MEDIA MAIL

US Postage and fees Paid

Suburban MD 20898

Permit No 6086
INSIDE FRONT COVER - BLANK
NIST Special Publication 1193

Report of the 99th National Conference on 

Weights and Measures

Detroit, Michigan – July 13 through 17, 2014 

as adopted by the 99th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2014 

Editors:

Tina Butcher 

Linda Crown

Richard Harshman

David Sefcik

Lisa Warfield

Carol Hockert, Chief

Office of Weights and Measures 

Physical Measurement Laboratory

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1193

June 2015 

U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and is 

attended by officials from various states, counties, and cities, as well as representatives from the U.S. Government, other nations, 

industry, and consumer organizations.
WASHINGTON: 2015 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, 

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

Abstract 

The 99th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

July 13 -17, 2014, at the Westin Book Cadillac Detroit, Detroit, Michigan. The theme of the meeting was 

“Meeting Tomorrow’s Challenges Today!” 

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

constitute the major portion of this publication, along with the addresses delivered by Conference officials 

and other authorities from government and industry. 

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

Association, Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee, Task Group on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges, 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee, Associate Membership Committee, Taximeter Technology 

Advancements, and Making Sense of Electronic Receipts. 

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

type evaluation; uniform laws; weights and measures. 

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 U.S. Customary Units where 

such units are commonly used in industry practice. Opinions expressed in non-NIST papers are those of the authors 

and not necessarily those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Non-NIST speakers are solely 

responsible for the content and quality of their material. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 11XX 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pub.1193, 630 pages (June 2015) 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1193 

CODEN: NSPUE2 
2014 Final Report 

iii 

National	Conference	on	Weights	and	

Measures	

Annual Report of the 99th NCWM 

Table of Contents 

 Page 

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

Past Chairman ................................................................................................................................................................ v 

Organizational Chart ..................................................................................................................................................... ix 

General Session 

Honorary President’s Address – Dr. Willie May, NIST, Acting Director ......................................................... GEN - 1 

Chairman’s Address – John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York ........................................................ GEN - 15 

Chairman Elect’s Address – Ronald Hayes, Detroit, Michigan ....................................................................... GEN - 19 

Awards and Recognition 

Contribution Award .............................................................................................................................. GEN - 21 

 Distinguished Service Award Recipients .............................................................................................. GEN - 21 

 Lifetime Achievement Award ............................................................................................................... GEN - 22 

 Attendance Recognitions ...................................................................................................................... GEN - 22 

Standing Committee Reports 

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

 Appendix A. Report of the Activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 

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

 Appendix B. Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes ....... BOD - B1 

Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R) ..................................................................................................... L&R - 1 

Appendix A. Items 231-2, 232-3, 237-1, 237-2, 237-3, and 237-5: Background and Justification for 

NIST Handbook 130, Definition for “Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE)” 

 of Natural Gas as a Vehicular Fuel .............................................................. L&R - A1 

Appendix B. Item 260-2: NIST Handbook 130, Handbook 133, Test Procedures – Packages 

Labeled by Volume, Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume ....... L&R - B1 

Appendix C. Items 232-6 and 237-9: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method 

of Sale, Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuels Specifications, 

and Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale for Petroleum Items ......... L&R - C1 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T) ......................................................................................... S&T - 1 

Appendix A. Item 320-2: NIST Handbook 44, UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance ..... S&T - A1 

Appendix B. Item 320-3: NIST Handbook 44, Draft Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-In-Motion 

Systems Used for Vehicle Enforcement Screening and proposed definitions to 

be added to NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D to support the Weigh-In-Motion 

Systems used for Vehicle Enforcement Screening – Draft Code .................. S&T - B1
2014 Final Report 

iv 

Appendix C. Item 330-4: NIST Handbook 44, N.4.2.5. Determination of Error on Wholesale Devices with 

Multiple Flow Rates and Calibration Factors ................................................ S&T - C1 

Appendix D. Item 331-1: NIST Handbook 44, N.4.2.1. Determination of Error on Vehicle-Tank Meters 

with Multiple Flow Rates and Calibration Factors ........................................ S&T - D1 

Appendix E. Items 337-1, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: NIST Handbook 44, Background and 

Justification for NIST Handbook 44 Definition of “Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE)” 

of Natural Gas as a Vehicular Fuel ................................................................ S&T - E1 

Appendix F. Item 358-1: NIST Handbook 44, Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and 

Trailer Units, Load Scanner Metrology, Test Methods and Suitability for Use by 

Loadscan Ltd. ................................................................................................. S&T - F1 

Appendix G. Item 358-1: NIST Handbook 44, Load Volume Scanner – Proposals for Integration into 

Handbook 44 ................................................................................................. S&T - G1 

Appendix H. Item 360-3: NIST Handbook 44, Draft Code Requirements for Electric Vehicle Fueling and 

Submetering ................................................................................................... S&T - H1 

Professional Development Committee (PDC) ............................................................................................... PDC - 1 

Appendix A. Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan ......................................... PDC - A1 

Appendix B. History of Professional Certification Program ............................................................. PDC - B1 

Appendix C. History of Instructor Improvement .............................................................................. PDC - C1 

Appendix D. Training Manual .......................................................................................................... PDC - D1 

National Type Evaluation Program Committee (NTEP) ........................................................................... NTEP - 1 

Appendix A. NTEP Statistics Report .............................................................................................. NTEP - A1 

Appendix B. Belt-Conveyor Scale Meeting Summary ................................................................... NTEP - B1 

Appendix C. Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary .................................................................. NTEP -C1 

Appendix D. Measuring Sector Meeting Summary ........................................................................ NTEP - D1 

Appendix E. Software Sector Meeting Summary ........................................................................... NTEP - E1 

Appendix F. Weighing Sector Meeting Summary .......................................................................... NTEP - F1 

Nominating Committee .................................................................................................................................. NOM - 1 

Attendees .................................................................................................................................................. ATTEND - 1
Past Chairmen – 2014 Final Report 

v 

Past Chairmen of the Conference 

Conference Year Location Chairman 

1st 1905 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards 

2nd 1906 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards 

3rd 1907 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards 

4th 1908 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards 

 1909 Conference Not Held 

5th 1910 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

6th 1911 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

7th 1912 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

8th 1913 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

9th 1914 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

10th 1915 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

11th 1916 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

 1917 Conference Not Held 

 1918 Conference Not Held 

12th 1920 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

13th 1921 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

14th 1922 Washington, D.C. Dr. S. W. Stratton, Bureau of Standards

15th 1923 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

16th 1924 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

17th 1925 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

18th 1926 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

19th 1927 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

20th 1928 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

21st 1928 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

22nd 1929 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

23rd 1930 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

24th 1931 Washington, D.C. Dr. George Burgess, Bureau of Standards

 1932 Conference Not Held 

 1933 Conference Not Held 

 1934 Conference Not Held 

25th 1935 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards 

26th 1936 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards 

27th 1937 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards 

28th 1938 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards 
Past Chairmen – 2014 Final Report 

vi 

Conference Year Location Chairman 

29th 1939 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards 

30th 1940 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards 

31st 1941 Washington, D.C. Dr. Lyman Briggs, National Bureau of Standards 

 1942 Conference Not Held 

 1943 Conference Not Held 

 1944 Conference Not Held 

 1945 Conference Not Held 

32nd 1946 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

33rd 1947 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

 1948 Conference Not Held 

34th 1949 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

35th 1950 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

36th 1951 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

37th 1952 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

38th 1953 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

39th 1954 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

40th 1955 Washington, D.C. Dr. E. U. Condon, National Bureau of Standards 

41st 1956 Washington, D.C. Dr. A. V. Astin, National Bureau of Standards 

42nd 1957 Washington, D.C. Dr. A. V. Astin, National Bureau of Standards 

43rd 1958 Washington, D.C. J. P. McBride, MA 

44th 1959 Washington, D.C. C. M. Fuller, CA 

45th 1960 Washington, D.C. H. E. Crawford, FL 

46th 1961 Washington, D.C. R. E. Meek, IN 

47th 1962 Washington, D.C. R. Williams, NY 

48th 1963 Washington, D.C. C. H. Stender, SC 

49th 1964 Washington, D.C. D. M. Turnbull, WA 

50th 1965 Washington, D.C. V. D. Campbell, OH 

51st 1966 Denver, CO J. F. True, KS 

52nd 1967 Washington, D.C. J. E. Bowen, MA 

53rd 1968 Washington, D.C. C. C. Morgan, IN 

54th 1969 Washington, D.C. S. H. Christie, NJ 

55th 1970 Salt Lake City, UT R. W. Searles, OH 

56th 1971 Washington, D.C. M. Jennings, TN 

57th 1972 Washington, D.C. E. H. Black, CA 

58th 1973 Minneapolis, MN G. Johnson, KY 

59th 1974 Washington, D.C. J. Lewis, WA 

60th 1975 San Diego, CA S. Andrews, FL 
Past Chairmen – 2014 Final Report 

vii 

Conference Year Location Chairman 

61st 1976 Washington, D.C. R. Thompson, MD 

62nd 1977 Dallas, TX E. Prideaux, CO 

63rd 1978 Washington, D.C. J. Lyles, WA 

64th 1979 Portland, OR K. Simila, OR 

65th 1980 Washington, D.C. C. Vincent, TX 

66th 1981 St. Louis, MO E. Stadolnik, MA 

67th 1982 Atlanta, GA E. Heffron, MI 

68th 1983 Sacramento, CA C. Greene, NM 

69th 1984 Boston, MA S. Hindsman, AR 

70th 1985 Washington, D.C. E. Delfino, CA 

71st 1986 Albuquerque, NM G. Mattimoe, HI 

72nd 1987 Little Rock, AR F. Nagele, MI 

73rd 1988 Grand Rapids, MI D. Guensler, CA 

74th 1989 Seattle, WA J. Bartfai, NY 

75th 1990 Washington, D.C. F. Gerk, NM 

76th 1991 Philadelphia, PA N. D. Smith, NC 

77th 1992 Nashville, TN S. Colbrook, IL 

78th 1993 Kansas City, MO A. Nelson, CT 

79th 1994 San Diego, CA T. Geiler, MA 

80th 1995 Portland, ME J. Truex, OH 

81st 1996 New Orleans, LA C. Gardner, NY 

82nd 1997 Chicago, IL B. Bloch, CA 

83rd 1998 Portland, OR S. Malone, NE 

84th 1999 Burlington, VT A. Thompson, AK 

85th 2000 Richmond, VA W. Diggs, VA 

86th 2001 Washington, D.C. L. Straub, MD 

87th 2002 Cincinnati, OH R. Murdock, NC 

88th 2003 Sparks, NV R. Andersen, NY 

89th 2004 Pittsburgh, PA D. Ehrhart, AZ 

90th 2005 Orlando, FL W. Diggs, VA 

91st 2006 Chicago, IL D. Onwiler, NE 

92nd 2007 Salt Lake City, UT M. Cleary, CA 

93rd 2008 Burlington, VT J. Cardin, WI 

94th 2009 San Antonio, TX J. Kane, MT 

95th 2010 St. Paul, MN R. Jennings, TN 

96th 2011 Missoula, MT T. Tyson, KS 

97th 2012 Portland, ME K. Floren, CA 
Past Chairmen – 2014 Final Report 

viii 

Conference Year Location Chairman 

98th 2013 Louisville, KY S. Benjamin, NC 

99th 2014 Detroit, MI J. Gaccione, Westchester County, NY 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

ix 

2013 – 2014 Organizational Chart 

NCWM Board of Directors 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS 

Chairman John Gaccione Westchester County, New York 2014 

Chairman-Elect Ron Hayes Missouri 2014 

NTEP Committee Chair Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 2014 

Treasurer Mark Coyne City of Brockton, Massachusetts 2014 

Active Membership - Western Jerry Buendel Washington 2017 

Active Membership - Central Craig VanBuren Michigan 2015 

Active Membership - Southern Kenneth Ramsburg Maryland 2018 

Active Membership - Northeastern James Cassidy City of Cambridge, Massachusetts 2014 

At-Large Chuck Corr Archer Daniels Midland Company 2018 

At-Large Steve Giguere Maine 2016 

Associate Membership Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co. 2016 

Honorary NCWM President Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher NIST Director NA 

Executive Secretary Carol Hockert NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA 

Executive Director Don Onwiler NCWM NA 

Board of Directors Advisor Gilles Vinet Measurement Canada NA 

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM NA 

National Type Evaluation Program Committee (NTEP) 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS 

Committee Chair Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 2014 

Member John Gaccione Westchester County, New York 2014 

Member James Cassidy Massachusetts 2014 

Member Ronald Hayes Missouri 2015 

Member Jerry Buendel Washington 2017 

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters NA 

Finance Committee

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS 

Committee Chair Ron Hayes Missouri 2014 

Chair-Elect Jerry Buendel Washington 2014 

Member Mark Coyne City of Brockton, Massachusetts 2014 

Member Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co. 2016 

Executive Director Don Onwiler NCWM Headquarters NA 

 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

x 

Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R) 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS 

Committee Chair Raymond Johnson New Mexico 2014 

Member Tim Lloyd Montana 2015 

Member Richard Lewis Georgia 2016 

Member Louis Sakin Towns of Hopkinton/Northbridge, 

Massachusetts 2017 

Member John Albert Missouri 2018 

Associate Membership 

Representative Steve Grabski Wal-Mart 2018 

Canadian Technical Advisor Lance Robertson Measurement Canada NA 

NIST Technical Advisor David Sefcik NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA 

NIST Technical Advisor Lisa Warfield NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA 

Professional Development Committee (PDC) 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS 

Committee Chair Dale Saunders Virginia 2014 

Member Cheryl Ayer New Hampshire 2015 

Member Kristin Macey California 2016 

Member Stacy Carlsen Marin County, California 2017 

Member Julie Quinn Minnesota 2018 

Associate Membership 

Representative Richard Shipman Rice Lake Weighing Systems 2018 

Safety Liaison TBD NA 

NIST Technical Advisor TBD NA 

Certification Coordinator Ross Andersen Retired NA 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T) 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM 

ENDS 

Committee Chair Brett Gurney Utah 2015 

Member Mahesh Albuquerque Colorado 2016 

Member Jane Zulkiewicz Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts 2017 

Member Matthew Curran Florida 2018 

Member Ivan Hankins Iowa 2014 

Canadian Technical Advisor Luciano Burtini Measurement Canada NA 

NIST Technical Advisor Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA 

NIST Technical Advisor Rick Harshman NIST, Office of Weights and Measures NA 

 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xi 

Nominating Committee 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM ENDS 

Committee Chair Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 2014 

Member Tim Tyson Kansas 2014 

Member Charles Carroll Massachusetts 2014 

Member Joe Gomez New Mexico 2014 

Member Tim Chesser Arkansas 2014 

Member Frank Greene Connecticut 2014 

Member Angela Godwin Ventura County, California 2014 

Credentials Committee 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM ENDS 

Committee Chair Craig VanBuren Michigan 2014 

Member Jerry Butler North Carolina 2015 

Member Fran Elson-Houston Ohio 2016 

Coordinator Darrell Flocken NCWM 2014 

Appointive Officials 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM ENDS 

Chaplain Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co. 2014 

Parliamentarian Louis Straub Fairbanks Scale, Inc. 2014 

Presiding Officer Jack Walsh Town of Wellesley 2014 

Presiding Officer Jerry Butler North Carolina 2014 

Presiding Officer Marco Mares San Diego County, California 2014

Presiding Officer Scott Ferguson Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Jim Brown Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Chris Chamberlain Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Dave Crowley Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Joe Daugherty Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Jason DeChene Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Scott Ferguson Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Steve Galvan Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Samantha Hartman Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Justin Houghton Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Sean McGuire Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms Jim Oswald Michigan 2014 

Sergeants-at-Arms John Willer Michigan 2014 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xii 

Associate Membership Committee 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION TERM ENDS 

Chair Paul Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 2014 

Vice Chair Bill Callaway Crompco 2014 

Secretary/Treasurer David Calix NCR Corporation 2014 

Member Paul Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 2014 

Member Steven Grabski Walmart 2015 

Member Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co. 2015 

Member Thomas McGee PMP Corporation 2015 

Member Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association 

of America 2015 

Member Pete O’Bryan Foster Farms 2016 

Member David Calix NCR Corporation 2018 

Member Bill Callaway Crompco 2018 

Member Robert Murnane, Jr. Seraphin Test Measure 2018 

Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION 

Chair Christopher Guay Procter and Gamble, Co. 

NIST Technical Advisor David Sefcik NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Public Sector – Central Nicholas Owens Stark County Weights and Measures 

Public Sector - Northeastern Frank Greene Connecticut 

Public Sector - Southern Bill Tedder North Carolina 

Public Sector - Western Angela Godwin County of Ventura 

Private Sector Member Ann Boeckman Kraft Food Group, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Krister Hard af Segerstad IKEA North America Services, LLC 

Private Sector Member Zina Juroch Pier 1 Imports 

Private Sector Member Pete O’Bryan Foster Farms 

Private Sector Member Stratt Pinagel Walmart Stores, Inc. 

 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xiii 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION 

Chair Matthew Curran Florida 

Vice-Chair Ron Hayes Missouri 

Vice-Chair Randy Jennings Tennessee 

Secretary Kristin Moore Renewable Fuels Association 

Vice-Secretary Rebecca Richardson MARC IV Consulting 

NIST Technical Advisor Kenneth Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

NIST Technical Advisor David Sefcik NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

NIST Technical Advisor Lisa Warfield NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Public Sector Member Mahesh Albuquerque Colorado 

Public Sector Member Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 

Public Sector Member Steven Harrington Oregon 

Public Sector Member Kristin Macey California 

Public Sector Member Timothy White Michigan 

Public Sector Member Bill Striejewske Nevada 

Private Sector Member Chuck Corr Archer Daniels Midland Company

Private Sector Member Kevin Ferrick API 

Private Sector Member K.W. Gardner ExxonMobil Corporation 

Private Sector Member Bill Geubelle Phillips 66 

Private Sector Member Philip Guillemette Flint Hills Resources, LP 

Private Sector Member John Harkins Sunoco, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Marilyn Herman Herman and Associates 

Private Sector Member Jerome Horn Chevron Global Downstream, LLC 

Private Sector Member Joanna Johnson Automotive Oil Exchange Association 

Private Sector Member Patrick Kelly API 

Private Sector Member David A. Kovach BP Products 

Private Sector Member Roger Leisenring, Jr. KiOR 

Private Sector Member Russ Lewis Marathon Petroleum, LLC 

Private Sector Member James McGetrick BP Products 

Private Sector Member Robert Nelson Shell Oil Products 

Private Sector Member Manuch Nikanjam Chevron Global Downstream, LLC 

Private Sector Member Keith Penn Colonial Pipeline Company 

Private Sector Member Derek Regal Tesoro Companies, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Prentiss Searles American Petroleum Institute 

Private Sector Member William Studzinski General Motors 

Private Sector Member Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of America 

Private Sector Member Curtis Williams CP Williams Energy Consulting, LLC 

Private Sector Member William Woebkenberg Mercedes-Benz Research and Development NA 

 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xiv 

Natural Gas Steering Committee 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION 

Chair Mahesh Albuquerque (S&T) Colorado 

Vice-Chair Raymond Johnson New Mexico 

NIST Technical Advisor Juana Williams NIST Office of Weights and Measures 

General Counsel Jeffrey L. Clarke NGV America 

Public Sector – Central Ronald Hayes Missouri 

Public Sector - Northeast Ethan Bogren Westchester County, New York 

Public Sector – Southern Matthew Curran Florida 

Private Sector Member Brett Barry Clean Energy 

Private Sector Member Josh Brown NorthStar, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Scott Hartman Shell 

Private Sector Member Douglas Horne Clean Vehicle Education Foundation 

Private Sector Member David Jaskolski Pivotal LNG 

Private Sector Member Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Dmitri Karimov Liquid Controls 

Private Sector Member Elisabeth Treseder American Petroleum Institute 

Promotional Tool Kit Task Group 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION 

Chair Stephen Benjamin North Carolina 

Public Sector Member Kurt Floren Los Angeles County 

Public Sector Member Jerry Buendel Washington 

Private Sector Member Henry Oppermann Weights and Measures Consulting 

Private Sector Member John Hughes Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

Training Manual Task Group 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION 

Chair Michael Cleary Retired: California 

Public Sector Member Craig Harris Ohio 

Public Sector Member Josh Nelson Oregon 

Public Sector Member Julie Quinn Minnesota 

Public Sector Member Deborah Rader Arizona 

Public Sector Member Scott Simmons Colorado 

   
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xv 

Organometallics Task Group 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION 

Chair Randy Jennings Tennessee 

Public Sector Member Ron Hayes Missouri 

Private Sector Member John Cabaniss Global Automakers 

Private Sector Member Marilyn Herman Herman and Associates 

Private Sector Member Jeff Jetter Honda R&D Americas, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Russ Lewis Marathon Petroleum 

Private Sector Member James McGetrick BP 

Private Sector Member Mike Meffert Afton Chemical 

Private Sector Member Kristy Moore Renewable Fuels Foundation 

Private Sector Member Derek Regal Tesoro Chemical 

Private Sector Member Charles Richardson Ford Motor Company 

Private Sector Member Jenny Sigelko Volkswagen Group of America

Private Sector Member Val Ughetta Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computer Capability 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION 

Chair Fran Elson-Houston Ohio 

NIST Technical Advisor Juana Williams NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Public Sector Member Shelly Miller Wisconsin 

Public Sector Member Ken Ramsburg Maryland 

Public Sector Member Jerry Buendel Washington State Department of Agriculture 

Private Sector Member Rex Brown Petroleum Equipment Institute 

Private Sector Member John Eichberger National Association of Convenience Stores 

Private Sector Member Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Phil Katselnik Dresser Wayne 

Private Sector Member Mike Roach VeriFone 

Private Sector Member Richard Suiter Richard Suiter Consulting 

Private Sector Member Richard Tucker RL Tucker Consulting 

Private Sector Member Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of America 

Multiple Dimensions Measuring Device Work Group 

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION 

Chair Robert Kennington Quantronix, Inc. 

NIST Technical Advisor TBD NIST, Office of Weights and Measures

Public Sector Member Fran Elson-Houston Ohio 

Public Sector Member Luciano Burtini Measurement Canada 

Public Sector Member Justin Rae Measurement Canada 

Private Sector Member Scott Wigginton United Parcel Service 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xvi 

NTEP Belt-Conveyor Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair Bill Ripka Thermo Fisher Scientific 

Technical Advisor John Barton NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters 

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Public Sector Member Ken Jones California 

Private Sector Member Rafael Jimenez Association of American Railroads 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Lars Marmsater Merrick Industries, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Peter Sirrico Thayer Scale / Hyer Industries 

Private Sector Member Thomas Vormittag Nevada 

NTEP Grain Analyzer Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-john Corporation 

Technical Advisor G. Diane Lee NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters 

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Public Sector Member Randy Burns Arkansas 

Public Sector Member Karl Cunningham Illinois 

Public Sector Member Thomas Hughes Missouri 

Public Sector Member Ivan Hankins Iowa 

Public Sector Member Cathleen Brenner USDA, GIPSA Technical Services Division 

Private Sector Member Jeffrey Adkisson Grain and Feed Association of Illinois 

Private Sector Member James Bair North American Miller's Association 

Private Sector Member Rachel Beiswenger TSI Incorporated 

Private Sector Member Martin Clements The Steinlite Corporation

Private Sector Member Andrew Gell Foss North America 

Private Sector Member Charles Hurburgh, Jr. Iowa State University 

Private Sector Member Jess McCluer National Grain and Feed Association 

Private Sector Member Thomas Runyon Seedburo Equipment Co. 

 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xvii 

NTEP Measuring Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair Michael Keilty Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG, USA 

Technical Advisor TBD NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters 

Public Sector Member Dennis Beattie Measurement Canada 

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Public Sector Member Jerry Butler North Carolina 

Public Sector Member John Roach California 

Private Sector Member Steve Bar Bennett Pump Company 

Private Sector Member William Cooper Tuthill Transfer Systems 

Private Sector Member Constantine Cotsoradis Flint Hills Resources 

Private Sector Member Paul Glowacki Murray Equipment, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Gordon Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Dmitri Karimov Liquid Controls 

Private Sector Member Yefim Katselnik Dresser Wayne 

Private Sector Member Douglas Long RDM Industrial Electronics 

Private Sector Member Andrew MacAllister Daniel Measurement and Control 

Private Sector Member Wade Mattar Invensys / Foxboro 

Private Sector Member Richard Miller FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Donald Mundorff Badger Meter Scottsdale 

Private Sector Member Andre Noel Neptune Technology Group, Inc.

Private Sector Member Henry Oppermann Weights & Measures Consulting, LLC 

Private Sector Member Johnny Parrish Brodie International 

Private Sector Member Dan Peterson Yokogawa Corporation of America 

Private Sector Member Richard Tucker RL Tucker Consulting, LLC 

 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xviii 

NTEP Software Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair James Pettinato FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc. 

Secretary Teri Gulke Liquid Controls, LLC 

Technical Advisor Doug Bliss Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM Headquarters 

Public Sector Member Dennis Beattie Measurement Canada 

Public Sector Member Michael Frailer Maryland 

Public Sector Member Ken Jones California 

Public Sector Member Joe Morrison Ohio 

Public Sector Member Eric Morabito New York 

Public Sector Member Edward Payne Maryland 

Public Sector Member John Roach California 

Public Sector Member Zacharias Tripoulas Maryland 

Public Sector Member Ambler Thompson NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Private Sector Member Mary Abens Emerson Process Management 

Private Sector Member John Atwood Tyson Foods 

Private Sector Member Gary Benjamin NCR Corporation 

Private Sector Member Kevin Detert Avery Weigh-Tronix 

Private Sector Member Cassie Eigenmann DICKEY-john Corporation 

Private Sector Member Andre Elle Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG 

Private Sector Member Andrew Gell Foss North America 

Private Sector Member Keith Harper Gencor Industries, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Tony Herrin Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. 

Private Sector Member Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Rick Lydon Sick, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Richard Miller FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Christopher (Adam) Oldham Gilbarco, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Mike Roach VeriFone 

Private Sector Member Robin Sax CompuWeigh Corporation 

Private Sector Member David Vande Berg Vande Berg Scales 

Private Sector Member John Wind Bizerba USA, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Kraig Wooddell Hobart 

 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xix 

NTEP Weighing Sector

OFFICE NAME AFFILIATION

Chair Rob Upright Vishay Trasducers 

Technical Advisor Rick Harshman NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

NTEP Administrator Jim Truex NCWM 

NTEP Specialist Darrell Flocken NCWM 

Public Sector Member L. Cary Ainsworth USDA, GIPSA 

Public Sector Member Luciano Burtini Measurement Canada 

Public Sector Member Tina Butcher NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Public Sector Member Fran Elson-Houston Ohio 

Public Sector Member Ken Jones California 

Public Sector Member Edward Payne Maryland 

Public Sector Member Bryon School USDA, GIPSA, FGIS 

Public Sector Member Zacharias Tripoulas Maryland 

Public Sector Member Tim Tyson Kansas 

Public Sector Member Juana Williams NIST, Office of Weights and Measures 

Private Sector Member Steven Beitzel Systems Associates, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Greg Bredahl Thermo Fisher Scientific 

Private Sector Member Neil Copley Thurman Scale Co. 

Private Sector Member Hayden Cornish Schenck Process 

Private Sector Member Mitchell Eyles Flintec, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Robert Feezor Scales Consulting and Testing 

Private Sector Member Scott Henry Motorola Solutions, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Sam Jalahej Totalcomp, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Rafael Jimenez Association of American Railroads 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co. 

Private Sector Member Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 

Private Sector Member L. Edward Luthy Schenck Process Transport N.A. 

Private Sector Member Nigel Mills Hobart Corporation 

Private Sector Member Jamie San Pedro Coti Global Sensors 

Private Sector Member Wayne Pugh OCS Checkweighers, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Louis Straub Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Russell Vires Mettler-Toledo, LLC 

Private Sector Member Jerry Wang A&D Engineering, Inc. 

Private Sector Member Walter Young Emery Winslow Scale Company 

 
Organizational Chart – 2014 Final Report 

xx 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) www.westernwma.org

States 

Alaska 

Arizona 

California 

Colorado 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Montana 

Nevada 

New Mexico 

Oregon 

Utah 

Washington 

Wyoming 

Contact Brett Saum 

San Luis Obispo County Weights and Measures (CA) 

(805) 781-5922 

bsaum@co.slo.ca.us 

Annual Meeting 

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) www.cwma.net

States 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

South Dakota 

Wisconsin 

Contact Sherry Turvey 

Kansas Department of Agriculture 

(785) 862-2415 

sherry.turvey@kda.ks.gov 

Annual Meeting 

Interim Meeting 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) www.swma.org

States 

Alabama 

Arkansas 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Georgia 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maryland 

Mississippi 

North Carolina 

Oklahoma 

South Carolina 

Tennessee 

Texas 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

Contact Stephen Benjamin 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

(919) 733-3313 

steve.benjamin@ncagr.gov 

Annual Meeting 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NWMA) www.newma.us

States 

Connecticut 

Maine 

Massachusetts 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New York 

Pennsylvania 

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 

Vermont 

Contact James Cassidy 

City of Cambridge Weights and Measures Department 

(617) 349-6133 

jcassidy@cambridgema.gov 

Annual Meeting 

Interim Meeting 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Report 

GEN - 1 

Honorary President’s Address

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Detroit, Michigan 

July 15, 2015 

Dr. Willie E. May 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director 

 Thanks Carol for that very gracious introduction. 

 Good morning everyone. 

o I’d like to thank Chairman Gaccione and Don Onwiler of NCWM for again, inviting me to present 

the annual Honorary President’s Address. 

 It’s great to be here in the Motor City. 

o Detroit has given this country so much considering the pioneering work that has been done here. 

o This city has, in many ways, laid the foundation for the United States as we know it today. 

 It kindled our love affair with the automobile and with the freedom it represents. 

 Detroit is known for its history of innovation. It’s where the assembly line was born, as well as the first 

paved road, the first traffic light, the first freeway, the first international tunnel, and most importantly, the 

first automatic coffeemaker. 

 Some people think that Detroit’s best days are behind it, but I have to disagree. 

o For a while, we were a nation that had stopped making things, but we’ve started to see that trend 

reverse, and I believe that this city can and will turn itself around. 

o While there is a still a lot to be done to regain our momentum, automakers in this town have begun 

doing some very innovative things. 

o I’m really looking forward to seeing what the future holds. 

About NIST 

 NIST and Detroit actually have something in common. For one, we were both born about the same time. 

 NIST was founded in 1901 to perform measurement research vital to industry and to provide a framework 

for the preservation and faithful dissemination of standard measurement units, which are vital to industrial 

and scientific progress and to commerce. 

 Eight years later, 1909, the first Model T rolled off the line. Between 1920 and 1930, the number of cars 

registered in the United States leapt from 9 million to 26.5 million, and well over half of them were 

Model Ts and nearly all of them were built right here – in Detroit. 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Report 

GEN - 2 

 Geologists at the time believed that the supply of oil would be gone in as little as 10 years, so some of 

NIST’s first research related to the automobile industry was concerned with improving fuel economy. We 

worked to improve ignition systems, carburetors, and lubricants, as well as the quality of the gasoline. 

 Working with the U.S. Army, we published performance metrics for engines, fuels, and lubricating oils. 

 We tested brakes, driver reaction times – and in the 1960s, NIST research was also integral to seat belt and 

car safety standards. 

o And we still today have a number of collaborations with and provide measurement services for the 

automotive industry. 

NIST NOW and RESEARCH EXAMPLES 

 Our new Center for Automotive Lightweighting is working to help the industry make vehicles that are 

much lighter in weight, but just as safe. We’re providing the data the industry needs to reliably 

manufacture vehicle components from lightweight substitutes, including aluminum alloys, high-strength 

steels, and polymer composites. 

 A lighter automobile needs less fuel to move a given distance, whether that’s gasoline, diesel, electricity, 

hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, or some hybrid approach, 

 Using less fuel means lower emissions and better air quality. 

 While we love going for a drive, frankly most of the time we’re driving we’re really just trying to get 

home. And we’ve made some real innovations concerning energy efficient homes as well. 

NET Zero Energy House 

 We constructed and demonstrated the efficacy of a “net zero energy home” that looks just like any home in 

suburbia and yet generates as much energy as it needs. And our researchers did it with commercially 

available technologies and without sacrificing anything in terms of creature comforts or energy usage. 

 NIST has also been active in our role as an organizer, bringing stakeholders to the table to solve common 

problems that would be difficult for them to solve on their own. 

CYBERSECURITY FRAMEWORK AND FORENSICS 

 This past February, NIST released the first version of our cybersecurity framework. We brought people 

from the nation's financial, energy, healthcare, and other critical sectors together to work out a way that 

they could better protect their information and physical assets from cyber-attack. 

 The framework describes the characteristics of a comprehensive cybersecurity program, complete with 

standards, guidelines, and practices that organizations of any size can use to manage their risks. 

 The framework is voluntary. It’s not a prescription. And it’s a living document. It is open to constant 

revision as the information security landscape changes, but it is a starting point, and a way forward to 

ensuring that at least the most vital sectors of our infrastructure are hardened against hackers. 

VCAT Report 

On another cybersecurity - related note: due to the allegations made in one of the Edward Snowden leaks, we 

(NIST) charged our primary independent advisory panel, the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology 

(VCAT), to oversee a review of our Cryptographic Standards and Guidelines Development Process. The allegation 

was in regard to a faulty random number generator baked into one of our Cybersecurity Standards, which NIST 

obtained from NSA.
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Report 

GEN - 3 

The VCAT asked a blue ribbon Committee of Visitors (COV) to assess NIST’s existing cryptographic standards and 

guidelines and the process by which those standards and guidelines are developed. Each COV member provided an 

independent report to the VCAT. 

That “blue ribbon” Committee of Visitors included: 

 Vint Cerf of Google; 

 Edward Felten of Princeton University; 

 Steve Lipner of Microsoft Corporation; 

 Bart Preneel of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; 

 Ellen Richey of Visa Inc.; 

 Ron Rivest of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); and 

 Fran Schrotter of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 

The VCAT took this input and made recommendations to NIST that fall into four basic categories: 

They asked that we: 

- Assure that our (NIST’s) process for producing standards and best practices is open and transparent. 

- Increase our capability and capacity in cryptography – so that we were not dependent on NSA for 

input. 

- Increase the involvement of the cryptographic community, including academia and industry, in our 

standards-development process. 

- Review and clarify our relationship with NSA. 

 Following up on something that I discussed with you last year, NIST and the Department of Justice have 

also just recently named the members to the first forensic science standards board, which we established to 

improve the scientific basis of forensic evidence used in courts of law. 

 Some of you may be surprised to learn that, much like the nation’s weights and measures system used to 

be, there are few national standards or uniformity in forensic science. The confidence that a forensic 

scientist has in how well a piece of evidence connects a suspect to a crime is largely a matter of his 

interpretation. It may not be based on any objective standards. 

 This lack of national uniformity is reflected in every forensic science discipline. How many points of 

comparison do you need to say conclusively that a fingerprint found at a crime scene belongs to the 

suspect? What about the marks left on a shell casing or even DNA? 

 A new forensic science board, which is modeled on the structure of the NCWM, will be dedicated to 

answering these questions, and to establishing a uniform system of national standards that will ensure that 

evidence is collected, analyzed, and interpreted the same no matter where a crime is committed. 

 No one wants to see the innocent go to prison for crimes they didn’t commit. 

o When the innocent go to prison, the guilty go free. 

o Objective standards will help improve our justice system. 

ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS 

 NIST’s initiative in advanced communications got a boost earlier this year when the former operations 

director for our labs in Boulder, Colorado, Kent Rochford, returned from a year and a half stint with Sharp 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Report 

GEN - 4 

Electronics to lead our new Communication Technology Laboratory and Center for Advanced 

Communications – a joint venture with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 

 The proliferation of cell phones and other communication technologies has begun to really eat up the 

electromagnetic spectrum. The airwaves are simply getting crowded. The new center’s mission is to 

advance our understanding of the wireless spectrum and to foster innovations that will make wireless 

communications faster and more reliable. 

HYDROGEN FUEL VEHICLES 

 Now, getting back to the Motor City theme, three automakers plan to begin selling hydrogen-fueled 

vehicles to consumers in 2015. Now, once you have these zero-emission vehicles on the road, you need a 

place to fill them up. And if you are building refueling stations, you need a way to make sure that that fuel 

is being dispensed accurately. 

 Our researchers have recently completed work on a new field test apparatus to confirm the accuracy of 

hydrogen fuel dispensers. Once the standard is fully tested, we plan to offer it as a model for constructing 

“Provers” for state weights and measures inspectors to use. 

 The state of California has really gotten behind hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles and is putting the infrastructure 

in place to support them. They’ve opened nine refueling stations so far, and they are funding the 

construction of an additional 28 stations over the next few years. They plan to fund the construction of 100 

in total. 

 This body recently adopted standards for the sale of hydrogen. NIST Handbook 44 reads that hydrogen 

will be sold by the kilogram, and that hydrogen-dispensing pumps must be accurate to within plus or minus 

two percent, or plus or minus 20 grams per kilogram. 

 So while a kilogram of hydrogen has approximately the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline, the 

allowable error is a little less stringent than for gasoline. 

 Some have argued that even these larger tolerances are too tight, and that errors as high as 10 or 20 percent 

should be allowed. It’s hard to see how that would be fair for anyone. Our preliminary tests have shown 

that the flow meters used to dispense hydrogen fuel are capable of doing so with an error as little as one 

percent or less. Why would we allow less than the best measurements we can make? Shouldn’t we always 

aim to achieve the highest accuracy, the most transparency, and the fairest system? 

 Mass flow meters dispense according to weight, the standard for weight in the United States is the 

kilogram, and it has been since 1893. It makes sense that it would be sold in the same terms in which it 

was measured. I understand that you have a similar question before you this week. 

o An important decision needs to be made regarding the sale of liquefied natural gas. 

 I know that people have strong opinions about this issue and that you have been studying the issue intently. 

NIST’s scientific position is well-known, so I won’t repeat it here, but I will urge you to remember the 

consumer when you are voting this week and remember the importance of having and promoting a rational, 

science-based measurement system. 

Let me close by discussing “RATIONAL MEASUREMENT UNITS” 

 You know, one of the reasons that the metric system came into being is because the French had found the 

old way of doing things had become untenable. 

o By the time of the French Revolution there were as many as 250,000 different measurement units. 

Each commodity had its own measure, and there was little uniformity between them. There was 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Report 

GEN - 5 

no way to know definitively that a wine gallon in Marseilles was the same as a wine gallon in 

Paris—no doubt very distressing, especially if you are French. 

 It was hard to do business without a science-based system. 

 After a few stops and starts, the French succeeded in creating something beautiful, a system of units the 

entire world could use. 

 Back when NIST was founded, the United States was in sort of the same fix as France had been. While our 

nation was a signatory to the Treaty of the Meter – and its international units for measurement – the 

Congress did not make its adoption mandatory. 

 What we had was a system that we inherited from our Forbearers – some units we simply just invented in 

various locales. 

o We had eight different gallons and four different feet and very little in the way of agreement 

between them. 

 Way back in 1909, when NIST and the newly formed NCWM were investigating the state of U.S. legal 

metrology, they found that in many of the states “official” weights and measures were in a state of severe 

disrepair, if they could be found at all. 

 In many states, even having a standard set of weights or measures was not required by law. 

o For the most part, the state weights and measures inspector was not a paid position, and at the 

county level, that job usually fell to the treasurer, or even the school superintendent. 

 A survey of over 30 000 scales being used in more than 3,000 shops and stores across the nation found half 

of them to be woefully inaccurate and most frequently favored the shopkeeper – surprise, surprise. 

 But with the efforts of the hardworking men and women of the NCWM, the situation quickly improved. 

o The people in our country had resigned themselves to the thought that there would always be 

cheating – that a fair deal was just not to be had. 

o There could be no trust in the marketplace. 

 But the NCWM, and a good dose of bad press, turned that all around. 

o The American people began to see that corruption and cheating didn’t have to be the norm. 

o They began to see that chaos did not have to reign. 

 This body brought fairness, order, and trust to the marketplaces of this country. 

 Now, you have gathered here to continue this noble mission. 

o Our citizens are depending on you to look out for their interests. 

 I urge you to remember that while you are deliberating this week. 

o Remember that the right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do. 

 I have no doubt that you will live up to this charge. 

 Thank you for your attention. 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Report 

GEN - 6 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Address 

GEN - 7 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Address 

GEN - 8 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Address 

GEN - 9 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Address 

GEN - 10 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Address 

GEN - 11 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Address 

GEN - 12 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Address 

GEN - 13 
General – 2014 Final Report 

President’s Address 

GEN - 14 
General – 2014 Final Report 

Chairman’s Address 

GEN - 15 

Chairman’s Address

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Detroit, Michigan 

July 17, 2014 

John Gaccione 

Westchester County, New York 

Thank you Director Hockert. 

It is my pleasure to welcome everyone here to the 99th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and 

Measures here in Detroit. We have over 250 attendees, the most in over 15 years. At our meeting in January, we 

had over 150 attendees, near record attendance for an Interim Meeting. The Executive Director passed along that it 

was a great year for NCWM attendance and everyone worked hard to get the word out about the regional meetings 

and the NCWM Meetings. When I asked at one of the Board of Directors meetings if the attendance increase had to 

do with who is the Chairman, there was a long awkward silence followed by quick motion to adjourn. Thank you all 

for attending and for participating. 

I want to take a minute to thank our distinguished guests, Dr. May, Acting Under Secretary for Standards and 

Technology and Acting Director of NIST, Chief Deputy Director Wenk of the Michigan Department of Agriculture 

and Rural Development, and Carol Hockert, Director of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures. 

Thanks go to the City of Detroit and to Craig VanBuren and his staff for all they have done to welcome us to 

Michigan. To our presiding officers, thank you Jack Walsh, Jerry Butler, Marco Mares, and Scott Ferguson. 

Please take a minute to look around the hotel and the surrounding area. I would say that Detroit is a city on the rise. 

Thanks to the NCWM Staff: Don, Jim, Elisa (who if you didn’t know, started the year with the last name of 

Robertson and switched along the way to Stritt (congratulations Elisa), Tyler, and to Darrell. 

My theme at the beginning of my tenure as chairman was “Meeting Tomorrow’s Challenges Today.” Well Folks, 

tomorrow’s challenges are here. We talked about some of the challenges yesterday. Examples include: 

 CNG/LNG fueling for everyday on-road vehicle use; 

 electric vehicles and the ability to charge those vehicles and travel hundreds of miles between charges; and 

 railroad scales that speed up the weighing of freight by two to three times. 

Another challenge was to continue to support the regions, and in turn, the jurisdictions that make up those regions. 

We continued and expanded the Train the Trainer Program. With NIST’s help, we began to help not just the 

supervisors, but the field inspectors. On the NCWM webpage, we now have a list of certified trainers available to 

help the regions and their jurisdictions. 

We continued to expand the Professional Certification Program. As mentioned earlier, more exams will be brought 

online, expanding the number of available exams. 

NCWM has faced this year’s challenges. NCWM rose to its challenges. NCWM welcomes new challenges. 

Being Chairman brings with it a two to three page list of responsibilities and duties. When I first looked at that list, 

it became an “uh oh” moment. 
General – 2014 Final Report 

Chairman’s Address 

GEN - 16 

We have L and R; we have S and T; we have PDC, WWMA, and CWMA, SWMA, and NTEP and so on and so on. 

I didn’t get the cheat sheet of abbreviations and acronyms. 

I have to tell you that being associated with the employees of NCWM has been nothing less than terrific. They work 

hard, put the interests of the members first, and provide a level of service second to none. Look at how well these 

past few days have gone. 

To my fellow board members, thanks for making it easy to be the Chairman. The Board of Directors this year faced 

a number of issues. We took them all in stride and did what was best for the Conference. We recognized a need and 

added the necessary staff. 

Part of being Chairman includes traveling to each of the regional meetings. To me it wasn’t an obligation or chore, 

it was a pleasure. At each of the regions, I spoke about how NCWM could and would support the region, and how 

well supported regions help NCWM. The NCWM model works and it works well. 

In preparing for today, I was looking for a phrase, an adage, or a line from a song that would put in context my 

regional experiences. Something that could sum it all up, some phrase everyone could relate to, and something that 

was, yes, probably corny. 

Some years back, there was a Broadway Show called “Rent.” Some of you may have seen the movie. Part of the 

chorus of one of the songs is; “How do you measure, measure a year.” Perfect for a weights and measures official. 

The song continues: 

“Five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes, how do you measure, measure a year.” 

How did I measure this year? I measured it in people (hundreds). I measured it in regions (four). I measured in 

national meetings (two). 

Historians say it was Horace Greeley, the famous 19th century author and newspaper publisher that said “Go west 

young man, go west.” It wasn’t. It was really Kurt Floren of Los Angeles County, California, who said it. 

This year the Western Regional had almost 100 attendees and representation from every state in the region except 

two - very impressive. That’s the most for any of the 2013 - 2014 regionals. Thanks to Mahesh Albuquerque, the 

Western Regional Chair, and the host State of Montana. 

Just as an aside, Kurt never stopped reminding me we were at the Western Regional and how the Western is first of 

the regional cycle. I had to constantly remind him of the east coast – west coast, right coast – left coast rivalry. We 

continued, and I finally remarked that he lived three hours behind civilization. Without hesitation, Kurt 

recommended I visit Santa Monica, California, for a long walk on a short pier. 

Next was south to West Virginia. I decided to drive to Charleston (about 11 hours) and what a great ride it was. 

Again, excellent attendance at a regional meeting – about 70 attendees and only 2 states didn’t have representation. 

The Southern Region has two Commonwealths and many thanks to Rich McComas and the State of West Virginia 

for their hospitality. 

When arriving at the Southern Regional Meeting, I was greeted by the ever smiling Tim Chesser of Arkansas. Tim 

gave me a warm welcome, and said John, “Don’t worry about a thing; I will take care of everything.” 

Everyone has a moment of revelation, an “ah hah” moment; this was an “oh no” moment. 

Next was to the Northeast Region to Manchester, New Hampshire. To NEWMA, the little region that could, don’t 

dare tell them they can’t. Yet meeting attendance wasn’t so little with 50 attendees, and again, only 2 states not 

represented and another region with two Commonwealths. Thanks to Chair Lou Sakin and to the host State of New 

Hampshire. As always, NEWMA lived up it to its hard working, hard playing reputation. Anything else about the 

NEWMA Annual Meeting can be read in the Manchester, “New Hampshire Police Blotter.” 
General – 2014 Final Report 

Chairman’s Address 

GEN - 17 

And, finally to Central, 75 attendees and only 2 states not represented. Again, great attendance; many thanks go to 

Ron Hayes, our Chair-Elect. After a long and sometimes heated discussion about how to pronounce the name of the 

host state between members of the host delegation, I ended up leaving there the same as I came, not knowing 

whether to say Missoura or Missouri? 

At several of the regions, I was asked which region I liked the most, what region was best at this or best at that. My 

carefully worded response was and continues to be, every region was great, every region was unique, and every 

region had great hospitality rooms. 

NCWM is about equity. It is about a safe and fair marketplace. NCWM is about its people. 

There was something I repeated at each of the regions. I reminded everyone that the work they do affects everyone 

in the marketplace almost every day. Let’s not forget that. 

So again, thank you to everyone for attending and participating, and thank you for making NCWM the successful 

organization that it is. 

 
General – 2014 Final Report 

Chairman’s Address 

GEN - 18 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
General – 2014 Final Report 

Chairman Elect’s Address 

GEN - 19 

Chairman Elect’s Address

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Detroit, Michigan 

July 17, 2014 

Ronald G. Hayes 

“One Hundred Years: Building on the Past” 

I feel so very honored to stand before you as the Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, 

especially on the eve of the 100th meeting and the 110th anniversary. I want to thank those that have given me 

guidance in preparing me for this role. 

As I looked back at agendas of past chairs of the Conferences, I noticed the goals set for the Conference could not 

always be met in the short one-year term. Many times these goals were not implemented until after their term 

expired. In 1991, N. David Smith from North Carolina was Chairman of the Conference. His vision was to 

establish a Petroleum Subcommittee to expand from a basic petroleum laboratory guide and develop fuel quality 

laws and regulations. This Subcommittee is, of course, now known as FALS. States such as Minnesota, Tennessee, 

Illinois, New York, and Michigan had already committed resources to improve the quality of fuels. This idea would 

take a few years to complete and the following chairman, Mr. Sid Colbrook from Illinois, appointed the Committee, 

comprised of both public members and industry representatives. A few of the original appointees, who are still 

active, are at this meeting. It was a great pleasure for me to read the Distinguished Service Award given to 

Mr. Randy Jennings, State of Tennessee, for continuous excellence of service on the Fuels and Lubricants 

Subcommittee. 

Goals: 

1. Continue the enhanced training by NIST. 

2. Build closer relationships with other standards development organizations. 

3. Establish a more effective communication plan with federal agencies. 

In the last few years, under the leadership of Ms. Carol Hockert, NIST has placed more instructors throughout the 

nation, increasing training on fundamentals of weights and measures functions. This also complements the current 

NCWM Certification program. 

From the very beginning of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, we have partnered with other 

standards development organizations, such as the American Society for Testing and Materials, scale manufacturers 

associations, the American Petroleum Institute, Gas Pump Manufacturers Association, and others. As new ways of 

measuring commodities evolved, we gained working relationships with other standards writing organizations. For 

example, in 2011 we allowed seed count for agriculture seed. Without an automatic seed counter, it would not have 

been possible to verify seed count claims. Thanks to the American Seed Trade Association and the Association of 

Official Seed Analysts, we were able accept the use of seed counter devices. 

Our standards often reference standards from other standard writing organizations. However, I think it’s time we 

have our standards recognized in more federal and industry standards. NCWM and other standards organizations 

need to complement each other’s standards when we can. For example, PEI has several standard practices for 

storage tanks. Our labeling requirements could be referenced in their documents making their standards more 

complete. 

In the last month, letters from PALS and FALS were sent to the FTC on separate proposed rules. A more effective 

communication plan with federal agencies will allow NCWM and federal agencies to be more efficient in both of 

our regulatory roles. 
General – 2014 Final Report 

Chairman Elect’s Address 

GEN - 20 

I am looking forward to the next 12 months. I will continue to enjoy my interaction with each regional association 

and each opportunity to share our knowledge with each other. 

Appointments 

Specifications and Tolerance Committee: 

 Ivan Hankins, Iowa, five-year term

Laws and Regulations Committee: 

 Kristin Macey, California, five-year term

Professional Development Committee: 

 Angela Godwin, Ventura County, California replacing Kristin Macey, two-years term 

 Dale Saunders, Virginia 

Nominating Committee: 

 Committee Chair – John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York 

 Judy Cardin, Wisconsin 

 Charles Carroll, Massachusetts 

 Randy Jennings, Tennessee 

 Joe Gomez, New Mexico 

 Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County 

 Steve Benjamin, North Carolina 

Parliamentarian: 

 Louis Straub, Fairbanks Scale, Inc.

Chaplain: 

 Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing, Co.

Credentials Committee: 

 Ethan Bogren, Westchester County, NY

Presiding Officers: 

 Lawrence Nolan, Los Angeles County 

 Jack Walsh, Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts 

 Tim Chesser, Arkansas 

 Marco Mares, San Diego County, California 

Again, thank you for the privilege of being asked to serve on this incredible conference. 
General – 2014 Final Report 

Awards 

GEN - 21 

2014 National Conference on Weights and Measures

Special Award Recipients

Contributions Award: Mr. Nigel Mills, Hobart (accepted by Mr. Rob Upright, President of Scale Manufacturer’s 

Association (SMA) on behalf of Mr. Mills.

Distinguished Service Awards: Mr. Randy Jennings, Tennessee, and Mr. Joe Gomez, New Mexico. 

Figure 1. Left to Right: Mr. John Gaccione,

NCWM Chairman; Mr. Rob Upright, SMA

President; and Dr. Willie May, NCWM

Honorary President. 

Figure 2. Left to right: Mr. John

Gaccione, NCWM Chairman; Mr. Randy

Jennings, Tennessee; and Dr. Willie

May, NCWM Honorary President.
General – 2014 Final Report 

Awards 

GEN - 22 

Lifetime Achievement Award: Mr. N. David Smith, North Carolina. 

Attendance Recognition: 

5 Years 

 Richard Harshman 

 Paul Menard 

 Sam Bell 

10 Years 

 Hal Prince 

 Carol Hockert 

 Kristin Macey 

 Steven Beitzel 

 John Gaccione 

15 Years 

 Clark Cooney 

 Joe Gomez 

 James Cassidy 

20 Years 

 Randy Jennings 

25 Years 

 Ron Hayes 

45 Years 

 Joseph Silvestro 

Figure 3. Left to Right: Mr. John 

Gaccione, NCWM Chairman; Mr. Jeff M. 

Witte, Director/Secretary of Agriculture; 

Mr. Joe Gomez, New Mexico; and Dr. 

Willie May, NCWM Honorary President.

Figure 4. Left to right: Mr. John Gaccione,

NCWM Chairman; Ms. Pam Smith; and Mr. N.

David Smith, North Carolina.
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 1 

Report of the 

Board of Directors (BOD) 

Mr. John Gaccione, NCWM Chair 

Westchester County, New York 

100 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Board of Directors (BOD) (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) for the 99th Annual 

Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the Interim Report 

offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Board Report,” testimony heard at public hearings, comments received from 

the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the NCWM 2014 Online Position Forum, the 

addendum sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the voting session of the 

Annual Meeting. The voting items presented below were adopted as presented when this report was approved. 

Table A identifies the agenda and appendix items by reference key, title of item, page number and the appendices by 

appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and technical terms used throughout the agenda are 

identified in Table B. The first three digits of an item’s reference key are assigned from the Subject Series List. The 

status of each item contained in the report is designated as one of the following: (D) Developing Item: the 

Committee determined the item has merit; however, the item was returned to the submitter or other designated party 

for further development before any action can be taken at the national level; (I) Informational Item: the item is 

under consideration by the Committee but not proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the Committee is making 

recommendations requiring a vote by the active members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been 

removed from consideration by the Committee. 

Table B provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in its entirety. 

Some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent calendar. Consent calendar 

items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during their deliberation after the 

Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not require discussion. The Voting 

Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of 

the consent calendar, the Committee entertains any requests from the floor to remove specific items from the 

consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually. 

Note: It is the policy to use metric units of measurement in publications; however, recommendations received by NCWM 

technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this publication as submitted. 

Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units.

Subject Series List 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 100 Series 

Activity Reports .............................................................................................................................................. 110 Series 

Strategic Planning, Policies, and Bylaws ........................................................................................................ 120 Series 

Financials ........................................................................................................................................................ 130 Series 

Other Items – Developing Items ..................................................................................................................... 140 Series 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 2 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Reference Key Title of Item Page BOD

100 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

110 ACTIVITY REPORTS ..................................................................................................................................... 4

110-1 I Membership and Meeting Attendance ....................................................................................... 4

110-2 I NCWM Newsletter and Website ................................................................................................ 5

110-3 I Meetings Update ........................................................................................................................ 7

110-4 I Participation in International Standard Setting .......................................................................... 7

110-5 I Associate Membership Committee Activity .............................................................................. 8

120 STRATEGIC PLANNING, POLICIES, AND BYLAWS ............................................................................. 9

120-1 I Strategic Planning ...................................................................................................................... 9

120-2 I Regional Support ..................................................................................................................... 11

120-3 I Standing Committees Support ................................................................................................. 11

130 FINANCIALS .................................................................................................................................................. 14

130-1 I Financial Report ....................................................................................................................... 14

Appendices

A Item 110-4: Report of the Activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) and 

Regional Legal Metrology Organizations ............................................................................................. A1 

B Item 110-5: Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes ............. B1 

Table B 

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number 

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates 

Results 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

To Accept the 

Report Voice Vote Adopted 

 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 3 

Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

AMC Associate Membership Committee NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

CTT Conformity to Type NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 

ISWM International Society of Weighing and 

Measuring OIML International Organization of Legal Metrology 

MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

L&R Laws and Regulations Committee PDC Professional Development Committee 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures VCAP Verified Conformity Assessment Program 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 4 

110 ACTIVITY REPORTS 

110-1 I Membership and Meeting Attendance 

Membership levels have remained fairly steady for the past several years. NCWM continues to conduct outreach to 

stakeholders and there are very few states or territories that have not maintained membership. The Board has 

discussed the reduced pool of potential members, especially regulatory officials, as a result of downsized or 

eliminated programs from budget cuts. Still, the potential growth in membership is significant and NCWM 

continues to enhance programs and services that add value to membership. The price structure for the exams is set 

to heavily favor membership as an alternative to paying non-member exam fees. 

The following is a comparison of NCWM membership levels as of June 30 for recent years. 

 Year 

Type 6/14 6/13 6/12 6/11 6/10 6/09 6/08 6/07 6/06 

Associate 802 818 842 813 814 822 848 863 837 

Foreign 

Associate 64 50 58 62 53 53 56 53 61 

Total 

Associate 866 868 900 875 867 875 904 916 898 

State 

Government 603 558 589 567 565 696 831 825 812 

Local 

Government 492 486 487 495 524 558 554 565 492 

Total 

Active 1095 1044 1076 1062 1089 1254 1385 1390 1304 

NIST 16 16 16 16 12 14 15 14 12 

Other Federal 

Government 9 10 11 11 12 10 9 9 13 

Foreign 

Government 13 13 14 14 12 24 22 31 23 

Retired 207 198 195 202 196 196 232 221 215 

Total 

Advisory 245 237 236 243 232 244 278 275 263 

Grand 

Total 2206 2149 2212 2180 2188 2373 2567 2581 2465 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 5 

Annual Membership Totals 

The attendance for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 Interim Meetings has been exceptional, with the highest being this year 

in Albuquerque, New Mexico. NCWM had the pleasure of welcoming back a number of jurisdictions to our Interim 

and Annual Meetings in 2013 and 2014. The overall attendance for the 2014 Annual Meeting was the highest in 

12 years and included 42 seats in the House of State Representatives. This is an exciting trend as we plan for the 

upcoming 100th Annual Meeting in 2015 in Philadelphia. See Item 110-3 for information on that and other future 

meetings. 

110-2 I NCWM Newsletter and Website 

Newsletter: 

The Board continuously considers ways to monitor and improve the content of the newsletter and website. 

Members are encouraged to bring ideas and articles forward for inclusion in newsletters. Of particular interest are 

articles that would be pertinent to field inspectors and the service industry. 

Website Improvements: 

The NCWM website continues to evolve as ideas are submitted for content enhancement. Many small 

improvements are made on a regular basis through better use of the space and tools already in place. 

In February 2014, a list of trainers was added under the “Resource” tab. These are trainers who have acquired 

training skills through participation in Train-the-Trainer courses sponsored by NIST. Along with the trainers’ 

names, the page provides the technical areas that each is comfortable presenting in a training class. There is also a 

page that provides information about upcoming training events around the country. 

Among other added features on the new website, the most popular are the mobile-friendly version which is very 

effective for searching the NTEP Certificate database, downloading Certificates of Conformance, and the ability for 

NTEP applicants to complete their applications online. There are many other features that make the new website a 

better customer experience. 

Because the mobile-friendly version was so well-received, NCWM received a request to implement a similar feature 

for the regional websites. Each of the four regions agreed to the cost of $550 per site to implement this feature that 

provides “About,” “Meetings,” and “Contact” in the mobile version with a link to view the full site. The “Meetings” 

portion gives the user easy access to the meeting information including links for hotels, registration, and the meeting 

documents, which download to the mobile device with impressive speed. The feature is fully implemented on all 

four regional sites. 

2203 2149 2212 2180 2188

2373 

2567 2581 2465 

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 6 

Comments and suggestions for improvements to the newsletter and website should be directed to NCWM at 

(402) 434-4880 or info@ncwm.net. 

Online Position Forum: 

The purpose of the Online Position Forum is to help members prepare for the deliberations and voting at the Annual 

Meeting in July by having a better idea of positions others may have. 

Beginning in 2014, the Forum was reconfigured so that members can view the comments and positions that others 

have submitted prior to submitting their own. However, the site is not a blog. Once a member submits positions, 

that member cannot submit more positions. It was hoped this change would promote increased use of the Forum. 

Chairman John Gaccione announced at the 99th NCWM Annual Meeting in 2014 that the Board will consider 

possible suspension or termination of the Online Position Forum due to very limited participation. 

The Online Position Forum is not a voting system. Comments and positions entered there are not binding. It is 

instead a method to present positions, opinions, and supporting documents. All Active, Associate, and Advisory 

members have the opportunity to login, view committee agenda items, enter positions and comments, and even 

upload supporting pdf documents for each agenda item of standing committees or the Board. 

NCWM notifies members when the forum is ready for them to enter their comments each spring. Positions and 

comments will be accepted through June 15. The options for each agenda item are: 

 Support 

 Support with Comments 

 Oppose with Comments 

 Neutral 

 Neutral with Comments 

NCWM Visibility: 

NCWM shares many news articles and other items of interest to the weights and measures community on the social 

networks. This has increased interest in the social network accounts with Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Now, 

NCWM has contracted with another service provider that offers improved visibility without increased costs. This 

service provider is optimizing NCWM’s visibility on the Internet through the combined use of social media and 

more frequent press releases on a wide variety of subject matters. The goal here is to elevate NCWM as a 

recognized resource on a vast array of subjects. 

In 2014, NCWM switched to a new service for issuing press releases. The new service provides comprehensive 

national distribution at a much lower cost. NCWM is now able to put out as many as two press releases per month 

for about the same cost as doing four press releases in a year under the old service. In that first six months of 2014, 

NCWM has averaged one press release per month compared to two or three press releases per year in the past. 

Professional Certification Program: 

The Professional Certification Program exam services are now fully integrated with NCWM’s website. Applicants 

no longer need to wait for staff assistance before they receive their login credentials. Individuals log in at 

www.ncwm.net to “purchase” exams, though the fees are waived for members. The fee for non-members is $75 per 

exam. As orders are received, the applicant receives an automated e-mail with credentials and instructions for 

accessing the exam. An applicant who does not pass the exam in the first attempt may have one retake. After that, 

it will be necessary to reapply. 

Certification is now available in three areas, including: 

 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems 

 Package Checking Basic 

 Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class III 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 7 

NCWM is ramping up its efforts to secure enough Subject Matter Experts to assist in developing more exams. The 

Certification Program Coordinator is not permitted to write the exams; so this effort is imperative as a means of 

getting the assistance needed so this program can develop more quickly. One relatively untapped area is with 

recently retired regulatory officials. Many have not provided NCWM with contact information to continue their 

complimentary “Retired” status membership; therefore, NCWM is unable to approach them for help in this area. 

Any assistance is welcomed to reach out to these individuals and have them contact Mr. Onwiler at (402) 434-4871 

or don.onwiler@ncwm.net. 

See the Professional Development Committee (PDC) Report for information on additional exams under 

development. 

110-3 I Meetings Update 

Interim Meetings: 

 January 18 - 21, 2015 Hilton Daytona Beach, Daytona Beach, Florida 

 January 17 - 20, 2016 Westin San Diego Gaslamp Quarter Hotel, San Diego, California 

 January 2017 Considering Orlando, San Antonio, or New Orleans 

Annual Meetings: 

 July 19 - 23, 2015 100th Annual Meeting: Sheraton Society Hill Hotel, Philadelphia, 

 Pennsylvania

 July 24-28, 2016 101st Annual Meeting: Grand Hyatt Denver, Denver, Colorado 

 July 2017 102nd Annual Meeting: Considering locations in the Northeastern region. 

NCWM strives to plan meetings in locations that offer comfortable rooms and a variety of entertainment and dining 

options nearby. The following is a brief description of future planned events. We are excited to announce the 

location for the 2016 Interim Meeting has been booked at the Westin San Diego Gaslamp Quarter Hotel. This was 

the location of a very successful Annual Meeting in 1994 at the Doubletree Hotel and promises to be a great winter 

venue. 

100th NCWM Annual Meeting: 

The 100th Annual Meeting in 2015 promises to be a very special event and one that you will not want to miss. The 

event will be at the Sheraton Society Hill in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with easy access to evening dining and 

entertainment, as well as daytime access to the historic attractions of Philadelphia. In addition to addressing the 

business of the organization, NCWM will be celebrating its 100th Annual Meeting, 110 years after our first meeting 

in 1905. A small Work Group is developing plans for the 100th NCWM Annual Meeting. The Work Group is 

considering special events and other ideas to commemorate and bring excitement to the occasion. Plans include 

commemorative gifts, a lunch banquet with a special guest speaker, door prizes including a restored 1950s retail 

motor fuel dispenser, a restored 1930s candy scale, and more. Suggestions may be forwarded to Ms. Elisa 

(Robertson) Stritt, NCWM Office Manager, at (402) 434-4872 or elisa.robertson@ncwm.net. 

110-4 I Participation in International Standard Setting 

Dr. Charles Ehrlich, NIST, OWM, provided a report during Open Hearings of the 99th NCWM Annual Meeting in 

Detroit, Michigan. An updated report is also included as an appendix to the Report of the Board of Directors (see 

Appendix A). 

See the NTEP Committee Agenda for additional reports on NCWM’s involvement internationally, including the 

Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) with Measurement Canada and the Mutual Acceptance Arrangement 

(MAA) with OIML. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 8 

110-5 I Associate Membership Committee Activity 

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) is organized in accordance with the Bylaws of the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc. In addition, AMC operates by its own Bylaws that are available on the 

Committee pages of www.ncwm.net. AMC meets at least two times per year in conjunction with NCWM’s Interim 

and Annual Meetings. It consists of between 5 and 10 members who, among themselves, elect officers to serve as 

Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary/Treasurer. AMC has established a reputation of promoting and improving 

NCWM and has demonstrated its desire to improve understanding of weights and measures activities in public and 

private sectors. 

The membership dues for Associate members ($90) are higher than that for Active or Advisory members ($75). The 

extra $15 is not for NCWM, but rather is placed in a separate account referred to as the AMC Fund. While AMC 

has discretion to allocate the funds in various ways, the Committee receives applications and awards training 

scholarships from the fund in accordance with their “Guidelines for Selection and Approval of Training Funds,” 

which are posted on the Committee’s portion of www.ncwm.net. Downloadable scholarship applications and 

reimbursement forms are also available there or applications may be made online. 

The criteria to receive AMC funds for training are as follows: 

1. Funding request forms that are complete, specific, and detailed will receive priority attention for approval. 

Based on the degree of missing or ambiguous information provided, individual requests may not be given 

any consideration during the AMC review process. 

2. Training requests that benefit higher numbers of participants are generally preferred over those for fewer or 

single-person benefit. Multi-state training that encourages uniformity will also be given priority 

consideration. 

3. In general, attending meetings will not be considered training, especially requests for travel expense or 

attendance fees for NCWM Annual, Interim, or Regional meetings.

4. As a lower priority, requests for the purchase of training materials will be considered, but requests for 

purchase of assets (such as LCD projectors) will not. 

5. Reasonable funding for travel and expenses will be considered if it is necessary to acquire an “expert 

trainer” that would benefit a high number of weights and measures officials. This will be an option when 

qualified volunteers are not available. 

Members of AMC have become concerned that the funds are underutilized in recent years. Regulatory agencies are 

encouraged to make use of these funds to improve training opportunities and the expertise of inspection personnel. 

AMC members are also looking for new, perhaps innovative ways to play a more effective role in the NCWM 

structure in an effort to further improve the organization. Some new initiatives that AMC is discussing include: 

 Promotional Tool-Kit: AMC has offered funds to assist NCWM in creating a “tool kit” that weights and 

measures administrators could use to improve awareness and support through adequate funding of their 

programs. This tool kit could consist of many elements for targeting media, consumers, government 

administrators, and legislators. AMC has proposed a work group to pursue this project. 

 Tradeshow Seminars: AMC is interested in organizing training or awareness seminars at industry type 

tradeshows with the idea of reaching out to the smaller industry groups that are impacted by the work of 

NCWM. This effort would be good for the smaller industries, as well as, providing a possible increase in 

NCWM membership and participation. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 9 

AMC meetings are open to all registered NCWM meeting attendees. All Associate Members are encouraged to 

attend these meetings, become familiar with the Committee, and offer ideas for how it can further pursue its 

objectives. See Appendix B for the AMC Meeting Minutes. 

120 STRATEGIC PLANNING, POLICIES, AND BYLAWS 

120-1 I Strategic Planning 

The Executive Director presents a strategic plan progress report each year at the fall Board Meeting. The Board 

conducts a strategic planning session in January at its quarterly meeting just prior to the Interim Meeting. The 

Board made several updates and changes to the Strategic Plan in January 2014. Members are able to review the 

Strategic Plan at online at www.ncwm.net. The Board welcomes member input. 

There are six NCWM Strategic Plan Goals: 

1. Enhance NCWM as a national and international resource for measurement standards development; 

2. Expand the role of NCWM as a resource for state and local weights and measures programs; 

3. Promote uniform training for individuals involved in weights and measures; 

4. Continue to improve NTEP; 

5. Preserve the financial stability of NCWM; and 

6. Develop guidance for retaining personnel and succession planning for management positions. 

Goal 1: NCWM as a National and International Resource: 

Strategy 1 of this goal was initially to implement the Online Position Forum. That was completed in 2011 and the 

strategy is now to make improvements to the program and promote increased use of it by our membership. Several 

ideas have been implemented to generate interest. Additionally, guidance has been developed to assist Committees 

in how to preview and use comments in a consistent manner. New in 2014, comments and positions that are 

submitted may be viewed immediately instead of being hidden until the comment period ends on June 15. By 

allowing comments to be viewed immediately, it is hoped that this will stimulate more participation. 

The following new strategies were added to this goal in 2013: 

Strategy 2: Identify, communicate, and collaborate with other regulatory, industry, and standards development 

organizations, foreign and domestic, to strengthen awareness of NCWM and draw on mutual resources toward 

mutual goals. 

Strategy 3: Increase consumer group participation in NCWM through outreach efforts. 

Goal 2: Expand the Role of NCWM as a Resource to Officials: 

NCWM has entered into a contract with a different service provider for press releases that will allow for many more 

press releases without an increase in costs. This will raise the level of recognition for NCWM and its membership 

as a resource for expert information in a vast array of topics. 

NCWM has conducted a number of surveys in recent years as part of this goal. Several years ago, one was done on 

budgets, staffing levels, salary grades, and more. These surveys provide good benchmarks, and will be repeated on 

occasion to identify trends. 

Many programs are experiencing severe budget cuts that are diminishing their effectiveness. The AMC has 

expressed interest in assisting with the development of a “tool kit” that can be used by program administrators to 

generate awareness and support for their programs. This toolkit will contain materials including data supporting a 

regulatory presence, industry contacts that can be called upon to explain the necessity of a regulatory presence to 

ensure a level playing field for businesses and consumer protection, and a short video production. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 10 

Goal 3: Promote Uniform Training: 

The Professional Certification Program is a top priority under this goal. Two new exams were added in 2012 and 

several more are in development. Mr. Ross Andersen serves as Certification Exam Coordinator working with the 

PDC and Subject Matter Experts. Volunteer Subject Matter Experts are needed in the areas of medium and large 

capacity scales and vehicle tank meters. 

There is fast-growing interest among service agencies and regulatory agencies for referencing NCWM Professional 

Certification as a prerequisite to registering/licensing service agents. This would potentially provide one set of 

exams to satisfy the testing requirements of many states. Private companies are also very interested in NCWM 

Professional Certification as a way of instilling confidence in their customers that they are knowledgeable in 

regulatory standards. See more discussion on this in the PDC report. 

NCWM recently worked with Mr. Andersen to ramp up efforts to retain additional Subject Matter Experts so that 

this program can develop at a faster pace. Anyone interested in assisting the writing and reviewing exam questions 

should contact NCWM. 

There are a number of other strategies under Goal 3. Some recent advancement toward those strategies include a 

cooperative effort with NIST, whereby NCWM uses grant funds from NIST to fund travel for approved trainers 

from around the country to assist with NIST training events. A list of those trainers and technical areas that each is 

comfortable presenting training is now available on the NCWM website. Also, new to the website is a list of 

training opportunities that have been scheduled. Anyone planning a training event that would like to open up the 

class to other individuals should contact NCWM to have their event posted. 

Goal 4: Continue to Improve NTEP: 

NCWM surveyed regulatory officials in 2012 to determine how they access NTEP Certificates of Conformance 

(CC) in the field. This will be used as a benchmark. As technology advances, NCWM will have a better 

understanding of how it can make CCs more accessible. In 2013, NCWM added a mobile friendly version of the 

website that makes it much easier to access the NTEP database using hand-held-devices such as smart phones. It is 

likely that the 2012 survey will be repeated soon to measure the impact of this and other technology advancements. 

A strategy of high priority under this goal is to maintain viable support for NTEP laboratories. Mr. Truex, NTEP 

Administrator, monitors the number of full-time equivalents associated with the authorized laboratories and tracks 

evaluation time and backlog statistics to ensure that NTEP evaluations can be completed in a timely manner. He 

reports these statistics quarterly to the NTEP Committee and Board of Directors. 

NCWM has a contingency plan in place to ensure evaluation services are maintained for NTEP applicants in the 

event that insufficient services are available under the current authorized laboratory system. The Board is 

monitoring its available resources toward that end to ensure that NCWM is in a position to implement the worst-case 

scenario, should the need arise. Another strategy toward this goal is the continued development of the Verified 

Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP), which has already successfully addressed load cells and has moved on to 

the next device-type category. See the NTEP Committee Interim Report for more details. 

In 2013, NTEP operated without a field lab for scale evaluations. That, combined with the increasing workload for 

NTEP staff as a result of VCAP, lead to the hiring of a new NTEP Specialist to assist in both areas. In 

January 2014, Mr. Darrell Flocken, formerly of Mettler Toledo, LLC was hired in this capacity. This addition to the 

NCWM family will greatly enhance NTEP’s ability to serve its stakeholders. 

Goal 5: Preserve Financial Stability: 

This goal was originally to “ensure” financial stability. Financial reports of the past several years indicate that 

NCWM is financially stable barring any unexpected circumstances. However, NCWM must recognize that it does 

not have sufficient reserves at this time to fully implement the NTEP contingency plan that was developed to ensure 

continued evaluation services if the authorized state laboratories fell victim to budget cuts. The Board has studied 

NCWM’s needs for reserves for NTEP and other potential exposures. This is being balanced with continued efforts 

to improve services in support of customers and membership. NCWM finances are reviewed annually. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 11 

Goal 6: Develop Guidance for Retaining Personnel and Succession Planning for Management Positions: 

This goal was just added in 2014. It will be developed in future strategic planning sessions. It was brought forward 

out of concern for the high turnover rate of inspection staff in some jurisdictions, cutting of positions in others, and 

the need for better planning to replace weights and measures administrators. 

120-2 I Regional Support 

Meeting Documents on Regional Websites: 

In the fall of 2011, NCWM made efforts to be the clearinghouse for all new proposals being submitted to the 

regional associations. Since then, the process has been streamlined while improving documents, reports, and 

communication. NCWM provides the regional committees with a report template that contains all of the regions’ 

carryover items and new proposals. The templates are improved each year based on feedback and efforts to 

streamline the reporting process for everyone. 

The report templates in 2013 were modified based on extensive discussions at the 2012 Committee Orientation 

sessions. Regional committees should find them to be less confusing for presenting the discussions, 

recommendations, and regional decisions. NEWMA committee chairs expressed that the process is now much 

easier to work with and also members have a clearer understanding of the issues. Downloading agenda items for 

Interim and Annual Meetings is made much easier. They also stated that the new format and deadline for 

Publication 15 works very well. 

All of the regional websites are hosted through NCWM. As of 2013, all four regions have now added the 

e-commerce option for online meeting registrations and membership dues (where applicable) using NCWM’s 

merchant services to process the payments. NCWM provides the administrative services of transferring those funds 

to the appropriate regional bank accounts and communicating with regional Treasurers regarding the details of those 

transfers. There is no additional cost to the regions for this added support. The annual fee to NCWM from each 

region remains at $200 for unlimited support unless programming is required. In 2014, each of the regions invested 

$550 as a one-time cost to program the websites with a mobile version. 

Chairman John Gaccione reported at the 99th NCWM Annual Meeting that the regional websites are being used 

more frequently as a tool for meeting information and meeting registrations. 

120-3 I Standing Committees Support 

Committee Orientation: 

NCWM conducts Committee Orientation for Committee Chairs and new Committee Members every fall at NIST, 

OWM in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The location enables full participation by all NIST Technical Advisors. The 

focus is on leadership, administrative processes, roles and responsibilities, and review of NCWM Committee 

Member Handbook. Additionally, the Committee Chairs and NIST Technical Advisors review agenda items for the 

new members so they are prepared in advance for the technical discussions and Open Hearings. 

Each year additional improvements are made to the NCWM Committee Member Handbook and to the report 

templates that regional Committees use to submit their reports for inclusion in NCWM Publication 15. 

Task Groups, Subcommittees, and Steering Committees: 

Task Groups (TG), Subcommittees and Steering Committees are created by appointment by the NCWM Chairman. 

A TG is given a specific charge, and it reports to the appropriate NCWM Standing Committee. A TG will disband 

at the completion of its assignment. A Subcommittee is charged with ongoing responsibilities in support of a 

Standing Committee in a specific field of expertise. A Steering Committee is charged with unbiased fact-finding 

that will assist NCWM membership in decision processes for difficult issues. A Steering Committee will disband 

upon completion of its specific charge. 

NCWM offers resources to these TGs and Subcommittees including meeting space at Interim and Annual Meetings, 

conference calling and web meeting services, group e-mail services, a dedicated webpage for posting and archiving 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 12 

documents related to their work, and broadcast e-mail services to reach targeted audiences. Additionally, NIST, 

OWM has provided Technical Advisors and web meeting forums. All of these tools enable year-around progress of 

TG and Subcommittee work. 

Because NCWM TGs and Subcommittees report directly to NCWM Standing Committees or Board of Directors, 

any new proposals may appear in NCWM Publication 15 without first being vetted through a regional association. 

Any such proposals are properly vetted through the Open Hearings of NCWM. This structure enables more efficient 

standards development. 

The Board expresses great appreciation to the volunteers who serve in support of the work of this organization. 

Natural Gas Steering Committee: 

The Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee heard spirited debate at the 2013 Interim Meeting Open Hearings 

on a proposal to recognize the Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) and Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) as the 

method of sale for compressed and liquefied natural gas; similar to the Gasoline Gallon and Liter Equivalents 

that were recognized in 1994. Opponents argue that a method of sale by mass is preferred. 

NCWM Chairman Stephen Benjamin formed a new Natural Gas Steering Committee to address rising issues as 

the compressed and liquefied natural gas markets rapidly expand. The Steering Committee will report to the 

L&R Committee. Its charge is to gather information that will assist NCWM Membership in the decision 

process as model standards are developed for the sale of liquefied and compressed natural gas. 

Chair 

Mr. Mahesh Albuquerque 

CDLE-Oil and Public Safety 

Denver, CO 

Email: mahesh.albuquerque@state.co.us 

Promotional Tool Kit Task Group: 

This group will develop tools that may be used by weights and measures agencies to promote awareness and 

support and adequate funding for their programs. The tools will target three separate audiences; 

o Consumers 

o Regulated Industries 

o Legislators, Governors, and Agency Administrators 

Tools may include case studies, data, short-segment video productions, public service announcements, etc. 

Chair 

Mr. Stephen Benjamin 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

Raleigh, NC 

Email: steve.benjamin@ncagr.gov 

Weights and Measures Training Manual Task Group: 

This new group reports to the PDC and is assigned to develop a training manual that can be used to ensure 

proper training methods and evaluation of training success for all aspects of field enforcement. Task Group 

Chairman Michael Cleary presented the PDC a draft of the completed training manual at the 99th NCWM 

Annual Meeting and confirmed that the work of the TG is now complete. A copy of the draft document was 

posted to the NCWM website and will be updated to a final copy after review and edits are completed. NCWM 

expresses gratitude to Mr. Cleary and his TG for quickly completing their charge through volunteer efforts. 

More information is available in the PDC Report, Item 410-2 – Training. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 13 

Chair 

Mr. Michael Cleary 

Retired 

Sacramento, CA 

Email: mcleary55@sbcglobal.net 

Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computer Capability Task Group: 

The group reports to the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee and is developing specifications for 

multi-tier and discount pricing at retail. For more information, contact: 

Chair 

Ms. Fran Elson-Houston 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

Division of Weights and Measures 

8995 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

Phone: (614) 728-6290 

Fax: (614) 728-6290 

Email: houston@agri.ohio.gov 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (FALS): 

The group reports to the L&R Committee. For more information, contact: 

Chair 

Dr. Matthew Curran 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service 

3125 Conner Boulevard, Building 2 

Mail Stop L@ 

Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1650 

Phone: (850) 921-1570 

Fax: (850) 921-1548 

E-Mail: matthew.curran@freshfromflorida.com 

Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (PALS): 

The group reports to the L&R Committee. For more information, contact: 

Chair 

Mr. Christopher Guay 

Procter and Gamble, Co. 

One Procter and Gamble Plaza 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

Phone: (513) 983-0530 

Fax: (513) 983-8984 

Email: guay.cb@pg.com 

Organometallics Task Group: 

The group reports to the FALS and L&R Committee. For more information, contact: 

Chair 

Mr. Randy Jennings 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 40627 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Phone: (615) 837-5327 

Fax: (615) 837-5335 

Email: randy.jennings@tn.gov 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 14 

Multi-Point Calibration Task Group: 

The group reports to the S&T Committee. For more information, contact: 

Chair 

Ms. Julie Quinn 

Minnesota Department of Commerce 

14305 South Cross Drive, Suite 150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Phone: (651) 539-1555 

Fax: (952) 435-4040 

Email: julie.quinn@state.mn.us 

Moisture Loss Task Group: 

The group reports to the L&R Committee. For more information, contact: 

Chair 

Mr. Kurt Floren 

LA County Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures 

12300 Lower Azusa Road 

Arcadia, CA 91006 

Phone: (626) 575-5451 

Fax: (626) 350-3243 

Email: kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov 

NEWMA reported appreciation from a member that the PALS has been formed as this is an area where weights and 

measures focus has been sidetracked due to budget issues. 

130 FINANCIALS 

130-1 I Financial Report 

NCWM operates on a fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. Budgets are set to be conservative on 

projected revenues and realistic on anticipated expenses. 

The Board of Directors continues to monitor its ability to fully implement contingency plans based on potential costs 

compared to reserve funds. 

The following is the balance sheet as of June 30, 2014, in comparison with the same time the previous year. Assets 

in the balance sheet are inflated by the by the NIST Training Initiative Grant, which was awarded to NCWM in 

2012. Those funds are earmarked for specific training activities. Assets are also inflated by the Associate 

Membership Fund. This money is accumulated through the additional $15 dues paid by NCWM Associate 

Members, and is spent at the discretion of the AMC in accordance with Committee Bylaws. A significant increase 

in “Other Current Assets” represents the value of the new NCWM website. It will be depreciated over a period of 

five years. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 15 

ASSETS June 30, 2014 June 30, 2013 

Current Assets $ $ 

Checking/Savings 

Associate Member Fund 32,998.67 26,602.49 

NIST Training Grant 14,860.67 52,253.27 

Certificates of Deposit 1,162,359.04 1,149,123.91 

Checking 28,119.95 35,697.28 

Savings 263,309.23 194,742.49 

Total Checking/Savings $ 1,501,647.56 $ 1,458,419.44 

 

Accounts Receivable 995.00 145.78 

 

Other Current Assets 140,066.80 27,165.24 

 

Other Assets 12,322.40 11,889.11 

 

TOTAL ASSETS $ 1,655,031.76 $ 1,497,619.57 

 

LIABILITIES & EQUITY 

Liabilities 

Current Liabilities $ 26,795.84 $ 19,747.93 

 

Total Liabilities $ 26,795.84 $ 19,747.93

 

Equity 

Designated-Associate Member Fund 32,998.67 

Designated-NIST Training Grant 14,860.67 

Unrestricted Net Assets 1,366,715.87 1,243,897.98 

Net Income 213,660.71 233,973.66 

Total Equity $ 1,628,235.92 $ 1,477,871.64 

 

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY $ 1,655,031.76 $1,497,619.57 

The following is a graphic view of the past 10 fiscal years based on year-end audit reports. The spike in expenses in 

2008 reflects the cost transition from contracted management services to hired employees and procured office space, 

furniture, computers, etc. The chart shows significant savings in the following years even though NCWM has 

invested significantly in new initiatives during that time. 

A significant investment was made in 2013 to rebuild the NCWM website. Because the website is considered a 

depreciable asset, the investment does not reduce NCWM’s net assets. Expenses in 2014 and going forward will 

increase with the addition of a new staff person in the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP). This new staff 

position is necessary to handle increased workload associated with the Conformity Assessment Program. 

Mr. Darrell Flocken was hired as the NTEP Specialist, and will greatly enhance NCWM’s ability to serve the NTEP 

stakeholders. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

BOD - 16 

Mr. John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York | Chairman 

Mr. Ronald Hayes, Missouri | Chairman-Elect 

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina | NTEP Committee Chair 

Mr. Mark Coyne, City of Brockton, Massachusetts | Treasurer 

Mr. Jerry Buendel, Washington | Active Membership - Western 

Mr. Craig VanBuren, Michigan | Active Membership - Central 

Mr. Mr. Kenneth Ramsburg, Maryland | Active Membership - Southern 

Mr. James Cassidy, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts | Active Membership - Northeastern 

Mr. Chris Guay, Procter and Gamble | Associate Membership 

Mr. Steve Giguere, Maine | At-Large 

Mr. Mr. Chuck Corr, Archer Daniels Midland Co. | At-Large 

Ms. Carol Hockert, NIST, OWM | Executive Secretary 

Mr. Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada | Board of Directors Advisor 

Mr. Jim Truex, NCWM | NTEP Administrator 

Mr. Don Onwiler, NCWM | Executive Director 

Board of Directors 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A1 

Appendix A 

Report of the Activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 

and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) 

INTRODUCTION 

The NIST, OWM is responsible for coordinating U.S. participation in OIML and other international legal metrology 

organizations. Learn more about OIML at www.oiml.org and about NIST, OWM at www.nist.gov/owm. 

Dr. Charles Ehrlich, Program Leader of the International Legal Metrology Program, can be contacted at 

(301) 975-4834, by fax at (301) 975-8091, or charles.ehrlich@nist.gov. 

Note: OIML publications are available without cost at www.oiml.org.

Table A 

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

TC 3/SC 5 Conformity Assessment (United States) ........................................................................................... 3

TC 5/SC 1 Environmental Conditions (Netherlands) ......................................................................................... 3

TC 5/SC 2 Software (Germany and BIML) ........................................................................................................ 4

TC 6 Prepackaged Products (South Africa) ........................................................................................................ 4

TC 8 Measurement of Quantities of Fluids (Japan) ............................................................................................ 4

TC 8/SC 1 Static Volume and Mass Measurement (Germany) .......................................................................... 5

TC 8/SC 3 Dynamic Volume and Mass Measurement for Liquids Other Than Water (United States and 

Germany) ................................................................................................................................... 5

TC 8/SC 5 Water Meters (United Kingdom) ..................................................................................................... 5

TC 8/SC 6 Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids (United States) ......................................................................... 5

TC 8/SC 7 Gas Metering (Netherlands) .............................................................................................................. 5

TC 9 Instruments for Measuring Mass (United States) ....................................................................................... 6

TC 9/SC 2 Automatic Weighing Instruments (United Kingdom) ....................................................................... 6

TC 17/SC 1 Humidity (China and United States) ............................................................................................... 6

TC 17/SC 8 Quality Analysis of Agricultural Products (Australia) .................................................................... 6

OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) ............................................................................................... 7
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A2 

Table B 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

ANSI American National Standards Institute ISO International Standardization 

Organization 

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation IWG International Work Group 

APLMF Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum LMWG Legal Metrology Work Group 

APMP Asia-Pacific Metrology Program MAA Mutual Acceptance Agreement 

B Basic Publication MTL Manufacturers’ Testing Laboratory 

BIML International Bureau of Legal Metrology NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

BIPM International Bureau of Weights and 

Measures NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 

CD Committee Draft1 OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

CIML International Committee of Legal 

Metrology OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

CTT Conformity to Type PG Project Group 

D Document R Recommendation 

DD Draft Document2 SC Technical Subcommittee 

DoMC Declaration of Mutual Confidence SIM Inter-American Metrology System 

DR Draft Recommendation2 TC Technical Committee 

DV Draft Vocabulary3 USNWG U.S. National Work Group 

GA General Assembly VIM International Vocabulary of Metrology 

IEC International Electrotechnical 

Commission VIML International Vocabulary of Legal 

Metrology 

IQ Mark International Quantity Mark WD Working Draft3

1

 CD: a draft at the stage of development within a technical committee or subcommittee; in this document, 

successive drafts are numbered 1 CD, 2 CD, etc. 

2

 DD, DR, and DV: a draft document approved at the level of the technical committee or subcommittee concerned 

and sent to BIML for approval by CIML. 

3

WD: precedes the development of a CD; in this document, successive drafts are number 1 WD, 2 WD, etc. 

 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A3 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key) 

I. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE OIML TECHNICAL COMMITTEES 

This section reports on recent activities and the status of work in the OIML Technical Committees (TCs), Technical 

Subcommittees (SCs), and Project Groups (PGs) of specific interest to members of the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures (NCWM). Schedules of future activities of the TC/SC Secretariats, PG Conveners, the U.S. 

National Work Groups (USNWGs), and the International Work Groups (IWGs) and Project Groups of the TCs and 

SCs are also included. 

