)

2. Serial number and prefix. (SeeG-S.!.)

3. The nominal capacity and value of the scale automatic weighing system division shall be

shown together (e.g., 50 000 x 5 Kg, or 30 x

0.01 lb) adjacent to the weight display when the nominal capacity and value of the scale automatic weighing system division are not immediately apparent. Each seal© division

value or weight unit shall be marked on

variable-division value or division-unit scales automatic weighing systems.

4. Required only if different from "d."

5 . Required only on automatic weighing systems if the range is other than -10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F

to 104 °F).

6. This value may be stated on load cells in units of 1000; (e.g., n: 10 is 10 000 divisions.)

7. Denotes compliance for single or multiple load

cell applications.

8. An indicating element not permanently attached

to a weighing element shall be clearly and

permanently marked with the accuracy

Class III, and the maximum number of

divisions, nmax.

9. Necessary to the weighing system but having no

metrological effect, e.g., auxiliary remote

display, keyboard, etc.

N,4.3. Field Test Procedures.

10. The markings may be either on the load cell or

in an accompanying document; except that, if an accompanying document is provided, the serial number shall appear both on the load cell and in the document. The manufacturer's name or trademark, the model designation, and

identifying symbol for the serial number shall also be marked both on the load cell and in any accompanying document.

11. An automatic weighing system 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.

12. Required if the direction of loading the load cell

is not obvious.

13. Serial number and prefix (SeeG-S.l) Modules

without "intelligence" on a modular system

(e.g., printer, keyboard module, cash drawer,

and secondary display in a point-of-sale system)

are not required to have serial numbers.

14. The accuracy Class of a device shall be marked on the device with the appropriate designation.

15. The nominal capacity shall be conspicuously

marked on any automatic-indicating or recording automatic weighing system so constructed that the capacity of the indicating or recording element, or elements, is not immediately apparent.

T. Tolerances

N.4.3.1. Static Tests. - If the scale is designed to operate statically during normal user operation, it shall be tested statically according to section N.3.I..

N.4.3.2. Dynamic Tests. - The device shall be

tested dynamically at the highest normal operating

speed using packages at two test loads distributed over its normal weighing range. The number of

consecutive weighments shall be one-half (Vi) of

those specified in Table 4, but not less than 10.

T.l. Principles.

T.1.1. Design. - The tolerance for a weighing device

is a performance requirement independent of the design

principle used.

T.l.2. Scale Division. - The tolerance for a weighing

device is related to the value of the scale division (d) or the value of the verification scale division (e) and is generally expressed in terms of d or e. The random

233
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

tolerance for automatic checkweighers is expressed in terms of Maximum Allowable Variance (MAV).

Table 4. Number of Sample Weights per Test

for Automatic Checkweighers

Weighing Range m = mass

of test Load

Number of

samples weights

per test

20 divisions

^ m <. 10 kg

20 divisions <. m <. 22 lb 60

10 kg <m <. 25 kg

22 lb <m<.55Ib

32

25 kg <m j< 100 kg

55 lb <m <. 220 lb

20

100 kg (220 lb)<m 10

Table 5. Test Loads

At or near minimum capacity

At or near maximum capacity

At two (2) critical points between

minimum and maximum capacity

Test may be conducted at other loads if the

device is intended for use at other specific

capacities

T.2. Tolerance Application.

T.2.1. General. - The tolerance values are positive

(+) and negative (-) with the weighing device adjusted

to zero at no load. When tare is in use, the tolerance values are applied from the tare zero reference; the tolerance values apply to certified test loads only.

T.2.2. Type Evaluation Examinations. - For type

evaluation examinations, the tolerance values apply to increasing and decreasing load tests within the temperature, power supply, and barometric pressure

limits specified in T.7.

T.2.3. Multiple Range and Multi-Interval Automatic

Weighing System - For multiple range and multiinterval devices, the tolerance values are based on the value of the scale division of the range in use.

T.3. Tolerance Values.

T.3.^ 1 . Tolerance Values - Weigh Labeler.

T.3.^1.1. Static Tests - Tolerance values shall be as specified in Table 6.

T.3.^1 2. Dynamic Tests - Maintenance Tolerance

values shall be as specified in Table 6.

Table 6 Class III - Tolerances in Divisions (d) Maintenance 1 2 3 5 Acceptance 0.5 1 1.5 2.5 Class Test Load in Divisions

III 0 - 500501 - 2000

2001 - 4000

4001+

T.3.2. Tolerance Values - Automatic

Checkweighers.

T.3.2.1. Lab Tests.

Static Tests - The systematic error for each

influence factor test run must be within the acceptance tolerances for the test load as specified in Table 6.

Dynamic Tests - (a) The systematic error for each

test run must be within the acceptance tolerances for the test load as specified in Table 5.

(b) The standard deviation of the results shall not exceed one-ninth (1/9) of the Maximum Allowable

Variation (MAV) for specific package weights (3 standard deviations caimot exceed one-third (1/3) of

the MAV value) as required in NIST Handbook 133

- Table 2-12. This value does not change regardless

of whether acceptance, or maintenance tolerances

are being applied to the device under test.

T.3.2.2. Field Tests. -

Static Tests - Requirements for the systematic error

shall not be applied during field tests.

Dynamic Tests - The standard deviation of the results cannot exceed one-ninth (1/9) of the Maximum

Allowable Variation for specific package weights (3 standard deviations cannot exceed one-third (1/3) of the MAV value) as required in NIST Handbook 133 - Table 2-12. This value does not change regardless of

whether acceptance, or maintenance tolerances are being applied to the device under test.

234
specifications and Tolerances Committee

T.4. Agreement of Indications. - In the case of a weighing system equipped with more than one indicating

element or indicating element and recording element

combination, the difference in the weight value indications of any load shall not be greater than the absolute value of

the applicable tolerance for that load, and shall be within

tolerance limits.

T.5. Repeatability. - The results obtained from several weighings of the same load under reasonably static test conditions shall agree within the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance for that load, and shall be within

applicable tolerances.

T.6. Discrimination. - A test load equivalent to 1.4 d

shall cause a change in the indicated or recorded value of

at least 2.0d. This requires the zone of uncertaint>' to be

not greater than 0.3 d (See N.3.1.4.)

T.7. Influence Factors. - The following factors are applicable to tests conducted under controlled conditions

only.

T.7.1. Temperature. - Devices shall satisfy the tolerance requirements imder the following temperature

conditions:

T.7.1.1. - If not specified in the operating

instructions or if not marked on the device, the temperature limits shall be: -10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F

to 104 °F)

T.7.1.2. - If temperature limits are specified for the device, the range shall be at least 30 °C (54 °F).

T.7.1. 3. Temperature Effect on Zero-Load

Balance. - The zero-load indication shall not vary by more than one division per 5 °C (9 °F) change

in temperature.

T.7.1. 4. Operating Temperature. - The indicating or recording element shall not display nor record

an\- usable values until the operating temperature

necessan-' for accurate weighing and a stable zero balance condition have been attained.

T.7.2. Barometric Pressure. - The zero indication

shall not vary by more than one scale division for a change in barometric pressure of 1 kPa over the total barometric pressure range of 95 kPa to 105 kPa (28 in

to 31 in of Hg).

T.7.3. Electric Power Supply.

T.7.3.1. Power Supply, Voltage and Frequency.

(a) Weighing devices that operate using alternating current must perform within the conditions

defined in paragraphs T.3. through T.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.

(b) Battery operated instruments shall not indicate nor record values outside the applicable tolerance limits when battery power output is excessive or deficient.

T.7.3. 2. Power Interruption. - A power

interruption shall not cause an indicating or recording element to display or record any values

outside the applicable tolerance limits.

T.8. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) and Other

Electromagnetic Interference Susceptibility. - The

difference between the weight indication with the disturbance and the weight indication without the disturbance shall not exceed one division (d) or the equipment shall:

(a) blank the indication, or

(b) provide an error message, or

(c) the indication shall be so completely unstable that

it could not be interpreted, or transmitted into memory or to a recording element, as a correct measurement value.

UR. User Requirements

UR.l. Selection Requirements. - Equipment shall be

suitable for the service in which it is used with respect to elements of its design, including but not limited to, its capacity, number of scale divisions, value of the scale division or verification scale division, minimum capacity,

and computing capability.

UR.1.1. General. - Automatic Weighing Systems

shall be designated by the manufacturer for that service.

UR.l.2. Value of the Indicated and Recorded Scale

Division. - The value of the division as recorded shall be the same as the division value indicated.

235
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.2. Installation Requirements.

UR.2.1. Protection From Environmental Factors. - The indicating elements, the lever system or load cells, and the load-receiving element of a permanently

installed scale, and the indicating elements of a scale not intended to be permanently installed, shall be

adequately protected from environmental factors such

as wind, weather, and RFI that may adversely affect the operation or performance of the device.

UR.2.2. Foundation, Supports, and Clearance. - The foundation and supports of any scale installed in a

fixed location shall be such as to provide strength,

rigidity, and permanence of all components, and

clearance shall be provided around all live parts to the extent that no contacts may result when the load-receiving element is empty, nor throughout the weighing range of the scale.

UR.2.3. Entry and Departure from weighing area.

- The belt or other conveyance that introduces the weighed load to the weighing zone and that carries the weighed load away from the weighing zone shall be

maintained per the manufactures recommendations.

UR.3. Use Requirements.

UR.3.1. Minimum Load. - The minimum load as specified by the manufacturer, but not less than 20

divisions since the use of a device to weigh light loads

is likely to result in relatively large errors.

UR.3.2. Maximum Load. - An -automatic weighing

system shall not be used to weigh a load of more than

the maximum capacity of the automatic weighing

system.

UR.3.3. Special Designs. - An automatic weighing

system designed and marked for a special application

shall not be used for other than its intended purpose.

UR.3.4. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries. - Manual entries are permitted only when a device or system is generating labels for standard weight

packages.

UR.4. Maintenance Requirements.

UR.4.1. Balance Condition. - If an automatic

weighing system is equipped with a zero-load display, the zero-load adjustment of a automatic weighing

system shall be maintained so that the device shall indicate or record a zero balance condition.

UR.4.2. Level Condition. - If an automatic weighing

system is equipped with a level-condition indicator, the automatic weighing system shall be maintained in

level.

UR.4.3. - Automatic Weighing System Modification.

- The length or the width of the load-receiving element

of an automatic weighing system shall not be

increased beyond the manufacturer's design dimension, nor shall the capacity of an- automatic weighing system

be increased beyond its design capacity by replacing or modifying the original primary indicating or recording

element with one of a higher capacity, except when the modification has been approved by competent

engineering authority, preferably that of the engineering department of the manufacturer of the automatic weighing system, and by the weights and

measures authority having jurisdiction over the automatic weighing system.

D. Definition of Terms

D.L Automatic Weighing System (AWS). - An

automatic weighing system is a weighing device that, in combination with other hardware and/or software

components, automatically weighs discrete items. Examples include, but are not limited to, weigh labelers and checkweighers.

D.Ll. Automatic Checkweigher. - A dynamic

automatic weighing system used to subdivide items of

different weights into one or more subgroups, such as identifying packages that have acceptable or unacceptable fill levels. These systems may be used to

fill standard packages for compliance with net weight

automatic weighing system and incorporate conveyor

systems.

D.L2. Weigh Labeler. - An automatic weighing

system that determines the weight of a package and

prints a label or other document bearing a weight

declaration for each discrete item (usually a label also includes unit and total price declarations). Typically,

this type of weighing system determines the weight of

packages dynamically, but may also include a that is incorporated in a conveyor system that weighs

packages in a static weighing mode. Weigh/labelers

are sometimes used to weigh and label standard and

random packages (also called "Prepackaging Scales").

236
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

D.2. Terms used in the Testing of Automatic

Weighing Systems.

D.2.1. Package Rate. - PPM - Packages per minute.

D.2.2. Test Puck. - Metal or plastic object used to simulate a package. Pucks can be made in a variety of

dimensions and have different weights to represent a wide range of package sizes. Metal versions may be

covered with rubber cushions to eliminate the

possibility of damage to weighing and handling

equipment. The puck mass is adjusted to specific accuracy so the pucks can be used to conduct

performance tests.

D.2.3. Average (systematic) Error (x ). - The mean

value of the error (of indication) for a number of

consecutive automatic weighings of a load, or loads,

passed over the load receiving element (e.g.,

weightable), shall be expressed mathematically as:

_ -_ X n

where:

X = error of a load indication n = the number of loads

D.2.4. Random Error(s). - The standard deviation of

the error (of indication) for a number of consecutive

automatic weighings of a load, or loads, passed over

the load receptor, shall be expressed mathematically as:

n-l

where:

X = error of a load indication n — the number of loads

237

Education Committee

Report of the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Maxwell H. Gray, Chairman

Chief, Weights and Measures and Consumer Affairs Florida Department of Agriculture

Tallahassee, Florida

Reference -

Key No.

400

This Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs for the 80th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures consists of the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16,

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

Table A identifies all of the issues contained in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number.

Voting items are marked with a "V" after the item number. Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number

are informational items.

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 its entirety.

Included in the report are the proposed work plans for the Examination Procedure Outlines (EPO's) and training module

revision. This plan has been designed to maximize use of the remaining NIST grant funds (see Item 402). Items 402-5

and 402-8 were the only voting items and both relate to the National Training Program. The two items were

vmanimously passed by the NCWM during the 80th Annual Conference.

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

400 I Introduction 241

401 I Program Evaluation Work Group 242

402 I National Training Program (NTP) 242

402-1 I State Training Questioimaire 243

402-2 I Associate Membership Scholarship Fund-Training Delivery 244

402-3 I Redesign of the NTP's Training on Scales 244

402-4 I NCWM Training Modules Update and Maintenance 244

402-5 V Module Certification 246

402-6 I Organization and Utilization of Certified Trainers 246

239
Education Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

402-7 I Industry Training 247

402-8 V NTP Course Renumbering System 248

403 I Legislative Strategy 249

404 I Weights and Measures Directors' Roundtables 250

405 I Public Affairs 251

405-1 I Industry Relations 251

405-2 I Public Relations 251

405-3 I Marketing Weights and Measures in the United States 251

405-4 I Advertisement of the 80th NCWM 1995 - Portland, Maine 252

406 I Safety Information Clearing House 252

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

A. Program Evaluation Work Group 401 253

B. NTP Certification Summary 402 256

C. NTP Registry Summary of Activity 402 257

D. State Training Questioimaire 402-1 266

E. Associate Membership Scholarship

Fund Training Delivery 402-2 268

F. Oregon's Request for Restructure of

the NTP's Training on Scales 402-4 269

G. Anonymous Accident/Incident Report Form

(Draft for Completion and Return) 406 270

240
Education Committee

Table C

Voting Results

Reference House of State House of Delegates Results Key No. Representatives

Yes No Yes No

402-5 41 0 45 0 Passed

402-8 40 0 45 0 Passed

400 (in entirety) 42 0 47 0 Passed

Details of All Items

(in order of Reference Key Number)

400 I Introduction

The Committee reviewed and discussed the following:

1 . The final report of the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee to the 37th Aimual Technical

Meeting of the Western Weights and Measures Association (October 1994).

2. The final report of the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Conmiittee to the 49th Annual Conference

of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (October 1994).

3. The final report of the Administration and Public Affairs Committee to the Central Weights and Measures

Association (CWMA Interim Meeting, September 1994).

4. The final report of the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs to the Central Weights and Measures

Association (April 1995).

5. The final report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs of the Northeastern Weights

and Measures Association (May 1995).

6. The shift in committee responsibilities to provide leadership to the weights and measures community through

development and implementation of proactive strategies.

The positions taken by the regional associations on specific items appearing in this report are noted as part of the discussion of the items. The Committee would like to thank all of the regional associations for their valuable input.

241
Education Committee

401 I Program Evaluation Work Group

The inaugural meeting of the Program Evaluation Work Group was held in Dallas, Texas, December 12 and 13, 1994,

chaired by Darrell Guensler, California. The full report of the group appears in Appendix A. As an initial step toward

its first goal, five weights and measures jurisdictions (California, Connecticut, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas) have

agreed to participate in a program evaluation pilot project. The project is designed to demonstrate that a uniform core of program data can be collected into a centralized database, communicated across jurisdictional lines, and finally

analyzed, all through computer automation. The working group's initial focus will be to determine a core of data that each jurisdiction must collect, then establish uniform data collection procedures. The design of the database will include

customization of die computer software to permit individual jurisdictions to retrieve data which meets their special local needs. Ultimately, the collected data will provide performance, cost, and marketplace equity and trend indicators, as well as information on program benefits to consumers and businesses.

Industry members have volunteered to identify sources of marketplace production figures which will be utilized for later analysis of the economic impact of weights and measures activities.

Gilles Vinet, Industry Canada, presented an overview of the Canadian Weights and Measures Inspection Information

System. The new system is expected to go on-line in April 1995, thereby giving Industry Canada headquarters, regions,

and districts access to each regional database. Captured information includes: time utilization for all staff, device

inspection, commodity inspection, and standards calibration. Local inspectors will enter report data directly on personal

computers; that data will be imported to any region, district, or headquarters. The information can then be printed

directly in reports, on screen, or on file, for retrieval in Lotus, Excel, Quattro Pro, etc. The captured data ultimately

will be used for program planning and evaluation at the headquarters, regional, and district levels.

402 I National Training Program (NTP)

A summary of current participation by individual jurisdictions in the NTP Certification Program is provided in Appendix

B. Appendix C delivers a summary of activity and information in the NTP Registry from 1985 through June 1995.

The status of the flmds remaining under the second grant provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology : (NIST) to the NCWM for the development of training materials for weights and measures officials is as follows (as of

June 30, 1995):

Net outlays to date: $ 84, 1 15.72

Total grant funds authorized: 180,000.00

Balance of funds: 95,884.28

The Committee is investigating options available for the most effective use of remaining grant funds. Areas under

consideration include: redesign of NTP's training on scales (see Items 402-3 and 402-8), development of short courses, correspondence courses, interactive videos, maintenance and updating of existing training materials, updating NCWM

Publication 12, Examination Procedure Outlines (EPO's), and to foster implementation of a mentoring program for

identified trainers as referred to in Item 402-6.

The following is a proposed work plan which will effectively use grant funds for updating the Examination Procedure

Outlines (EPO's) and for module revision:

Proposed Work Plan for EPO and Module Revisions

Examination Procedure Outlines:

1. Contract to prepare a complete revision of NCWM Publication 12 Examination Procedure Outlines for Weighing

and Mesuring Devices

/ Update the EPOs to reflect the 1996 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 . / Revise the publication to follow the detailed format of a NCWM Publication 14 Checklist.

242
Education Committee

/ Consider using two contractors: one for scales and weighing systems, and one for measuring devices. / This work is needed to assist the Program Evaluation Working Group in developing easy to follow test procedures.

NCWM Training Modules:

1. At such time as they are revised, amend all modules to reflect the NTP course renumbering as adopted by the NCWM.

2. Contract to prepare a complete revision of NCWM Module 10 (601), "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged

Goods":

/ Update the module to reflect the Fourth Edition of NIST Handbook 133. / Have the contractor attend an histructor Training School to gain an understanding of the course material and

how it is presented.

/ Revise the format to allow the course to be taught in two-parts.

Part 1. Items Labeled by Weight:

Introduction Forms

Legal Requirements Terms and Definitions

Sample Collection Random and Standard Packages

Equipment Requirements Etc.

Part 2. Items Labeled by Volume, Length, and Area

Gravimetric Test Procedures

/ Update all text and graphics and develop new quizzes and examinations.

/ Eliminate the separate manual for instructors by preparing a small, easy to use instructor's guide that does

not duplicate material in the inspector's manual.