TC 3/SC 5 Conformity Assessment (United States) 

The OIML Basic Publications B 3:2011, Certificate System, and B 10:2012, Mutual Acceptance Arrangement 

(MAA), are the core documents underpinning the OIML Certificate System. An amendment to B 10 was approved 

by the CIML that allows for the voluntary use of test data from manufacturer’s test laboratories (MTLs) under 

specially supervised conditions (NCWM has adopted the position that it will not accept test data under the MAA 

that was obtained from MTLs). An MAA workshop was held in conjunction with the 2013 CIML Meeting (in 

Vietnam) to gather experiences of the various MAA stakeholders in the MAA. Based on the outcome of this 

workshop and MAA discussions at the 2013 CIML Meeting, OIML has established an Ad-Hoc Working Group 

(WG) consisting of interested CIML members, Committee on Participation Review (CPR) members, and 

representatives of manufacturers’ associations. This WG is tasked with reviewing the structure, rules, and 

procedures governing the operation of the MAA (and the role of Utilizing Participants), with a view to increasing 

the efficiency of the operation of the MAA, and, if necessary, amending their internal (MAA) documents and 

suggesting to TC 3/SC 5 appropriate amendments to OIML Publication B 10. This Ad-Hoc WG is chaired by the 

CIML first Vice-President Dr. Roman Schwartz of Physikalish-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) (Germany), and 

held its first meeting on March 20 - 21, 2014, at NIST. Mr. Darrell Flocken from NCWM attended, as did Mr. Rob 

Upright, President of the U.S. Scale Manufacturer’s Association (SMA), and Mr. Dmitri Karimov, President of the 

U.S. Meter Manufacturer’s Association (MMA). Three Task Groups (TGs) were established that are looking into 

1) improving the international awareness and use of the OIML MAA, 2) developing a more robust model for 

operation of the CPR, and 3) evaluating the impact that termination of the Basic System for categories already 

covered by the MAA (load cells, NAWIs, and water meters) would have on all stakeholders. Reports from these 

three TGs will be presented at the 2014 CIML Meeting in November 2014, in Auckland, New Zealand. 

The 2CD of a new OIML document entitled The Role of Measurement Uncertainty in Conformity Assessment 

Decisions in Legal Metrology has been developed by the Secretariat (Dr. Charles Ehrlich). For a copy of this 

document, please contact Dr. Ehrlich at (301) 975-4834 or charles.ehrlich@nist.gov. Comments were submitted to 

the Secretariat by June 30, 2014. Please see the MAA section in the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) 

Committee Report of this publication for more details on the activities of TC 3/SC 5. Please contact Dr. Ehrlich for 

more information on the activities of this Subcommittee. 

TC 5/SC 1 Environmental Conditions (Netherlands) 

OIML D 11 General requirements for measuring instruments - Environmental conditions was approved by the 

CIML in October 2013, and was published in December 2013. This is a very important document in the OIML 

system and is used by all of the OIML TCs as a general reference for technical and testing requirements on all 

measuring instruments. Highlights of this recent revision cycle include: expanding the terminology section, 

updating several testing sections to reflect the latest International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) reference 

standards, and including a new environmental class (E3) for a non-mains local source of electrical power supply. 

Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like further information 

on TC 5/SC 1 or OIML D 11. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A4 

TC 5/SC 2 Software (Germany and BIML) 

The OIML D 31, General Requirements for Software-controlled Measuring Instruments, has been published, and it 

will serve as guidance for software requirements in International Recommendations by OIML TCs. The United 

States participated in the technical work on this document and submitted votes and comments on several drafts of 

the document. A new project on software verification was approved by CIML, and the United States is waiting for 

the first draft of this document. Please contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or ambler@nist.gov if you 

would like to discuss OIML software efforts. 

TC 6 Prepackaged Products (South Africa) 

After an online CIML vote was conducted, it was decided that the TC 6 project to develop an OIML International 

Quantity Mark (IQ Mark) would be terminated. The United States had already voted in favor of terminating this 

project, on the grounds that the effort to manage and certify quality control systems would have added unnecessary 

extra costs, with no value added, to all participating suppliers. At the same time, another CIML vote was conducted 

on a proposal for a new TC 6 project, Guidance for defining the system requirements for a certification system for 

prepackages. The United States voted against this proposal, on the grounds that even such an OIML guidance 

document could be construed as endorsing an OIML IQ Mark program. At the CIML meeting in October 2013, it 

was decided to move forward with the drafting of this publication. 

Besides the IQ Mark project, two other important projects are under discussion in TC 6: a revision of OIML 

Recommendation (R) 87 Quantity of Product in Prepackages (the OIML equivalent to NIST Handbook 133,

Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods) and a revision of OIML R 79 Labeling Requirements for 

Prepackaged Products. The NIST Statistical Engineering Division has been participating in a small ad-hoc WG to 

improve the statistics in R 87. A 1CD of R 87 has been developed and circulated for comment by the Secretariat. 

The draft contained proposed revisions that NIST OWM believes is unnecessarily complex and, therefore, subject to 

easy misinterpretation, and another that appeared to go beyond the scope of package labeling requirements. After 

consulting with the Chairman of the NCWM Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee about the proposed revisions to 

both R 87 and R 79, the United States voted “no” on R 79 (votes are not taken on 1 CDs, so only comments were 

submitted on R 87). The main reason for opposing both drafts is they include proposed definitions for prepackage, 

packaging material, and product that are likely to result in confusion for consumers and packers alike. A meeting of 

TC 6 was held in Switzerland in September 2013. 

The Secretariat has now distributed a 4CD of R 79; it was revised to eliminate one of the definitions, which 

contained language, that we and other TC 6 members believed were confusing. The United States voted “yes” on 

the 4th CD and submitted some additional suggestions to clarify the language regarding references to CODEX 

labeling requirements for drained weight. The next meeting of TC 6 will be in September 2014 in South Korea. 

For more information on the activities of this Committee, and to participate in the U.S. review of these CDs, please 

contact Mr. Ken Butcher at (301) 975-4859 or kbutcher@nist.gov. 

TC 8 Measurement of Quantities of Fluids (Japan) 

The CIML has approved projects to revise the following TC 8 documents: R 63, Petroleum Measurement Tables 

(1994), and R 119, Pipe Provers for Testing of Measuring Systems for Liquids Other Than Water (1996). Both of 

these documents are important for other OIML recommendations involving liquid measurement. Please contact 

Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like copies of the documents or to 

participate in any of these projects. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A5 

TC 8/SC 1 Static Volume and Mass Measurement (Germany) 

The United States chairs the Project Group that is drafting new sections of OIML R 71, Fixed Storage Tanks, and 

R 85, Automatic Level Gages for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage Tanks, to add specific 

requirements for specialized tanks. OIML R 80-2, Road and Rail Tankers, Test Methods, is being developed by 

Germany. A meeting of TC 8/SC 1 has been proposed for December 2014 in Germany. Please contact Mr. Ralph 

Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like copies of the documents or to participate in 

any of these projects. 

TC 8/SC 3 Dynamic Volume and Mass Measurement for Liquids Other Than Water (United States 

and Germany) 

New annexes for measuring systems for foaming potable liquids, for pipelines, and for aircraft refueling have been 

added to OIML R 117-2, Dynamic Measuring Systems for Liquids Other Than Water, Part 2, Test Methods. A 

meeting of the R 117 International Project Group was held in October 2013 in Teddington (London), United 

Kingdom and was hosted by the UK National Measurement Office. Representatives of major manufacturers of 

these systems and liaison organizations actively participated in the meeting. These technical experts provided a 

depth of experience and technical expertise that proved highly valuable during the meeting. The 2 CD of R 117-2 

was distributed late in December 2013; it was approved by the Project Group with over 300 comments. The 1 CD 

of R 117-3 Part 3, Test Report Format was distributed in March 2014. A meeting of the R 117 International Project 

Group was held in April 2014 in Chicago to discuss international comments on the 2 CD of R 117-2 and the 1 CD of 

R 117-3. If you have any questions or would like to participate in the next phases of this project, please contact 

Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov. 

TC 8/SC 5 Water Meters (United Kingdom) 

OIML, the International Standardization Organization (ISO), and the European Committee for Standardization 

(CEN) have worked together to harmonize requirements for water meters using OIML R 49 Water Meters Intended 

for the Metering of Cold Potable Water and Hot Water Parts 1, 2, and 3 as the base document. The United States 

submitted comments on the 3 CD of the harmonized document in September 2012 and participated in a meeting of 

the Joint Working Group of these three organizations in London, England, in October 2012. The American Water 

Works Association Committee on Water Meters is assisting in these efforts. The DR of R 49 passed its CIML 

preliminary ballot in May 2013, and R 49 received final CIML approval in October 2013. R 49 published in early 

2014. Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like additional 

information on this effort. 

TC 8/SC 6 Measurement of Cryogenic Liquids (United States) 

In May 2013, the Secretariat for R 81, Dynamic Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids distributed a 

first working draft (1 WD) of R 81 to TC 8/SC 6 and the USNWG for their review and comment. Nine members of 

the R 81 project group submitted comments on Parts 1 and 2 of R 81 by the September 2013 deadline. To obtain 

more information or to participate in this project, please contact Ms. Juana Williams at (301) 975-3989 or 

juana.williams@nist.gov. 

TC 8/SC 7 Gas Metering (Netherlands) 

OIML R 137-1 and R 137-2, Gas Meters; Part 1: Metrological and Technical Requirements and Part 2: 

Metrological Controls and Performance Tests were published in 2012. Extensive U.S. comments on the 1 CD, the 

2 CD, and the DR were developed in cooperation with the measurement committees of the American Gas 

Association. CIML voting on the preliminary ballot of R 137-3 Part 3: Report Format for Type Evaluation closed 

in March 2014 and is expected to have final approval in November 2014. The OIML R 137 document is especially 

important to the U.S. interests because the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B 109 committee on gas 

measurement is using the published R 137 to create a new performance-based standard for gas meters in the United 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A6 

States. Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov, if you would like to 

participate in these efforts of if you would like to obtain a copy of any of these gas measurement documents. 

The CIML preliminary ballot on OIML R 139, Compressed gaseous fuel measuring systems for vehicles, closed in 

March 2014. This standard is important to U.S. stakeholders, especially in the effort to maximize harmonization 

between domestic and international legal metrology requirements used for the delivery of alternative fuels such as 

hydrogen gas and compressed natural gas (CNG). The United States voted “yes” and submitted comments on the 

preliminary ballot of R 139, and final approval is expected in November 2014. To obtain more information or to 

participate in this project, please contact Ms. Juana Williams at (301) 975-3989 or juana.williams@nist.gov. 

TC 9 Instruments for Measuring Mass (United States) 

The revision of OIML R 60 Metrological Regulation for Load Cells is planned to cover everything from the basic 

principles of R 60 (e.g., tolerances and accuracy classes) to exploring the addition of new requirements. The United 

States distributed the 2 CD of R 60 Parts 1 and 2 (Metrological and technical requirements and Metrological 

controls and performance tests) in June 2013. International Project Group (PG) members were asked to review this 

2 CD for vote and comment. The majority of voting responses were negative indicating that the draft needed to be 

further developed by the Project Group. A meeting of TC 9/P 1 was held at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, on 

March 17 - 18, 2014 to discuss unresolved issues regarding the R 60 revision. This meeting was one of three OIML 

meetings held that week, meetings of the CPR and MAA Ad Hoc WG (see section on TC 3/SC 5) were also 

convened. Input from the TC 9/P 1 meeting and comments received pertaining to the 2 CD of R 60 will be 

incorporated into a 3 CD that is expected to be circulated in July 2014. For more information on TC 9 activities, 

please contact Mr. John Barton at (301) 975-4002 or john.barton@nist.gov. 

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

The DR of OIML R 106, Part 1, Automatic Rail Weighbridges, was published in 2012. The DR of R 106-2 was 

approved by the CIML in 2012 and subsequently published in 2013. 

All three parts of OIML R 50, Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Belt Weighers), have been 

forwarded to the BIML, and it is expected that they will receive final CIML approval in November 2014. Parts 1 

and 2 (technical/metrological requirements and test procedures) were approved in the 2013 CIML preliminary ballot 

and the FDRs (Final Draft Recommendation) are currently under preparation. The 2 CD of R 50-3 was approved in 

the TC 9/SC 2 ballot in September 2013 and was sent to the BIML in March 2014. To receive copies of these 

documents or to obtain more information on the work of this Subcommittee, please contact Mr. John Barton at 

(301) 975-4002 or john.barton@nist.gov. 

TC 17/SC 1 Humidity (China and United States) 

The 6CD of OIML R 59, Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds, was distributed in March 2013, and it 

was requested that comments be returned in June 2013. Meetings of TC 17/SC 1 and TC 17/SC 8 were held at NIST 

in Gaithersburg in July 2013 to discuss these returned comments and to develop the next draft. The 7 CD will be 

distributed for a vote later this year. Please contact Ms. G. Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or diane.lee@nist.gov if 

you would like to participate in this IWG. 

TC 17/SC 8 Quality Analysis of Agricultural Products (Australia) 

Meetings of TC 17/SC 1 and TC 17/SC 8 were held at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in July 2013 to discuss 

international comments received on the 4 CD of a draft document Measuring Instruments for Protein Determination 

in Grains. Australia plans to soon distribute a 5 CD of this draft document for a vote. Please contact Ms. G. Diane 

Lee at (301) 975-4405 or diane.lee@nist.gov, if you would like to participate in this IWG. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A7 

OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) 

The report on the OIML MAA can be found in the NTEP section of this document. For further information on the 

MAA and its implementation, please contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at (301) 975-4834 or e-mail 

charles.ehrlich@nist.gov. 

II. REPORT ON THE 48th CIML MEETING IN HO CHI MINH CITY, VIETNAM IN 

OCTOBER 2013 

Mr. Peter Mason, CIML member from the United Kingdom and President of the CIML, opened the meeting and 

gave the President’s Report. 

Mr. Stephen Patoray, who has been serving as BIML Director since January 2011 provided several reports on 

financial and administrative matters at the BIML, including improvements that have been implemented since his 

arrival at the BIML. After consideration of an external auditor’s review, the CIML approved the 2012 accounts and 

instructed its President to present them to the 15th OIML Conference. 

The CIML elected Dr. Yukinobu Miki, the CIML Member for Japan, as second Vice-President for a six-year term; 

the Committee also decided to renew the contract of Mr. Ian Dunmill, BIML Assistant Director, for a five-year term 

starting in March 2014. 

The CIML welcomed Colombia as a new Member State and Zambia as a re-instated Member State. The CIML also 

welcomed Iraq, Uganda, and Yemen as new Corresponding Members – and Guinea, Korea (DPR), and Rwanda as 

re-instated Corresponding Members. 

The Committee, noting the report given by the BIML on its activities pertaining to developing country matters, 

recognized the importance of coordinating the various projects and initiatives promoted by the OIML, individual 

Member States and Corresponding Members, and other bodies with an interest in promoting the economic 

development of countries and economies with emerging metrology systems. The CIML decided to set up an 

advisory group to help carry out wide consultation, to seek additional suggestions, and to build up links with other 

bodies which have a contribution to make in the area of developing countries. 

The BIML reported on the implementation of OIML B 6-1:2012 Directives for OIML technical work. The CIML 

approved a fairly minor revision to B 6-1, but decided to postpone further work on B 6 until sometime in the future. 

The CIML approved the following draft publications: 

 OIML V 1, International vocabulary of terms in legal metrology (VIML); 

 OIML R 46-3, Active electrical energy meters – Part 3: Test report format; 

 OIML R 49, Water meters for cold potable water and hot water – Part 1: Metrological and technical 

requirements, Part 2: Test methods, and Part 3: Test report format; 

 New OIML Recommendation Instruments for continuous measuring CO and NOx in stationary source 

emissions; 

 OIML D 11, General requirements for measuring instruments – Environmental conditions; and 

 OIML B 14, Procedure for the election of the CIML President and Vice-Presidents. 

The CIML confirmed its decision to start as a new project in TC 4, Measurement standards and calibration and 

verification devices, the revision of OIML D 8:2004, Measurement standards. Choice, recognition, use, 

conservation, and documentation. 

The CIML also confirmed its decision to start as a new project in TC 6, Prepackaged products, the drafting of a new 

publication Guidance for defining the system requirements for a certification system for prepackages, noting the 

reservations about this effort expressed by several of the Member States (including theUnited States). 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A8 

Noting the oral report on the outcome of the seminar to review the operation of the OIML Mutual Acceptance 

Arrangement (MAA) that was given by the CIML first Vice-President, Dr. Roman Schwartz of PTB (Germany), the 

CIML decided that there is a need to raise awareness of the MAA system among those not currently using it, in 

particular among potential Utilizing Participants. The CIML urged its Members, the participants in the MAA, and 

the BIML to actively promote the MAA among legal metrology authorities and measuring instrument manufacturers 

worldwide. The CIML encouraged its Members to draw to the attention of trade negotiators within their countries 

the opportunities which OIML Recommendations and the MAA structures offer as means of reducing barriers to 

trade and the possibility they provide to enhance both bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. 

The CIML instructed the BIML, in its capacity as secretariat of the MAA Committees on Participation Review 

(CPR), to set up an ad-hoc WG consisting of interested CIML and/or CPR members and representatives of 

manufacturers’ associations to consider how this awareness can be raised, and to provide secretarial support to this 

WG. The ad-hoc WG was also tasked with reviewing the CPRs and their structure, the rules and procedures 

governing the operation of the MAA, and the role of Utilizing Participants, with a view to increasing the efficiency 

of the operation of the MAA. Dr. Roman Schwartz will chair this ad-hoc WG and report on its activities to the 49th

CIML Meeting. (See also the TC 3/SC 5 section of this OIML report.) 

III. FUTURE OIML MEETINGS 

The CIML accepted the invitation of New Zealand to host the 49th CIML Meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, in 

November 2014. 

The next OIML Conference will be held in 2016; the venue and dates for this Conference will be decided by the 

CIML at a future date. 

V. REGIONAL LEGAL METROLOGY ORGANIZATIONS 

A meeting of the Inter-American Metrology System (SIM) General Assembly is organized annually and is the event 

where delegates from National Metrology Institutes of the Americas meet to discuss important issues. This past 

year, the SIM General Assembly was held in Santiago de Queretaro, Mexico, in October 2013. Mr. Jose Dajes 

Castro, from INDECOPI in Lima, Peru, serves as the SIM President. The Legal Metrology Working Group is 

chaired by Mr. Emilio Löbbe from INTI/Argentina. The organization is working to build capacity in legal 

metrology for SIM member countries. Please contact Mr. Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or 

ralph.richter@nist.gov for more information on SIM. 

The 20th Meeting of the Asia Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) was held November 5 - 8, 2013, in 

Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sixteen APLMF Member Economies participated in this meeting. The People’s Republic 

of China holds the Presidency and Secretariat of APLMF. Mr. Changcheng, APLMF President and Vice Minister of 

AQSIQ, chaired the meeting. APLMF activities are facilitated through its seven work groups. 

The main objectives of APLMF are to coordinate regional training courses in legal metrology and to provide a 

forum for exchange of information among legal metrology authorities. Changes in APEC priorities are making it 

more difficult to achieve funding. While feedback from the previously-held training courses has been positive, it is 

becoming clear that in order to continue to receive funding for the training, APLMF needs to do a more thorough job 

of assessing and documenting the impact of the training courses on the economies that receive the training. 

The most active WG is on Training Coordination, chaired by Australia. Training on “Smart Electricity Meters” was 

held in June 2013 in Bandung, Indonesia. Eighty students from APLMF member economies participated in this 

training. In November 2013, a course on “Traceability in Rice Moisture Measurement” was held in Chiang Mai, 

Thailand. 

The WG on Training Coordination reported on the results of a 2013 survey of APLMF member economies that 

requested information on the benefits of APLMF training that was conducted in the period 2005 to 2013. Clearly, 

the results indicated that the more than 20 courses conducted by APLMF in that 8-year time period were highly 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A9 

valued by the member economies, promoted harmonization in the Asia-Pacific region, and frequently led to 

revised/improved legislation and regulations in the member economies. 

Also discussed at the APLMF meeting was a planned PTB project to work with APLMF and APMP to 

promote/improve the metrological systems of developing economies in Asia. This project is still in the earlydevelopment stages, so much of the discussion at the APLMF meeting focused on selecting and prioritizing possible 

objectives of this project. If the project is approved and funded by the German ministry, it is possible that some of 

these funds could be used by APLMF to conduct future training. 

The United States was represented at the APLMF meeting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, by Mr. Ralph Richter, who 

served as acting-chair (for Dr. Charles Ehrlich) of the APLMF WG on MRAs. Mr. Richter gave a report and update 

on the OIML MAA (including the MAA seminar that was held in October 2013 in Vietnam) and presented the 

United States Country Report. 

The 2014 APLMF meeting will be held in November 2014 in Wellington, New Zealand. Please contact Mr. Ralph 

Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov for more information on APLMF.
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Report on the Activities of OIML and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

BOD - A10 

 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Agenda and Draft Minutes 

BOD - B1 

Appendix B 

Associate Membership Committee (AMC) 

Agenda and Draft Meeting Minutes 

Paul Lewis, Chair 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Title of Content Page

AGENDA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

AMC DRAFT MEETING MINUTES ....................................................................................................................... 3

Call to Order ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Meeting Minutes ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Financial Condition ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Board of Directors Report ................................................................................................................................... 3

Professional Development Committee (PDC) Report ........................................................................................ 5

Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee Report ............................................................................................... 5

AMC Fund Disbursement Report ....................................................................................................................... 5

Filling Vacant Positions ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Old Business ................................................................................................................................................... 5

New Business ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Adjournment ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Individuals in Attendance ................................................................................................................................... 6

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

I. Agenda 

I. Call to Order 

II. Approval of Meeting Minutes 

III. Financial Condition 

IV. NCWM Industry Representative Reports 

(a) Board of Directors Report 

(b) Professional Development Committee Report 

(c) Laws and Regulations Committee Report 

V. AMC Fund Disbursement Requests 

VI. Filling Vacant Positions 

VII. Old Business 

VIII. New Business 

IX. Adjournment 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Agenda and Draft Minutes 

BOD - B2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Agenda and Draft Minutes 

BOD - B3 

Associate Membership Committee 

Draft Meeting Minutes 

July 15, 2014 

Detroit, Michigan 

I. Call to Order 

Chairman Paul Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 

II. Meeting Minutes 

A copy of the updated 2014 Interim Meeting Minutes was distributed. The minutes were reviewed, updates were 

made, and a motion was made by Mr. Grabski and seconded by Mr. Calix to approve the minutes with corrections. 

With no further discussion the minutes were approved. 

III. Financial Condition 

A copy of the financial report was distributed; Chairman Paul Lewis reports that the AMC fund has a balance of 

$32,998.67 as of July 11, 2014. 

Mr. Calix made a motion to accept the financial report. Mr. Grabski seconds the motion, with no further discussion 

the financial report was approved. 

IV. NCWM Industry Representative Reports 

a. Board of Directors Report 

CWMA 

 CWMA Interim: September 8 - 11, St Charles 

 CWMA Annual: May 18 -21, Columbus, Ohio 

NEWMA 

 Interim: October 15 – 16, Connecticut 

 Annual: May 4 – 8, Saratoga, New York 

SWMA 

 Annual Meeting: October 5 - 8, Raleigh, North Carolina (starting Sunday morning) 

WWMA 

 Annual Meeting: September 14 - 18, Portland, Oregon 

 Alaska getting new lab accredited and ready to operate 

 Boise, Idaho, for 2015 and Hawaii for 2016 

NIST 

 Mr. Clark Cooney new to NIST 

 NIST planning to do half day trainings in conjunction with regional meetings 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Agenda and Draft Minutes 

BOD - B4 

 OIML 117 Dynamic Measuring for Liquids other than water – moving fast and vote at CIML 

meeting in November. Likely pass and NTEP needs to think about MAA. 

Measurement Canada 

 Effective August first, new mandatory inspections of weights and measures devices on regular 

schedule. Done by private, accredited third parties. Previously inspected 2 % to 4 % per year, 

Measurement Canada will be monitoring data for performance. Like a lab test in the marketplace. 

Budget 

 Tracking at about 10 % Gain Membership 

Membership 

 Currently 2211 NCWM members 

 258 people have registered for this meeting, last year 198 people. 

 41 states present at this meeting. 

 Next year is Philadelphia and 100th NCWM Meeting. 

o Welcome Gifts (tote bags, notebook cover, pens, DVDs) for attendees. 

o Raise registration fee to $350.00 for this meeting and future meetings. 

o Two door prizes – Scale and Gas pump (purchased for meeting). 

o Keynote Speaker: N. David Smith likely – big name speakers have big costs. 

o Luncheon for 100th Anniversary. 

o Outing at Franklin Institute. 

o 100th Anniversary pin and promoting pins again. 

o What would AMC be willing to help with at the 100th Meeting? 

Bylaws 

 Concern about whether Voting Items downgraded by Committee being upgraded by the voting 

membership. 

 Separate an item from the report? Don’t like the report being held hostage. 

 Role of Subcommittee vs Committee. 

 Chuck Corr to lead look at Policies and Bylaws on items, voting, and reports. 

Professional Certification 

 Close to finalizing three sections 

o Large Capacity Scales; 

o Medium Capacity Scales; and 

o Vehicle Tank Meters. 

 Two more will be developed (Price Verification and LP Gas). 

 Toolkit – no activity has occurred but group continues to work.

On-line Forum 

 Changes made to make it more useful, but usage was down significantly, should we discontinue? 

 Only four comments. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Agenda and Draft Minutes 

BOD - B5 

b. Professional Development Committee (PDC) Report 

 The task group has completed the first three training exam modules. They are retail motor fuel 

dispensers, basic package checking, and small capacity scales Class III. 

 The working group has created a template for a complete field training program. This was distributed 

to the states. There has been very little comment to date. 

 The next three modules to be completed are VTM, Medium Capacity Scales, and Large Capacity 

Scales. 

 The PDC would like to know if industry plans to use the modules in their own field training programs. 

 The PDC is interested in promoting the use of AMC training funds to states or jurisdictions interested 

in setting up field training programs. Mr. Michael Cleary is willing to conduct training if requested. 

There is also discussion about developing a video on setting up these programs. 

c. Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee Report 

 Mr. Grabski reports that the Committee finished their meetings everything will be published in 

NCWM Publication 16. 

 All items keep their public status for voting, withdraw informational or developing. 

 Most of the discussion was around GGE and DLE and fuel filters.

V. Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Fund Disbursement Report 

 New York State Weights and Measures Association ($2,500) (Paid) – State sent in a letter of appreciation. 

 Michigan ($1000) for room rental request was approved in May. – Committee approved through e-mail. 

 Arkansas Bureau of Standards ($2,500) – Request was sent in on the wrong form. The request was 

approved pending update on the correct form. 

o Arkansas request will be used for a package checking milk, eggs, and chicken. NIST Handbook 133, 

Checking the Net Content of Packaged Goods, August 11 – 14, 2014. 

o The State of Arkansas will give left over products to the local food pantry. 

o Mr. Lewis asked the state to overestimate the charges so if the request is not for a sufficient amount 

another request will not need to be made. 

o An itemized list will be provided to the Committee of the items purchased. 

VI. Filling Vacant Positions 

 Mr. Bill Callaway with Crompco was elected to Chair. 

 Mr. David Calix with NCR was elected to the Vice Chair. 

 Mr. Richard Shipman with Rice Lake Weighing System elected to Secretary Treasurer. 

 Mr. Paul Lewis with Rice Lake Weighing System was elected to another term on the Committee. 

VII. Old Business 

 No update on Toolbox. 

 Funds for the 100th annual meeting, no request have been requested. 

VIII. New Business 

 Mrs. Juroch asks if the AMC could help provide coffee for the Conference. The NCWM will not accept 

funds. 
BOD 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Agenda and Draft Minutes 

BOD - B6 

 Mr. Langford asks that we go to the BOD and ask them to rescind the membership funds. Since the money 

is not being used. 

 Mr. Guay states the issues of funds not being used was brought up to the BOD before. 

 Mr. Murnane states, if we don’t see major increase in funds use, then we want to rescind to the Conference. 

 Mr. Murnane stated, we should vote on decreasing the funds. 

 Mr. Lewis states that a few years ago we spoke about increasing the amount. 

 Mr. Guay states that we could recommend that we eliminate the $15 fee. 

 Mr. Calix states we should let the funds build, the PDC is going to push for training for the testing. 

 Mr. Murnane asks Mr. Guay take it to the Board. We need states to request funds or we will end the 

program. 

 Mr. Grabski agrees with Mr. Calix that we need to be patient on fund requests. 

 Mr. Vires states, it may be too much regulation on the funds, that is stopping the states from requesting the 

funds. Mr. Vires asks what about a survey, let’s survey the states. 

 Maybe the PDC should present how easy it is to request the funds. 

 Mr. Langford made a motion to ask Mr. Guay to go to the Board to stress the importance of the usage of 

membership funds. If the funds are not used, then the AMC will rescind. Motion was seconded and 

approved. 

 Mr. Calix recommends that the AMC sponsor training in a difficult area. 

 Mr. Calix mentioned that we should consider having a Conference call regarding any updates items that we 

are working on. 

 It was agreed that Mr. Calix will submit three month sync up meeting. 

IX. Adjournment 

With no further new business Chair Lewis adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted by, 

Mr. David Calix 

Secretary, AMC 

Individuals in Attendance 

Mr. David Calix – NCR 

Mr. Bill Callaway- Crompco 

Mr. Ron Gibson – Seraphin 

Mr. Steve Grabski – Walmart 

Mr. Chris Guay – Procter &Gamble 

Mrs. Carrie Haler – Pier 1 Imports 

Mrs. Krister Hard – AF Segerstad – IKEA 

Mr. Jon Heinlein – Transcell 

Mr. Jim Hewston – J.A. King 

Mr. John Hughes – Rice Lake Weighing systems 

Mrs. Zina Juroch – Pier 1 Imports 

Mr. Stephen Langford – Cardinal Scale MFG 

Mr. Paul Lewis – Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

Mr. Robert Murnane – Seraphin 

Mr. Henry Oppermann – W&M Consulting 

Mr. Richard Shipment – Rice Lake Weighing System 

Mrs. Erica Steinlein – Trader Joes 

Mr. Louis Straub – Fairbank Scales 

Mr. Rob Underwood – PMAA 

Mr. Rob Upright – Vishay Transducers 

Mr. Russell Vires – Mettler-Toledo 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 1 

Report of the 

Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee 

Raymond Johnson, Committee Chair 

New Mexico 

200 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Laws and Regulations Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) for the 99th

Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the 

Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at public hearings, comments 

received from the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the NCWM 2014 Online Position 

Forum, the addendum sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the voting 

session of the Annual Meeting. The voting items shown below were adopted as presented when this report was 

approved. This report contains those recommendations to amend National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Handbook 130 (2014), “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel 

Quality,” or NIST Handbook 133 (2014), “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods,” Fourth Edition. 

Table A identifies the agenda items and appendix items. The agenda items in the Report are identified by Reference 

Key Number, title, page number and the appendices by appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and 

technical terms used throughout the agenda are identified in Table C. The first three digits of the Reference Key 

Numbers of the items are assigned from The Subject Series List. The status of each item contained in the report is 

designated as one of the following: (D) Developing Item: the Committee determined the item has merit; however, 

the item was returned to the submitter or other designated party for further development before any action can be 

taken at the national level; Informational (I) Item: the item is under consideration by the Committee but not 

proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the Committee is making recommendations requiring a vote by the active 

members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been removed from consideration by the Committee. 

Table B provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in its entirety. 

Some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent calendar. Consent calendar 

items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during their deliberation after the 

Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not require discussion. The Voting 

Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of 

the consent calendar, the Committee entertains any requests from the floor to remove specific items from the 

consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), and 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced 

font (e.g., new items). When used in this report, the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have 

been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 2 

Subject Series List 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 200 Series 

NIST Handbook 130 – General ...................................................................................................................... 210 Series 

Uniform Laws .......................................................................................................................................... 220 Series 

Uniform Weights and Measures Law ............................................................................................... 221 Series 

Uniform Weighmaster Law .............................................................................................................. 222 Series 

Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Inspection Law ................................................ 223 Series 

Uniform Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 230 Series 

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation .................................................................................. 231 Series 

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities .......................................................... 232 Series

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation ..................................................................................................... 233 Series 

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies for 

Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices ............................................................................... 234 Series 

Uniform Open Dating Regulation .................................................................................................... 235 Series 

Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation .......................................................................... 236 Series 

Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation ....................................................... 237 Series 

Examination Procedure for Price Verification......................................................................................... 240 Series 

NCWM Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines, Section 2 ..................................................................... 250 Series 

NIST Handbook 133 ....................................................................................................................................... 260 Series 

Other Items – Developing Items ..................................................................................................................... 270 Series 

 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 3 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Reference Key Title of Item Page L&R

200 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

231 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION ...... 6

231-1 D Sections 6.4., 6.5., 6.7., 6.8.1., 6.8.2., 6.9., and 10.8. Addition of Tables .................................. 6

231-2 V Section 10.3. Aerosols and Self-Pressurized Containers .......................................................... 14

232 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE 

COMMODITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 18

232-1 D Section 2.20.3. Street Sign Prices and Advertising .................................................................... 18

232-2 W Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel ............................................. 19

232-3 V Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel ............................................. 22

232-4 V Section 2.33. Oil. ....................................................................................................................... 26

232-5 W Section 2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling ......................................................... 30

232-6 V Section 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends ..................................................................... 35

232-7 V Section 2.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). .............................................................................. 38

232-8 V Section 2.20. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends ................................................................................. 40

237 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS REGULATION .............................................................................................................. 42

237-1 W Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) 42

237-2 V Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE): 

Compressed Natural Gas, Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel 

Gallon Equivalent (DGE): Liquefied Natural Gas, Section 3.11. Compressed Natural Gas 

(CNG) and Section 3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) ........................................................... 43

237-3 W Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE): 

Liquefied Natural Gas ................................................................................................................ 50

237-4 I Sections 2.1.3. Minimum Antiknock Index (AKI), Section 2.1.4. Minimum Motor Octane 

Number, and Section 3.2.5. Prohibition of Terms – Table 1. .................................................... 51

237-5 W Section 3.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Section 3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas 

(LNG) ........................................................................................................................................ 53

237-6 V Section 3.13. Oil, 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil Required ........................... 56

237-7 V Section 3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes ............................................... 60

237-8 V Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters .................................................................................................... 61

237-9 V Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications, and Section 3. Classification 

and Method of Sale of Petroleum Items .................................................................................... 64

237-10 V Section 3.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). .............................................................................. 69

237-11 V Section 2.12. Motor Oil ............................................................................................................. 71

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133 .................................................................................................................. 73

260-1 W Section 3.10. Animal Bedding ................................................................................................... 73

260-2 V Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume ....................................................................... 78

260-3 W Section 4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products .............................................................. 82

270 OTHER ITEMS .............................................................................................................................. 86

270-1 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee .......................................................................................... 86

270-2 D Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee ..................................................................................... 87

270-3 D Moisture Allowance Task Group (MATG) ............................................................................... 88
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 4 

Appendices

A. Items 232-2, 232-3, 237-1, 237-2, 237-3, and 237-5: Background and Justification for 

Handbook 130, Definition for “Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE)” of Natural Gas as a 

Vehicular Fuel ..................................................................................................................................... A1 

B. Item 260-2: Handbook 133, Test Procedures – Packages Labeled by Volume, Section 3.12. Fresh 

Oysters Labeled by Volume ................................................................................................................ B1 

C. Items 232-6 and 237-9: NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale,

Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuels Specifications, and Section 3. Classification and 

Method of Sale for Petroleum Items .................................................................................................... C1 

Table B 

Voting Results 

Reference Key 

Number

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Results Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Consent 

Calendar 

231-2 Adopted 

232-4 Adopted 

232-6 Adopted 

232-7 Adopted 

232-8 Adopted 

237-6 Adopted 

237-7 Adopted 

237-9 Adopted 

237-10 Adopted 

237-11 Adopted 

260-2 Adopted 

 

232-3* 29 9 14 27 Returned to 

Committee 

237-2* 29 9 14 27 Returned to 

Committee 

237-8 14 20 19 11 Returned to 

Committee 

* Items 232-3, 237-2 and 337-2 were voted upon as a block. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 5 

Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

ACEA European Automobile Manufacturers 

Association 

HB 44 “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing 

and Measuring Devices” 

AKI Minimum Antiknock Index HB 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the 

Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine 

Fuel Quality” 

AOAC AOAC International (Association of 

Analytical Communities) 

HB 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged 

Goods” 

AOCA Automotive Oil Change Association IEC International Electrotechnical Association 

API American Petroleum Institute ISO International Organization for 

Standardization 

ASTM ASTM International L&R Laws and Regulations 

ATC Automatic Temperature Compensation LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

AUS Aqueous Urea Solutions MATG Moisture Allowance Task Group 

BOV Bag on Valve MAV Maximum Allowable Variation 

BTU British Thermal Unit MON Motor Octane Number 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NAA National Aerosol Association 

CNG Compressed Natural Gas NADA National Automobile Dealers Association 

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Committee NGSC Natural Gas Steering Committee 

CRC Coordinating Research Council NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures 

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association 

NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association 

DEF Diesel Exhaust Fluid NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

DGE Diesel Gallon Equivalent OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

DLE Diesel Liter Equivalent OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

DOE Department of Energy PALS Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency RON Research Octane Number 

FALS Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

FDA Food and Drug Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

FPI Foodservice Packaging Industry SWMA Southern Weights and Measures 

FPLA Fair Packaging and Labeling Act TG Task Group 

FTC Federal Trade Commission UPLR Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulation 

GGE Gasoline Gallon Equivalent UWML Uniform Weights and Measures Law 

GLE Gasoline Liter Equivalent USNWG U.S. National Work Group 

GM General Motors WWMA Western Weights and Measures Assoc. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 6 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

231 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING 

REGULATION 

231-1 D Sections 6.4., 6.5., 6.7., 6.8.1., 6.8.2., 6.9., and 10.8. Addition of Tables 

Source: 

NCWM Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (2014) 

Purpose: 

Add tables to Handbook 130 to help clarify requirements. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation as follows: 

6.4. Terms: Weight, Measure, Volume, or Count. – The declaration of the quantity of a particular 

commodity shall be expressed in terms of: 

(a) weight if the commodity is solid, semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid; 

(b) volume measure if the commodity is liquid or dry, if the commodity is dry; 

(c) linear measure or area; or 

(d) numerical count. 

Table 6.4. 

Weight, Measure, Volume, or Count 

If the commodity is: The declaration of quantity shall be expressed in: 

(a) solid, semisolid, viscous or a mixture of solid 

and liquid 

weight (mass) 

(b) liquid or dry fluid measure if fluid. dry measures if dry. 

(c) linear or area linear measure or area 

(d) individual units numerical count 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

However, if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom with respect to the terms used 

in expressing a declaration of quantity of a particular commodity, such a declaration of quantity may be expressed in 

its traditional terms, provided such traditional declaration gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity 

of the commodity. Any net content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparisons is forbidden. 

(Amended 1989 and 20XX) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 7 

6.5. SI Units: Mass, Measure. [NOTE 3, page 64] – A declaration of quantity: 

(a) in units of mass shall be the kilogram, gram, or milligram; 

(b) in units of liquid measure shall be the liter or milliliter and shall express the volume at 20 °C, except in 

the case of petroleum products or distilled spirits, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 

15.6 °C, and except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold and consumed while frozen, for 

which the declaration shall express the volume at the frozen temperature, and except also in the case of 

malt beverages or a commodity that must be maintained in the refrigerated state, for which the 

declaration shall express the volume at 4 °C; 

(Amended 1985 and 1990) 

(c) in units of linear measure shall be the meter, centimeter, or millimeter; 

(d) in units of area measure shall be the square meter, square decimeters, square centimeter, or square 

millimeter; 

(e) in units of volume other than liquid measure shall be the liter and milliliter, except that the units cubic 

meter and cubic centimeter shall be used only when specifically designated as a method of sale; 

(f) Rule of 1000. – The selected multiple or submultiple prefixes for SI units shall result in numerical values 

between 1 and 1000. This rule allows centimeters or millimeters to be used where a length declaration is 

less than 100 centimeters. 

Examples:

500 g, not 0.5 kg; 

1.96 kg, not 1960 g; 

750 mL, not 0.75 L; or 

750 mm or 75 cm, not 0.75 m. 

(Added 1993) 

(g) SI declarations should be shown in three digits except where the quantity is below 100 grams, milliliters, 

centimeters, square centimeters, or cubic centimeters, where it may be shown in two digits. In either 

case, any final zero appearing to the right of the decimal point need not be shown; and 

(Added 1993) 

(h) the declaration of net quantity of contents shall not be expressed in mixed units. 

Example: 

1.5 kg, not 1 kg 500 g. 

(Added 1993) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 8 

Table 6.5. 

SI Units: Mass, Measure 

If a declaration of quantity is by: Then shall be labeled in terms of: 

(a) mass milligram or gram or kilogram 

(b) liquid in units of liquid measure shall be the liter or milliliter and shall express 

the volume at 20 °C, except in the case of petroleum products or 

distilled spirits, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 

15.6 °C, and except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold 

and consumed while frozen, for which the declaration shall express the 

volume at the frozen temperature, and except also in the case of malt 

beverages or a commodity that must be maintained in the refrigerated 

state, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 4 °C 

 

(c) linear measure Millimeter, centimeter, or meter 

(d) area measure square millimeter, square centimeter, square decimeter, or square 

meter 

(e) dry measure milliliter or liter except that cubic decimeter or cubic meter may be 

used if required by a method of sale regulation 

(f) Rule of 1000 between 1 and 1000, except that cm or mm may be used below 100 cm 

(e.g., 500 g not 0.5 kg; 750 mL not 0.75 L) 

(g) Digits should be in 3 digits but if less than 100 g, mL, cm, sq m, cubic cm 

should be in 2 digits 

(h) Mixed Units 1.85 kg not 1 kg 950 g – mixing of units prohibited 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

6.7. Inch-Pound Units Customary Units: Weight, Measure. – A declaration of quantity: 

(a) in units of weight shall be in terms of the avoirdupois pound or ounce; 

(b) in units of liquid measure shall be in terms of the United States gallon of 231 in3

 or liquid quart, liquid 

pint, or fluid-ounce subdivisions of the gallon and shall express the volume at 68 °F, except in the case of 

petroleum products and distilled spirits, for which the declaration shall express the volume at 60 °F, and 

except also in the case of a commodity that is normally sold and consumed while frozen, for which the 

declaration shall express the volume at the frozen temperature, and except also in the case of a 

commodity that must be maintained in the refrigerated state, for which the declaration shall express the 

volume at 40 °F, and except also in the case of malt beverages, for which the declaration shall express 

the volume at 39.1 °F; 

(Amended 1985 and 1990) 

(c) in units of linear measure shall be in terms of the yard, foot, or inch; 

(d) in units of area measure shall be in terms of the square yard, square foot, or square inch; 

(e) in units of volume measure shall be in terms of the cubic yard, cubic foot, or cubic inch; and 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 9 

(f) in units of dry measure shall be in terms of the United States bushel of 2150.42 in3

, or peck, dry quart, 

and dry pint subdivisions of the bushel. 

Table 6.7. 

Inch-Pound Customary Units: Weight, Measure 

Declaration of quantity if: Then it shall be labeled in terms of: 

(a) weight avoirdupois pound or ounce 

(b) liquid fluid ounce, pint, quart, or gallon (231 cubic inches) at 68 °F except for: 

 1. petroleum and distilled spirits at 60 °F 

 2. frozen commodities at frozen temperature 

 3. refrigerated beverages at 40 °F 

 4. malt beverages at 39.1 °F 

(c) linear measure inch, foot, yard 

(d) area measure square inch, square foot, square yard 

(e) volume cubic inch, cubic foot, cubic yard (unless another unit required by 

method sale regulation such as a "cord" for firewood") 

(f) dry measure dry pint, dry quart, peck, U.S. bushel (2150.42 cubic inches) 

All of the quantities shown above may be expressed in common fractions or decimal fractions of the largest 

unit to no more than three decimal places (e.g., 2.542 lb but not 2.5423 lb). 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

6.8. Prescribed Units, Inch-pound Customary Units System. 

6.8.1. Less than 1 foot, 1 square foot, 1 pound, or 1 pint. – The declaration of quantity shall be 

expressed in the following terms: 

(a) in the case of length measure of less than 1 ft, in inches and fractions of inches; 

(b) in the case of area measure of less than 1 ft2

, in square inches and fractions of square inches; 

(c) in the case of weight of less than 1 lb, in ounces and fractions of ounces; and 

(d) in the case of liquid measure of less than 1 pt, in fluid ounces and fractions of fluid ounces, provided, 

the quantity declaration appearing on a random package may be expressed in terms of decimal 

fractions of the largest appropriate unit, the fraction being carried out to not more than three decimal 

places. 

(Amended 1984) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 10 

Table 6.8.1. 

Less than 1 foot, 1 square foot, 1 pound or 1 pint 

If a declaration of quantity LESS than ONE: It shall be labeled in terms of: 

(a) foot inches or fraction of inches 

(b) square foot square inches or fraction of square inches 

(c) pound ounces or fractions of ounces 

(d) pint fluid ounces and fraction of fluid ounces 

All of the quantities shown above may be expressed in common fractions or decimal fractions of the 

largest unit. Random packages may be labelled to no more than three decimal places. 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

6.8.2. One Foot, 1 Square Foot, 1 Pound, 1 Pint, 1 Gallon, or More. – The declaration of quantity 

shall be expressed in the following terms (see Section 6.2. Largest Whole Unit and 

Section 6.11. Fractions): 

(a) Linear Measure. – If 1 ft or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit (a yard or a foot) 

with any remainder expressed in inches and fractions of the inch or in fractions of the foot or yard, 

except that it shall be optional to include a statement of length in terms of inches. 

(b) Area Measure. 

(1) If 1 ft2

 or more, but less than 4 ft2, expressed in square feet with any remainder expressed in 

square inches and fractions of a square inch or in fractions of a square foot; and 

(2) If 4 ft2

 or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit (e.g., square yards or square feet) 

with any remainder expressed in square inches and fractions of a square inch or in fractions of 

the square foot or square yard. 

(c) Weight. – If 1 lb or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit with any remainder expressed 

in ounces and fractions of an ounce or in fractions of the pound. 

(d) Liquid Volume. 

(1) If 1 pt or more, but less than 1 gal, expressed in the largest whole unit (quarts, quarts and pints, 

or pints, as appropriate) with any remainder expressed in fluid ounces or fractions of the pint or 

quart, except that 2 qt may be declared as 1⁄2 gal, and it shall be optional to include an additional 

expression of net quantity in fluid ounces; or 

(2) If 1 gal or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit (gallons followed by fractions of a 

gallon or by the next smaller whole unit or units [for example, quarts and pints]) with any 

remainder expressed in fluid ounces or fractions of the pint or quart, except that it shall be 

optional to include an additional expression of net quantity in fluid ounces. 

(e) Dry Measure. – If 1 dry pt or more, expressed in terms of the largest whole unit with the remainder 

expressed in fractions of a dry pint, dry quart, peck, or bushel, provided the quantity declaration on a 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 11 

random package may be expressed in decimal fractions of the largest appropriate unit carried out to 

not more than three decimal places. 

(Amended 1993) 

Table 6.8.2. 

One Foot, 1 Square Foot, 1 Pound, 1 Pint, 1 Gallon, or More 

If a declaration of quantity is: Then it should be labeled in terms of the largest whole units in: 

(a) linear measure: 

 1 foot or more 

yards or feet with remainder in inches and fractions of an inch, or in 

fraction of the foot or yard. Optional declaration of inches is 

permitted 

(b) area measure: 

 (1) 1 square foot or more but 

less than 4 square feet 

 (2) 4 square feet or more 

square feet with remainder in square inches or square feet or in 

fractions of these units 

square yards or square feet with remainder in square inches or 

square feet or in fractions of these units (inches, sq ft, sq yd). 

(c) weight: 

 1 pound or more 

pounds with remainder in ounces or in fractions of an ounce or 

pound (e.g., "2 lb 7 3⁄4 oz" or "1.75 lb") 

(d) liquid measure: 

 (1) 1 pint or more but less 

than 1 gallon 

(2) 1 gallon or more 

quarts, quarts and pints, pints with remainder in fluid ounces or 

fractions of the pint or quart (2 qt may be 1⁄2 gal). Optional 

declaration of fluid ounces is permitted 

gallons followed by fractions of a gallon or next smaller whole unit 

such as quarts or pints. Optional declaration of fluid ounces 

(e) dry measure: 

 1 dry pint or more 

dry pint, dry quart, peck or bushel with remainder in fractions of 

those units 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

6.9. Bi-dimensional Commodities. – For bi-dimensional commodities (including roll-type commodities) the 

quantity declaration shall be expressed in both SI and inch-pound customary units of measurement as follows: 

(a) if the area is less than 929 cm2 (1 ft2), in terms of length and width (expressed in the largest whole unit 

for SI and in linear inches and fractions of linear inches for inch-pound customary units); 

Example: 

20.3 cm × 25.4 cm (8 in × 10 in); 

(b) if the area is at least 929 cm2

 (1 ft2), but less than 37.1 dm2 (4 ft2), in terms of area (expressed in the 

largest whole unit for SI and in square inches for inch-pound customary units), followed by a 

declaration of the length and width in terms of the largest whole unit: 

Example: 

31 dm2

 (49 cm × 64 cm) 3.36 ft2 (1.6 ft × 2.1 ft), provided: 

(1) bi-dimensional commodities having a width of 10 cm (4 in) or less, the declaration of net quantity 

shall be expressed in terms of width and length in linear measure; no declaration of area is required; 

(2) an inch-pound customary unit dimension of less than 2 ft may be stated in inches; 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 12 

(3) commodities consisting of usable individual units (e.g., paper napkins) require a declaration of unit 

area but not a declaration of total area of all such units (except roll-type commodities with individual 

usable units created by perforations, for which see Section 6.10. Count: Ply); and 

(4) inch-pound customary unit declarations may include after the statement of the linear dimensions in 

the largest whole unit a parenthetical declaration of the same dimensions in inches. 

Example: 

25 ft2

 (12 in×8.33 yd) (12 in × 300 in). 

Table 6.9.(a.)(b.) 

Bi-Dimensional Commodities 

If a declaration of quantity is: Then it shall be in largest whole units 

of customary units and SI units of: 

Units Expressed In: 

(See also Sections 6.6. 

Prescribed Units, SI and 6.8. 

Prescribed Units, Inch-Pound 

Customary System Fractions 

are Permitted.) 

(a) area less than 929 cm2 (2 ft2) length and width 

 for example, 20.3 cm × 25.4 cm 

(8 in x 10 in) 

mm, cm, or in 

(b) an area of 929 cm2 (1 ft2) up to 

37.2 dm2 (4ft2) 

area, length and width 

 for example, 31 dm2 (40 × 64 cm) 

3.36 ft2 (1.6 ft × 2.1 ft) 

area: 

sq cm or dm and sq in or ft 

linear: 

mm or cm and in or ft 

(1) a width of 10 cm (4 in) or 

less 

length and width but NOT area mm, cm or m and in, ft or yd 

(2) for a length or width 

dimension less than 2 ft 

the inch-pound statement may be in 

inches 

mm, cm, in 

(3) on packages of individual 

units (e.g., napkins). See 

Section 6.10. Count: Ply 

for perforated roll type 

products (e.g., paper towels 

and toilet paper). 

unit area but not the total area of all 

units 

area: 

sq, com, dm, m, and sq in, ft, 

or yd 

linear: 

mm, cm, m or in, ft, or yd 

(4) any customary unit 

declarations 

a statement of inches may be provided 

in addition to largest whole unit e.g. 

25 ft2 (12 in × 8.33 yd) (12 in × 300 in) 

inches 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

(c) if the area is 37.1 dm2 (4 ft2) or more, in terms of area (expressed in the largest whole unit for SI and in 

square feet for inch-pound), followed by a declaration of the length and width, in terms of the largest 

whole unit, provided: 

(1) no declaration of area is required for a bi-dimensional commodity with a width of 10 cm (4 in) or 

less; 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 13 

(2) bi-dimensional commodities with a width of 10 cm (4 in) or less, the inch-pound statement of width 

shall be expressed in terms of linear inches and fractions thereof, and length shall be expressed in the 

largest whole unit (yard or foot) with any remainder in terms of fractions of the yard or foot, except 

that it shall be optional to express the length in the largest whole unit followed by a statement of 

length in inches or to express the length in inches followed by a statement of length in the largest 

whole unit; 

Examples: 

5 cm × 9.14 m (2 in × 10 yd); or 

5 cm × 9.14 m (2 in × 10 yd) (360 in); or 

5 cm × 9.14 m (2 in × 360 in) (10 yd). 

(3) a customary unit dimension of less than 2 ft may be stated in inches; and 

(d) no declaration of area is required for commodities for which the length and width measurements are 

critical in terms of end use (such as wallpaper border) if such commodities clearly present the length and 

width measurements on the label. 

Table 6.9.(c.)(d.) 

Bi-Dimensional Commodities (including roll type packages) 

If a declaration of quantity is: Then it shall be in largest whole units with 

statements in customary units and SI units 

of: 

Units Expressed in: 

See also Sections 6.6. 

Prescribed Units, SI and 6.8. 

Prescribed Units, 

Customary System 

(fractions permitted). 

(c) for area of 37.1 dm2 (4 ft2) or 

more (see 1, 2, and 3 below) 

area, length, and width area: sq dm or sq cm and sq 

ft. Linear: mm or cm and 

in, ft or yd 

(1) and (2) for a width of 10 cm 

(4 in) or less 

width and length but NOT area 

Examples: 

5 cm x 9.14 m (2 in × 10 yd), or 

5 cm x 9.14 m (2 in × 10 yd) (360 in), or 

5 cm x 9.14 m (2 in × 360 in) (10 yd) 

linear: 

mm, cm or m 

inch-pound: width in inches 

length: 

ft or yd and may include 

inches 

(3) For length or width 

dimensions less than 2 ft 

inch-pound customary units statement 

may be in inches 

inches 

(d) on packages where length and 

width are critical for end use (e.g., 

wallpaper and borders) 

width and length but NOT area mm, cm or m and in, ft or 

yd 

Items referenced in the table with a ( ) refers to text in the section indicated with the like identifier. 

Background/Discussion: 

The tables were developed from a PowerPoint presentation provided at a NIST Packaging and Labeling Class for 

industry and regulators. Attendees found the tables to be an excellent reference material as they were challenged to 

evaluate various packaged commodities for compliance with the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation. 

The addition of tables to NIST Handbook 130 would be useful to industry and regulators in interpreting 

requirements. No revisions of current requirements would be necessary. Marketing and art departments, amongst 

others, are challenged with developing the packaging and labeling for products being distributed by their companies 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 14 

or clients, and individuals in those professions would find it helpful to have the additional examples provided in the 

tables for reference. 

Several other tables are already provided in NIST Handbook 130, and these new tables are viewed as being equally 

helpful. For example, in NIST Handbook 130 (2014), Table 1. Rounding Rules on page 98 describes rounding rules 

and Table 2. Examples on page 100 assist with conversions. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: It was mentioned that there are numerous technical errors and typographical errors 

within the submitted charts. The subsections in the tables do not coincide with the language printed within NIST 

Handbook 130. During Committee worked session, it was mentioned that developing tables for items within the 

NIST handbooks could set precedence for all items to have a table. NIST commented that they do provide a 

publication, NIST SP 1020 Series, Consumer Packaging Labeling Guides. The NIST SP 1020 Guides are quite 

popular and extremely user-friendly. The Committee would like to have feedback from the Regions on this item. 

They also requested the PALS (original submitter) correct the tables to align with the language as it appears with the 

handbook. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA’s L&R Committee believes the revisions would improve the use of NIST Handbook 130 and provide 

clearer understanding by users. CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. At the 

2014 CWMA Meeting, no comments were heard during the L&R Committee Open Hearings. CWMA believes the 

item has merit, but agrees that the PALS needs to further develop the item. 

WWMA received an explanation from a NIST Technical Advisor that the tables were used to help explain the 

requirement of the UPLR as a teaching aid in its April 2013 seminar, which was open to industry. Industry saw 

great value and expressed how these tables were helpful and user friendly, indicating compliance could be increased 

if tables were added the Handbook. There is no change to existing language in the UPLR, it is only taking existing 

language and putting it in a more readable table format. The tables are supplemental and not intended to replace 

what currently exists. The PALS Chairman added that the intent is to be content neutral, noting that putting 

information in table format is more user-friendly. A regulatory official agreed that tables are helpful and easier to 

follow. WWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and recommended it as a Voting item. 

NEWMA: At the 2014 Interim Meeting, the Committee forwarded this item to NCWM recommending it as a 

Voting item. During the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, no comments were received, and it was recommended the 

item continue as a Developing item. 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item as it is intended to make the requirements 

easier to understand with the table format added but will not change any of the requirements. 

231-2 V Section 10.3. Aerosols and Self-Pressurized Containers

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Standards (2012) 

Purpose: 

To allow for a quantity statement in terms of weight for packages utilizing the Bag on Valve (BOV) technology; 

where the propellant is not expelled when the valve is activated. NIST Handbook 130, Section 10.3. Aerosols and 

Similar Pressurized Containers require aerosols and similar pressurized containers that expel the propellant along 

with the product to disclose the net quantity in terms of weight. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation as follows: 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Other Pre-Pressurized Containers Dispensing Product Under Pressure. – The 

declaration of quantity on an aerosol and on a similar other pre-pressurized containers dispensing products 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 15 

under pressure package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant, where 

applicable), in terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container 

are followed. 

Note: Enforceable on packages using bag-on-valve (BOV) technology after January 1, 2018. 

(Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

There are a number of products in the marketplace bearing quantity statements in terms of fluid measure that utilize 

the BOV technology. Packages using BOV technology are non-aerosol by definition because the propellant is not 

dispensed with the product. Consumers cannot do price and quantity comparison between product packaged using 

BOV technology and similar product in aerosol packaging because the aerosol packaged product includes the 

propellant in the net weight and the propellant is dispensed with the product. In the example below, two similar 

products are pictured, however the one on the left is labeled by net weight, and the one on the right is labeled by 

liquid measure. 

BOV technology is environmentally friendlier because 

the propellant is not dispensed with the product. 

Products utilizing the BOV technology only expel the 

product as the product is contained in a bag which is 

surrounded by the propellant inside the container. In 

April 2011, NIST, OWM received a letter supporting 

labeling of certain products such as the “Pure Citrus” 

product pictured (left) by liquid measure. 

2012 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee reviewed several letters from different manufacturers that use BOV 

technology recommending liquid volume as the appropriate method of sale for products in BOV style packaging. 

Concern was expressed that consumers would not be able to make value comparisons if similar items had different 

units of measure. 

Mr. Van Slyke (Lock Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP/Blue Magic, Inc.) provided a presentation indicating that they 

believe BOV does not fall under the aerosol guidelines. The reasoning is that a BOV container does not expel 

propellant with the product; therefore, it inherently has less net weight. They believe that consumers do not have 

sufficient information to know differences between aerosols and BOV products. Mr. Van Slyke recommended two 

solutions amending the UPLR language as follows: 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

and on a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in 

terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed, 

provided however that containers that separate propellant from the expelled product so that propellant is 

not expelled (such as containers using bag-on-valve technology) may be labeled either with weight or 

volume of the quantity of the commodity that will be expelled.

or 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

and on a similar pressurized package shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in 

terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions for use as shown on the container are followed. 

10.3.1. Containers that separate propellant from the expelled product so that the propellant is not 

expelled (such as containers using bag-on-valve technology) shall be prominently labeled NONAEROSOL. The declaration of quantity shall disclose the net quantity of the commodity in terms of 

fluid measure. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 16 

Mr. Douglas Raymond (National Aerosol Association [NAA]) gave a presentation reporting the association’s 

position that a container using BOV technology is an aerosol, and its net quantity needs to be declared in terms of 

net weight. He remarked that BOV has been around for twenty plus years and is not new to the marketplace. 

Various products are packaged using the BOV technology (e.g., sunscreen, wound washes, shaving cream, and car 

products). Different aerosol forms use liquid gas, compressed gases, and in barrier forms using Sepro, bladder, and 

BOV. Mr. Raymond also stated that BOV and non-BOV products are designed to expel their products equally. He 

stated that classifying a BOV container as a non-aerosol is misleading and a safety concern since this product is 

pressurized. 

A regulatory official agreed that BOV containers should be labeled and tested by net weight. He remarked that test 

procedures need to be clarified for BOV containers. For example, should the bag be removed from the canister to 

recover the product? 

Concern was also expressed that consumers would be confused if they encountered similar products with different 

unit pricing and, if the products contents are labeled differently. The BOV proposal that was represented during the 

2012 NCWM Interim Meeting was based upon the views of the room air fresheners industry only. 

The Committee would like to have a better understanding of the variety and type of products in the marketplace and 

what is under current development. Clarification is needed for the term “similar products” for example, what 

products meet this classification as defined in NIST Handbook 130, UPLR, Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar 

Pressurized Containers. The Committee is also requesting from NIST, OWM clarification on the definition of 

aerosol and a review for any updates to NIST Handbook 130, Interpretations and Guidelines, Section 2.2.7. Aerosol 

Packaged Products. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this as an Informational Item. 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee received and reviewed several letters from BOV manufacturers. 

The letter from National Aerosol Association (NAA) contained draft language that proposes dual labeling for the 

method of sale on the product label. The Committee discussed that there is no applicable volumetric test procedure. 

It was stated that allowing two methods of sales is in opposition of the OIML TC 6 Committee on Prepackaged 

Products, which resolved that aerosols should be declared by weight. The Committee was in agreement that if 

industry could develop a test procedure they would readdress the issue. The Committee revised the item under 

consideration to include terminology to include “bag on valve.” The Committee recommends this item be an 

Informational Item to allow time for manufacturers to provide feedback on the time frame for labeling to change 

over and to research a volumetric test procedure. 

Mr. Hank Pickens (Beaumont) provided a presentation at the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting describing the 

procedures and reasoning for BOV to be labeled by volumetric measure. Mr. Pickens opposes NAA’s proposal for 

BOV to have a dual unit label. Douglas Raymond (National Aerosol Association [NAA]) is in support of a weight 

statement due to the challenge in testing this product. Mr. Raymond remarked that BOV products can be in liquid, 

paste, and powder forms. A NIST Technical Advisor remarked that a volumetric method of sale would be in 

conflict with federal law regardless of whether it is an aerosol or not. Mr. Sefcik (NIST, OWM) has agreed to host a 

meeting at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and bring interested federal agencies (i.e., FDA, FTC, and EPA) and 

stakeholders together. The Committee would like to see the outcome from this meeting. 

2014 Interim Meeting: A NIST Technical Advisor provided a briefing from the NIST January 2014 meeting and 

there was unanimous agreement that weight shall be the required method of sale for all pressurized containers 

regardless of the technology. There was also agreement from all parties that an enforcement exemption be granted 

for three years to allow manufacturers to turn over their current stock of product. The Committee received several 

letters from aerosol and BOV manufacturers. 

The Committee reviewed the language as it appeared in NCWM Publication 15 (2014) and made modifications as it 

appears in the item under consideration. 

10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers. – The declaration of quantity on an aerosol package 

including Bag on Valve (BOV) technology and other similar pressurized packages shall disclose the net 

quantity of the commodity (including propellant), in terms of weight, that will be expelled when the instructions 

for use as shown on the container are followed. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 17 

Note: Packages that utilize the Bag on Valve (BOV) technology shall be enforceable after 

month/day/20XX. 

(Amended 20XX) 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: Modified language for the item under consideration was submitted by Mr. K. Floren 

(Los Angeles County). The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this 

Final Report in the item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA recommends the item remain informational to allow time to receive information from a meeting that is 

scheduled to be held at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, after the NCWM Annual Meeting. This meeting will bring 

together interested federal agencies (i.e., FDA, FTC, and EPA) and stakeholders. Since 2012, CWMA has 

recommended the item remain Informational. NIST has been working with other agencies and organizations to 

determine that this regulation will not have conflicts. At the 2014 CWMA Meeting, it was agreed this language 

helps clarify that all self-pressurized containers are sold by weight and recommends this as a Voting item. 

WWMA was informed by a NIST Technical Advisor remarked that a meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2014, at 

NIST, which will include representation from EPA, FTC, FDA, CPSC, industry regulators, and interested 

stakeholders. A report will be provided at the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. A regulatory official indicated that 

net weight is preferred as different products have varying volatility, which affects the testing procedure. An industry 

representative stated this is a competitive business issue and was concerned about the safety aspect of testing this 

product. The Committee recommended that this be an Informational item. 

NEWMA heard a comment in 2011, that testing for content could be problematic and that marking on the package 

should be net weight of product only, not including propellant, which is not part of product. The Committee 

believed there is better comparison of net contents of product being sold if words “NON-AEROSOL PRODUCT” 

are added to product label. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item with the 

following revision: add to the container language “A NON-AEROSOL PRODUCT.” At the 2012 Annual Meeting 

there was discussion about a conflict between aerosols and bag on valve (BOV) products and their declaration of 

content in the marketplace. NEWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational item. The same status 

was recommended during the 2012 NEWMA Interim and Annual Meetings. At the 2013 Interim Meeting, 

NEWMA attendees were informed that NIST, OWM will be hosting a meeting in January 2014, which will include 

federal regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and weights and measures regulators to discuss a method of sale. 

NEWMA would like to see the outcome of this meeting and recommended the item be an Informational item. 

During the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, based on the results of the January 2014 meeting at NIST this item is 

fully developed and is recommending that it be a Voting item. 

SWMA heard concern in 2011 by an industry weights and measures consultant over an acceptable test procedure 

that would be used if volume was permitted. The NIST Technical Advisor noted that no specific language has been 

proposed and that the UPLR Section 6.4., Terms: Weight, Measures, Volume, or Count declares that “any net 

content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparison is forbidden”. It was further noted that NIST 

Handbook 130, Section 10.3. Aerosols and Similar Pressurized Containers, applies to aerosols and similar 

pressurized containers. One manufacturer has provided input to this proposal. The National Aerosol Association 

(NAA) was contacted for input into this proposal. Preliminary comment by NAA was that BOV technology or 

versions of it have been around since the 1990s. The NAA Board of Directors member believes BOV technology is 

considered an aerosol, basing his opinion on a California Air Resources Board Regulation. The SWMA Committee 

requested that specific language be developed for this item and a complete response from the NAA. They also noted 

that test procedures will need to be discussed if a volume statement is to be considered. SWMA forwarded the item 

to NCWM recommending it as a Developing item. 

In 2012, SWMA withheld comment until NAA offers proposed language at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

SWMA recommended that the item be an Informational item. In 2013, SWMA recommended this item remain on 

the NCWM agenda as an Informational item, pending the outcome of a meeting being hosted by NIST in 

January 2014, on this issue. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 18 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF 

SALE COMMODITIES 

232-1 D Section 2.20.3. Street Sign Prices and Advertising 

Source: 

Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computing Capabilities Task Group (2014) 

Purpose: 

Ensure that consumers are not charged a higher price per gallon for motor fuel than what it advertised on a street 

sign. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.20. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. 

2.20.1. Method of Retail Sale. – Type of Oxygenate must be Disclosed – All automotive gasoline or 

automotive gasoline-oxygenate blends kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold at retail containing at least 

1.5 mass percent oxygen shall be identified as “with” or “containing” (or similar wording) the predominant 

oxygenate in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read “contains ethanol” or “with MTBE.” The 

oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen to the blend shall be considered the predominant 

oxygenate. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the retailer may post the predominant oxygenate 

followed by the phrase “or other ethers” or alternatively post the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” 

In addition, gasoline-methanol blend fuels containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol 

shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This information shall be posted on the upper 50 % 

of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver’s position in a type at least 

12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type). 

(Amended 1996) 

2.20.2. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – At the time of delivery of the fuel, the 

retailer shall be provided, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation a declaration 

of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations sufficient to yield an 

oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel 

supplier may identify either the predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the 

largest mass percent oxygen) or, alternatively, use the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” In 

addition, any gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as 

“with” or “containing” methanol. This documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the 

responsibility of any potential blender to determine the total oxygen content of the engine fuel before 

blending. 

(Added 1984) (Amended 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1996) 

2.20.3. Street Sign Prices and Advertising 

(a) The unit price must be in terms of price per gallon in 1/10 cents. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 19 

(b) When the price of fuel increases, the street sign must be changed before or simultaneous when 

the price at the pump is changed. When the price of fuel decreases, the price at the pump 

must be changed before or simultaneous when the street sign price is changed. 

 (Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The consumer should never pay more for fuel than the advertised price. A street sign price posting that is lower than 

the price at the pump, could unfairly draw business from a competitor. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee heard from Mr. Hornbach (Chevron) who spoke in regards to 

electronic price signs that have the capability to change pumps and signs simultaneously. He recommends that the 

word “simultaneous” be added into the proposal. Ms. Elson-Houston (Chair of the Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser 

Price Posting and Computing Capabilities Task Group) concurs with this change. The Committee does not feel this 

item is developed enough and request that the Task Group (TG) ensure that all sections of the method of sale are 

addressed in regards to price posting, multi-tier and dual pricing with fuels. The Committee would like the regions 

to review and comment on this item. Ms. Elson-Houston informed the Committee that the Price Posting TG will be 

disbanding in July 2014. At the 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed this item had merit and 

recommended continued development by the submitter. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

This item was submitted directly to the Standing Committee from the NCWM Price Posting TG after the deadlines 

for submitting to the regional associations. 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting: No comments were received and the recommendation was to maintain this item as 

Developing. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: An industry representative expressed concern over language requiring tenth-of-apercent price posting; industry requests price posting to the whole cent; the same representative expressed concern 

that signs need to change “simultaneously,” and suggested the word “concurrent” be substituted. A second industry 

representative stated that just because the technology is available, all retail stations do not necessarily have the 

newest equipment. A regulator stated the use of price per metric units should be recognized as well (i.e., liters). 

The Committee agreed that based on the comments provided, the item needs further development. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-2 W Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2013) 

Purpose: 

Enable consumers to make cost and fuel economy comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel. 

2.27.1. Definitions. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 20 

2.27.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). – A gaseous fuel composed primarily of methane that is 

suitable for compression and dispensing into a fuel storage container(s) for use as an engine fuel. 

2.27.1.2. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). – Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kg of 

compressed natural gas. 

2.27.1.3. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). – Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 2.567 kg 

(5.660 lb) of compressed natural gas. 

2.27.1.4. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – means 0.756 kg of natural gas. 

2.27.1.5. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – means 2.894 kg (6.38 lb) of natural gas. 

2.27.1.6. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). - A gaseous fuel composed primarily of methane that 

has had carbon dioxide removed and nitrogen reduced to 0.5 % by volume and is suitable for 

liquefaction at − 162 °C (− 259 °F) and dispensed into an insulated cryogenic fuel storage 

container(s) for use as an engine fuel. 

2.27.1.7. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – Diesel liter equivalent means 0.7263 kg of liquefied 

natural gas. 

2.27.1.8. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – Diesel gallon equivalent means 2.749 kg (6.06 lb) of 

liquefied natural gas. 

2.27.2. Method of Retail Sale and Dispenser Labeling. 

2.27.2.1. 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).: 

(a) the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE), or 

(b) the diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). 

2.27.2.2. Dispenser Labeling. – 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.: 

(a) 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. 

(b) either the statement “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is equal to 0.756 kg of Natural 

Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is equal to 6.312 lb of Natural Gas” 

consistent with the method of sale used. 

2.27.2.3. Method of Retail Sale. – All liquefied natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale and 

sold at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be in terms of diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel gallon 

equivalent (DGE). 

2.27.2.4. Dispenser Labeling. – All retail liquefied 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 the statement “1 Diesel Liter 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 21 

Equivalent (DLE) is equal to 0.7263 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 

equal to 6.06 lb of Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

natural gas vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles with equivalent 

gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, there is a 

need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel economy with 

diesel powered vehicles. Natural gas is sold as a vehicle fuel as either compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) and each method of sale is measured in mass. Therefore, the generic term natural gas is proposed 

to be used in NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 without the existing term “compressed.” (The mathematics justifying the 

specific quantity (mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix A.) 

The official definition of a DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and other 

states to permit retail sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. 

Additional Contacts: Clean Energy, Seal Beach, California, NGV America, Washington, DC, Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation, Acworth, Georgia. 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: A presentation in support of this item was given by Mr. Doug Horne (Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation). Several comments were heard regarding the references and databases used to develop the 

calculations. Concern was expressed with the conversion factors used. Concern was also expressed that the LNG 

method of sale should be by weight. A NIST, OWM S&T Technical Advisor recommends that L&R and S&T work 

in a joint session since there is a companion Item 337-1, NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices,” Appendix D – Definitions: Diesel Liter and Diesel 

Gallon Equivalents (DLE, DGE), on the S&T Agenda. A collaborative effort between the two Committees will 

ensure that the proposed equivalent unit is dispensed accurately at the dispenser. Several attendees spoke in support 

of the collaborative effort. The Committee will request that the NCWM Board of Directors create a Steering 

Committee that consists of experts and stakeholders to review this proposal. L&R will prepare a list of comments 

that they would like the Steering Committee to review and address. The L&R Committee recommends this as 

Informational item. 

At the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee was informed that the Natural Gas Steering Committee 

chaired by Mahesh Albuquerque would be reviewing this item. 

At the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee) notified the 

Committee this item was being withdrawn in its entirety. The submitter of this proposal sent in a modified proposal 

(Item 232-3) on this subject matter that will be further developed by the Steering Committee. The Committee did 

note that the factor in Section 2.27.1.6. Liquefied Natural Gas should not read − 126.1 °C, but rather – 162 °C. This 

item was wWithdrawn in its entirety. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA reported that based on the comments received from a majority of states, the Committee does not 

recommend the proposal as written. Since 2012, regulators from the central region have expressed concerns that 

LNG and CNG are being sold and there is no standard established through the NCWM process for sales of these 

products. Establishment of a standard is urgently needed. During the 2013 CWMA Annual Meeting, an industry 

representative stated that creating an equivalence factor with gallon equivalents was not a weights and measures 

issue, and some regulators agreed. A NIST representative stated that using equivalence would not allow traceability 

back to the International System of Units (SI). CWMA recommended the item be withdrawn at the 2013 Annual 

Meeting. The CWMA recommends the status of this item be Developing at the September 2013 Interim Meeting. 

WWMA recognized that Item 232-2 on their agenda is being proposed by submitter to replace this item. Mr. John 

Wasberg (BLU) and Mr. Michael Eaves (Clean Energy) provided presentations on LNG. Some regulatory officials 

supported mass as the appropriate method of sale, noting it is based on a traceable standard and there are two 

alternative methods of sale (hydrogen and electricity) recently adopted by NCWM without using equivalents. 

Concern was expressed regarding whether it was weights and measures responsibility to verify the conversion factor 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 22 

and questioned whether the conversion factor would remain constant over time. Mr. Albuquerque, Chairman of the 

Natural Gas Steering Committee, stated they will continue to meet and consider all related issues and hope to have 

the item developed for the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. A regulatory official noted tax implications, equipment 

that converts mass to gallon equivalents, and a possible phase in period. WWMA recommended that this item be a 

Developing item. 

NEWMA reviewed the CWMA comments from 2012. A General Motors representative indicated, at that time, 

there was discussion on a point of reference. A remark pointed out both methods of labeling may be required on a 

dispenser. The labeling issue may create confusion for the consumer. NEWMA recommended review by the 

FALS. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM L&R Committee recommending it as an Informational item. 

In 2013, Graham Barker (Clean Vehicle Education Foundation) presented comments in support for this item due to 

there being no standards for DGE and LNG, and standards are needed for GGE and DGE. Comments were made 

that definitions do not need to be in the handbook as consumers and fleet managers can research and make informed 

decisions. The Committee recommends keeping this as an Informational item, and they would like to see a 

recommendation from the Natural Gas Steering Committee. The Committee should also look at the original 1994 

decision on gas equivalent as part of its focus to determine if it should remain in the handbook. NEWMA 

recommends that this item be an Informational item. 

SWMA received a recommendation at their 2012 Annual Meeting from an industry representative that this be 

designated as Developing item. A regulatory official questioned why industry is not installing the right equipment 

rather than putting a label on a nozzle. The Committee recommended that this item be reviewed by FALS, in part to 

check the accuracy of the diesel conversion. The Committee also suggested that the 1994 standard for the GGE be 

reviewed. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as an Informational item. At the 2013 SWMA 

Annual Meeting the majority of regulators spoke in favor of mass being the method of sale but that some states have 

already recognized the DGE. The Committee received letters supporting the DGE and DLE as the preferred method 

of sale. A regulator stated they would not support multiple methods of sale. A member asks that all of the 

conversions factors be a reviewed for accuracy, so everyone can understand what is being debated. Both the S&T 

and L&R met in joint session to discuss the comments heard and how the two Committees should proceed forward 

in tandem with this issue. The Committees received a handout from Mr. Brett Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing 

Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-3 V Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel 

(This item was returned to Committee.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since natural gas is sold in the retail market place as compressed natural gas (CNG) to be an alternative fuel to 

gasoline and diesel fuel and as liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be an alternative fuel to diesel, the proposed additions 

and edits to NIST Handbook 130 will provide definitions for natural gas equivalents for diesel liters and diesel 

gallons so that end users can readily compare cost and fuel economy. At present, only CNG equivalents for gasoline 

are included in the handbooks. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation as follows: 

2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel. 

2.27.1. Definitions. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 23 

2.27.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). – A gaseous fuel composed primarily of methane that is 

suitable for compression and dispensing into a fuel storage container(s) for use as an engine 

fuel.2.27.1.2. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). – Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kg 

(1.495 lb) of compressed natural gas. 

2.27.1.3. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). – Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 2.567 kg 

(5.660 lb) of compressed natural gas. 

2.27.1.4. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – Diesel liter equivalent means 0.765 kg of compressed 

natural gas or 0.726 kg of liquefied natural gas. 

2.27.1.5. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – Diesel gallon equivalent means 6.384 lb of 

compressed natural gas or 6.059 lb of liquefied natural gas.

2.27.1.6. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). – Natural gas which is predominantly methane that has 

been − 162 °C (− 260 °F) at 14.696 PSIA and stored in insulated cryogenic fuel storage tanks for 

use as an engine fuel. 

2.27.2. Method of Retail Sale and Dispenser Labeling. 

2.27.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. – All compressed natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale and 

sold at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be measured in terms of mass, and indicated in the gasoline liter 

equivalent (GLE), or gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) diesel liter equivalent (DLE), or diesel 

gallon equivalent (DGE) units.

2.27.2.2. Dispenser Labeling Compressed Natural Gas. – All retail compressed natural gas 

dispensers shall be labeled with the equivalent 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 Approximately equal to 0.678 kg of 

Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately equal to 0.765 kg of 

Compressed Natural Gas” or the statements “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is 

Approximately equal to 5.660 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE) is Approximately Equal to 6.384 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” consistent with the 

method of sale used. 

2.27.2.3. Method of Retail Sale. – All liquefied natural gas kept, offered, or exposed for sale and 

sold at retail as a vehicle fuel shall be measured in mass, and indicated in diesel liter equivalent 

(DLE) or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units. 

2.27.2.4. Dispenser Labeling of Retail Liquefied Natural Gas. – All retail liquefied natural gas 

dispensers shall be labeled with the equivalent 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 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately equal to 

0.726 kg of Liquefied Natural Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Approximately 

equal to 6.059 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles 

with equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use 

today, there is a need to officially define a unit for both CNG and LNG (already in widespread use) allowing a 

comparison of cost and fuel economy with diesel powered vehicles. Natural gas is sold as a vehicle fuel as either 

(CNG or LNG and each method of sale is measured in mass. The submitter stated that the official definition of a 

DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin and many other states to permit retail 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 24 

sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. (The mathematics justifying the specific quantity 

(mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix A.) 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee [NGSC]) notified the 

Committee that this item is being developed by the NGSC. The Committee noted that the factor in Section 2.27.1.6. 

Liquefied Natural Gas should not read − 126.1 °C but rather – 162 °C. 

The L&R Committee responded to the NGSC’s June 10, 2014, request to change the NGSC’s March 2014 

recommendation for DGE units. The Committee agreed that the CNG and LNG conversion factors proposed for use 

in converting these gases to DGE units should be revised in the 2014 Interim Report so that their numerical values 

are expressed to three decimal places rather than two decimal places. These changes are reflected in the following 

proposed modifications within Section 2.27. Retail Sales of Natural Gas Sold as Vehicle Fuel to read: 1 Diesel 

Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 6.380 6.384 pounds of Compressed Natural Gas and 1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent of 

Liquefied Natural Gas is 6.060 6.059 pounds. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: A joint session was held with L&R and S&T to hear this item. It was noted that if 

the L&R did not move forward Item 232-3, there would be no reason to proceed with Item 237-2 and S&T 

Item 337-2. There was discussion regarding the term “approximately equal” found in Sections 2.27.2.2. and 

2.27.2.4. It was noted this term was not a measurement equivalency but refers to energy to in energy content. It was 

recommended that the Committee give consideration to amend the definition and clarify the meaning. Some spoke 

in opposition that this item would cause consumer confusion in the marketplace, if adopted. Several members 

questioned where the IRS obtained the numbers that are used in the IRS tax form. NIST provided an alternative 

proposal to this item and several members believed this proposal should be taken into consideration. Since the 

proposal from the NGSC was not released until June 10, 2014, members felt they did not have enough time to vet 

the modification or the NIST proposal. The Committee reviewed numerous letters in support of all the items related 

to the sale of natural gas as vehicle fuel. 

Regional Association Comments: 

2014 CWMA Interim Meeting: Comments were made that this item is a duplicate of Item 232-2 with the exception 

of the conversion factors, which need to be updated in Item 232-1. Based on this, the Committee recommends 

Withdrawal of this item. CWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments on this item in conjunction with Item 237-2 and 

S&T Item 337-2. Main points included in the testimony were: An industry representative stated that gaining 

consensus on these proposals provides the best chance to develop a uniform national standard. Currently, there are 

legislative bills in six states supporting DGEs and similar activity in many other states including a letter of support 

with 54 signatures from Congress. An industry representative commented his membership supports the concept, but 

expressed concern over a discrepancy with equivalencies between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) definition 

(126.67 cubic feet per gal) and the steering group’s proposal (123 cu ft per gal). He expressed concern that the 

industry feels these differences must be reconciled, or they will be faced with confusion between the two standards. 

A second industry representative agreed. A regulator, who served on the steering group, commented that the some 

members of the steering group attempted to allow for dual declarations on dispensers, using the mass standard as the 

primary value. He fears adding multiple new standards will add to the confusion. He further stated that he has no 

objection to supplemental language, but traditional mass unit should be the primary unit. 

A NIST Technical Advisor commented there are currently seven different types of fuels, and asked if they should all 

have gasoline gallon equivalents. A parallel example was provided of selling paint on a square foot wall coverage 

equivalent. Would weights and measures consider this a viable method of sale? 

An industry representative commented that multiple unit pricings could cause confusion, and there were concerns 

about retrofitting old equipment to allow for multiple unit pricings. He further stated labels are the mechanism by 

which we convey mass measurement. The same representative commented that some say GGE should have never 

been adopted. Another regulator stated natural gas engines are not diesel engines. When posting price equivalence, 

consumers could be misled or confused as to the energy comparison versus the price comparison. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 25 

A NIST Technical Advisor stated a consumer should be aware of what is being measured and that measurement 

should be accurate. A regulator asked the Conference to recall consideration of equity and uniformity statements in 

the past. He gave examples of previous items that were artificial declarations and were rejected by the Conference; 

examples included “lasts the same as,” “burns longer than,” “equivalent to” . . . etc. The regulator stated that in 

most cases, natural gas has been sold in fleets, so the cost per mile factor has been calculated internally. Sales are 

now increasing at public fueling locations, so when selling fuel with equivalencies, we are getting into marketing 

rather than weights and measures functions. 

CWMA L&R and S&T Committees met jointly in a working session and concur the items have merit, but questions 

and concerns over accuracy of this final proposal still remain. Both Committees agreed to move the item forward as 

an Information item. During the L&R Committee’s work session, discussion took place regarding the inconsistency 

in language in the method of sale in Item 232-3, Section 2.27.2.; and Item 237-2 Section 3.11.2.1. Additionally, the 

Committee discussed the importance of including the same number of significant digits in the conversions specified 

in the DGE and DLE values. The Chairman of the CWMA L&R Committee will communicated these two concerns 

to the Chairman of the NCWM NGSC. 

WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. See comments in Item 232-2 of this report. 

NEWMA: At the 2013 Interim Meeting this item was forwarded to NCWM and was recommended as an 

Informational item. 

At the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments on this item in conjunction with S&T 

Item 337-2. There was a discussion on the item with numerous comments from both industry and regulatory 

officials. A summary of the comments are as follows: 

• GGE and GLE are already established measurements in the marketplace for CNG. 

• If the product is measured in mass, it should be sold in mass. 

• Equivalents are not an exact number. 

• Consumers have done homework before they buy. 

• There is wide support from industry to expand GGE to other fuels. 

• CNG is taxed at the federal level based on gallon equivalent. It would be easier to tax by GGE. 

• All the reasons heard in support of selling by equivalent units sound like marketing tools. 

• NIST Handbook 130 is not a promotional tool! It is about the best way to measure. 

• Some states have already adopted GGE or DGE as a method of sale for these alternative fuels. 

• Clarify L&R Item 232-3, Section 2.27.2.1. to be consistent with agenda Item 237-2; measured in mass and 

sold by volume. 

Additional comments were heard during the S&T Committee open hearings suggesting the need to include the same 

number of significant digits in the conversions specified in the proposal for DGE and DLE values. For example, 

6.380 and 6.060 contain four significant digits, whereas, 0.765 and 0.726 contain only three significant digits. A 

recommendation was made to the Committee for it to determine whether or not the values specified are appropriate. 

Due to the concerns expressed during the Open Hearings for both Committees, NEWMA voted to recommend to the 

National L&R and S&T Committees that the status be changed to Informational. This would allow both 

Committees to revise the agenda items addressing the concerns raised during Open Hearings as well and any 

concerns involving the IRS method of taxing these products. There are additional related comments located in L&R 

agenda Item 232-3. 

SWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: It was discussed that the submitter wished to modify the original proposal; however, 

the conversion factors are correct in this item. The S&T and L&R Committees met in a joint session to deliberate 

on the comments, and during discussion, it was decided the two items should be harmonized and move in tandem. 

During the joint session, discussion took place on how to move forward on the natural gas items. The Committees 

received a handout from Mr. Brett Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing the Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 26 

The SWMA recommends Withdrawing this item to consolidate all of the information under Item 232-2. SWMA did 

not forward this item to NCWM. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-4 V Section 2.33. Oil. 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Automotive Oil Change Association (AOCA) (2013) 

Purpose: 

Prevent consumer confusion and government-sponsored product bias regarding legitimate, manufacturerrecommended products, and to prevent installers and retailers from being held responsible for labeling requirements 

with respect to packaged goods. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.33. Oil. 

2.33.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil. – Vehicle engine (motor) oil shall be labeled. 

2.33.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank, and any invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk

vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank, shall contain the 

viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with SAE International’s 

latest version of SAE J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.” 

Note: If an invoice or receipt from service on an engine has limited room for identifying the 

viscosity, brand, and service category, then abbreviated versions of each may be used on the 

invoice or receipt and the letters “SAE” may be omitted from the viscosity classification. 

(Note Added 2014) 

(Amended 2014) 

2.33.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container shall contain a 

statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil 

Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).” 

2.33.1.3.2. Brand. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container and the invoice or receipt 

from service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed 

from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of 

the vehicle engine (motor) oil. 

(Amended 2014) 

2.33.1.4.3. Engine Service Category. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes 

the installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage 

tank shall contain the engine service category, or categories, displayed in letters not less than 3.18 mm 

(1/8 in) in height, as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine 

Service Classification (Other than ”Energy Conserving”),” or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 27 

Licensing and Certification System.,” European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), 

“European Oil Sequences,” or other Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standards as provided in 

Section 2.33.1.3.1. 

(Amended 2014) 

2.33.1.4.3.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard. – The label on any vehicle 

engine (motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or 

receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil 

dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall identify the specific vehicle or 

engine manufacturer standard, or standards, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in 

height. If the vehicle (motor) oil only meets a vehicle or engine manufacturer standard, 

the label must clearly identify that the oil is only intended for use where specifically 

recommended by the vehicle or engine manufacturer. 

(Added 2014) 

2.33.1.4.1.3.2. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on any vehicle engine 

(motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from 

service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed 

from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in 

compliance with the latest version of SAE J183, Appendix A, whenever the vehicle engine 

(motor) oil in the container or in bulk does not meet an active API service category as defined 

by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification 

(Other than “Energy Conserving”).” If a vehicle engine (motor) oil is identified as only 

meeting a vehicle or engine manufacturer standard, the labeling requirements in Section 

2.33.1.3.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard apply. 

(Amended 2014) 

2.33.1.4.5. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, and other types of delivery trucks that 

are used to deliver bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity grade 

and service category or categories as long as the bill of lading or other documentation provides that 

information. 

(Amended 2013 and 2014) 

2.33.1.5.6. Documentation. – When the engine (motor) oil is sold in bulk, an invoice, bill of lading, 

shipping paper, or other documentation must accompany each delivery. This document must identify 

the quantity of bulk engine (motor) oil delivered as defined in Sections 2.33.1.1. Viscosity; 2.33.1.2. 

Intended Use; 2.33.1.3.2. Brand; 2.33.1.4.3. Engine Service Category; the name and address of the 

seller and buyer; and the date and time of the sale. For inactive or obsolete service categories, the 

documentation shall also bear a plainly visible cautionary statement as required in Section 

2.33.1.4.1.3.2 Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories,. Documentation must be retained at the retail 

establishment for a period of not less than one year. 

(Added 2013) (Amended 2014) 

(Added 2012) (Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: The vast majority of engine oil used at professional fast lube facilities is the most current 

category of API (American Petroleum Institute) licensed oil. However, older, specialty, and some non-American 

vehicles take engine oil not listed as active under API’s private regulatory scheme; some are former API licensed 

oils now considered “obsolete” or “inactive” and some are simply licensed by another organization like the 

European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA). However, if original equipment manufacturers (OEM) 

recommend those engine oils for their vehicles, consumers have a right to use them regardless of API’s blessing, and 

installers and retailers should be able to sell them without obstruction. 

Automotive Oil Change Association (AOCA) amendment is necessary because a cautionary statement appearing on 

service receipts without explanation will inappropriately mislead consumers with older and uncommon model 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 28 

vehicles into believing they should not use OEM-recommended engine oil. The average fast lube customer does not 

recognize API or SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) to mean anything in particular but “CAUTION” and 

“OBSOLETE” in big capital letters could only be understood as negative. Scaring consumers in this way will not 

only push them to buy more expensive engine oil they do not need but also engender distrust in their installer service 

providers for recommending and/or using OEM-recommended engine oil. 

The average age of cars in the current fleet is nearly 11-years old, and it is not unusual for fast lubes to have 

customers with vehicles twice that age; for example, there are millions of opportunities for consumers to be misled 

into rejecting proper engine oil. The fact is American consumers are hanging onto their vehicles longer than API is 

hanging onto its service categories. When API designates a motor oil category as inactive, this does not mean 

consumers with vehicles designed to use that category turn in their cars or otherwise want to buy a more expensive 

grade of motor oil going forward. Therefore, a category of motor oil designed to work for particular makes and 

models of vehicles should not be burdened with the chilling effect of a cautionary statement absent a specific 

clarification acknowledging the preeminence of the OEM’s recommendations. 

The new standard phase-in factor must be considered as well. When API publishes a new edition of 1509, Engine 

Oil Licensing and Certification Systems, and/or creates a new service category, a reasonable phase-in period for bulk 

oil stock is necessary to accommodate older vehicle owners’ needs; for example, it may be in those customers’ best 

interests, both functionally and economically, to use motor oil developed in accordance with an earlier edition or 

service category so long as the automobile manufacturer originally recommended it and its continued use has no 

impact on any remaining warranty coverage. Although it is common for API to retain a couple of the most recent 

service categories as “active,” API could choose to make all but the most recent service category “obsolete.” For 

fast lube operators to automatically upgrade bulk oil stock at API determined intervals would be tantamount to 

giving API control over the price of oil change services regardless of what the market can bear. 

And what about packaged engine oil products already on the shelf or in the distribution chain when API makes a 

unilateral decision to deactivate an engine oil category? As a practical matter, tens of thousands of retailers and 

installers cannot re-mark millions of packages to coincide with API’s timing or take the financial hit for sending it 

all back in violation of purchase agreements. Attempting to enforce the labeling requirement at this level would be a 

nightmare for everyone involved. The way to avoid this problem is to adopt AOCA’s amendment so that the 

requirement for proper labeling of packaged containers of engine oil rest with the party in control of the 

packaging−the manufacturers. 

Without the amendment, the labeling requirement will be very difficult to enforce given the inventory of packaged 

goods remaining after an active engine oil category has been declared inactive or obsolete. 

Fast lubes would experience catastrophic business loss if customers with older and uncommon model vehicles were 

alienated. Maintenance costs for consumers with older model cars could easily double if they are confused into 

believing they need the latest category of engine oil. 

AOCA contends that the proposed amendment will accomplish three important goals: 1) prevent unintended 

consumer confusion and product stigma from using a cautionary statement by reestablishing the connection to OEM 

recommendations; 2) provide the necessary exemption to protect retailers and installers for selling lawful packaged 

inventory; and 3) which leads to an increase in practical enforcement prospects. 

The most analogous regulatory situation to the one at issue in AOCA’s proposed amendment is found in the Federal 

Trade Commissions (FTC) Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil (16 CFR 311). In that 

rulemaking process, FTC specifically rejected requiring recycled engine oil to be labeled “recycled” because of the 

stigma associated with the term at that time (see 72 FR 14410 – 14413 & FN11 [1 H.R. Rep. No. 96–1415, 96th

Cong. 2d Sess. 6 (1980), reproduced at 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 4354, 4356. ‘‘Oil should be labeled on 

the basis of performance characteristics and fitness for its intended use, and not on the basis of the origin of the 

oil.’’]). The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) also commented in favor of this approach: “NADA 

further stated that by not requiring that ‘‘substantially equivalent’’ recycled oils be labeled ‘‘recycled’’ or ‘‘rerefined,’’ used oil processors are able to market their products effectively.” (72 FR at 14411) No “recycled” or other 

potentially derogatory designation is required so long as the finished product meets the appropriate API standard. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 29 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: A state opposed this item and would like to see it Withdrawn. The FALS Chairman 

remarked that there are several engine oils designed for specific model vehicles and the FALS is trying to resolve 

this issue. A Committee member remarked that a statement of accountability should be within the language. The 

Committee would like to see additional language developed by FALS and made this an Informational item. 

2013 NCWM Annual Meeting: The FALS submitted modified language for Sections 2.33.1.4. Engine Service 

Category, 2.33.1.4.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard and 2.33.1.4.12. Inactive or Obsolete Service 

Categories. The Committee would like to have regional input on this modified language to review at the 2014 

NCWM Interim Meeting. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The FALS and API provided the Committee with modified language. This 

modified language removes Section 2.33.1.2. Intended Use. For clarification the term “bulk” was added. In Section 

2.33.1.1. Viscosity, a note was added to allow for abbreviations on tickets and the term “SAE” may be omitted. One 

member questioned the labeling for underground storage containers and their legibility. The Committee moved the 

modified language forward as a Voting item. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: The Committee agreed to minor editorial corrections to the language in its Interim 

Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA reported that this item is still under consideration from engine manufacturers and FALS. During previous 

CWMA meetings (since 2012), various industry representatives have provided comments to the region. AOCA 

stated that the oil change industry consists of small businesses without legal staff so they need clear guidance that is 

easily understood. These businesses follow OEM recommendations, which recommend oils that do not follow API 

or SAE standards. The language should acknowledge that some manufacturers approve and recommend their own 

oil. AOCA thought that the current language required all OEM oils that did not meet a specific API performance 

standard to be labeled as obsolete. A GM representative confirmed GM produces its own oils, which does not have 

an API certification. A FALS member shared the API motor oil guide, which labels specific categories of oil as 

obsolete (refer to Appendix C in the Report of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (SP 1171, 2013). 

If a manufacturer does not label the oil with an API obsolete category, the product is not considered to be obsolete. 

OEM manufacturers that were named do not label their oil with an obsolete category, and so oil changers do not 

need to worry about the obsolete label being used on OEM motor oils. State regulators clarified that nothing is 

written in the regulation, and that grace periods would be determined on a state-by-state basis. AOCA reiterated that 

the language should clearly state that OEM oils that do not have API certification are not obsolete. AOCA asked 

that the Committee recommend this clarifying language. AOCA also stated installers should not be responsible for 

labeling on packaged products received. A regulatory official stated retailers in other industries are responsible for 

labeling on packages received, and it would be an unfair market advantage to allow some retailers to use products 

that were illegally labeled. Since the current language is not clear about exactly what oils are obsolete, the 

Committee recommended that FALS continue to develop this issue. At the 2013 CWMA Annual Meeting, 

Mr. Ferrick (API) opposed the language for this item, stating if a product meets an obsolete standard the customer 

deserves to know this. CWMA would like to see additional information from FALS. An industry representative 

opposed the proposed language for this item stating if a product meets an obsolete standard the customer deserves to 

know this. CWMA recommended that the item remain Informational at the May Annual Meeting in 2013. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: It was noted that this item has companion Items 237-6 and 237-11. An industry 

representative commented he supported all items with an additional change to Item 237-11 (see Item 237-11). The 

Committee believes the item has been fully developed and is recommending it as a Voting item.

WWMA heard comment from Mr. Ferrick (API) who supported the proposed changes to NIST Handbook 130 

which are necessary and provided the following reasons: 1) adding the reference to ACEA will expand the current 

regulation to cover engine oil performance specifications recommended by many European vehicle and engine 

manufacturers; and, 2) allowing engine oil labels, invoices and receipts to list a performance specification set by a 

particular vehicle or engine manufacturer will address unique situations where an oil cannot claim any performance 

level maintained by API or ACEA. The FALS Chair reported it is currently considering these changes, but has not 

reached consensus, seeking resolution by 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. WWMA recommended that this be an 

Informational item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 30 

NEWMA received comment in 2012 from API stating it opposes the item and that specifics have been submitted in 

writing. API suggested this proposal and Item 237-4 be Withdrawn. General Motors indicated the proposal appears 

to allow older formulations of engine oil, but newer formulations give better performance, even in older vehicles. 

GM prefers current formulation of engine oil. NEWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. At the 2013 NEWMA 

Annual Meeting, testimony was heard that API indicated they submitted comments to their opposition of this item 

and requested this item be Withdrawn. NEWMA would like to see additional information from FALS. In 2013, the 

API representative commented to NEWMA that final language review should be made through FALS. No other 

comments were heard, and NEWMA recommended that this be an Information item. The 2014 NEWMA Annual 

Meeting recommended that the new clarified language be a Voting item. 

SWMA received comment at their 2012 Annual Meeting from an API representative who voiced their opposition to 

the item and provided written testimony in dispute of the comments and claims made by the submitter. At the 2013 

SWMA Annual Meeting, SWMA recommended the item be moved forward as two separate Developing items as 

FALS had indicated, in order to move the ACEA reference forward. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-5 W Section 2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (2010) 

Purpose: 

Clarify the labeling requirements for industry, consumers, and weights and measures officials. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation as follows: 

2.XX. Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges Labeling. 

2.XX.1. Definitions. 

2.XX.1.1. Printer Ink Cartridges. – Any cartridge or module that contains ink or a similar 

substance in liquid form employed in the printing and/or copying of documents, papers, pictures, 

etc., that is used in a printing device and designed to be replaced when no longer able to supply 

its contents in printing and/or copying. 

2.XX.1.2. Toner Cartridges. – Any cartridge or module that contains toner, powder, or 

similar non-liquid substance employed in the copying or printing of documents, papers, pictures, 

etc. that is used in a printing and/or copying device and designed to be replaced when no longer 

able to supply its contents in printing and/or copying. 

2.XX.2. Method of Sale and Labeling. 

2.XX.2.1. Method of sale, printer ink cartridges. – All printer ink cartridges kept, offered, or 

exposed for sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count. 

2.XX.2.2. Method of Sale, toner cartridges. – All toner cartridges kept, offered, or exposed for 

sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 31 

2.XX.3. Yield Disclosure. – If the seller discloses the yield of printer ink or toner cartridges on the 

package, then it shall be measured using the latest version of ISO/IEC printer yield standard on the 

package offered for prepackaged sale. This information shall be considered a supplemental 

statement. 

Note: Labeling shall be enforceable after month/day/20XX.

(Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Over the past several years, there has been a change in the marketplace on inkjet and toner cartridges net content 

statements. There is little uniformity, and the Committee has seen some labels with a net content or with only a 

page yield count (e.g., prints 1000 pages). The NIST, OWM pointed out that, according to guidelines printed in 

NIST Handbook 130, Weights and Measures Law, Section 19. Information Required on Packages, these products 

are required to have the net contents of the ink (and toner) labeled, but manufacturers have resisted, claiming an 

exemption under the FPLA. The purpose of this proposal is to specifically clarify the requirements for industry, 

consumers, and weights and measures officials. 

NCWM 2010 Interim Meeting: Mr. Matthew Barkley (Hewlett Packard Co.) commented that the FPLA creates an 

exemption for ink which extends to toner and ink cartridges. A declaration of weight and volume are not the best 

way for consumers to make value comparisons. Customers benefit from page count/yield. Mr. Barkley urged that 

this issue be Withdrawn. If this issue is to proceed, it should be Informational to allow for a review of the FPLA 

exemption. He suggested that page yield is widely accepted and has repeatability measures. 

Mr. Jeran (Hewlett Packard Co.) submitted a white paper from the Information Technology Industry Council (refer 

to Appendix C in the Report of the 96th National Conference on Weights and Measures [SP 1125, 2011]). This 

white paper included manufacturers from Epson, Hewlett Packard, Kodak, and Lexmark. Mr. Jeran explained that 

his background is with ink and toner measurement. For the same volume of ink, two different systems of the same 

model cartridge from two different vendors can print a different number of pages. In order to determine the page 

yield, they are using the ISO/IEC methodology. ISO is working on a photo yield standard. 

An official expressed concerns with page yield being the standard page print for quantity. Variation exists based on 

the type of cartridge, printer, and font and if graphics/photos are being printed. There is also a concern with what 

ink cartridge refillers are doing. The Florida official reviewed the current practice of refillers, and said they are 

stating the amount of ink on labels. There are many manufactured packages in the marketplace, so value 

comparison to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) is critical. This is an expensive commodity and 

clarifications of the requirements are needed. An official recommended that this item not be Withdrawn, but made 

Informational to allow time for research. Regulatory officials firmly believe that there needs to be a consistency 

with the declaration statement on these types of items. A consumer stated that the net content needs to be stated 

with voluntary supplemental information for page yield. Some voiced their opinion that consumers need to know 

page yield in order to make a value comparison. The NIST Technical Advisor stated that under the FTC regulations 

ink and toner cartridges were not part of the CFR. NIST, OWM met with the FTC on February 26, 2010, to request 

clarification of the exemption. According to the Committee, there needs to be a test procedure for verification of net 

content developed for ink and toner cartridges. The 2010 L&R Committee designated this item as an Informational 

item until they receive clarification from FTC, review ISO standards, and determine what refillers’ current practices 

are. 

NCWM 2010 Annual Meeting: Mr. Pociask (American Consumer Institute) presented a 2007 study done by his 

organization with funding by a telemarketing research company. An official expressed his concern that the 

presentation was not clear and asked if page count is based on certain fill levels or declaring the weight on the 

cartridge itself? Mr. Pociask responded that Quality Logic uses the ISO standards. He concluded that net weight is 

easy to enforce. Mr. Pociask stressed that his focus is to provide information that gives consumers useful 

information in purchasing printers and the life cost of the printer, including printer ink cost. 

Another official stated that the study was interesting, but would like to hear from manufacturers. There are several 

issues; cartridges are only for specific printers, when comparing price per page you suggest that price is static, and 

printer ink cartridge refillers need to be addressed. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 32 

Mr. Rosenberg (Information Consumer Industry Council) agreed that providing consumers with information is 

meaningful; however, relevant to the consumer is the number of pages that can print. The ISO standards are a good 

tool, but will lead to customer confusion. Mr. Rosenberg said that much more discussion is necessary on this issue 

(refer to the Report of the 96th National Conference on Weights and Measures [SP1125, 2011], Appendix C). 

NCWM 2010 Annual Meeting: The Board of Directors established a Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group 

(TG) to review and obtain additional information from all stakeholders. Ms. Dempsey (Montgomery County 

Weights and Measures, Ohio) was appointed as chair and Ms. Warfield was designated as the NIST Technical 

Advisor. 

NCWM 2011 Interim Meeting: The TG held its first work session, chaired by Ms. Maureen Henzler (Kansas 

Department of Agriculture). There was discussion on the current forms and types of printer ink. Industry also 

explained that they are able to deliver less ink with a better print quality. As a result they refrain from using the net 

content statement but believe that a page yield is more useful information for a consumer in making comparisons. 

Industry was informed that yield is not acceptable and they cannot use words like “approximate” and “estimated.” It 

was agreed that yield could be a supplementary statement on the package. The 2011 L&R Committee designated 

this item as an Informational item. 

The TG requested the following additional information from industry: 

1. How does the ISO standard work and how does this standard would fit into the weights and measures test 

procedure? 

2. How is print darkness measured? 

3. Why have manufacturers removed the net weight declaration from packages and replaced it with a page 

yield? 

4. When changing formulas, is the toner receptacle resubmitted back through the ISO standards to validate the 

page print accuracy? 

NCWM 2011 Annual Meeting: The TG held a Sunday work session. Several state, county, and city weights and 

measures officials and members of industry attended. Mr. Josh Rosenberg (Information Technology Industry 

Council [ITI]), and other printer industry representatives gave a presentation outlining why they believe yield is the 

appropriate method of sale for their products. They responded to questions regarding the quantity control they have 

when manufacturing the cartridges. All industry representatives acknowledged in response to questions that their 

companies have very good quantity control systems in place for filling cartridges. A stakeholder stated that 

packages must have the weight, measure, or count; no other type of labeling is acceptable. Participants commented 

that “yield” is not an acceptable means of labeling for any product. The TG agreed to meet again at the 2012 

NCWM Interim Meeting. The group requested that industry representatives make another presentation at that time 

that would be limited just to the labeling issue. The TG plans to submit a method of sale proposal to the NCWM 

L&R Committee for a method of sale for packaged printer ink and toner cartridges. 

During the Committee Open Hearings, Mr. Rosenberg (representing Lexmark, Hewlett Packard, Kodak, Epson, and 

Brother) submitted a presentation from the Sunday session for the record (refer to Appendix C in the Report of the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures [SP 1125, 2011]). Mr. Rosenberg remarked that quantity 

declarations by volume or weight do not meet the objectives of his organization nor consumers’ preference. He said 

that yield is the best way to enable consumers to make informed purchase decisions. He believes the ISO standard 

for yield can be applied to create that data. Mr. Rosenberg stated that industry representatives will attend upcoming 

regional meetings to address any issues or concerns. A stakeholder noted that he does not believe the ISO yield 

standard is acceptable, because each manufacturer’s default system is different. He also pointed out that NCWM is 

not a performance based evaluation agency, and encouraged the Task Group to propose the use of weight or volume 

as the method of sale. The L&R Committee requested that the TG continue developing this item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 33 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: Ms. Henzler informed the Committee that the TG did not have a recommendation 

on a method of sale for either the ink or toner. They did suggest minor editorial changes to add the word “copying” 

after the word “printing” or vice versa, throughout the definitions. 

Several members of the ink and toner industry recommended that this item be Withdrawn, and they have reflected 

this in letters written to the Committee since this item first appeared. They remarked that the current proposal would 

confuse and mislead consumers. They believe that consumers are not concerned with the net quantity of ink they 

are getting, but how many pages they can print. They agreed that the definitions do need additional work. They 

added that there are other ink technologies in the marketplace such as, wax sticks and oils. Currently wax 

sticks/crayons are sold by count. 

A contractor commented that the Method of Sale Regulation states items must be sold on the basis of weight, 

measure, or count. The regulation should be the starting point with the possibility of adding supplementary 

information. The Committee believes test procedures need to be developed to test these commodities. In addition, 

destructive testing of these products can be costly. The Committee wants to look at the possibility for both toner and 

ink to be sold by weight. Ms. Cardin, TG Chair, will request that the NCWM Board of Directors appoint a new 

work group to develop test procedures and to disband the current TG on Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges. The 2012 

L&R Committee designated this item as an Informational item. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: The new Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Gravimetric Package Testing Task Group 

(TG) met to discuss a test method that would require industry to label cartridges with a tare (packaged materials) 

weight. This TG, chaired by Ms. Cardin, will continue to develop gravimetric test methods for printer ink and toner 

cartridges, and will provide a report at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting. The Committee is placing an item in the 

260 Series (NIST Handbook 133) in their next agenda to report the work of the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge 

Gravimetric Package Testing TG. The L&R Committee will delay further development of this method of sale item 

until the TG has completed its recommendations. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Ms. Cardin (Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Gravimetric Package Testing TG 

Chair) provided a presentation on the work of the TG (refer to Item 260-3). Ms. Cardin also provided a marketplace 

survey that reflected “count” was the most common quantity statement being used. Industry was asked about the 

feasibility of placing the tare weight on cartridges. Their response was that it was not practicable due to cartridge 

parts being manufactured domestically and internationally and may not always be made of the same material. The 

presentation also reflected an in-house test using a gravimetric procedure. The TG concluded that there is not a 

practical test procedure and the work group is disbanding. The Committee discussed the results of the TG and 

reviewed the method of sale language. In conclusion, the method of sale language was revised by the L&R 

Committee to allow for this product to be sold by count. Ms. Lisa Warfield (NIST, OWM) commented that 

consideration needs to be given to the time manufacturers will need to change over 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting: 

The Committee heard several comments that there may not be a feasible way to label and test this product. Industry 

believes that consumers are interested in a yield statement when making a purchase. The Committee modified the 

language in Section 2.XX.3. Yield Disclosure to read as: 

2.XX.3. Yield Disclosure – If the seller discloses the yield of printer ink or toner cartridges on the 

package, then it shall be measured using the latest version of ISO/IEC printer yield standard on the 

package offered for prepackaged sale. This information shall be considered a supplemental statement.

The Committee moved this item to an Informational for a review of the amended language at the fall regional 

association meetings. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The Committee heard that count should not be the method of sale for this item. If 

there is a concern, they can use third-party testing laboratories to test against the appropriate ISO/IEC standard. The 

Committee reviewed the history and regional reports and Withdrew this item. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA’s L&R Committee feels a feasible way to label and test this product has not been discovered and the item 

should be Withdrawn. State officials have both supported and opposed this item in the past, some indicating they 

would rather see a weight statement because the amount of ink would be too small to measure the density. There 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 34 

has been some support for a yield statement instead of measurement by weight because one cannot measure when 

the cartridge retains some portion of ink. Others question how yield could be measured (ISO yields are based upon 

approximations), but suggested yield may be a supplemental declaration. No new procedures or recommendations 

have been brought forth from the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Gravimetric Package Testing TG. This issue has 

been on the agenda since 2010. CWMA recommended that this item be Withdrawn.

WWMA received comment from a regulator who noted that yield is being considered since no method of sale can be 

agreed on. If a statement of yield is required, it could be perceived as method of sale, when in fact it is a 

supplemental performance statement. The Committee noted there was no practical way to verify and measure such 

quantity statements. During Committee deliberations, it was noted that if yield is agreed upon by NCWM, then the 

committee’s recommendation is to place this requirement in the Uniform Package and Labeling Requirement, 

Section 11, rather than the Method of Sale. WWMA recommended that this item be Withdrawn. 

NEWMA received a presentation at its 2010 Annual Meeting from Mr. Pociask (American Consumer Institute) 

regarding a lack of consumer information when purchasing computer printers and cartridges. NEWMA expressed 

that there are still many unanswered questions and would like to hear from manufacturers of printer ink and toner 

cartridges. NEWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational item. At the 2010 NEWMA Interim 

Meeting, it was announced NCWM is seeking a chair for the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge Task Group. In 2011, 

there were no comments heard on this item. The Committee Chair reminded members that the Printer Ink and Toner 

Cartridge TG will be meeting on the Sunday prior to the start of the NCWM Annual Meeting, and that industry will 

be giving a presentation. The NEWMA L&R Committee recommended that this item move forward as an 

Informational item. At the 2012 NEWMA Annual Meeting, Mr. Floren (Los Angeles County, California) indicated 

that there is an impasse on Method of Sale and test procedures on these items. The TG was not planning to meet at 

this time to resolve the issues. NEWMA recommended that the item remain as an Informational item. At the 2013 

NEWMA Annual Meeting, several representatives believed “count” was meaningless. A remark was made about 

“low count: being exempt from count requirements.” NIST responded stating it would be exempt if written into the 

requirements. FTC was consulted but did not take a position on this issue. Several attendees speaking as consumers 

voiced concerns on a yield statement. NIST advised that there are ISO/IEC yield standards. NEWMA 

recommended the modification to Section XX.2. Method of Sale. 

2.XX.2. Method of Sale and Labeling. 

2.XX.2.1. Method of sale, printer ink cartridges. – All printer ink cartridges kept, offered, or exposed 

for sale or sold shall be sold in terms of the count 

2.XX.2.2. Method of Sale, toner cartridges. – All toner cartridges kept, offered, or exposed for sale or 

sold shall be sold in terms of the count 

2.XX.3. Yield Disclosure. – The seller shall disclose the yield of printer ink or toner cartridges as per 

ISO/IEC 19752, ISO/IEC 19798, ISO/IEC 24711, ISO/IEC 24712 on the package offered for prepackaged 

sale, or on the receipt for direct sale, or on the transfer document for bulk sale. 

NEWMA stated all work has been completed and industry and NCWM L&R are in agreement on the Method of 

Sale by count. The proposed modification provides clarity to the consumer when “yield” is questioned. NEWMA 

recommended the modified language move forward as a Voting item. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA reviewed comments and recommendations for this to be Withdrawn 

from the WWMA and SWMA. There was a variety of concerns with this item from attendees. The NCWM L&R 

Committee recommended that method of sale be count. Discussion was heard about the lack of accuracy using 

weight/volume of the cartridges based on the variety of different parts in ink cartridges and third party 

manufacturers complying with ISO/IEC yield standards. One attendee did not want this to be Withdrawn, it should 

not be difficult to determine yield based on ISO/IEC for individual manufacturers. Another attendee stated that 

yield could be part of secondary package labeling. NEWMA recommends this item be sent to PALS for input on 

secondary labeling on the packaging in addition to count thereby giving the consumer more information using the 

2013 NEWMA proposed yield language as a basis. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 35 

SWMA received this proposal at their 2009 Annual Meeting. A Lexmark representative commented they do not 

believe that a net content statement should be required, and a page yield is sufficient. He read the main points of a 

Lexmark letter to Mr. Gray, (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) dated March 17, 2009. 

The main points within the letter were: 1) the ink associated with a cartridge is a small fraction of the total cost of 

the print cartridge mechanism; 2) a page yield can provide a meaningful comparison to a consumer if all 

manufacturers employ the same estimating assumptions and techniques; and 3) International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) studied this issue for years and has rejected reliance on ink volume or quantity; instead ISO 

has developed a yield estimating and claiming methodology that permits cartridges to be compared using a 

consistent yardstick. Unlike ink volume measurements, page yield measurements provide a consumer with a 

reliable way to compare the amount of printing that can be expected. Lexmark also stated ink is expressly exempt 

from labeling as provided by the FPLA, 16 CFR Part 503.2(a). 

An industry representative said this issue does need to be discussed and reviewed further. However, many officials 

believe consumers should know what they are getting. If it is determined that page count is the quantity statement, 

then the page print standard should be reviewed and have tighter standards. Mr. Gray said more data is needed from 

manufacturers on this issue. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item. 

SWMA 2010 Annual Meeting: It was announced that a chair is needed for the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge TG. 

The Committee did not endorse the formation of the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge TG to resolve this issue. Only 

within the past couple years have manufacturers changed their declaration statement to read “yield.” Allowing the 

declaration by yield will open the door for other commodities to change their labeling (e.g., loads of laundry). The 

SWMA Committee recommended that these commodities be sold by volume and weight; however, they are not 

opposed to yield being a supplementary statement. This will allow for inspectors to verify the net contents, and also 

provide information for consumers to make value comparisons. The Committee would like to seek additional 

information from industry and ink refillers. SWMA recommended that the item be a Voting item. 

SWMA 2011 Annual Meeting: No comments were recorded. The Committee supported the item as written. 

SWMA recommended that the item be a Voting item. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: An industry representative serving on the Printer Ink and Toner Cartridge 

Gravimetric Package Testing TG commented that it is was established to develop a test procedure for checking net 

contents without regard for the method of sale. SWMA supported the Method of Sale proposal as written 

recommended that the item be a Voting item. 

SWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: SWMA recommended the item be Withdrawn since no acceptable resolution 

appears to be able to be reached. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

232-6 V Section 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee Task Group (2012) 

(Note: In the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures (2013) Item 232-6) 

Purpose: 

Update regulations related to flex fuels. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation as follows: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 36 

2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. 

2.30.1. How to Identify Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel – Fuel Ethanol flex fuel shall be identified as “ethanol 

flex fuel or EXX flex fuel” E85. 

2.30.2. Labeling Requirements. 

(a) Fuel Ethanol flex fuel with an ethanol concentration no less than 51 and no greater than 

83 volume percent shall be labeled “ethanol flex fuel, minimum 51 % ethanol”. shall be 

labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 Code of Federal Regulations 

Part 306. 

 (Amended 2014) 

(b) Ethanol flex fuel with an ethanol concentration less than or equal to 50 volume percent shall 

be labeled “EXX Flex Fuel, minimum YY % ethanol”, where the XX is the target ethanol 

concentration in volume percent and YY is XX minus 5. The actual ethanol concentration of 

the fuel shall be XX volume percent plus or minus 5 volume percent. 

(Added 2014) 

(c)(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posed on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front 

panel in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). A label 

shall be posted which states, “CHECK OWNER’S MANUAL,” “Consult Vehicle 

Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations,” and shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 

0.8 mm (1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the 

background color to which it is applied. 

(Amended 2014) 

(Added 2007) (Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The current wording in NIST Handbook 130 related to fuels restricted to use in Flex Fuel Vehicles should be 

reviewed. Input gathered from the regional meetings and other stakeholders will be used by FALS to develop 

recommended modifications to NIST Handbook 130. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Mr. Chuck Corr, Chair of the task group under FALS provided initial language 

changes for a Section 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol. There is additional work being done by this task group under the 

L&R Committee Item 237-9. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: There was a comment that the language put liability on the retailer and the owner 

needs to bear the responsibility on what fuel is required. The language presented needs to be clearer to address this 

issue. The Committee made minor modifications to the language that was provided by the Chair of the TG. The 

Committee is recommending this modified language move forward as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: FALS informed the Committee that the term “ethanol flex fuel” shall not be 

capitalized. Matthew Curran, FALS Chair, indicated he is in contact with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 

regard to the FTC proposed ruling on this issue. Currently, FTC is awaiting the outcome of the 2014 NCWM 

Annual Meeting results before proceeding (refer to Appendix C) with their proposal. The Committee agreed to 

modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

Fall 2013 CWMA Meeting: They offered the following revised proposal to improve the handbook wording on 

gasoline ethanol blends above 15 %. CWMA supported this alternate wording as a Voting item: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 37 

2.30. Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol. 

2.30.1. How to Identify Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends Fuel Ethanol. – Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends Fuel 

ethanol shall be identified as Ethanol Flex Fuel or EXX Flex Fuel E85. 

2.30.2. Labeling Requirements. 

(a) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends with an ethanol concentration no less than 51 and no greater 

than 83 volume percent shall be labeled “Ethanol Flex Fuel, minimum 51 % ethanol”. 

Fuel ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 306. 

(b) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends with an ethanol concentration less than or equal to 50 volume 

percent shall be labeled “EXX Flex Fuel, minimum YY % ethanol”, where the XX is the 

target ethanol concentration in volume percent and YY is XX minus 5. The actual ethanol 

concentration of the blend shall be XX volume percent plus or minus 5 volume percent. 

(c)(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posed on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front 

panel in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). A label 

shall be posted which states, “CHECK OWNER’S MANUAL”, “Consult Vehicle 

Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations,” and shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 

0.8 mm (1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the 

background color to which it is applied. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: An industry representative encouraged support of this item; FALS also recommends 

its adoption. A regulator summarized a recent Notice of Proposed Rule from the FTC. He indicated the proposal 

falls short in a number of areas: 1) for E15, the only requirement would be an EPA label – the FTC proposal does 

not require an octane rating; 2) ethanol blends above 15 % to 83 % will be posted in units of 10 percent increments; 

3) the term “E85” can no longer be used. A second industry representative commented that the FTC proposal is a 

regression and creates problems; he urged support for this item. FALS is considering submitting comments to FTC 

regarding the proposed rule. The CWMA L&R Committee agrees with the comments from regulators and industry, 

believes the item has been fully developed, and is ready for Voting. 

WWMA heard from an industry representative who stated that FALS recommends the item be voted upon with the 

changes shown in the CWMA 2013 Fall Meeting Item 232-5, Section 2.30.2.(c). WWMA recommended the 

proposed version above as a Voting item. 

NEWMA heard from an industry representative that FALS recommends the item be voted upon with the same 

changes represented above in the CWMA 2013 Fall Meeting, Item 232-5, Section 2.30.2.(c). NEWMA 

recommended that the item be a Voting item. 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting: It was recommended this be a 

Voting item to make it consistent with ASTM on volatility and Flex Fuel language. 

SWMA recommended at its 2013 Annual Meeting that the item be a Voting item on the NCWM agenda with the 

change from “font size” to a measurable type size in paragraph (c) of the proposal as shown in the CWMA 2013 Fall 

Meeting report, Item 232-5. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 38 

232-7 V Section 2.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

American Petroleum Institute (2014) 

Purpose: 

To include Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) in NIST Handbook 130, including defining DEF and outlining marking 

requirements to provide information to consumers of DEF. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.35. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

2.35.1. Definition. 

2.35.1.1. Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – A preparation of aqueous urea [(NH2)2CO], containing 

32.5 % by mass of technically-pure urea in high-purity water with quality characteristics defined 

by the latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” 

2.35.2. Labeling of Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – Diesel Exhaust Fluid shall be labeled. 

2.35.2.1. Retail Dispenser Labeling. – A label shall be clearly and conspicuously placed on the 

front panel of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid dispenser stating “for operation of selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) converters in motor vehicles with diesel engines.” 

2.35.2.2. Documentation for Retailers of Bulk Product. – A DEF supplier shall provide, at the 

time of delivery of the bulk shipment of DEF, identification of the fluid’s origin including the 

name of the fluid manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or trademark, and a statement 

identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in the latest version of ISO 22241, 

“Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” This information shall be provided by the 

supplier on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. 

2.35.2.3. Labeling of Packaged Product. – Any diesel exhaust fluid retail package shall bear a 

label that includes the name of the fluid manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or 

trademark, a statement identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in the 

latest version of ISO 22241 “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32,” and the statement, 

“It is recommended to store DEF between − 5 °C to 30 °C (23 °F to 86 °F).” 

2.35.2.4. Documentation for Bulk Deliveries. – A carrier that transports or accepts for 

transportation any bulk shipment by tank truck, freight container, cargo tank, railcar, or any 

other vehicle used to transport or deliver bulk quantities of DEF shall, at the time of delivery of 

the DEF, provide identification of the fluid’s origin including the name of the fluid 

manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or trademark, and a statement identifying the fluid 

as DEF conforming to specifications given in the latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - 

NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” This information shall be provided to the recipient on an invoice, 

bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. 

Effective date shall be January 1, 2016 

(Added 2014) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 39 

Background/Discussion:

Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) is an aqueous mixture of 32.5 % high-purity urea and 67.5 % deionized water, and it is 

used in conjunction with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems to remove harmful NOx emissions from 

diesel engines. In January 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted new emission standards 

requiring medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles to significantly reduce engine emissions, including NOx. A 

majority of engine manufacturers is now using SCR systems to meet the new EPA standards in their diesel 

applications, and is specifying the use of DEF meeting the quality requirements of the most current version of 

ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32,” Parts 1-5. 

As a result, the sale of DEF has become a fast-growth, emerging market as pre-2010 on- and off-highway equipment 

inventory continues to turn over. For instance, DEF may currently be purchased at fuel-island pumps at over 1000 

locations nationwide, with many more locations expected in the near future. The sale of DEF can be expected to 

continue to grow very quickly as additional fleet turnover occurs and regulations for passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, non-road vehicles, and stationary diesel engines are phased in during the coming years. Hence, it is of 

utmost importance that consumers of DEF are receiving the proper information about the product they purchasing as 

well as assurances that the product meets the ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32,” 

specifications. The language as originally proposed is as follows: 

2.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

2.XX.1. Labeling of Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – Diesel Exhaust Fluid shall be labeled. 

2.XX.1.1. Definition. – diesel exhaust fluid, DEF, n—preparation of aqueous urea 

[(NH2)2CO], containing 32.5% by mass of technically pure urea in high-purity water with 

quality characteristics defined by International Standards Organization’s latest version of ISO 

22241. “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” 

2.XX.1.2. Marking Requirements. – With the exception of on-vehicle storage tanks designed 

for use in a vehicle’s emissions control system, any diesel exhaust fluid retail package, storage 

container, or point-of-sale delivery apparatus, delivery invoice and/or receipt shall contain the 

following: 

2.XX.1.2.1. A statement identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in 

the latest version of ISO 22241. 

2.XX.1.2.2. With the exception of point-of-sale delivery apparatus, identification of the 

fluid’s origin including the name of the fluid manufacturer, brand name, trade name, or 

trademark, as provided in the latest version of ISO 22241-3. 

2.XX.1.2.3. Any diesel exhaust fluid retail package or storage container shall have the 

following statement, “It is recommended to store DEF between 23 °F to 77 °F (– 5 °C to 25 

°C).” 

2.XX.1.3. Marking Placement. – Markings on any diesel exhaust fluid retail package or 

storage container required by 2.XX.1.2. shall be clearly visible, legible and printed on, tagged 

with, or otherwise affixed to a surface, other than the bottom, of the required package, or 

container. 

2.XX.1.4. Bulk Deliveries. – A carrier that transports or accepts for transportation any bulk 

shipment by tank truck, freight container, cargo tank, railcar, or any other vehicle used to 

transport or deliver bulk quantities of DEF is exempt from the labeling requirements of 

Section 2.XX.1.2. Marking Requirements, provided, however, that the information required by 

Section 2.XX.1.2. Marking Requirements, appears on the shipment bill of lading or other form 

of documentation accompanying the shipment. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 40 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: A representative with API provided FALS with modified language. This language 

addresses the regional concerns regarding the clarity of the language and providing for retail dispenser labeling. 

This modification also expanded the recommended temperature ranges and is consistent with the ISO Method. 

FALS concurs with the changes and submitted the changes to the Committee recommending it as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: An API representative supported this item and supports a provision for an effective 

date of January 2016. The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this 

Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

In the fall of 2013, CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item. An ISO specification 

currently exists for this product, and quality assurance is important. At the 2014 CWMA Annual Meeting, the 

Committee was informed that there is a companion Item 237-10. An industry representative supports both items. A 

regulator has been working through the ASTM process to develop a specification for this product, but ASTM has 

decided to not pursue it. Consequently, he urges support and passage of this item. After discussion among the 

attendees, consensus was reached that an implementation date of one year after passage would allow sufficient time 

for the regulated industry to comply. The Committee is also recommending a proposed effective date be placed into 

the item that reflects an effective date of one year after publication. The Committee believes a specification for this 

product is important, since ASTM is not going to develop a specification, this item should move forward as a Voting 

item.

WWMA heard from an API representative regarding Items 232-6 and 232-7 simultaneously. The API 

representative explained there is no definition for DEF. He also stated the sale of DEF will continue to increase in 

the marketplace, as it is in use on all selective catalytic reduction diesel vehicles. He further stated the method to 

manufacture DEF may differ, but the standard remains the same for all DEF products and purity is important. The 

FALS Chairman stated that ASTM does not have a specification, so the ISO specification is appropriate and would 

recommend this as a Voting item. An industry representative from Gilbarco spoke to whether current receipt 

technology has the capability to print all required information. An industry representative expressed concern 

regarding temperatures requirements due to storage locations outside the specified range. The Committee supports 

this item and would like clarification in regards whether current receipt technology (dispenser) can accommodate 

proposed requirements. WWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and recommended it as an Informational item. 

NEWMA heard a comment from the submitter that adding Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) to NIST Handbook 130, 

including defining DEF and outlining marking requirements would provide information to consumers of DEF. 

NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending that it be a Developing item. At the 2014 NEWMA 

Annual Meeting, the Committee believed this item is fully developed and recommended it as a Voting item. 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item to further address the concerns of 

quality statements on receipts and dispensers. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

[SP 1171, 2013]. 

232-8 V Section 2.20. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends 

(This item was Adopted.) 

This information was not published within Publication 16, Committee Reports for the 99th Annual Meeting. 

This item is an editorial change recommended by FALS and approved by the Committee. There is a 

companion Item 237-7, 3.2.7 Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. 

Source: 

Archer Daniels Midland Company (2014) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 41 

Purpose: 

Update the information for documentation for dispenser labeling purposes in the method of sale section of the 

Uniform Regulation of the Method of Sale of Commodities in NIST Handbook 130. This update will recognize the 

EPA regulations for product transfer documents for gasoline and gasoline/oxygenate blends. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: 

2.20. Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. 

2.20.1. Method of Retail Sale. – Type of Oxygenate must be Disclosed. – All automotive gasoline or 

automotive gasoline-oxygenate blends kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold at retail containing at least 

1.5 mass percent oxygen shall be identified as “with” or “containing” (or similar wording) the predominant 

oxygenate in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read “contains ethanol” or “with MTBE.” The 

oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen to the blend shall be considered the predominant 

oxygenate. Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the retailer may post the predominant oxygenate 

followed by the phrase “or other ethers” or alternatively post the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” 

In addition, gasoline-methanol blend fuels containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol 

shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This information shall be posted on the upper 50 % 

of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver’s position in a type at least 

12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). 

(Amended 1996) 

2.20.2. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – At the time of delivery of the fuel, the 

retailer shall be provided, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation a 

declaration of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations 

sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where mixtures of only 

ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., 

the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen) or, alternatively, use the phrase 

“contains MTBE or other ethers.” In addition, any gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent 

oxygen from methanol shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This documentation is 

only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the 

total oxygen content of the engine fuel before blending. The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, on product transfer documents such as an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, 

or other documentation: 

(a) Information that complies with 40 CFR § 80.1503 when the fuel contains ethanol. 

(b) For fuels that do not contain ethanol, information that complies with 40 CFR § 80.1503 and 

a declaration of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in 

concentrations sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. 

Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the 

predominant oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent 

oxygen) or alternatively, use the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” 

(c) Gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified 

as “with” or “containing” methanol. 

(Amended 2014)

(Added 1984) (Amended 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1996, and 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: Mr. Chuck Corr, submitter of this item, informed the Committee that a companion 

item under the Fuels and Lubricants Regulation, Item 237-7 was submitted and there needs to be a corresponding 

Method of Sale. The Committee agreed that a method of sale needed to proceed in tandem with Item 237-7. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 42 

The proposal incorporates existing EPA regulations. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237 NIST HANDBOOK 130 – UNIFORM ENGINE FUELS AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS REGULATION 

237-1 W Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE) 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2013) 

Purpose: 

Enable consumers to make cost and fuel economy comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows. 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.XX. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – means 0.756 kg of natural gas. 

(Added 20XX) 

1.XX. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – means 2.863 kg (6.312 lb) of natural gas. 

(Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

natural gas vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles with equivalent 

gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, there is a 

need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel economy with 

diesel powered vehicles. Also natural gas sold as a vehicle fuel is sold either as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and each method of sale in measured in mass. Therefore, the generic term for natural 

gas is proposed to be used in NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 without the existing term “compressed.” The 

mathematics justifying the specific quantity (mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix A. 

The official definition of a DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and any other 

state to permit retail sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: A presentation in support of this item was given by Mr. Doug Horne (Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation). Several comments were heard regarding the references and databases used to develop the 

calculations. Concern was expressed with the conversion factors used. A NIST S&T Technical Advisor 

recommends that L&R and S&T work in a joint session since there is a companion Item 337-1 on the S&T agenda. 

A collaborative effort between the L&R and S&T Committees will ensure that the proposed equivalent unit is 

dispensed accurately at the dispenser. Several attendees spoke in support of the collaborative effort. The 

Committee will request the NCWM Board of Directors create a steering committee that consists of experts and 

stakeholders to review this proposal. L&R will prepare a list of comments that they would like the Steering 

Committee to review and address. The L&R Committee recommends this as Informational item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 43 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: The Committee was informed that the Natural Gas Steering Committee chaired by 

Mahesh Albuquerque would be reviewing this item. At the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, 

National Gas Steering Committee) notified the Committee this item was being withdrawn in its entirety. The 

submitter of this proposal sent in a modified proposal (Item 237-2) on this subject matter that will be further 

developed by the Steering Committee. 

Regional Association Comments: 

2012 CWMA Interim Meeting: A regulatory official commented that there is no standard for Diesel Gallon 

Equivalent (DGE), and LNG and CNG are being sold in Wisconsin and other states as DGE in order to compete 

with diesel sales. As a result, a standard is urgently needed. DGE sales are occurring in the marketplace without a 

standard. The Committee recommended that FALS review the conversion factors for DGE and LGE for accuracy. 

CWMA supported this item and forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. 

CWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: It was reported that based on the comments received from a majority of states, the 

committee does not recommend the proposal as written. (See comments from Item 232-1.) CWMA recommends 

that this item be a Developing item. 

WWMA’s L&R Committee recommends that the item be further developed by submitter and amend the existing 

proposed language. WWMA recommended that the item be a Developing item. 

NEWMA reviewed the CWMA comments from 2012. A General Motors representative indicated that there is a lot 

of discussion on a point of reference. It was commented that both methods of labeling may be required on a 

dispenser. The labeling issue may create more confusion for the consumer. NEWMA recommended further review 

by the FALS. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as an Informational item. In 2013, 

NEWMA recommended that this item be an Informational item. See comments on Item 232-1. 

SWMA recommended at their 2012 Annual Meeting a review by the FALS and forwarded the item to NCWM 

recommending it as an Informational item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting the S&T and L&R Committees 

met in joint session to deliberate on the comments received, with discussion that the two committees should move in 

tandem and their efforts regarding Natural Gas issues should be harmonized. During that joint session a discussion 

took place on how to move forward on the Natural Gas items. The Committees received a handout from Mr. Brett 

Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal. The SWMA recommended the item 

be Withdrawn from the NCWM agenda as the submitter they would reintroduced to the Conference as two separate 

items. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-2 V Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE): Compressed Natural Gas, Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent 

(DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE): Liquefied Natural Gas, Section 3.11. 

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Section 3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 

(This item was returned to Committee.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2013) 

Purpose: 

Enable consumers to make cost and fuel economy comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 44 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.XX. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – means 6.384 lb of compressed natural gas or 6.059 lb of 

liquefied natural gas.

1.XX. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – means 0.765 kg of compressed natural gas or 0.726 kg of 

liquefied natural gas.

1.25. Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE). – means 2.567 kg (5.660 lb) of compressed natural gas.

1.26. Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE). – means 0.678 kg (1.495 lb) of compressed natural gas.

1.35. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). – Natural gas which is predominantly methane that has been 

liquefied at 126.1– 162 °C (– 259260 °F) at 14.696 PSIA and stored in insulated cryogenic tanks for use as an 

engine fuel.

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products

3.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

3.11.1. How Compressed Natural Gas is to be Identified. – For the purposes of this regulation, 

compressed natural gas shall be identified by the term “Compressed Natural Gas” or “CNG.” 

3.11.2. Retail Sales of Compressed Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel. 

3.11.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. – All CNG kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold at retail as a 

vehicle fuel shall be measured in terms of mass, and indicated in the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE), 

gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE), diesel liter equivalent (DLE), or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) 

units. 

3.11.2.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. 

3.11.2.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of CNG shall be labeled as 

“Compressed Natural Gas.”

3.11.2.2.2. Conversion Factor. – All retail CNG dispensers shall be labeled with the 

equivalent 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 statements 

“1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas” and 

“1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.765 kg of Compressed 

Natural Gas” or the statements “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is Approximately Equal 

to 5.660 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 

Approximately Equal to 6.384 lb of Compressed 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 

20 684 kPa (3000 psig), or 24 821 kPa (3600 psig). The dispenser shall be labeled 20 684 kPa

(3000 psig), or 24 821 kPa (3600 psig) corresponding to the pressure of the CNG dispensed by 

each fueling hose. 

3.11.2.2.4. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52.) 

3.11.2.2.5. Automotive Fuel Rating. – CNG automotive fuel shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 309. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 45 

3.11.3. Nozzle Requirements for CNG. – CNG fueling nozzles shall comply with 

ANSI/AGA/CGA NGV 1.

3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

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 Retail Sales of Liquefied Natural Gas Sold as a Vehicle Fuel.

3.12.2.1. Method of Retail Sale. – All LNG kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold at retail as 

a vehicle fuel shall be measured in mass, and indicated in diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel 

gallon equivalent (DGE) units. 

3.12.2.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. 

3.12.2.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of LNG shall be labeled as 

“Liquefied Natural Gas.” 

3.12.2.2.2. Conversion Factor. – All retail LNG dispensers shall be labeled with the 

equivalent 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 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.726 kg of 

Liquefied Natural Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Approximately Equal to 

6.059 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used. 

3.12.2.2.3. Automotive Fuel Rating. – LNG automotive fuel shall be labeled with its 

automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

3.12.2.2.4. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52.) 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

natural gas vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty compressed natural gas vehicles with 

equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, 

there is a need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel 

economy with diesel powered vehicles. The submitter stated that the official definition of a DLE and a DGE will 

likely provide justification for California, Wisconson, and many other states to permit retail sales of CNG for 

heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. The mathematics justifying the specific quantity (mass) of 

compressed natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in the Appendix. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee) notified the Committee 

that this item was actively being developed by the National Gas Steering Committee (NGSC). 

The L&R Committee is responded to the NGSC’s June 10, 2014, request to change the NGSC’s March 2014 

recommendation for DGE units. 

The L&R Committee agreed that the CNG and LNG conversion factors proposed for use in converting these gases 

to DGE units should be revised in the 2014 Interim Report so that their numerical values are expressed to three 

decimal places rather than two decimal places. These changes are reflected in the following proposed modifications 

to Section 1. Definitions 1.XX, and to the proposed new definition for “diesel gallon equivalent” to read “1 Diesel 

Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 6.380 6.384 pounds of Compressed Natural Gas and 1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent of 

Liquefied Natural Gas is 6.060 6.059 pounds.” 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 46 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: A joint session was held with L&R and S&T Committees to hear this item. It was 

noted that if the Committee did not move Item 232-3 forward then there would be no reason to proceed with 

Item 237-2 and S&T Committee Item 337-2. There was discussion regarding the term “approximately equal” found 

in Sections 2.27.2.2. and 2.27.2.4. It was noted this term was not a measurement equivalency but refers to energy 

content. It was recommended that the Committee give consideration to amend the definition and clarify the 

meaning. Some spoke in opposition that this item would cause consumer confusion in the marketplace, if adopted. 

Several members questioned where the IRS obtained the numbers that are used in the IRS tax form. NIST provided 

an alternative proposal to this item, and several members believed this proposal should be taken into consideration. 

Since the proposal from the NGSC was not released until June 10, 2014, members felt they did not have enough 

time to vet the modification or the NIST proposal. The Committee reviewed numerous letters in support of all the 

items that related to the sale of natural gas as vehicle fuel. 

March 2014 Natural Gas Steering Committee Report to the L&R and S&T Committees 

The Natural Gas Steering Committee (NGSC) was formed in July 2013 to help understand and educate the NCWM 

membership regarding the technical issues surrounding the proposed changes to NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 

submitted by the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (CVEF), the anticipated impact of the proposed changes, and 

issues related to implementation requirements when compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

are dispensed and sold as a retail engine fuel in gallon equivalent units. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Albuquerque, Chair of the NGSC provided the S&T and L&R Committees with 

an update from the NGSC, including proposed revisions to the proposals submitted by the CVEF. The NGSC heard 

comments from the floor related to the proposed revisions and requested additional time to further develop its 

recommendations. The S&T and L&R Committees agreed to allow the NGSC additional time to meet and develop 

alternative proposals to those on the S&T and L&R Committees January 2014 agendas, with the expectation that the 

NGSC recommendations would be ready for inclusion in Publication 16, and moved forward as a Voting item at the 

July 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

Summary of NGSC Meeting Discussions 

The NGSC met weekly following the January 2014 Interim Meeting, and focused on modifying the Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation (CVEF) 2013 proposals for the recognition of diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units for 

CNG/LNG dispenser indications and the method of sale for these two natural gas alternative engine fuels. The 

NGSC reviewed multiple modifications to those proposals including: 

 limiting sales to a single unit of mass measurement enforceable by 2016; 

 requiring indications in mass and gasoline and diesel gallon equivalents, while phasing in mass only units; 

 require sale by mass as the primary means, but allow for the simultaneous display of volume equivalent 

units, so long as the purchaser always had access to the mass (traceable) measurement; and 

 a proposal from NIST OWM which would allow the posting of supplemental information to assist 

consumers in making value comparisons and for use by taxation/other agencies, but requiring the phase in 

of indications in mass. 

The NGSC received: 

 input from DOE on the latest edition of the DOE Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 32, July 2013 

available on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory website at: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml; 

 updates from CNG (3) and LNG (1) dispenser manufacturers indicating their dispensing systems comply 

with the requirements in the handbooks, and have the capability to indicate a sale in a single unit of 

measurement, and any further input on adding displays to the cabinet for additional units would require 

further cost analysis; while one OEM indicated use of their LNG RMFD in a fleet operation where 

indications are only in the DGE; and 

 feedback from committee members related to the pros and cons of requiring the indication of sale in mass 

or gallon equivalent units, including traceability, equipment capabilities, marketplace considerations, and 

units used by state and federal agencies. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 47 

Also noted in the NGSC discussions were: 

 how a gallon equivalent unit is derived using energy content, and that the gallon equivalent is defined and 

measured in terms of mass, not volume; 

 for the last 20 years, NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 have required all dispensing equipment to indicate 

deliveries of natural gas in GGE units to consumers, and in mass units for inspection and testing purposes. 

CNG RMFD equipment in the most states comply with the requirements in the handbooks; 

 international practices for indicating CNG and LNG engine fuel deliveries are predominantly mass; Canada 

requires LNG indications in the kilogram and the corresponding OIML R 139 “Compressed gaseous fuel 

measuring systems for vehicles” standard requires indication of the measured gas in mass; 

 the variations in engine efficiency relative to a single conversion factor based on an averaged energy 

content for LNG and the primary focus of the driving public and fleets on mileage rather than petroleum 

products no longer used to fuel their vehicles; 

 the work ahead over the next year by ASTM committees to develop current CNG and LNG fuel quality 

standards which will need to be referenced in NIST Handbook 130; 

 differences in the measurement of the gallon and kilogram – since the gallon is a volume measurement and 

not an energy measurement, and the NIST Handbook 44 Mass Flow Meters Code includes a requirement 

for volume-measuring devices with ATC used in natural gas applications to be equipped with an automatic 

means to make corrections; if the devices is affected by changes in the properties of the product, it was also 

noted that U.S. gasoline and diesel dispensers are not required to have ATC; whereas, ATC does occur in 

sales at the wholesale level; 

 how traceability applies to the measurement results at each level of the custody chain (to include the 

determination of the uncertainty of all calibrations and use of an appropriate unit of measurement); and 

 the capabilities of equipment in the marketplace. 

A DOE representative supported the use of gallon equivalents, and pointed out that they are used in the DOE 

Transportation Energy Data Book. The DOE representative also pointed out that other federal agencies including 

the IRS were requiring use of gallon equivalent units for reporting. 

Industry representatives on the NGSC indicated that they are actively campaigning to their state and federal offices, 

encouraging each government branch to recognize sales of CNG and LNG in gasoline and diesel volume equivalent 

units. Industry sectors represented on the NGSC indicated that their customers are satisfied with the averaged fuel 

energy values that correspond to the conversion factors for CNG and LNG, with only one exception. The exception 

was a truck stop chain indicating their customers would be amenable to a single conversion factor for both fuels. 

The CVEF also provided a comparison of GTI’s 1992 study results and preliminary data from a 2013 study. The 

CVEF reported the constituents in natural gas as basically unchanged over 21 years since the NCWM first 

recognized the GGE. Industry unanimously opposed a recommendation for phasing in mass as the only unit of 

measurement, noting also that U.S. drivers would be confused by SI units while acknowledging that the United 

States is in the minority of countries whereby delivery and sales are by equivalent units. At the conclusion of the 

NGSC deliberations, NGVAmerica provided the following statement: 

“One of the major advantages of the proposal as currently drafted with inclusion of the DGE and GGE 

units for natural gas is that this is a proposal that the natural gas industry can support. It further recognizes 

what is already the preferred practice for how natural gas is measured and dispensed. The latest proposal 

with DGE and GGE units provides a pathway forward toward a national consensus approach. If the 

proposal were to instead require use of kilograms or even pounds as the primary method of sale, industry 

would not support that proposal and likely would strongly oppose it this summer if NCWM were to 

consider it as a voting issue. Also, if NCWM finalizes on a standard that does not include DGE or GGE, 

industry is committed to pursuing adoption of an alternative standard on a state by state basis, which could 

lead to different treatment across the country. Several states have already introduced legislation to 

recognize the DGE standard (CA, IL, MO, and VA) and I expect more will do so later this year. And you 

know Colorado and Arkansas already have put in place standards that recognize the DGE units.” 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 48 

NGSC Recommendations: 

After consideration of all of the above, the NGSC recommends alternate proposals to the L&R and S&T Committee 

Agenda items which further modify and consolidate the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation 2013 proposals to 

include: 

1. requirements for measurement in mass and indication in gallon equivalent units (NIST Handbook 44 

paragraphs S.1.3.1.1. and S.1.3.1.2.; and NIST Handbook 130 paragraphs 3.11.2.1. and 3.12.2.1.); 

2. posting of a label that has both the GGE and DGE or the GLE and DLE for CNG applications (NIST 

Handbook 44 paragraphs S.5.2., S.5.3., UR.3.1.1., and UR.3.1.2; and NIST Handbook 130 paragraphs 

3.11.2.2.2. and 3.12.2.2.2.); 

3. expression of all equivalent conversion factors expressed in mass units to 3 significant places beyond the 

decimal point for consistency (NIST Handbook 44 paragraphs S.5.2., S.5.3., UR.3.1.1., and UR.3.1.2 and 

Appendix D and NIST Handbook 130 Section 1, paragraphs 3.11.2.2.2. and 3.12.2.2.2.); 

4. correction of the temperatures in the LNG definition (NIST Handbook 130 Section 1); 

5. addition of 16 CFR Part 309 for CNG automotive fuel rating (NIST Handbook 130 paragraph 3.11.2.2.5.); 

and 

6. reference to NFPA 52 (NIST Handbook 130 paragraph 3.12.2.2.4.).

With regards to NIST Handbook 44, the NGSC recommends withdrawing S&T Agenda Items 337-1 and 337-4 and 

the consolidation of agenda Items 337-2, 337-3, and 337-5 into a newly revised single Voting item designated as 

Item 337-2. The NGSC also recommends further modifications to corresponding NIST Handbook 130 prosposals to 

align the definitions of related terms and method of sale with definitions, indicated delivery and dispenser labeling 

requirements being proposed for NIST Handbook 44. 

With regards to NIST Handbook 44, the NGSC also recommends consideration of a new Developing item 

addressing proposed changes to paragraph S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction designated as Item 360-4. This new 

proposal is consistent with the NGSC decision to encourage further work beyond the current scope of their work on 

the CVEF’s proposals to fully address all LNG applications. 

Representatives of the NGSC and the S&T and L&R Committees met in March 2014, all agreed on the course of 

action outlined above. 

Additional Contacts: Clean Energy, Seal Beach, CA, NGVAmerica, Washington, DC, Clean Vehicle Education 

Foundation, Acworth, GA. Regional Association Comments: (Fall 2013 Input on the Committee’s 2014 Interim 

Agenda Items 337-1 through 337-5). 

With regards to NIST Handbook 130 the NGSC recommends withdrawing L&R agenda Item 237-1 and the 

consolidation of agenda Items 237-2, 237-3, and 237-5 into newly revised single Voting item designated as 

Item 237-1 of this report. 

Regional Association Comments: 

2014 CWMA Interim Meeting: Comments were made that is item is a duplicate of Item 237-1 with the exception 

of the conversion factors, which need to be updated in Item 237-1. Based on this, the Committee recommends this 

item to be Withdrawn. CWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments on this item in conjunction with Item 237-2 and 

S&T Item 337-2. Main points included in the testimony included: an industry representative stated that gaining 

consensus on these proposals provides the best chance to develop a uniform national standard. Currently, there are 

legislative bills in six states supporting DGEs and similar activity in many other states including a letter of support 

with 54 signatures from Congress. An industry representative commented his membership supports the concept, but 

expressed concern over a discrepancy with equivalencies between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) definition 

(126.67 cu ft per gal) and the steering group’s proposal (123 cu ft gal). He expressed concern that the industry feels 

these differences must be reconciled, or they will be faced with confusion between the two standards. A second 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 49 

industry representative agreed. A regulator, who served on the steering group, commented that some members of 

the steering group attempted to allow for dual declarations on dispensers, using the mass standard as the primary 

value. He fears adding multiple new standards will add to the confusion. He further stated he had no objection to 

supplemental language, but traditional mass unit should be the primary unit. 

A NIST Technical Advisor commented there are currently seven different types of fuels; and asked if they should all 

have gasoline gallon equivalents. A parallel example was provided of selling paint on a square foot wall coverage 

equivalent. Would weights and measures consider it a viable method of sale? 

An industry representative commented that multiple unit pricings could cause confusion, and there were concerns 

about retrofitting old equipment to allow for multiple unit pricings. He further stated labels are the mechanism by 

which we convey mass measurement. This same industry representative commented that some say GGE should 

have never been adopted. He asked the Conference how they thought it had not worked in the marketplace. 

Another regulator stated that natural gas engines are not diesel engines. When posting price equivalence, consumers 

could be misled or confused as to the energy comparison versus the price comparison. 

A NIST representative stated a consumer should be aware of what is being measured, and the measure be accurate. 

A regulator asked the Conference to recall consideration of equity and uniformity statements in the past. He gave 

examples of previous items that were artificial declarations and were rejected by the Conference. Examples 

included “lasts the same as,” “burns longer than,” “equivalent to...etcetera.” A regulator stated in most cases, 

natural gas has been sold in fleets, so the cost per mile factor has been calculated internally. Sales are now 

increasing at public fueling locations, so when selling fuel with equivalencies, we are getting into marketing rather 

than weights and measures functions. 

CWMA L&R and S&T Committees met jointly in a working session, and concur the items have merit, but questions 

and concerns over accuracy of this final proposal still remain. Both Committees agreed to move the item forward as 

an Informational item. During the L&R Committee’s work session, discussion took place regarding the 

inconsistency in language in the method of sale in L&R Item 232-3, Section 2.27.2. compared to the method of sale 

with L&R Item 237-2, Section 3.11.2.1. Additionally, the Committee discussed the importance of including the 

same number of significant digits in the conversions specified in the DGE and DLE equivalent values. The 

Chairman of the CWMA L&R Committee will communicate these two concerns to the Chairman of the NCWM 

Natural Gas Steering Committee. 

WWMA reported that two regulatory officials voiced support for method of sale by mass and see no value in using 

equivalents. The Committee recommends this item be Withdrawn and for the submitter to incorporate the pertinent 

information into Item 237-1. WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments on this item in conjunction with S&T 

Item 337-2. There was a lot of good discussion on the item with numerous comments from both industry and 

regulatory officials. A summary of the comments are as follows: 

 GGE and GLE are already established measurements in the marketplace for CNG. 

 If the product is measured in mass, it should be sold in mass. 

 Equivalents are not an exact number. 

 Consumers have done homework before they buy. 

 There’s wide support from industry to expand GGE to other fuels. 

 CNG is taxed at the federal level based on gallon equivalent. It would be easier to tax by GGE. 

 All the reasons heard in support of selling by equivalent units sound like marketing tools. 

 NIST Handbook 130 is not a promotional tool! It is about the best way to measure. 

 Some states have already adopted GGE or DGE as a method of sale for these alternative fuels. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 50 

 Clarify method of sale Section 2.27.2.1. to be consistent with Item 237-2; measured in mass and sold by 

volume. 

Additional comments were heard during the S&T Committee Open Hearings suggesting the need to include the 

same number of significant digits in the conversions specified in the proposal for DGE and DLE values. For 

example, 6.380 and 6.060 contain four significant digits, whereas, 0.765 and 0.726 contain only three significant 

digits. A recommendation was made to the Committee that it determines whether or not the values specified are 

appropriate. 

Due to the concerns expressed during the open hearings for both L&R and S&T Committees, NEWMA voted to 

recommend to the NCWM L&R and S&T Committees the status on the agenda items be changed to Informational. 

SWMA recommended review by the FALS at the 2012 Annual Meeting and forwarded the item to NCWM, 

recommending it as an Informational item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, the S&T and L&R Committees 

met in joint session to deliberate on the comments received, with discussion that the two Committees should move 

in tandem and their efforts regarding natural gas issues should be harmonized. During the joint session, discussion 

took place on how to move forward on the natural gas items. The Committees received a handout from Mr. Brett 

Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal. The SWMA recommended the item 

be Withdrawn from the NCWM agenda as the submitter indicated it would be reintroduced as two separate items. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-3 W Section 1. Definitions - Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE): Liquefied Natural Gas 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since liquefied natural gas (LNG) is sold in the retail market place as an alternative fuel to diesel fuel, the proposed 

additions and edits to NIST Handbook 44 will provide definitions for liquefied natural gas (LNG) equivalents for 

diesel liters and gallons so that end users can readily compare cost and fuel economy. At present no LNG 

equivalents for diesel are included in the handbooks. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.XX. Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – Means 0.7263 kg of liquefied natural gas. 

1.XX. Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – Means 2.749 kg (6.06 lb) of liquefied natural gas. 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 to allow users of compressed natural gas 

vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty compressed natural gas vehicles with equivalent 

gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles in widespread use 

today, there is a need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel 

economy with diesel powered vehicles. The submitter stated that the official definition of a DLE and a DGE will 

likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and many other states to permit retail sales of LNG for heavy-
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 51 

duty vehicles in these convenient units. The mathematics justifying the specific quantity (mass) of liquefied natural 

gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix A. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee) notified the Committee 

that this item was being further reviewed by the National Gas Steering Committee. This item was subsequently 

Withdrawn and combined with Item 237-2. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA reported that based on the comments received from a majority of states, the committee does not recommend 

the proposal as written. (See comments from Item 232-1.) CWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and 

recommended it as a Developing item.

WWMA’s L&R Committee recommends this item be Withdrawn and the submitter to incorporate the pertinent 

information into Item 237-1. WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

NEWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and recommended that it be an Informational item. See comments on 

Item 232-1. 

SWMA comments were in favor of moving the definitions forward. The S&T and L&R Committees met in joint 

session to deliberate on the comments with discussion that the two items should be harmonized and move in tandem. 

During the joint session, discussion took place on how to move forward on the Natural Gas items. The Committees 

received a handout from Mr. Brett Barry (Clean Energy) summarizing the Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel DGE proposal 

that contained current conversions. The SWMA is recommending it be an Informational item. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

[SP 1171, 2013]. 

237-4 I Sections 2.1.3. Minimum Antiknock Index (AKI), Section 2.1.4. Minimum Motor 

Octane Number, and Section 3.2.5 Prohibition of Terms – Table 1. 

Source: 

General Motors (2013) 

Purpose: 

Remove obsolete Altitude De-rating of Octane practice, establish a National Octane Baseline, and harmonize Octane 

Labeling from state to state. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specification 

2.1.3. Minimum Antiknock Index (AKI). – The AKI of gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends 

shall not be less than 87. 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. 

(Amended 20XX) 

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; 

(Amended 20XX) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 52 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products 

3.2. Automotive Gasoline and Automotive Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends 

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. Minimum Antiknock Index Requirements. 

Table 1. 

Minimum Antiknock Index Requirements 

Term 

Minimum Antiknock Index 

ASTM D4814 Altitude Reduction 

Areas IV and V 

All Other ASTM D4814 Areas 

Premium, Super, Supreme, High 

Test 90 91 

Midgrade, Plus 87 89 

Regular Leaded 86 88 

Regular, Unleaded (alone) 85 87 

Economy – 86 

(Table 1. Amended 1997 and 20XX)

Background/Discussion: 

These NIST Handbook 130 octane changes will harmonize with an effort underway in the ASTM International 

(ASTM) Gasoline and Oxygenates Subcommittee to include a minimum motor octane number (MON) performance 

limit in gasoline. The naming of the various octanes is a function for weights and measures.

Nominally, vehicles manufactured after 1984 include engine computer controls maintaining optimal performance 

while using gasoline octane of 87-AKI or higher. The practice of altitude de-rating of octane, resulting in octanes 

below 87-AKI, reduces a vehicle’s efficiency and fuel economy. Increasingly, more vehicles are boosted 

(turbocharged/supercharged) eliminating altitude intake air effects. Additionally, consumers using gasoline with an 

octane AKI below 87 will void their vehicle owner’s warranty. The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Report 

No. 660, “Fuel Anti-knock Quality – Engine Response to RON (Research Octane Number) versus MON,” May 2011 

demonstrates the continued need for gasoline MON octane for the large bored, naturally aspirated U.S. engines. 

Setting an 82-MON minimum maintains the current MON level for today’s 87-AKI Regular Unleaded gasoline. A 

common U.S. octane specification between ASTM, NCWM, and Vehicle Owners Manuals will give states clear 

direction on how best to enforce proper fuel pump octane labeling and quality levels on behalf of vehicle consumers. 

Leaded gasoline is not available at retail and therefore labeling guidance is not needed. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: The FALS could not reach agreement on this item during their Sunday work 

session. The Committee received and reviewed several letters in support of this proposal. During open hearings 

Mr. Bill Studzinski (General Motors) provided a presentation. The Committee also received comments in 

opposition to the proposal citing the lack of consumer complaints with sub-octane and it was requested that the 

Committee wait until the CRC study provides data that can be used by ASTM and NCWM to determine whether or 

not a change is necessary. The Committee recommends this to be an Informational item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair provided a presentation and stated that the CRC study has 

been expanded and finalized data is expected by year end. It was also noted the ASTM ballot failed. The 

Committee concurs to await a recommendation from FALS once they have considered all the data. Additional 

letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 53 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Studzinski provided an update that the CRC study is almost finalized and then a 

ballot will be prepared for ASTM. Mr. Studzinski will have additional information for the 2015 NCWM Interim. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: Mr. Curran, FALS Chair, remarked FALS is recommending this as an Informational 

item until the CRC study results are available. Mr. Studzinski provided a briefing of the work being done and a full 

report should be issued in the fall of 2014. 

Regional Association Comments: 

2013 CWMA’s L&R Committee recommended this remain Informational pending receipt of additional data from 

the CRC study. At past meetings, the region has recommended this item be Voting in one instance, but more 

recently, have recommended it be Informational pending the outcome of the June 2013 ASTM ballot, which is 

related to octane. A regulatory official requested it be made clear that this would only apply to retail fuel sales. At 

the 2014 CWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative commented that General Motors is conducting a study 

under the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) umbrella at altitude and sea levels analyzing fuel economy and 

emissions. The item should be balloted by ASTM in September and will be voted on at the December ASTM 

meeting. Additional information will be provided at the 2015 NCWM Interim meeting. The CWMA L&R 

Committee believes the item should remain Informational until the CRC results are finalized.

WWMA received comment from the FALS Chairman that the work group is addressing this issue and awaiting 

results from the CRC study in conjunction with ASTM, which is expected to be released in December 2013. FALS 

and one regulatory official support this item pending validation from the CRC study. One regulatory official 

strongly opposed this item due to significant potential negative economic impacts in his and other Rocky Mountain 

States. He suggested a ten year phase in period. WWMA recommended that this item be an Informational item. 

In NEWMA 2012 received a presentation from Mr. Bill Studzinski (GM) summarizing the position of all the 

regions. NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item. At NEWMA’s 2013 Annual 

Meeting, they recommended the item remain Informational until FALS makes a recommendation to the Committee. 

At the 2013 NEWMA Interim Meeting, NEWMA members indicated that they would like to see the results of the 

CCR study and a FALS recommendation. NEWMA recommended that the item be an Informational item. At the 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, they are awaiting results from the CRC study and recommended this be an 

Informational item. 

SWMA reported in 2012 that Mr. Studzinski (GM, Chair of a FALS Task Group, and ASTM) provided a 

presentation in support of this item at the 2012 SWMA Annual Meeting. The SWMA Committee acknowledged 

strong support from their Association. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a Voting item. 

At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, the Association supported this item remaining on the agenda as an 

Informational item pending a recommendation from FALS. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

[SP 1171, 2013].

237-5 W Section 3.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Section 3.12. Liquefied Natural 

Gas (LNG) 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since natural gas is sold in the retail market place as compressed natural gas (CNG) to be an alternative fuel to 

gasoline and diesel fuel and as liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be an alternative fuel to diesel, the proposed additions 

and edits to NIST Handbook 130 will provide definitions for natural gas equivalents for diesel liters and diesel 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 54 

gallons so that end users can readily compare cost and fuel economy. At present, only CNG equivalents for gasoline 

are included in the handbooks. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

3.11. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 

3.11.2.1. Method of retail Sale. – All CNG kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold at retail as a vehicle 

fuel shall be either in terms of: the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline gallon equivalent 

(GGE). 

(a) Mass (in pounds or kilograms), or 

(b) The gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE); or 

(c) The diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). 

3.11.2.2. Retail Dispenser Labeling. 

3.11.2.2.1. Identification of Product. – Each retail dispenser of CNG shall be labeled as 

“Compressed Natural Gas.” 

3.11.2.2.2. Conversion Factor. – All retail CNG 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. 

(a) either the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of Compressed 

Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 5.660 lb of Compressed 

Natural Gas” consistent with the method of sale used; or 

(b) either the statement “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is equal to 0.765 kg of 

Compressed Natural Gas” or “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 6.38 lb of 

Compressed 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 (3000 psig) or 24 821 kPa (3600 psig). The dispenser shall be labeled

16 574 kPa, 20 684 kPa (3000 psig) or 240821 kPa (3600 psig) corresponding to the pressure of the 

CNG dispensed by each fueling hose. 

3.11.2.2.4. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 52.) 

3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). 

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 LNG 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. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 55 

3.12.X.X. Method of Retail Sale. – All LNG kept, offered, or exposed for sale or sold at retail as 

a vehicle fuel shall be in terms of: 

(a) mass (in pounds or kilograms); or 

(b) the diesel liter equivalent (DLE) or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). 

(Added 20XX) 

3.12.2.3. NFPA Labeling. – NFPA Labeling requirements also apply. (Refer to NFPA 57 52) 

(Amended 20XX)

3.12.2.4. Conversion Factor. – All retail LNG 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: 

(a) either the statement “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is equal to 0.7263 kg of Liquefied 

Natural Gas”; or 

(b) “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 6.06 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas” 

consistent with the method of sale used. 

(Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 (refer to Appendix A) to allow users of 

compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles 

with equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use 

today, there is a need to officially define a unit for both CNG and LNG (already in widespread use) allowing a 

comparison of cost and fuel economy with diesel powered vehicles. Natural gas is sold as a vehicle fuel as either 

CNG or LNG and each method of sale is measured in mass. The submitter stated that the official definition of a 

DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and many other states to permit retail 

sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. The mathematics justifying the specific quantity 

(mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in the Appendix A. 

CNG is no longer dispensed at 16 574 kPa (2400 psig) in the United States so the requirement is no longer valid. 

NFPA 57 was incorporate into NFPA 52 in 2006 and is no longer a stand alone document. 

At the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Albuquerque (Chair, National Gas Steering Committee) notified the 

Committee was developing this item and would provide a recommendation to the Committee. This item was 

subsequently withdrawn and combined with Item 237-2. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA commented to stay consistent with the previous proposals for CNG and LNG; they are recommending this 

as a Developmental item. (See comments from Item 232-1.) CWMA forwarded this item to NCWM, 

recommending it as a Developing item. 

WWMA heard concern from a regulatory official that the item would allow for multiple methods of sale in the 

marketplace which would be problematic. Another regulatory official agreed and added it would frustrate value 

comparison. The Committee awaits further information from the Natural Gas Steering Committee. WWMA 

forwarded this item to NCWM, recommending that it be an Informational item. 

NEWMA forwarded this item to NCWM, recommending that it be an Informational item. See Item 232-1 for 

comments. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 56 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item with the preferred method of sale for 

natural gas being by mass, allowing for supplemental labeling of conversion factors to convert mass to volume 

equivalents, and that the conversion factors be verified and clarified. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-6 V Section 3.13. Oil, 3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil Required 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Automotive Oil Change Association (2013) 

Purpose: 

Prevent consumer confusion and government-sponsored product bias regarding legitimate, manufacturer 

recommended products, and to prevent installers and retailers from being held responsible for labeling requirements 

with respect to packaged goods. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

3.13. Oil. 

3.13.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil Required. 

3.13.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or 

storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk 

vehicle motor oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the viscosity grade 

classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with the SAE International’s latest version of 

SAE J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.” 

(Amended 2012 and 2014) 

3.13.1.2. Intended Use. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container shall contain a 

statement of its intended use in accordance with the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil 

Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).” 

(Amended 2012) 

3.13.1.3.2. Brand. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container and the invoice or receipt 

from service on an engine that includes the installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall contain the name, brand, trademark, or trade name of the vehicle 

engine (motor) oil. 

(Added 2012) 

3.13.1.4.3. Engine Service Category. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, 

receptacle, dispenser or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the 

installation of bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall 

contain the engine service category, or categories, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height, as 

defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification 

(Other than “Energy Conserving”),” or API Publication 1509, “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification 

System,” or European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) European Oil Sequences or 

Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard as provided in Section 3.33.1.3.1. 

(Amended 2012 and 2014) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 57 

3.33.1.3.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard. – The label on any vehicle engine 

(motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from 

service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a 

receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank shall identify the specific vehicle or engine manufacturer 

standard, or standards, met in letters not less than 3.18 mm (1/8 in) in height. If the vehicle 

(motor) oil only meets a vehicle or engine manufacturer standard, the label must clearly identify 

that the oil is only intended for use where specifically recommended by the vehicle or engine 

manufacturer. 

(Added 2014) 

3.13.1.4.12.3.2. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) 

oil container, receptacle, dispenser, or storage tank and the invoice or receipt from service on an engine 

that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) engine oil dispensed from a receptacle, 

dispenser, or storage tank shall bear a plainly visible cautionary statement in compliance with the latest 

version of SAE J183, Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy 

Conserving”)” Appendix A, whenever the vehicle engine (motor) oil in the container or in bulk does 

not meet an active API service category as defined by the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine Oil 

Performance and Engine Service Classification (Other than “Energy Conserving”).” If a vehicle 

engine (motor) oil is identified as only meeting a vehicle or engine manufacturer standard, the 

labeling requirements in Section 3.13.1.3.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard apply. 

(Added 2012) (Amended 2014) 

3.13.1.5.4. Tank Trucks or Rail Cars. – Tank trucks, rail cars, and types of delivery trucks that are used 

to deliver bulk vehicle engine (motor) oil are not required to display the SAE viscosity grade and service 

category or categories as long as the bill of lading other documentation provides that information. 

(Added 2012) (Amended 2014) 

3.13.1.65. Documentation. – When the engine (motor) oil is sold in bulk, an invoice, bill of lading, 

shipping paper, or other documentation must accompany each delivery. This document must identify the 

quantity of bulk engine (motor) oil delivered as defined in Sections 3.13.1.1. Viscosity; 3.13.1.2. Intended 

Use; 3.13.1.32. Brand; 3.13.1.43. Engine Service Category; the name and address of the seller and buyer; 

and the date and time of the sale. For inactive or obsolete service categories, the documentation shall also 

bear a plainly visible cautionary statement as required in Section 3.13.1.43.12. Inactive or Obsolete Service 

Categories. Documentation must be retained at the retail establishment for a period of not less than one 

year. 

(Added 2013) (Amended 2014)

(Amended 2012 and 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The vast majority of engine oil used at professional fast lube facilities is the most current category of American 

Petroleum Institute (API) licensed oil. However, older, specialty, and some non-American vehicles take engine oil 

not listed as active under API’s private regulatory scheme; some are former API licensed oils now considered 

“obsolete” or “inactive” and some are simply licensed by another organization like European Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (ACEA.) However, if the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) recommend those 

engine oils for their vehicles, consumers have a right to use them regardless of API’s blessing, and installers and 

retailers should be able to sell them without obstruction. (See Appendix C of the Report of the 98th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures [SP 1171, 2013].) 

The Automotive Oil Change Association (AOCA) amendment is necessary because a cautionary statement 

appearing on service receipts without explanation will inappropriately mislead consumers with older and uncommon 

model vehicles into believing they should not use OEM-recommended engine oil. The average fast lube customer 

does not recognize API or SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) to mean anything in particular but “CAUTION” 

and “OBSOLETE” in big capital letters could only be understood as negative. Scaring consumers in this way will 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 58 

not only push them to buy more expensive engine oil they do not need, but also engender distrust in their installer 

service providers for recommending and/or using OEM recommended engine oil. 

The average age of cars in the current fleet is nearly 11-years old and it is not unusual for fast lubes to have 

customers with vehicles twice that age; for example, there are millions of opportunities for consumers to be misled 

into rejecting proper engine oil. The fact is American consumers are hanging onto their vehicles longer than API is 

hanging onto its service categories. When API designates a motor oil category as inactive, this does not mean 

consumers with vehicles designed to use that category turn in their cars or otherwise want to buy a more expensive 

grade of motor oil going forward. Therefore, a category of motor oil designed to work for particular makes and 

models of vehicles should not be burdened with the chilling effect of a cautionary statement absent a specific 

clarification acknowledging the preeminence of the OEM’s recommendations. 

The new standard phase-in factor must be considered as well. When API publishes a new edition of 1509, Engine 

Oil Licensing and Certification Systems, and/or creates a new service category, a reasonable phase-in period for bulk 

oil stock is necessary to accommodate older vehicle owners’ needs; for example, it may be in those customers’ best 

interests, both functionally and economically, to use motor oil developed in accordance with an earlier edition or 

service category so long as the automobile manufacturer originally recommended it and its continued use has no 

impact on any remaining warranty coverage. Although it is common for API to retain a couple of the most recent 

service categories as “active,” API could choose to make all but the most recent service category “obsolete.” For 

fast lube operators to automatically upgrade bulk oil stock at API-determined intervals would be tantamount to 

giving API control over the price of oil change services regardless of what the market can bear. 

This amendment also addresses packaged engine oil products already on the shelf or in the distribution chain when 

API makes a unilateral decision to deactivate an engine oil category. As a practical matter, tens of thousands of 

retailers and installers cannot re-mark millions of packages to coincide with API’s timing or take the financial hit for 

sending it all back in violation of purchase agreements. This amendment resolves this problem so that the 

requirement for proper labeling, of packaged containers, of engine oil rest with the party in control of the packagingthe manufacturers. 

Without the amendment, the labeling requirement will be very difficult to enforce given the inventory of packaged 

goods remaining after an active engine oil category has been declared inactive or obsolete. 

It was noted that fast lubes would experience catastrophic business loss if customers with older and uncommon 

model vehicles were alienated. Maintenance costs for consumers with older model cars could easily double if they 

are confused into believing they need the latest category of engine oil. 

AOCA contends that the proposed amendment will accomplish three important goals: 1) prevent unintended 

consumer confusion and product stigma from using a cautionary statement by reestablishing the connection to OEM 

recommendations; 2) provide the necessary exemption to protect retailers and installers for selling lawful packaged 

inventory; and 3) which leads to an increase in practical enforcement prospects. 

The most analogous regulatory situation to the one at issue in AOCA’s proposed amendment is found in the Federal 

Trade Commission’s (FTC) Test Procedures and Labeling Standards for Recycled Oil (16 CFR 31, 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title16-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title16-vol1-part312.pdf). In the rulemaking 

process, FTC specifically rejected requiring recycled engine oil to be labeled “recycled” because of the stigma 

associated with the term at that time (see 72 FR 14410 – 14413 & FN11 (1 H.R. Rep. No. 96–1415, 

96th Cong. 2d Sess. 6 (1980), reproduced at 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 4354, 4356. ‘‘Oil should be labeled 

on the basis of performance characteristics and fitness for its intended use, and not on the basis of the origin of the 

oil.’’). The National Automobile Dealers Association also commented in favor of this approach: “NADA further 

stated that by not requiring that ‘‘substantially equivalent’’ recycled oils be labeled ‘‘recycled’’ or ‘‘re-refined,’’ 

used oil processors are able to market their products effectively.” (72 FR at 14411) No “recycled” or other 

potentially derogatory designation is required so long as the finished product meets the appropriate API standard. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: A state opposed this item and would like to see it Withdrawn. The FALS Chairman 

remarked that there are several engine oils designed for specific model vehicles and the FALS is working to resolve 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 59 

this issue. A Committee member remarked that a statement of accountability should be included in the language. 

The Committee would like to see additional language developed by FALS and made this an Informational item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: The FALS submitted modified language for Sections 3.13.1.4. Engine Service 

Category, 3.13.1.4.1. Vehicle or Engine Manufacturer Standard and 3.33.1.4.12. Inactive or Obsolete Service 

Categories. The Committee would like to have regional input on this modified language to review at the 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The FALS and API provided the Committee with modified language. This 

modified language removes Section 3.13.1.2. Intended Use. Section 3.13.1.1. was modified to allow for 

abbreviations on tickets. One member questioned the labeling for underground storage containers and their 

legibility. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: The Committee heard support for this item and agreed to modify the language in its 

Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA: Refer to comments in Item 232-3. CWMA recommended that this item be a Developing item. At the 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting, it was noted that this item has companion Items 232-4 and 237-11. An industry 

representative commented that he supported all items with an additional change to Item 237-11 (see Item 237-11). 

The Committee believes the item has been fully developed and is ready for Voting. 

The WWMA heard from an American Petroleum Institute (API) representative that they supported the proposed 

changes to NIST Handbook 130 which are necessary for the following reasons: 1) adding the reference to ACEA 

will expand the current regulation to cover engine oil performance specifications recommended by many European 

vehicle and engine manufacturers; and 2) allowing engine oil labels, invoices and receipts to list a performance 

specification set by a particular vehicle or engine manufacturer will address unique situations where an oil cannot 

claim any performance level maintained by API or ACEA. The FALS Chairman reported that it is currently 

considering these changes, but have not reached consensus, and they are seeking a resolution by 2014 NCWM 

Interim. The Committee supports ongoing work by FALS, pending agreement with stakeholders. WWMA 

recommended that this item be an Informational item. 

NEWMA received comment in 2012 from API it opposes the item and that specifics have been submitted in writing. 

API suggested this proposal and Item 237-4 be Withdrawn. General Motors indicated the proposal appears to allow 

older formulations of engine oil, but newer formulations give better performance, even in older vehicles. GM 

prefers current formulation of engine oil. NEWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. At the 2013 NEWMA 

Annual Meeting, Mr. Kevin Ferrick (API) indicated they submitted comments to their opposition of this item and 

requested this item be Withdrawn. NEWMA would like to see additional information from the FALS. In 2013, Mr. 

Ferrick commented to NEWMA that final language review should be made through FALS. No other comments 

were heard and NEWMA recommended this be an Information item. At the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, with 

no other comments, the clarified language was recommended to be forwarded as a Voting item. 

SWMA reported in 2012 that an API representative voiced opposition to the item and provided written testimony in 

dispute of the comments and claims made by the submitter: The SWMA Committee believed there was lack of 

support for the item and that the oil change industry has a poor understanding of the API standards. SWMA did not 

forward the item to NCWM. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, the association supported the carryover item 

being a Developing item on the NCWM agenda to allow FALS an opportunity to work on Section 3.33.1.4. in the 

proposal (which should be Section 3.13.1.4.) and to give consideration to adding the ACEA standards to the 

proposal. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 60 

237-7 V Section 3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Archer Daniels Midland Company (2014) 

Purpose: 

Update the information for documentation for dispenser labeling purposes in the method of sale section of the 

Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants regulations of NIST Handbook 130. This update will recognize 

the EPA regulations for product transfer documents for gasoline and gasoline/oxygenate blends. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

3.2.7. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the time of 

delivery of the fuel, on product transfer documents such as an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or 

other documentation:, a declaration of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present 

in concentrations sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. Where 

mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the predominant oxygenate in 

the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen) or alternatively, use the phrase 

“contains MTBE or other ethers.” In addition, any gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent 

oxygen from methanol shall be identified as “with” or “containing” methanol. This documentation is 

only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the total 

oxygen content of the engine fuel before blending. 

(Amended 1996 and 2014) 

(a) Information that complies with 40 CFR § 80.1503 when the fuel contains ethanol. 

(b) For fuels that do not contain ethanol, information that complies with 40 CFR § 80.1503 and a 

declaration of the predominant oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in 

concentrations sufficient to yield an oxygen content of at least 1.5 mass percent in the fuel. 

Where mixtures of only ethers are present, the fuel supplier may identify either the predominant 

oxygenate in the fuel (i.e., the oxygenate contributing the largest mass percent oxygen) or 

alternatively, use the phrase “contains MTBE or other ethers.” 

(c) Gasoline containing more than 0.15 mass percent oxygen from methanol shall be identified as 

“with” or “containing” methanol. 

(Added 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The proposal incorporates existing EPA regulations. NCWM 2014 Interim: Mr. Meeting Chuck Corr, submitter of 

this item, informed the Committee this new language now aligns with current EPA regulations. The Committee 

moved this item forward as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee was informed by Mr. Matthew Curran, FALS Chair that if this item 

was adopted there needs to be a method of sale added with like language. Mr. Corr concurred with this modification 

for the method of sale and spoke in support of this item. The Committee agreed to modify the language in its 

Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item Under Consideration and added Item 232-8, under the 

Method of Sale. 

Regional Association Comments: 

NEWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee recommended this as a Voting item in order to harmonize with 

EPA regulations. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 61 

CWMA’s L&R Committee supports this item as it provides recognition of federal requirements for product transfer 

documents. CWMA forwarded it to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. CWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: 

The submitter of this item stated that there should have been a companion item under Method of Sale of 

Commodities. The CWMA L&R Committee agrees that the item should include in the Method of Sale under 

Section 2.20.2. and is ready for Voting status. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-8 V Section 4.3. Dispenser Filters 

(This item returned to Committee.) 

Source: 

Missouri Department of Agriculture (2012) 

Purpose: 

Recognize the need for 10-micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filters for today’s diesel engines. 

Item Under Consideration: 

4.3. Dispenser Filters. 

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers. 

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, E85 fuel ethanol and M85 methanol 

dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. 

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 10 micron or 

smaller nominal pore-sized filter except for dispensers with flow rates greater than 15 gallons 

per minute which shall have a 30 micron or smaller nominal pore size filter.

Background/Discussion: 

Abnormal dispenser filter plugging at retail will alert the retailer of potential storage tank problems. Requiring 

10-micron filters for all products will reduce the inventory and the potential of installing the wrong filter for all 

products at the same site. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair, informed the Committee that FALS recommended that this 

item be Informational because of industry concerns that 10-micron filters would be too restrictive of flow in highflow systems. One industry representative expressed opposition for the use of 10-micron filters and recommends 

this item to be Withdrawn. A representative of an automobile manufacturer claimed diesel passenger vehicles do 

not have the sophisticated filtration systems commonly found on commercial duty vehicles and 10-micron filters on 

dispensers are needed for protection from particulate contamination. As proposed, this item could cause clogging of 

diesel dispenser filters in colder climates. The Committee believes this item has merit but lacks a consensus and 

also believes that FALS needs to address these concerns. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as an 

Informational item and assigned it to FALS for further development. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: It was apparent to the Committee that that there are many unresolved issues related 

to passenger vehicles. The Committee encourages the FALS to continue developing this item. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: Several stakeholders spoke in opposition on this item. Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair 

remarked that the FALS worked on this item in 2007 and believes FALS needs to continue to work on this item. 