3. Contract to prepare a complete revision of NCWM Module 8 (302), "Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers and Consoles"

/ Update the module to reflect the Fourth Edition of NIST Handbook 133. / Have the contractor work with OWM staff to incorporate revisions to ensure the contractor understands the course material and how it is presented.

/ Eliminate the separate manual for instructors by preparing a small, easy to use instructor's duide that does

not duplicate material in the inspector's manual.

4. Contract to prepare a complete revision of NCWM Module 21 (305) "Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid Measuring

Devices"

/ Update the module to reflect the 1996 Edition of NIST Handbook 44

/ Have the contractor work with OWM staff to ensure the contractor understands the course material and how

it is presented.

/ Eliminate the separate manual for instructors by preparing a small, easy to use instructor's guide that does

not duplicate material in the inspector's manual.

402-1 I State Training Questionnaire

The Committee reviewed the responses from State Directors to a questionnaire eliciting information on existing and future

training activity within their jurisdictions. The results of the survey appear in Appendix D of this report and indicate which program areas have been selected to receive allocation of training resources.

243
Education Committee

The responses received from 53 State Directors show that 81% have already or are planning future training for weights

and measures staff. The survey shows the greatest number of planned classes: (1) Checking the Net Contents of

Packaged Goods and Handbook 133 training (combined), (2) general weights and measures training, and (3) Vehicle and

Axle-Load Scales. Of those jurisdictions responding, 64% indicate willingness to have their planned classes included

in the NCWM Training Calendar.

402-2 I Associate Membership Scholarship Fund-Training Delivery

The Committee received a report covering the allocation of 22-$500 scholarships awarded to U.S. weights and measures

officials by the Associate Membership Committee. The scholarships were authorized for use during the period August

1, 1994, through July 31, 1995. All authorized training has been completed with that activity shown in Appendix E of

this report.

With participation from the Associate Membership Committee, the EA&CA Committee discussed the success of the initial scholarship program and explored avenues for continuing the project. The AMC graciously extended the scholarship

program to include 20-$500 scholarships to be awarded by the EA&CA to U.S. weights and measures officials for completion of formal weights and measures training to be completed by July 31, 1996. The Committee expressed

appreciation to the Associate Membership Committee, as well as gratitude to all industry members for their support of

the scholarship program.

402-3 I Redesign of the NTP's Training on Scales

At the 79th Annual NCWM, the Conference approved the Committee's strategy for redesign of the five current scales training classes, namely: retail computing, medium-capacity, vehicle and axle-load, meat beam and monorail, and

livestock and animal scales. The restructured training will consist of two self-study courses (See Item 402-8), followed

by classroom instruction in specific classes of scales.

Under the approved renumbering system (see Item 402-8), successful completion of two self-study classes. Course No.

102, Introduction to Handbook 44, and the new Course No. 201, Introduction to Handbook 44 Scales Code, would be

a recommended prerequisite to classroom training in any of the specific classes of scales. The classroom training will include hands-on demonstrations and practice sessions. The training materials will include Examination Procedure

Outlines (EPO's), but will not contain reprints of Handbook 44. The handbook itself will be made available to participants for reference as needed. A checklist will then be utilized to complete the inspection portion of the class to demonstrate proficiency in the inspection procedure portion of the classroom training.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture Measurement Standards Division has submitted a proposal to the NCWM, through

the Western Weights and Measures Association (see Appendix F), to develop a home study course which would allow

inspectors to earn CEU's for successful completion of NCWM training courses by mail, or electronically, via computer

with E-mail, or other means of office automation. The Committee has partially addressed this request as outlined above

through the self-study introductory courses cited, and will continue to seek methods and means to deliver a diversity of

courses using interactive videos, and other available technologies.

402-4 I NCWM Training Modules Update and Maintenance

The Committee has adopted a plan to optimally utilize the skills of certified trainers, as well as those of a core group

of trainers designated to update and maintain NCWM training materials (see also 402-6 and 402-8).

The chart on the following page presents a summary of the revision status of all currently published NCWM training

modules; the chart also reflects the approved renumbering system, subject of Voting Item 402-8.

244
Education Committee

Module Reyision Status

(As of 6/30/95)

Module (Proposed New

Course Numbers, Item 402-

8, Appear in Parentheses)

Date of

Publication

Date of

Last Revision

Revision

Status*

Comments

27-lntro to Electronic Weighing and Measuring

Systems (103)

1/28/85 5/95 N Module revision has been completed and copies sent to the States on 5/1/95.

1 -Retail Computing

Scales - Mechanical

11/20/85 11/86 W Information from this module has been

incorporated into Module 2.

10-Checking the Net

Contents of Packaged

Goods (601)

11/29/85 9/90 R The Committee is planning to split the module into two segments. The NCWM

NIST Handbook 133 Work Group will assist in the revision of the module.

2-Retail Computing ScalesElectronic (202, combined with 1 above)2/26/86 5/94 N

8-Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

and Consoles (302)

7/14/86 9/90 N T. Butcher & J. Williams, OWM are updating the Inspector's Manual for changes to Handbook 44

(206)

10/1 7/86 12/91 u C. Cotsoradis of OWM is in the process

of updating the Inspector's Manual of

this module for changes to Handbook

44.

20-Vehicle Tank Meters (303) 10/31/86 12/91 u T. Butcher and J. Williams

of OWM have completed an update

of the Inspector's Manual of this module.

6-Meat Beams and Monorail

Scales (205)

4/3/87 u Revision is underway by Jim

Vanden/vielen, USDA GIPSA

7-Livestock and Animal Scales

(204)

5/27/87 u Paul Petersen has submitted a second

draft of the Inspector's Manual.

21 -Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liq- uid Measuring Devices (305)

8/5/87 u T. Butcher & J. Williams, OWM, have

completed an update of the Inspector's Manual for changes to Handbook 44.

4-Medium Capacity Scales (203) 6/22/88 10/92 N

24-lntroduction to NIST Handbook 44 (102)

5/18/89 6/93 U J. Mindte, OWM, will update the module

for changes to Handbook 44.

22-Commodity Regulation (602) 6/8/90 N

19-Loading Rack Meters (304) 7/18/90 N

23-Weights & Measures Administration in the US Part 1 (101)6/14/93 N

*Key to module revision status abbreviations: N = No revision planned in 1995

U = Revision is undenway

R = Revision is planned for 1995

W = Withdrawn 7/1/93

245
Education Committee

402-5 V Module Certification

Recommendation: The Committee recommended and the Conference adopted a "two-tiered" certification process, namely: Level 1: Witness Testing, and Level 2: Field Evaluation. Issuance of a Level 1 certificate will grant recognition

to an individual who successfully completes the classroom segment of NTP Training and displays adequate knowledge

in inspection and test procedures. The field test portion of Level 1 certification may be met by "witness testing." That

is, conducting the inspection portion of the procedure, but only "witnessing" the test procedure when safety, legal, or

other equipment restrictions are encountered. Issuance of Level 2 certification will grant recognition to an individual who

successfully completes both the classroom and all field testing portions of the NTP Training. The two level certification process will apply to all functional modules; organizations should be aware that Level 1 certification may also apply to some managers and supervisors. The goal of achieving Level 2 Certification is strongly encouraged for all participants.

The Committee recommends marketing the current NTP certification process and its requirements to promote awareness

that, in many cases, individuals who previously successfully completed NTP training have been and are, in fact, eligible

for certification by virtue of their past experience in the field. The Committee further recommends revision of NCWM

Publication 1 1 , National Training Program, to correct any misunderstanding that only an NCWM Certified Trainer may

oversee the field evaluation segment of the certification process. Revision of NCWM Publication 11 is recommended

by the Committee to assist jurisdictions in identifying individuals who may qualify as certifying officers.

Background: The Committee reviewed and discussed the State of Ohio's recommendation that "witness testing" be

considered as an option in the NTP Certification process. This option would be exercised in cases where classroom

training has been successfully completed, but there are conditions that preclude participation in the field testing portion

of the program. The proposal presents an alternative for participants who demonstrate competency in the classroom

portion of the training and are capable of completing the field procedures but are prevented from completion because of

policy restrictions. Ohio training and field staff cite the following as examples of nonclassroom situations which may

affect field evaluation:

• Unique safety procedure guidelines for certain devices, e.g., vehicle scales;

• Additional licensing requirements governed by other regulatory agencies, e.g., special class driver's license to operate test vehicles on public highways;

• Liability restrictions;

• Multiagency inspection operations where the lead agency performs the "hands on" portion of device testing; and

• Unavailable test equipment, e.g., railway track scale car.

The Committee commented on the low percentage (34%) of those completing National Training Program (NTP) classes who have been certified to date. This may result, in part, from lack of a full understanding of the current certification process. Revision, updating, and distribution of NCWM Publication 11, National Training Program, should resolve any

existing misconceptions about the program and translate into more individuals completing the NTP Certification process.

402-6 I Organization and Utilization of Certified Trainers

As of January 1995, 11 individuals have attained the status of NTP Certified Trainers. However, with the retirement

of Don E. Stagg, Alabama, the following 10 persons comprise the cadre of Certified Trainers: Kenneth S. Butcher,

NIST/OWM; Barbara J. DeSalvo, Ohio; Frank W. Forrest, Connecticut; Paul Peterson, USDA/GIPSA; Richard L. Philmon, Illinois; Thomas M. Stabler, IWM (Ret.); Richard C. Suiter, Nebraska; Jose A. Torres, Puerto Rico; James

A. Vanderwielen, USDA/GIPSA; and Kenneth A. Wheeler, Ohio.

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) has identified as one of its goals the attainment of one Certified Trainer in each of its member States. There are now five Certified Trainers from the CWMA and three additional individuals are progressing toward trainer certification.

The Committee appointed Barbara DeSalvo as coordinator of a mentoring program designed to identify and utilize the

trainers in each region. Status as a Certified Trainer is not a prerequisite for inclusion in the core group. One

metrologist will also be invited to participate in this nucleus of trainers. It is planned to assemble the group

electronically, through conference call or teleconferencing, for purposes of formulating a mission statement.

246 i

I
Education Committee

It is envisioned that each of the identified trainers will pursue completion of the Certified Trainer process, then select ancdier individual for mentoring through the certification system, thereby adding continuing excellence to the base of

Certified Trainers. It is projected that this group wUl develop and set in motion a plan to revise and update the existing

training materials, particularly the individual scales modules.

Instructor Training in NIST Handbook 133. The Nutritional Labeling and Education Act was signed into law on November 8, 1990 to amend Title 21 Section 343 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The Act

required nutritional labeling on foods and regulates health claims about nutrients to help consumers select a more healthful

diet. The Act preempts State and local laws that are not "identical" to correspondmg FDA requirements. The FDA

regulation states, in part, (21 CFR Part 100.1 (c) (4), the phrase "not identical" does not refer to the specific words in the requirement, but means that the State or local requirement directly or indirectly imposes obligations or contains

provisions that (1) are not imposed by or contained in an FDA requirement or (2) differ from those specifically imposed

by or contained in an FDA requirement or implementing regulation.

On November 8, 1991, Federal preemption of the net quantity of contents regulations became effective. State and local regulations on quantity of contents (e.g., net quantit>' of contents regulations, sampling plans, and test procedures) under

the NLEA not "identical" to Federal requirements continue to be preempted.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) has often emphasized the Conference's need for experienced, quality personnel to maintain the expanding level of training and education requests. At its November

meeting, the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs endorsed the need for increased training

delivery. In response to this proposal and numerous requests for training on procedures for testing the net quantit>' of

packaged goods, NCWM/NIST is sponsoring a special instructor training course to be held in .Annapolis, Maryland,

March 26-31, 1995. Participants were selected from jurisdictions that agreed to the following conditions: (1) they intend

to fuUy implement NIST Handbook 133 in their State within 3 months of completing the course, (2) they will use the March 1995 participant as an instructor to provide training on HB133 to officials in their State within 3 months of

completing the course, and (3) they will permit the participant to serve as a trainer for the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) in other regions of the coimtry. The expected benefit of this training process is to develop a core group of 20 instructors who wUl, in turn, mentor other weights and measures officials in the area of commodity testing,

thereby encouraging implementation of the Federal requirements.

This method of training delivery has proven so successful in providing a core group of instructors capable of mentoring

to others, additional classes in net content inspection and device testing are planned for the remainder of 1995.

Future Training in MST Handbook 133. As a result of the success of the first NCWM/NIST instructor training course, a second mstructor training class is scheduled for August 13-18, 1995 in .'Vimapolis, MD. Twent\' new

participants have been selected and all have agreed to the same training conditions as the first class.

The core group of instructors has trained in excess of 400 officials prior to the 80th NCWTvl Annual Meeting of the Conference, and by January 1996, it is anticipated that an additional 300 officials will have completed the training. In addition to training within his own State, for example, Donnie Perr^' from North Carolina represented the Office of

Weights and Measures and conducted a Handbook 133 class in the State of South Carolina for 25 officials.

402-7 I Industry Training

A report was delivered to the Committee by the Institute for Weights and Measures (IWM) regarding weights and

measures training courses and materials developed for industry by industry. At a conservative estimate, 20,000 industry

personnel need weights and measures training, namely: maintenance personnel, repair personnel, and technicians who

place devices in service. IWM has identified that training is needed in Handbooks 44 and 133, and is adding "by-mail" and on-site courses in response to that need.

The Committee reviewed and discussed materials provided by Giant Food, Inc. (an Eastern States grocery- chain),

entitled, "The Weighting Game," a guide to weights and measiires. This material is distributed to Giant Food employees

247
Education Committee

as part of the company's Quality Assurance Program and will be included in the NCWM Training Resource Catalog for use by industry and all interested weights and measures parties. The publication of the Training Resource Catalog is part

of the Committee's work in progress.

402-8 V NTP Course Renumbering System

Recommendation: The Committee proposed and the Conference adopted the following system which is similar in format

to the order of the sections in Handbook 44 and allows for expansion of course activity:

Introductory: Level 100

101 Weights and Measures Administration, Part I 102 Introduction to Handbook 44

103 Introduction to Electronic Weiphin? and Measuring Svstems

T pvpI 200

901 TntrnHiir'tinn tn T-TanHHnnV ^pjilf^c r^nHf* 202 Retail Computing Scales

ivi t^ui Liiii v_^<iL/aviL y oc-cuwd 204 Livestock and Animal Scales 205 Meat Beams and Monorail Scales 206 Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales

Meters: Level 300

301 Introduction to Meters (planned)

302 Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and Consoles

303 Vehicle-Tank Meters 304 Loading-Rack Meters 305 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices

Measures: Level 400

Other Devices: Level 500 (linear, taximeters, etc.)

Commodities: Level 600

601 Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

602 Commodity Regulations

Background: The Committee discussed the existing course identification system and its inherent limitations when

planning for expansion of NTP training activity. With the development of shorter courses, one-day seminars, and

customized training, for example, a need was identified for the Committee to design a numbering system which would

allow for that growth.

The Committee recommended and the Conference approved implementation of the foregoing structure in order to allow

for the expansion, redesign, and development of NCWM training programs that are responsive to the needs of today's

weights and measures officials and their industry associates.

248
Education Committee

403 I Legislative Strategy

There was extended discussion by the Committee at both the Interim and Aimual Meetings regarding the development

of proactive strategies for use by weights and measures administrators in dealing with legislators at the local, State, and

national levels. The Committee reviewed materials prepared by members Richard Greek and Bruce Martell.

The Committee developed a survey to elicit information regarding individual experiences in dealing with legislatures on

such issues as how budgets are defended, etc. The survey was limited to five questions and sent to administrators for

their completion and return to Committee member Richard Greek.

Working toward its goal of developing a resource guide for State, local, and regional leaders in weights and measures,

the following information has been gathered as of the end of the 80th Annual Meeting:

Question 1. Do you cominunicate with your legislative body?

Directly Indirectly i.e., through industry, consumer groups, newsletter

yes 30

seldom 4 on request 20

never 0

yes seldom174 on request 5 never 0

Comments Summary: Approaches ranged from prohibition to communicate without prior approval, to addressing a specific request made through regular professional/social contact.

Question 2. Kyou responded positively to some portion of question 1, with what level(s) of legislative bodies do

you communicate?

local 12

State 42

other 7

Comments summary: Contacts varied based on issue.

Question 3. Do you work with industry to support your programs?

yes ongoing 33

crisis only 3 seldom 6

never 1

Comments summary: Above includes trade and independent associations; partnerships with industry;

industry viewed as customer; industry can lobby legislature to achieve mutual goals.

Question 4. When talking to elected and appointed officials, what communication strategies do you use?

newsletters 7 personal visits 36

telephone 3

press release 11 show & tell 20

other 6

Comments summary: Legislators are invited to visit w&m; Department of Agriculture only permitted to contact legislators; committee hearings; through office of legal affairs; social/political contacts; show and

tell but seldom have or make time to visit; consumer information pamphlet; all communication must be

approved at executive level; concise briefings delivered honestly, politely, followed with letter of

appreciation.

249
Education Committee

Question 5. What could the Conference develop/provide to assist you?

Strategy for specific issues 6

Examples:

Fee implementation

Laboratory development

Cost effectiveness Avoiding program elimination

Other (specify)

1716

25

9

2

General guidelines

Generic legislative process information

Generic budget process information

Reference and/or contact person for

specific issues 12

118

10

Comments summary: Information on other State's programs (costs, salaries, structure, etc.); help in setting lab fees for metrology services; comparative data would help; building relationships with industry (they can

help); generic approach means little; methods to determine benefits of program; background material on issues such as privatization; methods of passing legislation from other jurisdictions; ways to increase funding for programs, capital equipment, personnel; training seminars/handbook with visuals/documents to help directors understand legislative/budgeting process; central location to pool information.

The States responding to the survey were:

Alabama Maryland North Carolina

Alaska Massachusetts (Barnstable) North Dakota

Arizona Massachusetts Ohio

Arkansas Michigan Oklahoma

California Minnesota Rhode Island Colorado Mississippi South Carolina

Connecticut Missouri South Dakota

Florida Montana Tennessee Georgia Nebraska Texas

Illinois Nevada Utah

Indiana New Mexico Vermont

Iowa New Hampshire Virgin Islands Kansas New Jersey Washington

Kentucky New York (Suffolk County) Wyoming

Maine New York

404 I Weights and Measures Directors' Roundtables

This item is an outgrowth of this Committee's work on Legislative Strategy. A discussion during the 79th Annual

Meeting dealt with exploration of ways to deliver information such as: the NCWM NTP Certification program; how to administer and create accountability in the management systems of weights and measures; fostering a certain level of education among State and local leadership about how to interface with the projected national database; addressing

industry concerns; or program justification, all were cited as examples.

It was agreed that the regional Roundtables could serve as venues for educational opportunities identified by this Committee. This may be accomplished through facilitated discussion during the regional association meetings, as well

as the NCWM Annual and Interim Meetings. At the regional association meetings, the EA&CA Committee member in attendance and NIST staff were identified as critical links to assist and to initiate those related issues on behalf of the Committee.

There was agreement that EA&CA Committee members from each region will work with the individual association chairs

to explore the feasibility of arranging for time during the Directors' Roundtables to discuss two items identified by this Committee. Those individuals would then be responsible for bringing the resultant regional information back to the EA&CA Committee. Time permitting. Directors' Roundtables will be planned for the NCWM Annual and Interim

meetings.

250
Education Committee

405 I Public Affairs

405-1 I Industry Relations

The Committee examined education and training partnership projects with associate members, such as the Food Marketing

Institute, International Mass Retailers, and the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association.

The Associate Membership Committee indicated to the EA&CA that it is open to proposals for use of the funds available

for partnerships and it may be possible to renew the scholarship fund. The AMC indicated the EA&CA should make

its request for funds through the NCWM Chairman. This request resulted in the 20-$500 scholarships referenced in Item 402-2 above.