The NCWM L&R Committee agreed that this item is not ready and supports the continued development by FALS. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 62 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Mr. Hayes (Missouri), FALS Chairperson, remarked that a similar item was bought 

before the Committee in 2007. FALS did not have enough time in their work session to work on this item. There 

are several stakeholders and states that are having issues with the terminology and would like it removed from the 

agenda. Mr. Hayes remarked that they supported this item because contamination is an issue with cars that do not 

have filtering systems. The Committee reviewed comments from the Regional Associations however; FALS did not 

have sufficient time review and consider recommendation to the Committee. The Committee would like for FALS 

to continue to work on this item and is proposing this as an Informational item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Mr. Hayes, FALS Chair requested that the Committee allow them to continue to 

work on a recommendation for this item. There was opposition on moving this item forward. In less than two years 

since this proposal came forward, there has been no data developed. The Committee reviewed the Regional 

Association reports, open hearing comments, and letters received and changed the status of this item to Developing. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Hayes who submitted the proposal offered modified language and supporting 

data to support the flow rate on 10-micron diesel filters. There was considerable discussion in regards to the fill 

time reduction, burdensome cost for station owners, and equipment and filter maintenance. It was noted that there is 

work being done within ASTM but, at this time, that information cannot be shared. The Committee reviewed the 

Item under Consideration within NCWM Interim Publication 15 (2014). The Committee moved forward the 

modified language provided by Mr. Hayes for consideration as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee reviewed several letters and additional data submitted by the 

Petroleum Marketers Association of American (PMAA). The FALS recommended this item move forward for a 

Vote. During the Open Hearings, there were mixed concerns in regard to this this item. Numerous concerns were 

expressed concerning the data from PMAA. Several comments were heard that ASTM should be allowed to 

develop a standard. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA’s L&R Committee heard no opposing comments and believes the proposal protects consumer vehicles and 

alerts retailers of potential product quality problems. Comments from previous meetings included a remark from an 

official indicating a smaller porosity filter may be acceptable, but for now this is a reasonable start. General Motors 

(GM) supported this item for passenger vehicles, as these vehicles now have 4-micron filters. Several industry 

representatives did not support this item during a past meeting because they believe this is a dispenser protection 

issue rather than a consumer protection issue. A state regulator remarked that it is a fuel quality issue, which 

impacts consumers’ vehicles and fuel systems. Officials clarified that the proposal should only apply to passenger 

type vehicles, and it would specifically exempt high-flow rate meters such as truck stop meters. CWMA supported 

the following proposal and recommended it as a Voting item. 

4.3. Dispenser Filters. 

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers. 

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, E85 fuel ethanol and M85 methanol 

dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. 

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 10 micron or smaller 

nominal pore-sized filter except for dispensers with flow rates greater than 15 gallons per 

minute which shall have a 30 micron or smaller nominal pore size filter.

CWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: A regulator commented this item has been vetted through the regions several times. 

There is additional data on the NCWM website that was shared with FALS. It was stressed that this item is for retail 

motor fuel dispensers for passenger vehicles not high-flow meters. The regulator also mentioned the work done by 

his staff during cold weather to test whether or not flow rates through 10-micron filters were more diminished than 

fuel flowing through 30-micron filters during sub-zero weather. The regulator stated FALS supports this item. A 

second regulator commented that he was seeking clarification on whether determination of the flow rate would be 

made with a marked flow rate or flow rate at the dispenser. Other regulators stated the intent was to have 10 micron 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 63 

filters on passenger vehicle dispensers and light trucks only. This proposal best accomplishes that end. An industry 

representative asked about the cost between the 10-micron filters and 30-micron filters. A regulator responded costs 

were the same. The CWMA L&R Committee believes the item has been fully developed and is ready for Voting. 

WWMA heard from one regulatory official recommending Withdrawal of the item because it is unnecessary. There 

is concern with the potential negative impact on the speed of fuel delivery. The submitting regulatory official 

supports the item with the language for Section 4.3.1.(b) as presented above in the CWMA Interim Report. WWMA 

recommends this item as a Voting item. 

NEWMA reported in 2011 that questions were raised as to whether or not “measurement” of filter content was 

within the ability of weights and measures officials. It was noted that better filters may enhance fuel quality. The 

Committee believes the proposal has potential given input from industry and stakeholders. NEWMA forwarded the 

item to NCWM recommending it as a Developing item. 

NEWMA 2012 Interim Meeting: The Committee reviewed the CWMA report. NEWMA recommended it to be an 

Informational item and requested it be reviewed by FALS. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim and Annual Meetings: At both meetings, it was recommended that that the item be 

Withdrawn. Attendees commented that this item is not a weights and measures issue, but a manufacturer’s issue. 

NEWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee recommended this item be forwarded as a Voting item. 

Attendees commented that this item is not a weights and measures issue, but rather a manufacturer’s issue. At the 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, they recommend this be a Voting item. 

SWMA reported in 2011 that an industry representative stated that standard retailer dispensers use a 10-micron 

filter, and high capacity dispensers use 30-micron filters (i.e., diesel dispensed at truck stops). The company’s 

engineers have determined that reducing a 30-micron filter to a 10-micron filter will drastically reduce flow rate to 

trucks. Another industry representative agreed and re-iterated that truck stops would see a tremendous reduction in 

flow. The Committee believed this proposal was not practical and would have a negative impact and undue burden 

on the trucking industry. SWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: An industry representative commented that the current technology to put a 

10-micron filter on diesel at a truck stop will prohibit fuel from being dispensed in a timely manner and, therefore, 

opposes this. The Committee recommends the use of 10-micron filters be limited to passenger vehicle meters and 

specifically exempt high-flow rate meters. SWMA recommended the item be a Voting item but with the changes as 

described by the Committee. 

SWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: The SWMA supported moving this item forward as a Voting item on the NCWM 

agenda modifying the requirements to read; 10 micron filters on devices delivering 15 gpm or less and 30-micron 

filters for greater than 15 gpm. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 64 

237-9 V Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications, and Section 3. 

Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Items 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee Task Group (2012) 

Purpose: 

Update regulations related to flex fuels. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend the Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.13. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – “Ethanol” as defined in Section 1.20. Ethanol. An ethanol blend 

component for use in gasoline-ethanol blends and ethanol flex fuel. The ethanol is rendered unfit for 

beverage use by the addition of denaturants under formulas approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB), www.ttb.gov. ASTM D4806, “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel 

Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel” describes the 

acceptable denaturants for denatured fuel ethanol to be blended into spark ignition engine fuels. 

(Amended 2014) 

1.21. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. – A blend Blends of ethanol and hydrocarbons restricted for use as fuel 

in ground vehicles equipped with flexible-fuel spark-ignition engines. of which the ethanol portion is 

(nominally 75 to 85 volume percent denatured fuel ethanol). 

(Amended 2014) 

1.20. Ethanol. – Also known as “Denatured Fuel Ethanol,” means nominally anhydrous ethyl alcohol 

meeting ASTM D4806 standards. It is intended to be blended with gasoline for use as a fuel in a sparkignition internal combustion engine. The denatured fuel ethanol is first made unfit for drinking by the 

addition of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), www.ttb.gov, approved substances 

before blending with gasoline. “ethyl alcohol.” Ethanol is provided in gasoline-ethanol blends by 

blending denatured fuel ethanol. See Section 1.13. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. 

(Amended 20XX) 

1.53. Wholesale Purchaser Consumer. – Any person who is an ultimate gasoline consumer of gasoline, fuel 

methanol, ethanol flex fuel, fuel ethanol, diesel fuel, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, fuel oil, kerosene, aviation 

turbine fuels, natural gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied petroleum gas and who purchases or obtains the 

product from a supplier and receives delivery of that product into a storage tank. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1999 and 2014) 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications 

2.7. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – Intended for blending with gasoline shall meet the latest version of ASTM 

D4806, “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.” 

2.10. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. – shall meet the latest version of the following ASTM D5798, 

“Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Fuel Ethanol (Ed75-Ed85) for 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.” Ethanol flex fuel is covered by one of two ASTM standards based

on the ethanol concentration of the blend: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 65 

(a) Ethanol flex fuel containing 51 to 83 volume percent ethanol shall meet the latest version of 

ASTM D5798, “Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible Fuel Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engines”; and 

(b) Ethanol flex fuel containing 16 to 50 volume percent ethanol shall be blended, stored and 

conveyed for consumption in accordance with the latest version of ASTM D7794, “Standard 

Practice for Blending Mid-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible Fuel Vehicles with Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engines.” 

(Added 1997) (Amended 2014) 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products

3.8. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. 

3.8.1. How to Identify E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel. –Fuel Ethanol flex fuel shall be identified as 

Ethanol Flex Fuel or EXX Flex Fuel E85.

3.8.2. Labeling Requirements. 

(a) Ethanol flex fuel with an ethanol concentration no less than 51 and no greater than 

83 volume percent shall be labeled “Ethanol Flex Fuel, minimum 51 % ethanol.”. Fuel 

ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

(b) Ethanol flex fuel with an ethanol concentration less than or equal to 50 volume percent shall 

be labeled “EXX Flex Fuel, minimum YY % ethanol”, where the XX is the ethanol 

concentration in volume percent and YY is XX minus 5. The actual ethanol concentration of 

the blend shall be XX volume percent plus or minus 5 volume percent. 

(c)(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posed on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front 

panel in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). A label 

shall be posted which states, “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations,”

“CHECK OWNER’S MANUAL,”, and shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 0.8 mm 

(1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the background color 

to which it is applied.

(Amended 2007, 2008, and 2014)

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks and Dispenser Filters 

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel, Aviation 

Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. – No water phase greater than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) as determined by an 

appropriate detection paste or other acceptable means, is allowed to accumulate in any tank utilized in the 

storage of gasoline-alcohol blend, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, E85 Fuel ethanol flex fuel blends, aviation 

gasoline, and aviation turbine fuel. 

(Amended 2014)

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. – Water shall not exceed 25 mm (1 in) in 

depth when measured with water indicating paste or other acceptable means in any tank utilized in the storage 

of diesel, gasoline, gasoline-ether blends, and kerosene sold at retail except as required in Section 4.1. Water in 

Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel, Aviation Gasoline, 

and Aviation Turbine Fuel. 

(Amended 2008, and 2012, and 2014) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 66 

4.3. Dispenser Filters. 

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers. 

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, E85 fuel ethanol flex fuel and M85 

methanol dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. 

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 micron or smaller 

nominal pore-sized filter. 

(Added 2008) (Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The current wording in NIST Handbook 130 related to fuels restricted to use in flex fuel vehicles should be 

reviewed. Input gathered from the regional meetings and other stakeholders will be utilized by FALS to develop 

recommended modifications to NIST Handbook 130. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: The Committee received an update from Mr. Corr, (Chair of the Task Group [TG] 

under the FALS), will lead an effort to get regional input on a transition and implementation date. The 2012 L&R 

Committee designated this item as an Informational item. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Corr, Chair of the TG under the FALS, reported on behalf of FALS TG that 

approximately 18 areas of NIST Handbook 130 have been identified where modifications may be needed. A 

stakeholder voiced full support of the TG efforts. Mr. Corr’s group will report again at the 2013 NCWM Interim 

Meeting. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Mr. Corr provided an update of the language changes recommended for addressing 

the full range of fuels restricted to flex fuel vehicles in NIST Handbook 130. He remarked that no feedback has 

been provided to him from stakeholders and states concerning the language changes. Mr. Corr also stated FALS has 

also not reviewed and discussed the proposed changes. The Committee recommended this as an Informational item 

so interested parties can provide comments. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Mr. Corr provided initial language changes for the Uniform Regulation for the 

Method of Sale, Section 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends, and this language was placed under the Method 

of Sale of Commodities section and appears as Item 232-6. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Corr submitted modified language that aligns also with Item 232-6 within the 

report. The Committee recommends this as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard from Mr. Matthew Curran, FALS Chair, who is in contact 

with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in regards to the FTC proposed ruling on this issue. Currently FTC is 

awaiting the outcome of the 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting results before proceeding (refer to Appendix C) with 

their proposal. The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final 

Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA reported FALS recommended the alternate proposal below be a Voting item. The Committee agreed. 

During past regional meetings, Mr. Corr gave a presentation on “Flex Fuel Task Force Update.” This presentation 

noted that ASTM D7794-12 and D5798-11 cover the standard for a full range of ethanol concentrations. Several 

commented that the 51 % to 83 % range is too broad. A regulatory official was concerned with blends at the pumps 

they can choose a blend and percentage. A stakeholder remarked that consumers are concerned with price and miles 

per gallon (MPG) and may not have enough knowledge in regards to blends. Another stakeholder remarked that 

ASTM 5798 is at the terminal and the Conference needs to address this issue. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 67 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.13. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – “Ethanol” as defined in Section 1.20. Ethanol. An ethanol blend

component for use in gasoline-ethanol blends and Ethanol Flex Fuel blends. The ethanol is rendered 

unfit for beverage use by the addition of denaturants under formulas approved by the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), www.ttb.gov. ASTM D4806, “Standard Specification for 

Denatured Fuel Ethanol for blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel” 

which describes the acceptable denaturants for denatured fuel ethanol to be blended into spark-ignition 

engine fuels.

1.17. Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol. – A blend Blends of ethanol and hydrocarbons restricted 

for use as fuel in ground vehicles equipped with flexible-fuel spark-ignition engines. of which the ethanol 

portion is (nominally 75 to 85 volume percent denatured fuel ethanol). 

1.20. Ethanol. – Also known as “ethyl alcohol”. Ethanol is provided in gasoline-ethanol blends and 

Ethanol Flex Fuel blends by blending denatured fuel ethanol. See “Denatured Fuel Ethanol” in Section 

1.13. “Denatured Fuel Ethanol,” means nominally anhydrous ethyl alcohol meeting ASTM D4806 

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 the 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), www.ttb.gov, approved substances before blending 

with gasoline. 

1.53. Wholesale Purchaser Consumer. – Any person who is an ultimate gasoline consumer of gasoline, fuel 

methanol, Ethanol Flex Fuel blends, fuel ethanol, diesel fuel, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, fuel oil, kerosene, 

aviation turbine fuels, natural gas, compressed natural gas, or liquefied petroleum gas and who purchases or 

obtains the product from a supplier and receives delivery of that product into a storage tank. 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications 

2.7. Denatured Fuel Ethanol. – Intended for blending with gasoline shall meet the most recent version of 

ASTM D4806, “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.” 

2.10. Ethanol Flex Fuel E85 Fuel Ethanol. – Shall meet the most recent version of the following ASTM 

D5798, “Standard Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed75-Ed85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.” 

Ethanol Flex Fuel blends are is covered by one of two ASTM standards based on the ethanol 

concentration of the blend: 

(a) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends containing 51 to 83 volume percent ethanol shall meet the latest 

version of ASTM D5798, “Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines”; and 

(b) Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends containing 16 to 50 volume percent ethanol shall be blended, stored 

and conveyed for consumption in accordance with the latest version of ASTM D7794, 

“Standard Practice for Blending Mid-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Vehicles 

with Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.” 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products 

3.8. Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol. 

3.8.1. How to Identify Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol. – Ethanol Flex Fuel blends Fuel 

ethanol shall be identified as Ethanol Flex Fuel or EXX Flex Fuel E85. 

3.8.2. Labeling Requirements. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 68 

(a) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends with an ethanol concentration no less than 51 and no greater than 

83 volume percent shall be labeled “Ethanol Flex Fuel, minimum 51 % ethanol”. Fuel 

ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance with 16 CFR Part 306. 

(b) Ethanol Flex Fuel blends with an ethanol concentration less than or equal to 50 volume 

percent shall be labeled “EXX Flex Fuel, minimum YY % ethanol”, where the XX is the 

target ethanol concentration in volume percent and YY is XX minus 5. The actual ethanol 

concentration of the blend shall be XX volume percent plus or minus 5 volume percent. 

(c)(b) A label shall be posted which states “For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Only.” This 

information shall be clearly and conspicuously posed on the upper 50 % of the dispenser front 

panel in a type at least 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1

/16 in) stroke (width of type). A label 

shall be posted which states, “CHECK OWNER’S MANUAL”, “Consult Vehicle 

Manufacturer Fuel Recommendations,” and shall not be less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) in height by 

0.8 mm (1/32 in) stroke; block style letters and the color shall be in definite contrast to the 

background color to which it is applied. 

(Amended 2007, and 2008, and 20XX) 

Section 4. Retail Storage Tanks and Dispenser Filters 

4.1. Water in Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Biodiesel Blends, Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol, 

Aviation Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. – No water phase greater than 6 mm (1⁄4 in) as determined by 

an appropriate detection paste or other acceptable means, is allowed to accumulate in any tank utilized in the 

storage of gasoline-alcohol blend, biodiesel, biodiesel blends, Ethanol Flex Fuel blends E85 fuel ethanol, 

aviation gasoline, and aviation turbine fuel.

4.2. Water in Gasoline, Diesel, Gasoline-Ether, and Other Fuels. – Water shall not exceed 25 mm (1 in) in 

depth when measured with water indicating paste or other acceptable means in any tank utilized in the storage 

of diesel, gasoline, gasoline-ether blends, and kerosene sold at retail except as required in Section 4.1.Water in 

Gasoline-Alcohol Blends, Aviation Blends, Biodiesel Blends, Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends E85 Fuel Ethanol, 

Aviation Gasoline, and Aviation Turbine Fuel. 

4.3. Dispenser Filters. 

4.3.1. Engine Fuel Dispensers. 

(a) All gasoline, gasoline-alcohol blends, gasoline-ether blends, Ethanol Flex Fuel blends E85 fuel 

ethanol, and M85 methanol dispensers shall have a 10 micron or smaller nominal pore-sized filter. 

(b) All biodiesel, biodiesel blends, diesel, and kerosene dispensers shall have a 30 micron or smaller 

nominal pore-sized filter. 

CWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: An industry representative encouraged support of this item; FALS also recommends 

its adoption. A regulator summarized a recent Notice of Proposed Rule from the FTC. He indicated the proposal 

falls short in a number of areas: 1) for E15, the only requirement would be an EPA label – the FTC proposal does 

not require an octane rating; 2) ethanol blends above 15 % to 83 % will be posted in units of 10 percent increments; 

and 3) the term “E85” can no longer be used. A second industry representative commented that the FTC proposal is 

a regression and creates problems; he urged support for this item. FALS is considering submitting comments to 

FTC regarding the proposed rule. The CWMA L&R Committee agrees with the comments from regulators and 

industry, believes the item has been fully developed, and is ready for Voting. 

WWMA heard from industry representative stating that FALS recommends the item be moved to Voting Status with 

the same changes identified in the above CWMA comments. WWMA recommended that this item as modified be a 

Voting item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 69 

NEWMA recommended in 2012 that the item remain as an Informational item. During its 2013 Annual Meeting, 

NEWMA supported the ongoing work being done by the Task Group and recommended it as an Informational item. 

At the 2013 NEWMA Interim Meeting, an industry representative stated that FALS recommends the item be moved 

to Voting status with the same changes as shown above in the CWMA comments. At the 2014 NEWMA Annual 

Meeting, the Committee recommended this be a Voting item to make it consistent with the ASTM on volatility and 

flex fuel language. 

SWMA heard a presentation in 2011 from Mr. Corr. He identified several areas where stakeholder input is needed 

to propose updates to NIST Handbook 130 and to reflect new language in ASTM D5798. No comments were made 

during the hearing. FALS is expected to have a recommendation for the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting. SWMA 

forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Corr commented as Chair of the FALS TG that the group is working on 

language to reflect the new ASTM D7794 and modified D5798 standards for fuels restricted to flex fuel vehicles. It 

should be available for review at the NCWM Interim Meeting. Mr. Russ Lewis (Marathon Petroleum) gave a 

presentation in support of the proposal, taking into account the recently modified ASTM D5798 “Specifications for 

Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible Fuel Automotive Spark Ignition Engines.” Mr. Lewis provided proposed language 

to the TG for consideration. SWMA recommended that this be an Informational item. 

SWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: The region supported moving forward the modified language as it appears in their 

2013 final report as a Voting item to NCWM. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98 National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-10 V Section 3.XX. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

American Petroleum Institute (2014) 

(Note: In the 2014 NCWM Publication 15, this was Item 232-8)

Purpose: 

To include Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) in NIST Handbook 130, including defining DEF and outlining marking 

requirements to provide information to consumers of DEF. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

Section 1. Definitions 

1.14. Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – A preparation of aqueous urea [(NH2)2CO], containing 32.5% by mass of 

technically-pure urea in high-purity water with quality characteristics defined by the latest version of 

ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32.”

(Added 2014) 

Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications 

2.18. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). – Shall meet the latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines – NOx 

reduction agent AUS 32.” 

(Added 2014)
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 70 

Section 3. Classification and Method of Sale of Petroleum Products

3.16. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). 

3.16.1. Labeling of Diesel Exhaust Fluid. – Diesel Exhaust Fluid shall be labeled. 

3.16.1.1. Retail Dispenser Labeling. – A label shall be clearly and conspicuously placed on the 

front panel of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid dispenser stating “for operation of selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) converters in motor vehicles with diesel engines.” 

3.16.1.2. Documentation for Retailers of Bulk Product. – A DEF supplier shall provide, at the 

time of delivery of the bulk shipment of DEF, identification of the fluid’s origin including the 

name of the fluid manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or trademark, and a statement 

identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in the latest version of ISO 22241, 

“Diesel engines – NOx reduction agent AUS 32.”. This information shall be provided by the 

supplier on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. 

3.16.1.3. Labeling of Packaged Product. – Any diesel exhaust fluid retail package shall bear a 

label that includes the name of the fluid manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or 

trademark, a statement identifying the fluid as DEF conforming to specifications given in the 

latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines – NOx reduction agent AUS 32.” and the statement, 

“It is recommended to store DEF between – 5 °C to 30 °C (23 °F to 86 °F).” 

3.16.1.4. Documentation for Bulk Deliveries. – A carrier that transports or accepts for 

transportation any bulk shipment by tank truck, freight container, cargo tank, railcar, or any 

other vehicle used to transport or deliver bulk quantities of DEF shall, at the time of delivery of 

the DEF, provide identification of the fluid’s origin including the name of the fluid 

manufacturer, the brand name, trade name, or trademark, and a statement identifying the fluid 

as DEF conforming to specifications given in the latest version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines – 

NOx reduction agent AUS 32.”. This information shall be provided to the recipient on an 

invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other document. 

Effective date shall be January 1, 2016 

(Added 2014) 

Background/Discussion: Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) is an aqueous mixture of 32.5 % high-purity urea and 67.5 % 

deionized water, and is used in conjunction with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems to remove harmful 

NOx emissions from diesel engines. In January 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted 

new emission standards requiring medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles to significantly reduce engine emissions, 

including NOx. A majority of engine manufacturers is now using SCR systems to meet the new EPA standards in 

their diesel applications and is specifying the use of DEF meeting the quality requirements of the most current 

version of ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32- Parts 1-5.” 

As a result, the sale of DEF has become a fast-growth, emerging market as pre-2010 on- and off-highway equipment 

inventory continues to turn over. For instance, DEF may currently be purchased at fuel-island pumps at over 

1000 locations nationwide, with many more locations expected in the near future. The sale of DEF can be expected 

to continue to grow very quickly as additional fleet turnover occurs and regulations for passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, non-road vehicles, and stationary diesel engines are phased in during the coming years. Hence, it is of 

utmost importance that consumers of DEF are receiving the proper information about the product they purchasing as 

well as assurances that the product meets the ISO 22241, “Diesel engines - NOx reduction agent AUS 32” 

specifications. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: A representative with API provided FALS with modified language. This language 

will address the regional concerns regarding the clarity of the language and providing for retail dispenser labeling. 

This modification also expanded the recommended temperature ranges and is consistent with the ISO method. 

FALS concurs with the changes and submitted them to the Committee as a Voting item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 71 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard support that a provision should be made to make this item 

effective January 2016. The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this 

Final Report in the Item Under Consideration. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

CWMA 2014: An ISO specification currently exists for this product, and quality assurance is important. At the 

CWMA Annual Meeting, the Committee was informed that there is also a companion Item 232-7. An industry 

representative supports both items. A regulator has been working through the ASTM process to develop a 

specification for this product, but ASTM has decided to not pursue it. Consequently, he urges support and passage 

of this item. After discussion among the attendees, consensus was reached that an implementation date of one year 

after passage would allow sufficient time for the regulated industry to comply. The Committee is also 

recommending a proposed effective date be placed into the item that reflects an effective date of one year after 

publication. CWMA L&R Committee believes that a specification for this product is important, since ASTM is not 

going to develop a specification, this item should move forward as a Voting item. 

WWMA heard from a representative of API regarding both Items 232-6 and 232-7 simultaneously. API explained 

that there is currently no definition of DEF. API also stated the sale of DEF will continue to increase in the market, 

as it is in use on all selective catalytic reduction diesel vehicles. He stated the method to manufacture DEF may 

differ, but the standard remains the same for all DEF products and purity is important. The FALS Chairman stated 

that ASTM does not have a specification, so the ISO specification is appropriate and would like to make this a 

Voting item. An industry representative from Gilbarco spoke to the uncertainty whether current receipt technology 

has the capability to print all required information. An industry representative expressed concern regarding 

temperatures requirements because of storage locations outside the specified range. The Committee supports this 

item and would like clarification regarding whether current receipt dispenser technology can accommodate proposed 

requirements. WWMA forwarded this item to NCWM and recommended it be an Informational item. 

NEWMA heard a comment from the submitter that adding DEF to NIST Handbook 130, including defining DEF 

and outlining marking requirements would provide information to consumers of DEF. NEWMA forwarded it to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item. At the 2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting, they recommended that 

this be a Voting item as it is fully developed. 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing item to further address the concerns of 

quality statements on receipts and dispensers. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

237-11 V Section 2.12. Motor Oil 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee and API (2014) 

(Note: This item did not appear in the 2014 NCWM Publication. This was submitted as an editorial change 

through FALS.) 

Purpose: 

Editorial change under Section 2.12.(a) Motor Oil that allows for the language insertion to include Automobile 

Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) “European Oil Sequences.” 

Item Under Consideration: 

2.12. Engine (Motor) Oil. – Shall not be sold or distributed for use unless the product conforms to the 

following specifications: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 72 

(a) performance claims listed on the label shall be evaluated against the latest version of SAE J183, 

“Engine Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification,” (Other than “Energy Conserving,” 

API 1509 “Engine Oil Licensing and Certifications System,” API 1509 “Engine Oil Licensing 

and Certification System”, European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) 

“European Oil Sequences” or other industry standards as applicable; 

(b) the product shall meet its labeled viscosity grade specification as specified in the latest version of SAE 

J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.; and

(c) any engine oil that is represented as “energy conserving” shall meet the requirements established 

by the latest version of SAE J1423, “Classification of Energy Conserving Engine Oil for 

Passenger Cars, Vans, Sport Utility Vehicles, and Light-Duty Trucks. 

(Added 2004) (Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

Mr. Kevin Ferrick (API) provided editorial changes through the FALS that provided clarity and aligns with similar 

items in the handbook. The FALS agreed to send this to the Committee recommending it as a Voting item. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee was informed by FALS that an editorial change to 

Section 2.12. Motor Oil was needed to add the European Automobile Association “European Oil Sequences” to 

align with proposed language in Item 232-4 and 237-6. The Committee concurs with this change. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: There was an editorial change to remove the word “industry” from Section 2.2.(a). 

The Committee agreed to modify the language in its Interim Report to that shown in this Final Report in the Item 

Under Consideration. 

2014 NEWMA Annual Meeting: It was recommended that the language as it currently appears in the agenda be a 

Voting item. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

2014 CWMA Annual Meeting: An industry representative indicated support for this item with the following change 

(2.12. Motor Oil, Section (a) add words “vehicle or engine manufacturer”). The CWMA L&R Committee feels this 

item has been fully developed and is ready for Voting as amended. 

(a) performance claims listed on the label shall be evaluated against the latest version of SAE J183, “Engine 

Oil Performance and Engine Service Classification,” (Other than “Energy Conserving,” API 1509 

“Engine Oil Licensing and Certifications System,” API 1509 “Engine Oil Licensing and Certification 

System”, European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) “European Oil Sequences” or 

other industry, vehicle or engine manufacturer standards as applicable; the product shall meet its labeled 

viscosity grade specification as specified in the latest version of SAE J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity 

Classification.” 

The CWMA L&R Committee agrees with the amended language, believes this item has been fully developed and is 

ready for Voting as amended. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 73 

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133 

260-1 W Section 3.10. Animal Bedding 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Central Weights and Measures Association (2012) 

Purpose: 

This proposal is to clarify appropriate test procedures for animal bedding. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133, Test Procedures – For Packages Labeled by Volume as follows: 

3.10. Mulch, and Soils, and Animal Bedding Labeled by Volume. 

Mulch is defined as “any product or material except peat or peat moss that is advertised, offered for sale, or sold 

for primary use as a horticultural, above-ground dressing, for decoration, moisture control, weed control, 

erosion control, temperature control, or other similar purposes.” 

Soil is defined as “any product or material, except peat or peat moss that is advertised or offered for sale, or sold 

for primary use as a horticultural growing media, soil amendment, and/or soil replacement.” 

Animal bedding is defined as “any product or material, except for baled straw or peat moss, that is 

advertised, offered for sale, or sold for primary use as a medium for animals to bed, nest or eliminate 

waste, such as compressed wood pulp or cellulose fibers (confetti, granules, or pellets), softwood shavings, 

shredded paper, compressed coconut fiber, ground corn cob, pelleted paper or wheat straw, cotton fibers, 

and bamboo products or any other material.” Animal bedding as “animal bedding of all kinds, except for 

baled straw” 

3.10.1. Test Equipment. 

 A test measure appropriate for the package size that meets the specifications for test measures in 

Table 3-4. “Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch, and Soils and Animal Bedding” 

 Drop cloth/polyethylene sheeting for catching overflow of material 

 Level (at least 15 cm [6 in] in length) 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 74 

Table 3-4. 

Specifications for Test Measures for Mulch, and Soils, and Animal Bedding 

Nominal 

Capacity 

of Test Measure4

Actual Volume 

of the Measure4

Interior Wall Dimensions1

 Marked 

Intervals 

on 

Interior 

Wall3

Volume 

Equivalent 

of Marked 

Intervals Length Width Height2

30.2 L 

(1.07 cu ft) 

for testing 

packages that 

contain less than 

28.3 L 

(1 cu ft or 

25.7 dry qt) 

31.9 L 

(1.13 cu ft) 

213.4 mm 

(8.4 in) 

203.2 mm 

(8 in) 

736.6 mm 

(29 in) 

12.7 mm 

(1⁄2 in) 

550.6 mL 

(33.6 in3

) 

28.3 L 

(1 cu ft) 

28.3 L 

(1 cu ft) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

1179.8 mL 

(72 in3

) 

56.6 L 

(2 cu ft) 

63.7 L 

(2.25 cu ft) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

685.8 mm 

(27 in) 

406.4 mm 

(16 in) 

228.6 mm 

(9 in) 

685.8 mm 

(27 in) 

84.9 L 

(3 cu ft) 

92 L 

(3.25 cu ft) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

304.8 mm 

(12 in) 

990.6 mm 

(39 in) 

406.4 mm 

(16 in) 

228.6 mm 

(9 in) 

990.6 mm 

(39 in) 

Measures are typically constructed of 1.27 cm (1/2 in) marine plywood. A transparent sidewall is useful for 

determining the level of fill, but must be reinforced if it is not thick enough to resist distortion. If the measure has a 

clear front, place the level gage at the back (inside) of the measure so that the markings are read over the top of the 

mulch. 

Notes 

1

 Other interior dimensions are acceptable if the test measure approximates the configuration of the package under 

test and does not exceed a base configuration of the package cross-section. 

2

The height of the test measure may be reduced, but this will limit the volume of the package that can be tested. 

3

When lines are marked in boxes, they should extend to all four sides of the measure if possible to improve 

readability. It is recommended that a line indicating the MAV level also be marked to reduce the possibility of 

reading errors when the level of the mulch is at or near the MAV. 

4

The Nominal Capacity is given to identify the size of packages that can be tested in a single measurement using the 

dry measure with the listed dimensions. It is based on the most common package sizes of mulch in the marketplace. 

If the measures are built to the dimensions shown above the actual volume will be larger than the nominal volume so 

that plus errors (overfill) can be measured accurately. 

(Amended 2010 and 20XX) 

3.10.2. Test Procedure. 

1. Follow the Section 2.3.1. “Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the 

inspection, and select a random sample. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 75 

2. Open each package in turn. Empty the contents of the package into a test measure and level the 

contents by hand. Do not rock, shake, drop, rotate, or tamp the test measure. Read the 

horizontal marks to determine package net volume. 

Note: Mulch: Some types of mulch are susceptible to clumping and compacting. Take steps to 

ensure that the material is loose and free flowing when placed into the test measure. Gently roll the 

bag before opening to reduce the clumping and compaction of material. 

Compressed state animal bedding: To measure the usable volume, first empty the contents of 

the package on a drop cloth. Using your hands, or a tool if necessary, loosen the material until 

it is free of all clumps and compaction. When the product is free flowing, place in a test 

measure. To determine volume of the compressed state animal bedding, follow Section 3.9.1. 

Compressed Volume Packages. 

3. Exercise care in leveling the surface of the mulch/soil/animal bedding and determine the 

volume reading from a position that minimizes errors caused by parallax. 

4. Determine package errors by subtracting the labeled volume from the package net volume in 

the measure. Record each package error. 

Package Error = Package Net Volume − Labeled Volume 

3.10.3. Evaluation of Results. 

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3.7. “Evaluate for Compliance to determine lot conformance. 

Note: In accordance with Appendix A, Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for 

Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch and Soil Labeled by Volume, Packaged Firewood, and 

Packages Labeled by Count with 50 Items or Fewer, and Specific Agricultural Seeds Labeled by Count, 

apply an MAV of 5 % of the declared quantity to mulch, and soil and animal bedding sold by volume. 

When testing mulch and soil with a net quantity in terms of volume, one package out of every 12 in the 

sample may exceed the 5 % MAV (e.g., one in a sample of 12 packages; two in a sample of 24 packages; 

four in a sample of 48 packages). However, the sample must meet the average requirement of the 

“Category A” Sampling Plan. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 76 

Table 2-10. 

Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch, 

and Soils, and Animal Bedding Labeled by Volume, Packaged Firewood, and Packages Labeled by Count 

with 50 Items or Fewer, and Specific Agricultural Seeds Labeled by Count. 

Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) 

Mulch, And Soil, and 

Animal Bedding Labeled By 

Volume 

The MAVs are: 

For individual packages: 5 % of the labeled volume. 

For example: One package may exceed the MAV for every 12 packages in 

the sample (e.g., when the sample size is 12 or fewer, 1 package may exceed 

the MAV and when the sample size is 48 packages, 4 packages may exceed 

the MAV). 

NOTE: For Animal Bedding there is a temporary exemption not to apply 

the MAV. After July 2017, there will be an MAV of 5 % of the labeled 

volume applied to “animal bedding.” 

(Amended 2010) 

Background/Discussion: 

NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale, Section 2.23. Animal Bedding states: 

2.23. Animal Bedding. – Packaged animal bedding of all kinds, except for baled straw, shall be sold by 

volume, that is, by the cubic meter, liter, or milliliter and by the cubic yard, cubic foot, or cubic inch. If the 

commodity is packaged in a compressed state, the quantity declaration shall include both the quantity in the 

compressed state and the usable quantity that can be recovered.

Example: 

250 mL expands to 500 mL (500 in3

 expands to 1000 in3). 

(Added 1990) (Amended 2012) 

However, NIST Handbook 133 does not include specific procedures for testing animal bedding volume declarations, 

compressed state quantity declarations, or usable quantity declarations. This proposal is to clarify appropriate test 

procedures for animal bedding. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: The Committee made minor editorial changes to align the proposal with the format 

and language currently in NIST Handbook 133. The submitter had the word “uncompressed” added under the note 

section within “Evaluation of Results.” The Committee agreed and recommended to remove this word. 

This proposal includes adopting both the mulch and soil test method and the evaluation of results for animal 

bedding. The method of evaluating results for mulch and soil testing includes an exception to the maximum 

allowable variation (MAV), the MAV is 5%, and one package out of a 12 item sample (two packages in 24 item 

sample, four packages in a 48 item sample) is allowed to exceed the MAV. However, the sample must meet the 

average requirement of “Category A.” This MAV exception for mulch and soil was developed based on a study of 

mulch and soil test results. The Committee will ask industry to submit animal bedding product information and test 

data to determine if the MAV exception is appropriate for animal bedding. 

An animal bedding industry representative was supportive of the 5 % allowance and also recommended a 

12 × 12 × 12 cu ft vessel. The submitter of the proposal has been using the mulch test procedure to test animal 

bedding and has not had issues using the procedure under the item for consideration. The 2012 Committee 

designated this item as an Informational item. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 77 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: The Committee requested that regulators and industry conduct animal bedding 

package testing, and submit their test results to Ms. Cardin at judy.cardin@wi.gov or to Mr. David Sefcik at 

dsefcik@nist.gov. Preliminary analysis by NIST of available test data indicates that an exception for MAV is 

necessary for this product, but the Committee needs additional test data to determine the appropriate amount for that 

exception. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Mr. David Sefcik (NIST, OWM) provided a summary of the data that was received 

from states and manufacturers that tested animal bedding. The findings were limited participation, and very few lots 

passed; therefore, NIST could not make a recommendation for a MAV. Data shows there is a bigger concern than 

determining correct MAV. Even with applying a 5 % MAV, almost all the lots would have failed. There were also 

significant variations in labeled content, variability on bedding materials, different types of packing machines and 

volumetric test measures. It was agreed the test procedure for mulch could be used for animal bedding. The 

recommendation was that the Committee should consider a temporary exemption from the MAV (three to five 

years). This would provide an exemption from the current MAV which is too restrictive while giving the 

Committee and NIST additional time for data to be collected to determine the proper MAV. NIST will work with 

stakeholders to develop a standardized test measure. 

Mr. Jim Byers (San Diego County, California) expressed concern that animal bedding needs to be clearly defined. 

Mr. Byers submitted recommended language to define animal as follows: 

“Any product or material, except for baled straw, that is advertised, offered for sale, or sold for 

primary use as a medium for animals to bed, nest or eliminate waste, such as compressed wood pulp 

or cellulose fibers (confetti, granules, or pellets), softwood shavings, shredded paper, compressed 

coconut fiber, ground corn cob, pelleted paper or wheat straw, cotton fibers, and bamboo products 

or any other material.” 

Mr. Floren agrees with Mr. Byers and Mr. Sefcik on their recommendations. Mr. Rich Whiting (American Wood 

Fibers) spoke that they participated and their lots did not pass. American Wood Fibers would like to see a test 

measure and quantity control practices developed by NCWM. 

The Committee agrees with the definition for animal bedding drafted by Mr. Byers with the addition of peat moss as 

an exemption. It was agreed to remove the MAV requirement for animal bedding and the Committee is 

recommending that the states test animal bedding on the “average requirement.” The removal of the MAV for 

animal bedding would be a temporary exemption for a four year period, after which time the MAV would default to 

the 5 %. There was no objection from NIST on the test procedure. Information will need to be obtained from 

industry to determine an accurate test measure. It was also agreed to put a sunset date of July 2017 into the 

language. With these changes, the Committee proposes this as a Voting item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: A regulator opposed the item as written due to animal bedding is being defined 

within a test procedure for mulch and soil. He questions how the 5 % MAV was calculated. He also does not 

recommend a fix of applying a temporary MAV exemption. The Committee concurs that this item is not ready to 

move forward as a Voting Item and moved this item to Developing status, so the submitter can further develop. The 

definition needs to be reviewed to determine any exemptions that may apply for items currently sold by weight. 

Reconsideration should also be given to whether a three-year exemption to the MAV is appropriate. The Committee 

believes this item needs to be further developed and returned to the submitter. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: There were no comments heard and there has been no response from the submitter 

to further develop. A NIST Technical Advisor responded that NIST will continue to gather data and study this 

issue. If NIST believes there is an issue, they will submit a new proposal. The Committee is recommending this be 

a Withdrawn item since no additional work by the submitter has been done. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA commented that no additional information has been received to date. During past regional meetings, a state 

regulator noted there is no standard for animal bedding, and industry is using a variety of test methods, which 

produce varying results. Wisconsin tested and found a wide variance in net quantity accuracy and found significant 

shortages in several instances. Ms. Cardin encouraged other jurisdictions to test animal bedding and to share data 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 78 

with NIST, OWM. Missouri did a lot of testing at one facility and found a maximum of 36 % shortage and an 

average of 23 % shortage. Missouri’s analysis further showed that the chipper had a great impact of the “spring 

effect” of compression. An industry representative recommended developing a method of sale for this commodity 

when sold from bulk since a significant amount of horse bedding is purchased in bulk. Ms. Cardin announced she 

would coordinate an animal bedding package testing survey to provide data to determine the appropriate exception 

to MAV for animal bedding. Some states agreed to participate. During the most recent annual meeting (2013), the 

NIST Technical Advisor remarked that the date in the MAV table was open ended and consideration should be 

given to make it date specific. NIST continues to analyze test data, and states should continue to send test data to 

NIST. During their May 2013 Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended that a date for the temporary 

exemption read July 1, 2017, and recommended Voting status. At the 2013 CWMA Interim Meeting, they 

recommended that the item be a Developing item. 

WWMA received comment from a regulatory official stating that the submitter is unlikely to continue work on this 

item; however, a national test procedure on animal bedding is needed. First, the definition for animal bedding needs 

to be reworked. The definition in Section 3.10. Mulch and Soils Labeled by Volume, needs to specifically address 

compressible materials only or “products subject to compression.” In Section 3.10.2., Test Procedure is 

contradictory because the definition specifically excludes peat moss, yet the test procedure references Section 3.9.1. 

Compressed Volume Packages Applied to Peat Moss. Third, there is no data to justify a 5 % MAV. The Committee 

believed this item has merit and should be further developed. WWMA recommended that it be a Developing item. 

NEWMA commented in 2012 that it would like to see results of the CWMA study before action is taken on the 

proposal. NEWMA recommended that the item be an Informational item. During the 2013 NEWMA Annual 

Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor remarked that they continue to collect data on this subject matter. The 

Committee believed there is sufficient data to support this item and recommended it as a Voting item. At their 2013 

Interim Meeting, reviewed the comments from the report of the WWMA and recommended that the item be a 

Developing item. 

SWMA heard comments in 2012 from a NIST Technical Advisor that the chair of the NCWM L&R Committee is 

requesting states to participate in the package testing of animal bedding over the next two months in order to provide 

more data to help determine the appropriate MAV. SWMA recommended that the item be an Informational item 

unless there is strong evidence from the survey for an appropriate MAV, in which case SWMA would recommend it 

as a Voting item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, they supported the item remaining as a Developing item as 

it needs more work. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

260-2 V Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

NIST Office of Weights and Measures (2014) 

Purpose: 

To correct errors and omissions to NIST Handbook 133, Section 3.12., Fresh Oysters Labeled by volume so that it is 

in complete agreement with the AOAC Official Method 35.1.07 (953.11), which is utilized by the Food and Drug 

Administration. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133 as follows: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 79 

3.12. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume. 

Packaged fresh oysters removed from the shell must be labeled by volume. The maximum amount of permitted 

free liquid is limited to 15 % by weight. Testing the quantity of contents of fresh oysters requires the inspector 

to determine total volume, total weight of solids and liquid, and the weight of the free liquid. 

3.12.1. Test Equipment. 

• A scale that meets the requirements in Section 2.2. “Measurement Standards and Test Equipment” 

• Volumetric measures 

• Micrometer depth gage (ends of rods fully rounded), 0 mm to 228 mm (0 in to 9 in) 

• Strainer for determining the amount of drained liquid from shucked oysters. Use as a strainer and

a slightly smaller flat bottom metal receiving pan or tray constructed to the following 

specifications: 

 Sides: 5.08 cm (2 in) 

 Area: 1935 cm2

 (300 in2) or more for each 3.78 L (1 gal) of oysters 

Note: Strainers of smaller area dimensions are permitted to facilitate testing smaller containers. 

• Perforations: 

Diameter: 6.35 mm (1⁄4 in) 

Location: 3.17 cm (11⁄4 in) apart in a square pattern, or perforations of equivalent area and 

distribution. 

• Spanning bar, 2.54 cm by 2.54 cm by 30.48 cm (1 in by 1 in by 12 in) 

• Rubber spatula 

• Thermometer, 1 °C (2 °F) graduations and a range of – 35 °C to + 50 °C (− 30 °F) to + 120 °F) 

accurate to ± 1 °C (± 2 °F) 

• Level, at least 15.24 cm (6 in) in length 

• Stopwatch 

3.12.2. Test Procedure. 

Note: Test the oysters at a temperature of 7 (± 1) °C [45(± 2) °F]. 

1. Follow the Section 2.3.1. “Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the 

inspection; and select a random sample. 

2. Determine and record the gross weight of a sample package. 

3. Set the container on a level surface and open it. Use a depth gage to determine the level of fill. 

Lock the depth gauge. Mark the location of the gauge on the package. 

4. Weigh a dry 20.32 cm or 30.48 cm (8 in or 12 in) receiving pan and record the weight. Set 

strainer over the receiving pan. 

5. Pour the contents from the container onto the strainer without shaking it. Tip the strainer slightly 

and let it d Drain for two minutes. Remove strainer with oysters. It is normal for oysters to 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 80 

include mucous (which is part of the product) that will not pass through the strainer, so do not 

force it. 

6. Weigh the receiving pan and liquid and record the weight. Subtract the weight of the dry receiving 

pan from the weight of pan and liquid to obtain the weight of free liquid and record the value. 

7. Clean, dry, and weigh the container and record the tare weight. Subtract the tare weight from the 

gross weight to obtain the total weight of the oysters and liquid and record this value. 

8. Determine and record the percent of free liquid by weight as follows: 

Note: This handbook provides a Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of 

Oysters in Appendix C. 

Percent of free liquid by weight = [(weight of free liquid) ÷ (weight of oysters + liquid)] × 100, 

or 

(f ÷ c) × 100 = Percentage of Free Liquid by Weight 

Where: 

f = Weight of Free Liquid 

c = (Net Weight of Oysters + Liquid) 

9. Set up the depth gauge on the dry package container as in Step 3. Pour water from the flasks and 

graduate as needed to re-establish the level of fill obtained in Step 3. Add the volumes delivered 

as the actual net volume for the container and record the value. 

Note: Some containers will hold the declared volume only when filled to the brim; they may have been 

designed for other products, rather than for oysters. If the net volume is short measure (per Step 9), determine if 

the container will reach the declared volume only if filled to the brim. Under such circumstance, the package 

net volumes will all be short measure because the container cannot be filled to the brim with a solid and liquid 

mixture. A small headspace is required in order to get the lid into the container without losing any liquid. 

(Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

In preparing a new presentation on oyster testing for the NIST Handbook 133 Basics class, to be held in North 

Carolina, the Office of Weights and Measures compared the test methods used by the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), which are published by AOAC International (AOAC), to the test procedure in Section 3.12., Fresh Oysters 

Labeled by Volume. This review revealed that the test procedure in NIST Handbook 133 did not include the AOAC 

requirement that the oysters be tested at a specified temperature, or the description of the receiving pan in the list of 

test equipment. Also, Step 4 of the test procedure was inaccurate. NIST OWM also found the HB133 requirement 

that the strainer be “tipped slightly” (refer to Step 5) to be ambiguous and it is not included in the AOAC procedure. 

NIST OWM believes these errors most likely occurred when the 4th Edition of NIST Handbook 133 was revised to 

replace the original sieve requirements with the AOAC equipment requirements that were in response to the 

requirements of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). NLEA requires that state and local regulations 

(and test procedures) be identical to those used by FDA. 

To bring NIST Handbook 133, Section 3.12., Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume into agreement with the AOAC 

Official Method 35.1.07 (953.11), the following revisions are proposed: 

1. Revise the description of the receiving pan in Section 3.12.1. to clarify that it is to be slightly smaller than 

the strainer. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 81 

2. Add a note in Section 3.12.2. Test Procedure regarding the temperature at which the oysters must be tested. 

3. Delete the incorrect references to circular receiving pans (i.e., 8 in and 12 in) in Section 3.12.2. Test 

Procedure, Step 4. 

4. Delete the instruction to “tip the strainer slightly” in Section 3.12.2. Test Procedure, Step 5 to eliminate the 

ambiguous guidance which conflicts with the AOAC method. 

5. Add a simpler version of the formula in Section 3.12.2. Test Procedure, Step 8 which can be used in the 

Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of Oysters. 

6. Add a Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of Oysters to NIST Handbook 133, 

Appendix C., Model Inspection Report Forms. This worksheet was created to aid the inspector in 

conducting the test and documenting the actual test values. It was adapted from the oyster worksheet 

adopted in 1990 and published in the 3rd Supplement to the 3rd Edition of NIST Handbook 133. 

In 1997, the State of North Carolina shared its drawings of the AOAC strainer with OWM and those drawings have 

been reformatted and made available for free download at: www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/hb133-13.cfm. 

The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act requires the use of net quantity test procedures and equipment identical to 

those used by the Food and Drug Administration which are contained in AOAC International test methods. 

This proposal corrects previous errors and omissions and eliminates a conflict with an FDA test method. NIST 

OWM does not believe there is any reason to object to the proposed revisions. Some jurisdiction may object to 

adding another worksheet to NIST Handbook 133. NIST OWM will make the form available on the Office of 

Weights and Measures web page. (See Appendix B). 

2014 Interim Meeting: A NIST Technical Advisor remarked that this test procedure and equipment was performed 

at a NIST Handbook 133 training course and there were no issues or concerns. The Committee moved this forward 

as a Voting item. 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: No comments heard. The NIST Technical Advisor made an 

editorial change, adding a note to Step 8 to reference the location of the Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid 

and Net Volume of Oysters. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA’s L&R Committee agrees with NIST, clarification of language should be harmonized. CWMA forwarded 

the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. At the 2014 CWMA Annual Meeting no comments were 

received at the L&R Committee Open Hearings. The Committee believes this proposal will correct errors and 

omissions, so that the provision in NIST Handbook 133 is aligned with the AOAC Official 

Method 35.1.07 (953.11), which is utilized by the Food and Drug Administration. Consequently, the CWMA L&R 

Committee believes the item has been fully developed and is ready for Voting. 

WWMA heard from a NIST technical advisor who stated that this item is intended to correct errors and omissions to 

the test procedure in NIST Handbook 133 so that it brings the item in agreement with AOAC Official 

Method 35.1.07 (953.11) which is utilized by FDA. The proposal also includes a worksheet developed by NIST 

which would appear in the NIST Handbook 133 Appendix. The Committee believes the item has merit, and it is 

fully developed. WWMA forwarded the item to NCWM and recommended that it be a Voting item. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA commented that the language corrects technical errors and forward the 

item to NCWM recommending the item as Voting. 

NEWMA 2014 Annual Conference: The Committee recommends this as a Voting item in order to be consistent 

with federal regulations. NEWMA commented that the language corrects technical errors and forwarded the item to 

NCWM. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 82 

SWMA supported the item as proposed and forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending that it be a Voting item 

as it aligns weights and measures and FDA inspection procedures. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

260-3 W Section 4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Georgia Pacific (2013) 

Purpose: 

Add a more accurate & reproducible test method for verifying dimensions of disposable plates, bowls, and platters. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 133 as follows: 

4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products 

The following procedure is used to verify the size of paper plates and other sanitary paper products. It may also be 

used to verify the size declarations of other disposable dinnerware. 

Note: Do not distort the item’s shape during measurement. 

The count of sanitary paper products cannot be adequately determined by weighing. Variability in sheet weight and 

core weight requires that official tests be conducted by actual count. However, weighing can be a useful audit 

method. These products often declare total area as well as unit count and sheet size. If the actual sheet size 

measurements and the actual count comply with the average requirements, the total area declaration is assumed 

correct. 

4.3.1. Test Equipment. 

 Steel tapes and rules. Determine measurements of length to the nearest division of the appropriate tape 

or rule. 

 Metric Units: 

For labeled dimensions 40 cm or less, linear measure: 30 cm in length, 1 mm divisions; or a 1 m 

rule with 0.1 mm divisions, overall length tolerance of 0.4 mm.

For labeled dimensions greater than 40 cm, 30 m tape with 1 mm divisions. 

 Inch-pound Units: 

For labeled dimensions 25 in or less, use a 36 in rule with 1

/64 in or 1/100 in divisions and an overall 

length tolerance of 1/64 in. 

For dimensions greater than 25 in, use a 100 ft tape with in divisions and an overall length 

tolerance of 0.1 in. 

 Measuring Base 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 83 

Note: A measuring base may be made of any flat, sturdy material approximately 38 cm (15 in) square. Two 

vertical side pieces approximately 3 cm (1 in) high and the same length as the sides of the measuring base are 

attached along two adjoining edges of the measuring base to form a 90° corner. Trim all white borders from 

two or more sheets of graph paper (10 divisions per centimeter or 20 divisions per inch). Place one sheet on the 

measuring base and position it so that one corner of graph paper is snug in the corner of the measuring base and 

vertical sides. Tape the sheet to the measuring base. Overlap other sheets on the first sheet so that the lines of 

top and bottom sheet coincide, expanding the graph area to a size bigger than plates to be measured; tape these 

sheets to the measuring base. Number each line from the top and left side of base plates: 1, 2, 3, etc. 

 Plate Dimension Tester 

4.3.2. Test Procedure 

1.* Follow Section 2.3.1. “Define the Inspection Lot.” Use a “Category A” sampling plan in the 

inspection; select a random sample. 

2.* Select an initial tare sample according to Section 2.3.5.1. “Determination of Tare Sample and 

Average Tare Weight.” 

3. Open each package and select one item from each. 

Note: Some packages of plates contain a combination of different-sized plates. In this instance, take a plate of 

each declared size from the package to represent all the plates of that size in the package. For example, if three 

sizes are declared, select three different plates from each package. 

Note: Occasionally, packages of plates declared to be one size contain plates that can be seen by inspection to 

be of different sizes in the same package. In this instance, select the smallest plate and use the methods below 

to determine the package error. If the smallest plate is not short measure by more than the MAV, measure each 

size of plate in the package and calculate the average dimensions. 

Example: 

If five plates measure 21.41 cm (8.43 in) and 15 measure 21.74 cm (8.56 in), the average dimension 

for this package of 20 plates is 21.66 cm (8.53 in). 

4. For paper plates bowls or platters: Place each item on the plate dimension tester or measuring base

plate (or use the linear measure) with the eating surface down so two sides of the plate touch the sides

of the plate dimension tester or measuring base. If using the plate dimension tester, follow the

test procedure for determining the plate, bowl or platter size.

5. For other products: Use either the measuring base or a linear measure to determine actual labeled

dimensions (e.g., packages of napkins, rolls of paper towels). If testing folded products, be sure that

the folds are pressed flat so that the measurement is accurate.
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 84 

6. If the measurements reveal that the dimensions of the individual items vary, select at least 10 items

from each package. Measure and average these dimensions. Use the average dimensions to

determine package error in Step 7 below. 

7. The package error equals the actual dimensions minus the labeled dimensions. 

4.3.3. Evaluation of Results. 

Follow the procedures in Section 2.3.7. “Evaluate for Compliance to determine lot conformance. 

Background/Discussion: 

NIST Handbook 133, Section 4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products, identifies “Metric” and/or “U.S. 

Customary Units (Inch Pound)” steel tapes and rules or a “measuring base” as acceptable equipment for doing 

dimensional evaluations of paper plates and sanitary paper products. This proposal would add another acceptable 

piece of equipment which we call the “Plate Dimension Tester.” 

It is simpler, faster, and easier for an operator, technician, or regulator to use, and it is or more accurate and 

reproducible than the existing acceptable equipment listed in NIST Handbook 133 Section 4.3. Paper Plates and 

Sanitary Paper Products. For most of these types of products (11.8 in or less), the current metric rule is identified as 

a 30 mm rule in 1 mm divisions (0.039 in), or a 1 meter rule with 0.1 mm divisions (0.0039 in), and the inch pound 

rule is a 36 inch rule with 1/64 or 1/100 divisions (0.015 in or 0.01 in). The acceptable divisions are somewhat 

different. The proposed tester uses a certified steel rule with divisions of 0.02 inches which falls within the range of 

acceptable rules already listed in Section 4.3. Paper Plates and Sanitary Paper Products. 

The measuring base described as acceptable uses graph paper with divisions of 0.05 inches. That measuring base is 

described and constructed as follows: 

A measuring base may be made of any flat, sturdy material approximately 38 cm (15 in) square. Two 

vertical side pieces approximately 3 cm (1 in) high and the same length as the sides of the measuring base 

are attached along two adjoining edges of the measuring base to form a 90° corner. Trim all white 

borders from two or more sheets of graph paper (10 divisions per centimeter or 20 divisions per in). Place 

one sheet on the measuring base and position it so that one corner of graph paper is snug in the corner of 

the measuring base and vertical sides. Tape the sheet to the measuring base. Overlap other sheets on the 

first sheet so that the lines of top and bottom sheet coincide, expanding the graph area to a size bigger than 

plates to be measured; tape these sheets to the measuring base. Number each line from the top and left 

side of base plates: 1, 2, 3, etc. 

The submitter believes the accuracy of cutting the borders off the edges of graph paper, aligning the graph paper 

lines to match, and then taping them in place leaves a lot to be desired for accuracy when gathering data; especially 

when the expectations require the values to be read to such small increments. The plates need to touch the two sides 

of the measuring base which require holding the plate flat against the measuring base and changes in that pressure 

can alter the values. The process of using rules can also cause problems when the plate edge must be perfectly 

aligned with the edges of the rule and then to make sure you have measured both directions in a perfect 90° angle. 

We, therefore, developed the Plate Dimension Tester to solve all those problems. He submitted separately pictures 

of the tester, a test procedure for using the tester, a video showing the use of the tester, some reproducibility data and 

a letter from the Foodservice Packaging Industry (FPI), which represents 85 % of the companies producing these 

types of products, indicating their industry Technical Committee supports this proposal. The submitter believes his 

method would be a positive addition to NIST Handbook 133 without changing any of regulatory requirements; 

simply improving on the technical accuracy and reproducibility of the resulting data generated. 

The Standard Test Method as well as additional pictures, reproducibility data and a blueprint of a Plate Dimension 

Tester is in the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures (SP 1171, 2013), Appendix F. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 85 

2012 SWMA Annual Meeting: Mr. Richard Davis (Georgia Pacific) expressed concern with that importers are not 

compliant and is causing unfair competition to U.S. manufacturers (e.g., a 1/8 in shortage in a paper plate can equate 

to over $100,000 unfair advantage). Mr. Davis has submitted this proposal that would add an additional test 

method, but would not change the current test procedures (steel rule or graph paper) in NIST Handbook 133. 

Mr. Davis believes that this is a more accurate procedure than what is currently adopted and would provide support 

if challenged in court. The device has an estimated cost of $3,000 and would be available through a third party. A 

video was shown describing how to operate and test. An industry official expressed concern on whether the 

equipment and disc can be certified and calibrated by a state lab. The Committee believes that the device would 

provide an additional option and improved test procedure for regulators and industry. SWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. 

Mr. Davis provided a presentation at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting provided an overview on the test standard 

and equipment that they are proposing to use in the test procedure. Mr. Davis believes that the item presented 

before the Committee will allow for greater efficiency, accuracy, repeatability, and uncertainty. This device will 

also allow for the testing of other products such as paper towels, napkins, and sandwich bags. Ms. Carol Hockert 

(NIST, OWM) volunteers to take the information to the NIST Dimensional Laboratory for further accuracy testing. 

The Committee feels this item is developed, and is moving this item forward as a Voting item. At the 2013 NCWM 

Annual Meeting, the Committee believes that additional work needs to be addressed on this item. A separate NIST 

Handbook 133 procedure needs to be created in order to utilize the plate dimension tester. The Technical 

Association of Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) standard that is referenced within the procedure was not made 

available. The procedure title may need to reflect bowls and platters. The Committee is returning this item to 

Developing status so that the submitter can develop this item. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: There was testimony heard that this item needs to be furthered developed. Some 

spoke that it is not feasible to place the Plate Dimension Tester in the current test procedure in NIST Handbook 133 

(2013). The Item Under Consideration also has a TAPPI standard reference and there was not a copy of this 

standards available for review. The Committee agrees that this item should be returned to the submitter for further 

development. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The Committee heard from a NIST Technical Advisor that they are unable to 

contact Mr. Davis (Georgia Pacific) whom originally submitted this proposal due to his retirement. They also tried 

alternative personnel with Georgia Pacific and have been unsuccessful. For these reasons, the Committee is 

Withdrawing this item. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA recommended that this item be Developing. At the May 2013 Annual Meeting, CWMA recommended 

Voting status, and agreed that this would be an improved test method. They based their recommendation on 

Conference comments during the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, and the fact that no other information was 

received. 

WWMA heard from a regulatory official who stated that the item lacks an actual test procedure in Section 4.3.2., 

and references TAPPI standards that are not included in NIST Handbook 133. The item needs further clarification 

and development. WWMA recommended that it be a Developing item. 

NEWMA received a report at its 2013 Annual Meeting from Ms. Carol Hockert (NIST OWM) that the NIST 

Dimensional Laboratory reported no problems with the testing device. Based on this new information NEWMA 

believed this item was fully developed and recommended this as a Voting item. At the 2013 NEWMA Interim 

Meeting, the Committee chair reported that a regulatory official stated that the item lacks an actual test procedure in 

Section 4.3.2., and references TAPPI standards that are not included in NIST Handbook 133. Based on the 

information the NCWM L&R Committee changed the status of this item from Voting to Developing in July 2013. 

The item needs further clarification and development. NEWMA recommended that the item be a Developing item. 

SWMA reported in 2012 that Mr. Richard Davis (Georgia Pacific) expressed concern that importers are not 

compliant and is causing unfair competition to U.S. manufacturers (e.g., a 1/8 inch shortage in a paper plate can 

equate to over $100,000 unfair advantage.) Mr. Davis has submitted this proposal that would add an additional test 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 86 

method but would not change the current test procedures (steel rule or graph paper) in NIST Handbook 133. Mr. 

Davis believes this is a more accurate procedure than what is currently adopted, and would provide support it if 

challenged in court. The device has an estimated cost of $3,000, and would be available through a third party. A 

video was shown describing how to operate and test. An industry official expressed concern on whether the 

equipment and disc can be certified and calibrated by a state lab. The Committee believes that the device would 

provide an additional option and improved test procedure for regulators and industry. SWMA forwarded the item to 

NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. At the 2013 Annual Meeting, the SWMA supported the item remaining 

as a Developing item on the NCWM agenda, that the TAPPI standard referenced in the procedure be made 

available, and that the procedure for using the apparatus be developed and included. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

270 OTHER ITEMS 

270-1 D Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee 

Source: 

The Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee (2007) 

Purpose: 

Update the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST 

Handbook 130 including major revisions to fuel ethanol specifications. Another task will be to update the Basic 

Engine and Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory Publication. 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. All comments should be directed to Dr. Matthew Curran, FALS Chair at 

(850) 921-1570, matthew.curran@freshfromflorida.com, or Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST Technical Advisor at 

(301) 975-3308, lisa.warfield@nist.gov. 

Background/Discussion: 

The Subcommittee met on January 24, 2007, at NCWM Interim Meeting to undertake a review of a number of 

significant issues related to fuel standards. Their first project was to undertake a major review and update of the 

Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation in NIST Handbook 130. The 

Subcommittee also met at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of items in 

addition to preparing a major revision of the Fuel Ethanol Specifications. 

An additional project will be to update and possibly expand the Basic Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Lubricants Laboratory Publication. The Subcommittee will undertake other projects as time and resources permit. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA supports the ongoing work of FALS. 

WWMA received an update from the FALS Chair on items currently under discussion: 1) A workgroup has been 

formed to address organic metallic additives (MMT); 2) A proposal has been submitted to develop a quality standard 

for Diesel Exhaust Fluid DEF; 3) Consideration is being given to reviewing regulations in their entirety to ensure 

harmonization with EPA regulations and references; and 4) ATF regulations will be reviewed. Committee supports 

the ongoing work of the FALS. 

SWMA supported the continuing work of the Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 87 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

270-2 D Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee 

Source: 

Packaging and Labeling Subcommittee (2011) 

Purpose: 

Provide notice of formation of a new Subcommittee reporting to the L&R Committee. 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. All comments should be directed to Mr. Chris Guay, Packaging and Labeling 

Subcommittee Chair, at (513) 983-0530, guay.cb@pg.com or Mr. David Sefcik, NIST Technical Advisor at 

(301) 975-4868, david.sefcik@nist.gov. 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM 2011 Interim Meeting: The PALS met for the first time to discuss ongoing issues and agenda items in 

regards to packaging and labeling regulations. There were 11 attendees that represented industry, state and county 

regulatory officials, and the NIST Technical Advisor. 

The mission of PALS is to assist the L&R Committee in the development of agenda items related to packaging and 

labeling. The Subcommittee will also be called upon to provide important and much needed guidance to the 

regulatory and consumer packaging communities on difficult questions. PALS will report to NCWM L&R 

Committee. The NIST Technical Advisor reported that FTC will do a review of FPLA in 2013. The 2011 L&R 

Committee designated this item as a Developing item and assigned its development to PALS. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: PALS met to discuss its formation and strategy. The NCWM Chairman will 

appoint eight voting members on the Committee to consist of four regulatory officials (one from each region) and 

four from industry (two retailers and two manufacturers). Mr. Guay, PALS Chair, reported that work will be done 

through webinar meetings to be held approximately four times a year. PALS members will be responsible for 

providing updates and seeking feedback on the issues at their regional meetings. Mr. Guay added that PALS will be 

developing proposals and providing guidance and recommendations on existing proposals as assigned by the 

NCWM L&R Committee. He also stressed the need and importance of having key federal agencies (FDA, FTC, and 

USDA) participating. The NIST Technical Advisor commented that FTC announced that they will review the FPLA 

in 2013. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as a Developing item and assigned its development to 

PALS. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Guay reported the Subcommittee is considering further development of the 

following items: 

 Additional Net Content Declarations on the Principal Display Panel – Package net contents are most 

commonly determined by the product form, for example, solid products are labeled by weight, and liquid 

products are labeled by volume. Semi-solid products such as pastes, creams, and viscous liquids are 

required to be labeled by weight in the United States and by volume in Canada. 

 Icons in Lieu of Words in Packaged labeled by Count – Can a clear, non-misleading icon take the place 

of the word “count” or “item name” in a net content statement? While existing Federal regulation requires 

regulatory label information to be in “English,” the increasing presence of multilingual labels and the 

growing diversity of the U.S. population suggest more consumers are served with a clear and nonmisleading icon. 

 Multilingual Labels 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 88 

 Multipacks and Bundle Packages – The net content statements for multipacks and bundled packages of 

individually labeled products can be different based on the approach used to calculate them. The difference 

is the result of the degree of rounding for dual inch-pound and metric declarations. Using two apparently 

valid but different methods can yield one net content statement result, that provide better accuracy between 

the metric and inch-pound declarations and a different net content result which is consumer friendly. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Guay stated Item 231-1 has been assigned to PALS for a recommendation. 

PALS is working on a series of principles and recommendations regarding claims and statements made on packages 

outside of quantity statement (i.e., supplemental, quality and performance claims), on what is appropriate and what 

is not. PALS will recommend that Item 231-1 be Withdrawn. PALS is also looking at whether icons are 

appropriate as part of a quantity statement and how labeling of products with multilingual labels can be simplified. 

SWMA recommended that the item remain as a Developing item. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: James Kohm (Director of Enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]), 

briefed NCWM on the goals and objectives of FTC. Mr. Kohm gave a general overview of the Fair Packaging and 

Labeling Act (FPLA) and announced that it is under review in 2013. 

Mr. Chris Guay provided an update on the action of PALS. PALS will be focusing on best practice principles for 

the various quantity and quality statements seen in the marketplace. PALS will also continue to work on the items 

addressed at the 2012 Annual Meeting. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Guay (PALS Chair) stated that they are awaiting an announcement from FTC 

in regards to updating the FPLA regulations. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA acknowledged that PALS is still waiting on FTC to update FPLA regulations. During previous meetings, 

the PALS Chair stated that there is a need to prioritize labeling issues. 

WWMA received an update from the PALS Chair: (1) The subcommittee is developing recommendations regarding 

good principles and best practice guidelines on label claims and quantity statements on packages; and (2) The 

subcommittee is drafting comments to FTC on recommended changes to FPLA. The Committee supports the 

ongoing work of the PALS. 

SWMA heard in 2012 from Mr. Guay who stated that Item 231-1 has been assigned to PALS for a recommendation. 

PALS is working on a series of principles and recommendations regarding claims and statements made on packages 

outside of quantity statement (i.e., supplemental, quality and performance claims), on what is appropriate and what 

is not. PALS will recommend that 231-1 be Withdrawn. PALS is also looking at whether icons are appropriate as 

part of a quantity statement and how labeling of products with multilingual labels can be simplified. SWMA 

recommended that the item remain as a Developing item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting the association 

supported the work of the PALS remaining as a Developing item on the NCWM agenda. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

270-3 D Moisture Allowance Task Group (MATG) 

Source: 

Moisture Allowance Task Group (2012) 

Purpose: 

Provide notice of formation of a new Task Group reporting to the Committee. This Task Group will provide 

additional guidance for making moisture allowances for products not listed in NIST Handbook 133. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 89 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. All comments should be directed to Mr. Kurt Floren, Moisture Allowance Task 

Group Chair at (626) 575-5451, kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov or Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST Technical Advisor at 

(301) 975-3308, lisa.warfield@nist.gov 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: Ms. Judy Cardin, Committee Chair, will be requesting that the NCWM Board of 

Directors form a new Task Group to review moisture allowance. The 2012 L&R Committee designated this item as 

a Developing item. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: Mr. Floren (Los Angeles County, California) announced that he will Chair the 

Moisture Allowance Task Group. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: Mr. Floren announced that he is seeking a representative from each region for the 

MATG. He would prefer to have a representative from each region. Currently the following have regions have 

provided a representative; NEWMA, Mr. Frank Greene, (Connecticut) and WWMA, Mr. Brett Gurney (Utah). The 

following individuals have also expressed interest: Ms. Maile Hermida (Hogan Lovells US, LLP), Ms. Ann 

Boeckman (Kraft Foods Group), and Mr. Chris Guay (Procter and Gamble Co.). Mr. Floren remarked that meetings 

will be held via web-meetings and at the NCWM Conferences. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The MATG discussed how to proceed forward on this item and reviewed past 

history of prior work done. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA acknowledged that a committee is being formed. 

WWMA received a report from the MATG Chair that progress has been made in the formation of work group and 

regional representation. A teleconference will be scheduled. The Committee supports the anticipated work of 

MATG. 

SWMA reported in 2012 that the Committee supported the formation of the moisture loss work group. SWMA 

recommended that the item remain as a Developing item. At the 2013 SWMA Annual Meeting, the association 

supported the work of the MATG remaining as a Developing item on the NCWM agenda. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. To review the 

supporting documentation, please refer to the Report of the 98th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(SP 1171, 2013). 

Mr. Raymond Johnson, New Mexico | Committee Chair 

Mr. Tim Lloyd, Montana | Member 

Mr. Richard Lewis, Georgia | Member 

Mr. Louis Sakin, Towns of Hopkinton/Northbridge, Massachusetts | Member 

Mr. John Albert, Missouri | Member 

Mr. Steven Grabski, Wal-Mart Stores | Associate Membership Representative 

Mr. Lance Robertson, Measurement Canada | Canadian Technical Advisor 

Mr. David Sefcik, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor 

Ms. Lisa Warfield, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor 

Laws and Regulations Committee
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

L&R - 90 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Items: 232-2, 232-3, 237-1, 237-3, and 237-5: GGE of Natural Gas as Vehicular Fuel 

L&R - A1 

Appendix A 

Handbook 130 

Uniform Method of Sale and 

Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation 

Items: 

232-2, 232-3, 237-1, 237-2, 237-3, and 237-5: Background and Justification for Handbook 130 Definition 

of “Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE)” of Natural Gas as a Vehicular Fuel 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation 

Development of the “Gasoline Gallon Equivalent” by NCWM*

In 1993, under the auspices of the National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM), a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Working Group came together to 

determine the way in which CNG would be sold to the public at retail as a motor fuel. . 

The working group focused on three issues: 

1. How to provide the Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) industry a method of sale that 

would be familiar and acceptable to consumers 

2. How to provide weights and measures officials a verifiable and quantifiable 

means to determine the accuracy of natural gas dispensers; and 

3. How to meet these requirements with a uniform, national standard. 

NCWM considered three proposals for the method of sale of CNG: 

1. joules, the unit of energy measurement in SI units 

2. mass 

3. the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) 

The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (now NGVAmerica) recommended that the Gasoline 

Gallon Equivalent be adopted as the method of sale for CNG, and that it be based on 

the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. The use of the GGE was recommended 

primarily for the convenience of the retail customer comparing the cost and fuel 

economy of a natural gas vehicle to a comparable gasoline vehicle. During the 

discussion, a proposal was made to eliminate the reference to energy content of CNG 

and replace it with a fixed conversion factor based on mass, with the fixed mass of CNG 

 

* Report of the 78th National Conference on Weights and measures, 1993, NIST Special Publication 854, pp 322-

326. 

Report of the 79th National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1994, NIST Special Publication 870, pp 213-

217. 

Program and Committee Reports for the National Conference on Weights and Measures, 79th Annual Meeting, 

July 17 - 21, 1994, NCWM Publication 16, pp 89-92. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Items: 232-2, 232-3, 237-1, 237-3, and 237-5: GGE of Natural Gas as Vehicular Fuel 

L&R - A2 

being equal to a gallon of gasoline. Measurement of mass in the retail dispenser and 

verification by W&M officials is easier and less costly than measurement of energy 

content. 

Since the energy content of a unit measure of CNG (standard cubic foot - scf) and 

gasoline (gallon) vary widely depending on the sample of fuel measured, the reference 

gallon of gasoline was determined to be Indolene, the gasoline used by EPA to certify 

emissions and fuel economy, with an energy content (lower heating value) of 114,118 

BTU/gal. Work conducted by the Institute of Gas Technology and the Gas Research 

Institute (now combined into the Gas Technology Institute) surveyed 6811 samples of 

natural gas nationwide and concluded that the “average” natural gas in the US had an 

energy content (lower heating value) of 923.7 BTU/scf, and a density of 0.0458172 

lbs/cubic foot. This translates 20,160.551 BTU/lb. Dividing gasoline’s 114.118 BTU/gal 

by natural gas’s 20,160.551 BTU/lb gives 5.660 lbs of natural gas = 1 GGE. Similar 

calculations determined that a gasoline liter equivalent of natural gas equals 0.678 kg of 

natural gas. 

At its 79th annual meeting in July of 1994, NCWM adopted resolutions that: 

“All natural gas kept, offered or exposed for sale or sold at retail as a 

vehicle fuel shall be in terms of the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or 

gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE), and 

All retail natural gas dispensers shall be labeled with the conversion factor 

in terms of kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and 

conspicuously displayed on the face of the dispenser and shall have either 

the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of 

Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is equal to 5.660 lbs 

of Natural Gas” according to the method of sale used.” 

These statements can be found in NIST Handbook 130*

, along with the definition of 

“natural gas” which seems to apply only to Compressed Natural Gas, not to Liquefied 

Natural Gas. Handbook 130, §§3.11 and 3.12 (Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulations) confirm that these requirements are for CNG, rather 

than LNG. Similar requirements and definitions are found in Handbook 44. 

During the discussions it was recognized that, although diesel and gasoline are both 

sold in gallon units, a gallon of diesel fuel has substantially more energy content than a 

gallon of gasoline. While it is convenient to use the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent unit 

when comparing the cost and fuel economy of gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles to 

equivalent natural gas vehicles, a Diesel Gallon Equivalent unit would be more useful 

for operators of medium and heavy-duty (usually diesel powered) vehicles. However, in 

1994, the NCWM working group “agreed to defer development of a “Diesel Gallon 

Equivalent” until the issues related to the ‘Gasoline Gallon Equivalent’ were decided by 

 

*

 “Method of Sale Regulation,” §2.27. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Items: 232-2, 232-3, 237-1, 237-3, and 237-5: GGE of Natural Gas as Vehicular Fuel 

L&R - A3 

the NCWM and agreed to meet again if additional work is necessary.”** The issue of the 

formal definition a Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) unit has not come before NCWM 

from that time until today, although the DGE is often used in the industry, defined as 

6.31 lbs of natural gas. 

Need for a Definition of a “Diesel Gallon Equivalent” Unit 

Today there are an increasing number of commercial vehicles using natural gas as a 

fuel, to lower emissions and Greenhouse Gases, decrease America’s use of petroleum, 

and lower fuel costs (U.S. DOE Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report for April 2012 

shows in Table 2 ‘Overall Average Fuel Price on Energy-Equivalent Basis’ that diesel is 

priced at $4.12/gal and CNG at $2.32/gal 

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_apr_12.pdf ). 

Since the NCWM’s working group deferred development of a DGE unit in 1994, there 

has been little call by the natural gas vehicle industry for the formalization of that unit in 

the sale of Compressed Natural Gas. However the use of Liquefied Natural Gas 

(LNG) as a motor fuel has been growing and there is significant interest in using the 

DGE as a unit for the sale of that fuel. 

LNG as a motor fuel is used almost exclusively by commercial vehicles, most of which 

view diesel as the conventional alternative. Using the same logic as was used for the 

development of the GGE unit, the convenience of the retail customer comparing the 

cost and fuel economy of a natural gas vehicle to a comparable conventional vehicle, it 

makes sense for NCWM to now “officially” define the DGE. 

Other than §3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas, in the Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation section of Handbook 130, we find no specific provisions in either Handbook 

44 or Handbook 130 for the retail sale of LNG as a motor fuel. However LNG is sold in 

California and other states on a mass basis (by the pound), which allows for easy 

confirmation by weights and measures authorities. An “official” definition of the DGE as 

a specific mass of natural gas would allow states to easily move from retail sale by 

pound to retail sale by DGE, simplifying the sale process for the retail customer used to 

dealing with “gallons of diesel” as a fuel measure. 

Therefore, at this time we are asking for a definition of the Diesel Gallon Equivalent (and 

Diesel Liter Equivalent) units by NCWM. 

Justification of the Definition of a DGE as 6.312 Pounds of Natural Gas 

Handbook 130 contains the following definitions of natural Gas as a vehicle fuel*: 

Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE). – Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 

 

** Report of the 79th National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1994, NIST Special Publication 870, p 214 *

 NIST handbook 130, 2006, Method of State Regulation, §§2.27.1.2. and 2.227.1.3.; also Engine Fuels, Petroleum 

Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, §§1.25. and 1.26. 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Items: 232-2, 232-3, 237-1, 237-3, and 237-5: GGE of Natural Gas as Vehicular Fuel 

L&R - A4 

 0.678 kg of natural gas. 

Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). – Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 

 2.567 kg (5.660 lb) of natural gas. 

As the NCWM working group recognized during its deliberations in 1993 on the 

Gasoline Gallon Equivalent unit, both gasoline and natural gas can vary in their BTU 

content from sample to sample. The working group determined the gasoline gallon 

(energy) equivalent based on a gallon of Indolene (114,118 BTU/gal – lower heating 

value) and a survey of 6811 natural gas samples nationwide with an average of 

923.7 BTU/scf (lower heating value) and a density of 0.0458172 lbs/cubic foot. This 

equates to 20,160.551 BTU/lb. Dividing gasoline’s 114.118 BTU/gal by natural gas’s 

20,160.551 BTU/lb gives 5.660 lbs of natural gas = 1 GGE. Similar calculations 

determined that a gasoline liter equivalent of natural gas equals 0.678 kg of natural gas. 

Starting with 5.660 lbs of natural gas = 1 GGE and 0.678 kg of natural gas = 1 GLE, we 

can calculate the mass of natural gas necessary to make a DGE and a DLE by 

comparing the amount of energy in a gallon of diesel fuel to the amount of energy in a 

gallon of gasoline fuel and apply that ratio to scale up the masses of natural gas 

calculated for the GGE and GLE units. 

Unfortunately it is no easier today than it was in 1993 to set one energy value as 

representative of a unit for all gasoline, (or diesel) fuel. EPA’s certification fuel has likely 

changed in energy content since 1993, as both gasoline and diesel fuels have been 

modified for improved emissions. 

We recommend using the most recent Department of Energy Transportation Energy 

Data Book*

, as an authoritative reference for both gasoline and diesel fuel energy 

values. Taking further surveys or basing our calculations on today’s EPA certification 

fuel only delays our action, substantially increases costs, and, in the end, provides a 

limited potential increase in accuracy based on one point in time. Table B.4 of the 

Transportation Energy Data Book, on the heat content of fuels 

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb30/Edition30_Full_Doc.pdf lists the net energy of gasoline as 

115,400 BTU/Gal, and diesel as 128,700 BTU/Gal. 

Therefore a Diesel Gallon Equivalent of natural gas is: 

(128,700/115,400) X 5.660 = 6.312 lb (2.863 kg) 

and a Diesel Liter Equivalent of natural gas is: 

(128,700/115,400 X 0.678 = 0.756 kg 

 

Prepared by: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation 

http://www.cleanvehicle.org

 

*

 Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book, 

Edition 30, 2011, ORNL-6978, or http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – NIST Handbook 133, Item 260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters 

L&R - B1 

Appendix B 

NIST Handbook 133 

Section 3. Test Procedures – Packages Labeled by Volume 

Item: 

260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume 

NIST Office of Weights and Measures 

Table of Contents 

Item L&R – B Page 

Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of Oysters ..................................................................... 3 

Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of Oysters – Sample ..................................................... 4 

Drawings for an Oyster Strainer and Drain Pan ............................................................................................................ 5 

 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – NIST Handbook 133, Item 260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters 

L&R - B2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – NIST Handbook 133, Item 260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters 

L&R - B3 

 

Date: 

Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of Oysters

Report Number: 

Location (name, address): Product/Brand Identity: Manufacturer: Container 

Description: 

Lot Codes: 

1. Labeled 

Quantity: 

2. Unit of Measure: 3. Inspection Lot Size: 4. Sample Size: 

Amount of Free Liquid 

Values

Steps: Pkg 1 Pkg 2 Pkg 3 Pkg 4 Pkg 5 Pkg 6 Pkg 7 Pkg 8 Pkg 9 Pkg 10 

1. Weight of Dry Receiving Pan 

2. Gross Weight of Package 

Reference Temperature of Oysters 

7 °C (± 1) [45 °F (± 2)] 

3. Tare Weight of Package 

4. Net Weight of Oysters & Liquid 

(Step 2 – Step 3 = ) 

5. Weight of Receiving Pan and 

Drained Liquid 

6. Weight of Free Liquid (Step 5 – 

Step 1 = ) 

7. Percentage (%) of Free Liquid 

(Step 6  Step 4 × 100 =) 

Net Volume

1. Test the oysters at the temperature of 7 °C (± 1) [45 °F (± 2)]. 

2. Establish the level of fill of the package using a depth gage. 

3. Empty and dry the package. 

4. Refill the package with water to the level of the depth gage. 

5. Record the amount of delivered water and then sum the quantities to obtain the total volume in the package. 

Quantity of Water Delivered into Package 

Pkg 1 Pkg 2 Pkg 3 Pkg 4 Pkg 5 Pkg 6 Pkg 7 Pkg 8 Pkg 9 Pkg 10 

8. Flask Size 

9. Flask Size 

10. Graduate or Cylinder

11. Graduate or Cylinder

12. Total (8 + 9 + 10 = ) 

Comments: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – NIST Handbook 133, Item 260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters 

L&R - B4 

Date: 

December 20, 2013 Worksheet for Determining the Free Liquid and Net Volume of Oysters

Report Number: 

1 of 2 

Location (name, address): 

Superchain Market 

Main Street 

Bradenton, FL 

Product/Brand Identity: 

World’s Best Oysters – Oyster Standard 

Manufacturer: 

World’s Best Packing 

Beach Road, AL 

Container 

Description: 

Clear Plastic Tub 

Lot Codes: with metal pull top 

12/26/2012 

1. Labeled Quantity: 

12 fl. oz. (355 ml) 

2. Unit of 

Measure: 

0.001 lb 

3. Inspection Lot Size: 

206 

4. Sample Size: 

12 

Amount of Free Liquid Values

Steps: Pkg 1 Pkg 2 Pkg 3 Pkg 4 Pkg 5 Pkg 6 Pkg 7 Pkg 8 Pkg 9 Pkg 10 

1. Weight of Dry Receiving Pan 11.841 11.841 11.841 11.841 11.841 

2. Gross Weight of Package 0.871 0.884 0.920 0.869 0.8632 

Reference Temperature of Oysters 

7 °C (± 1) [45 °F (± 2)] 44 °F 46 °F 44 °F 47 °F 45.5 °F 

3. Tare Weight of Package 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.059 0.060 

4. Net Weight of Oysters & Liquid 

(Step 2 – Step 3 = ) 0.811 0.824 0.86 0.81 0.803 

5. Weight of Receiving Pan and 

Drained Liquid 12.020 12.121 12.120 12.031 12.242 

6. Weight of Free Liquid (Step 5 – 

Step 1 = ) 0.179 0.28 0.279 0.19 0.401 

7. Percentage (%) of Free Liquid 

(Step 6  Step 4 × 100 =) 22 % 33 % 32 % 23 % 49 % 

Net Volume 

1. Test the oysters at the temperature of 7 °C (± 1) [45 °F (± 2)]. 

2. Establish the level of fill of the package using a depth gage. 

3. Empty and dry the package. 

4. Refill the package with water to the level of the depth gage. 

5. Record the amount of delivered water and then sum the quantities to obtain the total volume in the package. 

Quantity of Water Delivered into Package 

Pkg 1 Pkg 2 Pkg 3 Pkg 4 Pkg 5 Pkg 6 Pkg 7 Pkg 8 Pkg 9 Pkg 10 

8. Flask Size 

9. Flask Size 

10. Graduate or Cylinder 

11. Graduate or Cylinder 

12. Total (8 + 9 + 10 = ) 

Comments: 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – NIST Handbook 133, Item 260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters 

L&R - B5 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – NIST Handbook 133, Item 260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters 

L&R - B6 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – NIST Handbook 133, Item 260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters 

L&R - B7 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – NIST Handbook 133, Item 260-2: Section 3.12. Fresh Oysters 

L&R - B8 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – NIST Handbook 130, Items 232-6 and 237-9: Method of Sale/Fuels 

L&R - C1 

Appendix C 

NIST Handbook 130 

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale 

Items: 

232-6: 2.30. E85 Fuel Ethanol Flex Fuel Blends and 

237-9: Section 1. Definitions, Section 2. Standard Fuel Specifications, and Section 3. Classification and 

Method of Sale of Petroleum Items 

Table of Contents 

Item Page L&R – C

Letter from FALS to the Federal Trade Commission (June 13, 2014) ............................................................................ 3

 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – NIST Handbook 130, Items 232-6 and 237-9: Method of Sale/Fuels 

L&R - C2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – NIST Handbook 130, Items 232-6 and 237-9: Method of Sale/Fuels 

L&R - C3 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – NIST Handbook 130, Items 232-6 and 237-9: Method of Sale/Fuels 

L&R - C4 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – NIST Handbook 130, Items 232-6 and 237-9: Method of Sale/Fuels 

L&R - C5 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – NIST Handbook 130, Items 232-6 and 237-9: Method of Sale/Fuels 

L&R - C6 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – NIST Handbook 130, Items 232-6 and 237-9: Method of Sale/Fuels 

L&R - C7 

 
L&R Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – NIST Handbook 130, Items 232-6 and 237-9: Method of Sale/Fuels 

L&R - C8 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 1 

Report of the 

Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee 

Mr. Brett Gurney, Committee Chair 

Utah 

Reference 

Key Number 

300 INTRODUCTION 

This is the final report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Committee”) for the 99th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This 

report is based on the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at 

public hearings, comments received from the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the 

NCWM 2014 Online Position Forum, the addendum sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the 

membership at the voting session of the Annual Meeting. The Informational items shown below were adopted as 

presented when this report was approved. This report contains those recommendations to amend National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44 (2014), “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” 

Table A identifies the agenda items and appendix items. The agenda items in the Report are identified by Reference 

Key Number, title, page number and the appendices by appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and 

technical terms used throughout the agenda are identified in Table C. The first three digits of the Reference Key 

Numbers of the items are assigned from The Subject Series List. The status of each item contained in the report is 

designated as one of the following: (D) Developing Item: the Committee determined the item has merit; however, 

the item was returned to the submitter or other designated party for further development before any action can be 

taken at the national level; Informational (I) Item: the item is under consideration by the Committee but not 

proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the Committee is making recommendations requiring a vote by the active 

members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been removed from consideration by the Committee. 

Table B provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in its entirety. 

Some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent calendar. Consent calendar 

items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during their deliberation after the 

Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not require discussion. The Voting 

Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of 

the consent calendar, the Committee entertains any requests from the floor to remove specific items from the 

consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced font

(e.g., new items), and 3) nonretroactive items are identified in italics. When used in this report, the term “weight” 

means “mass.” 