The Committee reviewed three brochures developed by Randy Motz of The Scale People: "So You Want To Buy A

Scale?" "A Consumer's Guide To Purchasing Firewood," and "Care and Maintenance Of Your Scale." It was the consensus that these materials should be presented in a tri-fold, marketing communications format in order to be fully

effective. The Institute for Weights and Measures (IWM) will rework the scales brochures with a focus on "marketing

advantage" and submit drafts, in tri-fold format, for consideration. The Committee agreed to give a free-lance writer

the same opportunity relative to the firewood material.

The Committee expressed appreciation to Randy Motz for his efforts and valuable contributions to this project.

The firewood brochure, "How to Avoid Getting Burned When Buying Firewood," has been completed and distributed

to the States. The committee is exploring how agencies and organizations may be able to purchase additional copies at the lowest cost.

The Committee reviewed and commented upon the incorporation of weights and measures functions in "Agriculture (AG)

in the Classroom" submitted by Barbara DeSalvo. It is anticipated that the document will be finalized and that written

and electronic copies be mailed to State Directors for inclusion in the individual jurisdiction's AG in the Classroom

program, or as a stand-alone weights and measures handout. The Committee acknowledges the need to educate today's

young people who will become tomorrow's consumers. The materials are currently written at the fourth grade level and

are structured to foster an awareness of weights and measures. For example, it is hoped that young persons going to the grocery store will transmit information to the parents. Classroom lessons may also be passed on to friends, parents,

and other relatives.

For the present, work on the "Agriculture (AG) in the Classroom" project has ceased. This has been necessitated by

a lack of funding.

Discussion and comments about the NCWM W&M Week 1995 information packets were positive and were followed by

general dialogue regarding topics suitable for inclusion in the 1996 W&M Week material. The Committee agreed with

the suggestion that "Sharing Information, Delivering Equity" be designated as the theme for Weights and Measures Week, March 1-7, 1996.

405-3 I Marketing Weights and Measures in the United States

James Lee, representative of the public relations firm of Burson-Marsteller, made a presentation to the Committee during

the Interim Meeting, relating how his company can assist the Conference by creating an "image driver issues" campaign.

The organization represents itself as the largest public relations firm in the world, specializing in, among other areas, perception management and consumer marketing. The company's projects range in scope from setting up one press conference to an ongoing international media undertaking.

Mr. Lee's presentation demonstrated a good comprehension of what weights and measures needs relative to its constituency, and his recognition of the necessity to capitalize creatively on an awareness of the role of weights and

405-2 I PubHc Relations

251
Education Committee

measures in marketplace equity. The company will research methods and means to create a coalition for the Conference

and submit a proposal.

Mark Burson of Burson-Marsteller made a presentation during the Open Hearing of the Committee during the Annual

Meeting. He stated that the public is unaware of weights and measures and ambivalent to its impact on their daily lives; and that State legislators continue to reduce funding of programs, resulting in staff and service cutbacks in all jurisdictions, compromising enforcement and jeopardizing the concept of a fair marketplace. Mr. Burson demonstrated

how to tell the story of weights and measures in a compelling fashion, conveying the relevance of Weights and Measures

Officials. The committee is exploring the feasibility of implementing such an awareness campaign.

405-4 I Advertisement of the 80th NCWM 1995 - Portland, Maine

The Committee planned to use the services of a free-lance writer to publicize the 80th NCWM in Portland, to promote

media coverage, encourage participation, and create an awareness of the Conference and its impact on the marketplace.

The Committee asked each Standing Committee to submit its highest priority items for inclusion in press releases and

for circulation to industry and other interested parties. However, budgetary constraints did not allow for use of an

independent writer.

These efforts were coordinated with the State of Maine's public affairs office. A press release, designed to focus on the

issues to be addressed during the meetings, was prepared by OWM staff and distributed to newspapers, magazines, and

periodicals in the northeast, as well as to selected national publications. The Committee plans similar efforts to promote

the 81st Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, July 21-25, 1996.

406 I Safety Information Clearing House

In conjunction with the NCWM Safety Liaison, the Committee condensed and finalized an Accident/Incident Summary,

which appears in Appendix G. It is suggested that this form be placed in the State or local weights and measures or

industry reporting system for accessibility and ease in completing and sending to NCWM.

It is anticipated that the safety reporting form will be accessible through the Weights and Measures Information System

(WAMIS) bulletin board. The information received will ultimately be made part of the national database under

development.

Thus far, there have been two responses to the Committee's request for completion of the Accident/Incident Summary

form which appeared in NCWM Publication 16, Program and Committee Reports. The committee will repeat its request

for completion and return of the form in an effort use the information from the forms in the development of a Safety

Information Clearing House.

M. Gray, Florida, Chairman

B. DeSalvo, Ohio

R. Greek, San Luis Obispo County, California B. Martell, Vermont

E. Price, Texas

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York, Safety Liaison

T. Coleman, J. Mindte, NIST, Technical Advisors

Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs

252
Education Committee

Appendix A

Report of the Program Evaluation Work Group to the

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

Darrell A. Guensler, California, Chairman

Group Members:

Mike Belue, Belue Associates

Bill Corey, American Frozen Foods

Ken Fraley, Oklahoma

Steve Malone, Nebraska

Ed Price, Texas

Randy St. John, Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association

Tom Stabler, The Institute for Weights and Measures

Bob Williams, Tennessee

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Juana Williams, National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST), Technical Advisor

Tom Coleman, (NIST), Technical Advisor

Reference Key

The Program Evaluation Work Group held its inaugural meeting December 12-13, 1994 in Dallas, Texas. The

subcommittee established group goals after careftil review of the meeting presentations, recurrent historical observations,

and the group's discussions in the area of program evaluation. The work group will further define which historical and

additional program measurement data should be collected and made available electronically. They will then decide what

procedural guidelines to follow in collecting this data (during routine field inspections). Finally, the group will determine

which inspection data will be gathered and subsequently used in conjunction with published economic information to provide program cost/benefit and marketplace impact analyses. A pilot study will commence after the selection of one

or two weights and measures software programs which offer a customized package that includes all the required product

features. All group efforts will culminate in a study to demonstrate the mutual benefits to be gained by a variety of

weights and measures jurisdictions given the ability (1) to record, retrieve, and communicate program data and (2) to derive information on program performance and marketplace impact analysis of their activities. The detailed conclusions

of the first session of the Program Evaluation Work Group are as follows:

Goals

The group's mission

Provide national uniform performance measures to •assess program benefits and costs •assess and optimize program efficiency and effectiveness

The scope of the Program Evaluation Work Group in obtaining these goals is to:

Establish core data

-identily data

-identify uniform measurement procedures

-identify processes for accumulating data and deriving useful measures

Number

401

Summary

253
Education Committee

Establish procedures to measure program benefits and costs

-State and local -national

-identify economic sources

-educate weights and measures officials on how to collect and use data/results in their own programs

Establish procedures to evaluate and share information

-methods of analysis

-methods of dissemination (to internal and external users)

Establish criteria for program accreditation

Presentations

Accreditation Requirements for State Metrology Programs by Ken Fraley

The Institute for Weights and Measures Program Evaluation Service by Tom Stabler Marketplace Evaluations - California Division of Measurement Standards by Darrell Guensler

Online Cormecting Point - IntelliMeasure Weights and Measures Software by Chris Lord/Mike Neary

Privatization Work Group Findings by Darrell Guensler

Program Evaluation Work Group Background by Carroll Brickenkamp

Win Wam Package Checking Software - Nover-Engelstein Associates by Geoff Engelstein

Objectives:

•Complete contract process for one or two weights and measures software programs for the pilot study

•Agree on core data and collection procedures for pilot study

•Conduct pilot study

•Meet and analyze pilot study data •Report conclusions and recommendations to Committee

Background

The NCWM Chairman Jim Truex, at the recommendation of the Privatization Work Group (1992-1994), appointed the Program Evaluation Work Group in April of 1994. The work group will assist the Committee on Education,

Administration and Consumer Affairs in establishing a standard core of data to be collected which would provide

measures:

• to determine the effectiveness of weights and measures programs

• to determine whether changes in programs or processes were effective

• to share information and data thus enabling jurisdictions to make marketplace and cost/benefit analysis

In its review of recent attempts to privatize weights and measures functions, the group recognized that there was an

absence of usable data. The nonuniformity of the available data also thwarted efforts to establish measures needed to

justify programs and demonstrate the full scope and merit of weights and measures activities.

Endorsements for program automation were the result of earlier subcommittee studies on future challenges to Weights

and Measures and the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century (also known as "The Blue Sky Task Force") (1990-1992) recognized the advantages of developing an

electronic communication information system and network. This infrastructure would benefit the program areas of

education, administration, and in the uniform interpretation of regulations. The task force noted that this communication

ability would aid in increasing program effectiveness and impact by avoiding the delays created by papertrails. It would

eliminate a large portion of time-consuming standardized administrative tasks involved in the records management of field data. Additionally, and most important, the task force felt that automation would help field inspectors in their documentation of reports. These inspection reports would provide data that could be compared and used to determine

program effectiveness and efficiency, to justify program functions, and to demonstrate where to allocate resources.

254
Education Committee

Data Findings

Only a limited number of evaluations are currently being conducted to determine the efficiency of inspection activities and their intact on the marketplace. When these figures are either not available or comparable, program directors may

not possess the tools necessary to demonstrate the benefits of program activities.

NIST will underwrite the further development of a weights and measures software program. Five weights and measures

jurisdictions (California, Connecticut, Nebraska, Termessee, and Texas) have agreed to participate in the pilot study.

Proposals are being accepted ftom computer companies interested in designing a weights and measures software program.

Once a firm is chosen, the group will determine the core criteria to be gathered and will establish procedures for

collecting this set of data. The Associate Membership on this committee agreed to locate sources of economic data which

would later be utilized to extrapolate figures to indicate how programs impacted the marketplace.

Accreditation

Weights and Measures officials are finding today's customers demand a total quality world. In preparation for business

in the 21st century, customers recognize the need for accreditation and are beginning to examine all official standards and credentials. The State Metrology Laboratory Program is a real-world example of the accreditation process at work.

Each participant voluntarily enters into the process, which entails meeting a minimal set of established standards. In its discussions, the work group noted that there are a number of similarities between the laboratories and inspection programs, such as established procedures and generally accepted guidelines. Virtually all working group members agreed

that program accreditation is an important process. The critical element needed is agreement on what constitutes an

accepted set of standard data to create a baseline for program performance within each weights and measures activity.

The work group felt that once measurement parameters were established the accreditation process would evolve as a

natural progression of events and thus could be addressed in the later phase of the group's work.

255
Education Committee

Appendix B

Certification Summary

(As of June 30, 1995)

State

Total No.

of Certif.

Total No. of

People

Module Number

1 2 4 5 6 7 d 10 19 20 21

I 1 1 1 AL 1 T<5 43 T324 Ta14 Tt12 5

TSS 12

AK 19 10 7 1 10 1 AZ 28 oo28 28

AR 129 42 20 19 10 9 40 12 16 2

CO 7 7 7 CT 86 30 19 19 2 20 15 6 3 2

DE 5 5 5

DC 4 3 3 1 FL 99 80 6 8 3 7 2 44 16 6 7

GA 29 24 8 4 17

HI 3 3 3

lA 1 1 1 ID 8 8 8

IL 17 17 8 9

IN 29 29 29

KS 28 15 7 7 4 1 9

LA 9 9 8 1 MD 64 34 27 4 33

ME 2 2 2

Ml 42 14 9 12 7

MN 15 15 15

MO 40 39 21 19

MT 7 7 7 NE 38 19 2 7 3 15 11 NV 13 11 1 1 1 9 1 NH 32 8 6 5 5 2 6 8

NM 30 20 9 11 10

NC 39 35 20 19

Kin 3 3 3

OH 181 83 43 23 32 9 48 15 5 6

OR 54 18 16 15 5 10 6 1 1 PA 108 56 26 4 8 7 27 18 18

PR 91 49 33 33 25

SD 28 13 7 12 8 1 TN 40 29 5 6 29

UT 66 17 16 15 6 4 13 11 1 VT 23 9 4 2 5 3 8 1 1 VI 6 6 6

VA 2 2 2

WA 21 16 5 15 1 Wl 4 4 4

Other

42 35 6 13 23

Totals 1,540 881 75 264 79.00 174 13 113 476 190 19 104 37

*USDA Grain Inspection/Packers and Stockyards Administration

256
Education Committee

D)

0- o

C CO

mtmm (0

LU

0)

o o o

i3 O O

C

^

CM

LU T- T0

sL

5

J L

CNJ

1 CM

CO

C\l o

CN CO

CN CD

c

o

CM O

CO

G3

o CO0

LLI

o

CD "D

O

in

o

CM

E

Z3

o o

O CO

o

CD

oo o

CM

257
Education Committee

•o) ^

(D £

1

<*- T3

(0

o

5

11

<

^

O- LU

0

E

oooooooo o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o

<D in ''^'^ CO CnT 'r-'^

1995 CO 6,431

1994 oo>

CM 6.084

1993

CO

1^

CO 5.794

1992

Oio

CO 5,421

1991

oo

CM

in 5.112

1990

COma> 4,584

1989

CM

Oi

CO 3,559

1988 oCO

2.667

1987 1,017 1,907

1986 CM

CM oO)

CO

1985 CO CO

(O

1995

Data

as

of

June

30,

Annual

Total

Cumulative

Total

258
Education Committee

P5 n ON

en

*5jd PC

-a

>Q

3

OB

3

S3

OX)

OJO 1)

00 c " .2

op i

J >

3 ^

i I

If

O E

(X o

.2?

o

c

_oo

3

•oo

tsc

C/3

o

o

•a§ .a

3= §

z s

2 o o o

o o

J= i:

o\ o ^ fs m — <N (N (N _

3 3

•73 -o O O

3 3

O O

s s s s s

O O

'i I

u u

u <u

C

o>

o o

00 00

.s .s 3 3

B B

o o U O

en •<

CI- _

E = := .2 o

u

CO o

? <

"Si"

O

to O

1 « o ^ U ^ _— o

ca a.

S2 o

c c ^ c

.2 o Q O

3 Z

^ "-^ S CO O — — 3 o —

S .S

-4-» <U >

n (U

—>CN'^>0^t^002 ^ oooooooo

V

s-9

o

O

>»

J3

T5

c

2

I-w

3

>

TO

C

2

o

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

OCM

JQE

_23

•ao

CO

CM

5

(O

ui r- in ? * ? ?

CO TCO

oo

00

o^ _to

CM

CM

00

CM O CO CM

CO CN ^

^ 2 m CO CM CM (O

CO Too

CM h.,-"f-OJOO^'--To

CO 00 <- ^

oCM

^ o in CM

oCM -i^Na:<o^iuu-i<=:Q <<<<00<aQCoXH

259
Education Committee

260
Education Committee

5

o

'5)

o

o < «

Q. O 1= O)

c

c

(0

c

o

(0

^1

3

CO

©

3

73

O

Si

73

O

C

2H

_w3

>

c

CM

toM

CM

CM

CM

OCM

E o

z

®

3

s

in

CM

in CO <D (o Xn

u> <o r>- «o ^

m _

" ?5 «

CO to If)

<^ in

CO

•«J- 1- CM

CM CM

ooCMCM ^ n CM 1- O CD

CM^coooioco If) n

^ to

h~ in o CM CM CM

0) « I- I- o

5 5

CM

CD

CO

CM

CD

CO

CO

cn

CO

oCO

CD

CO

CM

CD

CD

co

CM

<3> CM

00

O

1^

CO

CO

CD

00

oCM

<

z

<

z

CM

CM

CM

CM

o

in

S i2 o 5 <2 o E < s

u.

(0

00

0.

o

«c

o

O) — -a c o £

0) t

a.

261
Education Committee

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY

SUMMARY OF METROLOGY SEMINAR ACTIVrTY

(As of June 30, 1995)

Courses Listed in the Registry:

No. 201, Basic Metrology I No. 202, Basic Metrology II No. 203, Intermediate Metrology

No. 204, Advanced Metrology

individuals Trained by iVIetroiogy Course

state 201

Metrology Course No. 202 203 204 Totals AL 1 1 AK 1 1 1 3

AZ 3 3 2 8

CO 2 2 5 CT 1 1 DE 1 1 1 3 FL 4 4 8 GA 1 1 2

HI 2 2 4

ID 1 1 1 3

IL 3 3 1 7

IN 1 1 2 4

lA 1 1 1 3 KS 2 1 2 1 7

KY 2 2 4 ME 2 2 1 5 MD 6 6 8 20

MA 1 1 2

Ml 1 1 2 4

MN 1 1 MS 2 2 3 7 MO 1 1 1 3

NE 2 2 NV 1 1 2 NH 1 1 1 3 NJ 1 1 NY 2 2 2 6

NC 7 7 3 17

262
Education Committee

Individuals Trained by Metrology Course

Metrology Course No.

State 201 202 203 204 Totals ND 2 2 2 6 OH 2 2 . 1 5 OK 1 1 2 OR 1 1 2

PA 1 1 2 4

PR 2 2 5 9

Rl 1 3 4

1 1 2

SD 1 1 2 TN

TX 3 3 1 7 VT 1 1 VA 3 3 3 9 WV 2 2 1 5 Wl 2 2

Other

NCWM 29 10 39 P&S 1 1 Canada 2 2

100 73 70 2 24S

263
Education Committee

•a

— c <s e o o

csi CO

to o o o CM ^ o m o CM_ cm" o

oi

00 o1^

00

inCO oto oCO

CO CO

CO a>

r- CO o o00

O in o o o 00 o in o(NCM

C> CO oo (d

(O CM <o

in f- CJ>

^3o> o S 3 o> o S 3 a> o

Sis

a> o

o> 5 o> o

SBo> o

a> o

o> o » S 0» O

a> o

SIo> o3 d o«

Qu

CM

O

CN o

iri o00CM o o o O o 00 V •«r fsi iti CO CD

in in CM o(Omo00

^'in

CM oo oin o

COo

CO o

COo

<o

CMo

in o

CM

ino

COoCM

CM o o o o CM CM

C> CM CO inCM ^

om oCO th o00o

(Od00

(Om oCM

CO

CM oin

Oo oo om

CM

in to

CO

(b oo oo oin oOi

CM

in CO

CO

in

in

'*(M oin o

CM CO CM o o o

csi ad oo

ait oin CM 1- 0> CO o oo

(d

in

CMOino

o>

(do

CO o O o o o o o o o in o OOO 00 00 oin 00 om CO o o d ^

inn

r-^ T— CM

dCM ai

in 00

CO CMin

dCO CMO

CM

CM CM CM CO CO CM » O o o o O o o o

(O CO o CM CM CM o

CO 00 act ai ai 1^

h- a> 00 c CO o

CO CM r~ o o o o o o o

in a> CO CO CM in ai CM CO d 00 ai <7> in CT) CO CO CM o CM

r~ ^

CM ^

o o o CO in <d

T- CO oO)in

00

in

CD o o

CM CM o o o CO oo

cd

in o t CO CO o

ino o

00

00

CM

CM

COou>

in oCM

Z)

Uio ^ i

to

in

oo

CO

co

CO oo at

CM CM - CD

CM CO

O CO a» <D

5J « CO IS.

g r- in ^ »- ^ O 00

T— ^—T— CO

CO CO CO CM

CO in

CO 00

CM

m

CO

in o

CM

<oido

CO

CO

CO

00

lOo

idoCO

lOCM

CO

CO

c»oCOpi

to

COoCOCM

CM

at

b

LUOOp

Csi coc

.aOJM

COic

COo. 'o

t:

COQ.

CA

in JSu

CM

J>3

T3OcOt

T3C

CD

t3

£1oco

Q.

'co co

Q.M

0)

a> •occ

.0)

a.X

0)s3

TJ

0)o>c3C

<uc

COS>oc

COco

"co Q.OE(0a.

i23O

tsw8oc^ 1 3 O U i

<U (0 C 3 o

264
Education Committee

Uio2 5?

CO3 g 8 s

g-o 1

IIoouc2 S5

^§m o

°* « I =w o « cDco O 0) ^1o ^oc

(0 oc

0) <o

u.

ffl

CM (0

o> o

Io> o

o> o

^5Oi o Bc

raa.o

'€

(0o <o 6 lu z o o z o ood

COooo

csi o00

00ego

CMO

If) o

CM

O)ooo

(D

COo(M olA

U)

in

CMoin

too

oo

CMoooinCM

inom

CO

1^om

CO

CMOCM

O

CMO1^CO

COoCM

CDOCD

COOCOdo

CD

CJ5

<3- o1^

CO

COoCM o

in

CMom

CMoCM

CO

ooo

COo

eo

00

00ooooCO

toI aon

I-o ^

-= S ? p p 5 S ^ ^ S rs 2 SE o u

(0 (0 o >

ffi ffi £ < ^ CM CO ^ O O O O CM CM CM CM 6 6 6 6 z z z z 9 4> 4) Q> £ g ]0 {0 3 3 3 3 O O O O U U U O

maS £ i i o ^'« 0 co 1 " I £

•I o e 3

.93 c

UJ S o a. c X O ®

i3c

a>Eccn

Q.oeegQ.co

•s

a.E8

T5 5

•oIE

£>3

(0Occ3

•o 8 8ot

265
Education Committee

Appendix D

Training Questionnaire Summary

(Surveys Sent to State Directors - October 18, 1994)

Number of Surveys Sent: 55

1. Please indicate your State or territory. Number of Surveys Received: 53 (96%)

(American Samoa and Guam did not respond)

2. Do you have any ongoing training programs or are you in the process of planning training for weights and measures

staff?

YES N=43 NO N=10

a. Who will participate in this training?

Weights and Measures Field Staff N=41

Weights and Measures Administrative Staff N=24

Industry N=16

Others:

Local Sealers of Weights & Measures N= 4

Other States (space permitting) N= 3

b. Please indicate what type of training you will offer, who will conduct the training, and on what dates?

Response: 35 States plan training classes as follow:

Course Number of Classes

Module 2 5 Module 4 2

Module 5 8

Module 6 1 Module 7 1 Module 8 8

Module 10 6

Handbook 133 10

Module 19 1 Module 20 4

Module 24 1 Module 27 1 Belt Conveyor 1 General Weights & Measures 15 Handbook 44 8

266
Education Committee

3. Please indicate the training materials/equipment your office provides to staff.

Field Standards N= 43 Laws &. Regulations N=47 Handbooks/EPO N= 47

Others: NCWM manuals, NT? modules (N= 7), NCWM Publication 5, IWM manuals and courses, policy and

procedural manuals, local enforcement guides, scales, calculators (with standard deviation), meeting rooms,

audiovisual equipment (including: VCR, overhead, slide projector).

4. Does your program provide weights and measures training to other weights and measures jurisdictions or related industries (e.g. local weights and measures jurisdictions; device service agencies)?

If yes, to whom do you provide training?

30 States indicate training is provided to 12 other States, 15 local weights & measures jurisdictions, and 17

industry personnel.

5. Would your office be interested in listing its training events on a training calendar?

YES N=28 NO N=21

YES N= 34 NO N= 14

267
Education Committee

2

o

01)

uH

U -a

|§

4>&

oU

u

a.Xu

c

uB

?5

t-H

s

o

e

X

V

4) .s

1

toU

X

a>

u-u

.s

13

Si

S

oU

I

toU

X

u

cu

•aB

00

1

e

oU

u

X

u

u

.S

o

"5. E

oU

u

o.Xw

c3

C/3

1

ELS

oU

c

X

4)c

"5. So

s

u

o.Xu

c

u

•o3

00

utoU

c

w

Q.X

us3

00

EoU

e

u

Q.X

uC

u3

00

E

oU

S

oU

B

4>Q.X

U

k>u

.S

CQ

s

V

•a3

00

•o

Si toU

E

T3

E

o

o

c SO. « X

4>

E

oU

OS

T3

2i _«

"E, E

oU

.Su

u

Jiu

o

k. t/i

.a S O CI. (JO.U

0)

OAu

o.oa

e

9i

on .suU

u

4>

.So

uU

C/3 u U (A _«

"o!su> >

c c

«« U

y

°E. p

c

Sb

.s

.s

I

I

11

Z

I

&

00 00 u

e2

268
Education Committee

Appendiix F

PROPOSAL TO WWMA STANDING COMMITTEE

Committee: Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs,

REGIONAL ASSOCIATION: WESTERN DATE: 8/30/93

PRIORITY LEVEL: (Highjs^ 2 3 4 5 (Low)

CONTACT PERSON: James Ross TELEPHONE: 503-378-3792

JURISDICTION: Oregon Department of Agriculture Measurement

Standards Division.

PROPOSAL: Use some of the training funds from NCWM to develop a home study course which would allow Inspectors to earn CEU's for

successful completion of NCWM training modules by mail or electronically via computer with E-mail or other office connection,

JUSTIFICATION: Oregon has 14 inspectors of which only one is located

in the Salem office area. The other 13 inspectors are located

throughout the state. The expense involved in putting on a NCWM

Module - travel per diem etc. is too great, especially in these lean

times, to have more than one training module per year for the staff. Some travel restrictions do not allow time for classroom style training.

New inspectors (and some of the more experienced ones) would like the opportunity to earn CEU's and obtain certification on various

NCWM Modules.

REASONS FOR:

1. Modern electronic communication allows for quick response to remote

areas via telephone, FAX, or computer E-mail via modem. Quizzes,

tests, or even scanned images can be sent over the phone line.

2. Most homes contain at least one VCR which would allow home study courses to be put on video tape VHS format.

3. Inspectors could advance at their own pace, experience, and skill level.

4. This would revive the NCWM Module Training Program in Oregon

which started out strong, but has deteriorated due to budget cuts and

travel restrictions.

5. Inspectors should have the opportunity for education in their field,

REASONS AGAINST:

1. Time and cost involved in setting up a home study style course.

2. Equitable means of monitoring participation to insure course completion and that CEU's are earned.

269
Education Committee

Appendix G

Incident/Accident Summary

(To be completed & submitted unsigned, anonymously)

The purpose of this form is accident prevention. Please incorporate this anonymous summary

into your safety program documentation procedures. Completing this brief report will allow

NCWM to alert other organizations and jurisdictions of hazards and possible corrective actions.

1. What weights & measures function was the employee performing, where, and when?

2. Briefly describe the incident.

3. Contributing factors (check all that are appropriate):

mexpenence

lack of training

employee error

insufficient personnel

haste

weather conditions

equipment failure

failure to follow procedures

job fatigue

environmental conditions

other

improper equipment

lack of protective gear hazardous materials

unsafe work surface housekeeping

Comments:

4. Recommendations for corrective action:

You may continue your comments on the following page.

Please mail completed form to: Tom Coleman, NCWM, Post Office Box 4025, Gaithersburg,

MD 20855 (telephone: 301-975-4868)

270
Education Committee

Continuation of Comments on Numbered Items

1.

2.

3.

4.

Miscellaneous remarks:

The NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs greatly appreciates your making

the effort to complete and return this information for inclusion in the planned Safety Information Clearinghouse.

271

Metrology Report

Metrology Report

The 1995 NCWM Metrology meeting included reports from all of the regional metrology groups which met during the

past year. A status report of the current metrology projects was presented, followed by a discussion of priority work

projects and their completion strategies. A presentation on the draft template quality manual was presented. Mike Dynia

(CT) gave a presentation on the draft SOP for advance weighing designs and Jim Akey (WI) presented the draft SOP for

the UMT6 balance and a 50 lb cast iron weight survey. A demonstration on accessing the NIST bulletin was given by

L.F. Eason (NC). Al Tholen, Chief of NVLAP, gave a presentation on NVLAP and OWM History and the current

accreditation process.

Two optional evening work sessions were held. The status of the NIST HB 105 series and a talk by Ken Fraley (OK)

on the requirements for advance mass measurements were presented during the first session. The second session focussed on grain moisture issues.

Two additional meeting were held to address State laborator>' accreditation issues and the metrology meeting structure within

the NCWM.

Regional Group Reports

NEMAP: Mike Dynia (CT)

Last meeting: September 19 - September 23, 1994.

The NEMAP 1994 annual meeting was hosted by Ron Balaze, in Lansing, Michigan. There were 26 participants at the meeting.

Qirrent roimd robins:

1) one 100-g weight kit; and

2) one 5-gal test measure.

The current round robins are being coordinated by Randall Crosser(Ohaus), Michael Dynia (CT), Ray Cioffi(VT), Ron

Balaze (MI), Pete Millivan (PA), and Georgia Harris, NIST.

1994 Topics:

• Round robin analysis: Mike Dynia (CT) and Ray Cioffi (VT) 5-gal measure; Ron Balaze (MI) 100-g

weight kit; Peter Millivan (PA) 50-lb weight

• Georgia Harris (NIST): Control Charts; Uncertainties (Application of ISO Guide to the Expression of

Uncertainty in Measurements); Quality Manuals; NVLAP Applications; Software (quality assurance,

verification and validation, formatting, documentation, spreadsheet application); Laboratory

Accreditation (Handbook 143 update, NVLAP Accreditation and NIST Handbook 150, new checklists and requirements); Measurement Control; and Mass Measurements (error analysis, sources of variation such as magnetism, temperature effects, automated data acquisition, mass code updates, surveillance

testing)

Tours: The group toured the Michigan metrology laboratory.

Next meeting: The next NEMAP meeting wiU be hosted by David Baird, of the Delaware Department of Agriculture,

in Dover. The dates will be September 25 - 29, 1995. MIDMAP/SWAP: Jim Akey (WI) / Ken Fraley (OK)

Last Meeting: October 10 - 14, 1994

The MidMap/SWAP annual meeting was held at the Embassy Suites in Kansas City, Missouri. Thirty three attended

this first joint meeting of the MidMap and SWAP metrology groups. We wish to extend our thanks for the great job that was done by Missouri and Kansas in handling the arrangements and hosting the meeting.

273
Metrology Report

Current round robins (MIDMAP):

1) Precision 100 g - 1 mg class 1 weight kit; 2) Set of four 25 lb cast, class F weights; and

3) 100-gal refined fuel prover.

The current MIDMAP round robins are being coordinated by Jim Akey (WI) and Card Hockert (MN) #1; Mike

Rockford #2; and Steve Mcguire (IL) #3. The coordinators are to be commended on a good job as all the round robin

activities are currently on or ahead of schedule. The 100-gal refined fuel prover round robin is predicted to run over two years and will include several locations in addition to MidMap members.

Current round robins (SWAP):

1) 100 g - 1 mg weight kit; 2) Two 1 kg weight kits; 3) Precision calibration of oz weights; and

4) Aluminum, brass and stainless steel weights to study temperature effects.

1994 Topics:

• Georgia Harris (NIST): Control Charts; Uncertainties (Application of ISO Guide to the Expression of

Uncertainty in Measurements); NVLAP Applications; Software (quality assurance, verification and

validation, formatting, documentation, spreadsheet application); Laboratory Accreditation (Handbook

143 update, NVLAP Accreditation and NIST Handbook 150, new checklists and requirements);

Measurement Control; and Mass Measurements (error analysis, automated data acquisition, mass code

updates, surveillance testing); • G. Diane Lee (NIST): Quality manual overview;

• Steve McGuire (IL): Assessment of State Laboratories;

• Mass Measurements and Round Robin Analysis(error analysis, sources of variation such as magnetism

and temperature effects, mass code updates, surveillance testing): • Ken Fraley - 1 kg Aluminum vs Stainless Steel; • David Dikken - 21 pc metric 100 g set; magnetism and gravity; • Karl Herken - Experimental Design;

• Herb Eskew and Ken Fraley - Temperature;

• 31 lb weight kit round robin data; • Randy Bums - Grain Moisture (rice and wheat); and

• Jim Akey - 50 lb cast iron weight survey.

• Karl Herken (KS): Software Verification; • Dr. Walter Kupper (Mettler-Toledo, Inc.): Validation of High Accuracy Weighing Equipment;

• Mark Picknell (Rice Lake Weighing Systems): RS 232 Communications

Tours: The group toured the FGIS (GIPSA) facility and Fairbanks scale museum display at the Fairbanks Scale Corporate

offices.

Next Meeting (MIDMAP): The next meeting will be hosted by Dick Weber of 3-M corporate metrology in St Paul,

Minnesota, October 23 - 27, 1995

Next Meeting (SWAP): The next meeting will be hosted by Richard Schulmeister of the New Mexico Department of

Agriculture, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, October 2 - 6, 1995.

CaMAP: Jose Torres Ferrer (PR)

Last meeting: February 6 - 9, 1995.

The last meeting held at the University of Puerto Rico in Mayaguez, PR, was coordinated by Jose Torres Ferrer. The

1995 participants included the government laboratories of Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Trinidad-Tobago, St. Lucia

and Arizona; industry participants were from Process Instrument Services, Advance Instrument Sales and Service,

274
Metrology Report

National Standards of Puerto Rico, Troemner, and JTI Systems, Incorporated. An NCSL meeting was held on Friday

after the meeting.

Current round robins:

1) one 1-kg, one 500-g, and two 200-g standards; continuation of mass round robin

Topics:

• Archie Corbitt (U. S. VI): Weights and Measures in the United States; • Jerry Everhart (JTI): Process Measurement Assurance Workshop;

• Georgia Harris (NIST): Legal Metrology in the United States, NIST HB 145, SOP 19, and 21 and videos on volume measurements, cleaning and handling weights, facility requirements for mass measurements,

environmental effects on calibration, and Round robins; • JoseTorres Ferrer (PR): Module 8 Liquid Measuring Devices, EPO No. 21, and video on retail motor fuel dispensers; • Uoyd Francis (Troemner): Overview of weight manufacturing at Troemner and slide presentation of

their new mass metrology laboratory.

Jose Torres Ferrer provided Spanish translation and facilitated discussion for those topics presented in English. Bilingual

presentations were given on all topics.

Next meeting: The next meeting wiU be a national meeting tentatively scheduled for San Antonio, TX, October 1996.

SEMAP: L. F. Eason (NC)

Last meeting: April 23 - 27, 1995.

The meeting was hosted and held at the North Carolina Standards Laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina. All states and

several industries were represented at the meeting.

Current roimd robins:

1) Two 1-lb standards for precision comparison of avoirdupois standards

1995 Topics:

• Barry Smith (FL): Round robin update and discussion;

• Dick Kershaw (Vaisala, Inc.): Relative humidity measurement concerns;

• Martin Coile (GA): NVLAP audit experience; • L.F. Eason (NC): Safety-personal protective equipment in the metrology laboratory;

• Karen Bryan (NC): Rigid rule SOP revision; • Cheryl Tew (NC): NCWM grain moisture task force report; • G. Diane Lee (NIST): Draft template quality manual;

• Chip Riedeburg (NCDA safety officer): Lifting safety; • Georgia Harris (NIST): User operated mass calibration package demonstration;

• Brian Fritzpatrick (Hi-Tech Inc.): Environmental measurement package;

• Jeff Dierker (Lakeshore Measurement and Control Technologies): Weight magnetism;

• Ken Fraley (OK): Environmental parameter round robin; and

• Steve Barry (MD)/Milt Hargrave (VA): Weight cart testing and design considerations.

Tours: The group toured the North Carolina metrology laboratory, the world headquarters of the Underwriters

Laboratories and Glaxo Wellcome, Ltd.

Next meeting: A tentative time and place for SEMAP was set for April 21 - 25 or April 24 - 29, 1996 in Jackson,

Mississippi. The group expressed concerns with attendance at the national meeting in San Antonio, TX

in October 1996.

275
Metrology Report

WRAP: Joe Rothleder (CA)

Last meeting: May 16 - 18, 1995.

The 1995 WRAP meeting was hosted by Victor Gerber of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, metrology

laboratory in Cheyenne. Nevada and Hawaii did not attend the meeting. All other States and Los Angeles County were

represented.

Current round robins:

1) Aluminum 1 kg weight; and

2) Stainless Steel 1 kg weight.

1994 Topics:

• Kelly Moody (AZ): Surveillance testing and round robins. Avoirdupois primary standard measurement

control, and NVLAP assessments;

• Matthew Crandall (AZ): Round robin analysis; • Joe Rothleder (CA): Statistics and historical data for establishing calibration intervals; and

• G. Diane Lee (NIST): Quality manual presentation, Youden plots and E^^^f values.

Tours: The group toured the F. E. Warren Air Force Base metrology laboratory in Wyoming.

Next meeting: The next meeting will be a national meeting, tentatively scheduled for San Antonio, TX, October 1996.

Work Project Status and Development

A Status report of current metrology projects was presented, followed by a discussion of priority work projects and

completion strategies. The status report was based on responses to a survey sent to State metrology laboratories. The

survey requested prioritization of NCWM work projects. The survey responses were used to rate the top five selected projects ( See below).

1st Highest Selection

6 - responses 2nd Highest

Selections 5 - responses each

3rd Highest

Selections 4 - responses each

4th Highest

Selection 2 - responses

5th Highest Selection

1 - response each

Calibration Interval Guide

Update HB 130 Weights and Measures

Accreditation Program

SOP for TN 952

Procedures

Small Volume Provers

Software

Verification

Use of Electronic Balances EPO for Gravimetric

Testing of Motor Oil Meters

Review Training Modules Testing of Levels for Provers NCWM Adoption of

HB 105-Series

Balance Service Brochure

W/ one X response SOP for Use of Sensitivity

Weight on Electronic

Balances

276
Metrology Report

The status of Draft SOP's and other projects which ranked in the top five selected by State metrology laboratories are addressed below:

• Draft SOP For The UMT6 Balance. Jim Akey (WI) presented the draft SOP for the UMT6 balance. The SOP

addresses special items to consider prior to purchase of the balance, set-up, configuration and operation.

Comments and suggestions will assist in completion of the final publication and should be forwarded to Jim Akey

(WI) phone: 608/267-3510 or facsimile: 608/266-1560.

• Draft SOP For Advance Mass Measurements. Mike Dynia (CT) presented the draft SOP for advanced mass

measurements. This SOP is in the preliminary stages of development, and contains sections on calculations and

statistics. Metrologists interested in assisting with the completion of the draft should contact Mike Dynia (CT)

at 203/566-5230.

Software verification. Two committees in NCSL are working on developing a recommended practice for verification and validation of software in the metrology laboratory.

SOPfor use of sensitivity weight on electronic balances. This SOP was discussed at the advanced metrology

seminar in Jime, 1995 and should be included in the SOP for Advanced Weighing Designs (TN 952) currently

being drafted by Mike Dynia.

Implement changes necessary to incorporate small volume provers into field practices - Brooks Instruments developed a draft of NIST HB 105-7 and it was circulated for comments. Only two responses were received.

Weights and Measures accreditation program. Presentations were given at the Program Evaluation Working

Group meetings in Maryland, September 1994, (Diane Lee) and in Dallas, December, 1994 (Ken Fraley) which

addressed the steps taken to implement an accreditation program for the State laboratories and how it could be

applied to the weights and measures program. The group will be working to establish measurement parameters

after which an accreditation program could develop. (See page 222 in NCWM Pub 16)

Handbook 105-Series Status. There are seven series of NIST handbooks for specifications and tolerances for

field standards under revision, circulating for comments and/or waiting for review. They are as follows:

105-1 Field Standard Test Weights;

105-2 Field Standard Glass Flask; 105-3 Field Standard Test Measures and Provers; 105-4 Field Standard LPG Provers; 105-5 Field Standard Timing Devices;

105-6 Field Standard Temperature Devices;

105-7 Field Standard Small Volume Provers.