Note: The policy of NIST and NCWM is to use metric units of measurement in all of their publications; however, 

recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have 

been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units. 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 2 

Subject Series List 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 300 Series 

NIST Handbook 44 – General Code ............................................................................................................... 310 Series 

Scales ....................................................................................................................................................... 320 Series 

Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems ................................................................................................................. 321 Series 

Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems ........................................................................................................ 322 Series 

Weights .................................................................................................................................................... 323 Series 

Automatic Weighing Systems ................................................................................................................. 324 Series 

Liquid-Measuring Devices ...................................................................................................................... 330 Series 

Vehicle-Tank Meters ............................................................................................................................... 331 Series 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices ................................... 332 Series 

Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices .......................................................................................... 333 Series 

Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices ..................................................................................................... 334 Series 

Milk Meters ............................................................................................................................................. 335 Series 

Water Meters ........................................................................................................................................... 336 Series 

Mass Flow Meters ................................................................................................................................... 337 Series 

Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices ............................................................................................ 338 Series 

Hydrogen Gas-Metering Devices – Tentative Code ................................................................................ 339 Series 

Vehicle Tanks Used as Measures ............................................................................................................ 340 Series 

Liquid Measures ...................................................................................................................................... 341 Series 

Farm Milk Tanks ..................................................................................................................................... 342 Series 

Measure-Containers ................................................................................................................................. 343 Series 

Graduates ................................................................................................................................................. 344 Series 

Dry Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 345 Series 

Berry Baskets and Boxes ......................................................................................................................... 346 Series 

Fabric-Measuring Devices ....................................................................................................................... 350 Series 

Wire-and Cordage-Measuring Devices ................................................................................................... 351 Series 

Linear Measures ...................................................................................................................................... 352 Series 

Odometers ............................................................................................................................................... 353 Series 

Taximeters ............................................................................................................................................... 354 Series 

Timing Devices ....................................................................................................................................... 355 Series 

Grain Moisture Meters ............................................................................................................................ 356 Series 

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers ................................................................................................................ 357 Series 

Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices ................................................................................................. 358 Series 

Electronic Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or Devices – Tentative Code ............ 359 Series 

Other Items – Developing Items ..................................................................................................................... 360 Series 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 3 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Reference Key Title of Item Page S&T

300 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

310 HANDBOOK 44 - GENERAL CODE ............................................................................................................ 7

310-1 D G-S.1. Identification. – (Software) ............................................................................................. 7

310-2 VC G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations ......................................................................................... 12

320 SCALES ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

320-1 W S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key .............................................................................. 15

320-2 VC UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance ....................................................................... 17

320-3 I Part 2.20. Weigh-In-Motion Vehicle Scales for Law Enforcement – Work Group ................ 20

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 23

321-1 VC UR.1.2. Conveyor Installation ................................................................................................ 23

330 LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES ............................................................................................................... 25

330-1 VC S.1.6.7. and S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations and UR.3.3. Computing Device ................. 25

330-2 W S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations ........................................................................................... 28

330-3 VC N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices ..................................................................................................... 29

330-4 D N.4.2.5. Initial Verification and UR.2.5.1. Initial Verification Proving Reports .................... 32

330-5A VC UR.3.3. Computing Device. .................................................................................................... 35

330-5B VC UR.3.3. Computing Device. .................................................................................................... 39

330-6 W UR.4. Maintenance Requirements ........................................................................................... 40

330-7 D Part 3.30. Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a Retail 

Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) ............................................................................................... 42

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS ......................................................................................................................... 44

331-1 D N.4.6. Initial Verification and UR.1.5. Initial Verification Proving Reports ........................... 44

331-2 W UR.3. Maintenance Requirements ........................................................................................... 46

332 LPG AND ANHYDROUS AMMONIA LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES ............................................ 48

332-1 D S.1.4.3. Provisions for Power Loss, S.1.5.1.1. Unit Price, S.1.5.1.2. Product Identity, 

S.1.6. For Retail Motor Vehicle Fuel Devices Only, S.1.7. For Wholesale Devices Only, 

UR.2.7. Unit Price and Product Identity, and UR.2..8 Computing Device. ............................. 48

332-2 VC S.1.5.3. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems .................................................... 54

336 WATER METERS ......................................................................................................................................... 55

336-1 W UR.3. Installation Requirements .............................................................................................. 55

337 MASS FLOW METERS ................................................................................................................................ 57

337-1 W Appendix D – Definitions: Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalents 

(DGE); Natural Gas ................................................................................................................. 57

337-2 V Appendix D – Definitions: Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalents 

(DGE) for Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas; Definition of Gasoline 

Gallon Equivalent and Gasoline Liter Equivalent for Compressed Natural Gas; S.1.2. 

Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas Dispensers; S.1.3.1.1. Compressed 

Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel; S.1.3.1.2. Liquefied Natural Gas Used as an Engine 

Fuel; S.5.2. Marking of Diesel and Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor; 

Compressed Natural Gas, S.5.3. Marking of Diesel Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor; 

Liquefied Natural Gas, UR.3.1.1. Marking of Equivalent Conversion Factor for Compressed 

Natural Gas, UR.3.1.2. Marking of Equivalent Conversion Factor for Liquefied Natural Gas, 

and UR.3.8. Return of Product to Storage, Retail Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied 

Natural Gas .............................................................................................................................. 63

337-3    Appendix D – Definitions: Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalents 

(DGE) for Liquefied Natural Gas ............................................................................................ 81
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 4 

337-4 W S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers, S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an 

Engine Fuel, S.5.2. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor; Natural 

Gas ........................................................................................................................................... 81

337-5    S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers, S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an 

Engine Fuel, S.5.2. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor .................. 83

337-6 D Mass Flow Meters Code, S.3.6. Automatic Density Compensation ........................................ 85

354 TAXIMETERS ............................................................................................................................................... 89

354-1 D USNWG on Taximeters – Taximeter Code Revisions and Global Positioning System-Based 

Systems for Time and Distance Measurement ......................................................................... 89

358 MULTIPLE DIMENSION MEASURING DEVICES ................................................................................ 91

358-1 D Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units .................................... 91

360 OTHER ITEMS .............................................................................................................................................. 92

360-1 D International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report .............................................. 92

360-2 D Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability ................................................. 95

360-3 D Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering .............................................................................. 97 

 

Appendices

A Item 320-2: NIST Handbook 44 – Scales, UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance ................. A1

B Item 320-3: NIST Handbook 44 – Scales, Draft Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-In-Motion 

Systems Used for Vehicle Enforcement Screening and proposed definitions to be added to NIST 

Handbook 44, Appendix D to support the Weigh-In-Motion Systems used for Vehicle Enforcement 

Screening – Draft Code ......................................................................................................................... B1

C Item 330-4: NIST Handbook 44 – Liquid-Measuring Devices, N.4.2.5. Determination of Error on 

Wholesale Devices with Multiple Flow Rates and Calibration Factors ................................................ C1 

D Item 331-1: NIST Handbook 44 – Vehicle-Tank Meters, N.4.2.1. Determination of Error on 

Vehicle-Tank Meters with Multiple Flow Rates and Calibration Factors ............................................. D1 

E Items 337-1, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: NIST Handbook 44 – Mass Flow Meters, Background 

and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 Definition of “Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE)” of Natural 

Gas as a Vehicular Fuel ......................................................................................................................... E1 

F Item 358-1: NIST Handbook 44 – Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, Load Scanner Metrology, 

Test Methods and Suitability for Use ..................................................................................................... F1 

G Item 358-1: NIST Handbook 44 – Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, Load Volume Scanner – 

Proposals for Integration into Handbook 44 ......................................................................................... G1 

H Item 360-3: NIST Handbook 44 – Developing Items, Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering ....... H1

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 5 

Table 

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Consent 

Calendar 

310-2 Adopted 

320-2 Adopted 

321-1 Adopted 

330-1 Adopted 

330-3 Adopted 

330-5A Adopted 

330-5B Adopted 

332-2 Adopted 

337-2* 

To hear 

amendment 

Yea: 41 

Nay: 0 

Amendment was 

heard 

337-2 

To amend 

the proposal 

Yea: 29 

Nay: 41 

Amendment 

failed 

338-2 

as presented 29 9 14 27 Returned to Committee 

To Accept 

the Report Voice Vote Adopted 

* Items 232-3, 237-2 and 337-2 were voted upon as a block. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 6 

Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

API American Petroleum Institute MMA Meter Manufacturers Association 

AREMA American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association MPMS Manual of Petroleum Measurement 

Standards 

AWWA American Water Works Association NCWM National Conference on Weights 

and Measures 

BCS Belt-Conveyor Scale NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association 

CC Certificate of Conformance NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

CNG Compressed Natural Gas NGSC NCWM Natural Gas Steering 

Committee 

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 

DGE Diesel Gallon Equivalent OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

DLE Diesel Liter Equivalent OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

DOT Department of Transportation PUC Public Utilities Commission 

FALS Fuels and Lubricants Subcommittee RMFD Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

GGE Gasoline Gallon Equivalent SD Secure Digital 

GIPSA Grain Inspection Packers and 

Stockyard Administration SI International System of Units 

GLE Gasoline Liter Equivalent SMA Scale Manufactures Association 

GMM Grain Moisture Meter SWMA Southern Weights and Measures 

Association 

GPS Global Positioning System TC Technical Committee 

IATR International Association of 

Transportation Regulators USNWG U.S. National Work Group 

IEC International Electrotechnical 

Commission WIM Weigh-in-Motion 

LMD Liquid Measuring Devices WWMA Western Weights and Measures 

Association 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 7 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

310 NIST HANDBOOK 44 - GENERAL CODE 

310-1 D G-S.1. Identification. – (Software) 

Source: 

This item originated from the NTEP Software Sector and first appeared on NCWM S&T Committee’s 2007 agenda 

as Developing Item Part 1, Item 1 and in 2010 as Item 310-3. 

Purpose: 

Provide marking requirements that enable field verification of the appropriate version or revision for metrological 

software, including methods other than “permanently marked,” for providing the required information. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44: G-S.1. Identification and G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-ForPurpose, Software-Based Devices as follows: 

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(1) The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms 

may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The 

abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial 

capitals, all capitals, or all lowercase. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001) 

(c) a nonrepetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and

not-built-for-purpose software-based software devices software;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(Amended 2003) 

(1) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies 

the number as the required serial number. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and 

abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, 

SN, Ser. No., and S. No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic 

devices, which shall be directly linked to the software itself; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 20XX)
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 8 

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, 

begin with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be accessible via the display. Instructions for displaying 

the version or revision identifier shall be described in the CC. As an exception, permanently 

marking the version or revision identifier shall be acceptable under the following conditions: 

(a) The user interface does not have any control capability to activate the indication of the 

version or revision identifier on the display, or the display does not technically allow the 

version or revision identifier to be shown (analog indicating device or electromechanical 

counter) or 

(b) the device does not have an interface to communicate the version or revision identifier. 

(e) an National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Certificate of Conformance (CC) number or a 

corresponding CC Addendum Number for devices that have a CC. 

(1) The CC Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced by the terms 

“NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an 

abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.) 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and, 2006 and 201X) 

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-For-Purpose All Software-Based Devices. – For

not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, either: 

(a) The required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) shall be permanently marked or 

continuously displayed on the device; or 

(b) The CC Number shall be: 

(1) permanently marked on the device; 

(2) continuously displayed; or 

(3) accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu 

and submenu identification include, but are not limited to, “Help,” “System Identification,” 

“G-S.1. Identification,” or “Weights and Measures Identification.” 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 9 

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be 

listed on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type 

that was evaluated. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006 and 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Among other tasks, the NTEP Software Sector was charged by the NCWM Board of Directors to recommend NIST 

Handbook 44 specifications and requirements for software incorporated into weighing and measuring devices, 

which may include tools used for software identification. During its October 2007 meeting, the Sector discussed the 

value and merits of required markings for software, including possible differences in some types of software-based 

devices and methods of marking requirements. After hearing several proposals, the Sector agreed to the following 

technical requirements applicable to the marking of software: 

1. The NTEP CC Number must be continuously displayed or hard-marked; 

2. The version must be software-generated and shall not be hard-marked; 

3. The version is required for embedded (Type P) software; 

4. Printing the required identification information can be an option; 

5. Command or operator action can be considered as an option in lieu of a continuous display of the required 

information; and 

6. Devices with Type P (embedded) software must display or hard-mark the device make, model, and serial 

number to comply with G S.1. Identification. 

In 2008, the Software Sector developed and submitted a proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee to modify G-S.1. 

and associated paragraphs to reflect these technical requirements. Between 2008 and 2011, this item appeared on 

the S&T Committee’s main agenda and the Committee and the Sector received numerous comments and suggestions 

relative to the proposal. The Sector developed and presented several alternatives based on feedback from weights 

and measures officials and manufacturers. Among the key points and concerns raised during discussions over this 

period were how to address the following: 

(a) Limited Character Sets and Space. – How to address devices that have limited character sets or restricted 

space for marking. 

(b) Built-for-Purpose vs. Not-Built-for-Purpose. – Whether or not these should be treated differently. 

(c) Ease of Access. – Ease of accessing marking information in the field. 

 Complexity of locating the marking information 

 Use of menus for accessing the marking information electronically 

 Limits on the number of levels required to access information electronically 

 Possibility of single, uniform method of access 

(d) Hard Marking vs. Electronic. – Whether or not some information should be required to be hard marked 

on the device. 

(e) Continuous Display. – Whether or not required markings must be continuously displayed. 

(f) Abbreviations and Icons. – Establishment of unique abbreviations, identifiers, and icons and how to 

codify those. 

(g) Certificate of Conformance Information. – How to facilitate correlation of software version information 

to a CC, including the use of possible icons. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 10 

Further details on the alternatives considered can be found in the Committee’s Final Reports from 2008 to 2012. 

Just prior to the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Software Sector forwarded to the Committee a modified version 

of the proposed changes to paragraph G-S.1., which the Sector had developed during its March 2013 meeting. The 

modified language, which is that shown in Item Under Consideration, included slight modifications to the previous 

proposal to address concerns received from other sectors and interested parties. 

With regard to the revised proposal, the Sector reported the following: 

 That the new language in G-S.1.1 reflects the Sector’s consensus on the following positions: 

o The software version/revision should, with very few exceptions, be accessible via the user 

interface. 

o The means by which the software version is accessed must be described in the Certificate of 

Conformance (CC). 

 After removing the “and inseparably” terminology from the proposal, the concerns on the possibility of 

controversy were reduced. 

 The Sector’s opinion on the interpretation of “directly linked” is that it means you can’t change the 

version/revision without changing the software. 

 It may be desirable to evaluate options that would lead to fully eliminating G-S.1.1. The Sector recognized 

that that this would be a more invasive modification to the existing handbook and perhaps should be 

delayed until the first step of addressing software in all devices (not just standalone) was accomplished. 

See the Committee’s 2013 Final Report for additional details and background information. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The SMA reported that it continues to support the work of the Software Sector and 

encouraged communications with the other device sectors. 

NIST, OWM raised two concerns relating to the most recent changes proposed by the Software Sector to 

subparagraph G-S.1.(d) and offered some suggestions relative to those concerns as follows: 

1. Deleting the words “for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic devices” creates the implication 

that all equipment manufactured as of January 1, 2004, except weights and separate parts necessary to the 

measurement process but not having any metrological effect, would be required to be permanently marked 

with a current software version or revision identifier. NIST, OWM questioned whether or not it was the 

Software Sector’s intent to require a software version or revision identifier be marked on equipment that is 

not electronic. If not the intent, NIST, OWM suggested that the Sector consider adding additional text to 

better clarify the type of equipment intended to be addressed by this proposed change and offered the 

following additional text for consideration: 

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for software-based electronic devices, which shall 

be directly linked to the software itself; 

2. The proposed changes would require a current software version or revision identifier to be marked on both 

built-for-purpose and not-built-for purpose software based equipment manufactured as of January 1, 2004. 

If it is the intent of the Sector to require that a current software version or revision identifier be marked on 

built-for-purpose software based equipment, then the Sector might consider proposing that such a 

requirement be non-retroactive considering the time and cost involved in updating equipment already in 

service. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 11 

NIST, OWM also provided the following additional feedback on the Software Sector’s proposed changes to 

paragraphs G-S.1. and G-S.1.1. 

 It is not clear what equipment would be affected by the proposed changes to G-S.1.(c). By proposing that 

the word “software” be added, is the exception intended to apply to the software itself or to equipment in 

which the software is installed? 

 In the proposed additions to G-S.1.(d)(3)(a), it is not clear what is meant by the phrase “or the display does 

not technically allow the version or revision identifier to be shown.” The examples “analog indicating 

device” and “electromechanical counter” are confusing. NIST, OWM doesn’t believe these examples 

provide enough information to lead one to conclude that the intent is to address such things as numeric-only 

displays. For example, numeric-only displays that don’t have the capability of displaying abbreviations for 

“version” or “revision” as noted in earlier comments originating from the Sector. 

 NIST, OWM recommends adding some examples to clarify the types of devices described in paragraph 

G-S.1.(d)(3)(b). 

 NIST, OWM agrees with the Software Sector’s assertion that it may be possible to eventually eliminate 

G-S.1.1. at some future date. 

The Committee expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Software Sector; but also noted the concern that this 

item had remained on its agenda for a long time with little progress. Recognizing the difficulty in developing a 

proposal that meets the needs of multiple groups, the Committee agreed to maintain the item on its agenda to allow 

the Sector to finalize work on this issue. The Committee made clear in its report, however, that if no progress was 

made in the next year, it planned to withdraw the item from its agenda. This would not preclude the Sector from 

resubmitting the item at some point in the future when additional work had been done or the item had been fully 

developed. 

During the 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting, the SMA reiterated its support of the Software Sector’s work and looked 

forward to the outcome of an August 2014 joint meeting of the Weighing and Software Sectors. 

NIST, OWM reiterated the comments, concerns, and feedback it provided during the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting 

and that are reflected in the Committee’s Interim Report. NIST, OWM noted that an August 2014 joint meeting of 

the Software and Weighing Sectors is planned to consider the current proposal and to try and reach agreement on the 

changes needed to paragraph G-S.1. NIST, OWM encouraged the two Sectors to consider its comments and 

feedback when considering any changes to the language currently proposed for G-S.1. The approach used in the 

past has been for the sectors to review the proposal in separate meeting sessions; however, this has not resulted in a 

proposal amenable to all Sectors. NIST, OWM believes that it might be more expedient for all of the sectors to 

collaborate in a single joint meeting to try and reach agreement on the changes needed. 

The Committee maintained its earlier position to withdraw this item at the 2015 NCWM Interim Meeting if progress 

on this item has not been made. 

There were two positions from industry members posted on NCWM’s 2014 Online Position Forum; one in support 

of the proposal and the other opposed to it. There were also two written comments posted. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA recommended at their 2013 Interim Meeting that this item remain as a Developing Item and that the item be 

returned to the Software Sector to write a definition for software-based devices. During its 2014 Annual Meeting, 

CWMA supported continued development of the item and recommended it remain a Developing Item. 

WWMA agreed at their 2013 fall meeting that this item has merit, but it needed further development. The WWMA 

also acknowledged that three regions recommended the item remain Developing. WWMA reported that it looked 

forward to hearing the results of the Weighing and Software Sector’s joint meeting and recommended that this item 

remain as a Developing Item. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 12 

NEWMA recognized during its 2013 Interim Meeting that the Committee had requested input on this item from the 

sectors and industry during the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting. NEWMA reported that it anticipated some new 

developments that could move the item forward and recommended the item be maintained as “Developing.” During 

its 2014 Annual Meeting, NEWMA noted that development of the item is still ongoing and again recommended it 

remain as a Developing Item. 

SWMA received a presentation by Mr. Doug Bliss (Mettler Toledo) during its 2013 fall meeting on behalf of the 

Software Sector. The SWMA considered recommending this as a Voting Item due to the length of time it has been 

on the agenda, but comments received indicated that progress would be made in the next year and, with this 

information, the Committee recommends it be maintained as a Developing Item. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional history on this item. 

310-2 VC G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Liquid Controls (2014)

Purpose: 

Address the issue of receipt (printed, electronic, and optional).

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44 General Code as follows: 

G-S.5. Indicating and Recording Elements. 

G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations. – Insofar as they are appropriate, the requirements for indicating and 

recording elements shall also apply to recorded representations. All recorded values shall be printed 

digitally. In applications where recorded representations are required, the customer may be given 

the option of not receiving the recorded representation. For systems equipped with the capability of 

issuing an electronic receipt, ticket, or other recorded representation, the customer may be given the 

option to receive any required information electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.) in lieu 

of or in addition to a hard copy. 

(Amended 1975 and 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: Members expressed support for including requirements to address the use of 

electronic receipts in the General Code rather than in individual device codes. Including requirements in the 

General Code would eliminate confusion and inconsistency, consolidate provisions from individual codes, and 

confine future updates to a single code.

The concept of providing receipts electronically is incorporated in certain provisions of the Liquid-Measuring 

Devices Code. Similar provisions are needed in other specific NIST Handbook 44 codes. Inserting a single 

provision in the General Code to address the use of electronic receipts will be more efficient then proposing changes 

to multiple individual codes and will eliminate inconsistencies among sections. 

Some concerns have been raised that recognition of electronic receipts could lead to the elimination of printed 

receipts, particularly for customers who have limited access to the internet, smart phones, and other electronic 

access. However, the proposal is written to ensure that the printed receipt remains an option for the customer. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 13 

A summary of the proposed changes is as follows: 

 If a receipt is required, allow the customer to decline the option of receiving any type of receipt. 

 Add an option of electronic receipt as long as the system has the capability of generating electronic 

receipts. 

 If a receipt is desired, allow customer to select between printed and electronic receipt; or both. 

 Remove references to electronic receipts from the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code as they will be 

redundant. 

See Item 330-5 for related background and discussions. See also Item 330-1 for a related proposal. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: Mr. Steve Langford (Cardinal Scale Manufacturing), speaking on behalf of the 

SMA, stated that the SMA could see no harm in giving the consumer the option of not receiving the recorded 

representation or receiving the recorded representation in alternative forms. The SMA supported the item as written. 

NIST, OWM noted that weighing and measuring equipment that has the capability of issuing an 

electronic receipt exists, yet the information contained on the receipt is not required by NIST Handbook 

44. For example, nowhere in NIST Handbook 44 is it required that a printed ticket from a scale that is 

not part of a POS system contain certain information. For this reason, NIST, OWM finds the use of the 

word “the” immediately preceding the word “required” in the second sentence of the proposal somewhat 

confusing and recommended replacing the word “the” with the word “any” so that the sentence reads as 

follows: For systems equipped with the capability of issuing an electronic receipt, ticket, or other 

recorded representation, the customer may be given the option to receive the any required information 

electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.) in lieu of or in addition to a hard copy.

NIST, OWM also noted that Item 330-1 includes a corresponding proposal. Should the Committee decide to 

advance Items 310-2 and 330-1, the Committee should give consideration to consolidating them into a single item 

for NCWM action. See also Items 331-1 LPG Code Modifications (UR.2.8.) and 332-2 (S.1.5.3. Recorded 

Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems, LPG Code) which may also be impacted by action on Item 310-2. 

Ms. Fran Elson-Houston (Ohio and Chair of the Task Group (TG) on RMFD Price Posting and Computing 

Capability) stated that the TG on RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability supports this item. Mr. Gordon 

Johnson (Gilbarco, Inc.) also supported the item. Mr. Michael Keilty (Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG USA) 

commented that an electronic failure would lead to consumers being unable to receive a receipt. 

The Committee agreed with NIST, OWM’s assessment that not all weighing and measuring equipment equipped 

with the capability of issuing an electronic receipt, ticket or recorded representation is explicitly required to provide 

certain information on the receipt or ticket. For example, NIST Handbook 44 does not require any of the 

information that typically gets recorded onto a printed ticket generated from a stand-alone small capacity computing 

scale used in a direct sale application. NIST Handbook 44 does require any information that is provided on the 

receipt or ticket of such a scale to be accurate and clearly identified. For this reason, the Committee concluded that 

the use of the word “the” in the second sentence of the proposal may lead to confusion and agreed to replace that 

word with the word “any” as suggested by NIST, OWM and shown in the “Item Under Consideration.” The 

Committee acknowledged that there are potential overlaps with this item and Items 330-1, 330-5B, 332-1, and 

332-2, which could lead to potential conflicts if this item is adopted. The Committee plans to address any conflict 

which might arise by modifying those items prior to presenting them for a vote. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments from Mr. Ross Andersen (New York retired), 

reporting that he wished to explain comments that he had posted on NCWM’s On-line Position Forum. NIST 

Technical Advisor’s note: Mr. Andersen had opposed the item on NCWM’s On-line Position Forum and posted 

comments supporting that position. Mr. Andersen stated that the option for customers to receive information 

electronically is probably already provided in each state’s public records law. He suggested that the text proposed 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 14 

for addition to paragraph G.S.5.6. does not relate to the design of a device and therefore should not be part of a 

“Specification” requirement. It would be the device owner/operator’s responsibility to provide customers the option 

of not receiving the recorded representation or to receive any required information electronically. Thus, it was his 

view that the proposed text for addition would be more appropriately represented as a user requirement. He 

referenced the “System of Paragraph Designation” Section in the Introduction portion of NIST Handbook 44, noting 

that “Specification” paragraphs relate to the design of equipment; “User Requirements” are directed particularly to 

the owner and operator of a device, and apply to the selection, installation, use, and maintenance of devices. 

Mr. Andersen also acknowledged that not all customers have “Smart” phones, and consequently took the position 

that any ability to offer electronic receipts should not preclude customers from being able to receive a hard copy 

receipt. 

Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls), submitter of the item, agreed with comments provided by Mr. Andersen, 

noting that the intent of the proposal is to streamline NIST Handbook 44 by eliminating “Specification” 

requirements in many device codes and replacing them with a single General Code requirement that applies to all 

devices. He acknowledged that the proposed language may not be perfect, but suggested moving the item forward 

as proposed and possibly refining it later. 

Mr. Michael Keilty (Endress Hauser Flowtec AG) commented that he wouldn’t want to see the text being proposed 

for addition included in a User Requirement as suggested by Mr. Andersen. If that were the case, the requirement 

might be interpreted to apply only to the owner of the equipment and not the user, which is the customer. The intent 

of this proposal is for the customer to be in charge of deciding whether he/she wants the receipt, and, if so, the form 

(hard copy or electronic) in which he/she wishes to receive it. The proposed language could be strengthened to 

ensure customers are provided the option of receiving required information in hard copy or in electronic form. 

NIST, OWM commented that as a general rule, it favors the elimination of similar requirements in different device 

codes of the Handbook; that is, those requirement which address the same issue or concern over a single requirement 

in the General Code that can be applied consistently throughout all codes. Many of the points made by Mr. Ross 

Andersen in comments posted on the NCWM’s On-line Position Forum are well taken. NIST, OWM suggested that 

rather than delay changes that would immediately clarify that an electronic receipt is an acceptable alternative, the 

Committee proceeded with the item as proposed. However, in recognition of the validity of Mr. Andersen’s points, 

NIST, OWM suggested the Committee consider developing a new item for submission in the next NCWM cycle. 

This item could explore the development of a new General Code User Requirement that would require users of 

equipment to provide customers a receipt of all information required to be recorded by a device (or system). This 

paragraph could be added to either replace the text proposed for addition to G-S.5.6. or to compliment it as a standalone paragraph. 

With respect to the comments provided by Mr. Andersen, Mr. Karimov, and NIST, OWM, the Committee received a 

number of additional comments mostly in favor of moving the item forward as proposed (i.e., as a “Specification”) 

with the understanding that the Committee considers developing a new item for submission in the next NCWM 

cycle as suggested by NIST, OWM. 

The SMA reiterated the comments provided during the NCWM Interim Meeting in support of the item. 

The Committee agreed with comments suggesting that this item might be better suited as a “User Requirement,” but 

also that, while the creation of a user proposal may have merit, the proposed changes to paragraph G-S.5.6. should 

not be delayed. The Committee agreed to recommend the item as shown above in the “Item Under Consideration” 

for a vote, noting that should there be a strong desire within the community to develop a proposal for a supplemental 

user requirement, it would be amenable to considering such a proposal in the future. 

There were three positions posted on NCWM’s 2014 Online Position Forum; two from industry in support and one 

from government opposed. 

Regional Association Comments:

CWMA reported that comments were heard during their 2013 Interim Meeting regarding the ability of weights and 

measures officials to review receipts in an electronic format (e.g., delays, ability to retrieve, etc.) and that it believed 

the proposal adequately addressed these concerns. Consequently, the CWMA supported moving the item forward as 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 15 

a Voting item. At their 2014 Annual Meeting, the CWMA reported that it believes the item has been sufficiently 

developed and recommended the item be a Voting Item. NEWMA supported the item moving forward as a Voting 

item during their 2014 Annual Meeting and reported that the proposed changes recognize the evolution of a 

transaction between buyer and seller and new technologies used to deliver receipts other than printed documents. 

This language is necessary to recognize new technology and address it in NIST Handbook 44. 

SWMA noted at their 2013 fall meeting that it did not receive any comments opposing this item when it met in 

2013, reported that the item has merit and should be considered by the NCWM S&T Committee. 

320 SCALES 

320-1 W S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

California Division of Measurement Standards (2014) 

Purpose: 

Allow a combined “zero/tare” feature under specified conditions. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Scales Code as follows: 

S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (“0/T”) Key. – The semi-automatic zero-setting and the semi-automatic

tare-mechanism can be operated by the same key on Class I, II, and III scales with digital indications 

provided that: 

(a) The overall effect of semi-automatic zero-setting and zero-tracking mechanisms shall be not 

more than 4 % of the maximum capacity; and 

(b) Either automatically maintain a “center-of-zero” condition to ± 1⁄4 scale division or less, or have 

an auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator that defines a zero-balance condition to 

± 1⁄4 of a scale division or less. A “center-of-zero” indication may operate when zero is indicated 

for gross and/or net mode(s). 

Scales not intended to be used in direct sales applications may be equipped with a combined zero and 

tare function key, provided that the device is clearly marked as to how the key functions. The device must 

also be clearly marked on or adjacent to the weight display with the statement “Not for Direct Sales.” 

Background/Discussion: 

Various scale manufacturers have manufactured or imported Class II scales that are equipped with a combined 

zero/tare button for jewelry sale/purchase applications. Many of these scales are in use in direct retail sales, 

particularly in the purchasing of gold, silver, and other precious metals and stones. It has not been demonstrated, or 

documented, how the combination of tare/zero function causes fraud if the feature complies with the following 

similar clause in OIML R 76: Automatic Indicating Weighing Instruments: 

4.6.9 Combined zero-setting and tare-balancing devices 

If the semi-automatic zero-setting device and the semi-automatic tare-balancing device are 

operated by the same key, 4.5.2 (zero within ± 0.25 e), 4.5.5 (zero within ± 0.25 e) and if 

appropriate 4.5.7 (operation of zero-tracking) apply at any load. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 16 

The existence of a unique “type-approved” scale which cannot be used in a “direct sales” transaction, combined with 

the fact that so many of these scales are being sold by manufacturers and distributors into direct sales applications 

without the required statement “Not For Use in Direct Sales” has caused confusion. It is believed that this proposal 

would be preferable to legal actions against the manufacturers for failing to meet conditions on the type-approval 

certificate because they failed to place the required “Not for Direct Sales” statement on their machines without 

demonstrated harm to customers. Additionally, it appears that the combination zero/tare feature in NIST 

Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.2.1.6. is not addressed in NCWM Publication 14 checklist for Digital 

Electronic Scales.

An argument against the amendment is the inability for a customer to see the “net” weight indication when all 

(intended) tare values are less than 4 % of the capacity of the scale. However, at least one manufacturer submitted a 

scale with the 0/T feature without the required marking that was not evaluated due to omissions on the NTEP 

application. The NTEP CC has been active for several years with nearly 20 000 scales sold in California alone. 

Weights and measures jurisdictions in California have not reported any complaints or made observations that the 

feature was used to facilitate inaccurate transactions. 

This subject was originally considered by the NTEP Weighing Sector in 1997 and paragraph S.2.1.6. was 

subsequently adopted by the NCWM in 1998. During the deliberations of Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee Agenda Item 220-3, the Weighing Sector stated that “because it is common to find tares taken in direct 

sales operations that are less than seven divisions (7d), they were concerned over the use of this feature in direct 

sales applications. The laboratories consider these devices acceptable in applications where there would be a clear 

understanding of the “zero/tare” key function provided: (1) there are clear and definite markings on the scale 

adjacent to the zero tare key with a statement describing its operation (e.g., for the scale in the example given “Zero 

up to 7d; tare over 7d” or similar wording); and (2) the scale must be clearly and definitely marked with the 

statement “Not for Use in Direct Sales to the Public.” The NCWM S&T Committee noted that jurisdictions vary in 

the type of operations which are considered “direct sales.” For instance, only some jurisdictions consider produce 

grading and meat room packaging scales to be “direct sale” applications. The Committee felt that the classification 

of an operation should be left to the jurisdiction. The Committee recommended that devices equipped with a “0/T” 

key be clearly and permanently marked with: (1) a description of how the key functions; and (2) the statement “Not 

for Direct Sales” adjacent to the display on both the customer’s and operator’s side of the device. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The SMA opposed the inclusion of Class III devices in the proposal and the 4 % 

maximum overall effect of semi-automatic zero-setting and zero-tracking mechanisms imposed by the proposal. 

The SMA noted that NIST Handbook 44 does not limit the zeroing effect of a semi-automatic zero setting 

mechanism. The SMA also noted that S.1.1.1.(b) is redundant and that if each of these references were removed, 

there would be no point in making any changes to the paragraph.

The Committee also heard from Mr. Lou Straub (Fairbanks Scales) opposing the inclusion of Class III scales in the 

proposal. 

The Committee heard concerns from NIST, OWM regarding the fact that, should the combined “0/T” key be 

permitted on scales used in direct sales, there will not be a clear indication that a weighing operation starts with the 

scale on zero or that tare has been taken, and therefore, the feature may not provide adequate consumer protection in 

direct sale applications. Additionally, the proposal only addresses semiautomatic zero setting and semiautomatic 

tare mechanisms and doesn’t restrict other types of tare or zero from being used, which might possibly facilitate the 

perpetration of fraud. 

Ms. Angela Godwin (Ventura County Department of Weights and Measures) and Mr. John Young (Yolo County 

California Agriculture Department) provided comments in support of the proposal. 

In considering this item, the Committee first questioned the availability of Class II scales in the marketplace that 

have been issued an NTEP CC and could be considered suitable for use in direct sale applications. The Committee 

concluded that there are numerous Class II scales available for purchase meeting these criteria. The Committee then 

considered whether it’s appropriate to change NIST Handbook 44 to allow scales equipped with a combined “0/T” 

key be used in direct sale applications. The Committee agreed that it would not be appropriate given the number of 

available Class II scales already in the marketplace that have been designed for direct sale applications, the concerns 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 17 

raised by NIST, OWM, and the opposition expressed by the SMA. Consequently, the Committee agreed to 

withdraw this item from its agenda. 

At their spring 2014 Meeting, the SMA supported the withdrawal of this item. 

Regional Association Comments: 

The WWMA reported at their fall 2013 meeting that it had received similar proposals on this item. The first 

proposal by Mr. Paul Jordan (Ventura County California) was withdrawn by the submitter and the second proposal 

by Mr. Steve Cook (California) was recommended. The WWMA after hearing testimony from Ms. Juana Williams 

(NIST, OWM) and Mr. Darrell Flocken (Mettler Toledo) had concerns about the need for this section in NIST 

Handbook 44. The WWMA recommended that Mr. Cook meet with the Weighing Sector to determine whether or 

not there is a need for this section and, if so, consider if 4 % of the scale capacity is an appropriate limit. WWMA 

forwarded this item to NCWM, recommending that it be a Developing item. 

WWMA heard comments in support of the item at their fall 2013 meeting, but had some concerns about the 4 % 

limitation. There were also issues regarding the need for the limitation on such a small market of scales in 

commercial applications. The Committee recommended the item continue to be developed. SWMA forwarded the 

item to NCWM. 

320-2 VC UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Schenck Process Inc. (2014) 

Purpose: 

Allow for an in-motion rail scale to have a continuous rail on the approach and weighing area. Such a design is 

presently in conflict with Scales Code paragraph UR.2.4., which states “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.” 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.20. Scales as follows: 

UR.2.4. 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. An in-motion railway track scale is not required to 

provide clearance using rail gaps to separate the live rail portion of the weighing/load-receiving element 

from that which is not live if the scale is designed to be installed and operated using continuous rail. On 

vehicle and livestock scales, the clearance between the load receiving elements and the coping at the bottom 

edge of the platform shall be greater than at the top edge of the platform.* 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1973] 

(Amended 2014)

Background/Discussion: 

Schenck Process, Inc. is presently testing a scale called the “MultiRail,” that is used to weigh rail cars in-motion and 

statically and which does not require the rail to be cut prior to the weighing area. During the August 2013 Weighing 

Sector meeting, the Sector recommended that the requirement for rail gaps that is presently in the 

checklist/procedures section of Publication 14 be removed. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 18 

This equipment was also presented to the AREMA Scales Committee 34 at the October 2013 meeting in Nashville, 

Tennessee. Discussions have previously been held with Committee 34 regarding the “MultiRail” scale, and 

Committee 34 wants to ensure the equipment complies with weighing accuracies in NIST Handbook 44. 

The Schenck MultiRail is new technology for weighing rail cars in the US, but it has been used around the world 

and is OIML approved. 

Testing of the system has been on-going at the American Association of Railroads test center in Pueblo, Colorado, 

for over one year. These tests have proved the durability of the design, since over 350 million gross tons have 

crossed the system during this period and NTEP testing is now being conducted in conjunction with GIPSA. 

This issue was also presented to the NTEP Committee at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting and Schenck Process 

agreed to install equipment and pass the NTEP test for static and in-motion weighing. When the testing was 

completed, Schenck advised they wanted to have the requirement for rail gaps removed from NCWM Publication 14 

and a CC issued for the device. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Dr. Ulrich Rauchschwalbe (Schenck Process, Inc.) provided a presentation 

regarding the operation of a Schenck in-motion railway track scale, which does not use rail gaps to separate the live 

rail portion of the weighing/load receiving element from portions of the rail that are not live. That is, continuous rail 

is used throughout. Dr. Rauchschwalbe clarified that the application of this railway track scale is restricted to 

coupled-in-motion and uncoupled-in-motion weighing and is not intended to be used commercially for static 

weighing, although there may be instances where the scale could be used statically as a reference scale. That is, the 

scale could be used statically to determine the reference weights of railcars selected for use in conducting an 

uncoupled-in-motion or coupled-in-motion test of the scale. Mr. Ed Luthy (Schenck Process, Inc.) indicated that 

NTEP evaluations have successfully been completed on a device of this design. 

Mr. Rafael Jimenez (AAR Transportation Technology Center) commented that the AAR supports the proposal as 

written. 

Mr. Steve Beitzel (Systems Associates, Inc.) questioned whether enough U.S. data is available to be able to properly 

evaluate the performance of the system, noting that “railroading” is much different in the United States than in 

Europe. More U.S. field experience using the system is needed because trains travel at faster speeds in Europe and 

railcar loads are significantly heavier in the United States. Mr. Beitzel also questioned the impact of shear forces on 

device performance and the degree of sensitivity of the device relative to longitudinal or vertical forces that result 

from the use of continuous rail installed over the weighing/load-receiving element of the scale. 

NIST, OWM noted that some of the written comments and suggestions it provided to the Committee in advance of 

the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting had been addressed, although perhaps not fully, in the presentation provided by 

Dr. Rauchschwalbe. NIST, OWM provided the following written comments to the Committee in advance of the 

meeting: 

 It might be helpful if additional information concerning the technology used and/or the safeguards 

incorporated into the design of the scale system were made available by the manufacturer of the equipment. 

Once made available, this information could be used to make an informed decision on whether or not 

adequate protections have been incorporated into the design of the equipment to ensure weighments will be 

accurate under normal service conditions and adjustments will remain reasonably permanent. This 

information might also be beneficial in determining whether or not additional Specification and/or User 

Requirements are needed. 

 One particular issue needing explanation is how an in-motion railroad weighing system, which uses 

continuous rail (no rail gaps), is able to differentiate between loads applied to the live portion of the 

weighing/load-receiving element of the scale and loads approaching the live portion, but not yet having 

arrived, and where the separation occurs between live and dead rail (if in fact there is such a separation). 

More specifically, how are weight influences from approaching cars in a train filtered out by the system 

that they have no effect on railcars that are being weighed? 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 19 

 The intended application of the railroad weighing system needs to be clarified. The proposed footnote to 

be added specifies “coupled-in-motion railway track scale,” but the “Purpose” of the item specifies “static 

or in-motion,” leading one to believe the application could be any type of railroad weighing system. 

In considering this item, members of the Committee agreed that, based on the presentation and the comments 

provided during the Open Hearings, which confirmed the NTEP evaluations had been successfully completed, this 

item was ready for vote. Consequently, the Committee agreed to recommend the item as shown above in the “Item 

Under Consideration” for a vote. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: Dr. Rauchschwalbe provided a presentation, similar to the one given during the 

2014 Interim Meeting, regarding the operation of the Schenck MultiRail in-motion railway track scale. A copy of 

his presentation slides is included in Appendix A. Dr. Rauchschwalbe reported that there are over 300 commercial 

installations of the scale worldwide. Dr. Rauchschwalbe responded to a number of questions from the Committee 

and the audience. 

The Committee received numerous industry comments in support of the proposal. Some of the more significant 

comments heard in support of the proposal are as follows: 

 The scale has passed NTEP’s evaluation for both static and in-motion weighing. The intended application 

is for in-motion railroad weighing. 

 The procedures for reference car weighing in static mode are just like those used for any other static 

railroad scale. 

 We’ve received many requests for the scale (comments from a scale installer). The scale will serve a great 

need. There is much less rail down time during installation compared to other railcar weighing systems. 

 Gaps in the rail create a maintenance problem. Stones, ice, debris, etc., can get lodged in the gap between 

the live and dead rails causing binding. Also, rails expand when exposed to heat causing a lessening of the 

gap to the extent that sometimes the live and dead rails contact one another. Having no rail gap is a step 

forward. 

 We operate the first ever Schenck MultiRail in-motion railroad scale installed in the United States for 

commercial application (comment from PBF Energy, DE.). The scale is accurate and durable. We’ve 

completed over 9100 weighings at speeds up to seven miles per hour and at an accuracy of 0.2 percent. 

Installation was completed over a weekend on track that could not be taken out of service. 

NIST, OWM noted that it was stated during the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting S&T open hearings that the 

“MultiRail” scale is not intended to be used commercially for static weighing, although there may be instances 

where the scale could be used statically as a reference scale. NIST, OWM interpreted that comment to mean that 

there may be instances where the scale could be used statically to determine the reference weights of railcars 

selected for use in conducting an uncoupled-in-motion or coupled-in-motion test of the scale. If that interpretation is 

correct, NIST, OWM believes it would be important for the manufacture to provide instructions for using the scale 

in a static mode to weigh the reference test cars. That is, the procedures that would need to be followed in order to 

attain the degree of accuracy necessary to be able to use those railcars as a standard in testing a coupled-in-motion or 

uncoupled-in-motion railway track scale, whichever the case may be. As a reminder, NIST, OWM noted that in 

order to qualify as a standard in testing commercial weighing and measuring equipment, the Fundamental 

Considerations of NIST Handbook 44 requires the combined error and uncertainty of the standard to be less than 

one-third the applicable device tolerance when the standard is used without correction. 

With respect to the scale’s use as a reference scale, NIST, OWM suggested that if the determination is made that the 

“MultiRail” scale isn’t capable of providing accurate enough weight determinations for the scale to be used to 

establish the reference weights of railcars, then a User Requirement may need to be added to the Scales Code of 

NIST Handbook 44 making it the user’s responsibility to ensure there is a suitable reference scale available for this 

purpose. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 20 

The SMA supported the item, commenting it feels that restrictions limiting technology should be eliminated. 

Mr. Rafael Jimenez (AAR Transportation Technology Center) commented that the AAR supports the proposal as 

written. 

The Committee agreed to recommend the item be presented for vote as shown in “Item Under Consideration,” 

hearing numerous comments in support of the proposal and no comments in opposition. 

There were two positions from industry members posted on NCWM’s 2014 Online Position Forum in support of the 

proposal. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA recommended the item as “Developing” during their 2013 Interim Meeting, noting the following reasons: 

 The NTEP evaluation is incomplete. 

 This is an emerging technology; a new code(s) may be appropriate for this type of device. 

 There hasn’t been enough data provided to show if this device is suitable for use in this application. 

At their 2014 Annual Meeting, CWMA reported that at it believed the item had been sufficiently developed and 

recommended it move forward for a vote. 

NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM and recommended it as a Voting Item at their 2014 Annual Meeting. 

NEWMA reported that it believes the item has been fully developed, the technology has been tested, the NTEP 

evaluation has been successfully completed, and the device suitable for use its intended application. 

SWMA worked with the submitter this of item and editorially corrected it during the Committee work session in 

2013. The Committee heard comments in support of the item from the Weighing Sector and other scale 

manufacturers. The Committee supported this item as a Voting Item and forwarded it to NCWM. 

320-3 I Part 2.20. Weigh-In-Motion Vehicle Scales for Law Enforcement – Work Group 

Source: 

NIST, OWM, Mr. Richard Harshman, on behalf of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2011) 

Purpose: 

To provide the U.S. weights and measures community (equipment manufacturers, weights and measures officials, 

truck weight enforcement officials, and other users) with legal metrology requirements to address WIM systems 

used for vehicle enforcement screening. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Adopt the proposed Section 2.25. Weigh-In-Motion Systems Used for Vehicle Enforcement Screening Code shown 

in Appendix B as a tentative code in NIST Handbook 44, and adopt the proposed definitions of terms used in the 

tentative code (also included in Appendix B) into NIST Handbook 44 Appendix D - Definitions. 

Background/Discussion: 

The nation’s highways, freight transportation system, and enforcement resources are being strained by the volume of 

freight being moved and the corresponding number of commercial vehicles operating on its roads. Traditional, 

static-based vehicle inspection activities simply cannot keep pace with anticipated truck volume increases. Current 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) forecasts project freight volumes to double by 2035 and commercial 

vehicles to travel an additional 100 billion miles per year by 2020. WIM technology has been targeted by FHWA 

and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as a technology capable of supporting more effective and efficient 

truck weight enforcement programs. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 21 

Several DOT efforts are underway and planned for the future to maintain adequate levels of enforcement that ensure 

equity in the trucking industry market and protection of highway infrastructure. Judicial support for enforcement 

decisions to apply more intense enforcement actions on specific trucks depends on support from the U.S. legal 

metrology community. Standards are needed in NIST Handbook 44 to address the design, installation, accuracy, 

and use of WIM systems used in a screening/sorting application. The implementation of a uniform set of standards 

will greatly improve the overall efficiency of the nation’s commercial vehicle enforcement process. 

Once adopted by the truck weight enforcement community, these requirements will enhance the accuracy of the 

nation’s WIM scale systems; serve as a sound basis for judicial support of next-generation truck weight enforcement 

programs; and result in fewer legally loaded vehicles being delayed at static weigh station locations, thus reducing 

traffic congestion and non-productive fuel consumption and improving the movement of freight on our nation’s 

roadways. 

Purpose of the Project: 

The FHWA’s Office of Freight Management and Operations recognized a need to encourage uniformity in the 

design, testing, installation, and performance of WIM technology and subsequently encourage acceptance by 

prosecution agencies (administrative or judicial) regarding the validity of WIM technology’s role in supporting 

commercial motor vehicle weight enforcement. 

In response to this need and recognizing the value of having a standard included in NIST Handbook 44 because it 

lends integrity and is more recognizable in legal actions, the FHWA seeks to integrate WIM technology into the 

Handbook. The FHWA contracted the services of the Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas A&M University 

System and Battelle (a private company) to begin this process. Additionally, a small oversight Committee was 

formed by the FHWA, made up of three representatives from the FHWA, NIST, and a U.S. manufacturer of WIM 

equipment to validate that each contract deliverable is completed according to contract. NIST, OWM also agreed to 

provide a technical advisor to the associated work group tasked with development of the proposed code. 

The intended application of the proposed new code is for screening purposes only (i.e., for screening/sorting 

commercial vehicles for possible violations of FHWA vehicle weight requirements). 

To view a detailed summary on the progress of this project since its inception in December 2011 through 2012, refer 

to “Timeline of Completed Tasks Relating to the Project” in S&T Agenda Item 360-3 in the Committee’s 2012 Final 

Report. Refer to the Committee’s 2013 final report for additional background information. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The WIM Project Leader, Mr. Tom Kearney (USDOT - FHWA) provided an update 

on the progress of development of the draft code. Mr. Kearney indicated that the WG had planned to convene 

during the fall of 2013 to address the three concerns raised by NIST, OWM during the 2013 NCWM Annual 

Meeting, but was unable to do so because of scheduling conflicts. Since the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, a WG 

member from the Netherlands had submitted some new comments concerning the draft code. The purpose of the 

next WG meeting will be to address the three NIST, OWM concerns and to review the new comments from the 

Netherlands. That WG meeting would likely take place in April or May 2014. It was hoped that revisions to the 

draft code could be completed shortly thereafter so that a revised copy of the draft code could be made available to 

members of the weights and measures community prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2014. In the 

meantime, the WG continues to seek input on the current draft from anyone wishing to do so. 

The SMA commented that it continues to support the efforts of the WG and looks forward to seeing the next draft of 

the proposed Code. 

Mr. Steve Langford (Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. and member of the FHWA’s Project Oversight Committee) 

also voiced his support of the efforts of the WG. 

The Committee agreed to maintain the Informational status of the item and looks forward to further development of 

the draft code by the WG. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 22 

During the 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mr. Rick Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, to the WIM WG provided 

an update on the progress of the draft code, including changes agreed to by the WG during their most recent meeting 

held in Washington, D.C. in June 2014. Mr. Harshman thanked the WIM WG for agreeing to meet to consider 

NIST, OWM’s three comments relative to the draft code and that NIST, OWM’s concerns relating to those three 

comments had been satisfied during that meeting. During the meeting, the WG agreed to the following: 

 To amend the draft code by specifying that a three independent platform vehicle scale be used to establish 

the reference test loads for axle, axle-group, and total vehicle weight, which are needed in the testing of a 

WIM system. NIST, OWM considers the three platform vehicle scale the “best option” to being able to 

establish accurate reference standards for testing when considering the different scale types available. 

 Add a “note” and an additional “table” to the draft code making clear their decision of allowing higher 

accuracy classes to be added to the code in the future providing it can be demonstrated that WIM systems 

grouped within those accuracy classes can achieve the higher level of accuracy specified for those classes. 

 With respect to NIST, OWM’s suggestion to the WG to consider adding approach requirements, the WG 

didn’t believe approach requirements were currently needed based on the large tolerances specified in the 

draft code for a Class A device. The WG did agree with NIST, OWM’s assertion that the introduction of 

higher accuracy classes in the future would likely dictate the need to include approach requirements. 

Mr. Harshman indicated that the next step would be to submit the revised draft code to the regional associations for 

consideration during their fall meetings. 

Mr. Langford provided comment in support of the draft code and reported that it had already been revised to reflect 

the changes agreed to by the WG. He requested that the regional associations review the draft code at their next 

meeting. 

The SMA reported that it supported the efforts of the work group and looked forward to seeing the next draft of the 

proposed code. 

Mr. Lou Straub (Fairbanks Scales) stated that Fairbanks supplies WIM devices and supports the draft code moving 

forward. 

The Committee agreed to maintain the item as “Informational” based on the comments provided. A copy of the 

most recent draft code (i.e., Revision 2) is included in Appendix B. 

There was one industry position posted on NCWM’s 2014 Online Position Forum in support of the proposal. 

Regional Association Comments: 

The CWMA did not receive any additional comments on this item during their 2013 Interim Meeting and 

2014 Annual Meeting and recommended that this item remain as an Informational Item. 

WWMA recognizes the efforts by the WIM WG and Mr. Darrell Flocken (Mettler Toledo and Chair of the WG) 

comments that updated the Conference on the progress of the WG during their 2013 Annual meeting. The WWMA 

looks forward to hearing the results of the WIM WG meeting. WWMA recommended that this item be an 

Informational item. 

During their 2013 Interim meeting, NEWMA reported that it awaits final language from the Work Group and 

recommended that the item be an Informational Item. During their 2014 Annual Meeting, NEWMA reported that 

work on this item is still ongoing and recommended the “Informational” status be maintained pending the outcome 

of the June 2014 WIM WG Meeting. 

SWMA received a Work Group report from Mr. Flocken at their fall 2013 meeting. The Committee did not have a 

recommendation on this item. Based on comments received, the Committee supported further development of the 

draft code by the WIM Work Group. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 23 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional history on this item. 

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS 

321-1 VC UR.1.2. Conveyor Installation 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

U.S. National Work Group on Belt-Conveyor Scales (2014) 

Purpose: 

Simplify the requirement for belt tension by making it consistent regardless of belt length without prescribing the 

type of device to accomplish this. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Code as follows: 

UR.1.2. Conveyor Installation 

. 

. 

. 

. 

(d) Take-up Device. – If the belt length is such that a take up device is required, this device 

shall be of the counter weighted type for either vertical or horizontal travel. Any take-up 

device shall provide constant and consistent tension for the belt under all operating 

conditions. 

(Amended 2014) 

Note: No changes are proposed for other subparagraphs under UR.1.2.

Background/Discussion: 

During discussions at the 2012 and 2013 meetings of the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scales, the WG recognized 

that there are take-up devices in use on belt-conveyor scale systems that operate favorably that are constructed 

according to designs other than the “counter weighted” type. One example is a take-up device that is reportedly 

capable of producing acceptable results and operates by incorporating a hydraulic-operated belt tension adjustment 

mechanism that responds to input from a load cell, which actively monitors belt tension. The USNWG agrees that 

the existing requirement of a “counter weighted” type of belt tension device is excessively prescriptive and the work 

group does not consider it appropriate to mandate design criteria for belt-conveyor systems in the NIST 

Handbook 44 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Code. 

Furthermore, the existing language in NIST Handbook 44, (2.21.) paragraph UR.1.2.(d) does not explicitly require 

the use of a gravity-type (or counter-weighted) tension device unless the conveyor is of sufficient length that a takeup device is needed. The phrase “of sufficient length” does not provide clearly defined parameters regarding belt 

length in this existing requirement. Thus, the need for a belt tension device is open to interpretation by enforcement 

officials and the lack of specificity is believed to detract from the uniform application of the requirement. The 

current language also implies that relatively shorter conveyors may not need any type of belt tensioning device and 

the validity of that notion is being questioned by some USNWG members. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Bill Ripka (Thermo Fisher Scientific), Chair of the USNWG on BCS, spoke on 

behalf of Thermo Fisher Scientific and the USNWG on BCS in support of the proposal. Mr. Ripka indicated that 

the views of the USNWG are clear and based on a belief that NIST Handbook 44 is a set of criteria and not intended 

to be a design manual. There are many ways of addressing belt tension in the marketplace today. To be able to 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 24 

increase belt speed, some other form of belt tensioning device is needed because a counter weight take-up device 

can’t accommodate higher speeds. NIST Handbook 44 should not prevent technology from moving forward. 

The Committee also heard comments from the SMA in support of the item as written, providing the rationale that a 

specification should not mandate product design. 

Hearing no opposition and only comments in support of the proposed changes to UR.1.2. Conveyor Installation, the 

Committee agreed to recommend the item as shown above in the “Item Under Consideration” for a vote. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: The SMA supported the item as written, reiterating comments provided during the 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

NIST, OWM provided the following comments with respect to this item: 

 The proposed changes will remove prescriptive language that permits only the use of a certain type of 

device to maintain tension on a conveyor belt that complies with specific design criteria. 

 This requirement as it currently exists allows only the type of “take-up” device that utilizes a counter 

weight and the force of gravity in order to maintain belt tension. 

 NIST, OWM expects that replacing this wording with the proposed language result in manufacturers of 

belt-conveyor scale weighing systems having greater flexibility in the design criteria for their equipment. 

 Based on manufacturers and other experts, NIST, OWM understands that alternative designs for devices 

that provide conveyor belt tension are available and will perform satisfactorily while established criteria for 

belt-conveyor scale performance are maintained. 

 Some types of systems may perform within acceptable limits without the use of a take-up device. 

 NIST, OWM expects that the proposed changes will eliminate the need for field inspectors to make a 

subjective determination whether the length of conveyor belt warrants the use of a take-up device. 

 The need for a take-up device will be determined by the system’s ability to meet performance requirements. 

The Committee heard comments in support of the proposal. Hearing no comments in opposition, the Committee 

agreed to recommend the item be presented for vote as shown in Item Under Consideration. 

At their 2013 Interim Meeting, CWMA recommended the item be forwarded to the NCWM as an Informational 

Item due to lack of information about available belt tensioning devices and their effect on metrological integrity. In 

2014, CWMA reported it believed the item has been sufficiently developed and recommended it move forward as a 

Voting item. 

WWMA heard support and no opposition to the proposal and agreed the current language is open to interpretation 

during their fall 2013 meeting. The proposed language provides clear, definitive parameters for the take-up device 

that don’t mandate design criteria. WWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 

NEWMA defers to the Work Group and other jurisdictions with more knowledge of these devices. During their 

2013 Interim Meeting and 2014 Annual Meeting, NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM recommending it as a 

Voting Item. 

During their fall 2013 meeting, SWMA received some comments and discussion on providing clarity of the terms 

“constant” and “consistent” However, based on a recommendation from the Work Group, the SWMA agreed to 

forward the item to the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 25 

330 LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES 

330-1 VC S.1.6.7. and S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations and UR.3.3. Computing Device 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Liquid Controls (2014) 

Purpose: 

Address the issue of receipt (printed, electronic, and optional). 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44 Liquid Measuring Devices Code as follows: 

S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales and for 

transactions where a post-delivery discount is provided, a printed receipt providing the following 

information shall be available through a built-in or separate recording element for all transactions 

conducted with point-of-sale systems or devices activated by debit cards, credit cards, and/or cash: 

(a) the total volume of the delivery; 

(b) the unit price; 

(c) the total computed price; and 

(d) the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number. 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the option 

to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.) 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(Added 1985) (Amended 1997, and 2012, and 2014) 

and, 

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions Where a Post-Delivery Discount(s) is 

Provided. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a printed receipt providing the following 

information shall be available through a built-in or separate recording element that is part of the system for 

transactions involving a post-delivery discount: 

(a) the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number; 

(b) transaction information as shown on the dispenser at the end of the delivery and prior to any postdelivery discount(s), including the: 

(1) total volume of the delivery; 

(2) unit price; and 

(3) total computed price of the fuel sale. 

(c) an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit price; and 

(d) the final total price of the fuel sale after all post-delivery discounts are applied. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 26 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the 

option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.). 

(Added 2012) (Amended 2014) 

and, 

UR.3.3. Computing Device. – Any computing device used in an application where a product or grade is 

offered for sale at one or more unit prices shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and 

displays the sales price for the selected transaction. 

(Became retroactive in 1999) 

(Added 1989) (Amended 1992) 

The following exceptions apply: 

(a) Fleet sales and other price contract sales are exempt from this requirement. 

(b) A truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks is exempt from this requirement provided 

that: 

(1) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt of the transaction containing the 

applicable price per gallon, the total gallons delivered, and the total price of the sale; and 

(Added 1993) 

(2) unless a dispenser 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 transaction 

which may be conducted. 

(Added 1993) 

(c) A dispenser used in an application where a price per unit discount is offered following the delivery is 

exempt from this requirement, provided the following conditions are satisfied: 

(1) the unit price posted on the dispenser and the unit price at which the dispenser is set to compute 

shall be the highest unit price for any transaction; 

(2) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt recorded by the system for the 

transaction containing: 

a. the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number; 

b. transaction information as shown on the dispenser at the end of the delivery and prior to any 

post-delivery discount including the: 

1. total volume of the delivery; 

2. unit price; and 

3. total computed price of the fuel sale prior to post-delivery discounts being applied. 

c. an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit price; and 

d. the final total price of the fuel sale.
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 27 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given 

the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.) 

(Added 2012 and 2014) 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1992, 1993, and 2012, and 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The concept of electronic receipts is already incorporated in certain provisions of NIST Handbook 44 Liquid 

Measuring Device Code. Similar provisions are needed in other codes of NIST Handbook 44. At the 2013 NCWM 

Annual Meeting, members expressed support for including requirements to address the use of electronic receipts in 

the General Code rather than in individual device codes. Including requirements in the General Code would 

eliminate confusion and inconsistency, consolidate provisions from individual codes, and confine future updates to a 

single code. Item 310-2 on the Committee’s agenda includes a proposal to address this issue in the General Code. 

Item (330-1) is included as a companion item to Item 310-2 and proposes to change the LMD Code as follows: 

 If a receipt is required, allow the customer to decline the option to receive any type of receipt. 

 Add an option of electronic receipt as long as the system can generate electronic receipts. 

 If a receipt is desired, allow the customer to select between printed and electronic receipt; or both. 

 Remove references to electronic receipts from Liquid Measuring Device Code as they will be redundant. 

Some concerns have been raised that this could lead to elimination of printed receipts, particularly for customers 

who have limited access to internet, smart phone, etc. However, the proposal is written to ensure that the printed 

receipt remain an option for the customer. 

See Items 310-2 and 330-5 for related background and discussions. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: NIST, OWM noted in its comments to the S&T Committee that this agenda item is 

intended as a companion to Agenda Item 310-2. If Item 310-2 is adopted, the proposed struck-out portions of this 

item (330-1) could be eliminated and consumers would continue to be provided the same privileges with respect to 

receiving hard-copy or electronic receipts for their transactions. If Item 310-2 is not adopted, it would be 

inappropriate to delete the sentences as shown in this item. 

NIST, OWM also noted should the Committee decide to advance Items 310-2 and 330-1, the Committee should give 

consideration to consolidating them into a single item for NCWM action. See also Items 331-1 LPG Code 

Modifications (UR.2.8.) and 332-2 (S.1.5.3. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems, LPG Code) that may 

be impacted by action on 310-2 and 330-1. 

The Committee heard comments in support of the proposed changes to paragraphs S.1.6.7. and S.1.6.8. in comments 

it received for Item 310-2, which it considers a companion item. Hearing no opposition to the proposed changes, the 

Committee recommended the item for a Vote. The Committee acknowledged that this item is a companion to 

Item 310-2, and agreed should the changes to paragraph G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations proposed in Item 310-2 

fail to be adopted; the statement that refers to electronic receipts in each of the three proposed paragraphs under this 

item shown struck out should remain. Thus, if Item 310-2 fails to be adopted, the Committee planned to amend the 

status of this item at the NCWM Annual Meeting and may not offer it for a Vote. 

Annual 2014 Meeting: The Committee heard comments in support of the proposal. Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, 

OWM) reiterated NIST, OWM’s comments from the 2014 Interim Meeting. Mr. Tim Chesser (Arkansas) raised a 

question about NIST, OWM’s proposed handling of the companion items, and Ms.Tina Butcher (NIST, OWM) 

clarified this aspect of the comments. Mr. Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco) indicated support for the proposal provided 

Item 310-2 is adopted and agreed with NIST, OWM’s comments from the Interim Meeting. Hearing no comments 

in opposition, the Committee agreed this item remain Voting. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 28 

Regional Association Comments: 

At its 2013 Interim Meeting and 2014 Annual Meeting, the CWMA supported this item and forwarded it to NCWM 

recommending it as a Voting Item. At its May 2014 meeting, CWMA reported the item was sufficiently developed, 

and it should move to Voting status unless Item 310-2 is adopted. If Item 310-2 is adopted, the CWMA supports the 

Withdrawal of this item. NEWMA supported this item at its 2014 Annual Meeting and reported that they believed 

this new technology is associated with many of the device codes and agreed that acknowledging it in the General 

Code simplifies the use and updating of the handbook. 

330-2 W S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Illinois Department of Agriculture (2014) 

Purpose: 

To reduce confusion among the public.

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44 Liquid-Measuring Devices Code as follows: 

S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales and for 

transactions where a post-delivery discount is provided, a printed receipt providing the following information 

shall be available through a built-in or separate recording element for all transactions conducted with point-ofsale systems or devices activated by debit cards, credit cards, and/or cash: 

(a) the total volume of the delivery; 

(b) the unit price; 

(c) the total computed price; and 

(d) the product identity matching the identity on the dispenser by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code 

octane number. 

[Nonretroactive January 1,1986] 

(Added 1985) (Amended 1987, 1988, and 2012, and 20XX)

Background/Discussion: 

The LMD Code currently allows businesses to identify the product being sold on the receipt in a misleading way. 

For example, many stores in a certain chain have fuel that is labeled “Regular” on the dispenser, but their receipt 

identifies the product as “BLUE.” If a store has Regular 87 octane fuel for $3.699 and Silver 89 octane fuel for 

$3.599, the customer may select the Regular by mistake based on its lower octane rating and name. If the receipt 

simply identifies the product as “BLUE,” the consumer may not know if they were charged the wrong unit price or 

if they chose the wrong pump by their own mistake (the Regular nozzle is green). 

In another example, a verbal complaint was made to a Weights and Measures Inspector that the receipt was not 

clear. This customer worked for a company that would reimburse the fuel cost as long as it was “Regular” fuel that 

was purchased. This customer went to a station and purchased “Regular” fuel, however the receipt had the identity 

as “Unleaded.” This person was not reimbursed because most gas is unleaded, and, thus, the identification of the 

product as only “Unleaded” does not mean it was “Regular” gas. Adding the phrase “matching the identity on the 

dispenser” to the requirement makes it clear to the businesses that the product identity on the receipt must agree with 

the product identity statement on the dispenser. For the same reason, the word “code” should be changed to 

“octane.” A “code” number could be any number and may confuse consumers when it comes to which product they 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 29 

purchased; however, the “octane” number on the receipt will be understandable to the customer since it matches the 

octane number displayed on the dispenser. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: There were multiple comments questioning how the proposed language would 

apply. Of particular concern was how the reference to “matching” would be interpreted and applied. 

The Committee heard from Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) who noted that the provision allowing the use of 

codes was included at the time the paragraph was added in 1985 to recognize that some systems, both weighing and 

measuring had limited character capabilities. Mr. Bill Hornbach (Chevron) and Mr. Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco) 

commented that some systems still have limited character sets and may need to use abbreviations. While the 

language recognizes the use of “abbreviations,” this seems to conflict with the reference to “matching” identity. The 

Committee heard several suggestions for alternate language, including a suggestion for replacing the term 

“matching” with “corresponding.” However, there wasn’t strong support for any specific alternative. Ms. Kristin 

Macey (California) and Ms. Williams provided suggestions for alternative modifications to the language that might 

address some of the comments provided. 

The Committee heard several comments suggesting that this issue would be better addressed as a User Requirement. 

The Committee agreed that, while paragraph S.1.6.7. is necessary to specify what information the device must be 

able to print on the receipt, it is the user’s responsibility to maintain this information correctly and to enter accurate 

identity statements. 

The Committee also heard multiple comments indicating that the current language in paragraph S.1.6.7. is adequate 

to address the scenario outlined in the proposal. If the identity of the product on the receipt is different from that on 

the dispenser, then the receipt is not correctly recording the identity of the product and the device is not being 

maintained in compliance with paragraph S.1.6.7. 

Based on the lack of support and the questions raised regarding the specific language in the proposal, the Committee 

decided to Withdraw this item. If the submitter wishes to pursue the item further, the Committee recommends that 

the submitter consider proposing a User Requirement as an alternative proposal. 

Regional Association Comments: 

At its 2013 Interim Meeting, the CWMA supported this item and forwarded it to NCWM, recommending that it be a 

Voting Item. 

At its 2013 Annual Meeting, the SWMA received comments from industry and government officials concerned with 

the intent of the item. The language of the proposed item does not make intent clear. SWMA did not forward this 

item to NCWM. 

330-3 VC N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

Flint Hills Resources (2013) 

Purpose: 

To better align wholesale meter testing with current testing procedures, measuring practices and technology changes 

while maintaining the integrity of the special test. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 30 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend paragraph N.4.2.4. as follows: 

N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices. – “Special” tests shall be made to develop the operating characteristics of a 

measuring system and any special associated or attached elements and accessories. “Special” tests shall include 

a test at or slightly above the slower of the following rates: 

(a) 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate; or 

(b) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device. 

In no case shall the test be performed at a flow rate less than the minimum discharge rate marked on 

the device. 

(Amended 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

The Committee originally received a proposal from the submitter that was intended to clarify that conducting a slow 

flow test to the marked minimum discharge rate is required for type evaluation and testing to the minimum 

discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of installation for routine field inspections is appropriate. (See 

the Committee’s 2013 Final Report for details.) The original proposal would: 

1. Remove the rigidity of the current language and provide for flexibility and efficiency while maintaining the 

requirement to test at different flow rates to determine the accuracy of a measuring system; 

2. Differentiate between testing for type evaluation and field verification; 

3. Reflect changes in field testing procedures, technology, and industry practices; and 

4. Improve meter performance by establishing a meter factor for the slowest preset flow rate. 

The submitter noted that the current language in NIST Handbook 44 is very rigid and does not take field installation 

conditions into consideration. It may not be possible or practicable to achieve the marked minimum discharge rate 

during field tests without changes to upstream equipment (valves, pumps, etc.), changing the flow computer 

programmed presets, or changing the idling of other fueling bays during testing. 

The code does not allow for any deviation from the “shall” test at the marked minimum discharge rate. Current 

loading rack systems generally do not have a discharge nozzle or other physical means downstream of the meter to 

control or restrict the flow rate. Today, most rely on pumps and valves upstream of the meter and preprogrammed 

flow rates for specific products with an assigned meter factor for each flow rate and product. The proposed change 

would still have allowed for testing at the marked minimum discharge rate when there is a discharge nozzle or other 

physical means in use downstream of the meter to restrict flow, but would have recognized the need to vary from the 

marked minimum discharge rate for systems not so equipped. 

The submitter notes that it is more productive to verify that the system is operating properly when used in its 

intended manner and set-up rather than alter the system for test-purposes and then return it to its “as-used 

condition.” Adjusting the system to flow at the marked minimum discharge rate by making changes to the system 

when that flow rate is not used introduces variables into the system not normally seen and adds little to no value. 

Even if the system can achieve the marked minimum discharge rate (for example, through the use of a discharge 

nozzle), it is not always practical or possible to hit it exactly when testing. The variables involved with proving 

while multiple bays are operating at a loading rack can make achieving the target flow rate difficult. It is not really 

necessary to test exactly at the marked minimum flow rate to develop the operating characteristics of a meter. 

However, NIST Handbook 44 offers no room for deviation. Today, a wholesale meter tested “near,” but not exactly 

“at,” the marked minimum discharge rate is not being tested in accordance with the requirements of NIST 

Handbook 44. This problem may never be an issue, but it might (the history regarding the change to NIST 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 31 

Handbook 44 Introduction section illustrates why the language in the handbook must match the application of it in 

the field). Amending the current language as proposed will remove this risk, however, slight. 

In the LMD Code, retail motor-fuel devices with a marked minimum flow rate are tested “at or near the marked 

minimum flow rate,” but are not required to be tested at exactly the marked minimum. The proposal would make 

testing more uniform and consistent among different, but similar device types. 

During the 2013 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee considered a number of alternative proposals 

to amend paragraph N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices, including proposals that would have had the effect of making the 

“Special” test optional during field evaluation, or eliminating the “Special” test entirely for field evaluation. Much 

of the discussion that took place during the Committee’s Open Hearings relative to these proposals focused on two 

main issues: 

1. Whether or not it’s still necessary, given advances in today’s meter technology, to conduct a “Special” test 

on a wholesale meter during field evaluation; and 

2. Whether the conditions for conducting the “Special” test specified in paragraph N.4.2.4.(a) and (b) should 

be eliminated and language added to the paragraph that would require the test be performed at or near the 

minimum flow rate developed under the conditions of installation. 

The Committee also heard and considered a number of key points during its 2013 Annual Meeting Open Hearings 

relative to these issues. 

Refer to the Committee’s 2013 Final Report for additional background information and to view the different 

proposals that have been submitted relative to this item and a complete summary of the comments heard during the 

Open Hearings relative to those proposals. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: NIST, OWM questioned whether or not the proposed changes in the most recent 

version of the proposal are appropriate and is concerned that the language may hamper officials and service 

personnel from conducting adequate tests. NIST, OWM reiterated the need to conduct a “Special” test at a flow rate 

appreciably slower than that of a “Normal” test, in order to best determine the condition of the meter. NIST, OWM 

provided some draft language as shown in Item Under Consideration to address Mr. Cotsoradis’ immediate concern 

of not being able to perform the “Special” test at exactly the flow rates specified in paragraph N.4.2.4. and noted that 

if this language were adopted there would be no reason to split the requirements for “Special” test into those that 

apply to type evaluation and those that apply to field evaluation. 

The Committee also heard from the submitter of the proposal, Mr. Constantine Cotsoradis (Flint Hills Resources), 

who recognized in his comments not only the importance of conducting a slow flow test on a wholesale meter 

during both type evaluation and field evaluation; but also the need to maintain the current “Special” test criteria in 

NIST Handbook 44. Mr. Cotsoradis suggested that the community move slow on all of the issues that have been 

brought to light relating to his proposal. He stated that his primary concern and reason for submitting the proposal is 

that the current language in NIST Handbook 44 does not provide any flexibility concerning how the test is to be 

conducted and that it is not practical to conduct the test at exactly the flow rates specified by N.4.2.4. Wholesale 

Devices. He referenced the draft language that NIST, OWM had developed in their analysis of this item and had 

shared with him, which, if adopted, would allow the test to be performed “at or slightly above” the slower of the 

flow rates specified in the paragraph. He indicated that this language would provide the kind of flexibility that he’s 

seeking. 

Ms. Julie Quinn (Minnesota), Mr. Randy Jennings (Tennessee), Mr. Henry Oppermann (Weights and Measures 

Consulting, LLC), and Mr. Rich Miller (FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc.) provided comments in 

support of Mr. Cotsoradis’ suggestion to amend the proposal to reflect NIST, OWM’s suggested alternative 

language in paragraph N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices, thereby making it permissible to perform the “Special” test at or 

near the slower of the flow rates specified. Mr. Michael Keilty (Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA) noted that 

Canada requires a program that allows a test at normal and lower flow rates. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 32 

The Committee acknowledged the comments in support of maintaining the requirement for conducting “Special” 

tests during routine field inspections and agrees with the premise that the “Special” test needs to be conducted 

during both type evaluation and field evaluation. The Committee also acknowledged that it is not practical to 

conduct “Special” tests at exactly the flow rates specified in the current paragraph. Based on comments heard 

during the Open Hearings indicating that the key concern of the submitter and others is that the current language 

does not provide any flexibility with respect to the flow rates specified in the paragraph, the Committee agreed to 

modify the proposal to read as shown in the “Item Under Consideration.” The Committee believes that the item has 

been adequately reviewed and discussed and recommended that the item be designated as a “Voting” item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments from Ms. William (NIST, OWM) who commented 

that NIST, OWM believes the proposed changes would maintain the validity of the “Special Test” while providing 

additional flexibility being sought by the submitter. Mr. Cotsoradis noted that, while he believes the proposed 

language won’t change how meters are tested in the field, it will change the threshold so that it isn’t specifying the 

exact minimum flow rate. The Committee also heard comments from Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls) who 

noted that the phrase “slightly above” is a somewhat ambiguous term; he suggested the Committee might consider 

language used in Canadian documents which specifies a value of 10 % above the target value. In its deliberations, 

the Committee acknowledged that the phrase leaves room for interpretation; however, the Committee believes that 

the term is adequate and provides for flexibility; yet clarifies that drafts are not to be conducted at flow rates lower 

than the marked minimum. Hearing no other opposition to the proposal, the Committee agreed to present the 

proposal for a vote as shown in the “Item Under Consideration.”

Regional Association Comments: 

At both its fall 2013 Interim Meeting and spring 2014 Annual Meeting, the CWMA agreed the item has been 

sufficiently developed and recommended that it be a Voting Item. The CWMA also reported there were no 

comments in opposition to the proposal. 

At its fall 2013 meeting, WWMA acknowledged the developing nature of this issue and the factors associated with 

pumping systems that have an impact on the test result. The WWMA looks forward to hearing input from meter 

manufacturers and interested parties that have a stake in addressing special tests on wholesale devices. The WWMA 

also acknowledges the 1949 S&T Report that identifies “Special” tests are to be left to the judgment of the official. 

WWMA recommended that this item be an Informational Item. 

At its fall 2013 meeting, NEWMA recommended keeping this item as Informational until the Measuring Sector has 

a chance to provide data. At its spring 2014 meeting, NEWMA supported moving the item forward for a Vote. 

At its fall 2013 Annual Meeting, SWMA received comments suggesting some of the language regarding wholesale 

and retail could be better harmonized across different codes. Comments were also received expressing concerns 

about the wording in regards to operational parameters. Based on comments received, the SWMA recommended 

the item be further Developed. 

There was one position from a “Government” member posted on NCWM’s 2014 Online Position Forum in support 

of the proposal. 

330-4 D N.4.2.5. Initial Verification and UR.2.5.1. Initial Verification Proving Reports 

Source: 

Minnesota Weights and Measures Division (2014) 

Purpose: 

To update NIST Handbook 44 to reflect the technological changes in registers for liquid measuring devices and to 

alert weights and measures officials to the fact that error in start-up and shut-down delivery quantities can introduce 

linear errors in the calibration at normal flow rates; these errors increase the further the delivered quantity deviates 

from the prover size used at calibration. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 33 

Item Under Consideration: 

Add the following new paragraphs to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices Code: 

N.4.2.5. Initial Verification. – A wholesale liquid measuring device shall be tested at all flow rates and 

with all products for which a calibration factor has been electronically programmed prior to placing it 

into commercial service for the first time or after being repaired or replaced. 

A wholesale liquid measuring device not equipped with means to electronically program its flow rates 

and calibration factors shall be tested at a low and high flow rate with all products delivered prior to 

placing it into commercial service for the first time or after being repaired or replaced. 

Example: A meter is electronically programmed to deliver regular and premium gasoline at a 

startup/shutdown flow rate of 150 gpm, a normal operating flow rate of 650 gpm, and a fall-back rate of 

450 gpm. The meter is to be tested with regular gasoline at 150 gpm, 450 gpm, and 650 gpm; and with 

premium gasoline at 150 gpm, 450 gpm, and 650 gpm. 

The official with statutory authority has the discretion to determine the flow rates and products at which 

a meter will be tested on subsequent verifications. 

(Added 20XX)

UR.2.5.1. Initial Verification Proving Reports. – Initial verification proving reports for wholesale liquid 

measuring devices equipped with means to electronically program flow rates shall be attached to and sent 

with placed-in-service reports when the regulatory agency with statutory authority requires placed-inservice reports. 

(Added 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Wholesale metering systems are used to deliver product at many different flow rates. Many of these systems are 

equipped with features that allow different calibration factors to be programmed at those flow rates. Companies 

commonly set accuracy goals of ± 0.05 % at normal and “fallback” delivery rates; however, they are often reluctant 

to spend time entering different calibration factors for the initial (“start-up”) and ending (“shut-down”) portions of 

the delivery. Spending time calibrating the metering system at normal and fallback delivery rates to such a high 

degree of accuracy is wasted if the error introduced into the measurement by the start-up and shut-down quantities is 

unknown. An additional concern is that an unscrupulous operator could use the error introduced by the start-up and 

shut-down portions of the delivery (if known) to adjust calibration at the normal delivery rate such that the overall 

error of a typical delivery is predominantly in the user’s favor. Officials should be aware that when delivered 

quantities are greater than the prover used at calibration the start-up and shutdown errors have a counter-intuitive 

effect. Underregistration errors (which are normally in the consumers’ favor) in the start-up and shut-down portions 

of the delivery may actually create shortages in the total delivery if calibration of the normal rate is adjusted to 

compensate for that underregistration. While these errors should be well within tolerance if the start-up and shutdown errors are in tolerance, an official who is trying to determine predominance of error should be aware of this 

effect and know how to determine the expected error in a typical delivery. Operators need to understand the 

importance of knowing and accounting for the effects of start-up and shut-down errors. Officials need to be aware 

of the potential for misusing that knowledge. Terminals and refineries want to maximize the accuracy of their liquid 

measuring devices by optimizing the calibration factors at typical delivery rates. 

This proposal is not intended to have any effect on locations that do not use electronic calibration factors to optimize 

accuracy at every delivery rate. Even at locations which do use multiple calibration factors, no action is required 

unless the official notices that the error for the start-up and shut-down rates is predominantly in one direction. If the 

start-up and shut-down errors are predominantly in one direction, the official then needs to determine the size of a 

typical transaction and the likely predominance of the error. Device owners can easily ensure that they have no 

problems with this requirement by making sure their devices are in tolerance at slow flow start-up and shut-down 

rates, and the errors are not predominantly in one direction. 

See Appendix C, How Slow Flow Accuracy Affects LMDs. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 34 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee considered a proposal from the submitter to add a new paragraph to 

the NIST Handbook 44 Liquid Measuring Devices Code as follows: 

N.4.2.5. Determination of Error on Wholesale Devices with Multiple Flow Rates and Calibration 

Factors – On wholesale devices which are configured with multiple flow rates where each flow rate has its 

own calibration factor, and which are programmed to deliver a set quantity at a slow flow rate on startup and/or shut-down, the effect of start-up and shut-down rates on the accuracy of the typical delivery 

shall be considered if the typical delivery is greater or less than the test measure used at the time of 

evaluation. The weights and measures jurisdiction shall determine the size of the typical delivery based 

upon available evidence.

The Committee acknowledged that, at the heart of this issue is the need to develop guidance for inspectors and 

service personnel in the proper use and inspection of systems with multiple calibration factors. This work may 

encompass issues such as how the multiple calibration factor features can be used to adjust meters at different flow 

rates; to adjust the accuracy of the initial “start-up” and ending “slow-down” portions of a delivery; to adjust the 

accuracy of a meter when delivering different product types, etc. 

During its Open Hearings, the Committee heard questions from Mr. Henry Oppermann (Weights and Measures 

Consulting) and from Ms. Tina Butcher (NIST, OWM) who questioned how an inspector would analyze the results 

without conducting accuracy tests at the slower flow rates. Ms. Julie Quinn (Minnesota), the submitter of this 

proposal, clarified that in order to apply the proposed “Note,” an inspector must run tests at these flow rates to be 

able to determine the magnitude and direction of the error. Ms. Williams raised some additional questions and noted 

some comments from NIST, OWM (extracted from NIST, OWM’s analysis provided to the S&T Committee), 

including the following. 

 How is an inspector to assess the “start-up” and “slow-down” portions of the delivery given that they 

include quantities delivered at multiple different flow rates and the actual delivery sizes may vary? 

 The minimum test draft size requirements may need to be considered and possibly revised to address tests 

of these systems. 

 Caution should be used before making any sort of assessment without conducting any “slow flow” testing 

as outlined in the example (which assumes that no “slow flow” test was conducted). 

 Percentage-based tolerances account and allow for different errors at different delivery sizes. 

 If the concern centers on the “start-up” and “slow-down” portions of the delivery, the proposal may need to 

provide more specific guidance in this regard. 

Mr. Constantine Cotsoradis (Flint Hills Resources) recognized the validity of the issue and expressed support for 

proposals that recognize changing technology, but he also acknowledged the questions that were raised within the 

regionals and at the Interim Meeting needing to be addressed. 

Ms. Quinn clarified the purpose of the item and the circumstances leading to the proposal, noting that she was 

unable to attend other regional meetings to provide further explanations of this proposal. She noted that, at one 

time, the amount of product and the flow rate for the start-up and shut-down portions of a delivery were manually 

controlled. Today’s systems tend to use automated, programmed values for these portions of the delivery. 

Ms. Quinn noted that, frequently, companies are reluctant to spend additional time validating the calibration factors 

used in the start-up and shut-down portions of the delivery. The “typical delivery” sizes would be determined from 

examining records at the terminal. The intent of the proposal is to raise awareness of the need for the inspector to 

consider the effects of these portions of the delivery on its overall accuracy. 

After hearing comments during the Open Hearings and discussing the item further in its work sessions, the 

Committee agreed to designate this as a Developing Item. The Committee believes, at least initially, work needs to 

be focused on the development of guidelines and test procedures that could be incorporated into examination 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 35 

procedure outlines. Ms. Quinn agreed to serve as the contact point for the item. The Committee asks that others 

interested in this work contact Ms. Quinn. The Committee looks forward to updates on this work as it progresses. 

Annual 2014 Meeting: The Committee heard comments from Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) who stated that, 

like the S&T Committee, NIST, OWM believes that the existing language in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 

allows for any additional testing that is within the usual and customary use of the system and that develops the 

operating characteristics of that system, and also believes the work should focus on the development of guidelines 

and test procedures. NIST, OWM looks forward to continued collaboration with the group developing this issue. 

The Committee also heard an update from Ms. Quinn, the submitter of this item. Ms. Quinn reported that a group of 

interested parties has been collaborating on this issue since January 2014. During the NCWM Annual Meeting, this 

group met and developed suggested language to address the concerns outlined in this item. Ms. Quinn asked that the 

Committee include the suggested language in this item for further review and comments by the regional associations 

and others in the fall. The Committee agreed to maintain this item on its agenda to allow for additional development 

and input as requested by Ms. Quinn and to replace the original recommendation with the revised language provided 

by Ms. Quinn as shown in the “Item Under Consideration” above along with a change to the title to reflect the 

revised paragraph number. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: CWMA believed this item was ready and forwarded it to NCWM, recommending it 

as a Voting Item. At its 2014 Annual Meeting, the CWMA supported continued development of the item. 

WWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: The WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM, because the language is vague 

and offers no clear solution. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA did not believe this item is necessary and would not dramatically impact 

the test results of the meters. NEWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. At its 2014 Annual Meeting, NEWMA 

recommended this item be Withdrawn for lack of merit because the handbook already establishes a tolerance that 

applies to the full device test from start up to shut down and applying a tolerance to just start up or shut down could 

have a significant effect on test results. 

The SWMA received comments in Open Hearings, and the SWMA S&T Committee’s Work Session indicating a 

strong concern with the wording “typical delivery.” The SWMA recommended the item be Withdrawn based upon 

lack of merit. The SWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

330-5A VC UR.3.3. Computing Device. 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Item 330-5 was separated into two parts 330-5A and 330-5B during the 2014 Interim Meeting to facilitate review of 

the issues involved. 

Source: 

NCWM Task Group (TG) on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computing Capability (2013) 

Purpose: 

Refine the criteria in the LMD Code related to price posting and computing capability of RMFDs for post-delivery 

discounted transactions to more clearly reflect the recommendations of the NCWM Task Group on RMFD Price 

Posting and Computing Capability for the indication of the highest unit price. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend paragraph UR.3.3.(c)(1) by adding underlined text as follows: 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 36 

UR.3.3. Computing Device. – Any computing device used in an application where a product or grade is 

offered for sale at one or more unit prices shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and 

displays the sales price for the selected transaction. 

(Added 1989) (Amended 1992) 

The following exceptions apply: 

(a) Fleet sales and other price contract sales are exempt from this requirement. 

(b) A truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks is exempt from this requirement provided 

that: 

(1) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt of the transaction containing the 

applicable price per gallon, the total gallons delivered, and the total price of the sale; and 

(Added 1993) 

(2) unless a dispenser 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 transaction 

which may be conducted. 

(Added 1993) 

(c) A dispenser used in an application where a price per unit discount is offered following the delivery is 

exempt from this requirement, provided the following conditions are satisfied: 

(1) the unit price posted on the dispenser and the unit price at which the dispenser is set to compute 

prior to the application of any discount shall be the highest unit price for any transaction; 

(2) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt recorded by the system for the 

transaction containing: 

a. the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number; 

b. transaction information as shown on the dispenser at the end of the delivery and prior to any 

post-delivery discount including the: 

1. total volume of the delivery; 

2. unit price; and 

3. total computed price of the fuel sale prior to post-delivery discounts being applied. 

c. an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit price; and 

d. the final total price of the fuel sale. 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the 

option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.) 

(Added 2012) 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1992, 1993, and 2012, and 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: The NCWM Task Group on RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability met to 

review examples of receipts and scenarios for compliance with language adopted into NIST Handbook 44 in 2012 to 

address systems that are used to offer post-delivery discount pricing in retail motor-fuel dispensing applications. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 37 

During that review, the TG noted that the language in paragraph UR.3.3.(c)(1) could be incorrectly interpreted to 

prohibit the application of both pre- and post-delivery discounts in a single transaction; the TG develop proposed 

changes to the paragraph to address this concern. The current language in (c)(1) states that, in order to qualify for 

the exemptions offered for post-delivery discounts, the unit price posted on the dispenser and the unit price at which 

the dispenser is set to compute shall be the highest unit price for any transaction. In instances, where a customer 

elects to receive a discount prior to the delivery (i.e., a “pre-delivery” discount), this might create an unintended 

conflict. For example, if a customer elects to pay in cash at the start of the transaction, the dispenser might display 

and compute at a lower, cash unit price. Since UR.3.3.(c)(1) stipulates posting and computing at the highest unit 

price, some might interpret this to mean that this dispenser may not also participate in post-delivery discount pricing 

or be entitled to the exemptions in U.R.3.3.(c). The original intent of the changes proposed by the TG and adopted 

by the NCWM was not to restrict systems from participating in both pre- and post-delivery discounting. 

Consequently, the TG proposes changes as outlined in UR.3.3.(c)(1) in the “Item Under Consideration” above. 

The TG also developed proposed changes to UR.3.3.(c)(2) to acknowledge that: (1) the system must be able to 

provide a receipt to the customer, but the customer can be given an option of receiving the receipt or not; and (2) an 

electronic receipt is an acceptable alternative to a hard copy receipt if the purchaser agrees to an electronic receipt in 

lieu of, or in addition to, a hard copy. The Task Group believes that, should a customer prefer not to receive a 

receipt or prefer to receive it electronically, this should be permissible. The proposed changes to UR.3.3.(c)(2) are 

shown Item 330-5B. 

Lastly, the TG recommended changing the vertical alignment of the statement following UR.3.3.(c)(2) regarding the 

option of an electronic receipt so that it clearly applies to UR.3.3.(a), (b), and (c) rather than just part (c). As 

presently shown in NIST Handbook 44, this statement would apply only to UR.3.3.(c). The text shown in the “Item 

Under Consideration” above aligns that statement such that it would apply to UR.3.3.(a), (b), and (c). 

The Committee agreed to add this item to its agenda to address these changes proposed by the TG. The Committee 

believes the proposed changes have merit and believe they simply clarify the original intent of the language 

developed by the TG and adopted by the NCWM. However, because the proposed changes were not available for 

publication and review in NCWM Publication 15, the Committee agreed that the item should be designated as an 

Informational Item to allow adequate opportunity for the review and comment by all stakeholders potentially 

affected by the proposed changes. The Committee also believes this will provide an opportunity for input on the 

specific language to ensure that it clearly and adequately addresses the concerns identified by the TG. 