HB 105-1 was revised most recently, in 1990. A file has been started, to collect comments and suggestions for

revisions. HB 105-2 is completed and awaiting technical review. HB 105-3 to 105-7 are being circulated for comments. Metrologists interested in revisions to HB 105-1 or review of other 105-series should contact NIST,

OWM, if they have not received drafts for their comment.

Priority projects for the State Laboratory Program are the development of administrative procedures necessary to meet

the requirements of NIST HB 143 and recommendations to the Laws and Regulations Committee for updating NIST HB

130 to include NIST accreditation issues.

Volunteers for completion of work projects are needed to chair and actively participate in the development of the projects.

Goals and deadlines need be set, a plan developed and tasks distributed to project members. Any metrologist interested

in working on these projects should contact NIST, OWM.

NCWM Metrology Meeting Topics

Draft Template Quality Manual. The draft quality manual is available on the NIST bulletin board 301/ 869-1665. The

quality manual was presented at the metrology meeting and each participant received a copy of the manual.

277
Metrology Report

The manual has been presented at the SEMAP and WRAP regional meetings and will be presented at all other regional

meetings. States are encouraged to adopt the manual, which complies with the requirements of NIST HB 143. Comments or suggestions on the draft will assist with completion of the final publication and should be submitted to NIST, OWM.

NVLAP Accreditation. Al Tholen, Chief of NVLAP, gave a presentation on NVLAP and OWM History and the NVLAP

accreditation process. The presentation was followed by a question and answer period.

Accessing The NIST, OWM Bulletin Board Demonstration. A successful demonstration on accessing the NIST bulletin, was given by L.F. Eason (NC). The demonstration provided step by step instructions on how to access the bulletin board from the DOS operating system or using RIPscrip graphics. RIPscrip graphics were also used to demonstrate how

to download files from the bulletin board.

NISTIR 5672, Advanced Mass Calibration and Measurement Assurance Programfor State Calibration Laboratories.

Ken Fraley (OK), one of the authors of NISTIR 5672, presented the publication to the metrology meeting participants. This

publication addresses guidelines for evaluating advance mass calibrations and can be used to evaluate laboratories requesting

accreditation at this level.

Grain Moisture Issues. Representatives from the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Adminisfration (GIPSA, formerly

FGIS), NIST, NTEP grain moisture meter sector members and mefrologists participated in an open discussion at the NCWM

annual meeting in Portland. The discussion addressed issues associated with State participation in on-going round robins for phase II of the NTEP program for grain moisture meters and State grain moisture program direction.

State laboratories with grain moisture programs will be requested to participate in on-going round robins with manufacturers,

and the GIPSA, NTEP laboratory.

Cahbrations for NTEP devices are based on the NTEP laboratory air oven results. Field testing ofNTEP moisture meters for accuracy are conducted by State laboratories based on State air oven moisture results. Differences in moisture results between

the NTEP laboratory and the States could cause problems with field inspection of the NTEP devices. The effectiveness of

the program depends on the agreement between State and NTEP laboratory air oven results. The round robins will provide

evidence of the agreement between states and the NTEP laboratory.

Additionally, States will also be requested to collect and submit results for different meter models using the same sample. This

will provide evidence of program effectiveness in promoting uniformity between one meter model to another.

Grain moisture program direction for State laboratories was discussed. The issues included uniformity of test procedures and

fraining.

New Structure For The Metrology Meetings At The NCWM. The Executive Committee, State metrologists and a number of

State directors met to discuss policy issues concerning accreditation of State laboratories and NVLAP. A meeting with

Executive Secretary, Gil Ugiansky, Chairman, Jim Truex and State mefrologists was held to address how the metrology

meetings could be structured within the NCWM. A formal structure within the NCWM would involve the Conference on

laboratory policy issues affecting the State laboratories and Weights and Measures programs.

L.F. Eason (NC) addressed the Conference on this issue and will draft a proposal of how this can be accomplished. The

proposal will be circulated to all states for comments. Directors and mefrologists are encouraged to review the proposal and

address any concerns they have on policy issues affecting their State laboratories. State concerns will be included in the proposal and presented to the Executive Committee at the Interim meeting in January 1996.

Mass Change of 50 lb cast iron weights. Jim Akey (WI) gave a presentation on data regarding the instability of 50-lb

cast fron test weights maintained in the laboratory. Two 50 lb weights from Rice Lake Weighing Systems were checked on a Mettler PK60MC over a 2 year period to determine mass change. A 50 lb working standard was used to zero the

display before each comparison. The weights were received at the Wisconsin Metrology Laboratory in January 1993

and were stamped LAB-1 and LAB-2. The original seals and paint are still intact. They were stored in a closed cabinet

and covered with cloth to prevent any dust settling on the weights. The LAB-1 weight started at 0.87 g, and at present

is 1.57 g. The LAB-2 weight started at 0.92 g, and at present is 1.53 g. The concern has been that adjusting weights

Va to V2 above the tolerance when new may cause the weights to be out of tolerance on the plus side within a 2 year

278
Metrology Report

period. The effects of humidity on the weights were reviewed in the study and may be a contributing factor to the increase in mass. Jim Akey is requesting feedback and/or additional testing by metrologists in this area. NCWM Metrology Meeting Participants

G. Diane Lee - NIST, OWM

Joe Rothleder - California L.F. Eason - North Carolina

Herb Eskew - Texas

Jose' Torres Ferrer - Puerto Rico

Dan Newcombe - Maine

Ken Fraley - Oklahoma

Michael Dynia - Connecticut

Jim Akey - Wisconsin

Ron Balaze - Michigan

Dick Weber - 3M Corporation

Paul Hadyka - USDA-GIPSA

Jim Lovell - Alaska

Runsheng Dai - China

Ruojiang Zhao - China

Ed Szesnat - New York

Jack Barber - Dickey-John

Richard Pierce - USDA-GIPSA

Don Onwiler - Nebraska

Cliff Watson - Stein Labs, Perstorp Analytical, Foss Foods

Kerry Elkins - Roadway Information Technology

David Harkleroad - Tennessee David F. Rogers - Lockheed Martin Marietta

Walter Kupper

279
Resolutions Committee

Report of the Resolutions Committee

Bruce Martell, Chairman

Chief, Consumer Assurance Division

Vermont Department of Agriculture

Reference

Key No.

700

GENERAL

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures to those who contributed their time and talents toward the arrangements for the conduct and success of this 80th Aimual Meeting. Special votes of thanks are extended:

(1) to Edward J. McLaughlin, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Agriculture, for his welcoming remarks

during which he indicated his support of the work of the Conference, and all of weights and measures;

(2) to the Maine Department of Agriculture, Division of Regulations, particularly Director Clayton F. Davis and

his staff for the hospitality extended to the Conference and assistance in preparation for and conduct of the 80th

Annual Meeting;

(3) to Sergeants at Arms, Conrad Brown and Howard Prince, Maine Department of Agriculture, Division of

Regulations;

(4) to Ray Kammer, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST), for his remarks to the membership indicating continuation of the NIST partnership with NCWM;

(5) to James C. Truex, Chairman, and the officers and appointed officials of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures for their assistance and service toward progress on national issues;

(6) to committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and presenting their reports; to the subcommittees and work groups for their discerning and appropriate recommendations;

(7) to regulatory officials of State and local jurisdictions for the advice, interest, and support of weights and

measures administration in the United States;

(8) to representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and Conference

work, most especially the continuing support as demonstrated by the granting of scholarships for training; to the associate membership organization for the hospitality exhibited in sponsored social functions; particularly

William J. Corey, Jr., Secretary, American Frozen Foods, for arranging the outstanding excursion to Peak's

Island for the enjoyment of Conference members and their guests;

(9) to the staff of the Holiday Inn by the Bay for their assistance and courtesies, all of which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the delegates within their facilities; and

280
Resolutions Committee

(10) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and its Office of Weights and Measures for their dedicated

assistance in planning and conducting the work and program of the National Conference on Weights and

Meas\n-es, especially to Ann Turner, Elizabeth Loveless, Michele Krebs, and Lynn Sebring for their professional

and hospitable conduct of the administrative operations of the meeting; to Dr. <}il Ugiansky for his participation

and for his anticipated support.

On this occasion of the 80th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, the committee wishes

to recognize and express its appreciation to the following individuals:

(1) to Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, past Executive Secretary of the NCWM and past Technical Advisor to the Laws

and Regulations Committee and former Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures, for her vision for the future of the weights and measures community and for her unflagging efforts to promote NCWM as the leadership organization in weights and measures issues; to Dr. Brickenkamp for her management and guidance

to the NCWM Executive and Laws and Regulations Committees; and finally, to Dr. Brickenkamp for her

willingness to share her valuable time to assist all weights and measures officials and listen to their concerns;

(2) to Walter G. Leight, Deputy Director, NIST Office of Standards Services, for his many years of invaluable

assistance and editorial support essential in the publication of NIST Handbooks 44, 130, and 133, as well as Conference documents;

(3) to Henry V. Oppermann, past Technical Advisor to the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee and

former Deputy Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures for his in-depth expertise and tireless efforts in serving the Conference; to Mr. Oppermann for using his technical skills in writing and publishing NIST

Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring

Devices;" and

(4) to Louis E. Straub, Chief of Weights and Measures, Maryland Department of Agriculture, and his fine staff for

the generous provision of the classrooms, laboratories, excellent demonstrations, and all courtesies extended,

without which the success of the NIST Handbook 133 Instructor Training classes would not have been attained. With Lou's generosity, by the end of 1995, it is projected that nearly 700 individuals in the weights and

measures community will have been trained in the new Handbook 133 Category A package checking procedures.

B. Martell, Chairman, Vermont

J, Bane, Iowa

C. Davis, Maine

C. Fulmer, South Carolina

W. Lagemann, Delaware

R. Philmon, Illinois D. Wallace, Colorado

J. Mindte, NIST, Coordinator

Resolutions Committee

281
Nominating Committee

Report of the Nominating Committee

Thomas F. Geiler, Chairman

Director

Barnstable Consumer Affairs Massachusetts

Reference

Key No.

800

The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the Westin Hotel, Costa Mesa, California, and nominated

the persons listed below to be officers of the 81st Conference. In the selection of nominees from active membership,

consideration was given to professional experience, qualifications of individuals. Conference attendance and participation,

and other factors considered to be important.

Two members of the committee were unable to be present during the meeting; members George Shefcheck and Lou

Straub were consulted by way of conference call in reaching consensus. The following slate of officers was selected by

unanimous vote of the Nominating Committee:

CHAIRMAN-ELECT: Barbara J. Bloch, California

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Michael Blacik, Minnesota

Charles H. Carroll, Massachusetts

Vernon Lee Massey, Shelby County, Tennessee Sharon Rhoades, Arizona

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Maxwell H. Gray, Florida

Richard C. Suiter, Nebraska

TREASURER: J. Alan Rogers, Virginia

T. Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts, Chairman

D. Guensler, California

S. Malone, Nebraska

A. Nelson, Connecticut

G. Shefcheck, Oregon

N. David Smith, North Carolina

L. Straub, Maryland

Nominating Committee

282

1
Auditing Committee

Report of the Auditing Committee

Monty H. Hopper, Acting Chairman

Kern County Weights & Measures

California

Reference

Key No.

900

The Auditing Committee met on Tuesday, January 9, 1995, during the NCWM Interim Meeting in Costa Mesa,

California. The purpose of the meeting was to review the fmancial reports of the Conference Treasurer.

Chairman J. H. Eskew, Texas, and committee member Raymond Kalentkowski, Connecticut, were unable to attend the meeting. Darrell Guensler, California, and N. David Smith, North Carolina, graciously agreed to serve in their absence. The following persons were also in attendance:

Charles A. Gardner, NCWM Treasurer Dr. Carroll S. Brickenkamp, NCWM Executive Secretary

Ann H. Turner, Weights and Meastires Coordinator

J. Alan Rogers, Treasurer-Elect Harvey Lodge, Associate Membership Committee

The Auditing Committee finds the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer to be in order and correct, according

to Conference procedure.

M. Hopper, Kem County, California

D Guensler, California N. David Smith, North Carolina

J. Mindte, NIST, Technical Coordinator

Auditing Committee

283
Treasurer's Report

Treasurer's Report

Trial Balance as of 12/31/94 - NCWM GENERAL ACCOUNT

Income Accounts

411.1 Annual Registration $50,315.00

411.2 Interim Registration $21,600.00

412.1 Government Member Fees $59,555.00

412.2 Associate Member Fees $69,335.00

413 Interest $2,605.92

416.6 Other - Industry CEU $9.00

416.9 Other - Miscellaneous $179.45

481.3 Recepts/Meeting Rooms $0.00

481.4 Joint Outgoing $2,485.00

482.1 NTP Modules $956.00

482.2 NCWM Publications $942.80

482.3 Videos - Sales $2,451.63

482.4 Handbook 133 3rd Edition $916.80

484 NTP Semmar $200.00

484.1 Advanced Metrology $3,600.00

485 Promotions $0.00

486

Total Income

Grain Coop Agreement $4,645.32

$219,796.92

284
Treasurer's Report

Trial Balance as of 12/31/94

Expense Accounts

511 - Annual

511.1 Hotel/Food Services $23,794.81

511.2 Equipment/AV/Supplies $1,188.03

511.3 Personnel/Photo $2,140.35

511.4 Print/Copy $2,333.94

511.5 Awards $2,382.40

511.6 Treasurer Committee Expenses $1,111.50

511.7 Print Announcement $384.40

511.9

Total 511

Miscellaneous $6,644.26

C30 070 fa

^ 512 - Interim

512.1 Hotel/Food Services $12,193.08

512.2 Equipment/Personnel/Printing/Misc. $0.00

512.3 Executive Committee $3,094.30

512.4 Laws and Regulations Committee $1,274.21

512.5 Specifications and Tolerances Committee $2,062.30

512.6 Education Committee $1,870.65

512.7 Liaison Committee $0.00

512.8 Other & Task Forces $1,758.59

512.9

Total 512

Print Agenda $2,778.90

S25 032 03

513 - Committee Meetings

513.1 Executive Committee/Board of Governors $1,232.80

513.2 Laws and Regulations Committee ($558.89)

513.3 Specifications and Tolerances Committee $11,395.48

513.4 Education Committee $10,524.61

513.5 Liaison Committee $0.00

513.6 NTETC $0.00

513.7

Total ^1'^

Aimual $2,271.78

514 - Task Forces/Specific Committees

514.1 Privatization Task Force $4,611.84

514.2 Checkweigher Group $0.00

514.3 OlML $0.00

514.4 FPLA - Metric Work Group $0.00

514.5 USA/Canada Work Group $0.00

514.6 Petroleum Sub-Committee $880.76

514.7 ISO 90000 Task Force $0.00

Total 514

Other $0.00

$5,492.60

285
Treasurer's Report

515 Chairman/Chairman-Elect

515.1 Chairman $11,728.50

515.2 Chairman-Elect $6,703.58

515.3

Total 515

Chairman Breakfasts $0.00

$18,432.08

516 - Administration

516.1 Equipment/Supplies/Stat $ 684.08

516.2 Contracts/Personnel $16,446.50

516.3 Mail/P.O. Box $155 00

516.4 Treasury Bond $0.00

C 1 ^ J lO.D Bank Charges $63.63

jlo.o National Training Program $2,287.21

516.9

Total 516

Miscellaneous $50.00

$19,686.42

517 - Printing/Publications

517.1 Membership $1,732.00

517.2 NCWM Publications - Member $5,739.40

517.3 Consumer Pamphlet $0.00

517.4 Handbooks and Videos $0.00

517.9

Total 517

Miscellaneous $16.00

$7,487.40

jio - 1 rain-me- 1 rainers

518.1 Train-the Trainers $0.00

518.2

Total 518

Training $0.00

$0.00

581 - Special Events

581.1 Aimual $0.00

cot '^ 581.2 Interim $0.00

581.3 Recepts/Meetings $0.00

581.4

Total 581

Jomt Outing $0.00

$0.00

582 - Publications

coo 1 Modules 3>l,jo/.jj

582.2A NCWM Publication 5 $0.00

582.2B NCWM Publication (other) $0.00

582.3 Videos $1,506.75

582.4

Total 582

Handbook 133 3rd Edition $0.00

$3,074.30

584 NTP Seminars $3,371.30

586 Grain Equipment Coop Agreement $9,780.04

Total 584-586 $13,151.34

Total Expenses $157,201.64

286
Treasurer's Report

NCWM Geaeral Account NCWM Bank balances

HAB $1C)^,07S.54

Start of Year Balance 542,798.10 Signet $314.84

(NC^TvI General Acct. $42,48326

1 bignet rJanx iJ 14.54; Income 5219,796.92

Expenses

Cwreat Balance

5157,201.64

$105,393,38 Current Balance $105,393.38

T

CaiPr'-over 1 '1 '94

rial Balance - Associate Mei

Income

mbership Account - 12/31/9''

Expenses

1

Balance 12 31 94

512,748.29 530,366.59 521,996.50 521,118.38

\ CarTN'-over 11 94

Trial Balance - Grant

Income

11 Account - 12/31/94

Expenses Balance 1231/94

1 $3,991.50 511,078.01 511,730.72 $3,338.79

287
New Chairman's Address

New Chairman's Address

Charles Gardner, Director

Suffolk County, NY Weights and Measures

Hello everyone, and good morning. I am truly honored and privileged to be here today as your Chairman. I want to thank everyone for the many expressions of congratulations and offers of assistance that I have received - not only this past week but in the last several months as I have made my rounds as your Chair-Elect. I would like to say a word

here about the process of the Chair-elect traveling around to the regional meetings and various industry meetings.

This gave me the chance to meet many new people and to become acquainted with the issues and concerns of all of

the country. It served to reduce my stress level and significantly reduce the apprehension that I would normally have

experienced as I assume the role of your Chairman. Most of the credit for this idea goes to Tom Geiler and I would

like to thank him on behalf of the Conference. It is a significant contribution to the improvement of the Conference.

I would also like to express my thanks and appreciation to all those past officers, committee members and chairmen,

and industry representatives who, through their diligence, commitment and long hours, have ensured the creation and

maintenance of our dynamic, ever-expanding and responsive Conference. The established policies and procedures of

our Conference have proven to be structured enough so that issues and concerns of individuals and groups are addressed in a cohesive, consistent and evenly applied manner yet are still flexible enough to respond in a timely way

to matters of urgency. It is because of their efforts that all of us are, today, a part of what I consider to be the best example in the world of a collaboration of government-industry-consumer interests working together towards a common goal - equity in the marketplace.

Are we perfect? No one is. Are we the best that we can be? There are many issues and concerns before us - there always are! It is what we thrive on! All organizations can improve and that has been one of our strengths - being

responsive, dynamic and pro-active. We will continue to improve.

Part of that improvement most certainly will be as a result of the efforts of the Long Range Planning Group which was initiated last spring. I have asked Dave Smith and Tom Geiler to continue to provide the stewardship for this

effort. I have asked them to assist the Executive Committee and intensify their efforts so that, by the 1996 Interim

Meeting, we will have a long range plan in place. Gil Ugiansky agrees that this is a priority for our Conference and I am confident that the Office of Weights and Measures will provide the guidance and assistance that we need. What is our goal? Who are our customers? What are our priorities? The most critical year for the success of this group is this - the first year. I have the confidence that Tom and Dave will help to provide the Executive Committee with a

strong foundation for what will ultimately become a permanent part of the structure of our Conference.

My theme for our Conference for the year is "Sharing Information, Delivering Equity." We need to continue the

efforts to develop a National Data Sharing Network. We have an enormous amount of data. We need to develop a

vehicle for sharing and delivery of that data. We need to automate our field staffs. Our Conference should provide a means of support and delivery of information to all, and also to provide the assistance on how to share and use the

data. We must expand and strengthen our training capabilities. We need to continue hands-on, in-the-field training.

We must insure that when we train the trainers, they continue the process and deliver that training to the field. Our

Conference must be able to share the tremendous institutional knowledge that we possess.

I look forward to the Conference benefitting from the new leadership at OWM. I sense an increasing realization at NIST that the OWM/NCWM collaboration is a cornerstone of the marketplace in the United States. To our benefit, I also believe that this view is shared by many outside of our Conference, including those who control the "purse

strings." The technical staff at OWM is tremendously competent. They have been reinvigorated and we look forward

to their support and assistance. They truly have the best interests of our Conference in mind in all that they do.

288
New Chainnan's Message

It remains up to us to deliver. For me to be successful, for our Conference to be successful, I challenge everyone

here to work within the Conference. Bring your ideas and concerns to the Conference. Speak up and be heard. Talk

to each other, talk to the Chairman, talk to the Committee members, and most of all, promote the Conference after you leave here. Use what you learn here and make it a year-round commitment^ not a one-shot, one-week occurrence. My father once told me that, if you want to be seen - Stand Up! If you want to be heard - Speak Up! If you want to be appreciated - Sit Down! And that is what I am going to do. Thank you all very much and I look forward to the coming year with a great deal of anticipation and pride.

289

List of Participants

NCWM 80th Annual Meeting

Portland, Maine

July 16-20, 1995

List of Participants

Adams, Deidre 700

Staff Product Planner

IBM Corp

5505 Six Forks Rd Dept DDV

Raleigh, NC 27609

Telephone: 919-301-7106

FAX: 919-301-7145

Adams, Michael F. 11447

Manager of Technical Support

Fairbanks Scales 711 E St Johnsbury Rd

St Johnsbury, VT 05819

Telephone: 802-748-5 1 1 1 x326

FAX: 802-748-5216

Akey, James H. 2414

State Metrologist

WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot PO Box 7883 4702 University Ave

Madison, WI 53707-7883

Telephone: 608-267-3510

FAX: 608-266-1560

Almarode, Oscar T.

Retired Inspector

244 Buckboard Rd

Waynesboro, VA 22980

Telephone: 703-949-5149

9741

Alston, Norman A. 2590

Manager P D Meter Sales Daniel Flow Products Inc 9720 Old Katy Rd PO Box 19097

Houston, TX 77224

Telephone: 713-827-3857

FAX: 713-827-3880

Alviene, Robert 24249

Assistant Superintendent

Morris Co Wghts & Meas

PO Box 900 Wghts & Meas Dept

Morristown, NJ 07963

Telephone: 201-285-2955

FAX: 201-285-6075

Amero, Richard 11722

Inspector

ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station #28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Amestoy, Gregory E. 25898

Vice President Marketing

Pricer Inc 101 Merritt 7 Norwalk, CT 06851

Telephone: 203-846-6800

FAX: 203-486-6966

Andersen, Ross J. 2994

Assistant Director

NY Bureau of Wghts & Meas

1 Winners Circle Albany, NY 12235

Telephone: 518-457-3452

FAX: 518-457-5693

Andrews, Ted M. 19815

Quality Assurance Manager

WAWA Inc 260 Baltimore Pike

Wawa, PA 19063

Telephone: 610-358-8180

FAX: 610-358-8165

Angell, Jr., Karl H. 9698

Director

WV Weights & Measures 570 MacCorkle Ave West

St Albans, WV 25177

Telephone: 304-722-0602

FAX: 304-722-0605

Arrington, Robert D. 23514

Program Mgr Wghts & Meas

WA Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 42560

Olympia, WA 98504-2560

Telephone: 360-902-1856

FAX: 360-902-2086

Bach, Mary 30202

Consumer Advocate

3908 Princess Ct PO Box 377

Murrysville, PA 15668

Telephone: 412-327-6969

Backes, Mark J. 10082

Director Store Operations

Mervyns

25001 Industrial Parkway

Hayward, CA 94545

Telephone: 510-786-7572

Backes, Theresa 30740

Manager Merchandise Control

Mervyn's Department Stores 25001 Industrial Boulevard

Hayward, CA 94545

Telephone: 510-786-8630

Bagley, Chris 10408

General Manager

Sooner Scale Co Inc PO Box 82386

Oklahoma City, OK 73148

Telephone: 405-236-3566

FAX: 405-239-6229

Baker, John A. 1195

Merchandise Admin Manager

Pier 1 Imports

301 Commerce Suite 600

Fort Worth, TX 76161-0020

Telephone: 817-878-8306

FAX: 817-332-5727

Balaze, Ron 8988

Metrologist

MI Dept of Agriculture

6001 Flamingo

Jackson, MI 49201

Telephone: 517-373-9897

FAX: 517-335-0628

Balmer, Tom 16260

Vice President Intematl Dairy Foods Assn

1250 H St N W Ste 900

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-737-4332

FAX: 202-331-7820

291
List of Participants

Barber, John W. 11224

Consultant

J B Associates

10349 Old Indian Trail Glenarm, IL 62536

Telephone: 217-483-4232

FAX: 217-483-3712

Belue, F. Michael

President

Belue Associates

PO Box 701 2004 Liberty St Bonham, TX 75418

Telephone: 903-583-9082

FAX: 903-583-8949

691 Brown, Conrad 73

Inspector

ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Bartfai, John J. Director

NY Bureau of Wghts & Meas

1 Winners Circle

Albany, NY 12205

Telephone: 518-457-3452

FAX: 518-457-4780

23 Blacik, Michael 8924

Director

MN Div of Weights & Measures 2277 Highway 36

St Paul, MN 55113-3800

Telephone: 612-639-4010

FAX: 612-639-4014

Brown, Darryl L. Agr Prograjn Supervisor

lA Dept of Agriculture

H A Wallace Building

Des Moines, lA 50319

Telephone: 515-281-5716

FAX: 515-281-6800

11437

Bates, Craig 8958

President

Intemat'l Taxicab & Livery

3849 Farragut Ave

Kensington, MD 20895

Telephone: 301-946-5700

FAX: 301-946-4641

Becker, Wayne 4188

Laboratory Manager

Comsource America

809 Tatar Street Pasadena, TX 77506

Telephone: 713-920-1373

FAX: 713-920-1242

Bell, Doyle D. 7211

Inspector

Delaware Co Weights & Measures

Room 208 County Building

Muncie, IN 47305

Telephone: 317-747-7714

Bell, Irving 4473

Sr Executive Staff Rep

Coca-Cola Company

One Coca-Cola Plaza (TPP-1007)

Atlanta, GA 30301

Telephone: 404-676-2623

FAX: 404-676-8265

Bell, Mickey 23299

Fuels Analyst II Lower Colorado River Authority

PO Box 220

Austin, TX 78767

Telephone: 512-473-3571

FAX: 512-473-4026

Bloch, Barbara J. 7004

Assistant Director

CA Measurement Standard

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3007

FAX: 916-229-3026

Boatman, James 7148

Chief

ID Bureau of Wghts & Meas

2216 Kellogg Lane

Boise, ID 83712-8245

Telephone: 208-334-2345

FAX: 203-334-2170

Bradshaw, Harold D. 2738

Inspector

Clark Co Wghts & Meas

City County Bldg Room 314

Jeffersonville, IN 47130

Telephone: 812-283-6289

Brasher, William D. 4417

Production Support Specialist

Southern Co Services Inc 42 Inverness Center Parkway

Birmingham, AL 35242

Telephone: 205-877-7653

FAX: 205-877-7288

Braun, William H. 2983

Sole Proprietor

William H Braun Resources 5743 Jeffrey Place

Fairfield, OH 45014-3524

Telephone: 513-829-2106/9892

FAX: 513-829-2501

Bruce, Robert 3932

Chief Weights & Measures

Legal Metrology Branch

1 10 O'Connor St 2nd Floor

Ottawa Ontario, KIA 0C9

Canada

Telephone: 613-952-2625

FAX: 613-952-1736

Brucker, Norman R. 9192

Regional Scale Inspector

Burlington Northern Railroad

4105 N Lexington Ave Ste 300

Arden Hills, MN 55126-6181

Telephone: 612-490-6090

FAX: 612-490-6017

Brumbaugh, Robert T. 297

President

Systems Associates Inc 1932 Industrial Dr

Libertyville, IL 60048

Telephone: 708-367-6650

FAX: 708-367-6960

Brunner, Tim 14018

Director of Sales Fairbanks Scales 821 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106

Telephone: 816-471-0231

FAX: 816-471-5660

Bryant, Raymond 16379

Inspector

ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

292
List of Participants

Burns, Jr., Charles A. 7575

Chief Inspector

Birmingham Wghts & Meas

City Hall Rm 207 710 N 20th St Birmingham, AL 35203

Telephone: 205-254-2246

FAX: 205-254-2925

Burrow, Larry 9617

Sensortronics Inc 677 Arrow Grand Circle Covina, CA 91722

Telephone: 818-331-0502

Butcher, Kenneth S. 2512

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST, Bldg 221 A3 57

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3991

FAX: 301-926-0647

Butcher, Tina G. 8236

Physical Scientist NIST, Bldg 221 A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2196

FAX: 301-926-0647

Butterbaugh, William H. 3912

Asst Vice Pres Technic Serv

National Propane Gas Assn

4301 N Fairfax Dr Suite 340

Arlington, VA 22203

Telephone: 703-351-7500

FAX: 703-351-7505

Cahill, Leslie 2694

VP Government Affairs American Seed Trade Assn

601 13th St NW Suite 570 South

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-638-3128

FAX: 202-638-3171

Campanelli, Robert J. 10578

Legal Liaison

Newark Div of Consumer Affairs 124 Halsey St Newark, NJ 07304

Telephone: 201-504-6313

FAX: 201-648-3538

Carroll, Charles H. 4393

Assistant Director

MA Division of Standards

One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

Telephone: 617-727-3480

FAX: 617-727-5705

Carter, Charles D. 9838

Prog Adm Agr Resources PICS

OK Dept of Agriculture

2800 N Lincoln Blvd

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298

Telephone: 405-521-3864 x261

FAX: 405-521-4912

Carter, Kelly 25532

Mgr Food Technology &Nutrition

Intematl Dairy Foods Assn

1250 H St NW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-296-4250

FAX: 202-331-7820

Casanova, Max C. 362

Mgr Cust Serv Ramsey Products

Ramsey Technology Inc 501 -90th Avenue NW

Minneapolis, MN 55433

Telephone: 612-783-2659

FAX: 612-780-1537

Causgrove, H. Penny 3847

Retired Sealer of Wts & Meas

18 Davis St New Haven, CT 06515

Telephone: 203-387-4913

Cawood, David A. 30783

Division Manager

Inspectorate America Corp

5050 Timber Creek

Houston, TX 77017

Telephone: 713-844-2000

Cerny, Louis T. 30640

Executive Director Engineering

Assoc of American Railroads

50 F St NW Room 7702

Washington, DC 20001

Telephone: 202-639-2189

FAX: 202-639-2183

Chappeil, Samuel E. 10610

Chief Standards Management

NIST, Bldg 417 Rm 121

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4024

FAX: 301-963-2871

Clark, Buddy 1865

Inspector

Hamilton Co Wghts & Meas

101 Monticello Court

Noblesville, IN 46060-5442

Telephone: 317-896-9001

Clark, Melvin 30456

Computer Specialist

NIST, Bldg 221 A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4406

FAX: 301-975-0647

Claussen, Richard H. 103

Inspector

Porter Co Weights & Measures

1401 N Calumet Courthouse Rm 105

Valpariso, FN 46383-3195

Telephone: 219-465-3585

Clayton, Robert E. 20476

Vice President

V-1 Propane -

1800 North Holmes PO Box 2436

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Telephone: 208-522-1210

FAX: 208-522-1452

Clem, Fred P. 169

City Sealer Columbus Weights & Measures 240 Greenlawn Ave

Columbus, OH 43223

Telephone: 614-645-7397

FAX: 614-645-3994

Cloat, Lisa M. 10015

Logistics Manager

Express Shipping Center PO Box 1599

Fairfield, lA 52556

Telephone: 515-472-4151

FAX: 515-472-6898

Colbrook, Sidney A. 47

Wghts & Meas Bureau Manager

IL Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 19281 801 E Sangamon Ave

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-782-3817

FAX: 217-524-7801

Cole, Billy 18969

Service Manager

Precision Weight Scale Co Inc 315 Rickertt Rd

Sellersville, PA 18960

Telephone: 215-723-9523

FAX: 215-723-7727

293
List of Participants

Coleman, G. Thomas 8246

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST, Bldg 221 A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4868

FAX: 301-926-0647

Colman, Jennifer 3251

Mgr State Government Relations

Food Marketing Institute 1100 NW Loop 410 Ste 756

San Antonio, TX 78213

Telephone: 210-366-8782

FAX: 210-366-0198

Conte, Tom 30645

Marketing Manager

O Berk International 777 Jefferson Ave

Union, NJ 07083

Telephone: 908-851-9500 EXT 147

Corey, Jr., William J. 16337

Secretary

American Frozen Foods

355 Benton Street

Stratford, CT 06497

Telephone: 203-378-7900EXT3405

FAX: 203-386-8676

Cotsoradis, Constantine V. 8232

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST Weights & Measures Prog

Bldg 221 Room A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

Telephone: 301-975-4405

FAX: 301-963-0647

Coyne, Mark P. 220

City Sealer Brockton Weights & Measures

City Hall Rm B12 45 School St Brockton, MA 02401

Telephone: 508-580-7120

FAX: 508-559-7960

Craft, Lenord L. 9799

Agr Commissioner Sealer Tulare Co Weights & Measures 2500 Burrel Avenue

Visalia, CA 93291-4584

Telephone: 209-733-6391

FAX: 209-733-6568

Cripe, Donald O. 9794

Sealer

Stanislaus Co Dept Agr/W&M

725 County Center Three Court

Modesto, CA 95355

Telephone: 209-525-4610

FAX: 209-525-4619

Critzer, Charles F. 163

Inspector

Bartholomew Co Wghts & Meas

Cnty Off Bl-Rm 305 440-3Rd St Columbus, IN 47201

Telephone: 812-379-1507

FAX: 812-379-1765

Cunningham, John 10088

Inspector

ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Dai, Run-Sheng 9919

State Bur Tech Suprv of China

#4 Zhichunlu Haidain

Beijing 100088, China

Daniels, A. Raymond 343

Director

AT&T Global Information

101 W Schantz Ave ECD-2

Dayton, OH 45479

Telephone: 513-729-8174

FAX: 513-445-1933

Davis, Clayton F. 25

Director

ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station 28 MDA

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Davis, Gerald E. 968

System Supvr Scale Insp

Conrail

2001 Market St #10 B

Philadelphia, PA 19101-1410

Telephone: 215-209-1620

FAX: 215-209-4943

Davis, Richard L. 3806

Mgr Product Safety&Compliance

James River Corp

1915 Marathon Ave PO Box 899

Neenah, WI 54956-0899

Telephone: 414-729-8174

FAX: 414-729-8089

DeCrane, Charles 30337

President

Custom Equipment Design

1057 Highway 80 East Monroe, LA 71203

Telephone: 318-345-2222

FAX: 318-345-2260

DeFeo, John 30647

Director of Engineering

Hoffer Flow Controls Inc 107 Kitty Hawk Lane

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

Telephone: 919-331-1997

FAX: 919-331-2886

DeFiesta, Angel S. 30221

Sr Engineering Specialist

Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Road

Fairfax, VA 22037

Telephone: 703-849-5331

FAX: 703-849-6790

DeSalvo, Barbara J. 3842

Supervisor Weights & Measures

OH Dept of Agriculture

8995 East Main St Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290

FAX: 614-728-6424

Dickson, Denny 26084

Sevice Technical Analyst

Federal Express Corp

2650 Thousand Oaks Blvd Ste 3120

Memphis, TN 38118

Telephone: 901-360-7886

FAX: 901-360-7946

Diggs, G.W. (Wes) 9034

Supervisor

VA Products & Industry Stds 1100 Bank St PO Box 1163

Richmond, VA 23209

Telephone: 804-786-2476

FAX: 804-786-1571

294
List of Participants

Doucette, Robert F. 10290

Project Engineer

Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald Rd

Greenwood, SC 25646

Telephone: 803-942-2262

FAX: 803-942-7433

English, David C. 2153

President Measurement Systems Intl 14240 Interurban Avenue South

Seattle, WA 98116

Telephone: 206-433-0199

FAX: 206-244-8470

Flociien, Darrell E. 30642

Mgr Internal' I Wghts & Meas

Mettler-Toledo Inc

1 150 Dearborn Drive

Worthington, OH 43085

Telephone: 614-438-4393

FAX: 614-438-4355

Duncan, Clyde L.