Two government representatives supported the proposed changes and one government representative indicated a 

neutral position on the item in the 2013 NCWM Online Position Forum. 

Annual 2013 Meeting: The Committee heard comments from NIST, OWM suggesting that the proposed 

modifications to UR.3.3.(c)(2) are unnecessary given that the paragraph already includes the following statement 

permitting the use of electronic receipts: 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the 

option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.). 

Similar provisions are included in paragraphs S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations and S.1.6.8. Recorded 

Representations for Transactions Where a Post-Delivery Discount(s) is Provided. NIST, OWM also noted that the 

originally proposed UR.3.3.(c)(2) inadvertently required that the system be capable of providing an electronic 

receipt upon customer demand, regardless of whether or not the system was capable of providing one. 

The Committee heard multiple comments in support of eliminating the proposed revisions to UR.3.3.(c)(2). The 

Committee also heard comments from multiple weights and measures jurisdictions expressing the need to retain the 

requirement for a hard copy receipt for those consumers who do not have access to an electronic version. Mr. Ross 

Andersen (New York, retired) noted the need to consider any requirements at the State level that apply to electronic 

records. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 38 

Comments received during the Open Hearings indicated that, in applications where receipts are required, the 

following principles should apply: 

 A printed receipt must be made available to the customer. 

 If a customer doesn’t want a receipt, it is not necessary to provide one. 

 The customer may be given the option of receiving an electronic receipt in lieu of a printed receipt. 

The Committee also heard comments from both weights and measures jurisdictions and industry representatives 

suggesting that a provision be added to the General Code recognizing the acceptance of electronic receipts. 

Dr. Matthew Curran (Florida) commented that identifying and defining different types of discounts, such as 

“rebates,” would be helpful for consumers as well as officials in understanding how these requirements apply. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: Ms. Fran Elson-Houston (Ohio) provided an update on behalf of the NCWM 

RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability Task Group regarding the proposals outlined in Item 330-5. The 

changes proposed to paragraph UR.3.3. in Item 330-5 are to: (1) clarify the unit price posting requirements to ensure 

that RMFD systems are permitted to participate in both pre- and post-delivery discounts; and (2) clarify the 

requirements relative to electronic receipts. 

Ms. Elson-Houston reported that the Task Group recognized that Item 310-2 on the S&T Committee’s agenda 

proposes changes to G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations and those proposed changes, if adopted, would affect the 

Task Group’s proposed changes to LMD Code Paragraph UR.3.3.(c)(2) with regard to the recognition of electronic 

receipts. The Task Group supports the proposed changes in Item 310-2 and, if those changes are adopted, would 

suggest eliminating corresponding references in LMD Code paragraph UR.3.3.(c)(2). The Task Group is amenable 

to linking action on Item 310-2 and proposed changes to UR.3.3.(c)(2); however, should there be complications in 

addressing the requirements relative to electronic receipts, the Task Group did not want the proposed changes to 

UR.3.3.(1) to be delayed. 

Thus, the Task Group recommended splitting Item 330-5 into two parts; one part to address clarifications to unit 

price posting requirements and one part to address requirements relative to electronic receipts. 

Hearing no comments in opposition to the proposal submitted by the Task Group, the S&T Committee agreed to 

separate the item into two parts. Item 330-5A proposes changes to UR.3.3.(c)(1) as shown in the “Item Under 

Consideration” above. Item 330-5B proposes changes to UR.3.3.(c)(2). The Committee agreed to designate both 

items as “Voting” items. 

Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments in support of this item. The Committee heard from Ms. 

Williams who commented the text proposed for addition to UR.3.3.(c)(1) is for clarification purposes only; that is, to 

clarify that the exemption is also intended to apply to dispensers in which the customer may select and set them to 

compute at a discounted unit price prior to delivery (e.g., dispensers equipped with a selectable cash/credit feature). 

The Committee also heard comments from Ms. Elson-Houston speaking as Chairman of the TG who agreed with 

NIST, OWM’s comments and supports moving the item forward for Voting. Hearing no comments in opposition, 

the Committee agreed this item remain Voting. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: The CWMA recommended the item remain as an “Information” item. At its 2014 

Annual Meeting, the CWMA reported there was no opposition presented and stated the item has been sufficiently 

developed and supported moving the item forward as a Voting item. 

The WWMA agrees with the proposed language change to UR.3.3.(c)(1). WWMA finds the proposed language in 

UR.3.3.(c)(2) is not clear and may be interpreted to allow a purchaser to demand an electronic receipt despite the 

capability of the device. WWMA agrees the existing language in UR.3.3.(c)(2) is adequate. WWMA recommended 

that this item be a Developing item. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 39 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA recommended this item be designated as a Voting Item and commented 

that the proposed changes will help clarify the intent of the WG’s original suggestion. At its 2014 Annual Meeting, 

NEWMA supported moving the item forward as a Voting item. 

The SWMA did not receive any comments opposing the item. There were comments that the electronic receipt 

recommendation may also be suited to the General Code as well. The SWMA supported this item as written. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional history on this item. 

330-5B VC UR.3.3. Computing Device. 

(This item was Adopted.) 

Source: 

NCWM Task Group on Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Price Posting and Computing Capability (2013) 

Purpose: 

Refine the criteria in the LMD Code related to price posting and computing capability of RMFDs for post-delivery 

discounted transactions to more clearly reflect the recommendations of the NCWM Task Group on RMFD Price 

Posting and Computing Capability for the indication of the highest unit price. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend paragraph UR.3.3.(c)(2) to recognize electronic receipts as follows: 

(c) A dispenser used in an application where a price per unit discount is offered following the delivery is 

exempt from this requirement, provided the following conditions are satisfied: 

(1) the unit price posted on the dispenser and the unit price at which the dispenser is set to compute shall 

be the highest unit price for any transaction; 

(2) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt recorded by the system. for the transaction 

containing: The receipt shall contain: 

a. the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number; 

b. transaction information as shown on the dispenser at the end of the delivery and prior to any postdelivery discount including the: 

1. total volume of the delivery; 

2. unit price; and 

3. total computed price of the fuel sale prior to post-delivery discounts being applied. 

c. an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit price; and 

d. the final total price of the fuel sale. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 40 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given 

the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.) 

(Added 2012) 

(Added 1998) (Amended 1992, 1993, and 2012, and 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

Based upon input from the RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability Task Group, the Committee agreed 

during the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting to separate Item 330-5 into two parts. Item 330-5A proposes changes to 

UR.3.3.(c)(1). Item 330-5B proposes changes to UR.3.3.(c)(2). 

The Task Group offered two options for the Committee to consider with respect to proposed changes to paragraph 

UR.3.3.(c)(2); Option 1 was intended to apply if the Committee agreed not to recommend Item 310-2 for vote; 

Option 2 was intended to apply if the Committee agreed to recommend Item 310-2 for vote. Since the Committee 

agreed during the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting to recommend Item 310-2 for vote, the Task Group’s Option 2 is 

shown above in the “Item Under Consideration” for Item 330-5B. The Committee agreed to designate both items 

(330-5A and 330-5B) as “Voting” items. Refer to Item 330-5A for additional background information pertaining to 

this item. 

The Committee acknowledged that Item 330-5B is a companion to Item 310-2. Should the changes to 

G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations proposed in Item 310-2 fail to be adopted, the Committee plans to amend 

Item 330-5B by retaining all the struck out portions of proposed paragraph UR.3.3.(c)(2) prior to vote or may 

withdraw Item 330-5B completely. 

2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments in support of this item. Ms. Fran Elson-Houston (OH) 

speaking as Chairman of the TG acknowledged the need to strike the last line in this paragraph should Item 310-2 be 

adopted. Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) stated that NIST, OWM’s comments for Agenda Item 330-1 also apply 

to this item. Additionally, NIST, OWM agrees with the Committee’s plan to address this item based on action taken 

on Agenda Item 310-2. Hearing no comments in opposition, the Committee agreed this item remain Voting. 

2014 Annual Meetings: Both the CWMA and NEWMA supported item moving the item forward as a Voting item. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional history on this item. 

330-6 W UR.4. Maintenance Requirements 

(This item was Withdrawn.)

Source: 

Minnesota Weights and Measures Division (2014) 

Purpose: 

To clarify the application of G-UR.4.1. to liquid measuring devices at a single place of business. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Add a new User Requirement to the NIST Handbook 44 Liquid Measuring Devices Code as follows: 

UR.4. Maintenance Requirements 

UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment. – All liquid measuring devices in service and all mechanisms 

and devices attached thereto or used in connection therewith shall be maintained in proper operating 

condition throughout the period of such service. All liquid measuring devices in service at a single 

place of business shall be evaluated by product and grade. Equipment in service associated with a 

single product and grade at a single place of business which is found to be in error predominantly in 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 41 

a direction favorable to the device user shall not be considered “maintained in a proper operating 

condition.” 

Background/Discussion: 

This proposal is meant to limit the opportunity to use tolerances as a way to gain advantage for the user over the 

consumer. Without this clarification, General Code paragraph G-UR.4.1. might be interpreted to mean that 

locations would be in compliance if all the devices measuring product with the lowest sales were set to deliver with 

errors in tolerance in favor of the consumer, and an equal number of devices measuring product with the highest 

sales were set to delivery with errors in tolerance in favor of the device user. This proposal would not allow that 

practice. For example, a gas station could not set all their “premium” gas dispensers (for which sales are typically 

lower) to underregister within tolerance and all their “regular” gas dispenser (for which sales are typically higher) to 

overregister within tolerance. Instead, approximately half of each grade should be short within tolerance and an 

equal number long within tolerance. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: Ms. Julie Quinn (Minnesota), submitter of this item, explained that her jurisdiction 

is finding companies taking advantage of the applicable tolerances. She noted that Minnesota has been evaluating 

the results of inspections based on product and grade and believes there is benefit to other jurisdictions using the 

same approach. She also noted that paragraph G-UR.4.1. uses the phrase “all equipment” at the beginning of the 

paragraph, which may be interpreted to mean that the paragraph cannot be applied unless all equipment at a given 

location is found to be in favor of the business. Ms. Quinn acknowledged comments from NIST, OWM and others 

that previous proposals have been made to include more specific guidance in paragraph G-UR.4.1.; however, unlike 

those proposals, the current proposal isn’t intended to stipulate a formula or be overly specific, just to emphasize the 

need to evaluate by product and grade rather than look at all devices at a site. 

The Committee heard multiple comments that this issue is better addressed in the General Code. Mr. Gordon 

Johnson (Gilbarco) commented that, while this is directed more to device owners, Gilbarco has been getting calls 

from their customers who are expressing concern about the application of requirements such as site averages. There 

are instances where the average error for a site is minus one cubic inch and the locations are being rejected; 

however, this is within the limits of readability and uncertainty using a test measure or prover. Mr. Johnson also 

expressed concern about the reference to the expectation that fifty percent of each grade should have plus errors and 

fifty percent should have minus errors. Mr. Ross Andersen (New York-retired) noted while he doesn’t disagree with 

the concept of evaluating by grade, caution needs to be exercised because of variability that can occur with 

influences of product viscosity and temperature over time. Even if a device were adjusted as close to zero as 

practical, one could see drift in the results as conditions varied. 

The Committee also heard concerns from NIST, OWM that the language might limit jurisdictions from considering 

other factors that might indicate noncompliance with maintenance and adjustment requirements (for example, device 

location, full-serve vs. self-serve, etc.). NIST, OWM suggested, if the proposed language is to be considered 

further, it should be modified to allow more flexibility; NIST, OWM provided suggested modifications to the 

proposal. NIST, OWM also questioned whether or not specific guidance for analyzing results should be included in 

a User Requirement; a Notes paragraph might be more appropriate. While many of the factors discussed are 

appropriate for inspectors to consider in analyzing maintenance of equipment, device owners are required to adjust 

devices as close to zero as practical. The Committee also heard comments indicating that there may be other factors 

that affect test results that need to be considered in making an assessment of compliance with G-UR.4.1. 

Based upon the general lack of support for adding a new requirement to the LMD Code, the Committee decided to 

withdraw this item from its agenda. After hearing an explanation from the submitter and others regarding the 

difficulties that have been encountered in applying General Code paragraph G-UR.4.1., the Committee believes that 

it might be more appropriate to consider modifications to the General Code to address the concerns and would 

encourage the submitter and others to consider pursuing this option as an alternative future proposal. 

Those commenting on this item during the Open Hearings noted that their comments also applied to Item 331-2, 

which proposes a corresponding requirement be added to the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 42 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: CWMA supported the item and forwarded it to NCWM recommending it as a 

Voting Item because it provides specific guidance in the LMD Code and helps support G-UR.4.1. 

WWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM because there was no support. The 

WWMA believes the current language in G-UR.4.1. is adequate and provides jurisdictions the ability to make 

determinations for predominance of error. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM and recommended that it be a 

Developing Item and be assigned to the submitter for development. 

SWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: SWMA heard several comments during Open Hearings and in the Committee Work 

Session in opposition to this item. The Committee recommended the item be withdrawn. The Committee believed 

this item has been sufficiently addressed in the General Code of NIST Handbook 44. SWMA did not forward this 

item to NCWM. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional history on this item. 

330-7 D Part 3.30. Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a Retail 

Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) 

Source: 

NIST, OWM and the Regional Weights and Measures Associations (2008) 

Purpose: 

Review new criteria in the LMD Code related to price posting and computing capability of RMFDs and provide 

guidance on the application of these requirements. 

Item Under Consideration: 

The NCWM Task Group (TG) on RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability developed specific proposals for 

modifying the LMD Code to address price posting and computing requirements for RMFDs. These proposals were 

adopted by the NCWM in 2012 and published in the 2013 NIST Handbook 44; they are being revisited at the 

request of the NCWM S&T Committee who has asked the Task Group (TG) to complete its review of sample 

receipts and provide guidance on applying the new criteria. This Item, 360-3, is being retained as a Developing Item 

pending any additional assignments that may be given by the Committee to the Task Group relative to the 

implementation of new code requirements that may be adopted. Comments or inquiries may be directed to NIST 

Technical Advisor, Ms. Juana Williams, at (301) 975-3989 or juana.williams@nist.gov. 

Background/Discussion: 

In the early 1990s, various sections of the LMD Code in NIST Handbook 44 were modified to address multi-tier 

pricing applications in instances where the same product is offered at different unit prices based on the method of 

payment (such as cash or credit) or other conditions of the sale. Since that time, marketing practices have evolved to 

include the addition of new practices, such as frequent shopper discounts and club member discounts. Numerous 

questions have been posed to NIST, OWM and weights and measures officials regarding the requirements for 

posting unit prices, calculation of total price, customer-operated controls, and other related topics, such as 

definitions for associated terminology. In 2010, the Committee established a task group to further develop this 

issue. The Task Group proposed a number of changes to the LMD Code to address these issues and those changes 

were adopted in July 2012. 

Additional details on this item can be found in the Committee’s 2008-2012 Final Reports. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting Open Hearing: The Committee heard a suggestion from Ms. Elson-Houston, 

speaking as Chair of the TG on RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability on a TG proposal, to further modify 

paragraph UR.3.3. Computing Device. Ms. Elson-Houston reported that the TG had met and agreed: (1) to develop 

sample receipts for transactions where motor fuel pricing is discounted after the delivery; (2) the Chair would 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 43 

provide input on the “Dos and Don’ts” for complying with the requirements that went into effect January 2013 for 

posting on “The Oil Express” web newsletter; and (3) to recommend additional amendments to paragraph UR.3.3., 

which were provided to the Committee. The Committee established a new “Informational” item (See Item 330-4 on 

the Committee’s 2014 Agenda) to address those modifications and agreed to retain Developing Item 360-3 while the 

TG continues work to develop guidelines and examples on how the changes made last year to the LMD Code will 

apply to receipts for post-delivery discounted transactions. 

On the 2013 NCWM Online Position Forum, one Government representative indicated support for this item with no 

additional comments. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments from Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) who 

emphasized the importance of continuing to develop guidelines and information to assist regulatory officials and 

industry in interpreting and applying requirements relative to pre- and post-delivery discounts. NIST, OWM is 

working on the development of guidelines and examples that could be included in NIST EPOs and training materials 

and has already received positive feedback from members of the Task Group on the examples developed thus far. 

This information may also be of use to NTEP in the further development of checklist criteria for inclusion in 

NCWM Publication 14. NIST, OWM will continue to develop this information and make it available in updates to 

EPOs and course materials and would appreciate additional input from the community. 

Ms. Beth Treseder (API) indicated that API and others within industry would appreciate copies of acceptable 

receipts as they become available. 

The Committee believes that additional work is needed to develop examples and information that will enable 

consistent and uniform application of the requirements adopted in 2012 and encourages NIST, OWM’s continued 

work on such examples. The Committee asks that the TG continue its work by developing and providing additional 

examples of acceptable receipts to assist regulatory officials and industry in interpreting and applying these 

requirements. The Committee believes that examples of receipts from deliveries that include both pre- and postdelivery discounts in a single transaction are needed. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Ms. Elson-Houston (Ohio) spoke as Chair of the RMFD Price Posting and 

Computing Capability TG regarding a meeting of the TG, which occurred at the 2014 Interim Meeting. Ms. ElsonHouston advised the Committee that she will work with NIST to develop additional examples of receipts to illustrate 

both compliant and non-compliant receipts that could be included in the NIST Examination Procedure Outlines 

(EPOs) for RMFDs. The examples will be vetted with the TG and TG members agreed to provide input on the 

examples. Ms. Elson-Houston indicated that the TG believes this task would complete its work, unless the 

Committee has additional tasks to assign. During the Open Hearings, Ms. Elson-Houston encouraged members 

working with the post-delivery discount requirements, who might encounter problems or issues with the language 

that has been adopted, to forward their concerns to a member of the TG. 

The Committee expressed appreciation for the TG’s hard work. The Committee supports the development of 

examples that can be included in the NIST EPOs and recognized these as essential to help ensure consistent 

interpretation of the NIST Handbook 44 provisions and requirements for post-delivery discounts. The Committee 

agreed that, once completed, this last task completes the work of the TG. Barring any new issues between now and 

the NCWM Annual Meeting, this item will be dropped from the Committee’s agenda in July. The Committee 

acknowledged that should future issues arise regarding the provisions for post-delivery discounts, the Committee 

may need to request that the TG be resurrected or reconstituted. 

Following the 2014 Interim Meeting, the Committee received an excerpt from the TG’s January 2014 Meeting 

Summary. At the TG’s January 2014 meeting, the TG indicated its willingness to provide input on receipt 

examples. Chairperson Elson-Houston agreed to work with NIST to develop additional examples of receipts to 

illustrate both compliant and non-compliant receipts that might be included in future versions of NIST EPOs and 

training materials. The examples will be vetted with the TG and TG members agreed to provide input on the 

examples. The TG believes this final task would complete its work, unless the S&T Committee has additional tasks 

to assign. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 44 

2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments from Ms. Elson-Houston (Ohio, Chair of the RMFD Price 

Posting and Computing Capability TG). Ms. Elson-Houston reported that Mr. Dick Suiter (Richard Suiter 

Consulting) will be providing training to the State of Ohio on this topic and that he would be willing to provide 

similar training regional association meetings. The Committee also heard comments from Ms. Juana Williams 

(NIST, OWM) who indicated that NIST, OWM continues to note the importance of further development of 

guidelines and examples to assist in the uniform interpreting and applying of requirements for post-delivery 

discounts. NIST, OWM reiterates the need for additional sample receipts. NIST, OWM plans to continue 

developing the information on the receipt template previously made available and include the information in EPOs 

and course materials are updated. NIST, OWM appreciates the willingness of members of the NCWM RMFD Price 

Posting TG to assist in the review and vetting of these examples. 

The Committee heard no additional comments on this item. The Committee agreed that the work of the Task Group 

is completed, and plans to remove this item from its agenda following the 2014 Annual Meeting. 

Regional Association Comments: 

At its 2013 Interim Meeting and its 2014 Annual Meeting, the CWMA believes this item should remain as a 

Developing item until the request for clarification is received from the Work Group. 

WWMA recommended that this item remain as a Developing item and looks forward to seeing specific receipt 

examples from the TG on RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability. 

At its 2013 Interim Meeting and 2014 Annual Meeting, NEWMA recommended this item remain as a Developing 

Item and looks forward to additional data from the TG, including examples of both compliant and non-compliant 

receipts. 

The SWMA did not receive any comments on this item. However, the Committee continues to support the work of 

the Task Group and recommends the item continue to be further developed. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional history on this item. 

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS 

331-1 D N.4.6. Initial Verification and UR.1.5. Initial Verification Proving Reports 

Source: 

Minnesota Weights and Measures Division (2014) 

Purpose: 

To update NIST Handbook 44 to reflect the technological changes in registers for vehicle-tank meters and to alert 

weights and measures officials to the fact that error in start-up and shut-down delivery quantities can introduce 

linear errors in the calibration at normal flow rates which increase the further the delivered quantity deviates from 

the prover size used at calibration. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Add the following new paragraphs to NIST Handbook 44, Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters Code: 

N.4.6. Initial Verification. - A vehicle tank meter shall be tested at all flow rates and with all products 

for which a calibration factor has been electronically programmed prior to placing it into commercial 

service for the first time or after being repaired or replaced. 

A vehicle tank meter not equipped with means to electronically program its flow rates and calibration 

factors shall be tested at a low and high flow rate with all products delivered prior to placing it into 

commercial service for the first time or after being repaired or replaced. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 45 

Example: A vehicle tank meter is electronically programmed to deliver regular and premium gasoline at 

a startup/shutdown flow rate of 20 gpm, a normal operating flow rate of 100 gpm, and an intermediate 

rate of 65 gpm. The meter is to be tested with regular gasoline at 20 gpm, 65 gpm and 100 gpm; and with 

premium gasoline at 20 gpm, 65 gpm and 100 gpm. 

The official with statutory authority has the discretion to determine the flow rates and products at which 

a vehicle tank meter will be tested on subsequent verifications.

UR.1.5. Initial Verification Proving Reports. - Initial verification proving reports for vehicle tank 

meters equipped with means to electronically program flow rates shall be attached to and sent 

with placed-in-service reports when the regulatory agency with statutory authority requires placed-inservice reports. 

Background/Discussion: 

Many terminals and refineries want to maximize the accuracy of their liquid-measuring devices by optimizing the 

calibration factors at typical delivery speeds and some bulk delivery companies are beginning to utilize the 

capabilities of electronic registers with multiple calibration factors to optimize their accuracy at flow rates that are 

customarily used. Just like registers on wholesale liquid measuring devices, these meters can be configured for a 

standard initial “start-up” and ending “shut-down” quantity delivered at a slower speed than is used for the 

remainder of the delivery. Service agents are expected to calibrate devices as close to zero as possible, but spending 

time calibrating normal delivery rates to a high degree of accuracy is wasted if the error introduced into the 

measurement by the start-up and shut-down quantities is unknown. On the other hand, an unscrupulous operator 

could also use the known error introduced by the start-up and shut-down errors to calibrate the normal delivery rates 

so that all the errors on typical deliveries work predominantly in the user’s favor. Officials should be aware that 

when delivered quantities are greater than the prover used at calibration, start-up and shut-down errors have a 

counter-intuitive effect. Underregistration, which normally operates in the consumers’ favor, may actually create 

shortages in the total delivery if calibration of the normal rate was adjusted to compensate for that underregistration. 

While these errors should be well within tolerance if the start-up and shut-down error are in tolerance, an official 

who is trying to determine predominance of error should be aware of this effect and know how to calculate the 

expected error in a typical delivery. Operators need to understand the importance of knowing and accounting for the 

effects of start-up and shut-down errors. Officials need to be aware of the potential for misusing that knowledge. 

This proposal has no effect on locations that do not use electronic calibration factors to optimize accuracy at every 

delivery rate. Even at locations which do, no action is required unless the official notices that the error for the 

start-up and shut-down rates is predominantly in one direction. If the start-up and shut-down errors are 

predominantly in one direction, the official then needs to determine the size of a typical transaction and the likely 

predominance of the error. Device owners can easily ensure that they have no problems with this requirement by 

making sure that their devices are in tolerance at the slower start-up and shut-down flow rates and errors are not 

predominantly one way or the other. 

See Appendix D, How Slow Flow Errors Affect VTMs. 

See comments Item 330-4 for details of comments from the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee considered a proposal from the submitter to amend NIST 

Handbook 44 Vehicle Tank Meter Code as follows: 

N.4.2.1. Determination of Error on Vehicle-Tank Meters with Multiple Flow Rates and Calibration 

Factors – On vehicle tank meters which are configured with multiple flow rates where each flow rate has 

its own calibration factor, and which are programmed to deliver a set quantity at a slow flow rate on 

start-up and/or shut-down, the effect of start-up and shut-down rates on the accuracy of the typical 

delivery shall be considered if the typical delivery is greater or less than the test measure used at the time 

of evaluation. The weights and measures jurisdiction shall determine the size of the typical delivery 

based upon available evidence. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 46 

After hearing comments during the Open Hearings and discussing the item further in its work sessions, the 

Committee agreed to designate this as a Developing Item. The Committee believes, at least initially, work needs to 

focus on the development of guidelines and test procedures that could be incorporated into examination procedure 

outlines. The Committee Chairman noted that the submitter, Ms. Julie Quinn (Minnesota), agreed to serve as the 

contact point for the item, and will be working with others to further develop guidelines for systems with multiplepoint calibration capability. Ms. Quinn thanked those who have offered to help and noted that, although the specific 

issue presented to the Committee dealt with predominance of errors in certain portions of the delivery, she agreed 

the issue is really dealing with metering systems with multiple-point calibration capability. The Committee asks that 

others interested in this work contact Ms. Quinn. The Committee looks forward to updates on this work as it 

progresses. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments from Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) who 

commented that like the S&T Committee, NIST, OWM believes the existing language in the Vehicle-Tank Meters 

code allows for any additional testing that is within the usual and customary use of the system and that develops the 

operating characteristics of that system, and also believes the work should focus on the development of guidelines 

and test procedures. NIST, OWM looks forward to continued collaboration with the group developing this issue. 

The Committee also heard an update from Ms. Quinn, the submitter of this item. Ms. Quinn reported that a group of 

interested parties has been collaborating on this issue since January 2014. During the NCWM Annual Meeting, this 

group met and developed suggested language to address the concerns outlined in this item. Ms. Quinn asked that the 

Committee include the suggested language in this item for further review and comments by the regional associations 

and others in the fall. The Committee agreed to maintain this item on its agenda to allow for additional development 

and input as requested by Ms. Quinn, and to replace the original recommendation with the revised language 

provided by her as shown in the “Item Under Consideration” above, along with a change to the title to reflect the 

revised paragraph number. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: CWMA heard no opposition on this item and based on testimony received from the 

floor, believes it is ready for a vote. CWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item. At 

its 2014 Annual Meeting, CWMA supported continued development of this item. 

WWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: WWMA agrees the proposed language is confusing and no support for this item 

was conveyed. The WWMA agrees the language in the proposal is vague and offers no clear solution. This item 

was not forward to NCWM. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA found this item confusing and believes that it lacks merit to move 

forward. NEWMA did not forward the item to NCWM. At its 2014 Annual Meeting, NEWMA reported that they 

revisited their position on this item from their 2013 Interim Meeting. NEWMA recommended the item be 

withdrawn for lack of merit, noting that NIST Handbook 44 already establishes a tolerance that applies to the full 

device test from start up to shut down and applying a tolerance to just start up or shut down could have a significant 

effect on test results. 

SWMA 2013 Annual Meeting: SWMA again heard comments concerning the wording “typical delivery.” Based 

on comments received in Open Hearings and the SWMA S&T Committee’s Work Session, the SWMA agreed to 

withdraw based on lack of merit. SWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

331-2 W UR.3. Maintenance Requirements 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Minnesota Weights and Measures Division (2014) 

Purpose: 

To clarify the application of G-UR.4.1. to liquid measuring devices at a single place of business. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 47 

Item Under Consideration: 

Add a new User Requirement to the NIST Handbook 44 Vehicle-Tank Meters Code as follows: 

U.R.3. Maintenance Requirements. 

UR.3.1. Maintenance of Equipment. – All vehicle-mounted measuring systems in service and all 

mechanisms and devices attached thereto or used in connection therewith shall be maintained in 

proper operating condition throughout the period of such service. All vehicle-mounted measuring 

systems in service at a single place of business shall be evaluated by product and grade. Equipment 

in service associated with a single product and grade at a single place of business which is found to be 

in error predominantly in a direction favorable to the device user shall not be considered 

“maintained in a proper operating condition.” 

Background/Discussion: 

This proposal is meant to limit the opportunity to use tolerances as a way to gain advantage for the user over the 

consumer. Without this clarification, paragraph G-UR.4.1. might be interpreted to mean that locations would be in 

compliance if all the devices measuring product with the lowest sales were in tolerance in favor of the consumer, 

and an equal number of devices measuring product with the highest sales were in tolerance in favor of the device 

user. This proposal would not allow that practice. For example, a bulk delivery service could not set all their diesel 

fuel long within tolerance and all their gasoline short within tolerance. Instead, approximately half of each grade 

should be short within tolerance and an equal number long within tolerance. 

Although jurisdictions have not yet come to an agreement as to a mathematical formula for calculating 

predominance of error, there seems to be general agreement on the principle that tolerances should not be applied to 

allow most devices of one grade to be short and most of another grade to be long. Many jurisdictions are already 

applying this interpretation to their application of G-UR.4.1. If adopted, this proposal will promote uniformity by 

standardizing enforcement across jurisdictions. 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: Ms. Julie Quinn (Minnesota), submitter of this item, noted that the rationale for this 

proposal is the same as for Item 330-6 on the Committee’s Agenda. During its review of Item 330-6, the Committee 

heard comments from others, who also stated that their comments applied to Items 330-6 and 331-2. See that item 

for comments and details. 

The Committee heard multiple comments that this issue is better addressed in the General Code. The Committee 

also heard concerns from NIST, OWM that the language might limit jurisdictions from considering other factors that 

might indicate noncompliance with maintenance and adjustment requirements and suggesting that if the proposed 

language is to be considered further, it should be modified to allow more flexibility. NIST, OWM also questioned 

whether or not specific guidance for analyzing results should be included in a User Requirement. While many of the 

factors discussed are appropriate for inspectors to consider in analyzing maintenance of equipment, device owners 

are required to adjust devices as close to zero as practical. The Committee also heard comments indicating that 

there may be other factors that affect test results that need to be considered in making an assessment of compliance 

with G-UR.4.1. The Committee also heard concerns expressed about the need to consider the limits of readability 

and uncertainty of current test equipment. 

Based upon the general lack of support for adding a new requirement to the VTM Code, the Committee decided to 

withdraw this item from its Agenda. 

After hearing an explanation from the submitter and others regarding the difficulties that have been encountered in 

applying General Code paragraph G-UR.4.1., the Committee believes it might be more appropriate to consider 

modifications to the General Code to address the concerns and would encourage the submitter and others to consider 

pursuing this option as an alternative future proposal. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA supported the item and forwarded it to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting item because it provides 

specific guidance in the VTM Code and helps support G-UR.4.1. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 48 

WWMA did not hear support for the item and the current language in G-UR.4.1. is adequate and provides 

jurisdictions the ability to make determinations for predominance of error. The WWMA did not forward this item to 

NCWM. 

NEWMA believed this item is covered in the General Code. NEWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

SWMA heard comments during the Open Hearings in opposition to the item. The SWMA believes this item is 

sufficiently addressed in the General Code of NIST Handbook 44 and recommended the item be Withdrawn. 

SWMA did not forward this item to NCWM. 

332 LPG AND ANHYDROUS AMMONIA LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES 

332-1 D S.1.4.3. Provisions for Power Loss, S.1.5.1.1. Unit Price, S.1.5.1.2. Product Identity, 

S.1.6. For Retail Motor Vehicle Fuel Devices Only, S.1.7. For Wholesale Devices 

Only, UR.2.7. Unit Price and Product Identity, and UR.2..8 Computing Device. 

Source: 

California Department of Food and Agriculture Division of Measurement Standards (2014) 

Purpose: 

Add similar Specifications and User Requirements for other retail motor-fuel devices to NIST Handbook 44 

Section 3.32. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Anhydrous Liquid-Measuring Devices Code similar to those in 

Section 3.30 Liquid-Measuring Devices, Section 3.37 Mass flow Meters, and Section 3.39 Hydrogen-Gas 

Measuring Devices Tentative Code. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Liquid-Measuring Devices Code as follows: 

S.1.4. For Retail Devices Only (No Change) 

S.1.4.1. Indication of Delivery (No Change) 

S.1.4.2. Return to Zero (No Change) 

S.1.4.3. Provisions for Power Loss. 

S.1.4.3.1. Transaction Information. 

(a) In the event of a power loss, a computing retail liquefied petroleum dispensing device 

shall display the information needed to complete any transaction in progress at the 

time of the power loss (such as the quantity and unit price, or sales price) shall be 

determinable for at least 15 min at the dispenser or at the console if the console is 

accessible to the customer. 

(a) In the event of a power loss, both an electronic digital retail non-computing stationary 

liquefied petroleum gas dispenser and a vehicle-mounted electronic digital liquefied 

petroleum gas dispenser shall display the information needed to complete any 

transaction in progress at the time of the power loss. 

S.1.4.3.2. User Information. – The device memory shall retain information on the quantity of 

fuel dispensed and the sales price totals during power loss. 

S.1.5. For Stationary Retail Devices Only. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 49 

S.1.5.1. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity. – In a device of the computing type, means 

shall be provided for displaying on each face of the device the unit price at which the device is set to 

compute or to deliver as the case may be, and there shall be conspicuously displayed on each side of 

the device the identity of the product that is being dispensed. If a device is so designed as to dispense 

more than one grade, brand, blend, or mixture of product, the identity of the grade, brand, blend, or 

mixture being dispensed shall also be displayed on each face of the device. 

S.1.5.1.1. Unit Price. 

(a) A computing or money-operated device shall be able to display on each face the unit 

price at which the device is set to compute or to dispense. 

(b) Except for dispensers used exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and 

truck refueling (e.g., truck stop dispensers used only to refuel trucks), whenever a 

grade, brand, blend, or mixture is offered for sale from a device at more than one unit 

price, then all of the unit prices at which that product is offered for sale shall meet the 

following conditions: 

(1) For a system that applies a discount prior to the delivery, all unit prices shall be 

displayed or shall be capable of being displayed on the dispenser through a 

deliberate action of the purchaser prior to the delivery of the product. It is not 

necessary that all of the unit prices for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be 

simultaneously displayed prior to the delivery of the product. 

(2) For a system that offers post-delivery discounts on fuel sales, display of predelivery unit price information is exempt from (b)(1), provided the system 

complies with S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions Where a PostDelivery Discount(s) is Provided. 

Note: When a product is offered at more than one unit price, display of the unit price 

information may be through the deliberate action of the purchaser: 1) using controls 

on the device; 2) through the purchaser’s use of personal or vehicle-mounted 

electronic equipment communicating with the system; or 3) verbal instructions by the 

customer. 

S.1.5.1.2. Product Identity. 

(a) A device shall be able to conspicuously display on each side the identity of the product 

being dispensed. 

(b) A device designed to dispense more than one grade, brand, blend, or mixture of 

product also shall be able to display on each side the identity of the grade, brand, 

blend, or mixture being dispensed. 

S.1.6. For Wholesale Devices Only For Retail Motor Vehicle Fuel Devices Only 

S.1.6.1. Zero-Set-Back Interlock, Retail Motor-Fuel Devices. – A device shall be constructed so 

that: 

(a) after a delivery cycle has been completed by moving the starting lever to any position that 

shuts off the device, an automatic interlock prevents a subsequent delivery until the 

indicating elements, and recording elements if the device is equipped and activated to 

record, have been returned to their zero positions; 

(b) the discharge nozzle cannot be returned to its designed hanging position (that is, any position 

where the tip of the nozzle is placed in its designed receptacle and the lock can be inserted) 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 50 

until the starting lever is in its designed shut-off position and the zero-set-back interlock has 

been engaged; and 

(c) in a system with more than one dispenser supplied by a single pump, an effective automatic 

control valve in each dispenser prevents product from being delivered until the indicating 

elements on that dispenser are in a correct zero position. 

S.1.6.2. Provisions for Power Loss. 

S.1.6.2.1. Transaction Information. – In the event of a power loss, the information needed to 

complete any transaction in progress at the time of the power loss (such as the quantity and unit 

price, or sales price) shall be determinable for at least 15 min at the dispenser or at the console if 

the console is accessible to the customer. 

S.1.6.2.2. User Information. – The device memory shall retain information on the quantity of 

fuel dispensed and the sales price totals during power loss. 

S.1.6.3. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity. Except for fleet sales and other price contract 

sales, a motor vehicle fuel dispenser used to refuel vehicles shall be of the computing type and shall 

indicate the quantity, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery. The dispenser shall display 

the volume measured for each transaction. 

S.1.6.4. Totalizers for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. – Retail motor-fuel dispensers shall be 

equipped with a nonresettable totalizer for the quantity delivered through the metering device. 

S.1.6.5. Money-Value Divisions. – A computing type shall comply with the requirements of 

paragraph G-S.5.5. Money-Values, Mathematical Agreement, and the total price computation shall 

be based on quantities not exceeding 0.05 L for devices indicating in metric units and 0.01 gal 

intervals for devices indicating in inch-pound units. 

S.1.7. For Wholesale Devices Only. (Renumbered - No Change) 

UR.2.7. Unit Price and Product Identity. 

(a) The following information shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on the face of a retail 

dispenser used in direct sale: 

(1) except for unit prices resulting from any post-delivery discount and dispensers used 

exclusively for fleet sales, other price contract sales, and truck refueling (e.g., truck stop 

dispensers used only to refuel trucks), all of the unit prices at which the product is offered 

for sale; and 

(2) in the case of a computing type or money-operated type, the unit price at which the 

dispenser is set to compute. 

Provided that the dispenser complies with S.1.5.1.1. Display of Unit Price, it is not necessary that all 

the unit prices for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be simultaneously displayed or posted. 

(b) The following information shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on each side of a retail 

dispenser used in direct sale: 

(1) the identity of the product in descriptive commercial terms; and 

(2) the identity of the grade, brand, blend, or mixture that a multi-product dispenser is set to 

deliver. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 51 

UR.2.8 Computing Device. – Any computing device used in an application where a product or grade is 

offered for sale at one or more unit prices shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and 

displays the sales price for the selected transaction. 

The following exceptions apply: 

(a) Fleet sales and other price contract sales are exempt from this requirement. 

(b) A truck stop dispenser used exclusively for refueling trucks is exempt from this requirement 

provided that: 

(1) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt of the transaction containing the 

applicable price per gallon, the total gallons delivered, and the total price of the sale; and 

(Added 1993) 

(2) unless a dispenser 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 transaction which may be conducted. 

(Added 1993) 

(c) A dispenser used in an application where a price per unit discount is offered following the 

delivery is exempt from this requirement, provided the following conditions are satisfied: 

(1) the unit price posted on the dispenser and the unit price at which the dispenser is set to 

compute shall be the highest unit price for any transaction; 

(2) all purchases of fuel are accompanied by a printed receipt recorded by the system for the 

transaction containing: 

a. the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number; 

b. transaction information as shown on the dispenser at the end of the delivery and prior to 

any post-delivery discount including the: 

1. total volume of the delivery; 

2. unit price; and 

3. total computed price of the fuel sale prior to post-delivery discounts being applied. 

c. an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit price; and 

d. the final total price of the fuel sale. 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be 

given the option to receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.) 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM Publication 14, Checklist for Liquefied Natural Gas (LPG) Retail Motor Fuel Devices verifies compliance 

with specifications, such as: “Power Loss” (which requires a 15 minute power back up) and “Zero-Setback 

Interlocks.” However, these specifications are not located in Section 3.32. of NIST Handbook 44. 

There are LPG devices with NTEP Certificates of Conformance that meet current “power loss” and “zero-setback 

interlock” requirements. However, there are other LPG retail motor-fuel devices in the field that consist of an 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 52 

assembly of separable, compatible, and type-certified LPG measuring and indicating elements, key/card lock 

systems that do not meet the power loss and interlock requirements because those requirements are not within the 

LPG Code and have not been submitted for type evaluation. This creates unfair competition with holders of type 

certifications for LPG retail dispensers. 

There are newer LPG dispensers coming in to use, where measuring, indicating, and computing elements are 

assembled in Gilbarco retail motor fuel dispenser housings. These LPG devices serve as both propane bottle fillers 

and as retail motor fuel devices using separate hoses and nozzles on a dispenser. Many of these dispensers, while 

they do have a good safety history, are not assembled in compliance with safety standards such as UL 495 or 1238, 

or NFPA 50, nor are they typically installed in accordance with NFPA 30A or NFPA 70. 

Existing retail LPG dispensers can be adapted to fuel LPG-powered motor vehicles by adding a simple adaptor 

which attaches to the LPG nozzle on the dispensers hose. There are currently five active and two inactive NTEP 

Certificates of Conformance for LPG retail motor-fuel dispensers listed in the NCWM Database. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) commented that NIST, OWM believes these 

changes will better align the LMD and LPG Code with regard to retail dispensing systems. NIST, OWM suggests 

that the following specific items be considered as the item is further developed: 

Nonretroactive Status: 

NIST, OWM notes that some of the paragraphs in the original proposal are suggested as nonretroactive 

requirements. In reviewing these paragraphs, consideration should be given as to the appropriate nonretroactive date 

to propose, and whether or not the effective dates provided should mirror the effective dates of corresponding 

paragraphs in the LMD Code. 

S.1.4.3. Provisions for Power Loss: 

NIST, OWM questions whether or not the provisions for power loss in the proposed paragraph “S.1.4.3.1. 

Transaction Information” should be restricted to “computing” retail LPG dispensers. This corresponding 

requirement applies to all retail devices in the LMD Code, not just computing-type devices. If a power loss occurs 

during the use of a digital volume-only retail LPG dispenser, it would seem appropriate to require provisions to 

ensure that the quantity information can be recalled so that the transaction can be completed. It isn’t clear why there 

would need to be a distinction between vehicle-mounted and stationary applications. 

Additionally, the language proposed in S.1.4.3.1. Transaction Information has some language that doesn’t read 

correctly. NIST, OWM offers the following alternative: 

S.1.4.3. Provisions for Power Loss. 

S.1.4.3.1. Transaction Information. – In the event of a power loss, the information needed to 

complete any transaction in progress at the time of the power loss (such as the quantity and unit 

price, or sales price) shall be determinable for at least 15 min at the dispenser or at the console if the 

console is accessible to the customer. 

S.1.4.3.2. User Information. – The device memory shall retain information on the quantity of fuel 

dispensed and the sales price totals during power loss. 

S.1.5.1.1. Unit Price: Consideration should be given to whether or not provision needs to be made for “blends” of 

product for this application. Additionally, the references to paragraph S.1.6.8. refers to an LMD Code paragraph; 

this reference should be deleted and, perhaps, replaced with a corresponding paragraph of the LPG Code. 

Post-Delivery Discounts: For consistency with the LMD Code, the Committee may wish to consider whether 

provisions for post-delivery discounts should be added to the LPG Code. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 53 

S.1.4.1. Indication of Delivery: NIST, OWM suggests that the Committee consider modifying paragraph S.1.4.1. 

Indication of Delivery as follows so that it mirrors the corresponding paragraph (S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery) in 

the LMD Code, both in language and in the requirement for electronic devices to inhibit indications until fueling 

conditions ensure that the delivery starts on zero. 

S.1.4.1. Indication of Delivery. – A retail device shall be constructed to show automatically show on its 

face the initial zero condition and the amounts quantity delivered up to the nominal capacity of the 

device. However, the following requirements shall apply: 

For electronic devices manufactured prior to January 1, 2006, the first 0.03 L (or 0.009 gal) of a delivery 

and its associated total sales price need not be indicated. 

For electronic devices manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, the measurement, indication of delivered 

quantity, and the indication of total sales price shall be inhibited until the fueling position reaches conditions 

necessary to ensure that the delivery starts at zero. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2006]

(Amended 2014) 

NIST, OWM suggests the Committee consider what nonretroactive dates, if any, should be associated with this 

paragraph. 

S.1.6.2. Provisions for Power Loss: It would seem that the provisions for power loss are already addressed in the 

proposed paragraph S.1.4.3. Power Loss. Therefore, NIST, OWM would suggest deleting S.1.6.2. and its 

subparagraphs S.1.6.2.1. and S.1.6.2.2. 

S.1.6.3. Display of Unit Price: This proposed paragraph is logical. However, NIST, OWM questions whether the 

last sentence regarding volume display is needed given that the “quantity” is already required in the previous 

sentence. 

UR.2.7.(a)(2) Unit Price and Product Identity Wholesale: The word “device” is missing after the word “type.” 

UR.2.8. Computing Device: Delete “Added” dates from parts (b)(1) and (b)(2). 

This paragraph may also be impacted by action on Items 310-2 and 330-1, which address requirements for recorded 

representations in the General and LMD Codes. Should the proposal in Item 310-2 to reference the use of electronic 

receipts be adopted, the corresponding reference in this proposed paragraph (UR.2.8.) should be deleted. 

Agreement Between Indications on Auxiliary Elements: Consideration should be given to including a paragraph 

corresponding to LMD Code paragraph S.1.6.6., which addresses agreement of indications with auxiliary elements 

such as consoles. 

General: As part of this overall proposal, consideration should be given to modifying other sections of the LPG 

Code to mirror the LMD Code more exactly. This could be done by the Technical Advisor and presented to the 

submitter as the item is further developed if that would be helpful. 

The Committee heard comments from Mr. John Young (Yolo County, California) in support of the proposed 

changes. The Committee heard comments from NIST, OWM (see above) and Mr. Rich Miller (FMC) regarding the 

need to more closely examine the power loss requirements, and how the requirements apply to specific categories of 

LPG metering systems. Mr. Miller noted concern in particular that separate batteries have been required for some 

vehicle-mounted applications in Europe, and this has proven problematic for companies. 

The Committee supports the objective of making changes to align the LPG and the LMD Code with respect to 

requirements for retail motor-fuel dispensing applications. Based on the comments received, the Committee 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 54 

believes that additional work is needed before considering the proposal for voting and decided to designate the item 

as a “Developing” Item to allow the submitter to address the raised points. 

2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard from Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) who noted that additional 

work needs to be done to develop the proposed changes to Section 3.32. NIST, OWM reiterates the comments and 

suggestions it provided during the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting and as shown in the report above. Ms. Kristin 

Macey (California) thanked the Committee and the NCWM for consideration of the item, input received, and noted 

that California will be tweaking the item and resubmitting it to the regional weights and measures association. 

Ms. Angela Godwin (Ventura County, California) supported Ms. Macey’s comments and agree that changes are 

needed to better address LPG motor fuel applications. Mr. Mike Keilty (Endress + Hauser), Chairman of the NTEP 

Measuring Sector, agreed with the recommendation that the proposal be maintained in a Developing status and 

indicated that the Measuring Sector will review and provide input on the proposal during its meeting in 

October 2014. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: The CWMA believed this item was sufficiently developed and forwarded it to 

NCWM, recommending that it be a Voting item. At its 2014 Annual Meeting, the CWMA supported continued 

development of the item. 

The WWMA believes the proposal has merit and contains a complete proposal addressing the issues. The WWMA 

believes more time is needed for input from other stakeholders and regional associations. The WWMA forwarded 

this item to NCWM and recommended that it be an Informational Item. 

SWMA did not receive any comments opposing the item if the section is the same as the LMD Code. The SWMA 

recommended the item be moved forward to the NCWM as a Voting Item. 

NEWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: NEWMA supported continued development of this item. 

Additional letters, presentations, and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. Please refer to 

http://ncwm.net/meetings/annual/publication-16 to review these documents.

332-2 VC S.1.5.3. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems 

(This item was Adopted.)

Source: 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture (2014) 

Purpose: 

Update the LPG Code in NIST Handbook 44 to include requirements for Retail Dispensers of LPG that are 

consistent with retail LMD and Mass Flow Meters Code. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Add the following new paragraph to Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 

of NIST Handbook 44 as follows: 

S.1.5.3. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems. – Except for fleet sales and other price 

contract sales, a printed receipt providing the following information shall be available through a built-in 

or separate recording element for all transactions conducted with point-of-sale systems or devices 

activated by debit cards, credit cards, and/or cash: 

(a) the total volume of the delivery; 

(b) the unit price; 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 55 

(c) the total computed price; and 

(d) the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number. 

(Added 2014) 

Background/Discussion: 

Alternative Fuels continue to develop market shares. Government programs are sponsoring the installation of 

alternative fuel dispensing devices in order to assist in developing an infrastructure. It has come to the submitter’s 

attention that the LPG Code has never been updated to be consistent with LMD Code and Mass Flow Meters Code 

requirements for retail dispensers. We should seek consistency across all device types that are used for the same 

application; in this case, the application of “retail vehicle fueling.” With regard to certain requirements such as 

displaying information and providing receipts, it shouldn’t matter what type of fuel or type of metering technology 

is used; the basic application is the same. 

This proposal is consistent with Mass Flow Meters Code paragraph S.2.7. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale 

Systems, and LMD Code paragraph S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations. There are relatively few LPG dispensers in 

the U.S. retail market at this time. It is prudent to add this requirement before the market grows and the changes 

would potentially have a more burdensome impact on existing industry. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) commented that NIST, OWM believes the 

proposed change will improve consistency between the LMD Code and the LPG Code. Since the corresponding 

paragraph in the LMD Code (paragraph S.1.6.7.) is nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986, the Committee may wish 

to ask for input regarding the retroactive status of the proposed paragraph and even consider whether or not the 

status of the corresponding LMD Code paragraph might need to be reviewed as a future item. 

The Committee heard no objections to the addition of the proposed paragraph or its proposed retroactive status. The 

Committee believes that the addition of this paragraph will further align the LPG and LMD Codes. Consequently, 

the Committee recommends this item as a Voting Item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments from Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) who 

noted that this item may also be impacted by action on Items 310-2, 330-1, and 330-5B, which address requirements 

for recorded representations in the General and LMD Codes and recognize the use of electronic receipts. Should the 

proposal in Item 310-2 be adopted, the Committee may wish to delete the last sentence in this proposal (referencing 

electronic receipts) prior to presenting the item for a Vote. Based on this suggestion the Committee modified the 

proposal, eliminating the last sentence so that the proposed paragraph now reads as shown in the “Item Under 

Consideration.” 

Regional Association Comments:

SWMA did not hear any comments opposing the item. The Committee supports the proposal as written and agrees 

with the submitter. SWMA forwarded the item to the NCWM. 

336 WATER METERS 

336-1 W UR.3. Installation Requirements 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Neptune Technology Group Inc. (2013) 

Purpose: 

Establish installation requirements in the Water Meters Code. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 56 

Item Under Consideration: 

Add a new paragraph UR.3. as follows: 

UR.3. Installation Requirements. 

UR.3.1. Manufacturer’s Instructions. – A water meter shall be installed in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. For utility-type water meters, the installation shall be sufficiently 

secure and rigid to maintain this condition.

Background/Discussion: 

There are no installation requirements for utility type meters in the Water Meters Code of NIST Handbook 44. The 

submitter proposed the following new paragraph be added to Section 3.36.: 

UR.3. Installation Requirements. 

UR.3.1. Manufacturer’s Instructions. – A utility-type water meter shall be installed in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions, and the installation shall be sufficiently secure and rigid to 

maintain this condition. 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee heard comments in support of the proposal from Mr. Noel, who 

indicated that he also spoke on behalf of Badger, Sensus, Elster-AMCO, and Master Meter and noted that the 

proposed change would mirror similar paragraphs in other NIST Handbook 44 measuring device codes. Mr. Jim 

Byers (San Diego County, California) stated that he agreed with the proposed requirement, but notes that the 

General Code already addresses these requirements. He suggested that, if the language in the General Code is not 

sufficient, then that language should be reviewed and revised rather than including additional language in the 

specific code. Ms. Kristin Macy (California) stated that California agrees with Mr. Byers and believes that the 

language in the General Code is sufficient. Mrs. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) also acknowledged the similarity 

with language in other codes. 

While the Committee acknowledged comments regarding the redundancy of the proposed paragraph with current 

General Code requirements, the Committee believes the proposal has merit in helping to ensure proper installation 

of water meters. The Committee believes the requirement in the first sentence of the proposed paragraph regarding 

compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions should apply to all water meters, not just utility-type meters. 

Consequently, the Committee modified the language to restrict only the second sentence to utility-type water meters 

and agreed to propose the modified paragraph (as shown in the “Item Under Consideration” above) for a vote. 

One Government representative indicated support; one Government representative indicated a neutral position; and 

one Government representative indicated opposition for this item on the NCWM Online Position Forum. The 

opposing comment was accompanied by a statement indicating that paragraph G-UR.2.1. is adequate to address this 

concern and that paragraph is also more complete and better articulates the requirements. 

During its 2013 Annual Meeting Open Hearings, the Committee heard comments in opposition to this item from Mr. 

Michael Keilty (Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG, USA) and Ms. Macey suggesting that the addition of requirements 

to address meter installation would be redundant. Mr. Keilty expressed concern that the absence of specific 

requirements such as these in all specific device codes might cause confusion about how or if the General Code 

paragraph would apply in other cases. Ms. Macey also expressed opposition to distinguishing between non-utility 

type and utility type water meters. NIST, OWM commented that the proposed language is consistent with that 

appearing in other device codes in NIST Handbook 44 and intended for the same purpose. The Committee received 

letters of support from Badger Meter; Elster AMCO Water, LLC; Sensus; Master Meter, Inc.; and Neptune 

Technology Group. Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls Corporation), speaking on behalf of the companies who 

were unable to attend this meeting and the Meter Manufacturers Association, also expressed support for this item. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The Committee heard comments opposing the addition of the proposed paragraph. 

Comments indicated that the language is redundant with corresponding General Code requirements. Based on these 

comments, the Committee decided to withdraw the item from its agenda. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 57 

Regional Association Comments: 

The CWMA believes this item needs no further development and recommended that it be a Voting Item. 

The WWMA recognized the redundancy of the proposed language and believes it is sufficiently addressed in 

G-UR.2.1. The WWMA recommended that this item be Withdrawn. 

NEWMA had previously recommended this as a Voting Item. However, based on new information offered by 

Ms. Macey at the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, NEWMA now agreed that the item should be Withdrawn. 

SWMA heard comments on behalf of the manufactures in favor of the item. However the SWMA believes the 

proposed language is already addressed in the General Code. The SWMA recommends this item be Withdrawn. 

337 MASS FLOW METERS 

S&T Committee Note: Proposals under the Committee’s 2014 Interim Agenda Items 337-1 and 337-4 were 

withdrawn from the agenda in response to comments from the NGSC and the submitter (also a member of the 

NGSC) who suggested this action because alternative proposals developed by the submitter are intended to replace 

both items. The alternative proposals (definitions, requirements for quantity indications and markings for the 

conversion factor to equivalent volume units) and related background information appear under Item 337-2. The 

Committee also agreed with the NGSC’s recommendation to consolidate the proposals under Items 337-2, 337-3, 

and 337-5 into a single Item 337-2 with Voting status. 

337-1 W Appendix D – Definitions: Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon 

Equivalents (DGE); Natural Gas 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2013) 

Purpose: 

Enable consumers to make cost and fuel economy comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D – Definitions as follows: 

Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – means 0.756 kg of natural gas.

Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – means 2.863 kg (6.312 lb) of natural gas. 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NIST/NCWM in 1994 (See Appendix E) to allow users 

of natural gas vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles with equivalent 

gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, there is a 

need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel economy with 

diesel powered vehicles. Also natural gas is sold as a vehicle fuel as either Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or 

Liqufied Natural Gas (LNG) and each method of sale is measured in mass. Therefore, the generic term natural gas 

is proposed to be used in NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 without the existing term "compressed." The mathematics 

justifying the specific quantity (mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix E. 

The official definition of a DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconson, and any other 

state to permit retail sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 58 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: The Committee heard multiple comments in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Keilty 

opposed the proposal, noting that a truck running on LNG would be dedicated to that type of fuel; thus, there is no 

need to make comparisons with diesel fuel on an ongoing basis. He stated that he believes natural gas should be 

sold in units of mass. Ms. Williams reviewed the following points prepared by NIST, OWM and suggested that the 

Committee consider these points in its deliberations on the proposals for this Item and Item 337-2. A copy of these 

points was also provided to the S&T Committee and the L&R Committee in writing in advance of the Interim 

Meeting. 

Collaborative Work Effort 

Work in joint session with the NCWM L&R Committee on corresponding L&R Agenda Items 232-1 (a 

proposal to recognize the diesel volume equivalent MOS for vehicle fuel) and 237-1 (a proposal to define the 

diesel volume equivalent unit in relation to mass), which specify the allowable unit of measurement for 

advertising and sale of natural gas. This collaboration between Committees will ensure that the proposed 

volume equivalent unit for a delivery is properly indicated and calculated by a natural gas dispenser. 

Facilitate Marketplace-Value Comparisons 

A dispenser might serve vehicles that are powered by diesel or gasoline fuel. Therefore, which volume 

equivalent unit (the DGE or GGE) is appropriate to avoid confusing the consumer? What is the most 

appropriate means to provide sufficient information to customers attempting to make a comparison of fuel 

offered by the DGE and GGE, whether at the same station or stations on adjacent street corners? Today’s value 

comparisons are made to petroleum products, but as other alternative fuels proliferate how easy will it be for 

consumers to make comparisons to other fuels such as electricity or hydrogen? 

An alternative that would provide more flexibility for comparison with other fuels and which would potentially 

create less confusion than permitting multiple different “equivalent” values as “units” of measure is to require 

the sale of all natural gas in mass units (kg or lb) as suggested by the SWMA. With this approach, customers 

could still be provided with supplemental information through mechanisms such as pump toppers that provide 

information about estimated equivalent units of measurement for deliveries indicated in mass as well as 

information on web sites such as those that already provide information about fuel economy. This approach 

might also reduce complaints from some suppliers about the accuracy of equivalent values relative to their 

product. 

Another point that has been raised by some in the community and should be considered by the Committee is 

whether or not “equivalent values” are as necessary as they might have been at one time to encourage consumer 

acceptance of natural gas as an alternative fuel. For example, the SWMA questioned whether, once a consumer 

has purchased a vehicle he or she has the need to make ongoing value comparisons or whether this information 

is more useful prior to purchasing a vehicle. Given the concerns about consumer confusion with a potential 

proliferation of “equivalent” values at the dispenser, perhaps requiring mass units on the dispenser (with 

supplemental information about equivalents) is a more appropriate approach. 

Compliance of Existing Approved Equipment-Indications 

As noted above, NIST, OWM suggests the Committee consider SWMA’s recommendation for equipment to 

indicate in a mass unit of measurement. Currently, there are two LNG dispensers with NCWM NTEP 

Certificates of Conformance (CC). They are NCWM CC 02-075A2* (Chart Industries) and NCWM 

CC 04-073A1 (NorthStar, Inc.), which specify these dispensers display in mass. How will the proposal apply to 

this equipment which may not have the capability to display in units other than mass? 

Earlier S&T Committee Positions 

Does the S&T Committee plan to revisit its 1999 recommendation where it requested data on LNG be 

submitted prior to the recognition of this product in a metering application? The Committee might also recall 

that the S&T Committee took a position in 2008 on a related proposal to recognize the “DGE” recommending 

that a consensus between stakeholders exist on any single energy value used as a conversion factor. NIST, 

OWM notes that several CNG suppliers have raised concerns about the use of 5.660 lb of CNG for each GGE 

commenting that this value is too low for the fuel they are providing to customers. NIST, OWM asks are other 

ectors, which rely on the accurate accounting of vehicle motor fuel sales, aware of and in agreement with the 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 59 

proposed mass to volume equivalent unit being proposed as a conversion factor value for natural gas (CNG and 

LNG)? 

The data for the heating values cited in Table B.4. “Heat Content for Various Fuels” in the Transportation 

Energy Data Book Edition 30 (June 2011) was not developed as part of an NCWM study, but represents an 

account of work by a government sponsored agency to characterize transportation activity and other factors that 

influence transportation energy use. The book includes a disclaimer which states “in any attempt to compile a 

comprehensive set of statistics on transportation activity, numerous instances of inadequacies and inaccuracies 

in the basic data are encountered;” points out that “an appendix is included to document the estimation 

procedures;” and notes that “neither ORNL nor DOE endorses the validity of these data.” 

Ms. Macey opposed the proposal and urged the Committee to stop the proliferation of “equivalent units.” She noted 

that mass units are perfectly good for routine transactions and echoed comments that comparisons with other fuels 

are only relevant when making a purchase decision. Ms. Carol Hockert (NIST, OWM) further suggested that during 

its deliberations, the Committee should consider how the establishment of artificial units would affect metrological 

traceability. Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls Corporation, LLC), speaking on behalf of MMA, agreed with 

Ms. Hockert, noting that extensive work is done by companies to establish and maintain metrological traceability 

and the establishment of what amounts to arbitrary values is counterproductive. Mr. Dan Peterson (Yokogawa 

Corporation of America) echoed all of the statements made in opposition to the proposal. 

Mr. Curtis Williams (CP Williams Energy Consulting) stated that he has had concerns about the use of the GGE and 

GLE for some years and he is glad that some are questioning the need to reconsider the use of equivalent units. As a 

participant in the U.S. National Working Group on Hydrogen, he was grateful that the associated code for that 

alternative fuel established requirements for mass units. He suggested that the Committee also consider examining 

the potential use of mass units for other fuels and noted that the use of mass units also eliminates questions about 

temperature compensation. 

Ms. Cardin acknowledged the need for the L&R Committee and the S&T Committee to work together on this and 

related items. She cited two main tasks to be addressed as: 1) What is the right conversion value for the proposed 

units? and 2) Should units for the sale of natural gas be in “equivalent” units or mass units? 

The Committee heard no comments in support of the proposal during its Open Hearings. 

During its work sessions at the Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee met with the L&R Committee to discuss this 

item and related items on the two Committees’ agendas; the corresponding items on the L&R Committee Agenda 

are Items 232-1 and 237-1. During the joint meeting, the L&R Committee advised the S&T Committee that it had 

decided to make the related item on their agenda “Informational” to allow additional time for the community to 

study the issue and hear from other stakeholders in the community. A proposal was made to ask the FALS to 

deliberate on an appropriate equivalent value for each of the proposed “units.” However, the two Committees 

recognized that before asking the FALS to expend resources on further definition, the questions and concerns raised 

in the Open Hearings regarding the appropriateness of recognizing such units should first be addressed. The 

Committees agreed to recommend to the NCWM Chairman that a small task group be established to further study 

this issue. The Committees each agreed to develop a list of tasks that they would ask such a task group to take on 

and to recommend possible members of the group to ensure balanced representation of stakeholders. 

After discussion with the L&R Committee, the S&T Committee reviewed and summarized key comments made 

during the Open Hearings for S&T Committee Agenda Items 337-1 and 337-2: 

 Are equivalent units necessary to promote consumer acceptance of this fuel? 

 Is there a significant need for continued comparison to other fuels once you have purchased a vehicle? 

Does this justify the proliferation of “equivalent” values? 

 The intent is to add this for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks that operate on LNG. Trucks 

that operate on LNG are generally dedicated fuel vehicles that run only on a single fuel. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 60 

 Is the dispenser the appropriate place to make comparisons with other fuels, or is a better place to make 

those comparisons via mechanisms such as pump toppers, websites, etc.? 

 Striking the word “compressed” (in the changes proposed in Item 337-2) expands the proposal to LNG. 

 California’s approval of LNG meters indicating in mass units was correct. 

 What will the impact be on existing approval of LNG dispensers currently indicating in mass? 

 There is much opposition to the proliferation of “equivalent units” for various types of fuels. 

 The current recognition of GGE and GLE units has led to complaints about equivalent values from both 

industry and regulatory officials. 

 Mass units should be considered for natural gas and other fuels. 

 Will the establishment of equivalent values provide traceability to SI units? 

 The community expends significant resources to achieve good meter performance and establishing “fuzzy” 

equivalent values seems to undermine these efforts. 

 The factor for any “equivalent unit” will represent only an “estimate” of an equivalent value. 

 There is disagreement amongst the industry regarding the appropriate equivalent value in this proposal. 

The report containing the data that is referenced as the basis for the proposal includes a disclaimer from 

Oakridge National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy regarding its validity for other than 

general use in the transportation industry. 

 The S&T Committee only heard comments in opposition to the proposal. 

 Harmonization with OIML requirements should be considered in the method of sale and the associated 

device requirements. 

With respect to Items 337-1 and 337-2, the Committee agreed to work collaboratively with the L&R Committee and 

to develop a small work group to decide: 1) whether or not DLE and DGE should be considered an acceptable 

method of sale for natural gas; and 2) if so, what should the factor be to determine their equivalents to gasoline. The 

Committee agreed that the above list of key points and questions heard during its Open Hearings should be 

considered, along with other Open Hearing comments, by the chairs of both the L&R and S&T Committee in the 

development of a list of points to be addressed by the Task Group. 

On the NCWM Online Position Forum One Government representative indicated support; one Government 

representative indicated a neutral position; and one Government representative indicated opposition for this item. 

The neutral position was accompanied by a comment suggesting the establishment of a joint Task Group and 

encouraging a final recommendation that would clarify whether the proposed units are or are not permitted. The 

opposing position was accompanied by a comment indicating opposition to artificial units of measure. 

Prior to the 2013 Annual Meeting, NCWM Chairman, Mr. Steve Benjamin, appointed the “NCWM Natural Gas 

Steering Committee,” which will be chaired by Mr. Mahesh Albuquerque (Colorado). The primary charge of the 

Committee is to educate the membership regarding: the technical issues surrounding this application; the rationale 

for the proposed changes; the anticipated impact of the proposed changes and issues related to their implementation. 

The Committee was asked to identify and address questions raised during the 2013 Interim Meeting as well as other 

venues in an effort to enable NCWM members to make informed decisions about proposals under consideration in 

this area. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 61 

Also prior to the 2013 Annual Meeting, the Committee received a proposal from Mr. Douglas Horne (Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation) to modify the “Item Under Consideration.” Mr. Horne proposed separate definitions for 

CNG and LNG gallon equivalent values. The Committee suggested he work with the Steering Committee to further 

refine the proposal and suggest changes to the item as appropriate. Mr. Horne’s proposals will be posted on the 

NCWM website with other documents relative to the committee’s final report. While submitted in an NCWM 

Form 15 template, Mr. Horne’s proposal is not addressing a new issue, but rather providing comments on a current 

Item (337-1) on the Committee’s agenda. 

During its 2013 Annual Meeting Open Hearings, the Committee heard an update from Steering Committee 

Chairman, Mr. Albuquerque. He reported that the Steering Committee met for the first time on Sunday, July 14 at 

the beginning of the Annual Meeting and gathered input from those in the audience. Comments indicated that 

consumers may find gallon equivalent information to be helpful, but the most equitable method for measuring and 

selling the product is based on mass measurement. 

The S&T Committee heard overwhelming comments opposing the use of gallon equivalents and favoring the use of 

mass as the method of sale. The Committee also heard multiple comments indicating concern about the 

establishment of a value that would be an approximation of the actual equivalent for a given transaction. Mr. Horne 

reported that some states have already or are in the process of enacting defined “gasoline equivalent” values; some 

adopted earlier versions of the equivalent and some are considering new values as outlined in Mr. Horne’s most 

recent proposal. 

Ms. Macey noted that the NCWM successfully adopted a method of sale for hydrogen fuel based on mass and 

suggested that the natural gas be held to the same standard. Mr. Keilty commented that sale of natural gas as a 

vehicle fuel has proliferated globally and those sales are based on mass units. 

NIST, OWM acknowledged appreciation of the establishment of the Steering Committee to further study this issue. 

NIST, OWM encourages the S&T Committee, the Steering Committee, and the weights and measures community to 

consider the points raised by NIST, OWM during the 2013 Interim Meeting as well as the following in their 

deliberations of Item 337-1 and Item 337-2: 

In addition to discussing the proposals in Items 337-1 and 337-2, NIST, OWM requests that the Task Group 

specifically discuss and consider whether or not the continued use of the terms “GLE” and “GGE” are 

appropriate for commercial CNG metering applications. NIST, OWM makes this request based on many of 

the same points made by NIST, OWM at the 2013 Interim Meeting and also given that: 

1. this market is well established and consumer confidence and acceptance of CNG and other alternative 

fuels is not contingent upon continued comparisons with gasoline; 

2. there are other methods for comparing relatively efficiency and costs with gasoline; 

3. experience with feedback from the community indicates problems with the application and validity of 

these units with changing gas supplies; 

4. the proposal in Items 337-1 and 337-2 proposes language which would address natural gas as a whole 

and it is, therefore, appropriate to raise the discussion of whether or not the continued use of nontraceable units is appropriate. Additionally, NIST, OWM suggests that a proposal to eliminate the use 

of the terms “GLE” and “GGE” in favor of indications in mass units be developed and considered by 

the NCWM to ensure commercial transactions for natural gas are based on NIST traceable units of 

measure; and 

5. as the number of viable alternative fuel options increase, providing a relatively static comparison with 

only one alternative fuel will not serve the broad needs of consumers and will make it unlikely that the 

dispenser is the appropriate location to provide comparison information. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 62 

The Committee also heard a comment from Mr. Karimov suggesting that volume units be permitted as a method of 

sale for LNG. 

While many people expressed an understanding of the need for consumers to make comparisons with gasoline, 

comments indicate that such comparisons would typically be made prior to the purchase of a vehicle and possibly 

for a short time while becoming accustomed to the vehicle. The Committee heard comments indicating that weights 

and measures officials would be amenable to permitting the posting or displaying of supplemental information 

regarding gallon equivalent values. 

Additional Contacts: Clean Energy, Seal Beach, California, NGVAmerica, Washington, DC, Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation, Acworth, Georgua. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The NGSC suggested that the Committee withdraw this item. The submitter of this 

item (who is also a member of the NGSC) submitted an alternative item in 2014 that was intended to replace this 

item. Consequently, the Committee decided to withdraw this item from its agenda. 

Regional Association Comments: 

CWMA does not support the item as written and recommends that the status remain as Developing. This is based on 

the lack of traceability for the conversion units proposed. It is suggested that the conversion units if accepted could 

be supplemental information. The majority of comments heard were in support of selling this product by a known 

mass (i.e., pounds or kilograms). In addition there was concern raised regarding the validity of the current CNG 

conversion units (GLE & GGE). 

WWMA heard support from the LNG industry; however, the conversions within their proposals need to be 

developed. WWMA believes there may be a purpose to the proposal; however, opposition exists between some 

regulators and stakeholders regarding the use of the volume equivalent unit of measure. WWMA requests the 

submitter work through the NCWM Natural Gas Steering Committee to refine the proposal. WWMA also has 

concerns about the source of the conversion factors used in determining the DGE/DLE. The source being the 

entities sited for establishing the BTU heating value for diesel. The WWMA believes more data is needed to 

establish densities to LNG. WWMA also believes consideration should be given to neighboring countries’ 

established methods of sale and the units of measure for LNG. WWMA believes this item may be better served as a 

supplementary advertisement and used for customer information and not for a traceable method of sale. The 

S&T/L&R Committee’s should work together as this item develops. WWMA recommended that the item remain as 

a Developing Item. 

NEWMA recommended that the item remain Informational to give the Steering Committee time to work the items 

and make suggestions. 

SWMA received comments in the Open Hearings indicating that Items 337-2 and 337-3 were proposed to provide 

clarity. The Committee recommended Items 337-2 and 337-3 replace Item 337-1. The SWMA S&T and L&R 

Committees met jointly to discuss CNG and LNG items on both agendas. The Committee recommended that this 

item be withdrawn. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional history on this item. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 63 

337-2 V Appendix D – Definitions: Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon 

Equivalents (DGE) for Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas; 

Definition of Gasoline Gallon Equivalent and Gasoline Liter Equivalent for 

Compressed Natural Gas; S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural 

Gas Dispensers; S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel; 

S.1.3.1.2. Liquefied Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel; S.5.2. Marking of Diesel 

and Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor; Compressed Natural Gas, 

S.5.3. Marking of Diesel Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor; Liquefied Natural 

Gas, UR.3.1.1. Marking of Equivalent Conversion Factor for Compressed Natural 

Gas, UR.3.1.2. Marking of Equivalent Conversion Factor for Liquefied Natural Gas, 

and UR.3.8. Return of Product to Storage, Retail Compressed Natural Gas and 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

(This item was returned to Committee for further consideration due to a split vote.) 

In June 2014, the S&T Committee modified its online version of this proposal in NCWM Publication 16 in response 

to a June 10, 2014, request from the NGSC to change the NGSC’s March 2014 recommendation for DGE units. 

Consequently, the S&T Committee agreed that the CNG and LNG conversion factors proposed for use in converting 

these gases to DGE units should be revised in the Interim Report so that their numerical values are expressed to 

three decimal places rather than two decimal places. 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since natural gas is sold in the retail market place as compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

an alternative fuel to gasoline and diesel fuel, the proposed additions and edits to NIST Handbook 44 will provide 

definitions for volume units of CNG and LNG that are the energy equivalents for diesel liters and gallons so that end 

users can readily compare cost and fuel economy. At present only equivalents for gasoline are included in NIST 

Handbooks 44 and 130 for CNG as an engine fuel. The proposal also includes modification to definitions for 

gasoline volume equivalents to clarify those terms apply to CNG. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44 Appendix D to include new definitions as follows: 

diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). – means 6.384 lb of compressed natural gas or 6.059 lb of liquefied 

natural gas. [3.37] 

(Added 20XX) 

diesel liter equivalent (DLE). – means 0.765 kg of compressed natural gas or 0.726 kg of liquefied natural 

gas. [3.37] 

(Added 20XX) 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D definitions as follows: 

gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). – Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 5.660 lb of compressed natural 

gas.[3.37] 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX)

gasoline liter equivalent (GLE). – Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 0.678 kg of compressed natural 

gas.[3.37] 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX)
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 64 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Mass Flow Meters Code paragraphs S.1.2., S.1.3.1.1., and UR.3.8.; delete paragraph 

S.5.2.; and add new paragraph S.1.3.1.2. as follows:

S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas Dispensers. – Except for non-retail fleet sales 

and other price contract sales, a compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas dispensers used to refuel 

vehicles shall be of the computing type and shall indicate the quantity, the unit price, and the total price of each 

delivery. The dispensers shall display the mass measured for each transaction either continuously on an 

external or internal display accessible during the inspection and test of the dispensers, or display the quantity in 

mass units by using controls on the device. 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX)

S.1.3. Units 

S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel. – When compressed natural gas is 

dispensed as an engine fuel, the delivered quantity shall be measured in mass and indicated in “gasoline 

liter equivalent (GLE) units,” “gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) units,” diesel liter equivalent (DLE) 

units, or diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units (Also see definitions). 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX)

S.1.3.1.2. Liquefied Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel. – When liquefied natural gas is dispensed 

as an engine fuel, the delivered quantity shall be measured in mass and indicated in “diesel liter 

equivalent (DLE) units” or “diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units” (Also see definitions). 

(Added 20XX) 

S.5.2. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor. – A device dispensing compressed 

natural gas shall have either the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is Equal to 0.678 kg of 

Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is Equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas” permanently 

and conspicuously marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale used. 

(Added 1994) 

UR.3.8. Return of Product to Storage, Retail Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas 

Dispensers. – Provisions at the site shall be made for returning product to storage or disposing of the product in 

a safe and timely manner during or following testing operations. Such provisions may include return lines, or 

cylinders adequate in size and number to permit this procedure.

(Added 1998) (Amended 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NCWM in 1994 to allow users of natural gas vehicles to 

readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty compressed natural gas vehicles with equivalent gasoline 

powered vehicles. More background on the efforts of NIST/NCWM is available in the Reports of the 78th and 79th

NCWM in NIST Special Publication 854 and 870 (see pages 322 and 327, respectively). Natural gas is sold as a 

vehicle fuel as either compressed natural gas (CNG) or liqufied natural gas (LNG). For medium and heavy duty 

natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, there is a need to officially define a unit allowing a comparison of cost 

and fuel economy with diesel powered vehicles. The submitter stated that the official definition of a DLE and a 

DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and many other states to permit retail sales of CNG 

for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. The submitter has provided a mathematical justification for the 

specific quantity (mass) of compressed natural gas in a DLE and DGE which is included in Appendix E. 

January 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting 

2013 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee heard multiple comments in opposition to the proposal. 

Mr. Michael Keilty (Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG, USA) opposed the proposal, noting that a truck running on 

LNG would be dedicated to that type of fuel; thus, there is no need to make comparisons with diesel fuel on an 

ongoing basis. He stated that he believes natural gas should be sold in units of mass. 

Ms. Williams (NIST, OWM) reviewed the following points prepared by NIST, OWM and suggested that the 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 65 

Committee consider these points in its deliberations on the proposals for this item and Item 337-2 (a proposal to 

recognize a gasoline and diesel volume equivalent unit for CNG, a diesel volume equivalent for LNG engine fuel 

and for marking the fuel dispenser). A copy of these points was also provided to the S&T Committee and the L&R 

Committee in writing in advance of the Interim Meeting. 

Collaborative Work Effort 

Work in joint session with the NCWM L&R Committee on corresponding L&R Agenda Items 232-1 (a 

proposal to recognize the diesel volume equivalent MOS for vehicle fuel) and 237-1 (a proposal to define the 

diesel volume equivalent unit in relation to mass) which specify the allowable unit of measurement for 

advertising and sale of natural gas. This collaboration between committees will ensure that the proposed 

volume equivalent unit for a delivery is properly indicated and calculated by a natural gas dispenser. 

Facilitate Marketplace-Value Comparisons 

A dispenser might serve vehicles that are powered by diesel or gasoline fuel. Therefore, which volume 

equivalent unit (the DGE or GGE) is appropriate to avoid confusing the consumer? What is the most 

appropriate means to provide sufficient information to customers attempting to make a comparison of fuel 

offered by the DGE and GGE, whether at the same station or stations on adjacent street corners? Today’s value 

comparisons are made to petroleum products, but as other alternative fuels proliferate how easy will it be for 

consumers to make comparisons to other fuels such as electricity or hydrogen? 

An alternative that would provide more flexibility for comparison with other fuels and which would potentially 

create less confusion than permitting multiple different “equivalent” values as “units” of measure is to require 

the sale of all natural gas in mass units (kg or lb) as suggested by the SWMA. With this approach, customers 

could still be provided with supplemental information through mechanisms such as pump toppers that provide 

information about estimated equivalent units of measurement for deliveries indicated in mass as well as 

information on web sites such as those that already provide information about fuel economy. This approach 

might also reduce complaints from some suppliers about the accuracy of equivalent values relative to their 

product. 

Another point that has been raised by some in the community and should be considered by the Committee is 

whether or not “equivalent values” are as necessary as they might have been at one time to encourage consumer 

acceptance of natural gas as an alternative fuel. For example, the SWMA questioned whether, once a consumer 

has purchased a vehicle he or she has the need to make ongoing value comparisons or whether this information 

is more useful prior to purchasing a vehicle. Given the concerns about consumer confusion with a potential 

proliferation of “equivalent” values at the dispenser, perhaps requiring mass units on the dispenser (with 

supplemental information about equivalents) is a more appropriate approach. 

Compliance of Existing Approved Equipment-Indications 

As noted above, NIST, OWM suggests the Committee consider SWMA’s recommendation for equipment to 

indicate in a mass unit of measurement. Currently, there are two LNG dispensers with NCWM NTEP 

Certificates of Conformance (CC). They are NCWM CC 02-075A2* (Chart Industries) and NCWM 

CC 04-073A1 (NorthStar, Inc.), which specify these dispensers display in mass. How will the proposal apply to 

this equipment which may not have the capability to display in units other than mass? 

Earlier S&T Committee Positions 

Does the S&T Committee plan to revisit its 1999 recommendation where it requested data on LNG be 

submitted prior to the recognition of this product in a metering application? The Committee might also recall 

that the S&T Committee took a position in 2008 on a related proposal to recognize the “DGE” recommending 

that a consensus between stakeholders exist on any single energy value used as a conversion factor. NIST, 

OWM notes that several CNG suppliers have raised concerns about the use of 5.660 lb of CNG for each GGE 

commenting that this value is too low for the fuel they are providing to customers. NIST, OWM asks are other 

sectors, which rely on the accurate accounting of vehicle motor fuel sales, aware of and in agreement with the 

proposed mass to volume equivalent unit being proposed as a conversion factor value for natural gas (CNG and 

LNG)? 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 66 

The data for the heating values cited in Table B.4. “Heat Content for Various Fuels” in the Transportation 

Energy Data Book Edition 30 (June 2011) and used to justify the factors for the conversion of mass to 

“equivalent volume units” was not developed as part of an NCWM study, but represents an account of work by 

a government sponsored agency to characterize transportation activity and other factors that influence 

transportation energy use. The book includes a disclaimer which states “in any attempt to compile a 

comprehensive set of statistics on transportation activity, numerous instances of inadequacies and inaccuracies 

in the basic data are encountered;” points out that “an appendix is included to document the estimation 

procedures;” and notes that “neither ORNL nor DOE endorses the validity of these data.” 

Ms. Kristin Macey (California) opposed the proposal and urged the Committee to stop the proliferation of 

“equivalent units.” She noted that mass units are perfectly good for routine transactions and echoed comments that 

comparisons with other fuels are only relevant when making a vehicle purchase decision. Ms. Carol Hockert (NIST, 

OWM) further suggested that, during its deliberations, the Committee should consider how the establishment of 

artificial units would affect metrological traceability. Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls Corporation, LLC), 

speaking on behalf of MMA, agreed with Ms. Hockert, noting that extensive work is done by companies to establish 

and maintain metrological traceability and the establishment of what amounts to arbitrary values is 

counterproductive. Mr. Dan Peterson (Yokogawa Corporation of America) echoed all of the statements made in 

opposition to the proposal. 

Mr. Curtis Williams (CP Williams Energy Consulting) stated that he has had concerns about the use of the GGE and 

GLE for some years and he is glad that some are questioning the need to reconsider the use of equivalent units. As a 

participant in the U.S. National Working Group on Hydrogen, he was grateful that the associated code for that 

alternative fuel established requirements for mass units. He suggested that the Committee also consider examining 

the potential use of mass units for other fuels and noted that the use of mass units also eliminates questions about 

temperature compensation. 

Ms. Judy Cardin (Wisconsin) acknowledged the need for the L&R Committee and the S&T Committee to work 

together on this and related items. She cited two main tasks to be addressed as: What is the right conversion value 

for the proposed units and should units for the sale of natural gas be in “equivalent” units or mass units? 

The Committee heard no comments in support of the proposal during its Open Hearings. 

During its work sessions at the Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee met with the L&R Committee to discuss this 

item and related items on the two Committees’ agendas; the corresponding items on the L&R Committee Agenda 

are Items 232-1 and 237-1. During the joint meeting, the L&R Committee advised the S&T Committee that it had 

decided to make the related item on their agenda “Informational” to allow additional time for the community to 

study the issue and hear from other stakeholders in the community. A proposal was made to ask the FALS to 

deliberate on an appropriate equivalent value for each of the proposed “units.” However, the two Committees 

recognized that before asking the FALS to expend resources on further definitions, the questions and concerns raised 

in the Open Hearings regarding the appropriateness of recognizing such units should first be addressed. The 

Committees agreed to recommend to the NCWM Chairman that a small task group be established to further study 

this issue. The Committees each agreed to develop a list of tasks that they would ask such a task group to take on 

and to recommend possible members of the group to ensure balanced representation of stakeholders. 

After discussion with the L&R Committee, the S&T Committee reviewed and summarized key comments made 

during the Open Hearings for S&T Committee Agenda Items 337-1 and 337-2: 

 Are equivalent units necessary to promote consumer acceptance of this fuel? 

 Is there a significant need for continued comparison to other fuels once you have purchased a vehicle? 

Does this justify the proliferation of “equivalent” values? 

 The intent is to add this for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks that operate on LNG. Trucks 

that operate on LNG are generally dedicated fuel vehicles that run only on a single fuel. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 67 

 Is the dispenser the appropriate place to make comparisons with other fuels, or is a better place to make 

those comparisons via mechanisms such as pump toppers, websites, etc.? 

 Striking the word “compressed” (in the changes proposed in Item 337-2) expands the proposal to LNG. 

 California’s approval of LNG meters indicating in mass units was correct. 

 What will the impact be on existing approval of LNG dispensers currently indicating in mass? 

 There is much opposition to the proliferation of “equivalent units” for various types of fuels. 

 The current recognition of GGE and GLE units has led to complaints about equivalent values from both 

industry and regulatory officials. 

 Mass units should be considered for natural gas and other fuels. 

 Will the establishment of equivalent values provide traceability to SI units? 

 The community expends significant resources to achieve good meter performance and establishing “fuzzy” 

equivalent values seems to undermine these efforts. 

 The factor for any “equivalent unit” will represent only an “estimate” of an equivalent value. 

 There is disagreement amongst the industry regarding the appropriate equivalent value in this proposal. 

The report containing the data that is referenced as the basis for the proposal includes a disclaimer from 

Oakridge National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy regarding its validity for other than general 

use in the transportation industry. 

 The S&T Committee only heard comments in opposition to the proposal. 

 Harmonization with OIML requirements should be considered in the method of sale and associated device 

requirements. 

With respect to Items 337-1 and 337-2, the Committee agreed to work collaboratively with the L&R Committee and 

to develop a small work group to decide: 1) whether or not DLE and DGE should be considered an acceptable 

method of sale for natural gas; and 2) if so, what should the factor be to determine their equivalents to gasoline. The 

Committee agreed that the above list of key points and questions heard during its Open Hearings should be 

considered, along with other Open Hearing comments, by the chairs of both the L&R and S&T Committee in the 

development of a list of points to be addressed by the Task Group. 

On the NCWM Online Position Forum one Government representative indicated support; one Government 

representative indicated a neutral position; and one Government representative indicated opposition for this item. 

The neutral position was accompanied by a comment suggesting the establishment of a joint Task Group and 

encouraging a final recommendation that would clarify whether the proposed units are or are not permitted. The 

opposing position was accompanied by a comment indicating opposition to artificial units of measure. 

Prior to the 2013 Annual Meeting, NCWM Chairman, Steve Benjamin, appointed the “NCWM Natural Gas Steering 

Committee,” which will be chaired by Mr. Mahesh Albuquerque (Colorado). The primary charge of the Committee 

is to educate the membership regarding: the technical issues surrounding this application; the rationale for the 

proposed changes; the anticipated impact of the proposed changes and issues related to their implementation. The 

Committee was asked to identify and address questions raised during the 2013 Interim Meeting as well as other 

venues in an effort to enable NCWM members to make informed decisions about proposals under consideration in 

this area. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 68 

Also prior to the 2013 Annual Meeting, the Committee received a proposal from Mr. Douglas Horne (Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation) to modify the “Item Under Consideration.” Mr. Horne proposed separate definitions for 

CNG and LNG gallon equivalent values. The Committee suggested he work with the Steering Committee to further 

refine the proposal and suggest changes to the item as appropriate. Mr. Horne’s proposals were posted on the 

NCWM website with other documents relative to the committee’s final report. While submitted in an NCWM Form 

15 template, Mr. Horne’s proposal is not addressing a new issue, but rather providing comments on a current item 

(Item 337-1) on the Committee’s agenda. 

July 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting 

During its 2013 Annual Meeting Open Hearings, the Committee heard an update from Steering Committee 

Chairman, Mr. Albuquerque. He reported that the Steering Committee met for the first time on Sunday, July 14 at 

the beginning of the Annual Meeting and gathered input from in the audience. Comments indicated that consumers 

may find gallon equivalent information to be helpful, but the most equitable method for measuring and selling the 

product is based on mass measurement. 

2013 NCWM Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments on Item 337-1 and Item 337-2 jointly. Details of 

those comments are outlined below. 

The S&T Committee heard overwhelming comments opposing the use of gallon equivalents and favoring the use of 

mass as the method of sale. The Committee also heard multiple comments indicating concern about the 

establishment of a value that would be an approximation of the actual equivalent for a given transaction. Mr. Horne 

reported that some states have already or are in the process of enacting defined “gasoline equivalent” values; some 

adopted earlier versions of the equivalent and some are considering new values as outlined in Mr. Horne’s most 

recent proposal. 

Ms. Macey noted that the NCWM successfully adopted a method of sale for hydrogen fuel based on mass and 

suggested that the natural gas be held to the same standard. Mr. Keilty commented that sale of natural gas as a 

vehicle fuel has proliferated globally and those sales are based on mass units. 

NIST, OWM acknowledged appreciation of the establishment of the Steering Committee to further study this issue. 

NIST, OWM encourages the S&T Committee, the Steering Committee, and the weights and measures community to 

consider the points raised by NIST, OWM during the 2013 Interim Meeting as well as the following in their 

deliberations of Items 337-1 and Item 337-2: 

In addition to discussing the proposals in Items 337-1 and 337-2, NIST, OWM requests that the Steering 

Committee specifically discuss and consider whether or not the continued use of the terms “GLE” and “GGE” 

are appropriate for commercial CNG metering applications. NIST, OWM makes this request based on many 

of the same points made by NIST, OWM at the 2013 Interim Meeting and also given that: 

(1) this market is well established and consumer confidence and acceptance of CNG and other alternative 

fuels is not contingent upon continued comparisons with gasoline; 

(2) there are other methods for comparing relative efficiency and costs with gasoline; 

(3) experience with feedback from the community indicates problems with the application and validity of 

these units with changing gas supplies; 

(4) the proposal in Items 337-1 and 337-2 proposes language which would address natural gas as a whole 

and it is, therefore, appropriate to raise the discussion of whether or not the continued use of nontraceable units is appropriate. Additionally, NIST, OWM suggests that a proposal to eliminate the use of 

the terms “GLE” and “GGE” in favor of indications in mass units be developed and considered by the 

NCWM to ensure commercial transactions for natural gas are based on NIST traceable units of 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 69 

measurement; and 

(5) as the number of viable alternative fuel options increase, providing a relatively static comparison with 

only one alternative fuel will not serve the broad needs of consumers and will make it unlikely that the 

dispenser is the appropriate location to provide comparison information. 

The Committee also heard a comment from Mr. Karimov (Liquid Controls) suggesting that volume units be 

permitted as a method of sale for LNG. 

While many people expressed an understanding of the need for consumers to make comparisons with gasoline, 

comments indicate that such comparisons would typically be made prior to the purchase of a vehicle and possibly 

for a short time while becoming accustomed to the vehicle. The Committee heard comments indicating that weights 

and measures officials would be amenable to permitting the posting or displaying of supplemental information 

regarding gallon equivalent values. 

January 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting 

The Committee met with the L&R Committee to discuss the comments received on Items 337-1 through 337-5 and 

corresponding items on the L&R Committee’s agenda. Although there are three new proposals on the agenda, 

several appear to require clarification from the submitter on whether they are replacements for several carryover 

proposals. The two Committees heard an update from Mr. Mahesh Albuquerque (Colorado) speaking as Chairman 

of the NCWM Natural Gas Steering Committee (NGSC). 

Ms. Williams reviewed the following points prepared by NIST, OWM and suggested that the Committees consider 

these points in their deliberations on the proposals: 

 NIST, OWM encourages the: 

o Efforts of the NCWM Natural Gas Steering Committee as it works to provide corresponding 

proposals to the L&R Committee and S&T Committee. 

o Collaboration with FALS on: 

 Fuel properties data 

 The final vetting of data, formulas, etc. used to arrive at any conversion factors that might 

be recognized for use in supplemental advertising/sales information 

 NIST, OWM notes that some of the current wording in the 2012 and 2013 proposals is somewhat 

confusing, in part, because several paragraphs include previous conversion factors no longer under 

consideration. 

 The latest proposal encourages a proliferation of equivalent units of measurement, at least six for the CNG 

and LNG RMFD applications. 

 Measurement accuracy and traceability are not achieved through computation of the sale’s information in 

equivalent quantity units since the conversion factor is an estimated value. 

 NIST, OWM suggests input from stakeholders such as the CNG and LNG RMFD OEMs and agencies 

regulating other Sectors (such as the motor fuels taxation departments) in the natural gas infrastructure on 

the impact of any new proposal. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 70 

 NIST, OWM suggests the Committees consider that additional work might be necessary to further modify 

the code to fully recognize the LNG application. NIST has plans to outline an approach for a similar 

project. 

The S&T Committee and L&R Committee agreed with the suggestions provided by the NGSC for addressing these 

items. As a result of these discussions, the S&T Committee agreed to the following regarding Items 337-1 through 

337-5: 

 Withdraw Items 337-1 and 337-4 and consolidate the remaining three items (Items 337-2, 337-3, and 

337-5) into a single item. 

 Ask that the NGSC rework its proposed changes to NIST Handbook 44 to reflect the comments heard 

during the Committee’s open hearings and in writing. 

 Designate the consolidated item as a “Voting” item in anticipation that the NGSC will present a revised 

version of the proposed changes to NIST Handbook 44 prior to the publication of the Committee’s Interim 

Report. 

If the revised version of the code is not presented prior to the publication date or agreement cannot be reached 

within the NGSC or the S&T Committee on the revised version, the Committee agreed to designate this 

consolidated item as an “Information” item. 

March 2014 Natural Gas Steering Committee Report to the L&R and S&T Committees 

The Natural Gas Steering Committee (NGSC) was formed in July 2013 to help understand and educate the NCWM 

membership regarding the technical issues surrounding the proposed changes to NIST Handbook 44 and NIST 

Handbook 130 submitted by the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (CVEF), the anticipated impact of the 

proposed changes, and issues related to implementation requirements when compressed natural gas (CNG) and 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) are dispensed and sold as a retail engine fuel in gallon equivalent units. 

At the NCWM Interim Meeting in January 2014, Mr. Albuquerque, Chair of the NGSC provided the S&T and L&R 

Committees with an update from the NGSC, including proposed revisions to the proposals submitted by the CVEF. 

The NGSC heard comments from the floor related to the proposed revisions and requested additional time to further 

develop its recommendations. The S&T and L&R Committees agreed to allow the NGSC additional time to meet 

and develop alternative proposals to those on the S&T and L&R Committees January 2014 agendas, with the 

expectation that the NGSC recommendations would be ready for inclusion in Publication 16, and moved forward as 

a Voting item at the July 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

Summary of NGSC Meeting Discussions 

The NGSC met weekly following the January 2014 Interim Meeting, and focused on modifying the Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation (CVEF) 2013 proposals for the recognition of diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units for 

CNG/LNG dispenser indications and the method of sale for these two natural gas alternative engine fuels. The 

NGSC reviewed multiple modifications to those proposals including: 

 limiting sales to a single unit of mass measurement enforceable by 2016; 

 requiring indications in mass and gasoline and diesel gallon equivalents, while phasing in mass only units; 

 require sale by mass as the primary means, but allow for the simultaneous display of volume equivalent 

units, so long as the purchaser always had access to the mass (traceable) measurement; and 

 a proposal from NIST, OWM which would allow the posting of supplemental information to assist 

consumers in making value comparisons and for use by taxation/other agencies, but requiring the phase in 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 71 

of indications in mass 

The NGSC received: 

 input from DOE on the latest edition of the DOE TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: 

EDITION 32 July 2013 available on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory website at: 

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml; 

 updates from CNG (3) and LNG (1) dispenser manufacturers indicating their dispensing systems comply 

with the requirements in the handbooks, and have the capability to indicate a sale in a single unit of 

measurement, and any further input on adding displays to the cabinet for additional units would require 

further cost analysis; while one OEM indicated use of their LNG RMFD in a fleet operation where 

indications are only in the DGE; and 

 feedback from Committee members related to the pros and cons of requiring the indication of sale in mass 

or gallon equivalent units, including traceability, equipment capabilities, marketplace considerations, and 

units used by state and federal agencies. 

Also noted in the NGSC discussions were: 

 how a gallon equivalent unit is derived using energy content, and that the gallon equivalent is defined and 

measured in terms of mass, not volume; 

 for the last 20 years, NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 have required all dispensing equipment to indicate 

deliveries of natural gas in GGE units to consumers, and in mass units for inspection and testing purposes. 

CNG RMFD equipment in the most states comply with the requirements in the handbooks; 

 international practices for indicating CNG and LNG engine fuel deliveries are predominantly mass; Canada 

requires LNG indications in the kilogram and the corresponding OIML R 139 “Compressed gaseous fuel 

measuring systems for vehicles” standard requires indication of the measured gas in mass; 

 the variations in engine efficiency relative to a single conversion factor based on an averaged energy 

content for LNG and the primary focus of the driving public and fleets on mileage rather than petroleum 

products no longer used to fuel their vehicles; 

 the work ahead over the next year by ASTM committees to develop current CNG and LNG fuel quality 

standards which will need to be referenced in NIST Handbook 130; 

 differences in the measurement of the gallon and kilogram – since the gallon is a volume measurement and 

not an energy measurement, and the NIST Handbook 44 Mass Flow Meters Code includes a requirement 

for volume-measuring devices with ATC used in natural gas applications to be equipped with an automatic 

means to make corrections, if the device is affected by changes in the properties of the product; it was also 

noted that U.S. gasoline and diesel dispensers are not required to have ATC; whereas ATC does occur in 

sales at the wholesale level; 

 how traceability applies to the measurement results at each level of the custody chain (to include the 

determination of the uncertainty of all calibrations and use of an appropriate unit of measurement); and 

 the capabilities of equipment in the marketplace. 

A DOE representative supported the use of gallon equivalents, and pointed out that they are used in the DOE 

Transportation Energy Data Book. The DOE representative also pointed out that other federal agencies including 

the IRS were requiring use of gallon equivalent units for reporting. 

Industry representatives on the NGSC indicated that they are actively campaigning to their state and federal offices, 

encouraging each government branch to recognize sales of CNG and LNG in gasoline and diesel volume equivalent 

units. Industry sectors represented on the NGSC indicated that their customers are satisfied with the averaged fuel 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 72 

energy values that correspond to the conversion factors for CNG and LNG, with only one exception. The exception 

was a truck stop chain indicating their customers would be amenable to a single conversion factor for both fuels. 

The CVEF also provided a comparison of GTI’s 1992 study results and preliminary data from a 2013 study. The 

CVEF reported the constituents in natural gas as basically unchanged over 21 years since the NCWM first 

recognized the GGE. Industry unanimously opposed a recommendation for phasing in mass as the only unit of 

measurement, noting also that U.S. drivers would be confused by SI units while acknowledging that the United 

States is in the minority of countries whereby delivery and sales are by equivalent units. At the conclusion of the 

NGSC deliberations NGVAmerica provided the following statement: 

“One of the major advantages of the proposal as currently drafted with inclusion of the DGE and GGE 

units for natural gas is that this is a proposal that the natural gas industry can support. It further recognizes 

what is already the preferred practice for how natural gas is measured and dispensed. The latest proposal 

with DGE and GGE units provides a pathway forward toward a national consensus approach. If the 

proposal were to instead require use of kilograms or even pounds as the primary method of sale, industry 

would not support that proposal and likely would strongly oppose it this summer if NCWM were to 

consider it as a voting issue. Also, if NCWM finalizes on a standard that does not include DGE or GGE, 

industry is committed to pursuing adoption of an alternative standard on a state by state basis, which could 

lead to different treatment across the country. Several states have already introduced legislation to 

recognize the DGE standard (CA, IL, MO, and VA) and I expect more will do so later this year. And you 

know Colorado and Arkansas already have put in place standards that recognize the DGE units.” 

NGSC Recommendations: 

After consideration of all of the above, the NGSC recommends alternate proposals to the L&R and S&T Committee 

Agenda Items which further modify and consolidate the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation 2013 proposals to 

include: 

(1) requirements for measurement in mass and indication in gallon equivalent units (NIST Handbook 44 

paragraphs S.1.3.1.1. and S.1.3.1.2.; and NIST Handbook 130 paragraphs 3.11.2.1. and 3.12.2.1.); 

(2) posting of a label that has both the GGE and DGE or the GLE and DLE for CNG applications (NIST 

Handbook 44 paragraphs S.5.2., S.5.3., UR.3.1.1., and UR.3.1.2; and NIST Handbook 130 paragraphs 

3.11.2.2.2. and 3.12.2.2.2.); 

(3) expression of all equivalent conversion factors expressed in mass units to three significant places beyond 

the decimal point for consistency (NIST Handbook 44 paragraphs S.5.2., S.5.3., UR.3.1.1., and UR.3.1.2. 

and Appendix D and NIST Handbook 130 Section 1, paragraphs 3.11.2.2.2. and 3.12.2.2.2.); 

(4) correction of the temperatures in the LNG definition (NIST Handbook 130 Section 1); 

(5) addition of 16 CFR Part 309 for CNG automotive fuel rating (NIST Handbook 130 paragraph 3.11.2.2.5.); 

and 

(6) reference to NFPA 52 labeling requirements (NIST Handbook 130 paragraph 3.12.2.2.4.) 

With regards to NIST Handbook 44 the NGSC recommends withdrawing S&T Agenda Items 337-1 and 337-4 and 

the consolidation of Agenda Items 337-2, 337-3, and 337-5 into a newly revised single Voting Item designated as 

Item 337-2. The NGSC also recommends further modifications to corresponding HB 130 prosposals to align the 

definitions of related terms and method of sale with definitions, indicated delivery and dispenser labeling 

requirements being proposed for NIST Handbook 44. 

With regards to NIST Handbook 44, the NGSC also recommends consideration of new a Developing Item 

addressing proposed changes to paragraph S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction designated as 360-4. This new 

proposal is consistent with the NGSC decision to encourage further work beyond the current scope of their work on 

the CVEF’s proposals to fully address all LNG applications. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 73 

Representatives of the NGSC and the S&T and L&R Committees met in March 2014, all agreed on the course of 

action outlined above. 

Additional Contacts: Clean Energy, Seal Beach, California; NGVAmerica, Washington, DC; Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation, Acworth, Georgia. Regional Association Comments: (Fall 2013 Input on the Committee’s 

2014 Interim Agenda Items 337-1 through 337-5) 

There was one neutral position posted on NCWM’s 2014 Online Position Forum by NIST, OWM. NIST, OWM 

offered an alternative proposal as a compromise that would phase in requirements for natural gas vehicle dispensers 

to measure, indicate, and calculate the total selling price based on mass units (pounds or kilograms), but permit the 

posting of supplemental information regarding approximate equivalents to other fuels for use by consumers in 

making value comparisons or by tax agencies. An earlier version was provided to the NCWM Natural Gas Steering 

Committee. NIST, OWM posted its proposal on the Online Forum so that it could be shared more broadly, and 

others in the community would have the opportunity to consider alternative solutions and be better able to make 

informed decisions that meet the needs of the community while preserving the integrity of the measurement process. 

NIST, OWM provided a copy of the proposal to the S&T Committee and made hard copies available during the 

open hearings. With this approach, customers could still be provided with supplemental information through 

mechanisms such as pump toppers and other displays providing information about estimated equivalent units of 

measurement for deliveries indicated in mass as well as information on web sites such as those that already provide 

information about fuel economy. This approach might also reduce complaints from some suppliers about the 

accuracy of equivalent values relative to their product. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard numerous comments in both opposition to and support of the 

proposal shown in the Item Under Consideration in NCWM Publication 16. These comments are summarized 

below: 

Support: 

 Numerous letters of support were received from U.S. Senators and Governors, with wide bipartisan 

support. 

 Allows consumers who may be familiar with volumetric units to make value comparisons. 

 Allows for cost comparison between multiple fuel types. 

 The proposal is supported by those who build and supply the equipment, vehicle manufacturers, and 

producers and distributors of natural gas. 

 If action isn’t taken, the decision will be taken out of the weights and measures jurisdictions’ hands at the 

state and local levels. 

 The “GGE” has been in use and accepted for many years. 

 If the primary method of sale is mass, it dictates price, sale, and advertising be in mass. Mass units are not 

consumer friendly. Consumers don’t understand price per kilogram or pound for fuel sales. 

 Industry stated that equivalent units are what consumers want. 

 At least one company reported that all of their business is built around the “DGE,” and they would need to 

retrofit their dispensers if required to measure in mass. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 74 

 Natural gas retail dispensers measure in mass, and are inspected and tested using mass units. 

Opposition: 

 Use of the word approximate. 

 This is a marketing rather than technical issue. 

 Will there be potential for proliferation of other equivalent units for other alternative fuels? 

 There are questions concerning the validity of the conversion values, and whether adequate research has 

been done to develop the values. 

 Including more than one equivalent value could lead to consumer confusion. 

 The proposal is not aligned with how natural gas is being sold in the rest of the world. 

 A jurisdiction stated that consumers hadn’t been asked how they want natural gas sold. 

 Is there a need for ongoing value comparisons if a vehicle is dedicated to run on natural gas fuel? 

 Measurement science needs to be based on traceable standards. Equivalent units are not traceable. 

 Consumers may need to make comparisons with multiple different fuel types such as diesel, biodiesel, 

gasoline, fuel ethanol, electric, hydrogen, LNG, and others. What is the most appropriate means to provide 

sufficient information to customers attempting to make value comparisons? 

 Equivalent units would be better provided as supplemental information rather than the basis for commercial 

transactions. 

Other technical points that were raised include the following: 

 NTEP certificates have already been issued for five LNG dispensers that measure and indicate in mass 

units only. How will the proposed changes affect this equipment? 

The Committee received an alternative proposal from NIST, OWM that would require dispensers to measure, 

indicate, and calculate the total selling price based on mass units (pounds or kilograms), but permit the posting of 

supplemental information regarding approximate equivalents to other fuels for use by consumers when making 

value comparisons or for use by tax agencies. Based upon multiple requests from the regional weights and measures 

association meetings during the 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting and the Committee’s open hearings, the Committee 

agreed to include this proposal in its Final Report. These proposed changes to Section 3.37. Mass Flow Meters 

Code are shown in the following table. 

Summary of Alternative Proposal from NIST: 

This alternative proposal was offered as a compromise that would phase in requirements for natural gas vehicle 

dispensers to measure, indicate, and calculate the total selling price based on mass units (pounds or kilograms), but 

permit the posting of supplemental information regarding approximate equivalents to other fuels for use by 

consumers in making value comparisons or by tax agencies while preserving the integrity of the measurement 

process. With this approach, customers could still be provided with supplemental information through mechanisms 

such as pump toppers or other displays that provide information about estimated equivalent units of measurement 

for deliveries indicated in mass as well as information on web sites such as those that already provide information 

about fuel economy. This approach might also reduce complaints from some suppliers about the accuracy of 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 75 

equivalent values relative to their product.

S.1. Indicating and Recording Elements. 

... 

S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a 

compressed natural gas dispenser used to refuel vehicles shall be of the computing type and shall indicate 

the quantity, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery. The dispenser shall display the mass 

measured for each transaction either continuously on an external or internal display accessible 

during the inspection and test of the dispenser, or display the quantity in mass units by using controls 

on the device.

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX) 

S.1.3. Units.

S.1.3.1. Units of Measurement. – Deliveries shall be indicated and recorded in grams, kilograms, 

metric tons, pounds, tons, and/or liters, gallons, quarts, pints and decimal subdivisions thereof. The 

indication of a delivery shall be on the basis of apparent mass versus a density of 8.0 g/cm3. The 

volume indication shall be based on the mass measurement and an automatic means to determine and 

correct for changes in product density.

(Amended 1993 and 1997)

S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel. – When compressed natural gas 

is dispensed as an engine fuel, the delivered quantity shall be indicated as follows:

(a) Effective and Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2016, the delivered quantity shall be 

indicated in mass units in terms of kilograms or pounds and decimal subdivisions 

thereof. 

This paragraph will become retroactive on January 1, 2017. 

(Added 20XX) 

(b) For dispensers manufactured prior to January 1, 2016, the dispenser shall display 

the mass measured for each transaction, either continuously on an external or 

internal display accessible during the inspection and test of the dispenser, or display 

the quantity in mass units by using controls on the device. The delivered quantity 

shall be indicated in mass or in “gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) units” or “gasoline 

gallon equivalent (GGE) units.” (Also see definitions.) 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX) 

Paragraph S.1.3.1.1.(b) will be removed in the 2017 edition of NIST Handbook 44 when 

paragraph S.1.3.1.1.(a) becomes retroactive. 

S.1.3.1.2. Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel, Supplemental Information. – Dispensers of 

natural gas dispensed as an engine fuel may include supplemental information to assist 

consumers in making value comparisons with gasoline and diesel fuel and for use by taxation 

departments and other agencies that may need an approximation thereof. Supplemental 

information shall not appear adjacent or in close proximity to the primary display and shall 

be positioned far enough from that display so as to ensure that the quantity, unit price, and 

total price for the transaction are clear and easily understood. 

Supplemental units shall be clearly designated with the phrase “The following information is 

provided for comparison with other vehicle fuels and is not to be used as a basis for 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 76 

commercial transactions.” 

Supplemental units shall be displayed using one or more of the following statements. 

For compressed natural gas: 

1 kg of Compressed Natural Gas is Equal to 1.4749 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) 

1 kg of Compressed Natural Gas is Equal to 0.3896 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) 

1 kg of Compressed Natural Gas is Equal to 1.3072 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) 

1 kg of Compressed Natural Gas is Equal to 0.3455 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) 

1 lb of Compressed Natural Gas is Equal to 0.669 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) 

1 lb of Compressed Natural Gas is Equal to 0.177 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) 

1 lb of Compressed Natural Gas is Equal to 0.593 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) 

1 lb of Compressed Natural Gas is Equal to 0.157 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE)

For liquefied natural gas: 

1 kg of Liquefied Natural Gas is Equal to 1.3768 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) 

1 kg of Liquefied Natural Gas is Equal to 0.3638 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) 

1 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas is Equal to 0.625 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) 

1 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas is Equal to 0.165 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) 

... 

S.1.3.3. Maximum Value of Quantity-Value Divisions. 

(a) The maximum value of the quantity-value division for liquids shall not be greater than 0.2 % of 

the minimum measured quantity. 

(b) Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 2016, the maximum value of the mass division for 

dispensers of natural gas used to refuel vehicles shall not exceed 0.001 kg or 0.001 lb. 

Note: Paragraph S.1.3.3.(b) will become retroactive effective January 1, 2017. 

(c) For dispensers of compressed natural gas used to refuel vehicles and manufactured prior to 

January 1, 2016, the value of the division for the gasoline liter equivalent shall not exceed 

0.01 GLE; the division for gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) shall not exceed 0.001 GGE. The 

maximum value of the mass division shall not exceed 0.001 kg or 0.001 lb. 

Note: Paragraph S.1.3.3.(c) will be removed in the 2017 edition of NIST Handbook 44 when 

Paragraph S.1.3.3.(b) becomes retroactive. 

(Amended 1994 and 20XX) 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 77 

S.5. Markings. 

... 

S.5.2. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor. – A device Dispensers 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2016, dispensing compressed natural gas shall have either the 

statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is Equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon 

Equivalent (GGE) is Equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas” permanently and conspicuously marked on the face 

of the dispenser according to the method of sale used. 

As of January 1, 2017, devices must indicate as specified in S.1.3.1.1.(a) and any information 

providing equivalent units may only be included as supplemental information as specified in 

S.1.3.1.2. 

Paragraph S.5.2. will be removed from the 2017 edition of NIST Handbook 44 when paragraph 

S.1.3.1.1.(a) becomes retroactive. 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX) 

UR.3. Use of Device. 

... 

UR.3.8. Return of Product to Storage, Retail Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas 

Dispensers. – Provisions at the site shall be made for returning product to storage or disposing of the 

product in a safe and timely manner during or following testing operations. Such provisions may include 

return lines, or cylinders adequate in size and number to permit this procedure. 

(Added 1998) (Amended 20XX)

Because many of these issues are dependent upon defining the proper method of sale, the Committee met jointly 

with the L&R Committee to discuss the comments received on the S&T and L&R proposals on the issues relating to 

natural gas. 

The S&T Committee identified the method of sale by mass versus equivalent volumetric units as the most 

significant concern based on comments heard on this proposal. In addition to support for this proposal, there were 

also concerns regarding the use of the word “approximately” for labeling purposes; “multiple equivalent units” 

labeled on the same dispenser; “tax issues;” and other less commonly expressed issues. It was decided to eliminate 

the labeling altogether and not delay the effective date, thereby, addressing all three concerns. Consequently, based 

upon the comments received and its deliberations, the Committee agreed to modify the Item Under Consideration 

shown in NCWM Publication 16 as follows: 

 Delete existing paragraph S.5.2. Marking of Equivalent Conversion Factor for Compressed Natural Gas in 

Section 3.37. Mass Flow Meters Code. 

 Delete paragraph S.5.2., including the following proposed changes from the Item Under Consideration 

shown in Publication 16: 

S.5.2. Marking of Equivalent Conversion Factor for Compressed Natural Gas. – A device dispensing 

compressed natural gas shall have either the statements “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is 

Approximately Equal to 0.678 kg of Compressed Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is 

Approximately Equal to 0.765 kg of Compressed Natural Gas” or the statements “1 Gasoline Gallon 

Equivalent (GGE) is Approximately Equal to 5.660 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel 

Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Approximately Equal to 6.384 lb of Compressed Natural Gas” 

permanently and conspicuously marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale used. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 78 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX)

 Delete the following new paragraphs from the Item Under Consideration shown in Publication 16: 

S.5.3. Marking of Diesel Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor for Liquefied Natural Gas. – A 

device dispensing liquefied natural gas shall have either the statement "1 Diesel Liter Equivalent 

(DLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.726 kg of Liquefied Natural Gas" or "1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

(DGE) is Approximately Equal to 6.059 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas" permanently and conspicuously 

marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale used. 

(Added 20XX) 

UR.3.1.1. Marking of Equivalent Conversion Factor for Compressed Natural Gas. – A device 

dispensing compressed natural gas shall have either the statements “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent 

(GLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.678 kg of Compressed Natural Gas” and “1 Diesel Liter 

Equivalent (DLE) is Approximately Equal to 0.765 kg of Compressed Natural Gas” or the statements 

“1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is Approximately Equal to 5.660 lb of Compressed Natural 

Gas” and “1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Approximately Equal to 6.384 lb of Compressed 

Natural Gas” permanently and conspicuously marked on the face of the dispenser according to the 

method of sale used. 

(Added 20XX) 

UR.3.1.2. Marking of Equivalent Conversion Factor for Liquefied Natural Gas. - A device 

dispensing liquefied natural gas shall have either the statement "1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is 

Approximately Equal to 0.726 kg of Liquefied Natural Gas" or "1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is 

Approximately Equal to 6.059 lb of Liquefied Natural Gas" permanently and conspicuously marked 

on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale used. 

(Added 20XX) 

The Item Under Consideration above reflects these modifications. 

Regional Association Comments: 

General Comments following the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting: 

At its 2014 Annual Meeting, the CWMA recommended that the status of this item be changed from Voting to 

Informational based on discussion heard during the joint meeting of the L&R and S&T Committees. At that joint 

meeting, the two Committees concurred the items have merit, but questions and concerns over accuracy of this final 

proposal still remain. Both Committees agreed to move the item forward as an Information item. During the L&R 

Committee’s work session, discussion took place regarding the inconsistency in language in the method of sale in 

L&R Item 232-3, Section 2.27.2. compared to the method of sale with L&R Item 237-2, Section 3.11.2.1. 

Additionally, the Committee discussed including the same number of significant digits in the conversions specified 

in the DGE and DLE equivalent values. The Chairman of the CWMA L&R Committee communicated these two 

concerns to the Chairman of the NCWM Natural Gas Steering Committee.

NEWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: NEWMA recommended the status of this item be changed from Voting to 

Informational after the item failed to receive a motion to move it forward as a Voting item on the National S&T 

agenda. The Informational status was assigned to address the continued debate on marketing, tax issues, conversion 

values, testing, and method of sale requirements. 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D – New Definitions for Diesel Volume Equivalents for Natural Gas (this 

approach established a single factor for both CNG and LNG)[submitted 2013, formerly Item 337-1] 

CWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: The CWMA did not support the item as written and recommended that the status 

remains as Developing. This was based on the lack of traceability for the conversion units proposed. The CWMA 

suggested that the conversion units if accepted could be supplemental information. The majority of comments heard 

were in support of selling this product by a known mass (i.e., pounds or kilograms). In addition there was concern 

raised regarding the validity of the current CNG conversion units (GLE and GGE). 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 79 

WWM fall 2013 meeting: The WWMA heard support from the LNG industry however the conversions within their 

proposals need to be developed. WWMA believes there may be a purpose to the proposal; however opposition 

exists between some regulators and stakeholders regarding the use of the volume equivalent unit of measure. 

WWMA requests the submitter work through the NCWM Natural Gas Steering Committee to refine the proposal. 

WWMA also has concerns about the source of the conversion factors used in determining the DGE/DLE. The 

source being the entities sited for establishing the BTU heating value for diesel. The WWMA believes more data is 

needed to establish densities for LNG. WWMA also believes consideration should be given to neighboring 

countries’ established methods of sale and the units of measure for LNG. WWMA believes this item may be better 

served as a supplementary advertisement and used for customer information and not for a traceable method of sale. 

The S&T/L&R Committee’s should work together as this item develops. WWMA recommended that the item 

remain as a Developing item. 

NEWMA 2013 Interim Meeting: NEWMA recommended the item remain Informational to give the Steering 

Committee time to work the items and make suggestions. 

SWMA received comments in the Open Hearings indicating that Items 337-2 and 337-3 were proposed to provide 

clarity. The Committee recommended Items 337-2 and 337-3 replace Item 337-1. The SWMA S&T and L&R 

Committees met jointly to discuss CNG and LNG items on both agendas. The Committee recommended that this 

item be Withdrawn. 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D – New Definitions for Diesel Volume Equivalents for Compressed 

Natural Gas [formerly Item 337-2] 

CWMA did not forward this item to NCWM, stating it is a duplicate to correct the conversion factor. 

WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM and recommends that the submitter incorporate the pertinent 

information into Item 337-1. 

NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM and recommended the item be designated as Informational to give the 

Steering Committee time to work the items and make suggestions.

SWMA received comments in the Open Hearing indicating that Items 337-2 and 337-3 were proposed to provide 

clarity. The Committee recommends Items 337-2 and 337-3 replace Item 337-1. The SWMA S&T and L&R 

Committees met jointly to discuss CNG and LNG items on both agendas. SWMA forwarded this item to NCWM 

recommending it as a Developing item. 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D – New Definitions for Diesel Volume Equivalents for Liquefied Natural 

Gas [submitted 2014, formerly Item 337-3] 

CWMA did not support the item as written and recommends that the status remain as Developing. This is based on 

the lack of traceability for the conversion units proposed. It is suggested that the conversion units if accepted could 

be supplemental information. The majority of comments heard were in support of selling this product by a known 

mass (i.e., pounds or kilograms). In addition there was concern raised regarding the validity of the current CNG 

conversion units (GLE and GGE). 

WWMA did not forward this item to NCWM and recommends that the submitter incorporate the pertinent 

information into Item 337-1. 

NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM and recommended the item be designated as Informational to give the 

Steering Committee time to work the items and make suggestions.

SWMA received comments in the Open Hearing indicating that Items 337-2 and 337-3 were proposed to provide 

clarity. The Committee recommends Items 337-2 and 337-3 replace Item 337-1. The SWMA S&T and L&R 

Committees met jointly to discuss CNG and LNG items on both agendas. SWMA forwarded this item to NCWM 

recommending it as a Developing item. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 80 

Amend paragraphs S.1.2., S.1.3.1.1., and S.5.2. [submitted 2013, formerly Item 337-4] 

CWMA did not support the item as written and recommends that the status remain as Developing. This is based on 

the lack of traceability for the conversion units proposed. It is suggested that the conversion units, if accepted, could 

be supplemental information. The majority of comments heard were in support of selling this product by a known 

mass, (i.e., pounds or kilograms). In addition there was concern raised regarding the validity of the current CNG 

conversion units (GLE and GGE). 

The WWMA heard no support on this item and recommended that it be Withdrawn. The intent of the proposal is to 

make cost comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. The WWMA believes this proposal doesn’t meet the 

historic definition of “Cost Comparison” and shouldn’t be a specification item in NIST Handbook 44. The WWMA 

believes Natural Gas should be sold in traceable units and not artificial equivalent units. The NCWM Natural Gas 

Steering Committee should take into consideration global method of sale and advertising of LNG/CNG. The 

WWMA believes the urgency of this issue demands quick action by the NCWM because these devices are growing 

quickly in the market place. 

NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM and recommended the item be designated as Informational to give the 

Steering Committee time to work the items and make suggestions.

SWMA heard comments in open hearing indicating that Item 337-5 was proposed to further clarify Item 337-4. The 

Committee agreed with comments heard that Item 337-4 continue to be a Developing item. Based on the comments 

received the Committee believed this item may be more appropriate as a user requirement and should be kept as 

developmental status with review by Steering Committee. The Committee believed that the identity should be 

indicated in a single unit. The SWMA, the S&T and L&R Committees met jointly to discuss CNG and LNG items 

on both agendas. 

Amend paragraphs S.1.2., S.1.3.1.1., and S.5.2., and add new paragraphs S.1.3.1.2., and S.5.3. [submitted 2014, 

formerly 337-5] 

CWMA did not support the item as written and recommends that the status remain as Developing. This is based on 

the lack of traceability for the conversion units proposed. It is suggested that the conversion units if accepted could 

be supplemental information. The majority of comments heard were in support of selling this product by a known 

mass (i.e., pounds or kilograms). In addition there was concern raised regarding the validity of the current CNG 

conversion units (GLE and GGE). 

The WWMA heard no support on this item and recommended that it be Withdrawn. The intent of the proposal is to 

make cost comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. The WWMA believes this proposal doesn’t meet the 

historic definition of “Cost Comparison” and shouldn’t be a specification item in NIST Handbook 44. The WWMA 

believes natural gas should be sold in traceable units and not artificial equivalent units. The NCWM Natural Gas 

Steering Committee should take into consideration global method of sale and advertising of LNG/CNG. The 

WWMA believes the urgency of this issue demands quick action by the NCWM because these devices are growing 

quickly in the market place. 

NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM and recommended the item be designated as Informational to give the 

Steering Committee time to work the items and make suggestions.

SWMA heard comments in the open hearing indicating that Item 337-5 was proposed to further clarify Item 337-4. 

The Committee agreed with comments heard that Item 337-4 continue to be a developing item. Based on the 

comments received the Committee believed this item may be more appropriate as a user requirement and should be 

kept as Developmental status with review by the Steering Committee. The Committee believed that the identity 

should be indicated in a single unit. The SWMA, S&T Committee, and L&R Committee met jointly to discuss 

CNG and LNG items on both agendas 

With respect to the Item Under Consideration, the Committee received additional letters of support from: 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 81 

 ANGI Energy Systems; 

 California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition; 

 Maine Clean Communities = MC2

; 

 Sacramento Clean Cities Coalition,; and 

 Questar Gas Company. 

337-3 Appendix D – Definitions: Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) and Diesel Gallon Equivalents 

(DGE) for Liquefied Natural Gas 

The Committee considered the following proposal to establish definitions in Appendix D for “Diesel Liter 

Equivalent (DLE)” and “Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE).” This item (along with accompanying recommendations 

and background information) was consolidated with Item 337-2 as a result of action by the Committee at the 

2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. See Item 337-2 for additional details. 

As a result of the June 12, 2014, discussions of the S&T Committee, in conjunction with NGSC recommendations, it 

became necessary to further clarify the status of Agenda Items 337-3 and 337-5. In March 2014, the Committee 

agreed with the NGSC’s recommendation for modifications of the proposed NIST Handbook 44 requirements in 

these agenda items and their consolidation into a single voting item under Agenda Item 337-2. Consequently, the 

“V” (Voting) designation was removed from Agenda Items 337-3 and 337-5. 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since liquefied natural gas (LNG) is sold in the retail market place as an alternative fuel to diesel fuel, the proposed 

additions and edits to NIST Handbook 44 will provide definitions for liquefied natural gas (LNG) equivalents for 

diesel liters and gallons so that end users can radially compare cost and fuel economy. At present no LNG 

equivalents for diesel are included in the handbooks. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D as follows:

Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE). – Means 0.7263 kg of liquefied natural gas. 

Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE). – Means 2.749 kg (6.06 lb) of liquefied natural gas. 

337-4 W S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers, S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas 

Used as an Engine Fuel, S.5.2. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion 

Factor; Natural Gas 

(This item was Withdrawn.) 

Source: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2013) 

Purpose: 

Enable consumers to make cost and fuel economy comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 82 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend paragraphs S.1.2., S.1.3.1.1., and S.5.2. as follows: 

S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a 

compressed natural gas dispenser used to refuel vehicles shall be of the computing type and shall indicate the 

quantity, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery. The dispenser shall display the mass measured for 

each transaction either continuously on an external or internal display accessible during the inspection and test 

of the dispenser, or display the quantity in mass units by using controls on the device. 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX)

S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel. – When compressed natural gas is 

dispensed as an engine fuel, the delivered quantity shall be indicated in: “gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) 

units” or “gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) units” (see definitions). 

(a) "gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) units" or gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) units", 

(b) "diesel liter equivalent (DLE) units" or "diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units" (see 

definitions). 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX)

S.5.2. Marking of Diesel and Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor. – A device dispensing 

compressed natural gas shall have: either the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is Equal to 

0.678 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is Equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas” 

permanently and conspicuously marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale used.

(a) 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", 

(b) either the statement "1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Equal to 0.756 kg of Natural Gas" or 

"1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Equal to 6.312 lb of Natural Gas" permanently and 

conspicuously marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale used. 

(Added 1994) (Amended 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

The gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) unit was defined by NIST/NCWM in 1994 (see Appendix E) to allow users of 

natural gas vehicles to readily compare costs and fuel economy of light-duty natural gas vehicles with equivalent 

gasoline powered vehicles. For the medium and heavy duty natural gas vehicles in widespread use today, there is a 

need to officially define a unit (already in widespread use) allowing a comparison of cost and fuel economy with 

diesel powered vehicles. Also natural gas is sold as a vehicle fuel as either Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or 

Liqufied Natural Gas (LNG) and each method of sale in measure in mass. Therefore, the generic term “natural gas” 

is proposed to be used in NIST Handbooks 44 and 130 with out the existing term “compressed.” The mathematics 

justifying the specific quantity (mass) of natural gas in a DLE and DGE is included in Appendix E. 

The official definition of a DLE and a DGE will likely provide justification for California, Wisconsin, and any other 

state to permit retail sales of LNG for heavy-duty vehicles in these convenient units. 

NCWM 2013 Interim Meeting: The Committee heard comments from Mr. Keilty who expressed concern about the 

adoption of the proposed equivalent value as a unit of measure. He noted that the intent of this item is not to allow 

the user to toggle between mass units and equivalent units at the push of a button. He also noted that if the units are 

set as “DLE” or “DGE,” the customer cannot also view units in “GLE” or “GGE.” Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid 

Controls Corporation, LLC), indicated opposition to the proposal to strike the work “compressed.” Ms. Williams 

referenced NIST, OWM’s comments made in association with Agenda Item 337-1 and suggested that the 

Committee consider those same comments in their deliberations of this item. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 83 

The Committee heard no comments in support of the proposal during its Open Hearings. See Item 337-1 for details 

regarding the S&T Committee’s collaborations with the NCWM L&R Committee on Items 337-1 and 337-2 on the 

S&T Committee’s agenda and Items 232-1 and 237-1 on the L&R Committee’s agenda. 

On the NCWM Online Position Forum, two Government representatives indicated a neutral position and one 

Government representative indicated opposition for this item. The neutral position was accompanied by a comment 

suggesting the establishment of a Joint Task Group and encouraging a final recommendation that would clarify 

whether the proposed units are or are not permitted. The opposing position was accompanied by a comment 

indicating opposition to artificial units of measure and noting that establishment of DGE and DLE values perpetuate 

the use of artificial units. 

NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard comments on Items 337-1 and 337-2 jointly. Details of 

comments are included in Item 337-1. 

Additional Contacts: Clean Energy, Seal Beach, California; NGVAmerica, Washington, D.C.; and Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation, Acworth, Georgia. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The NGSC suggested that the Committee Withdraw this item. The submitter of this 

item (who is also a member of the NGSC) submitted an alternative item in 2014 that was intended to replace this 

item. Consequently, the Committee decided to withdraw this item from its agenda. 

Regional Association Comments: 

The CWMA does not support the item as written and recommends the status remain as Developing. This is based 

on the lack of traceability for the conversion units proposed. It is suggested that the conversion units if accepted 

could be supplemental information. The majority of comments heard were in support of selling this product by a 

known mass (i.e., pounds or kilograms). In addition there was concern raised regarding the validity of the current 

CNG conversion units (GLE and GGE). 

The WWMA heard no support on this item and recommended it be Withdrawn. The intent of the proposal is to 

make cost comparisons between diesel fuel and natural gas. The WWMA believes this proposal doesn’t meet the 

historic definition of “Cost Comparison” and shouldn’t be a specification item in NIST Handbook 44. The WWMA 

believes Natural Gas should be sold in traceable units and not artificial equivalent units. The NCWM Natural Gas 

Steering Committee should take into consideration global method of sale and advertising of LNG/CNG. The 

WWMA believes the urgency of this issue demands quick action by the NCWM because these devices are growing 

quickly in the marketplace. 

NEWMA recommended that the item be Informational to give the Steering Committee time to work on the items 

and make suggestions. 

SWMA heard comments in Open Hearing indicating that Item 337-5 was proposed to further clarify Item 337-4. 

The Committee agreed with comments heard that Item 337-4 continue to be a Developing Item. Based on the 

comments received, the Committee believed this item may be more appropriate as a user requirement and should be 

kept as developmental status with review by Steering Committee. The Committee believes the identity should be 

indicated in a single unit. The SWMA S&T and L&R Committees met jointly to discuss CNG and LNG items on 

both agendas. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional information on this item. 

337-5 S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers, S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as 

an Engine Fuel, S.5.2. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor 

The Committee considered the following proposal to modify multiple MFM specification paragraphs to recognize 

gasoline and diesel “equivalent” units for liquefied natural gas and compressed natural gas. This item (along with 

accompanying recommendations and background information) was consolidated with Item 337-2 as a result of 

action by the Committee at the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. See Item 337-2 for additional details. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 84 

As a result of June 12, 2014, discussions of the S&T Committee, in conjunction with NGSC recommendations, it 

became necessary to further clarify the status of Agenda Items 337-3 and 337-5. In March 2014, the Committee 

agreed with the NGSC’s recommendation for modifications of the proposed NIST Handbook 44 requirements in 

these agenda items and their consolidation into a single Voting item under agenda Item 337-2. Consequently, the 

“V” (Voting) designation was removed from Agenda Items 337-3 and 337-5. 

Source:

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation (2014) 

Purpose: 

Since natural gas is sold in the retail market place as compressed natural gas (CNG) to be an alternative fuel to 

gasoline and diesel fuel and as liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be an alternative fuel to diesel, the proposed additions 

and edits to NIST Handbook 44 will provide definitions for natural gas equivalents for diesel liters and diesel 

gallons so that end users can radially compare cost and fuel economy. At present only CNG equivalents for gasoline 

are included in the handbooks. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Mass Flow Meters Code as follows:

S.1.2. Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas Dispensers. – Except for non-retail fleet sales 

and other price contract sales, a compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas dispensers used to refuel 

vehicles shall be of the computing type and shall indicate the quantity, the unit price, and the total price of each 

delivery. The dispensers shall display the mass measured for each transaction either continuously on an 

external or internal display accessible during the inspection and test of the dispensers, or display the quantity in 

mass units by using controls on the device. 

(Added 1994) 

S.1.3.1.1. Compressed Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel. – When compressed natural gas is 

dispensed as an engine fuel, the delivered quantity shall be indicated in: “gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) 

units” or “gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) units” (see definitions). 

(a) mass (in pounds or kilograms); or 

(b) "gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) units" or “gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) units;" 

(c) "diesel liter equivalent (DLE) units" or "diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units" (see 

definitions).

(Added 1994) 

S.1.3.1.2. Liquefied Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel. – When liquefied natural gas is dispensed 

as an engine fuel, the delivered quantity shall be indicated in: 

(a) Mass (in pounds or kilograms), or 

(b) "diesel liter equivalent (DLE) units" or "diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) units" (see 

definitions). 

S.5.2. Marking of Diesel and Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor. – A device dispensing 

compressed natural gas shall have: either the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is Equal to 

0.678 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is Equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas” 

permanently and conspicuously marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale 

used. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 85 

(a) 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", 

(b) either the statement "1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Equal to 0.765 kg of Natural Gas" or "1 

Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Equal to 6.38 lb of Natural Gas" 

(Added 1994) 

S.5.3. Marking of Diesel Volume Equivalent Conversion Factor. – A device dispensing liquefied natural 

gas shall have: the statement "1 Diesel Liter Equivalent (DLE) is Equal to 0.7263 kg of Natural Gas" or 

"1 Diesel Gallon Equivalent (DGE) is Equal to 6.06 lb of Natural Gas" permanently and conspicuously 

marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale used. 

337-6 D Mass Flow Meters Code, S.3.6. Automatic Density Compensation 

Source: 

NCWM Natural Gas Steering Committee (2014 Interim Meeting) 

Source: 

This is a new item (2014) that originated from the NCWM Natural Gas Steering Committee (NGSC) as a result of 

its deliberations January through March 2014 on agenda Item 337-1 (an alternative proposal for defining and 

establishing legal metrology requirements for quantity indications and markings on a device when CNG and LNG 

are dispensed and sold as engine fuel in volume equivalent units). The NGSC recommends the proposal as a 

developing item to allow additional time for the NCWM NTEP Measuring Sector and Measuring Laboratories to 

fully vet the newly proposed modifications to NIST Handbook 44 Mass Flow Meters Code paragraph 

S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction. 

Purpose: 

Provide a starting point for work identified in March 2014 by the NGSC and S&T Committee that is necessary to 

fully address legal metrology requirements for LNG retail and wholesale applications. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44 Mass Flow Meters Code paragraph S.3.6. as follows: 

S.3.6. Automatic Density Correction. 

(a) An automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density shall be incorporated in 

any mass flow metering system that is affected by changes in the density of the product being 

measured. 

(b) Volume-measuring devices with automatic temperature compensation used to measure liquefied 

natural gas as a motor vehicle engine fuel shall be equipped with an automatic means to determine and 

correct for changes in product density due to changes in the temperature, pressure, and composition

of the product. 

(Amended 1994 and 1997, and 201X) 

Background/Discussion: 

After the January 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NGSC and S&T Committee received input from Mr. Dmitri 

Karimov (Liquid Controls Corporation, LLC and a member of the NGSC) who proposed to differentiate between 

CNG and LNG in the requirements of paragraph S.3.6 “Automatic Density Correction” when using volumetric 

devices. Mr. Karimov indicated that density calculations of LNG when measured using a volumetric device, require 

temperature determination only. CNG devices will not be allowed to use indirect mass measurement in 

Mr. Karimov’s proposal.
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 86 

Mr. Karimov’s provided the NGSC and S&T Committee with the following points as rationale for the proposed 

changes to paragraph S.3.6.: 

 The requirements for volume‐measuring devices were developed in 1994 and 1997 for CNG based on 

hydrocarbon gas vapor code. See the attached NCWM final reports at the end of the document. 

 The concerns might be valid for CNG but not for LNG. For LNG, only temperature input is required to 

calculate mass value. 

 Based on the most recent changes to the Mass Flow Meters Code by the NGSC, indirect mass measurement 

is proposed to be allowed for LNG but not CNG, so S.3.6 needs to be modified. 

 CNG and LNG mass flow meters (Coriolis) with automatic density correction will be covered by paragraph 

S.3.6.(a) 

 LNG volume‐measuring devices (such as orifice plate and turbine meters) will be covered by paragraph 

S.3.6.(b) since indirect mass measurement for CNG is no longer allowed under the proposal by the NGSC. 

 CNG (being gas) is very compressible, so pressure is a significant influence factor in density calculation. 

“Pressure” was added to S.3.6.(b) in 1997 because at that time the paragraph was relied upon only for 

CNG. 

 LNG, on the other hand, is measured at very low pressure, and – being liquid‐ is not compressible at the 

pressures at which it is measured. Pressure effect on density of LNG is therefore negligible. See the table 

below where Mr. Karimov generated data on LNG density changes using the NIST REFPROP database. 

 Per documentation received by the NGSC from the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation, the composition 

of the natural gas remained virtually unchanged over the last 21 years. Therefore, volumetric devices for 

LNG could use fixed composition in density calculations as per ASTM D4784, Clause 2.1 (see below). 

 Finally, indirect mass measurement volumetric devices undergo type evaluation, and only those devices 

meeting accuracy requirements through proper density calculations are approved. 

Supporting documentation: 

ASTM D4784 – 93 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Specification for LNG Density Calculation Models ASTM 

D4784 provides models for density calculation. 

2. Significance an d Use

2.1 The models in this specification can be used to calculate the density of saturated liquid natural gas in 

the temperature range 90 to 120 K. The estimated uncertainty for the density calculations is ± 0.1 %. The 

restrictions on composition of the liquefied natural gas are:

methane

nitrogen

n-butane

i-butane

pentanes

60 % or greater

less than 4 %

less than 4 %

less than 4 %

less than 2 %

Mr. Karimov also referenced excerpts from two previous Committee reports: 1) NIST SP 870 the 1994 Report of 

the 79th NCWM, Agenda Item 337-4B in the Final Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee; and 2) 

NIST SP 920 the 1997 Report of the 82nd NCWM, Agenda Item 337-2 in the Final Report of the Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 87 

The following is the table Mr. Karimov generated on LNG density changes using the NIST REFPROP database. 

Mr. Karimov noted that density changes to LNG are negligible at 120 K with changes in pressure from the base 

pressure of 27.765 psi up to 200 psi. 

Density Changes to LNG

Temperature1

(K) 

Pressure 

(psia) 

Density 

(lbMASS/gal) 

% Density Difference2

 

120 27.765 3.4208 0.000 % 

120 30 3.4209 െ	0.003 % 

120 35 3.4213 െ	0.015 % 

120 40 3.4216 െ	0.023 % 

120 45 3.4219 െ	0.032 % 

120 50 3.4222 െ	0.041 % 

120 55 3.4225 െ	0.050 % 

120 60 3.4229 െ	0.061 % 

120 65 3.4232 െ	0.070 % 

120 70 3.4235 െ	0.079 % 

120 75 3.4238 െ	0.088 % 

120 80 3.4241 െ	0.096 % 

120 85 3.4245 െ	0.108 % 

120 90 3.4248 െ	0.117 % 

120 95 3.4251 െ	0.126 % 

120 100 3.4254 െ	0.134 % 

120 105 3.4257 െ	0.143 % 

120 110 3.4261 െ	0.155 % 

120 115 3.4264 െ	0.164 % 

120 120 3.4267 െ	0.172 % 

120 125 3.427 െ	0.181 % 

120 130 3.4273 െ	0.190 % 

120 135 3.4276 െ	0.199 % 

120 140 3.428 െ	0.210 % 

120 145 3.4283 െ	0.219 % 

120 150 3.4286 െ	0.228 % 

120 155 3.4289 െ	0.237 % 

120 160 3.4292 െ	0.246 % 

120 165 3.4295 െ	0.254 % 

120 170 3.4298 െ	0.263 % 

120 175 3.4302 െ	0.275 % 

120 180 3.4305 െ	0.284 % 

120 185 3.4308 െ	0.292 % 

120 190 3.4311 െ	0.301 % 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 88 

Density Changes to LNG

Temperature1

(K) 

Pressure 

(psia) 

Density 

(lbMASS/gal) 

% Density Difference2

 

120 195 3.4314 െ	0.310 % 

120 200 3.4317 െ	0.319 % 

1

120 K (− 153 C) (− 243 F) 2

Percent difference in product (pure methane) density is based on calculated variations to the base pressure of 

27.765 psi using NIST REFPROP

Initially, Mr. Karimov presented his proposal to his colleagues on the NGSC. During the NGSC’s deliberation on 

the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation’s proposed changes to other Mass Flow Meters Code paragraphs (see 

Agenda Item 337-1), the NGSC also considered Mr. Karimov’s proposal. The NGSC agreed to encourage further 

work beyond the current scope of their work on the CVEF’s proposals. Admittedly, many of the NGSC indicated 

not fully comprehending the technical rationale for the Mr. Karimov’s proposal. After discussions with the S&T 

Committee, both Committees agreed that the proposal should be vetted by the NCWM NTEP Measuring Sector and 

Measuring Laboratories to ensure the community understands the intent and impact of the proposed changes to 

paragraph S.3.6. Additionally, NIST, OWM plans to consult with its Cryogenics Group on the proposal. Based on 

its discussion with the S&T Committee, both Committees believe the proposal has merit and should be included in 

the S&T Interim Meeting report as a separate new item with Developing status. 

2014 Annual Meeting: The Committee heard numerous comments suggesting the proposal remain in a Developing 

status. Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) commented that NIST, OWM agrees with other comments that 

additional review and development is needed on this proposal, particularly given the variation in composition of 

natural gas supplies. NIST, OWM also notes that previous S&T Committee work on this paragraph, including 1994 

and 1997, should be considered. Consequently the Committee agreed to recommend this item remain Developing. 

At its 2014 Annual Meetings, both CWMA and NEWMA supported continued development of this item. 

On the 2014 NCWM Online Position Forum, one industry representative indicated opposition on this item with no 

additional comments. Emerson Process Management – Micro Motion maintains the position that further research is 

needed to establish with certainty the range of the possible variation of the composition and density of commercially 

traded Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) before this proposed item can be considered as fully developed. Emerson 

provided the following input: 

Emerson Process Management – MicroMotion: 

The metrological validity of the proposal to convert measurements from volume measuring devices into mass units 

without the benefit of an automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density due to changes in 

the pressure and composition of the product is fully dependent on the fundamental assumption that the composition 

and the associated density of commercially traded LNG will remain constant within tight limits. Because this 

assumption is so essential to the proposed item, all possible sources of information about the current and future 

potential for variability of LNG composition and density should be considered. 

NCWM has recognized that the measurement of LNG is different from that of other cryogenic fluids primarily 

because of the uncertainty of its composition. This conclusion dates back to discussions that began when a tentative 

code for cryogenic liquid-measuring devices was introduced in the 1972 Report of the Committee on Specifications 

and Tolerances. These discussions eventually led to LNG being specifically excluded from Section 3.34. Cryogenic 

Liquid-Measuring Devices, as stated in paragraph A.2. 

A.2. Exceptions – This Code does not apply to the following: 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 89 

(c) Devices used solely for dispensing liquefied natural gas. 

There is evidence to suggest that the composition of LNG can vary significantly enough to change the density by an 

amount that would result in errors far greater than the allowable tolerance if there is no correction made when 

converting from volume to mass units. As one example, on February 11, 2005, the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) 

issued data on LNG density in Table 3 (see attachment) of the Natural Gas Composition and Fuel Quality 

Information Report that indicates the specific gravity of LNG can vary by as much as 12 %. The error in specific 

gravity in terms of percent translates directly to an equivalent percent error in mass flow indication if density 

changes due to composition are not accounted for. 

Furthermore, an understanding of past variability in LNG composition is not sufficient to ensure that variations of 

LNG composition will remain constant in the future. This new provision could create an incentive to manipulate 

LNG composition in order to influence measurement results in favor of one party or another in commercial 

transactions. Therefore, ongoing assurance of LNG composition within strict limits through enforcement would be 

needed to eliminate the facilitation of fraud when using volume-measuring devices to measure LNG without the 

benefit of an automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density due to changes in the 

composition. To be considered fully developed, the proposed item should include the specific requirements for 

LNG composition that must be enforced whenever volume devices are uncorrected for composition changes in order 

to prevent the manipulation of LNG composition beyond the prescribed limits and thus ensure that the converted 

volume errors are within the mass measurement tolerances. 

A proposed method or methods for verification of the composition and density of LNG samples must be included to 

complete the development of this item in order to offer jurisdictions at least one practical method to accomplish the 

enforcement of these LNG composition requirements for installations where volume measurements are converted 

into mass units without the benefit of an automatic correction for changes in product density due to changes in the 

composition of the product. 

Finally, pressure is a variable that can be controlled by the design and operation of most delivery systems. 

Eliminating the requirement to include correction of volume measuring devices for changes in product density due 

to changes in the pressure of the product would introduce the opportunity for manipulation of the measurement 

results in favor of one party by adjusting system pressure. Although the effect of pressure on LNG density is 

relatively small, because pressure is a variable that can be easily controlled rather than random, it would be 

necessary to record and monitor system pressure in between inspections to prevent intentional manipulation of 

system pressures for the purpose of creating predominance in favor one party. 

354 TAXIMETERS 

354-1 D USNWG on Taximeters – Taximeter Code Revisions and Global Positioning 

System-Based Systems for Time and Distance Measurement 

Note: This item was originally titled “Item 360-5, S.5. Provision for Security Seals” in the Committee’s 2013 

Interim Agenda. At the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee combined that item with “Item 354-1, 

Global Positioning Systems for Taximeters” and “Item 360-6, Global Positioning Systems for Taximeters” to 

create this new, consolidated item to address the development of recommendations on multiple topics related to 

taximeters and GPS-based time and distance measuring systems. 

Source: 

NIST USNWG on Taximeters 

Purpose: 

Develop recommendations for modifying the existing Taximeters Code to reflect current technology (including 

requirements for sealing, display requirements, and other features) and to examine GPS-based time and distance 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 90 

measuring systems to determine how to best address these measuring systems in NIST Handbook 44 to ensure 

accuracy and transparency for passengers and businesses. 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. Comments and inquiries may be directed to Mr. John Barton (NIST, OWM) at 

(301) 975-4002 or john.barton@nist.gov. 

The USNWG is considering proposals to modify the sealing requirements in the Taximeters Code to reflect more 

advanced sealing methods (see 2012 NCWM Final S&T Report); to amend the Taximeters Code to specifically 

recognize GPS-based time and distance measuring systems; and to amend other Sections of the Taximeters Code to 

reflect current technology and business practices while ensuring accuracy and transparency for customers and a level 

playing field for transportation service companies. 

Background/Discussion: 

The Committee has received multiple proposals over the past several years related to updating the current NIST 

Handbook 44 Taximeters Code to reflect current technology as well as a request to establish criteria for GPS-based 

time and distance measuring systems. In April 2012, NIST, OWM established a U.S. National Working Group 

(USNWG) to work on these issues. The USNWG has met multiple times since it was established. For details of 

those meetings as well as the current proposals being developed by the USNWG, please contact Mr. Barton as noted 

in the “Item Under Consideration” above. 

Additional information and background on this item can be found in the Committee’s 2013 and earlier final reports. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: NIST, OWM provided an update regarding progress of the USNWG. The USNWG 

is conducting meetings on a regular basis to continue its work in updating the existing NIST Handbook 44 

Taximeters Code. Numerous sections of the current Code are based on older technologies and may not reflect the 

more recent advances seen in this area. While there are no specific proposed changes to the Taximeters Code at this 

time, it is anticipated that some proposals will be submitted prior to the next cycle of regional meetings in 2014. 

Some of the proposed changes that are expected will affect requirements concerning: the need for a recording 

element within a system; the advancement of indications; information included on receipts; the display of 

customer’s indications; and the use of GPS systems as a source of distance/time measurements. The next meeting of 

the USNWG is March 4, 2014. The Committee supports the efforts of the USNWG and looks forward to receiving 

proposed changes in the future. 

During the 2014 NCWM Annual Meeting NIST, OWM provided the following update concerning this item: 

The most recent meetings of the USNWG on Taximeters were held in March and May 2014. These meetings 

focused on the development of proposed changes to the NIST Handbook 44 Taximeters Code, which include: 

 Changes to requirements regarding recording elements and passenger receipts; 

 Amendments to requirement pertaining to the Code application; 

 Specification requirements to passenger dedicated displays; 

 Changes to the requirement regarding the basis of fare calculation; and 

 Requirements to set parameters for the use of multiple rates in the calculation of fares. 

The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 7, 2014, when the USNWG will continue the development 

of proposed changes to NIST Handbook 44. The USNWG has developed a number of proposals that will be 

submitted for consideration by the S&T Committees of the Regional Weights and Measures Associations this 

fall. Subsequent meetings of the USNWG are planned every other month using web-conferencing to 

accommodate the many members who are unable to travel. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 91 

CWMA did not receive any comments from the floor on this item during their 2013 Interim Meeting and 2014 

Annual Meeting. CWMA encouraged the continued work of the USNWG and reported that it looked forward to 

continued developments in this area and recommended that the item remain as a Developing item. 

WWMA believes this item is still developing and more information is needed in the meter display and receipt 

requirements. More information is also needed in determining the accuracy of GPS and cell phone technology. 

WWMA recommended that the item remain as a Developing Item. 

At their 2013 fall Interim Meeting, NEWMA reported that it recognized the USNWG on Taximeters has the task of 

updating a code from 1970’s to reflect current technology. The USNWG still needs time to work on developments 

to this item so it is recommended the item remain a developing item. At their 2014 Annual Meeting, NEWMA 

reported that it supports further development of the Taximeter Code to address new technologies existing in the 

marketplace. 

SWMA did not receive any comments received on this item. The SWMA supported further development by the 

USNWG on Taximeters. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional information on this item. 

358 MULTIPLE DIMENSION MEASURING DEVICES 

358-1 D Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

Source: 

LoadScan US (2014) 

Purpose: 

Develop a standardized testing protocol for a non-contact volumetric measurement instrument designed to measure 

loads of bulk loose solids in open-top truck and trailer units.

Item Under Consideration: 

Develop new language for type classification, accuracy classification, and test methodology for load volume 

scanning devices. 

Background/Discussion: 

Laser technology allows for accurate volume measurement of bulk materials loaded on open-top truck and trailer 

bodies. Standard industry practice is to count loader buckets or convert from weight, both highly variable and 

inaccurate ways of measuring cubic volume. See Appendix F for detail on Load Scanner Metrology, Test Methods 

and Suitability for Use. 

Contacts: Mr. Peter Russell (LoadScan US) (603) 831-6014 or peter.russell@loadscan.us and Mr. Adrian Ruthe 

(Loadscan Ltd.) +64 7-847-5777 or adrian@loadscan.com. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Mr. Peter Russell (LoadScan, Ltd.) and Mr. Adrian Ruthe (LoadScan, Ltd.) 

provided a joint presentation regarding the operation of a device that uses a scanner to measure the volume of 

product loaded into open-top truck and trailer units. Mr. Russell and Mr. Ruthe indicated that they were not familiar 

with the procedures of how to go about adding new requirements into NIST Handbook 44; nor did they know where 

in NIST Handbook 44, requirements intended to apply to their equipment would best fit. They asked the Committee 

for guidance on how best to proceed concerning these issues. 

The Committee acknowledged there is not yet a specific proposal to consider and additional information and input is 

needed for the development of this item. The Committee agreed to designate this item as a “Developing” item on its 

agenda to allow time for the issue to be further developed by the submitter. The Committee noted a specific 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 92 

proposal outlining recommended changes to NIST Handbook 44 is needed in order for the item to advance through 

the process. 

While the Committee is not certain if the MDMD Code is the most appropriate code for addressing these devices, 

the Committee suggested the MDMD Work Group might be willing to consider this issue and provide input on 

further development of draft NIST Handbook 44 language. Alternatively, or in addition, the submitter may wish to 

contact the NTEP Weighing Sector to determine if that Sector or its’ members might be able to provide additional 

assistance. 

The Committee received a document from the submitter (titled “Load Volume Scanner, Proposals for Integration 

into NIST Handbook 44”) that provides additional information and supporting arguments for addressing this issue, 

along with some recommended changes to NIST Handbook 44. The Committee has included this document in 

Appendix G of this report and encourages interested parties to provide input to the submitter. 

2014 NCWM Annual Meeting: Mr. Rick Harshman (NIST Technical Advisor) reported that he had recently 

contacted LoadScan Ltd. to determine if there had been any further development of the item since the 2014 NCWM 

Interim Meeting and was provided the following update from Mr. Ruthe: 

LoadScan Ltd. in New Zealand is aware that the NCWM Annual Meeting is coming up. Unfortunately, the 

reality is we have not had the resources to be able to pursue our case this year and will not be making any 

submissions at the moment. We plan to engage the services of local experts within the USA to pursue this 

matter for us over the next year. We are also completing further background work with weights & 

measures authorities in New Zealand and Australia which we hope will support our drive for approval in 

the USA. At this state we request only to retain our “Developing Item” status. 

The Committee agreed to retain the “Developing” status of the item based on the update provided by the submitter 

of the item and his request to do so. 

At their 2014 spring meeting, CWMA supported the continued development of this item. 

NEWMA reported at their 2013 Interim Meeting that it would like to see the submitter move forward with further 

development of this new item to explore the feasibility of this item in NIST Handbook 44. During their 2014 

Annual Meeting, NEWMA recommended the item remain “Developing” until such time that the manufacturer of the 

equipment can provide supporting documentation relative to the performance of the device. The item also needs to 

be developed to address test standards, test methods, and draft language for NIST Handbook 44. 

SWMA received a presentation but heard no additional comments in its Open Hearings. The submitter did have 

questions from members about the device itself, but there were not any comments on the item. Based on this, the 

SWMA recommended the item continue to be developed. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM. 

360 OTHER ITEMS 

360-1 D International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report 

Many issues before the OIML, the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum, and other international groups are within 

the purview of the Committee. The Committee has maintained an item on its report as a means of keeping NCWM 

members abreast of these activities, and NIST, OWM has regularly provided an update as part of this item. In recent 

years, rather than providing separate reports to individual Committees, NIST, OWM has begun providing a single 

update of activities relative to all NCWM Committees in conjunction with the Board of Directors’ agenda. The 

Committee believes that this is the most efficient approach to keep members abreast of these activities, and based on 

discussions with NIST, OWM, the Committee plans to eliminate this item from its agenda beginning with the next 

NCWM cycle. The Committee will include a note in the preamble to its report referencing the OIML report that is 

provided as part of the Board of Directors’ Report so that those interested in these activities can locate this 

information. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 93 

Additional information on OIML activities will continue to appear in the Board of Directors agenda and Interim and 

Final Reports and on the OIML website at www.oiml.org. NIST, OWM staff will continue to provide the latest 

updates on OIML activities during the BOD’s Open Hearings at NCWM meetings. For more information on 

specific OIML related device activities, contact the NIST, OWM staff listed in the table below. The list below of 

OIML projects only represents active projects. 

NIST Office of Weights and Measures 

Staff Contact List for International Activities 

Contact Information Responsibilities 

Mr. John Barton –LMDP 

Phone: (301) 975-4002 

Email: john.barton@nist.gov 

 R 21 Taximeters

 R 50 Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Belt Weighers)

 R 60 Metrological Regulations for Load Cells

 R 106 Automatic Rail-weighbridges

Mr. Kenneth Butcher –LMP 

Phone: (301) 975-4859 

Email: k.butcher@nist.gov 

 TC 6 Prepackaged Products

Dr. Charles Ehrlich –ILMP 

Phone : (301) 975-4834 

Email : charles.ehrlich@nist.gov 

 International Committee of Legal Metrology Member for the United States

 V1 International Vocabulary of Terms in Legal Metrology

 V2 International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology

 B 3 OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments

 B 6 OIML Directives for the Technical Work

 B 10 Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type 

Evaluations

 TC 3/SC 5 Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement in Legal Metrology 

Applications, Guidelines for the Application of ISO/IEC 17025 to the 

Assessment of Laboratories Performing Type Evaluation Tests

 TC 3 Metrological Control

 ISO/IEC Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement

Mr. Richard Harshman –LMDP 

Phone: (301) 975-8107 

Email: richard.harshman@nist.gov 

 R 51 Automatic Catchweighing Instruments 

 R 61 Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instruments

 R 76 Non-automatic Weighing Instruments

 R 107 Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (totalizing 

hopper weighers) 

 R 134 Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles In-Motion and 

Measuring Axle Loads

Ms. Diane Lee –LMDP 

Phone: (301) 975-4405 

Email: diane.lee@nist.gov 

 R 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds

 R 92 Wood Moisture Meters – Verification Methods and Equipment

 TC 17/SC 8 Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grains and Oil 

Seeds
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 94 

NIST Office of Weights and Measures 

Staff Contact List for International Activities 

Contact Information Responsibilities 

Mr. Ralph Richter –ILMP 

Phone: (301) 975-3997 

Email: ralph.richter@nist.gov

 D 11 General Requirements for Measuring Instruments – Environmental 

Conditions

 R 35 Material Measures of Length for General Use

 R 49 Water Meters (Cold Potable Water and Hot Water Meters)

 R 71 Fixed Storage Tanks

 R 80 Road and Rail Tankers (static measurement)

 R 85 Automatic Level Gauges for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed 

Storage Tanks

 R 95 Ship’s Tanks

 R 117 Measuring Systems for Liquids Other Than Water (all measuring 

technologies)

 R 118 Testing Procedures and Test Report Format for Pattern Examination 

of Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles

 TC 3/SC 4 Verification Period of Utility Meters Using Sampling 

Inspections

 R 137 Gas Meters (all measuring technologies)

 R 140 Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel (i.e., large pipelines)

 ISO TC 30/SC 7 Water Meters

Dr. Ambler Thompson –ILMP

Phone: (301) 975-2333 

Email: ambler@nist.gov

 V1 International Vocabulary of Terms in Legal Metrology

 D 16 Principles of Assurance of Metrological Control

 D 19 Pattern Evaluation and Pattern Approval

 D 20 Initial and Subsequent Verification of Measuring Instruments and 

Processes

 D 27 Initial Verification of Measuring Instruments Using the 

Manufacturer’s Quality Management System

 D 31 General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring 

Instruments

 R 34 Accuracy Classes of Measuring Instruments

 R 46 Active Electrical Energy Meters for Direct Connection of Class 2

Ms. Juana Williams –LMDP

Phone: (301) 975-3989 

Email: juana.williams@nist.gov

 R 81 Dynamic Measuring Devices and Systems for Cryogenic Liquids 

 R 139 Compressed Gaseous Fuels Measuring Systems for Vehicles 

List of Acronyms 

B Basic Publication LMDP Legal Metrology Devices Program 

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology P Project

D Document R Recommendation

ILMP International Legal Metrology Program SC Subcommittee 

LMP Laws and Metrics Program TC Technical Committee

Contact Point: See contacts listed in the table above for specific technical areas. 

Regional Association Comments:

CWMA supports the work of OIML and suggests this remain as a Developing item. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 95 

WWMA thanks NIST for their work in the International arena and looks forward to future updates. FYI, the next 

OIML meeting will be in Vietnam in 2013. The WWMA recommended that the item remain as a Developing item. 

NEWMA recognized the importance of this item and recommended that it remain as a Developing item. 

SWMA did not receive comments on this item and recommended further development. The SWMA continues to 

support these issues. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional information on this item. 

360-2 D Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability 

Source: 

NTEP Grain Analyzer Sector (2013) 

Purpose: 

Expand the scope of definition to cover instances where the “other device,” as noted in the current definition, may 

be necessary to the operation of the weighing or measuring device, or which may be considered a permanent part of 

that device. 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. Comments and inquiries may be directed to NIST Office of Weights and 

Measures. 

A proposal to modify the definition for “remote configuration capability” as follows is under consideration: 

remote configuration capability. – The ability to adjust a weighing or measuring device or change its sealable 

parameters from or through some other device that is not may or may not itself be necessary to the operation 

of the weighing or measuring device or is not may or may not be a permanent part of that device.[2.20, 2.21, 

2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 5.56(a)] 

(Added 1993) (Amended 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Removable digital storage devices can be used in GMMs as either data transfer devices that are not necessary to the 

operation of the GMM or as data storage devices which are necessary to the operation of the GMM. If removable 

data storage devices are necessary to the operation of the device, they are not covered by the current definition of 

remote configuration capability. 

A USB flash drive is most likely to be used as a data transfer device. In a typical data transfer application, the USB 

flash drive is first connected to a computer with access to the GMM manufacturer’s web site to download the latest 

grain calibrations that are then stored in the USB flash drive. The USB flash drive is removed from the computer 

and plugged into a USB port on the GMM. The GMM is put into remote configuration mode to copy the new grain 

calibration data into the GMM’s internal memory. When the GMM has been returned to normal operating 

(measuring) mode, the USB flash drive can be removed from the GMM. 

Although a Secure Digital (SD) memory card could also be used as a data transfer device, it is more likely to be used 

as a data storage device. In a typical “data storage device” application, the SD memory card stores the grain 

calibrations used on the GMM. The SD memory card must be plugged into an SD memory card connector on a 

GMM circuit card for the GMM to operate in its measuring mode. To install new grain calibrations, the GMM must 

be turned “off” or put into a mode in which the SD memory card can be safely removed. Either the SD memory 

card can be replaced with an SD memory card that has been programmed with the new grain calibrations or the 

original SD memory card can be re-programmed with the new grain calibrations in much the same way as that 

described in the preceding paragraph to copy new grain calibrations into a USB flash drive. In either case, the SD 

memory card containing the new calibrations must be installed in the GMM for the GMM to operate in measuring 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 96 

mode. In that regard, the SD memory card (although removable) can be considered a permanent part of the GMM in 

that the GMM cannot operate without it. 

Note: In the above example, SD memory card could be any removable flash memory card such as the Secure 

Digital Standard-Capacity, the Secure Digital High-Capacity, the Secure Digital Extended-Capacity, and the Secure 

Digital Input/Output, which combines input/output functions with data storage. These come in three form factors: 

the original size, the mini size, and the micro size. A “Memory Stick” is a removable flash memory card format 

launched by Sony in 1998, and is also used in general to describe the whole family of Memory Sticks. In addition to 

the original Memory Stick, this family includes the Memory Stick PRO, the Memory Stick Duo, the Memory Stick 

PRO Duo, the Memory Stick Micro, and the Memory Stick PRO-HG. 

Grain Analyzer Sector 2011Meeting: The Sector agreed by consensus that the following changes to Table S.2.5. of 

Section 5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44 should be forwarded to the S&T Committee for consideration: 

 Add a note to Table S.2.5. to recognize the expanded scope of remote capability. 

 Delete “remotely” from the second paragraph of Category 3 requirements that begins, “When accessed 

remotely ...” to make it clear that the requirements of Category 3 apply whether accessed manually 

using the keyboard or accessed by remote means. 

 Add the modified second paragraph of Category 3 requirements to Categories 3a and 3b to make it 

clear that these requirements apply to all the subcategories of Category 3. 

Because a change to the definition of remote configuration capability will apply to other device types, NIST, OWM 

recommended that the changes to Table S.2.5. approved by the Sector in 2011 be separated into two independent 

proposals. One proposal would deal with the changes to Category 3 and its subcategories. The second would 

recommend a modification of the definition of “remote configuration capability” appearing in Appendix D of NIST 

Handbook 44 to recognize the expanded scope of remote capability; this proposal would be an alternative to adding 

a note to the bottom of Table S.2.5. to expand the definition for remote configuration for grain moisture meters (as 

shown in this proposal). 

At its 2012 Meeting, the Grain Analyzer Sector agreed to separate its original proposal into two separate proposals 

and agreed to forward this proposal to change the definition of “remote configuration capability” to the S&T to 

Committee for consideration. See also August 2012 NTEP Grain Analyzer Sector Summary, Item 5. 

In 2013, NIST, OWM reported that it recognized the current definition for “remote configuration capability” may 

not address those grain moisture meters (GMMs) which can only be operated with a removable data storage device, 

containing, among other things, the grain calibrations intended for use with the GMM, inserted in the device (as was 

described by the Grain Analyzer Sector). As such, NIST, OWM noted that current sealing requirements were 

developed at a time when such technology likely didn’t exist, nor could be envisioned, and are based on the current 

definition of remote configuration capability. Because the current definition was never intended to apply to this 

“next generation” technology, NIST, OWM suggested that those charged with further development of this item may 

wish to revisit the five philosophies of sealing and consider whether a new paragraph, completely separate from 

current sealing requirements, might be appropriate and a better option, than the one currently proposed. The five 

philosophies of sealing are included in the 1992 Report of the 77th National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee). Another option, preferred over the changes currently 

proposed, would be to add a separate statement to the current definition of “remote configuration capability” to 

address removable storage devices. For example, the following sentence might be considered as an addition to the 

current definition for “remote configuration capability:” 

Devices which are programmed using removable media (such as SD cards, flash drives, etc.) that may or 

may not be required to remain with the device during normal operation are also considered to be 

remotely configured devices. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 97 

NIST, OWM also reported that it planned to develop draft language and ask for input from the various Sectors at 

their upcoming meetings. 

Additional information and background on this item can be found in the Committee’s 2013 final report. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: The SMA indicated that the language in the “Item Under Consideration” is 

acceptable. 

The Committee received comments from the Measuring Sector indicating opposition to the proposed language and 

suggesting that the current definition is adequate. The Committee also heard comments from NIST, OWM 

expressing concern that the proposed language does not clearly define when a device is considered “remotely 

configurable.” NIST, OWM noted that it is continuing to develop this issue and has approached the various NTEP 

Sectors for additional input regarding the capabilities of new technology with regard to metrologically significant 

adjustments. During their 2013 meeting, the Weighing Sector asked its members to assist NIST, OWM in 

identifying the various types of removable storage media used in weighing equipment. 

The Committee acknowledged comments from NIST, OWM expressing concern that the issue be carefully 

considered to avoid unintentional consequences. The Committee agreed to maintain the Developing status of item 

in consideration of the ongoing work of NIST, OWM to further develop this item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: NIST, OWM commented that it does not believe the proposed changes to the 

definition of “remote configuration capability” are appropriate, but doesn’t have an alternative to offer at this time. 

NIST, OWM plans to continue work on this item after the 2014 NCWM Annual meeting. The Committee again 

agreed to maintain the Developing status of item in consideration of the ongoing work of NIST, OWM to further 

develop this item. 

The SMA supported the intent of the item and looked forward to further clarification of the requirements. 

CWMA agreed in 2013 that remote configuration capability may need to be addressed in the General Code and 

supported this as a Developing Item at both the 2013 CWMA Interim Meeting and 2014 CWMA Annual Meeting. 

WWMA believes this item needs further development and should consider the effects on other device types. 

WWMA encourages NIST, OWM to develop draft language and ask for input from various Sectors at their 

upcoming meetings. The WWMA recommended that the item remain as a Developing Item. 

NEWMA members were encouraged by NIST at the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting to consider this work as it 

applies to all device types. NEWMA supported this item as a Developing Item in 2013 and 2014. 

SWMA did not receive comments on this item and recommended further development. 

See previous Reports of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for additional information on this item. 

360-3 D Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering 

Source: 

California Department of Food and Agriculture Division of Measurement Standards (2014)

Purpose: 

Keep the weights and measures community apprised of work to develop standards for Electric Vehicle Fueling and 

Submetering (EVF&S) and to encourage their participation in this work. 

Item Under Consideration: 

The U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering is developing proposed 

specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Systems 

for inclusion in NIST Handbook 44. The code currently under development by the USNWG is included in 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 98 

Appendix H; however, this draft is NOT yet ready for consideration by the NCWM. The USNWG plans to 

complete revisions to this document and submit a final draft version to the regional weights and measures 

associations by fall 2014. 

Background/Discussion: 

In 2013, the NCWM adopted a uniform method of sale for retail electrical energy sold as a vehicle fuel. Adding 

specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for equipment that measures electricity as a motor fuel 

are necessary to provide consumer confidence that measurement of electricity is accurate and that there is sufficient 

information for the selection of charging equipment, (Levels I, II, and III), and price to pay. 

The USNWG EVF&S discussed a number of challenges to field inspection and testing of EVSE systems. Utility 

companies and at least one U.S. Weights and Measures jurisdiction have established test procedures and test 

equipment specifications for utility-type and submetering electrical energy metering applications. 

The USNWG EVF&S was formed to develop proposed requirements for commercial electricity-measuring devices 

(including those used to measure and sell electricity commercially delivered as vehicle fuel and those used in 

submetering electricity at residential and business locations) and to ensure that the prescribed methodologies and 

standards facilitate measurements that are traceable to the International System of Units (SI). 

The “West Coast Electric Highway” is a project with an extensive network of electric vehicle DC fast charging 

stations located every 25 miles to 50 miles along Interstate 5 and other major roadways in the Pacific Northwest. In 

California alone, there are currently 1387 electric charging stations and over one million plug-in electric vehicles 

(PEV) are projected to be on California roads by 2020. The development of standards for PEV charging equipment 

is needed to provide consumers with fueling experiences and expectations similar to those at traditional gasoline 

dispensers. 

Additionally, these standards, once they are developed and adopted, will be used to provide training and education 

to weights and measures officials about testing and regulating these devices, and support uniform standards and 

enforcement of these standards throughout the United States. 

See Appendix H for a Tentative Code being considered by the USNWG EVF&S. 

NCWM 2014 Interim Meeting: Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM), Technical Advisor to the USNWG EVF&S 

reported that the USWNG met two weeks prior to the Interim Meeting and is continuing work on a draft code for 

eventual inclusion in NIST Handbook 44. Ms. Williams emphasized that because the USNWG has additional work 

to complete on various portions of the draft code, the draft is not ready for consideration by the NCWM. The draft 

included in NCWM Publication 15 has been revised and will be made available on the NIST, OWM web site. The 

USNWG will hold several meetings over the next six months and plans to submit a final draft in fall 2014. 

Ms. Tina Butcher (NIST, OWM), Chairman of the USNWG, asked that state and local jurisdictions provide contact 

information of appropriate personnel from their corresponding public utility to assist the WG in identifying specific 

requirements that apply to EVSE in their jurisdictions. 

The Committee acknowledged the need for EVSE Industry to participate in the NCWM process. This need was also 

expressed through comments heard during the Open Hearings. The Committee heard additional comments from a 

member of the WG who noted that a limited number of weights and measures officials are members of the WG and 

encouraged more to participate. 

The Committee agreed forward to further work by the USNWG and agreed to designate this as a Developing item. 

NCWM 2014 Annual Meeting: Ms. Butcher provided a short presentation updating the NCWM membership on the 

progress of the USNWG in developing a draft code. Mrs. Butcher’s presentation provided an overview of: 

 the types of commercial electric vehicle fueling equipment; 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

S&T - 99 

 key objectives of the USNWG; 

 the method of sale requirements that were adopted in 2013; 

 the development of device requirements; and 

 the test equipment that will be needed and the test procedures that will likely need to be applied to 

verify device performance. 

Ms. Butcher advised that the USNWG is developing separate draft codes for proposed inclusion in NIST 

Handbook 44: one code to address electric vehicle refueling and one code to address other submetering applications 

subject to regulation by weights and measures jurisdictions. The USNWG plans to have the draft code for electric 

vehicle refueling systems ready for submission to the fall 2014 regional weights and measures associations with a 

request that the regional associations consider recommending it for a vote in the 2015 cycle. The USNWG hopes 

that the Committee will consider designating this item as a Voting item in January 2015 and recommend the draft 

code for adoption in July 2015. As also noted during Ms. Butcher’s presentation, the USNWG will continue its 

work to finalize recommended requirements and test procedures for this equipment. 

The Committee also heard a number of comments from regulatory officials in appreciation of the work NIST, OWM 

and others had done thus far in developing the draft code while also acknowledging the need to have such a standard 

in place to be able to inspect and test such equipment. 

The Committee agreed to maintain the “Developing” status of this item and looks forward to the completion of a 

draft code by the USNWG. 

Regional Association Comments: 

Interim 2013 Meeting and 2014 Annual Meeting: The CWMA agreed to forward the item to NCWM 

recommending it as a Developing item. 

Annual 2014 Meeting: NEWMA recommended maintaining the Developing status of this item and reported that it 

supports the ongoing work of the WG. 

The WWMA recognized that the draft tentative Code is still under development by the USNWG. The WWMA 

recommends all jurisdictions review the draft tentative Code and provide comments to the WG. The WWMA 

recommended that the item remain as a Developing Item. 

SWMA did not receive any comments. The SWMA recommends the item remain as a Developing Item. The 

SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM. 

Mr. Brett Gurney, Utah | Committee Chair 

Mr. Mahesh Albuquerque, Colorado | Member 

Ms. Jane Zulkiewicz, Town of Barnstable, MA | Member 

Dr. Matthew Curran, Florida | Member 

Mr. Ivan Hankins, Iowa | Member 

Mr. Luciano Burtini, Measurement Canada | Canadian Technical Advisor 

Ms. Tina Butcher, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor 

Mr. Rick Harshman, NIST, OWM | NIST Technical Advisor 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A1 

Appendix A 

NIST Handbook 44 – Scales 

Item: 320-2: 

UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A2 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A3 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A4 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A5 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A6 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A7 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A8 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A9 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A10 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – Item 320-3: Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-in-Motion Systems 

S&T –B1 

Appendix B 

NIST Handbook 44 – Scales 

Item 320-3: 

Revision 2 Draft Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-In-Motion Systems Used for 

Vehicle Enforcement Screening 

Weigh-In-Motion Systems used for Vehicle Enforcement 

Screening – Draft Code 

A. Application 

A.1. General. – This code applies to systems used to weigh vehicles, while in motion, for the purpose of screening 

and sorting the vehicles based on the vehicle weight to determine if a static weighment is necessary. 

A.2. The code does not apply to weighing systems intended for the collection of statistical traffic data. 

A.3. The code is intended for field enforcement use only. 

A.4. Additional Code Requirements. – In addition to the requirements of this code, Weigh-In-Motion Screening 

Systems shall meet the requirements of Section 1.10. General Code. 

S. Specifications 

S.1. Design of Indicating and Recording Elements and of Recorded Representations. 

S.1.1. Ready Indication. – The system shall provide a means of verifying that the system is operational and 

ready for use. 

S.1.2. Value of System Division Units. – The value of a system 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. 

Examples: divisions may be 10, 20, 50, 100; or 0.01, 0.02, 0.05; or 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, etc. 

S.1.2.1. Units of Measure. – The system shall indicate weight values using only a single unit of 

measure. 

S.1.3. Value of Other Units of Measure. 

S.1.3.1. Speed. – Vehicle speeds shall be measured in miles per hour or kilometers per hour.
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – Item 320-3: Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-in-Motion Systems 

S&T - B2 

S.1.3.2. Axle-Spacing (Length). – The center-to-center distance between any two successive axles shall 

be measured in feet and/or inches, or meters. 

S.1.3.3. Vehicle Length. – If the system is capable of measuring the overall length of the vehicle, the 

length of the vehicle shall be measured in feet and/or inches, or meters.

S.1.4. Capacity Indication. – An indicating or recording element shall not display nor record any values 

greater than 105 % of the specified capacity of the load receiving element. 

S.1.5. Identification of a Fault. – Fault conditions shall be presented to the operator in a clear and 

unambiguous means. The following fault conditions shall be identified: 

(a) Vehicle speed is below the minimum or above the maximum speed as specified. 

(b) The maximum number of vehicle axles as specified has been exceeded. 

(c) A change in vehicle speed greater than that specified has been detected. 

S.1.6. Recorded Representations. 

S.1.6.1. Values to be Recorded. – At a minimum, the following values shall be printed and/or stored 

electronically for each vehicle weighment: 

(a) transaction identification number; 

(b) lane identification (required if more than one lane at the site has the ability to weigh a vehicle inmotion); 

(c) vehicle speed; 

(d) number of axles; 

(e) weight of each axle; 

(f) identification and weight of axles groups; 

(g) axle spacing; 

(h) total vehicle weight; 

(i) all fault conditions that occurred during the weighing of the vehicle; 

(j) violations, as identified in paragraph S.2.1., that occurred during the weighing of the vehicle; and 

(k) time and date. 

S.1.7. Value of the Indicated and Recorded System Division. – The value of the system’s division size as 

recorded shall be the same as the division value indicated. 

S.2. System Design Requirements. 

S.2.1. Violation Parameters. – The instrument shall be capable of accepting user entered violation 

parameters for the following items: 

(a) single axle weight limit 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – Item 320-3: Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-in-Motion Systems 

S&T –B3 

(b) axle group weight limit 

(c) gross vehicle weight 

(d) bridge formula load 

The instrument shall display and or record violation conditions when these parameters have been exceeded. 

S.3. Design of Weighing Elements. 

S.3.1. Multiple Load-Receiving Elements. – An instrument with a single indicating or recording element, or 

a combination indicating-recording element, that is coupled to two or more load-receiving elements with 

independent weighing systems, shall be provided with means to prohibit the activation of any load-receiving 

element (or elements) not in use, and shall be provided with automatic means to indicate clearly and definitely 

which load-receiving element (or elements) is in use. 

S.4. Design of Weighing Devices, Accuracy Class. 

S.4.1. Designation of Accuracy. – WIM Systems meeting the requirements of this code shall be designated 

as accuracy Class A. 

Note: This does not preclude higher accuracy classes from being proposed and added to this Code in the future when it 

can be demonstrated that WIM systems grouped within those accuracy classes can achieve the higher level of accuracy 

specified for those devices. 

S.5. Marking Requirements. – In addition to the marking requirements in G-S.1. Identification (except 

G.S.1.(e)), G-S.4. Interchange or Reversal of Parts, G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features, 

G-S.7. Lettering, and G-UR.2.1.1. Visibility of Identification. The system shall be marked with the following 

information: 

(a) Accuracy Class; 

(b) Value of the System Division “d;” 

(c) Operational Temperature Limits; 

(d) Number of Lanes; 

(e) Minimum and Maximum Vehicle Speed; 

(f) Maximum Number of Axles per Vehicle; 

(g) Maximum Change in Vehicle Speed during Weighment; and 

(h) Minimum and Maximum Load. 

S.5.1. Location of Marking Information. – The marking information required in G-S.1. Identification of the 

General Code and S.5. Marking Requirements shall be visible after installation. The information shall be 

marked on the system or recalled from an information screen. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – Item 320-3: Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-in-Motion Systems 

S&T - B4 

N. Notes 

N.1. Test Procedures. 

N.1.1. Selection of Test Vehicles. – All dynamic testing associated with the procedures described in each of 

the subparagraphs of N.1.5. Test Procedures shall be performed with a minimum of two test vehicles. 

(a) The first test vehicle may be a two axle, six tire, single unit truck; a vehicle with two axles with the 

rear axle having dual wheels. The vehicle shall have a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight of 10 000 lb. 

(b) The second test vehicle shall be a five axle, single trailer truck with a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight 

of 80 000 lb. 

Note: Consideration should be made for testing the systems using vehicles which are typical to the systems daily 

operation. 

N.1.1.1. Weighing of Test Vehicles. – All test vehicles shall be weighed on a reference scale before 

being used to conduct the dynamic tests. 

N.1.1.2. Determining Reference Weights for Axle, Axle Groups and Gross Vehicle Weight – The 

reference weights shall be the average weight value of a minimum of three static weighments of all single 

axle, axle groups and gross vehicle weight. 

Note: The weight of individual axles within an axle group is not considered as a single axle. Only the weight of the 

axle group is used when conducting the test described in N.1.5. Test Procedures. 

N.1.2. Test Loads. 

N.1.2.1. Static Test Loads. – All static test loads shall use certified test weights. 

N.1.2.2. Dynamic Test Loads. – Test vehicles used for dynamic testing shall be loaded to 85 % to 95 % 

of their maximum Gross Vehicle Weight. The “load” shall be non-shifting and shall be positioned to 

present as close as possible, an equal side-to-side load. 

N.1.3. Reference Scale. – Each reference vehicle shall be weighed statically on a three platform vehicle. The 

scale shall have been certified to NIST Handbook 44, Class III L maintenance tolerances within the last 

30 days. 

N.1.3.1. Location of a Reference Scale. – The location of the Reference Scale must be considered as 

vehicle weights will change due to fuel consumption. 

N.1.4. Test Speeds. – All dynamic tests shall be conducted within 20 % below or at the posted speed limit. 

N.1.5. Test Procedures. 

N.1.5.1. Dynamic Load Test. – The dynamic test shall be conducted using the test vehicles defined in 

N.1.1. The test shall consist of a minimum of 20 runs for each test vehicle at the speed as stated in N.1.4. 

Test Speeds. 

At the conclusion of the dynamic test, there will be a minimum of 20 weight readings for each single axle, 

axle group, and gross vehicle weight. The tolerance for each weight reading shall be based on the 

percentage values specified in Table T.3.1. Tolerances as a Percentage of Applied Test Load. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – Item 320-3: Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-in-Motion Systems 

S&T –B5 

N.1.5.2. Axle Spacing Test. – The axle spacing test is a review of the displayed and/or recorded axle 

spacing distance of the test vehicles. The tolerance value for each distance shall be based on the tolerance 

value specified in T.3.2. 

N.1.5.3. Vehicle Position Test. – During the conduct of the dynamic testing the vehicle shall adjust its 

position along the width of the sensor from one run to the next but ensuring that the vehicle stays within the 

defined roadway. The test shall be conducted with 10 runs in the center, five runs on the right side, and 

five runs on the left side. All weighments shall be within tolerance. 

T. Tolerances 

T.1. Principles. 

T.1.1. Design. – The tolerance for a weigh-in-motion system is a performance requirement independent of 

the design principle used. 

T.2. Tolerance Application. 

T.2.1. General. – The tolerance values are positive (+) and negative (−). No more than 5 % of each single 

axle, axle group or gross vehicle weight reading shall be outside the applicable tolerances. 

T.3. Tolerance Values for Accuracy Class A. 

T.3.1. Tolerance Values for Dynamic Testing. – The tolerance values applicable during dynamic load 

testing are as specified in Table T.3.1. Tolerances as a Percentage of Applied Test Load. 

Table T.3.1. 

Tolerances for Accuracy Class A 

Load Description Tolerance as a Percentage of Applied Test Load

Axle Load 20 % 

Axle Group Load 15 % 

Gross Vehicle Weight 10 % 

T.3.2. Axle Spacing Tolerance. – The tolerance value applied to the axle spacing measurement shall be 

± 0.5 ft (0.15 m). 

T.4. Influence Factors. – The following factor are applicable to tests conducted under controlled conditions only. 

T.4.1. Temperature. – Systems shall satisfy the tolerance requirements under all operating temperature 

unless a limited operating temperature range is specified by the manufacturer. 

T.5. Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) and Other Electromagnetic Interference Susceptibility. – The 

difference between the weight indication due to the disturbance and the weight indication without the disturbance 

shall not exceed the tolerance value as stated in Table T.3.1. Tolerances for Accuracy Class A. 

UR. User Requirements 

UR.1. 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 and minimum capacity. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – Item 320-3: Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-in-Motion Systems 

S&T - B6 

UR.1.1. General. 

The typical class or type of device for particular weighing applications is shown in Table 1. Typical Class or 

Type of Device for Weighing Applications. 

Table 1. 

Typical Class or Type of Device for Weighing Applications

Class Weighing Application 

A Screening and sorting of vehicles based on axle, axle group and gross vehicle weight. 

Note: A WIM system with a higher accuracy class than that specified as “typical” may be used. 

UR.2. User Location Conditions and Maintenance. – The system shall be installed and maintained as defined in 

the manufacturer’s recommendation. 

UR.2.1. System Modification. – The dimensions (e.g., length, width, thickness, etc.) of the load receiving 

element of a system shall not be changed beyond the manufacturer’s specifications, nor shall the capacity of a 

scale 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 a 

competent engineering authority, preferably that of the engineering department of the manufacturer of the 

system, and by the weights and measures authority having jurisdiction over the system. 

UR.2.2. Foundation, Supports, and Clearance. – The foundation and supports shall be such as to provide 

strength, rigidity, and permanence of all components. 

On load-receiving elements which use moving parts for determining the load value, 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 system. 

UR.2.3. Access to Weighing Elements. – If necessary, adequate provision shall be made for inspection and 

maintenance of the weighing elements. 

UR.3. Maximum Load. – A system shall not be used to weigh a load of more than the marked maximum load of 

the system. 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – Item 320-3: Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-in-Motion Systems 

S&T –B7 

The following are proposed definitions to be added to NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D to 

support the Weigh-In-Motion Systems used for Vehicle Enforcement Screening – Draft 

Code. 

weigh-in-motion (WIM). – A process of estimating a moving vehicle’s gross weight and the portion of that weight 

that is carried by each wheel, axle, or axle group, or combination thereof, by measurement and analysis of dynamic 

vehicle tire forces. 

axle. – The axis oriented transversely to the nominal direction of vehicle motion, and extending the full width of the 

vehicle, about which the wheel(s) at both ends rotate. 

axle-group load. – The sum of all tire loads of the wheels on a group of adjacent axles; a portion of the grossvehicle weight. 

axle load. – The sum of all tire loads of the wheels on an axle; a portion of the gross-vehicle weight. 

axle spacing. – The distance between the centers of any two axles. When specifying axle spacing, you also need to 

identify the axles used.

single-axle load. – The load transmitted to the road surface by the tires lying on the same longitudinal axis (that axis 

transverse to the movement of the vehicle and about which the wheels rotate). 

tandem-axle load. – The load transmitted to the road surface by the tires of two single-axles lying on the same 

longitudinal axis (that axis transverse to the movement of the vehicle and about which the wheels rotate). 

triple-axle load. – The load transmitted to the road surface by the tires of three single-axles lying on the same 

longitudinal axis (that axis transverse to the movement of the vehicle and about which the wheels rotate). 

Weigh-in-Motion Screening Scale. – A WIM system used to identify potentially overweight vehicles. 

Wheel weight. – The weight value of any single or set of wheels on one side of a vehicle on a single axle. 

WIM System. – A set of sensors and supporting instruments that measure the presence of a moving vehicle and the 

related dynamic tire forces at specified locations with respect to time; estimate tire loads; calculate speed, axle 

spacing, vehicle class according to axle arrangement, and other parameters concerning the vehicle; and process, 

display, store, and transmit this information. This standard applies only to highway vehicles. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – Item 320-3: Tentative Code Applicable to Weigh-in-Motion Systems 

S&T - B8 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 330-4: N.4.2.5. Determination of Error on Wholesale Devices

S&T - C1

Appendix C 

NIST Handbook 44 – Liquid-Measuring Devices

Item 330-4: 

N.4.2.5. Determination of Error on Wholesale Devices with Multiple Flow Rates and 

Calibration Factors

How Slow Flow Accuracy Affects LMD’s

Because the legal tolerance on slow flow tests is so great (+/-0.5%) compared to industry standards (typically +/- 

0.05%), and because slow flow tests themselves are so time consuming, registered service agents may be tempted 

to skip slow flow tests entirely during seasonal re-calibrations. Even if one ignores the fact that the Liquid 

Measuring Device Code in NIST Handbook 44 requires that a special test be done at the slow flow rate, there 

remains a very good reason that slow flow rates should always be tested. If the error at the slow flow rate is 

unknown, then it is impossible to calibrate the high flow rates to deliver with the extreme accuracy sought by 

industry on quantities which are greater or less than the test prover used at the time of calibration.

Imagine a typical whole sale meter which is calibrated using a 1,000 gallon prover at a terminal where the 

customers’ trucks have pocket sizes between 1,000 and 4,000 gallons. The meter has an electronic register 

programmed with a slow flow rate for start-up and shut-down, a high-flow rate for typical deliveries, and a midspeed fallback rate for when the pumps can’t keep up with demand. Startup and shutdown deliveries are 100 

gallons each regardless of total quantity delivered. 

Now imagine that the service agent calibrating the meter didn’t check the slow flow rate and didn’t know that the 

meter was short five gallons on a one thousand gallon test. Instead, he calibrated the fallback and normal flow 

rates without testing the slow flow and introduced a linear error which increases the farther the transaction 

quantity deviates from the prover size. On a 1,000 gallon delivery the meter would appear to be accurate, but on a 

3,400 gallon delivery a three gallon error has been introduced. That is a 0.09% error which is almost twice the 

typical industry goal. 

When calibrating at the normal and fallback speeds, 

the meter registers 200 gallons of product for the 

startup and shutdown, but actually delivers only 

199 gallons. (99.5 gallons delivered for every 

100 gallons registered at slow speed.) If the service 

technician calibrates the meter to zero at normal and 

fallback rates, the meter will actually deliver 

801 gallons for every 800 gallons it registers at those 

rates.

Every subsequent delivery of 1000 gallons should 

receive exactly the right amount. Every delivery 

exceeding 1000 gallons will be ‘long’ and every 

delivery less than 1000 gallons will be short. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report

Appendix C – Item 330-4: N.4.2.5. Determination of Error on Wholesale Devices

S&T - C2

To determine the error on a typical delivery, the 

service agent needs to calculate the error 

introduced by the startup and shutdown gallons, 

and then the error introduced at the higher flow 

rates.

For a 3,400 gallon delivery in this example, the 

meter would register 100 gallons on startup but 

only deliver 99.5 gallons. It would then jump to 

normal rate and deliver 801 gallons for every 800 

gallons it registers until it goes 

into shutdown mode when it slows down and 

again delivers only 99.5 gallons of the 100 gallons 

it registers. Delivery error is +3 gallons (0.09%).

The math would be reversed if the meter had been 

five gallons long on a 1,000 gallon slow flow test at 

the startup and shutdown speed. The meter would 

deliver 100.5 gallons for every 100 gallons it 

registered at startup and shutdown, but only 799 

gallons for every 800 gallons registered at the normal 

delivery rate. The total delivery is 3 gallons (0.09%) 

short. Under-registration, which is favorable to 

consumers in most situations, can be detrimental to 

them when it occurs at the slow flow speed.

Does it matter considering that the error introduced is so much smaller than the tolerance allowed in the liquid 

measuring code? It does to industry, or they wouldn’t set such tight accuracy standards for themselves. And it 

does to Weights & Measures officials who must consider the predominant direction of error in addition to 

tolerance. Everyone’s time is wasted chasing extreme accuracy at the normal delivery rate if the accuracy of the 

startup and shutdown rate has been ignored. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 331-1: N.4.2.1. Determination of Error on Vehicle-Tank Meters

S&T - D1 

Appendix D 

NIST Handbook 44 – Vehicle-Tank Meters

Item 331-1: 

N.4.2.1. Determination of Error on Vehicle-Tank Meters with Multiple Flow 

Rates and Calibration Factors

How Slow Flow Errors Affect VTM’s

Imagine a typical VTM which is calibrated using a 100 gallon prover for a bulk delivery company whose 

customers’ tanks are typically between 100 and 1,000 gallons. The meter has an electronic register 

programmed with a slow flow rate for start-up and shut-down, and a high-flow rate for typical 

deliveries. Startup and shutdown deliveries are 10 gallons each regardless of total quantity delivered. 

Now imagine that the service agent calibrating the meter didn’t check the slow flow rate and didn’t 

know that the meter was long 0.4 gallons on a 100 gallon test. Instead, he calibrated the normal flow 

rate without testing the slow flow and introduced a linear error which increases the farther the 

transaction quantity deviates from the prover size. On a 100 gallon delivery the meter would appear to 

be accurate, but on a 500 gallon delivery a -0.4 gallon error has been introduced. That is within 

tolerance, but if all of his meters have similar errors in the same direction, typical deliveries will be in the 

operator’s favor at the expense of his customers.

When calibrating at the normal speed, the 

meter registers 20 gallons of product for the 

startup and shutdown, but actually delivers 

20.08 gallons. (10.04 gallons delivered for every 

10.00 gallons registered at slow speed.) If the 

service technician calibrates the meter to zero 

at normal speed, the meter will actually deliver 

79.92 gallons for every 80.00 gallons it registers 

at that flow rate.

Every subsequent delivery of 100 gallons should 

receive exactly the right amount. Every delivery 

exceeding 100 gallons will be ‘short’ and every 

delivery less than 100 gallons will be ‘long.’
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report

Appendix D – Item 331-1: N.4.2.1. Determination of Error on Vehicle-Tank Meters

S&T – D2

To determine the error on a typical delivery, the 

service agent needs to calculate the error 

introduced by the startup and shutdown 

gallons, and then the error introduced at the 

higher flow rates. 

For a 500 gallon delivery in this example, the 

meter would register 10 gallons on startup but 

actually deliver 10.04 gallons. It would then 

jump to normal rate and deliver 79.92 gallons 

for every 80 gallons it registers until it goes into 

shutdown mode when it slows down and again 

delivers 10.04 gallons as it registers only an 

additional 10 gallons.

The error would be well within maintenance tolerance so the Weights and Measures official need only 

be concerned if the slow flow errors on all the meters for a particular product are in the same direction. 

At that point, the official should determine the direction of the error on a typical deliver to determine if 

the equipment is being properly maintained. Device users can ensure they have no problems with this 

requirement by making sure that slow flow errors are not predominantly in one direction.
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E1 

Appendix E 

NIST Handbook 44 – Mass Flow Meters 

Item 337-2: 

Submitters Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 Definition of “Diesel Gallon 

Equivalent (DGE)” of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as a 

Vehicular Fuel Clean Vehicle Education Foundation 

Development of the “Gasoline Gallon Equivalent” by NCWM*

In 1993, under the auspices of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM), a Compressed 

Natural Gas (CNG) Working Group came together to determine the way in which CNG would be sold to the 

public at retail as a motor fuel. 

The working group focused on three issues: 

1. How to provide the Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) industry a method of sale that would be familiar and 

acceptable to consumers 

2. How to provide weights and measures officials a verifiable and quantifiable 

means to determine the accuracy of natural gas dispensers; and 

3. How to meet these requirements with a uniform, national standard. 

NCWM considered three proposals for the method of sale of CNG: 

1. Joules, the unit of energy measurement in SI units 

2. Mass 

3. The Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) 

The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (now NGVAmerica) recommended that the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent be 

adopted as the method of sale for CNG, and that it be based on the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. 

The use of the GGE was recommended primarily for the convenience of the retail customer comparing the cost 

and fuel economy of a natural gas vehicle to a comparable gasoline vehicle. During the discussion, a proposal 

was made to eliminate the reference to energy content of CNG and replace it with a fixed conversion factor based 

on mass, with the fixed mass of CNG being equal to a gallon of gasoline. Measurement of mass in the retail 

dispenser and verification by WEIGHTS AND MEASURES officials is easier and less costly than measurement 

of energy content. 

Since the energy content of a unit measure of CNG (standard cubic foot - scf) and gasoline (gallon) vary widely 

depending on the sample of fuel measured, the reference gallon of gasoline was determined to be Indolene, the 

gasoline used by EPA to certify emissions and fuel economy, with an energy content (lower heating value) of 

114,118 BTU/gal. Work conducted by the Institute of Gas Technology and the Gas Research Institute (now 

combined into the Gas Technology Institute) surveyed 6811 samples of natural gas nationwide and concluded 

that the “average” natural gas in the US had an 

* Report of the 78th National Conference on Weights and measures, 1993, NIST Special Publication 854, 

pp 322-326.

Report of the 79th National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1994, NIST Special Publication 870,

pp 213-217.

Program and Committee Reports for the National Conference on Weights and Measures, 79th Annual

Meeting, July 17-21, 1994, NCWM Publication 16, pp 89-92.

CVEF Page 1 11/25/13 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E2 

energy content (lower heating value) of 923.7 BTU/scf, and a density of 0.0458172 lbs/cubic foot. This 

translates 20,160.551 BTU/lb. Dividing gasoline’s 114.118 BTU/gal by natural gas’s 20,160.551 

BTU/lb gives 5.660 lbs of natural gas = 1 GGE. Similar calculations determined that a gasoline liter 

equivalent of natural gas equals 0.678 kg of natural gas. 

At its 79th Annual Meeting in July of 1994, NCWM adopted resolutions that: 

“All natural gas kept, offered or exposed for sale or sold at retail as a 

vehicle fuel shall be in terms of the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) or gasoline 

gallon equivalent (GGE), and 

All retail natural gas dispensers shall be labeled with the conversion factor in terms of 

kilograms or pounds. The label shall be permanently and conspicuously displayed on 

the face of the dispenser and shall have either the statement “1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent 

(GLE) is equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas” or “1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is 

equal to 5.660 lbs of Natural Gas” according to the method of sale used.” 

These statements can be found in NIST Handbook130

*

, along with the definition of “natural gas” which 

seems to apply only to Compressed Natural Gas, not to Liquefied Natural Gas. Handbook 130, §§3.11 

and 3.12. (Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulations) confirm that these 

requirements are for CNG, rather than LNG. Similar requirements and definitions are found in NIST 

Handbook 44. 

During the discussions it was recognized that, although diesel and gasoline are both sold in gallon units, a 

gallon of diesel fuel has substantially more energy content than a gallon of gasoline. While it is 

convenient to use the Gasoline Gallon Equivalent unit when comparing the cost and fuel economy of 

gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles to equivalent natural gas vehicles, a Diesel Gallon Equivalent unit 

would be more useful for operators of medium and heavy-duty (usually diesel powered) vehicles. 

However, in 1994, the NCWM working group “agreed to defer development of a “Diesel Gallon 

Equivalent” until the issues related to the ‘Gasoline Gallon Equivalent’ were decided by the NCWM and 

agreed to meet again if additional work is necessary.”** The issue of the formal definition a Diesel 

Gallon Equivalent (DGE) unit has not come before NCWM from that time until today, although the DGE 

is often used in the industry, defined as 6.31 lbs of compressed natural gas. 

Need for a Definition of a “Diesel Gallon Equivalent” Unit

Today there are an increasing number of commercial vehicles using natural gas as a fuel, to lower 

emissions and Greenhouse Gases, decrease America’s use of petroleum, and lower fuel costs (U.S. DOE 

Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report for April 2012 

* “Method of Sale Regulation,” §2.27 ** Report of the 79th National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1994, NIST Special 

Publication 870, p 214

CVEF Page 2 11/25/13 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E3 

shows in Table 2 ‘Overall Average Fuel Price on Energy-Equivalent Basis’ that diesel is priced at 

$4.12/gal and CNG at $2.32/gal 

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_apr_12.pdf ). 

Since the NCWM’s working group deferred development of a DGE unit in 1994, there has been little call 

by the natural gas vehicle industry for the formalization of that unit in the sale of Compressed Natural 

Gas. However the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as a motor fuel has been growing (more than 

350 LNG stations are being built on the nations interstate Highways) and there is significant interest in 

using the DGE as a unit for the sale of that fuel. 

LNG as a motor fuel is used almost exclusively by commercial vehicles, most of which view diesel as 

the conventional alternative. Using the same logic as was used for the development of the GGE unit, 

the convenience of the retail customer comparing the cost and fuel economy of a natural gas vehicle to 

a comparable conventional vehicle, it makes sense for NCWM to now “officially” define the DGE. 

Other than §3.12. Liquefied Natural Gas, in the Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation section of Handbook 130, we find no specific provisions in either Handbook 

44 or Handbook 130 for the retail sale of LNG as a motor fuel. However LNG is sold in 

California and other states on a mass basis (by the pound), which allows for easy confirmation by 

weights and measures authorities. An “official” definition of the DGE as a specific mass of LNG and 

CNG would allow states to easily move from retail sale by pound to retail sale by DGE, simplifying the 

sale process for the retail customer used to dealing with “gallons of diesel” as a fuel measure. 

Therefore, at this time we are asking for a definition of the Diesel Gallon Equivalent (and Diesel Liter 

Equivalent) units by NCWM. 

Justification of the Definition of a DGE as 6.38 Pounds of Compressed Natural Gas Handbook 130 

contains the following definitions of natural Gas as a vehicle fuel

*

: Gasoline liter equivalent 

(GLE). – Gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) means 

0.678 kg of natural gas. 

Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). – Gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) means 

2.567 kg (5.660 lb) of natural gas. 

As the NCWM working group recognized during its deliberations in 1993 on the Gasoline Gallon 

Equivalent unit, both gasoline and natural gas can vary in their BTU content from sample to sample. 

The working group determined the gasoline gallon (energy) equivalent based on a gallon of Indolene 

(114,118 BTU/gal – lower heating value) and a survey of 6811 natural gas samples nationwide with an 

average of 923.7 BTU/scf (lower heating value) and a density of 0.0458172 lbs/cubic foot. This equates 

* NIST handbook 130, 2006, Method of State Regulation, §§2.27.1.2 and 2.227.1.3; also Engine 

Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation, §§1.25 and 1.26.

CVEF Page 3 11/25/13 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E4 

to 20,160.551 BTU/lb. Dividing gasoline’s 114.118 BTU/gal by natural gas’s 20,160.551 

BTU/lb gives 5.660 lbs of natural gas = 1 GGE. Similar calculations determined that a gasoline liter 

equivalent of natural gas equals 0.678 kg of natural gas. 

Starting with 5.660 lbs of natural gas = 1 GGE and 0.678 kg of natural gas = 1 GLE, we can calculate 

the mass of natural gas necessary to make a DGE and a DLE by comparing the amount of energy in a 

gallon of diesel fuel to the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline fuel and apply that ratio to scale up 

the masses of natural gas calculated for the GGE and GLE units.

Unfortunately it is no easier today than it was in 1993 to set one energy value as representative of a unit 

for all gasoline, (or diesel) fuel. EPA’s certification fuel has likely changed in energy content since 

1993, as both gasoline and diesel fuels have been modified for improved emissions. 

We recommend using the most recent Department of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book

*

, as an 

authoritative reference for both gasoline and diesel fuel energy values. Taking further surveys or 

basing our calculations on today’s EPA certification fuel only delays our action, substantially increases 

costs, and, in the end, provides a limited potential increase in accuracy based on one point in time. 

Table B.4 of the Transportation Energy Data Book, on the heat content of fuels lists the net energy of 

diesel as 128,700 BTU/Gal. The 31st Edition may be downloaded at the following site. 

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/download31.shtml

Therefore a Diesel Gallon Equivalent of compressed natural gas is: (128,700 BTU/Gal / 20,160.551 

BTU/lb) = 6.38 lb/DGE (2.894 kg/DGE) and a Diesel Liter Equivalent of compressed natural gas is: 

2.894 kg/DGE X 0.2642 Gal/Liter = 0.765 kg/DLE 

Justification of the Definition of a DGE as 6.06 Pounds of Liquefied Natural Gas

Cooling pipeline natural gas to -259 0F makes liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The pipeline natural gas has 

the same national average composition as was determined for CNG

with a LHV of 20,160.551 BTU/lb. In order to reduce the natural gas temperature for liquefaction 

carbon dioxide must be removed since it would solidify in the system and 

nitrogen, which remains a gas at LNG temperatures, is reduced to less that 0.5% by volume in the 

final product. These changes to the composition of the pipeline gas increase the LHV of LNG to 

21,240 BTU/lb. 

* Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy 

Data Book, Edition 31, 2012, ORNL-6987, or http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml

CVEF Page 4 11/25/13 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E5 

Therefore a Diesel Gallon Equivalent of LNG is: 

128,700 BTU/lb / 21,240 BTU/lb = 6.06 lb/DGE (2.749 kg/DGE) 

and a Diesel Liter Equivalent of LNG is: 

2.749 kg/DGE X 0.2642 Gal/Liter = 0.7263 kg/DLE 

The attached presentation file provides an overview of the CNG and LNG processes from pipeline to 

dispensing along with the calculation of the LNG LHV based on the change in LNG chemical 

composition through the liquefaction process. 

Prepared by: 

Clean Vehicle Education Foundation 

http://www.cleanvehicle.org

CVEF Page 5 11/25/13 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E6 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E7 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E8 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E9 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – Items 337-2, 337-2, 337-3, 337-4, and 337-5: Background and Justification for NIST Handbook 44 

Definitions of Diesel Gallon Equivalent 

S&T - E10 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F1 

Appendix F 

NIST Handbook 44 – Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices 

Item 358-1: 

Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

Load Volume Scanner Metrology, Test methods & Suitability for Use 

by Loadscan Ltd. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F3 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F4 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F5 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F6 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F7 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F8 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F9 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F10 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F11 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F12 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F13 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F14 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F15 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F16 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F17 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F18 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F19 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F20 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F21 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F22 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F23 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – Item 358-1: Measurement of Bulk Material in Open-Top Truck and Trailer Units 

S&T - F24 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G1 

Appendix G 

NIST Handbook 44 – Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices 

Item 358-1: 

Load Volume Scanner, Proposals for Integration into NIST Handbook 44 

Load Volume Scanner 

Proposals for Integration into NIST 

Handbook 44 

A submission to NCWM 

Author: 

Adrian Ruthe 

Technical Manager 

LoadScan Ltd, New Zealand 

Contents 

Introduction 2 

Applicability of MDMD Code to the LVS 3 

Tolerances 3 

Limitations on Use 4 

Test Procedures – Accuracy Testing 5 

Test Procedures – Disturbance Testing 7 

Appendix - LVS Type Approval History Outside of the USA 8 

New Zealand 8 

Australia 9 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G2 

Introduction 

At the time of writing, the LoadScan Load Volume Scanner (LVS) has been granted ‘Developing Item’ status by 

NCWM and it is now up to LoadScan as the device manufacturer to prepare specific language for NIST 

Handbook 44 amendment. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices (MDMD) has been identified as the most 

suitable classification into which to incorporate the LVS and our aim is to prepare amendments to the MDMD 

specification, or if not feasible, to submit a new instrument specification modeled on MDMD. 

At this stage formal language has not been developed. This document identifies only the most significant areas 

where the MDMD code cannot be directly applied to the LVS and proposes solutions for consideration by the 

relevant authorities. Other minor discrepancies between LVS and MDMD can be readily addressed by minor 

amendments to the MDMD code. Formal code will be developed and minor discrepancies between LVS and 

MDMD addressed only when consensus and approval in principle has been reached on the key issues. 

It is strongly recommended to read the appendix to this document, LVS Type Approval History Outside of the USA

before considering the proposals below. Some topics are also discussed in more detail in the supporting document to 

this submission, Load Volume Scanner - General Metrology, Test Methods and Suitability for Use (revision of a 

previously submitted document, not US specific). 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G3 

Applicability of MDMD Code to the LVS 

The LVS has some notable similarities to MDMD: 

 MDMD typically uses the same non-contact laser measurement technology as the LVS. 

 MDMD and LVS both compute volume from a set of linear dimensional measurements. 

 MDMD and LVS both typically measure moving targets passing below the measurement elements of the 

instrument. 

 MDMD and LVS both measure the target relative to a zero reference profile formed by the surface or 

container that carries the object or load being measured. 

There are also some notable differences: 

 MDMD measures discrete objects (boxes, packages etc) whereas LVS measures bulk loose flowable solid 

materials (materials that form heaps). 

 MDMD uses a set of rules to compute the volume of a hexahedron occupied by the measured object 

whereas LVS measures the actual volume of the heap of measured material (“loose” volume based on the 

surface contour). 

 MDMS intended for calculating freight, storage, or postal charges based on the dimensions and/or volume 

occupied by the object whereas LVS intended for determining quantities of material where that material is 

traded by volume. 

 MDMS zero reference is generally a flat conveyor-belt or table top and can be treated as a static 2D profile 

whereas LVS zero reference is the entire load-bearing container (truck trailer or bin) that moves with the 

measured load and must be treated as a moving 3D profile. 

So consider NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, Application: 

A.2. Other Devices Designed to Make Multiple Measurement Automatically to Determine a 

Volume. – 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 

Section 1.10. General Code paragraph G-A.1. Commercial and Law-Enforcement Equipment.

This applies to the LVS. However, the need for an instrument description that more explicitly describes the LVS 

principle of operation and application should be considered, if only to define a clear sub-category that variations in 

the MDMD code can be specifically applied to. As the manufacturer of a specific instrument, it may not be 

appropriate for us to define the limitations or terminology of this specific sub-category. But for the purposes of this 

document “LVS” will refer to such a sub-category of MDMD instruments that the Load Volume Scanner belongs to. 

Tolerances 

NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, Tolerances: 

T.3. Tolerance Values. – The maintenance and acceptance tolerance values shall be ± 1 division. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G4 

It is not be feasible for the LVS to meet these requirements (and the requirements of paragraph S.1.5 and T.2.3) 

without a multi-interval implementation and choices of division sizes for each interval that may not be suitable for 

intended application in some cases. 

We propose the following variation for instruments of the LVS class: 

The maintenance and acceptance tolerance values shall be ± 1 division or 1 percent of measured load; 

whichever is the greater. 

In practice, the minimum feasible scale division for the LVS is 0.1 cubic meter or 0.1 cubic yard, dependent on regional 

configuration. To meet the requirements of the US bark and mulch industries the maximum capacity will need to be 

130 cubic meters or 170 cubic yards per individual truck bin. 

We realize that this effectively puts the LVS in a lower accuracy classification than allowed for other classes of 

instrument such as weigh scales used for trade. 

The closest comparable class I can find in NIST Handbook 44 for the volumetric measure of dry solid material is Dry 

Measures (section 4.45). Obviously the LVS does not fit into this classification. However, as a point of note, the 

maintenance tolerances for a 1 bushel dry measure (the largest measure specified) are 50 cubic inches in excess and 25 

cubic inches in deficiency with acceptance tolerances being one-half the maintenance tolerances (NIST Handbook 44, 

section 4.45. Dry Measures, Tolerances). Averaging over “in excess” and “in deficiency” this is equivalent to 

maintenance and acceptance tolerances of approximately 1.74% and 0.87% respectively. And by extension, the same 

tolerances apply to quantities resulting from multiple 1 bushel dry measures. 

What must be considered is the intended purpose and suitability for use of the instrument. This is discussed in the 

supporting document to this submission, Load Volume Scanner - General Metrology, Test Methods and Suitability for 

Use. 

Limitations on Use 

Consider the following excerpts from Handbook 130: 

2.18.2. – All mulch shall be sold, offered, or exposed for sale in terms of volume measure in SI units in 

terms of the cubic meter or liter or in inch-pound units in terms of the cubic yard or cubic foot. 

2.29 (a) – Top soil, fill dirt, aggregate or chipped rock, sand (including concrete and mortar sand), 

decomposed granite, landscape type rock, and cinders must be sold by the cubic meter or cubic yard or by 

weight. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G5 

The LVS was designed to meet the requirements of specific industries such as the mulch and civil construction 

industries and their suppliers, who either trade by volume already, or would prefer to, if suitable measurement 

equipment were available. The LVS is intended to meet the requirements of these industries and is not intended as a 

general use instrument to replace truck scales. As such we propose the following limitations on use for instruments of 

the LVS class: 

a) To soil, clay, sand, aggregate or chipped rock and similar excavated or mined materials 

b) Mulch, compost, specialty horticultural and landscaping mixes and primary constituent materials 

thereof. 

c) Woodchip, sawdust, bark and similar materials 

d) Coal, unprocessed ore, mining waste 

e) Bulk recycled or waste materials in crushed, shredded or similar form 

f) Lumpy, irregular mixed materials only where traded as waste or debris 

A shorter list may be possible if worded so as to be suitably inclusive. 

Test Procedures – Accuracy Testing 

NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, Notes: 

 N.1.1. General. – The device shall be tested using test standards and objects of known and stable dimensions. 

 N.1.4.1. Test Objects. – Verification of devices may be conducted using appropriate test objects of various 

sizes and of stable dimensions. Test object dimensions must be known to an expanded uncertainty (coverage 

factor k = 2) of not more than one-third of the applicable device tolerance. The dimensions shall also be 

checked to the same uncertainty when used at the extreme values of the influence factors. The dimension of 

all test objects shall be verified using a reference standard that is traceable to NIST (or equivalent national 

laboratory) and meet the tolerances expressed in NIST Handbook 44 Fundamental Considerations, 

paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one-third of the smallest tolerance applied to the device). 

Due to the practical difficulties in generating LVS test loads of known and stable dimensions, as discussed in the Test 

Methods section of the supporting document Load Volume Scanner - General Metrology, Test Methods and Suitability 

for Use, we propose that the system of test objects/standards used for certification testing in Australia be adopted (see 

notes and photos in Australia section of the appendix to this document, LVS Type Approval History Outside of the 

USA). This system combines a rectangular bin trailer with moveable false floor and rigid test objects and is suitable 

for generating test loads with volume known to the required level of expanded uncertainty for the tolerances 

proposed above. The dimensions of all test objects/bins can readily be verified with a tape measure (NIST traceable 

reference standard). 

Code language to facilitate this could be along the lines of: 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G6 

Test objects approximating the shape of a heaped load and with geometry that facilitates determination 

of volume by measurement of linear dimensions may be used to generate test loads in a suitable mobile 

test container. A raised floor or rigid objects covering the entire test container floor such that no edges 

are visible may be placed in the test container, supporting the test objects, to generate test loads at larger 

volumes. 

This method of using dedicated test equipment is only suitable for generating test volumes of a limited size. At this 

stage we have only used this method to test up to 35 cubic meters (45 cubic yards). 

NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.58. Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices, Notes:

N.1.4. Test Object Size. – Test objects may vary in size from the smallest dimension to the largest 

dimension marked on the device, and for field verification examinations, shall be an integer multiple of “d.” 

This does not explicitly require testing to maximum capacity. As discussed in the supporting document to this 

submission, Load Volume Scanner - General Metrology, Test Methods and Suitability for Use, correct operation within 

accuracy capability for the LVS can theoretically be confirmed at any test volume. We propose the following variation 

for LVS class instruments: 

Test loads shall vary in size from zero (empty test container) to at least 25 % of instrument capacity 

including minimum capacity and at least one other intermediate volume. 

For a maximum capacity of 130 cubic meters or 170 cubic yards this would be feasible. This is similar to the 

requirement for scales with a capacity above 20,000kg or 40,000lb as specified in NIST Handbook 44, Section 2.2. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G7 

Scales, Notes, Table 4. It may be considered necessary to specify the 25% rule for instruments with a capacity above a 

set value as for scales. See further discussion of a Standardized Test Method and other test methods in the supporting 

document to this submission, Load Volume Scanner - General Metrology, Test Methods and Suitability for Use.

Note that in New Zealand all official certification/verification testing is performed with a single rigid test object of 2.1 

cubic meters, which equates to 3.2% of approved maximum capacity of 65m3

 per bin (see appendix to this document, 

LVS Type Approval History Outside of the USA). 

Type approval testing may need to be conducted to maximum capacity. This is possible by finding a suitable, very 

large truck-trailer and manually dimensioning this trailer in detail and generating test loads by a combination of 

methods. This is very time consuming and requires a lot of resources. This is feasible for one-time type approval testing 

but not for regular verification testing. 

Additionally, it is not practical to generate larger test loads to an integer multiple of the scale interval “d” by the 

proposed test method. However, the LVS instrument has a test mode that displays measurements at a higher resolution, 

allowing accurate comparison between measurement indications and computed test load volumes. We propose a 

requirement along the lines of the following: 

The instrument shall have a special test mode that can only be activated for accuracy testing and causes 

all measurement indications to be output to a resolution of at least 10 times “d”. 

Test Procedures – Disturbance Testing 

It is simply not feasible to put a standard LVS system in an environmental chamber and perform disturbance 

tests for type approval. Requirements for any laboratory testing will need to be discussed. Please see the 

Australia section of the appendix to this document, LVS Type Approval History Outside of the USA for notes on 

how this was handled for type approval in Australia. We propose a similar approach be adopted for NTEP 

testing.
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G8 

APPENDIX - LVS TYPE APPROVAL HISTORY 

OUTSIDE OF THE USA

NEW ZEALAND 

The LVS was granted type approval in New Zealand in 1999. Approval was based loosely on the OIML 

specification for Automatic Catchweighing Instruments (OIML R51-1). This was prior to the release in 2000 of the 

OIML specification for Multi-Dimensional Measuring Instruments (OIML R129) which is the equivalent of 

MDMD. The New Zealand Certificate of Approval 1556 (type approval) is available for reference. No type 

approval guide document exists. 

The following are some specific points of note. 

1. Initial approval was only up to 20m3 load per bin (maximum capacity) with limitation to measurement of 

sand, gravel and small rock. However, Trading Standards New Zealand (TSNZ) monitored our systems for 

some time, were happy with the performance and since 2007 approval has been up to 65m3

 per bin, for any 

solid material with a particulate size of less than or equal to 200mm. Minimum capacity is 0.5m3. 

2. We have successfully performed field testing with the TSNZ up to 105m3 per bin but have not applied for a 

type approval variant up to this volume as it is not currently required for the size of trucks operated in New 

Zealand. 

3. We have about 50 trade-legal certified LVS systems operating in New Zealand. There have been no 

complaints to TSNZ in the 13 years since initial type approval.

4. The accuracy class specified is a variant on Catchweigher class Y(b). For our implementation with a scale 

interval of 0.1m3

 this is similar to US weight class IIII up to 40m3 and better than class IIII above 40m3. 

5. Type approval does not require accuracy testing up to maximum capacity. This recognizes the fact that due 

to the principle of operation of the LVS, measurement accuracy can effectively be confirmed at any volume 

(see support document Load Volume Scanner - General Metrology, Test Methods and Suitability for 

Use). Type evaluation testing was of course conducted to maximum capacity. 

6. Several methods for generating test loads are approved. However LoadScan maintains a single 2.1m3 test 

load (reference standard) for all certification/verification testing. This is a rigid profile approximating the 

shape of a load. The test load is annually re-certified by TSNZ. Volume is determined by the displacement 

of water in a rectangular tank. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G9 

AUSTRALIA 

The LVS was granted type approval in Australia in 2010. Type Approval was based as closely as practical on the 

OIML specification for Multi-Dimensional Measuring Instruments (OIML R129). Before conducting type 

evaluation the Australian National Measurement Institute (NMI) prepared a type evaluation guide called Guidelines 

for the Pattern Approval of Systems used for the Determination of Load Volumes. This is based primarily on the 

Australian general guidelines for pattern approval and the OIML specification for Multi-Dimensional Measuring 

Instruments (OIML R129). This document and Certificate of Approval No 13/1/15 (type approval) are available for 

reference. The following are some specific points of note. 

1. Current approval is only up to 35m3 load per bin. This is not a limitation imposed by NMI but the result of 

the resources we had available when field evaluation was conducted only being suitable for loads up to 

35m3

. This is adequate to cover the requirements of the construction and most other industries except the 

mulch industry. Minimum capacity is 1.0m3

. Further testing will be conducted with NMI for higher 

volumes. 

2. The LVS is approved for measurement of ‘flowable solids such as sand, soil, gravel and agricultural 

materials’.

3. Approval requires accuracy testing “near (as close as practical)” to maximum capacity. The volume of test 

loads must be determined to an expanded uncertainty of one fifth of the maximum permissible error or less, 

in line with the OIML specification for Multi-Dimensional Measuring Instruments (OIML R129). 

4. The approval certificate does not require an accuracy class to be marked on the instrument. Only maximum 

permissible errors (tolerances) are specified. NMI’s view is that no formal accuracy classes exist for this 

type of instrument so it does not make sense to mark a class. This also allows the instrument to be tested to 

different accuracy “classes” within the maximum tolerances specified, depending on the intended 

application and the type/quality of test loads available. 

5. The maximum tolerances specified in the approval are based on weight class 5 from the OIML 

specification for Automatic instruments for weighing road vehicles in motion and measuring axle loads

(OIML R134). This is a low accuracy class (basically a 2.5% class). The reason for this is not the accuracy 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G10 

of the LVS system but the difficulty in generating test loads with sufficiently accurately known volume 

(expanded uncertainty 1/5th MPE) to perform accuracy testing up to maximum capacity. However, the LVS 

may be also be tested to class 2 (1% class) if suitable test loads/standards are available. 

6. It is up to individual state authorities to specify any additional limitations on use, depending on the 

accuracy class the LVS is tested to. 

7. LVS approval requires that all measured volume indications are accompanied by a statement that the 

volume indicated is that at the time of measurement. This reflects the fact that flowable solid volumes can 

fluctuate slightly over time (see support document Load Volume Scanner - General Metrology, Test 

Methods and Suitability for Use). 

8. For practical reasons laboratory testing in an environmental chamber for type approval was conducted with 

a modified mounting system for the LVS to allow it to fit into the test chamber. The testing was also 

conducted with static (non-moving) test profiles and a modified version of the system software. NMI took 

the approach that the ability of the LVS software to compute accurate volumes from the raw laser distance 

measurement data can be determined by field-testing and that for laboratory testing it is only necessary to 

test the ability of the laser distance measuring components to provide suitable data for the software to 

process. A variation on the disturbance and other tests given in the OIML specification for MultiDimensional Measuring Instruments (OIML R129) were conducted. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G11 

Custom-mounted LVS in environmental test chamber, NMI, Sydney, Australia
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G12 

9. LoadScan maintains a ‘test trailer’ and a 1.0m3

 test load (reference standard) for certification testing in 

Australia. The test trailer is a dimensionally accurate rectangular bin with a false floor that can be 

positioned at different heights to simulate different levels of loading. The 1.0m3

 test load is placed on the 

trailer floor or false floor to create a more realistic load profile and to test at minimum capacity. The trailer 

is fully mobile and can be disassembled. The 1.0m3

 test load is dimensionally accurate and design is based 

on basic geometrical shapes so that its volume can be determined by manual measurement with tape 

measure. Test load volumes can be determined with enough accuracy to test to class 2 (1% class) with this 

equipment. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G13 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix G – Item 358-1: Load Scanner, Proposals 

S&T – G14 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H1 

Appendix H 

NIST Handbook 44 – Developing Items 

Item 360-3: 

Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering 

This draft code is currently under development by the USNWG; this draft is NOT yet ready for consideration by the 

NCWM. Updated versions will be posted on the NIST website as work by the USNWG progresses.

Draft NIST Handbook 44 Device Code Requirements for Electric Vehicle 

Fueling and Submetering 

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. Officials wanting to conduct an official 

examination of a device or system are advised to see paragraph G-A.3. Special and Unclassified Equipment.

(Tentative Code Added 20XX) 

A. Application 

A.1. General. – This code applies to electronic and mechanical devices, accessories, and systems used for the 

measurement of electricity dispensed as a vehicle fuel and in other commercial electricity sub-metering applications 

wherein a quantity determination or statement of measure is used wholly or partially as a basis for sale or upon 

which a charge for service is based. 

A.2. Exceptions. – This code does not apply to: 

(a) This code does not apply to the use of any measure or measuring device used by a public utility in 

connection with measuring electricity subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission. 

(b) Devices used solely for dispensing a product in connection with operations in which the amount dispensed 

does not affect customer charges. 

(c) The wholesale delivery of electricity. 

A.3. Additional Code Requirements. – In addition to the requirements of this code, Electricity-Measuring 

Devices shall meet the requirements of Section 1.10. General Code. 

A.3.1. Dual-Purpose Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) and Timing Devices. – A device that is 

used for both the sale of electricity as vehicle fuel and the sale of other separate time-based services (e.g., 

vehicle parking) shall meet the requirements Section 5.55. Timing Devices. in addition to the requirements of 

this code. 

A.4. Type Evaluation. – The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) will accept for type evaluation only 

those devices that comply with all requirements of this code. 

A.5. Meter Type Notation. – Code sections and subsections with an [EM] notation apply to electronic meters 

only. Code sections and subsections with a [MM] notation apply to mechanical meters only. Code sections and 

subsections without [EM] or [MM] notation apply to both meter types.
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

$SSHQGL[+±,WHP(OHFWULF9HKLFOH)XHOLQJDQG6XEPHWHULQJ'UDIW&RGH

S&T - H2 

S. Specifications 

S.1. Indicating and Recording Elements. 

S.1.1. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). – A device used to charge electric vehicles shall be of 

the computing type and shall indicate the electrical energy, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery. 

S.1.2. EVSE Indicating Elements. – A device used to charge electric vehicles shall include an indicating 

element that continuously displays measurement results relative to quantity and total price. Indications shall be 

clear, definite, accurate, and easily read under normal conditions of operation of the device. All indications and 

representations of electricity sold shall be clearly identified and separate from other time-based fees indicated 

by a dual-purpose device that is used for both the sale of electricity as vehicle fuel and the sale of other separate 

time-based services (e.g., vehicle parking). 

S.1.3. EVSE Units. 

S.1.3.1. EVSE Units of Measurement. – Deliveries used to charge electric vehicles shall be indicated 

and recorded in megajoules (MJ) or kilowatt-hours (kWh) and decimal subdivisions thereof. 

S.1.3.2. Numerical Value of Quantity-Value Divisions. – The value of an interval (i.e., increment or 

scale division) shall be equal to: 

(a) 1, 2, or 5; or 

(b) a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. 

Examples: quantity-value divisions may be 10, 20, 50, 100; or 0.01, 0.02, 0.05; or 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5; etc. 

S.1.3.3. Maximum Value of Quantity-Value Divisions. – The maximum value of the quantityvalue division shall not be greater than 0.5% of the minimum measured quantity. 

S.1.3.4. Values Defined. – Indicated values shall be adequately defined by a sufficient number of 

figures, words, symbols, or combinations thereof. An indication of “zero” shall be a zero digit for all 

displayed digits to the right of the decimal mark and at least one to the left. 

S.1.4. EVSE Value of Smallest Unit. – The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery by an EVSE, and 

recorded delivery if the EVSE device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of 3.6 MJ or 1 kWh. 

S.1.5. [MM] Submeter Register. – A meter register shall clearly indicate the number of kilowatt-hours 

measured by the meter. The register ratio shall be indicated on the front of the registers that are not an integral 

part of the meter nameplate. Means shall be provided for the tenant to read the meter register. 

S.1.6. [EM] Submeter Watthour Indications. 

S.1.6.1. Customer Indicating Element. – All submeters in a service system shall have an individual 

customer indicating element on or at the meter and the minimum value shall not exceed one kilowatt hour. 

S.1.6.2. Test Constant. – All submeter systems shall be capable of indicating at least one watthour test 

constant (Kt) output indication but not more than 20 watthour test constant output indications. 

Means for indicating watthour test constant output indications include but are not limited to: decimal point, 

contrasting display colors, shorting link, or a means for visual flashing pulse counts. 

S.1.6.3. Indicating Element Value. – The minimum indicating element value (unit of measure) shall be 

conspicuously identified on or near the customer indicating element. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H3 

S.1.6.4. Segments. – A segmented digital indicating element shall have an easily accessible provision 

for checking that all segments are operational. 

S.1.6.5. Real-time Indicating Element. – If the indicating element is not on continuously, it shall be 

accumulated continuously so that real-time measurement is indicated during activation. 

S.1.7. Multiple Submeter Indicating Elements. – An indicating or combination indicating-recording 

element coupled to two or more meter systems shall be provided with means to prohibit indication of 

information from any meter system not selected, and shall be provided with automatic means to indicate clearly 

and definitely which meter system is associated with the indication. 

S.2. EVSE Operating Requirements. 

S.2.1. EVSE Return to Zero. 

(a) The primary indicating and the primary recording elements of a device used to charge electric vehicles, 

if the device is equipped to record, shall be provided with a means for readily returning the indication 

to zero either automatically or manually. 

(b) It shall not be possible to return primary indicating elements, or primary recording elements, beyond 

the correct zero position. 

S.2.2. EVSE Indicator Reset Mechanism. – The reset mechanism for the indicating element of a device 

used to charge electric vehicles shall not be operable during a delivery. Once the zeroing operation has begun, it 

shall not be possible to indicate a value other than the latest measurement, or “zeros” when the zeroing 

operation has been completed. 

S.2.3. EVSE Provision for Power Loss. 

S.2.3.1. Transaction Information. – In the event of a power loss, the information needed to complete 

any transaction in progress at the time of the power loss (such as the quantity and unit price, or sales price) 

shall be determinable for at least 15 minutes at the device or at the console if the console is accessible to the 

customer. 

S.2.3.2. User Information. – The device memory shall retain information on the quantity of fuel 

dispensed and the sales price totals during power loss. 

S.2.4. EVSE Indication of Unit Price and Equipment Level Identity. 

S.2.4.1. Unit Price. – A computing or money-operated device shall be able to indicate on each face the 

unit price at which the device is set to compute or to dispense. 

S.2.4.2. Equipment Level. – A device shall be able to conspicuously indicate on each side the 

equipment level (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3) of the device. 

S.2.4.3. Selection of Unit Price. – When a product is offered for sale at more than on unit price through 

a computing device, the selection of the unit price shall be made prior to delivery using controls on the 

device or other customer-activated controls. A system shall not permit a change to the unit price during 

delivery of a product.

S.2.4.4. Agreement Between Indications. – All quantity, unit price, and total price indications within a 

measuring system shall agree for each transaction. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

$SSHQGL[+±,WHP(OHFWULF9HKLFOH)XHOLQJDQG6XEPHWHULQJ'UDIW&RGH

S&T - H4 

S.2.5. EVSE Money-Value Computations. – A computing device shall compute the total sales price at any

single-purchase unit price for which the product being measured 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. 

S.2.5.1. Money-Value Divisions, Digital. – A computing type device with digital indications shall 

comply with the requirements of paragraph G.S.5.5. Money-Values, Mathematical Agreement, and the total 

price computation shall be based on quantities not exceeding 0.36 MJ or 0.1 kWh. 

S.2.5.2. Auxiliary Elements. – If a system is equipped with auxiliary indications, all indicated money 

value and quantity divisions of the auxiliary element shall be identical with those of the primary element. 

S.2.5.3. Indication of Quantity and Total Price. – When a delivery is completed, the total price and 

quantity for that transaction shall be indicated on the face of the device for at least five minutes or until the 

next transaction is initiated by using controls on the device or other user-activated controls. 

S.2.6. EVSE Recorded Representations. – Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, a printed 

receipt providing the following information shall be available through a built-in or separate recording element 

for all transactions conducted with point-of-sale systems or devices activated by debit cards, credit cards, and/or 

cash. The printed receipt shall contain the following information for electricity delivered by the device: 

(a) the total quantity of the delivery; 

(b) the unit price; 

(c) the total computed price of the electricity sale; 

(d) the EVSE level (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3) by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number; 

(e) any additional separate charges included in the transaction (e.g., charges for parking time); and 

(f) the final total price of the complete transaction including all items. 

For systems equipped with the capability to issue an electronic receipt, the customer may be given the option to 

receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.). 

S.2.7. Indication of Delivery. – The device shall automatically show on its face the initial zero condition and 

the quantity delivered (up to the capacity of the indicating elements).

S.3. Design of Measuring Elements and Measuring Systems. – Except as otherwise noted within NIST 

Handbook 44, meters shall meet all applicable design requirements of the latest published ANSI C12.1 Code for 

Electricity Metering. 

S.3.1. Metrological Components. – A meter system shall be designed and constructed so that metrological 

components are adequately protected from environmental conditions likely to be detrimental to accuracy. 

Components shall be designed to prevent undetected access to adjustment mechanisms and terminal blocks by 

providing for application of a physical security seal or an Audit Trail. 

S.3.2. Terminals. – The terminals of the meter shall be arranged so that the possibility of short circuits while 

removing or replacing the cover, making connections, or adjusting the meter, is minimized. 

S.3.3. Adjustment Means. – A measuring system shall be provided with means to change the ratio between 

the indicated quantity and the quantity of electricity measured by the meter. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H5 

S.3.4. 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) each individual measurement element; 

(b) any adjustable element for controlling voltage or current when such control tends to affect the accuracy 

of deliveries; 

(c) any zero adjustment mechanism; and 

(d) any metrological parameter that detrimentally affects the metrological integrity of the device or 

system. 

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.3.4. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing. 

Table S.3.4. 

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. 

The 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 or 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. 

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access 

may be unlimited or controlled through a software 

switch (e.g., password). 

The 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. 

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 10 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.) 

S.3.5. [EM] Meter-Control Program. – The meter-control program shall be an integral part of the meter's 

firmware read-only memory that cannot be changed in its operating environment. This section does not apply to 

electronic meters that do not utilize a meter-control program. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

$SSHQGL[+±,WHP(OHFWULF9HKLFOH)XHOLQJDQG6XEPHWHULQJ'UDIW&RGH

S&T - H6 

S.3.6. [EM] Data Storage and Retrieval. 

Watthour data accumulated and indicated shall be permanent and accessible. 

(a) Values indicated or stored in memory shall not be affected by electrical, mechanical or temperature 

variations, radio-frequency interference, power failure, or any other environmental influences to the 

extent that accuracy is impaired. 

(b) Memory and/or display shall be recallable for the life of the meter. A replaceable battery shall not be 

used for this purpose. 

S.3.7. Temperature Range for Metering Components. - Meters shall be accurate and correct over the 

temperature range of − 20 °C to + 50 °C (− 4 °F to 122 °F). If the meter or any measuring system components 

are not capable of meeting these requirements, the temperature range over which the system is capable shall be 

stated on the NTEP CC, marked on the device, and installations shall be limited to the narrower temperature 

limits. 

S.3.8. Zero-Set-Back Interlock, Retail EVSE Devices. – A device shall be constructed so that: 

(a) when the device is shut-off at the end of a delivery an automatic interlock prevents a subsequent 

delivery until the indicating element and recording elements, if the device is equipped and activated to 

record, have been returned to their zero positions; and 

(b) it shall not be possible to return the vehicle connector to its starting position unless the zero-set-back 

interlock is engaged or becomes engaged. 

For systems with more than one device supplied by a single measuring element, an effective automatic 

control in each device prevents product from being delivered until the indicating elements on that device 

are in a correct zero position; or 

For systems with more than one connection supplied by a single measuring element, effective automatic 

means must be provided to prevent product from being delivered until the indicating element(s) 

corresponding to each connection are in a correct zero position. 

S.4. Connections. 

S.4.1. Diversion of Measured Electricity. – No means shall be provided by which any measured electricity

can be diverted from the measuring device. 

S.4.2. Directional Control. – If a reversal of energy flow could result in errors that exceed the tolerance for 

the minimum measured quantity, effective means, automatic in operation to prevent or account for the reversal 

of flow shall be properly installed in the system. (See N.7. Minimum Measured Quantity) 

S.5. Markings. – The following identification and marking requirements are in addition to the requirements of 

Section 1.10 General Code, paragraph G-S.1. Identification. 

S.5.1. Location of Marking Information; EVSE. – The marking information required in General Code, 

paragraph G S.1. Identification shall appear as follows: 

(a) within 60 cm (24 in) to 150 cm (60 in) from ground level; 

(b) either internally and/or externally provided the information is permanent and easily read; and 

accessible for inspection; and 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H7 

(c) on a portion of the device that cannot be readily removed or interchanged (e.g., not on a service access 

panel). 

Note: The use of a key or tool to access internal marking information is permitted for retail electricity-measuring 

devices. 

S.5.2. Device Identification and Marking Requirements. – In addition to all the marking requirements of 

Section 1.10 General Code, paragraph G-S.1. Identification, each device shall have the following information 

conspicuously, legibly, and indelibly marked on the nameplate or register, if applicable: 

(a) the accuracy class of the device as specified by the manufacturer consistent with Table T.4. Accuracy 

Classes and Load Test Tolerances for Electricity-Measuring Devices; 

(b) AC voltage rating; 

(c) Test amperes (TA); 

(d) Meter class (CL); 

(e) Watthour or rotor constant (Kh); 

(f) [MM] Register ratio (Rr or Kr) and multiplier (if greater than one) preceded by “multiply by” or “mult 

by” or “Kr”; 

(g) Frequency rating (Hz); 

(h) Number of meter stator(s) or element(s); 

(i) Watthour meter or other descriptive term; 

(j) [MM] Number of wires (W); 

(k) [MM] Form designation (FM); 

(l) [EM] Watthour test constant (Kt); 

(m) Minimum measured quantity (MMQ). 

Instrument transformer-rated meters shall contain the following additional information: 

(n) Instrument transformer ratio or transformer model number; 

(o) [MM] Primary watthour constant (PKh); 

(p) Temperature Limits, if narrower than and within − 20 °C to + 50 °C (− 4 °F to 122 °F). 

S.5.3. Instrument Transformer Identification. – Each instrument transformer that is non-integral with the 

meter shall have the following conspicuously, legibly, and indelibly marked on a permanent identification label: 

(a) Manufacturer's name, type designation, and non-repetitive serial number; 

(b) True ratio, primary versus secondary, ampere or voltage values;

(c) Accuracy class; 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H8 

(d) Burden designation (B); 

(e) Basic lightning impulse insulation level (BIL); 

(f) Rated Frequency (HZ). 

Note: If evident by the method of integration that instrument transformers are not intended to be detachable 

or replaceable, the required information may be located on the meter. 

S.5.3.1. Polarity Marking. – A permanent mark indicating proper installation orientation is required on 

the instrument transformer when the accuracy of the meter is affected. 

S.5.4. Abbreviations and Symbols. – The following abbreviations or symbols may appear on a meter, 

instrument transformer, or indicator. 

(a) FM = Form 

(b) CL = Class 

(c) V = Volts; 

(d) Hz = Hertz, Frequency or Cycles Per Second; 

(e) TA = Test Amperes; 

(f) Kh = Watthour Constant Per Rotor Revolution or Pulse; 

(g) PKh = Primary Watthour Constant; 

(h) Rr = Register Ratio; 

(i) CTR = Current Transformer Ratio; 

(j) VTR or PTR = Voltage or Potential Transformer Ratio; 

(k) MULT BY = Multiply By; 

(l) W = Wire (example: 240V 3W); 

(m) Y = WYE Power Supply; 

(n) ANSI = American National Standards Institute; 

(o) B = Burden; 

(p) BIL = Basic Lightning Impulse Insulation Factor; 

(q) Kt = [EM] Watthour Test Constant; 

(r) AC = Alternating Current (i.e. VAC); 

(s) J = Joule; 

(t) MJ = Megajoule; 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H9 

(u) Wh = Watthour; 

(v) kWh = Kilowatt-hour; 

(w) ∆ = Delta Power Supply. 

S.6. Printer. – When an assembly is equipped with means for printing the measured quantity, the printed 

information must agree with the indications on the device for the transaction and the printed values shall be clearly 

defined. 

S.6.1. Printed Receipt. – Any delivered, printed quantity shall include a device identification number that 

uniquely identifies the device from all other devices within the seller’s facility, the time and date, and the name 

of the seller. This information may be printed by the device or pre-printed on the ticket. 

S.7. Totalizers for EVSE Devices. – EVSE devices shall be equipped with a nonresettable totalizer for the 

quantity delivered through each separate measuring device. 

S.8. Minimum Measured Quantity. – The minimum measured quantity shall satisfy the conditions of use of the 

measuring system as follows: 

Measuring systems shall have a minimum measured quantity not exceeding 3.6 MJ or 1.0 kWh. 

N. Notes 

N.1. Meter Creep Test. – A meter creep test shall be conducted by applying rated voltage to the meter under test 

and no load applied. 

N.2. Meter Starting Load. – A meter starting load test shall be conducted by applying rated voltage and 

0.5-ampere load. 

N.3. [MM] Test Revolutions. – Full and light load tests shall require 8 or more revolutions of the test standard 

and at least one revolution of the meter under test. 

N.4. [EM] Meter Test Constant Output Indications. – Full and light load tests shall consist of 8 or more 

watthour test constant (Kt) output indications of the test standard and at least one watthour test constant (Kt) output 

indication of the meter under test. Test standards that read out directly in watthours shall meet the watthour 

equivalent of eight or more watthour test constant (Kt) output indications. 

N.5. Meter and System Test Loads. 

(a) [MM] Mechanical self-contained meters shall be balanced load tested, and may be single element tested, 

for meter accuracy at full and light loads. 

(b) [MM] Instrument transformer rated systems shall be single element tested, and may be balanced load 

tested, for system accuracy at full and light loads. Meter testing shall be accomplished by applying the test 

load to the current transformer(s). 

(c) [EM] Instrument transformer(s) rated systems shall be single element tested, for system accuracy at full and 

light loads. Meter testing shall be accomplished by applying the test load to the instrument transformer(s) 

with the voltage circuits energized. 

(d) The reference voltage phases (A, B, or C) at the meter shall be the same phase as the load. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

$SSHQGL[+±,WHP(OHFWULF9HKLFOH)XHOLQJDQG6XEPHWHULQJ'UDIW&RGH

S&T - H10 

N.6. Test of a Meter System. 

(a) Each meter submitted for test shall be a complete system. For example: a meter body and any necessary 

instrument transformer(s), indicator(s), system software, etc., required to make up a complete system. 

(b) The test load applied for a full load test shall be the marked test amperes (TA) on the nameplate of the 

meter under test. 

(c) The test load applied for a light load test shall be conducted at not less than 10 % of the marked (TA) test 

amperes on the nameplate of the meter under test. 

(d) The test load applied for a full load test of a meter for a 0.5 power factor setting shall be the marked (TA) 

test amperes of the nameplate of the meter under test. 

(e) The test load applied for a light load test of a meter for a 0.5 power factor setting shall be conducted at not 

less than 20 % of the (TA) test amperes of the meter. 

(f) All tests shall be made at the rated voltage ± 10 %. 

N.7. Minimum Measured Quantity. – The minimum measured quantity shall be specified by the manufacturer. 

N.7.1. Minimum Measured Quantity Test. – The device shall be tested for a delivery equal to the declared 

minimum measured quantity when the device is likely to be used to make deliveries on the order of the declared 

minimum measured quantity. 

N.8. Repeatability Tests. – Tests for repeatability should include a minimum of three consecutive tests at the 

same load and be conducted under controlled conditions where variations in factors are reduced to minimize the 

effect on the results obtained. 

T. Tolerances 

T.1. Tolerances, General. 

(a) The tolerances apply equally to errors of underregistration and errors of overregistration. 

(b) The tolerances apply to all deliveries measured at any load within the rated measuring range of the device. 

(c) Where instrument transformers or other components are used, the provisions of this section shall apply to 

all metering components. 

T.2. Meter Creep Test. 

T.2.1. [EM] Meter Creep Test. – The meter indicating element shall not change by more than one least 

significant digit with the voltage circuit(s) energized and current circuit(s) not energized for a duration of one 

hour using the watthour test constant (Kt) output indications. 

T.2.2. [MM] Meter Creep Test. – A meter rotor shall rotate no more than one complete revolution in 

10 minutes with the meter voltage circuit(s) energized and the current circuit(s) not energized. 

T.3. Meter Starting Load Test. 

T.3.1. [EM] Meter Starting Load Test. – The watthour test constant (Kt) output indication shall continue to 

advance when a load of 0.5 amperes is applied.
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H11 

T.3.2. [MM] Meter Starting Load Test. – The meter rotor shall rotate continuously when a load of 

0.5 amperes is applied. 

T.4. Load Test Tolerances. – The tolerances for electricity-measuring device load tests are listed in Table T.2. 

Accuracy Classes and Tolerances for Electricity-Measuring Devices. (Proposed tolerance values are based on ANSI 

C12.1 Code for Electricity Metering Section 5 Standards for In-Service Performance paragraph 5.1.2.2 Acceptable 

Performance for Maintenance Tolerances and on ANSI C12.20 Electricity Meters-0.2 and 0.5 Accuracy Classes 

Section 5 Acceptable Performance of New Types of Electricity Metering Devices and Associated Equipment 

paragraph 5.5.4.3 Test No. 3: Load Performance for Acceptance Tolerances.) 

Table T.4. 

Accuracy Classes and Load Test Tolerances for Electricity-Measuring Devices 

Accuracy Class 

(ANSI C12.20 designation) 

Application or Commodity 

Being Measured 

Acceptance 

Tolerance 

Maintenance 

Tolerance 

0.2 Electricity as vehicle fuel 0.2 % 2.0 % 

0.5 Electricity as vehicle fuel 0.5 % 2.0 % 

All Others Electricity as vehicle fuel 1.0 % 2.0 % 

Instrument Transformers Not Integral to the Meter 

0.3 or superior Electricity as vehicle fuel 0.3 % 2.0 % as part of system 

T.4.1. Tolerance Values. – Maintenance and acceptance tolerances for electric watthour meters shall be as 

shown in Table T.4. for full and light load tests of Accuracy Class 0.2 and 0.5 meters. For all other Accuracy 

Class meters tolerances shall be as follows: 

(a) Maintenance tolerance shall be 2 % for full and light loads. 

(b) Acceptance tolerance shall be 1 percent for full and light loads. 

T.4.2. Power Factor Tests. – Power factor tests shall be conducted at 0.5 power factor setting: 

(a) Maintenance tolerance shall be 2 % for full and light loads. 

(b) Acceptance tolerance shall be 1 % for full and light loads.

NOTE: 0.5 power factor light load tests shall be conducted at 20 % of the Test Amperes (TA). 

T.5. Repeatability. – When multiple tests are conducted at the same load condition, the range of the load test 

results shall not exceed 25 % of the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance and the results of each test shall be 

within the applicable tolerance. (Indiana Code 170 IAC 4-1-8). 

T.6. Instrument Transformer Accuracy Class. – An instrument transformer that is not an integral part of the 

meter and is used for revenue metering shall be rated 0.3 accuracy class or more accurate for the burden of a 

particular meter type. If a meter system requires an instrument transformer more accurate than 0.3 accuracy class, 

the limitations shall be stated on the meter. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

$SSHQGL[+±,WHP(OHFWULF9HKLFOH)XHOLQJDQG6XEPHWHULQJ'UDIW&RGH

S&T - H12 

T.7. Tolerance Application in Type Evaluation Examinations for Devices. – For type evaluation 

examinations, the acceptance tolerance values shall apply under the following conditions: 

(a) at any temperature, voltage, load, and power factor within the operating range of the device, and 

(b) regardless of the influence factors in effect at the time of the conduct of the examination, and 

(c) for all quantities greater than the minimum measured quantity. 

UR. User Requirements 

UR.1. Selection Requirements. 

UR.1.1. Meter Class (CL). – The marked CL shall equal or exceed the total capacity in amperes of the EVSE 

or the thermal overload protectors of the tenant. 

UR.1.2. Suitability of Equipment. – A meter shall be suitable for use on its electrical system. A three-wire 

two-phase load which is connected to a 120 to208 volt network service shall be metered by a two-stator or twoelement meter. 

A meter shall accurately measure all loads 5 percent or greater of the electric service capacity of the tenant. 

Service capacity shall be determined by the master thermal overload protectors to the tenants’ service or by the 

rated capacity of an electric cord and its connector used to provide power from the service panel to the tenant. 

UR.1.3. Instrument Transformer Ratio. – The instrument transformer shall be correctly matched to the

meter indicator and multiplier. 

UR.1.4. Computing-Type Device; Retail EVSE Device. – A device used to charge electric vehicles shall be 

of the computing type and shall indicate the electrical energy, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery. 

UR.1.5. Connection Line-Length. – The impedance of the connection line on a retail EVSE device shall not 

result in losses in excess of the tolerance. The length of the connection line: 

(a) shall not exceed 4.6 m (15 ft) unless it can be demonstrated that a longer line is essential to permit 

deliveries to be made to receiving vehicles; 

(b) shall be measured from its connection to the EVSE to the inlet of the vehicle connector; and 

(c) shall be measured with the connection line fully extended if it is coiled or otherwise retained or 

connected inside a housing. 

An unnecessarily remote location of a device shall not be accepted as justification for an abnormally long 

connection line. 

UR.2. Installation Requirements. 

UR.2.1. Manufacturer’s Instructions. – A device shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions, and the installation shall be sufficiently secure and rigid to maintain this condition. 

UR.2.2. Load Range. – A device shall be installed so that the current and voltage will not exceed the rated 

maximum values over which the meter class designation is designed to operate continuously within the 

specified accuracy. Means to limit current and/or voltage shall be incorporated in the installation if necessary. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H13 

UR.2.3. Regulation Conflicts and Permit Compliance. – If any provision of this section (UR.2. Installation 

Requirements) is less stringent than that required of a similar installation by the serving utility, the installation 

shall be in accordance with those requirements of the serving utility. 

The installer of any new EVSE or electric watthour submeter service shall obtain all necessary permits and shall 

conform to all applicable regulatory utility commission’s or commissioner’s requirements. 

UR.2.4. Submeter Installation Requirements. 

UR.2.4.1. Certification by Serving Utility or Utilities Commission. – It is the responsibility of the 

owner of a submeter system to obtain written certification for each submetered service connection from the 

serving utility or from a person designated as qualified by either the serving utility or by the Utilities 

Commission (UC).

(a) The required certification shall identify the address, space, or number, of the premise served by the 

submeter connection; be signed by an authorized serving utility representative or by a designee; 

and shall clearly state: 

(b) the installation meets all serving utility installation and accessibility requirements for similar 

installations served directly by the serving utility, 

(c) the installation is on a tariff schedule that qualifies for submeter use, 

(d) the billing format, rates, and charges conform to all applicable serving utility tariff rules, 

(e) the date of such determination, and 

(f) if performed by a designee, the designee’s name and title, and the name and title of the serving 

utility company or Public Utilities Commission representative authorizing the designee to make 

the determination. 

The certification shall be provided prior to a submeter being used for commercial purposes. 

UR.2.4.2. Submeter Test Facilities. – All submeters shall be provided with the same test facilities 

required of a similar meter by the serving utility. 

UR.2.4.3. [MM] Test Blocks. – All three-phase self-contained submeter installations shall be equipped 

with test blocks, which are approved by the serving utility, for safe meter testing. 

UR.2.4.4. [MM] Test Switches. – Submeter installations that are equipped with current or potential 

transformers, or both, shall have test switches installed, which are approved by the serving utility, for safe 

meter testing. 

UR.2.4.5. [MM] Circuit Closing Devices. – All self-contained submeter installations that cannot accept

a short interruption of the electrical service, for the purpose of testing the meter, shall be equipped with a 

manual circuit closing device as approved by the serving utility. Automatic circuit closing devices shall not 

be used on any submeter installation. 

UR.2.4.6. Metered Circuits (Submeter Load Service). – All electricity used by a tenant shall be taken 

exclusively from the load service of the tenant's meter. This service and its associated meter shall 

accurately measure the tenant's load and be capable of being used only at the discretion of the tenant. 

UR.2.4.7. Unmetered Circuits (Submeter Line Service). – The tenant’s electric circuit shall not be 

taken from the line terminals of the meter, meter socket, or line service. The owner of the submeter system 

may utilize this service. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

$SSHQGL[+±,WHP(OHFWULF9HKLFOH)XHOLQJDQG6XEPHWHULQJ'UDIW&RGH

S&T - H14 

UR.2.4.8. Dedicated Tenant Submeter Service. – A meter shall serve only the space, lot, building, 

room, suite, stall, slip, or premise occupied by the tenant. 

UR.2.4.9. Submetered Tenant Premise Identification. – Tenant premise identification shall be clearly 

and permanently shown on or at the submeter, and on all separate components of a meter system, including, 

but not limited to, instrument transformer(s), modem(s), and transmitter(s) if equipped. Remote indications 

and all printed indications shall be readily identifiable and readily associated with the tenant’s premise. 

Printed indications shall also include time and date information. 

UR.3. Use of Device. 

UR.3.1. Unit Price for Retail EVSE Devices. – The unit price at which the device is set to compute shall be 

conspicuously displayed or posted on the face of a retail EVSE device used in direct sale. 

UR.3.2. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero. – The primary indicating elements (visual) 

and the primary recording elements shall be returned to zero immediately before each delivery. 

UR.3.3. Printed Ticket. – The total price, the total quantity of the delivery, and the price per unit shall be 

printed on any ticket issued by a device of the computing type and containing any one of these values. 

UR.3.4. Steps After Charging. – After delivery to a customer from a retail device: 

(a) the device shall be shut-off at the end of a charge, through an automatic interlock that prevents 

subsequent charging until the indicating elements and recording elements, if the device is equipped and 

activated to record, have been returned to their zero positions; and 

(b) the vehicle connector shall not be returned to its starting position unless the zero set-back interlock is 

engaged or becomes engaged by the act of disconnecting from the vehicle or the act of returning the 

connector to the starting position. 

UR.3.5. Submeter Required. – When a tenant is not directly served by the serving utility, and charges for 

electric energy are not included in the fixed periodic rent charges, a dedicated electric watt-hour submeter that 

measures only the energy used at the discretion of the tenant shall be used. 

Appendix D. Definitions

The specific code to which the definition applies is shown in [brackets] at the end of the definition. Definitions for 

the General Code [1.10] apply to all codes in NIST Handbook 44.

A 

accuracy class, instrument transformers. – A performance specification for instrument transformers which 

expresses the maximum deviation from the true value of a measured quantity. (Instrument Transformer Accuracy 

Class) Example: a 0.2 accuracy class transformer would be more accurate than a 0.3 accuracy class 

transformer.[3.XX] 

active (real) power. – The component of electric power that performs work, typically measured in kilowatts (kW) 

or megawatts (MW). Also known as “real power.” The terms “active” or “real” power are used to modify the base 

term “power” to differentiate it from reactive and apparent power. The active power (Pac) or real power measured 

by a meter, is the product of voltage (E) times current (I) times the cosine of the angle by which the current lags the 

voltage (cos φ) or power factor (pf). Pac = (E) (I) (pf) = (E) (I) (cos φ) where φ is the phase angle of the lag.[3.XX] 

alternating current (AC). – An electric current that reverses direction in a circuit at regular intervals.[3.XX] 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H15 

ampere. – The practical unit of electric current. It is the quantity of current caused to flow by a potential difference 

of one volt through a resistance of one ohm. One ampere is equal to the flow of one coulomb of charge per second. 

One coulomb is the unit of electric charge equal in magnitude to the charge of 6.24 × 1018 electrons.[3.XX] 

apparent power. – The product of the RMS current (I) and the RMS voltage (E) in a circuit.[3.XX] 

audit trail. – An electronic count and/or information record of the changes to the values of the calibration or 

configuration parameters of a device.[1.10, 2.20, 2.21, 2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 3.39, 3.XX, 5.56(a)] 

(Added 1993) 

B 

balanced load. – Balanced load is used to indicate equal currents in all phases and relatively equal voltages between 

phases and between each phase and neutral (if one exists); with approximately equal watts in each phase of the 

load.[3.XX] 

basic lightning impulse insulation level (BIL). – A specific insulation level expressed in kilovolts of the crest 

value of a standard lightning impulse. (Example: BIL = 10 Kv)[3.XX] 

burden (B). – The impedance of the circuit connected to the instrument transformer's secondary winding. 

(Example: B = 21 Ohms Max.)[3.XX] 

C 

calibration parameter. – Any adjustable parameter that can affect measurement or performance accuracy and, due 

to its nature, needs to be updated on an ongoing basis to maintain device accuracy (e.g., span adjustments, 

linearization factors, and coarse zero adjustments).[2.20, 2.21, 2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 3.39, 3.XX, 5.56(a)] 

(Added 1993) 

central location. – A laboratory or meter shop used for the testing of meters to measure in-service accuracy.[3.XX]

certified meter type. – A metering device which is tested and certified to meet the certification testing as specified 

in the ANSI C12 standard for a specific meter type. It shall include any optional circuit boards, devices, or modules 

enclosed within the meter cover as a part of this certified meter type.[3.XX] 

configuration parameter. – Any adjustable or selectable parameter for a device feature that can affect the accuracy 

of a transaction or can significantly increase the potential for fraudulent use of the device and, due to its nature, 

needs to be updated only during device installation or upon replacement of a component (e.g., division value 

[increment], sensor range, and units of measurement).[2.20, 2.21, 2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 3.XX, 5.56(a)] 

(Added 1993) 

connection line impedance. – The impedance of the circuit used to convey energy sold from a fueling device to the 

storage of an electric vehicle.[3.XX] 

creep. – A continuous apparent measurement of energy indicated by a meter with operating voltage applied and no 

power consumed (load terminals open circuited).[3.XX] 

current. – The rate of the flow of electrical charge past any one point in a circuit. The unit of measurement is 

amperes or coulombs per second.[3.XX] 

E 

electric vehicle, plug-in. – A vehicle that employs electrical energy as a primary or secondary mode of propulsion. 

Plug-in electric vehicles may be all-electric vehicles (EVs) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). All-electric 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

$SSHQGL[+±,WHP(OHFWULF9HKLFOH)XHOLQJDQG6XEPHWHULQJ'UDIW&RGH

S&T - H16 

vehicles are powered by an electric motor and battery at all times. All-electric vehicles may also be called batteryelectric vehicles (BEVs). Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles employ both an electric motor and an internal combustion 

engine that consumes either conventional or alternative fuel or a fuel cell. In a parallel type hybrid-electric vehicle, 

either the electric motor or the engine may propel the vehicle. In a series type hybrid-electric vehicle, the engine or 

fuel cell generates electricity that is then used by the electric motor to propel the vehicle. EVs, BEVs, and PHEVs 

are capable of receiving and storing electricity via connection to an external electrical supply. Not all 

hybrid-electric vehicles are of the plug-in type. Hybrid-electric vehicles that do not have the capability to receive 

electrical energy from an external supply (HEVs) generate electrical energy onboard with the internal combustion 

engine, regenerative braking, or both.[3.XX] 

electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). – The conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded, and equipment 

grounding conductors; the electric vehicle connectors; attachment plugs; and all other fittings, devices, power 

outlets, or apparatuses installed specifically for the purpose of measuring, delivering, and computing the price of 

electrical energy delivered to the electric vehicle.[3.XX] 

electricity sold as vehicle fuel. – Electrical energy transferred to and/or stored onboard an electric vehicle primarily 

for the purpose of propulsion.[3.XX] 

electricity meter. – A device that measures and registers the integral of an electrical quantity with respect to 

time.[3.XX] 

electronic meter [EM]. – An electric (solid state) watthour meter that does not have a rotor.[3.XX] 

element (stator). – A combination of a voltage-sensing unit and a current-sensing unit, which provides an output 

proportional to the quantities measured.[3.XX] 

energy. – The integral of active power with respect to time.[3.XX] 

energy flow. – The flow of energy between line and load terminals (conductors) of an electricity meter. Flow from 

the line to the load terminals is considered energy delivered. Energy flowing in the opposite direction (i.e., from the 

load to line terminals) is considered as energy received.[3.XX]

equipment, commercial. – Weights, measures, and weighing and measuring devices, instruments, elements, and 

systems or portion thereof, used or employed in establishing the measurement or in computing any basic charge or 

payment for services rendered on the basis of weight or measure. As used in this definition, measurement includes 

the determination of size, quantity, value, extent, area, composition (limited to meat and poultry), constituent value 

(for grain), or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or articles for distribution or consumption, purchased, 

offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award.[1.10, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.24, 3.30, 3.31, 3.32, 3.33, 3.34, 3.35, 3.38, 

3.XX, 4.40, 5.51, 5.56.(a), 5.56.(b), 5.57, 5.58, 5.59] 

(Added 2008) 

equipment level. – A designation given to different categories of EVSEs that conveys the general speed with which 

charging will occur.[3.XX] 

event counter. – A nonresettable counter that increments once each time the mode that permits changes to sealable 

parameters is entered and one or more changes are made to sealable calibration or configuration parameters of a 

device.[2.20, 2.21, 3.30, 3.37, 3.39, 3.XX, 5.54, 5.56(a), 5.56(b), 5.57] 

(Added 1993) 

event logger. – A form of audit trail containing a series of records where each record contains the number from the event 

counter corresponding to the change to a sealable parameter, the identification of the parameter that was changed, the time 

and date when the parameter was changed, and the new value of the parameter.[2.20, 2.21, 3.30, 3.37, 3.39, 3.XX, 5.54, 

5.56(a), 5.56(b), 5.57] 

(Added 1993) 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H17

F 

face. – That portion of a computing-type pump or dispenser which displays the actual computation of price per unit, 

delivered quantity, and total sale price. In the case of some electronic displays, this may not be an integral part of the 

pump or dispenser.[3.30, 3.XX] 

(Added 1987) 

fixed service. – Service that continuously provides the nominal power that is possible with the equipment as it is 

installed.[3.XX] 

form designation (FM). – [MM] An alphanumeric designation denoting the circuit arrangement for which the meter 

is applicable, and its specific terminal arrangement. The same designation is applicable to equivalent meters for all 

manufacturers. (Example: FM 2S)[3.XX] 

H 

hertz (Hz). – Frequency or cycles per second. One cycle of an alternating current or voltage is one complete set of 

positive and negative values of the current or voltage.[3.XX] 

I 

instrument transformer. – A transformer that reproduces in its secondary circuit, in a definite and known proportion, 

the voltage, or current of its primary circuit, with the phase relation preserved. Sometimes these devices may be 

referred to as VTs (Voltage Transformers) or CTs (Current Transformers).[3.XX] 

instrument transformer-rated meter. – A metering system with terminals arranged for connection to the secondary 

windings of external instrument transformers.[3.XX] 

instrument transformer ratio. – The stated ratio of the primary circuit current or voltage compared to the secondary 

circuit current or voltage. (Example: CTR = 200 : 0.1)[3.XX] 

J

megajoule (MJ). – An SI unit of energy equal to 1 000 000 joules.[3.XX] 

K 

kilowatt (kW). – A unit of power equal to 1 000 watts.[3.XX] 

kilowatt-hour (kWh). – A unit of energy equal to 1 000 watthours.[3.XX] 

L 

line service. – The service terminals or conductors connecting the meter to the power source.[3.XX] 

load service. – The service terminals or conductors connecting the meter to the electrical load (e.g., vehicle, tenant, 

etc.)[3.XX] 

load, full. – A test condition with rated voltage, current at 100 % of test amps level, and power factor of 1.0.[3.XX] 

load, light. – A test condition with rated voltage, current at 10 % of test amps level, and power factor of 1.0.[3.XX]. 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H18

M 

master meter, electric. – An electric watthour meter owned, maintained, and used for commercial billing purposes 

by the serving utility. All the electric energy served to a submetered service system is recorded by the master 

meter.[3.XX] 

mechanical meter [MM]. – A watthour meter with a rotor.[3.XX] 

meter class designation (CL). – The manufacturer’s designated maximum amperes a meter can measure continuously 

without damage or exceeding limits of accuracy. (Example: CL 200)[3.XX] 

meter, electricity. – An electric watthour meter.[3.XX] 

metrological components. – Elements or features of a measurement device or system that perform the measurement 

process or that may affect the final quantity determination or resulting price determinations. This includes accessories 

that can affect the validity of transactions based upon the measurement process. The measurement process includes 

determination of quantities; the transmission, processing, storage, or other corrections or adjustments of measurement 

data or values; and the indication or recording of measurement values or other derived values such as price or worth 

or charges.[3.XX] 

N 

nominal power. – Refers to the “intended” or “named” or “stated” as opposed to “actual” rate of transfer of electrical 

energy (i.e., power).[3.XX] 

nonresettable totalizer. – An element interfaced with the measuring or weighing element that indicates the 

cumulative registration of the measured quantity with no means to return to zero.[3.30, 3.37, 3.39, 3.XX] 

O 

ohm. – The practical unit of electric resistance that allows one ampere of current to flow when the impressed potential 

is one volt.[3.XX] 

P 

percent registration. – Percent registration is calculated as follows: 

Re 100 Wh measured by METER Percent gistration  x

Wh measured by STANDARD

[3.XX] 

percent error. – Percent Error = Percent Registration – 100. A meter is said to be “slow” that has percent registration 

below 100 % and negative percent error.[3.XX].

point-of-sale system. – An assembly of elements including a weighing or measuring element, an indicating element, 

and a recording element (and may also be equipped with a “scanner”) used to complete a direct sales transaction.[2.20, 

3.30, 3.32, 3.37, 3.39, 3.XX] 

(Added 1986) (Amended 1997) 

power factor. – The ratio of the active power to the apparent power in an AC circuit. The power factor is a number 

between 0 and 1 that is equal to 1 when the voltage and current are in phase (load is entirely resistive).[3.XX] 

primary watthour constant (PKh) [MM]. – The meter watthour constant per revolution or pulse (Kh) multiplied by 

the product of the current and/or voltage transformer ratio(s): 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H19

PKh = Kh (Current Transformer Ratio X Voltage Transformer Ratio).[3.XX] 

R 

reactive power. – For sinusoidal quantities in a two-wire circuit, reactive power is the product of the voltage, the 

current, and the sine of the phase angle between them, using the current as the reference.[3.XX] 

register ratio (Rr) [MM]. – The number of revolutions of the gear meshing with the worm or pinion on the rotor shaft 

per complete rotation of the fastest (most sensitive) wheel or dial pointer.[3.XX] 

remote configuration capability. – The ability to adjust a weighing or measuring device or change its sealable 

parameters from or through some other device that is not itself necessary to the operation of the weighing or measuring 

device or is not a permanent part of that device.[2.20, 2.21, 2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 3.39, 3.XX, 5.56(a)] 

(Added 1993) 

retail device. – A measuring device primarily used to measure product for the purpose of sale to the end user.[3.30, 

3.32, 3.37, 3.39, 3.XX] 

(Amended 1987 and 2004) 

revolution equivalent. – The number of watthours represented by one increment (pulse period) of serial data.[3.XX] 

root mean square (RMS). – The mathematical convention used to describe the average quantity of a property (such 

as current) that is varying as a sine wave.[3.XX] 

S 

serving utility. – The utility distribution company that owns the master meter and sells electric energy to the owner 

of a submeter system.[3.XX] 

side. – That portion of a pump or dispenser which faces the consumer during the normal delivery of product.[3.30, 

3.XX] 

(Added 1987) 

starting load. – The minimum load above which the device will indicate energy flow continuously.[3.XX]

stator [MM]. – The unit which provides the driving torque in a watthour meter. It contains a voltage coil, one or 

more current coils, and the necessary steel to provide the required magnetic paths.[3.XX] 

submeter. – A meter furnished, owned, installed, and maintained by the customer who is served through a utility 

owned master meter.[3.XX] 

T 

tenant. – The person or persons served electric energy from a submetered service system.[3.XX] 

test accuracy – in-service. – The device accuracy determined by a test made during the period that the meter is in 

service. It may be made on the customer’s premises without removing the meter from its mounting, or by removing 

the meter for testing either on the premises or in a laboratory or meter shop.[3.XX] 

test amperes (TA). – The full load current (amperage) specified by the device manufacturer for testing and calibration 

adjustment. (Example: TA 30)[3.XX] 

test block. – Device that facilitates safe meter testing by disconnecting the meter from the circuit without interrupting 

the service to the tenant.[3.XX] 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix H – Item 360-3: Electric Vehicle Fueling and Submetering Draft Code 

S&T - H20 

thermal overload protector. – A circuit breaker or fuse that automatically limits the maximum current in a 

circuit.[3.XX] 

U 

unit price. – The price at which the product is being sold and expressed in whole units of measurement.[1.10, 3.30, 

3.XX] 

(Added 1992) 

V 

variable service. – Service that may be controlled resulting in periods of reduced, and/or interrupted transfer of 

electrical energy.[3.XX] 

volt. – The practical unit of electromotive force. One volt will cause one ampere to flow when impressed across a 

resistance of one ohm.[3.XX] 

voltage transformer. – A device that provides a secondary voltage that is a precise fraction of the primary 

voltage.[3.XX] 

W 

watt. – The practical unit of electric power. In an alternating-current circuit (AC), the power in watts is volts times 

amperes multiplied by the circuit power factor.[3.XX] 

watthour (Wh). – The practical unit of electric energy, which is expended in one hour when the average power 

consumed during the hour is one watt.[3.XX] 

watthour meter. – An electricity metering system comprised of components functioning together that measures and 

registers the integral, with respect to time, of the active or real power of the circuit in which it is connected. This 

power integral is the energy delivered to the circuit during the interval over which the integration extends. The unit 

in which this integral is measured is usually the kilowatt-hour.[3.XX]. 

watthour meter – field standard. – A portable meter that is traceable to NIST and is used as a standard meter to 

test meters in commercial applications. This meter is also known as a portable standard or working standard.[3.XX] 

watthour meter – self-contained. – A meter in which the terminals are arranged for connection to the circuit being 

measured without using external instrument transformers.[3.XX]

watthour meter constant (Kh). – The expression of the relationship between the energy applied to the meter and 

one rotor revolution, or output indication, expressed as watthours per revolution or, watthours per output 

indication.[3.XX] 

watthour meter – test constant (Kt) [EM]. – The expression of the relationship between the energy applied to the 

meter system and corresponding occurrence of one test output indication expressed as watthours per test output 

indication.[3.XX] 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 1 

Report of the 

Professional Development Committee (PDC) 

Dale Saunders, Chair 

Virginia 

400 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Professional Development Committee (PDC) (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) 

for the 99th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based 

on the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at public hearings, 

comments received from the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the NCWM 2014 Online 

Position Forum, the addendum sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the 

voting session of the Annual Meeting. The Informational items shown below were adopted as presented when this 

report was approved. 

Table A identifies the agenda and appendix items by reference key, title of item, page number and the appendices by 

appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and technical terms used throughout the agenda are 

identified in Table B. The first three digits of an item’s reference key are assigned from the Subject Series List. The 

status of each item contained in the report is designated as one of the following: (D) Developing Item: the 

Committee determined the item has merit; however, the item was returned to the submitter or other designated party 

for further development before any action can be taken at the national level; (I) Informational Item: the item is 

under consideration by the Committee but not proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the Committee is making 

recommendations requiring a vote by the active members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been 

removed from consideration by the Committee. 

Table B provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in its entirety. 

Some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent calendar. Consent calendar 

items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during their deliberation after the 

Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not require discussion. The Voting 

Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of 

the consent calendar, the Committee entertains any requests from the floor to remove specific items from the 

consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), and 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced 

font (e.g., new items). When used in this report, the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Note: The policy is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, recommendations 

received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this 

publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units. 

Subject Series List 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 400 Series 

Education ........................................................................................................................................................ 410 Series 

Program Management ..................................................................................................................................... 420 Series 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 2 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Reference Key Title of Item Page PDC

400 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 

410 EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................... 3 

410-1 I Professional Certification Program .............................................................................................. 3 

410-2 I Training ....................................................................................................................................... 7 

410-3 I Instructor Improvement ............................................................................................................... 8 

410-4 I Recommended Topics for Conference Training .......................................................................... 8 

420 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................... 10 

420-1 I Safety Awareness ...................................................................................................................... 10 

420-2 I PDC Publication ........................................................................................................................ 12 

 

Appendices 

A Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan .................................................................. A1 

B History of Professional Certification Program ...................................................................................... B1 

C History of Instructor Improvement ........................................................................................................ C1 

D Training Manual .................................................................................................................................... D1 

Reference Key 

Number

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

To accept the Report Voice Vote Adopted 

 

Table B 

Voting Results 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 3 

 

Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

 

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(In order by Reference Key)

410 EDUCATION 

410-1 I Professional Certification Program 

Professional certifications are offered in many industries as a means of demonstrating competence in a particular 

field of expertise. Certification may be a means of qualifying an individual for employment or higher pay grade 

within a profession. The NCWM Professional Certification Program provides confidence that an individual has a 

strong understanding of U.S weights and measures standards as adopted by NCWM and published in NIST 

Handbooks, 44, 130, and 133. 

Professional certification is available to NCWM members and non-members in the private sector and in government 

positions. Please note that the person taking the test must be an NCWM member in order to receive the exams for 