President

Deka Scale Inc 1144 Expressway Dr South

Toledo, OH 43608

Telephone: 419-727-9731

FAX: 419-727-9735

15337 Eskew, James H. 3435

Coord for Metrology/Wts & Meas

TX Dept of Agriculture

119 Cumberland Rd

Austin, TX 78704

Telephone: 512-462-1441

FAX: 512-475-1642

Fonger, Robert L. Technical Service Rep

Bennett Pump Co

2740 Wood Street Muskegon, MI 49443

Telephone: 616-733-1302

FAX: 616-739-8832

3919

Dynia, Michael 7196

Metrologist

CT Dept of Consumer Protection

165 Capitol Ave

Hartford, CT 06106

Telephone: 203-566-4778

FAX: 203-566-7630

Eason, L.F. 3886

Metrologist Standards Division

NC Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 27647 Dept SD

Raleigh, NC 27611

Telephone: 919-733-4411

FAX: 919-733-8804

Feagan, Bruce 8395

Inspector Weights & Measures

Seattle Licenses & Cons Affs

805 S Dearborn Street

Seattle, WA 98134

Telephone: 206-386-1298

FAX: 206-386-1129

Fecht, John 25782

Grain Warehouse Director

NE Public Service Commission

300 The Atrium 1200 N Street Lincoln, NE 68508

Telephone: 402-471-3101

FAX: 402-471-0254

Fowler, John ~ 30781

Regional Vehicle Manager

Mettler-Toledo Inc 4 Knollwood Terrace

St Johnsbury, VT 05819

Telephone: 802-748-1390

FAX: 802-748-8442

Fraley, Ken L. 4148

Stds Tech Ultra Prec Insp Dir

OK Bureau of Standards

2800 N Lincoln Blvd

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Telephone: 405-521-3864 x370

FAX: 405-521-4912

Edgerly, David E. 2999

Acting Depty Dir/Tech Serv NIST

Bldg TB 418 Room 102

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4500

FAX: 301-975-2183

Feezor, Robert K. 11200

Superintendent Scales Norfolk Southern Corp

Building Box 142 99 Spring Street Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: 404-527-2538

FAX: 404-527-2769

French, William R. 10090

Inspector

ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Elkins, Kerry 9796

Roadway Information Technology

1795 W Market Street Akron, OH 44313

Telephone: 216-873-4509

FAX: 216-873-4388

Ely, Dean F. 9648

District Supervisor

PA Dept of Agriculture

332 Washington Avenue

Jersey Shore, PA 17740-1419

Telephone: 717-327-3560

FAX: 717-327-3563

Fiedler-Thorn, Sarah 30648

Public Affairs Manager

Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l Inc

1 1252 Aurora Ave

Des Moines, lA 50322

Telephone: 515-222-6841

FAX: 515-222-6883

Flanders, Jerry 8129

Division Director Fuel & Meas

GA Dept of Agriculture

Agric Bldg 19 MLK Drive Room 321

Atlanta, GA 30334

Telephone: 404-656-3605

FAX: 404-656-9380

Frieders, David 30012

Director of Weights & Measures

San Francisco County

501 Army Street # 109-

San Francisco, CA 94124

Telephone: 415-285-5012

FAX: 415-285-8776

Fuehne, Robert 10443

Quality Assurance Specialist

Ralston Purina Co

Checkerboard Square - 4RN

St Louis, MO 63164

Telephone: 314-982-2916

FAX: 314-982-4072

295
List of Participants

Fulton, Sue 30784

Sr Product Manager

Church & Dwight Co

469 North Harrison

Princeton, NJ 08540

Telephone: 609-497-2434

FAX: 609-279-7611

Funderburk, James O. 11613

Manager Regulatory Affairs

First Brands Corporation

88 Long Hill Street East Hartford, CT 06108

Telephone: 203-728-6182

FAX: 203-728-6083

Gardner, Charles A. 3438

Director

Suffolk Co Wghts «& Meas

County Center N Bldg 340

Hauppauge, NY 11788

Telephone: 516-853-4621

FAX: 516-853-4578

Gardner, Charles H. 9660

President

Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Ave

Rancocas, NJ 08073

Telephone: 800-573-6322

FAX: 800-373-6322

Gardner, K.W. 24697

Manager Fuels Quality Programs

Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Rd Rm #5W907

Fairfax, VA 22037

Telephone: 703-849-5049

FAX: 703-849-6782

Geiler, Thomas F. 219

Director

Barnstable Consumer Affairs PO Box 2430 230 South Street Hyannis, MA 02601

Telephone: 508-790-6251

FAX: 508-778-2412

GeMeiner, William G. 562

Manager Methods & Research

Union Pacific RR

MC 3300 1416 Dodge St Omaha, NE 68179

Telephone: 402-280-6345

FAX: 402-280-7299

Giguere, Steve 11721

Inspector

ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Goodpaster, William V. 1607

Vice President

Cardinal/Detecto

1610 North C St Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: 916-441-0178

FAX: 916-441-5606

Gould, John 15317

Director-Inspection Service

American Meat Institute 1700 N Moore Street Rm 1600

Arlington, VA 22209

Telephone: 703-841-2400

FAX: 703-527-0938

Grant, Barry 26128

Quality Supply Manager

Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l Inc 7000 Pioneer Parkway PO Box 256

Johnston, I A 50131-0256

Telephone: 515-270-3438

FAX: 515-264-2406

Gray, Maxwell H. 7991

Chief Weights & Measures FL Dept of Agr & Cons Services

3125 Conner Blvd Lab 2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 904-488-9140

FAX: 904-922-6655

Greek, Richard D. 2875

Agr Commissioner Sealer San Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas

2156 Sierra Way Suite A

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Telephone: 805-781-5910

FAX: 805-781-1035

Gregory, Larry 28607

Design Engineer

Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Road Rm 7W323

Fairfax, VA 22037-0001

Telephone: 703-849-6206

FAX: 703-849-5645

Guay, Christopher B. 840

Regulatory Affairs Manager

Procter & Gamble Co

11450 Grooms Road

Cincinnati, OH 45242

Telephone: 513-626-2222

FAX: 513-626-1907

Guensler, Darreil A. 38

Director

CA Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3006

FAX: 916-229-3026

Gunja, Robert 9956

Standards Administrator Kansas City KS Wghts & Meas

701 North 7th St Rm 612

Kansas City, KS 66101

Telephone: 913-573-5080

FAX: 913-573-5005

Habib, Issac 25713

Industrial Engineer

United Parcel Service

340 McArthur Blvd (M-3B-115)

Mahway, NJ 07430

Telephone: 201-828-3388

FAX: 201-828-1658

Hadyka, Paul 9402

Industrial Specialist

USDA GIPSA

PO Box 96454 1400 Independence

Ave

Washington, DC 20250-6454

Telephone: 202-720-0262

FAX: 202-720-1015

Hamilton, Eric 28476

Chief Bur of Petroleum Insp

FL Dept of Agr & Cons Services

3125 Conner Blvd Bldg #1

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 904-488-9740

FAX: 904-922-6655

Hankel, P.E., Melvin C. 9094

Consuhing Engineer

MCH Engineering Associates Inc 6926 Balmoral Drive

Fort Wayne, IN 46804-1442

Telephone: 219-436-9234

296
List of Participants

Hannigan, Philip G. 25712

Technical Assistant Scale Manufacturers Assn

9384 D Forestwood Lane

Manassas, VA 22110

Telephone: 703-330-7079

FAX: 703-330-7984

Harkleroad, Dave R. 30083

Metrologist

Lockheed Martin Marietta

PO 2003 Site K-25 Bldg K1035

#7219

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7219

Telephone: 615-574-9315

FAX: 615-574-5037

Hays, John U. 23425

Director

AZ Dept of Weights & Measures 9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone: 602-255-52 11 Ext2962

FAX: 602-255-1950

Heck, David K. 11242

Mgr Mkt Legislation & Regs

Chevron USA Products Co

575 Market St Room 2236

San Francisco, CA 94105-2856

Telephone: 415-894-0910

FAX: 415-894-5038

Heffron, Edward C. 2452

Director Food Division

MI Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-373-1060

FAX: 517-373-3333

Hegele, Frederick A. 25880

Director Quality Assurance

General Mills Inc PO Box 1113

Minneapolis, MN 55440-1113

Telephone: 612-540-2053

FAX: 612-540-2109

Henzler, Maureen 8180

Agr Inspector III KS Weights & Measures 2510 SW Gainsboro Rd

Topeka, KS 66614-4351

Telephone: 913-267-4641

Herman, Marilyn J. 9091

President Herman & Associates

2300 M St NW Suite 800

Washington, DC 20037

Telephone: 202-775-1630

FAX: 202-293-3083

Hile, James Michael 7153

Director

AR Bureau of Standards

4608 West 61st St

Little Rock, AR 72209

Telephone: 501-324-9680

FAX: 501-562-7605

Hochstetler, Herman R. 5855

Inspector Elkhart Co Wghts & Meas

117 N 2nd Room 107

Goshen, IN 46526-3231

Telephone: 219-535-6472

FAX: 219-533-4431

Holland, Frances P. 15654

Regulatory Affairs Schlumberger Technologies

825 Greenbriar Circle #M

Chesapeake, VA 23320-2638

Telephone: 804-366-4400 xl62

FAX: 804-424-2746

Hopper, Monty H. 11132

Director

Kern Co Weights & Measures

1116 East California Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93307

Telephone: 805-861-2418

FAX: 805-324-0668

Huebschman, Louise D. 10602

Operations Quality Manager

Kraft Foods Inc

1 Kraft Ct

Glenview, IL 60025

Telephone: 708-646-3698

FAX: 708-646-6842

Huff, Richard M. 10608

Vice President Electronics Universal Epsco Inc 1494 Ellsworth Ind Dr Box 93544

Atlanta, GA 30318

Telephone: 404-351-2740

FAX: 404-351-2899

Hughes, William L. 10158

Customer Service Director

Transportation General Inc 3251 Washington Blvd

Arlington, VA 22201

Telephone: 703-525-0900

FAX: 703-525-0908

Humphreys, Roy 30272

Director

MO Dept of Agriculture

1616 Missouri Blvd

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0281

Telephone: 314-751-4316

FAX: 314-751-0281

Hunt, Lachricia - 2231

Planning Manager - MIS

Mervyn's

22301 Foothill Blvd

Hayward, CA 94541

Telephone: 510-727-5087

FAX: 510-727-3900

Hutton, Randall L. 11660

VP Government Relations

Winn-Dixie Stores Inc 5050 Edgewood Ct

Jacksonville, FL 32254-3699

Telephone: 904-783-5408

FAX: 904-783-5294

lannelli, Gerard C. 2690

Director of Metric Program

NIST, Bldg 411 Room A 146

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3690

FAX: 301-948-1416

Insalaco, Cosmo C. 107

Agr Commissioner Sealer Fresno Co Wghts & Meas

1730 South Maple

Fresno, CA 93702

Telephone: 209-456-7510

FAX: 209-456-7379

Issaev, L. K. 3829

Vice-President

Comm of Russian Fed Standards

9 Leninsky Prospect

Moscow, 117049 Russia

Telephone: 7-095-236-7560

FAX: 7-095-237-60

297
List of Participants

Jennings, Randy F. 10648

Petroleum Administrator

TN Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 40627 Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0147

FAX: 615-360-0335

Joelson, Mark R. 4238

General Counsel

Gasoline Pump Mfg Assn

1800 M Street N W

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: 202-467-7240

FAX: 202-467-7176

Johnson, Gordon W. 3351

Principal Regulatory Engineer

Gilbarco Inc 7300 West Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27420

Telephone: 910-547-5375

FAX: 910-547-5516

Johnson, Jean M. 9935

Marketing Associate

American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005-4070

Telephone: 202-682-8227

FAX: 202-682-8222

Johnson, Robert L. 26451

Director Work Methods

Winn-Dixie Stores Inc 5050 Edgewood Ct

Jacksonville, FL 32254-3699

Telephone: 904-783-5239

Johnson, Ted F. 9899

Director of Marketing

Sensortronics Inc 2187 Vista Court

LaVeme, CA 91750

Telephone: 909-593-5419

FAX: 909-596-2329

Joines, Debbie A. 11709

Sr Design Engineer

Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802-1859

Telephone: 410-546-6699

FAX: 410-548-6913

Jorowski, Gerry A. 9396

Piogram Officer Consumer Prod

Consumer Products Branch

Place du Portage 50 Victoria Street Hull Quebec, KIA 0C9 Canada

Telephone: 819-953-3645

FAX: 819-953-293

Jung, Louise R. 26295

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Div of Enforcement FTC

6th &. Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: 202-326-2989/2982

FAX: 202-326-3259

Junge, Dave K. 16508

President

Junge Control Inc 7 19- 10th Avenue SW

Cedar Rapids, lA 52404

Telephone: 319-365-0686 x15

FAX: 319-365-3928

Kammer, Raymond G. 30777

Deputy Director

NIST, Building 101 Room A 1134

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2300

Kane, Jack 13470

Bureau Chief

MT Bur of Weights & Measures

Capitol Station Helena, MT 59620

Telephone: 406-444-3164

FAX: 406-444-4186

Karas, Randy 766

Mgr Petro-Mech Mktg &. Sales NA

Veeder-Root Co

PO Box 1673

Altoona, PA 16603

Telephone: 814-695-4476 xl25

FAX: 814-695-7605

Keehan, Jenny L. 30207

Manager State Programs

Intemat'l Mass Retail Assn

1901 Pennsylvania Ave Ste 1000

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: 202-861-0774

FAX: 202-861-4588

Keilty, Michael J. 11672

Custody Transfer Manager

Micro Motion Inc 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

Telephone: 303-530-8231

FAX: 303-530-8209

Kelley, Robert B. 228

Deputy Director Chief W&M

NYC Dept of Consimier Affairs 42 Broadway 8th Floor492

New York, NY 10004

Telephone: 212-487-4328

FAX: 212-487-4314

Kelly, Thomas W. 5892

Retired

737 Evergreen Parkway

Union, NJ 07083

Telephone: 908-686-2960

Kessler, Robert L. 11693

Exec Director - Gen Counsel Western Coal Trans Assn

PO Box 176

Denver, CO 80201

Telephone: 303-694-6611

FAX: 303-220-1891

Kloos, Chip 3453

Lab Manager-R&D

Hunt-Wesson Inc 1645 W Valencia Dr

Fullerton, CA 92633-3899

Telephone: 714-680-1098

FAX: 714-449-5166

Koenig, Joan A. 9036

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NIST, Bldg 221 Rm A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4007

FAX: 301-926-0647

Kohut, Jim 24548

Manager of Approvals Kraus Industries Ltd

204 Day Street Winnipeg Manitoba, R2C 1A8

Canada

Telephone: 204-988-1234

FAX: 204-654-2881

298
List of Participants

Kranker, Nelson 9394

Director

Dutchess Co Dept of Cons Affrs 38 A Dutchess Turnpike

Poughkeepsie, NY 12603

Telephone: 914-471-6322

Krebs, Michele 23997

NCWM

P.O. Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885

Telephone: 301-975-4093

FAX: 301-926-0647

Krejci, David James 4071

Executive Vice President

Grain Elevator & Processing

301 Fourth Ave South

Minneapolis, MN 55415-0026

Telephone: 612-339-4625

FAX: 612-339-4644

Kupper, Walter E. 3930

65 Bamsdale Rd

Madison, NJ 07940-0071

Telephone: 201-301-1989

FAX: 201-301-0804

Kushnir, Dan 9902

Sales Manager

Seraphin Test Measure

PO Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073

Telephone: 800-573-6322

FAX: 800-373-6322

Lagemann, William 7976

Administrator Wghts & Meas

DE Dept of Agriculture

2320 S Dupont Hwy

Dover, DE 19901

Telephone: 302-739-4811 x37

FAX: 302-697-6287

Lammers, Leon 28830

Vice President Engineering

Weigh-Tronix Inc 1000 Armstrong Dr PO Box 1000

Fairmont, MN 56031

Telephone: 800-533-0456

FAX: 517-238-4195

Land, Robert L. 187

Inspector

Anderson Weights & Measures PO Box 2100 120 E 8th St Anderson, IN 46011

Telephone: 317-646-9839

FAX: 317-646-5668

Langford, Stephen 14657

Cardinal Detecto Scale Mfg Co

203 East Daugherty

Webb City, MO 64870

Telephone: 417-673-4631

FAX: 417-673-5001

Lee, G. Diane 30662

Physical Scientist NIST, Bldg. 221, Room A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4405

FAX: 301-926-0647

Lemay, Rick 2535

Auto Tech Comm Mgr

Kern Co Weights & Measures

1116 East California Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93307

Telephone: 805-861-2441

FAX: 805-861-2876

Lodge, Harvey M. 355

Cargotec Inc 307 Broadway

Swanton, OH 43558

Telephone: 419-825-2331

FAX: 419-826-8439

Lori, Anthony 3160

Superintendent

Morris Co Wghts & Meas

PO Box 900

Morristown, NJ 07963

Telephone: 201-285-2955

FAX: 201-285-6075

Loveless, Elizabeth 11655

Secretary

NIST, Bldg 221, Room A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4004

FAX: 301-926-0647

Lovell, James J. 7584

Metrologist

AK Div of Measurement Stds 12050 Industry Way

Anchorage, AK 99515

Telephone: 907-345-7846

FAX: 907-345-6835

Loyd, Jr., Forrest Joe 9086

Sr Mgr Eng Matls & Scales CSX Transportation Inc 500 Water St J350

Jacksonville, FL 32202

Telephone: 904-359-1024

FAX: 904-359-7476

Lurie, Brad D. 10022

Marketing Manager

Brooks Instrument PO Box 450 Hwy 301 North

Statesboro, GA 30459

Telephone: 912-489-0200

FAX: 912-489-0425

Magnan, Rene 10196

Dir Policy Planning Prog Dev

Legal Metrology Br Ind Canada

110 O'Connor St 2nd Fl Ohawa Ontario, KIA 0C9

Canada

Telephone: 613-952-0610

FAX: 613-952-1736

Malone, Steven A. 554

Director

NE Div of Wghts «& Meas

Box 94757

301 Centennial Mall South

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Telephone: 402-471-4292

FAX: 402-471-3252

Marceau, Renald 10211

Senior Program Officer

Legal Metrology Branch

110 O'Connor St 2nd Floor

Ottawa, KIA 0C9 Canada

Telephone: 613-952-2629

FAX: 613-952-1736

Marcouiller, Sheryl A. 16244

Senior Food & Drug Counsel

Kraft Foods Inc Three Lakes Drive N4F

Northfield, IL 60093-2758

Telephone: 708-646-4206

FAX: 708-646-443

Marino, Patrick 9366

Technical Service Manager

New Brunswick Intematl Inc 76 Veronica Ave

Somerset, NJ 08873

Telephone: 201-828-3633

FAX: 201-828-4884

Martell, Bruce 10126

Supervisor Consumer Assur Div

VT Dept of Agriculture

116 State St Drawer 20

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901

Telephone: 802-828-2436

FAX: 802-828-2361

299
List of Participants

Massey, Vernon Lee 3634

Sealer Shelby Co Weights & Measures

157 Poplar Suite 402

Memphis, TN 38103

Telephone: 901-576-3920

FAX: 901-576-3796

Mattia, Michael A. 16338

Director Risk Management

Institute for Scrap Recycling

1325 G Street N W Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20005-3104

Telephone: 202-737-1770

FAX: 202-775-9109

Mehlhaff, Michael J. 2176

Director Div Comm Insp & Reg

SD Weights & Measures

118 West Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501-2080

Telephone: 605-773-3697

FAX: 605-773-6631

Michell, Jr., Charles W. 9082

Staff Loss Control Rep

Shell Oil Co

PO Box 2099 TSP 1164

Houston, TX 77252

Telephone: 713-241-0455

FAX: 713-241-1139

Moreno, Louis G. 22182

Director

Cumberland Co W«&M Cons Prot 788 East Commerce St Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Telephone: 609-453-2204

FAX: 609-453-2206

Murdock, Ronald D. 8366

Program Mgr Meas Sec Stds Div

NC Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 27647 Dept SD

Raleigh, NC 27611

Telephone: 919-733-3313

FAX: 919-715-0524

McCoy, Angelique 1 1497

OH Dept of Agriculture

8995 East Main Street Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290

FAX: 614-728-6424

McGrath, Robert 10683

Deputy Sealer Boston ISD

1010 Massachusetts Ave

Boston, MA 02118-2606

Telephone: 617-635-5328

FAX: 617-635-5360

McKay, David O. 8438

Supervisor Weights & Measures

UT Dept of Agriculture

350 N Redwood Rd

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Telephone: 801-538-7158

FAX: 801-538-7126

McMurry, Richard 30374

Inspector

Monroe Co Wghts & Meas

119 W 7th St Bloomington, IN 47404

Telephone: 812-333-3566

FAX: 812-339-6481

Meche, Myron 30204

Legislative Representative

National Retail Federation

325 7th St NW Ste 1000

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: 202-783-7971

FAX: 202-737-2849

Millay, Stanley K. 74

Weights & Measures Supervisor

ME Dept Agriculture MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Mills, Nigel G. 25005

Sr Consulting Engineer

Hobart Corp

701 Ridge Avenue

Troy, OH 45374-0001

Telephone: 513-332-3205

FAX: 513-332-3007

Mindte, Joan 12500

Training Coordinator

NIST

Bldg 221 A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4003

FAX: 301-926-0647

Mittermaier, Armin 25605

Representative Data Action

3401 Kirkwood Drive

Ft Wayne, IN 46805

Telephone: 219-484-8827

FAX: 219-484-8827

Moore, Jr., Walter L. 25765

Manager Tissue Division

American Forest & Paper Assn

nil 19th StNW7th Floor

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: 202-463-2449

FAX: 202-463-5171

Murray, Larry 5879

Chief Engineer

Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 W College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802-1859

Telephone: 410-546-6690

FAX: 410-548-6913

Muse, Jim 2688

Deputy Asst Commissioner

TX Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

Telephone: 512-463-8348

FAX: 512-463-7648

Nelson, Allan M, 2515

Director Weights & Measures

CT Dept of Consumer Protection

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Telephone: 203-566-4778

FAX: 203-566-7630

Newcombe, Danny 11164

Metrologist Reg Wghts & Meas

ME Dept of Agriculture MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Nover, Neal J. 15476

VP Marketing

Nover-Engelstein & Assc Inc 2077 Grand Street Scotch Plains, NJ 07076

Telephone: 609-489-1817

FAX: 609-489-1817

300
List of Participants

O'Bryan, Oral "Pete" R. 2595

QA Manager

Foster Farms

PO Box 457

Livingston, CA 95334-9900

Telephone: 209-394-7901 x4610

FAX: 209-394-6913

O'Connor, Thomas 5271

Director Technical Service

National Grain & Feed Assn

1201 New York Ave NW Suite 830

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 202-289-0873

FAX: 202-289-5388

Onwiler, Don 25584

Moisture Tester Inspector

NE F*ublic Service Comm

PO Box 94927 1200 N St Ste 300

Lincoln, NE 68509-4927

Telephone: 402-471-3101

FAX: 402-471-0254

Palmer, Michael A. 10468

East Coast Area Lab Manager

Inchcape Testing Services

327 Erickson Ave

Essington, PA 19317

Parrish, Johnny 28288

Project Engineer

Brooks Instrument Division

Hwy 301 North PO Box 450

Statesboro, GA 30458

Telephone: 912-489-0303

FAX: 912-489-0410

Peeples Esq., James E. 7505

Consultant

Polar Molecular Corp

5894 South Sixth Street

Falls Church, VA 22041

Telephone: 703-578-3655

FAX: 703-578-3230

Perrault, Andy 9601

Electronics Technologist Kraus Industries Ltd

25 Paquin Rd

Winnipeg Manitoba R2J 3V9,

Canada

Telephone: 204-988-1234

FAX: 204-654-2881

Perry, William H. 1752

President Cardinal Scale Mfg Co

PO Box 151 203 E Daugherty

Webb City, MO 64870

Telephone: 417-673-4631

FAX: 417-673-5001

Peterson, Paul L. 248

Chief

USDA GIPSA

14th & Independence SW Rm 3414

S

Washington, DC 20250

Telephone: 202-720-3140

FAX: 202-690-2173

Phillips, Jim 28854

Deputy Inspector

Delaware Co Weights & Measures County Bldg 100 West Main Room

20

Muncie, IN 47305

Telephone: 317-747-7714

Philmon, Richard L. 9168

Program Coordinator IL Dept of Agriculture

801 E Sangamon Ave

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

Telephone: 217-782-3817

FAX: 217-524-7801

Pickett, Jim 4617

Mkt Mgr-Municipal Auto Systems

Toter Incorporated

841 Meacham Road

Statesville, NC 28677

Telephone: 704-872-8171

FAX: 704-878-0734

Pierce, Richard 13794

Leader Type Approval Group

USDA GIPSA

10383 N Executive Hills Blvd

Kansas City, MO 64153

Telephone: 816-891-0449

FAX: 816-891-8070

Pinagel, Michael S. 22299

Weights & Measures Specialist

Ml Dept of Agric Food Div

PO Box 30017

Lansing, Ml 48909

Telephone: 517-373-1060

FAX: 517-373-3333

Pittman, Cathryn F. 2403

Technologist

TN Dept of Agr Wghts & Meas

440 Hogan Rd PO Box 40627

Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0159

FAX: 615-360-0608

Pizzutillo, Anthony E. 30636

Assistant Director

Issues Management Inc 104 Campus Dr

Princeton, NJ 08540

Telephone: 609-452-9191

FAX: 609-520-9133

Pond, Douglas ~ 25609

Science Director IN Commodity Licensing

150 West Market 414 ISTA Center

Indianapolis, FN 46204

Telephone: 317-232-8770

FAX: 317-232-1362

Porter, Alan 8752

Program Manager Wghts & Meas

WI Dept Agr Trade & Cons Prot PO Box 891 1 281 1 Agriculture Dr

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone: 608-224-4945

FAX: 608-224-4939

Price, Edwin J. 2434

Director for Consumer Programs

TX Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 12847 1700 Congress Street Austin, TX 78711

Telephone: 512-463-7607

FAX: 512-463-7643

Prince, Gale 10651

Manager Regulatory Compliance

Kroger Co

1014 Vine St Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100

Telephone: 513-762-4209

FAX: 513-762-4372

Prince, Harold 4466

Inspector

ME Div of Regulations MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

301
List of Participants

Quasebarth, Chris 8207

Deputy Commissioner

WV Dept of Labor

Bldg 3 Rm 319 Capitol Complex

Charleston, WV 25305

Telephone: 304-558-7890

FAX: 304-558-3797

Quinn, David W. 11509

Vice President Heavy Cap Mkt

Fairbanks Scales 821 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106

Telephone: 816-471-0231

FAX: 816-471-5951

Regan, Claire 26003

Director Scientific Affairs Grocery Manufacturers America

1010 Wisconsin NW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20007

Telephone: 202-337-9400

FAX: 202-337-4508

Reierson, Bruce J. 21805

Product Manager

Mettler-Toledo Inc 6600 Huntley Road

Columbus, OH 43229

Telephone: 614-841-7300

FAX: 614-841-7295

Reinfried, Robert A. 9388

Executive Director

Scale Manufacturers Assn

9384 D Forestwood Lane

Manassas, VA 22110

Telephone: 703-330-7079

FAX: 703-330-7984

Reynolds, Robert E. 10653

President

Downstream Alternatives Inc PO Box 190

Bremen, IN 46506-0190

Telephone: 219-546-4204

FAX: 219-546-5845

Rhoades, Sharon 8157

Chief Enforcement Officer

AZ Dept of Wghts & Meas

9535 E Doubletree Ranch Rd

Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5539

Telephone: 602-255-521 lExt2963

FAX: 602-255-1950

Richter, Ralph A. 9461

General Engineer Div 202 Metr

NIST

Bid 411Rm A 146

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3997

FAX: 301-948-1416

Riel, Jack C. 10121

Chief of Weighing

Canadian Grain Commission

900 - 303 Main St Winnipeg Manitoba R3C 3G8,

Canada

Telephone: 204-983-2799

FAX: 204-983-7550

Robinson, John J. 743

Sr Assistant Vice President

American Railway Eng Assn

11310 Glen Arm Road

Glen Arm, MD 21057

Telephone: 202-639-2204

FAX: 202-639-2930

Rogers, David F. 12838

Metrology Lab Supervisor

Lockheed Martin Marietta

PO Box 2003

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7219

Telephone: 615-574-8353

FAX: 615-574-5037

Rogers, J. Alan 9374

Program Manager

VA Product & Industry Stds PO Box 1 163 1 100 Bank St Rm 402

Richmond, VA 23209-1163

Telephone: 804-786-2476

FAX: 804-786-1571

Romano, Ed 124

Sealer Glenn Co Wghts & Meas

720 N Colusa St PO Box 351

Willows, CA 95988

Telephone: 916-934-6501

FAX: 916-934-6503

Ross, James E. 9027

Metrologist Measmt Stds Div

OR Dept of Agriculture

635 Capitol St NE

Salem, OR 97310-0110

Telephone: 503-986-4672

FAX: 503-986-4734

Rothleder, Joseph 3495

Principal State Metrologist

CA Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-229-3022

FAX: 916-229-3026

Sanda, Krista 20001

Commissioner

MN Dept of Public Service

121 7th Place E #200

St Paul, MN 55101-2145

Telephone: 612-296-6025

FAX: 612-282-2568

Sawyer, Arthur A. 1 1 163

Inspector

ME Dept of Agriculture MDA

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-287-3841

FAX: 207-287-7548

Schaffer, Dennis 3911

Marketing Product Manager

TEC America Inc 4401 A Bankers Circle

Atlanta, GA 30360

Telephone: 404-449-3040

FAX: 404-449-1152

Sebring, Lynn 23996

Office of Weights & Measures

NIST, Bldg 221 A3 57

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4006

FAX: 301-926-0647

Shanahan, Scott 13993

Sales Manager

Battery Shop Inc PO Box 51647

New Berlin, WI 53151-0647

Telephone: 414-789-5100

FAX: 414-789-5050

Sherrard, Keith R. 8223

Sealer South Portland Wghts & Meas

60 Churchill Rd

South Portland, ME 04106

Telephone: 207-799-6806

302
List of Participants

Silvestro, Joseph 2809

Superintendent

Consumer Protection/Wgts & Msr

152 N Broad St Box 337

Woodbury, NJ 08096

Telephone: 609-853-3358

FAX: 609-853-2770

Smith, Robert M. 4449

Senior Designer Engineer

Smith Meter Inc 1602 Wagner Avenue

Erie, PA 16510

Telephone: 814-898-5000

FAX: 814-899-3414

Szesnat, Jr., Edward J. 1 09 1

Metrologist

NY Bureau of Wghts & Meas

State Campus Bldg 7A

Albany, NY 12235

Telephone: 518-457-3452

FAX: 518-457-2552

Simila, Kendrick J. 2510

Adm Meas Stds Div

OR Dept of Agriculture

635 Capitol Street N E

Salem, OR 97310-0110

Telephone: 503-986-4669

FAX: 503-986-4734

Simpkins, Curtis E. 2632

Inspector Grant Co Wghts & Meas

418 S Adams St Grant Co Complex

Marion, IN 46953

Telephone: 317-668-8871 xl70

Skonberg, Carl M. 24000

United Parcel Service-Res & Dv

51-53 Kenosia Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810-7317

Telephone: 203-731-6376

FAX: 203-731-6340

Skuce, John C. 10442

Manager Mechanical Engineering

Smith Meter Inc PO Box 10428

Erie, PA 16514-0428

Telephone: 814-898-5405

FAX: 814-899-3414

Smith, Martin R. 4808

Product Analyst

Schlumberger Industries 1310 Emerald Road

Greenwood, SC 29646-8800

Telephone: 803-223-1212

FAX: 803-223-0341

Smith, N. David 2391

Director Standards Division

NC Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

Telephone: 919-733-3313

FAX: 919-715-0524

Stabler, Thomas M. 3119

Manager Weights & Measures

Stabler Training Resources Inc PO Box 105

Ostrander, OH 43061

Telephone: 614-666-0603

FAX: 614-438-4995

Stears, Robert 9596

Assistant Director

Issues Management

104 Campus Drive

Princeton, NJ 08540

Stephenson, Michael K. 4471

Inspector

MI Dept of Agriculture

244 Marshall St Allegan, Ml 49010

Telephone: 616-673-8812

Straub, Louis E. 6248

Chief Weights & Measures MD Dept of Agriculture

50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790

FAX: 410-841-2765

Stump, Lawrence J. 13717

Director

IN Weights & Measures

1330 West Michigan St Indianapolis, IN 46206

Telephone: 317-383-6350

FAX: 317-383-6776

Suiter, Richard C. 2368

Agr Inspector Supervisor

NE Div of Wghts & Meas

PO Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall S

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757

Telephone: 402-471-4292

FAX: 402-471-3252

Swogger, David 108

Inspector

Dekalb Co Wghts & Meas

1390 County Road #5

Corunna, IN 46730

Telephone: 219-281-2047

Szyndrowski, Chester 10302

Inspector East Chicago Wghts & Meas

1102 W 151 Street East Chicago, IN 46312

Telephone: 219-397-3409

Tanaka, Yuji _ 7527

General Manager

Cosmo Oil of USA Inc 280 Park Ave 22nd Fl East Bldg

New York, NY 10017

Telephone: 212-949-9710

FAX: 212-949-8136

Tholen, Albert D. 232

Mgr Nat'l Voluntary Lab Prog

NIST, Bldg 411 Div 214

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4017

FAX: 301-926-0647

Thomas, Lawrence E. 5893

Inspector Terre Haute Wghts & Meas

3010 North 5th St Terre Haute, IN 47804

Telephone: 812-466-1546

Thompson, Aves D. 10201

Chief

AK Div of Measurement Stds 12050 Industry Way Bldg O

Anchorage, AK 99515

Telephone: 907-345-7750

FAX: 907-345-6835

Thompson, Merrill S. 590

Attorney

Baker & Daniels

PO Box 8500 Main Street Bridgeton, FN 47836

Telephone: 317-548-2211

FAX: 317-548-2214

303
List of Participants

Thuner, Kathleen A. 5869

Agr Comm Sealer Wghts & Meas

San Diego Co Dept of Agr

5555 Overland Ave Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

Telephone: 619-694-2741

FAX: 619-565-7046

Tkachuk, Walter K. 7543

Consultant

17919 Fireside Dr

Spring, TX 77379

Telephone: 713-251-0327

Tonini, Daryl E. 1336

Technical Director

Scale Manufacturers Assn

9384-D Forestwood Lane

Manassas, VA 22110

Telephone: 703-330-7079

FAX: 703-330-7984

Torres-Ferrer, Jose A. 11193

Chief of Enforcement/Caguas

Puerto Rico Consumer Affairs Caguas Reg Off PO Box 1031

Caguas, PR 00726-1031

Telephone: 809-744-9341

FAX: 809-744-3414

Traettino, Robert M. 8923

Vice President of Quality

Liquid Controls Corp

105 Albrecht Drive

Lake Bluff, IL 60044-9951

Telephone: 708-295-1056 x300

FAX: 708-295-1089

Trefz, Richard 10240

Group Vice President

Inductotherm Industries PO Box 227

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227

Telephone: 800-573-6322

FAX: 800-373-6322

Truex, James C. 2178

Acting Chief Wghts & Meas

OH Dept of Agriculture

8995 E Main St Bldg #5

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399

Telephone: 614-728-6290

FAX: 614-728-6424

Tucker, Richard L. 9070

Manager Dept of Authorities

Tokheim Corporation

PO Box 360

Ft Wayne, IN 46801

Telephone: 219-470-4610

FAX: 219-470-4720

Turberville, Larry M. 15341

Inspector Wghts «& Meas Div

AL Dept of Agr & Industry

PO Box 346

Cherokee, AL 35616

Telephone: 205-360-2609

FAX: 205-360-2453

Turner, Ann H. 236

Weights & Measures Coordinator

NCWM, PO Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885

Telephone: 301-975-4012

FAX: 301-926-0647

Turner, Richard D. 2859

Inspector

Lawrence Co Wghts & Meas

1503 22nd St Bedford, IN 47421

Telephone: 812-275-2721

Ugiansky, Ph.D., Gilbert M. 30690

Chief Office of Wghts & Meas

NIST, Building 221 Room A357

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4005

FAX: 301-926-0647

Vinet, Gilles 11941

Program Officer

Legal Metrology Branch

110 O'Connor St 2nd Fl Ottawa Ontario, KIA 0C9 Canada

Telephone: 613-952-2628

FAX: 613-952-1736

Vroom, William R. 4474

Retired Deputy Superintendent

PO Box 6165

Bridgewater, NJ 08807

Telephone: 908-722-1770

Wall III, David J. 4635

Marketing Representative

Saybolt Inc 400 Swenson Drive

Kenilworth, NJ 07033

Telephone: 908-245-3100

FAX: 908-245-5828

Wallace, David R. 4475

Chief Meas Standards Section

CO Dept of Agriculture

3125 Wyandot St Denver, CO 80211

Telephone: 303-866-2845

FAX: 303-866-2836

Warnlof, Irene B. 7145

Retired Wts & Meas Official 9705 Inaugural Way

Gaithersburg, MD 20879-2014

Telephone: 301-926-8155

Warniof, Otto K. 233

Standards Specialist

NIST-Standards Mgt Program

Bldg 417 Rm 121

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4026

FAX: 301-975-2871

Watson, Clifford A. 16558

Consultant

249 NE 71st Warrensburg, MO 64093

Telephone: 816-429-1311

FAX: 816-429-1311

Watson, Steve M. 16216

Key Account Manager

Sartorius Corporation

131 Heartland Blvd

Edgewood, NY 11717-8315

Telephone: 603-425-6439

FAX: 603-425-6439

Weber, Richard H. 684

Metrology Lab

3M Co

1185 Wolters Blvd

Vadnais Heights, MN 55110

Telephone: 612-733-2674

FAX: 612-736-7325

Wegner, Bruce K. 9532

R&D Engineer

Wray-Tech Instruments Inc 555 Lordship Blvd

Stratford, CT 06497

Telephone: 203-386-1365

FAX: 203-377-0945

304
List of Participants

West, Gary D. 8345

Director Stds & Consumer Serv NM Dept of Agriculture

PO Box 30005^Dept 3170

Las Cruces. NM 88003-8005

Telephone: 505-646-1616

FAX: 505-646-3303

Wheeler, Larry 22134

Qualit\' Assurance Manager

Hobart Corp

701 Ridge Avenue

Troy, OH 45374

Telephone: 513-332-2672

FAX: 513-332-3007

Williams, Curtis 4524

Director Fuel Oil Laboratory

GA Dept of Agricultxire

State Oil Lab 5235 Kennedy Rd

Forest Park, GA 30050

Telephone: 404-363-7597

FAX: 404-363-7694

Williams, Juana 10827

Physical Scientist NIST, Bldg 221 Rm A3 57

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3989

FAX: 301-926-0647

Williams, Robert G. 8797

Standards Administrator

TN Dept of Agr Wghts & Meas

PO Box 40627 Mekose Station Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0109

FAX: 615-360-0608

Willis, Danny 4207

Deput>' Commissioner

KY Dept of Agriculture

106 West 2nd Street Frankfort. KY 40601

Telephone: 502-564-4696

FAX: 502-564-5669

Wilson, William J. 4493

Director

Clinton Co Wghts & Meas

137 Margaret St Pittsburgh, NY 12901

Telephone: 518-565-4681

FAX: 518-565-4616

Wing, Andrea A. 25511

Project Engineer Planning Supv

Texaco Refining & Mkt Inc 1900 E Los Angeles Ave

Simi Valley, CA 93065

Telephone: 818-505-2576

FAX: 818-505-2435

Wise, Randy 10293

Prog Coordinator Wghts & Meas

KY Dept of Agriculture

106 West 2nd Street Frankfort, KY 40601

Telephone: 502-564-5669

FAX: 502-564-5669

Wolfer, Herbert 12432

Sealer West Bridgewater Wghts & Meas

Town Hall West Bridgewater, MA 02379

Telephone: 508-697-6652

Wotthlie, Richard W. 8257

Program Mgr Weights & Measures MD Dept of Agriculture

50 Harr>' S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Telephone: 410-841-5790

FAX: 410-841-2765

Yaffe, Theodore H. 10872

Program Manager

US Postal Service

8403 Lee Highway

Merrifield, VA 22082-8101

Telephone: 703-280-7055

FAX: 703-280-8402

Yelle, A. Courtney 16354

Chief Sealer Bucks Co Wghts & Meas

50 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901

Telephone: 215-348-7442

FAX: 215-348-4570

Yurek, Richard S. 3153

QA Administrator

Saybolt Inc 400 Swenson Drive

Kenilworth, NJ 07033

Telephone: 908-245-3100

FAX: 908-245-2747

Zalon, Paul 7312

Director Regulatory Affairs Nestle USA

100 Manhattanville Rd

Purchase, NY 10577

Telephone: 914-251-3487

FAX: 914-251-3600

Zards, Andrew A. 1344

Engineering Manager

Amoco Corp

200 East Randolph Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: 312-856-4073

FAX: 312-856-3401

Zhao, Ruo-Jiang 9932

State Bur Tech Suprv of China

#4 Zhichanlu Haidain

Beijing 100088, China

Zulfugarzade, Eldar 25766

Guest Researcher

Russia

NIST, Bldg 417 Rm 121 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4412

FAX: 301-963-2871

305 v> U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996-408-225/50061




U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards & Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

SPECIAL FOURTH CU\SS-RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

NIST PERMIT NO. G195

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED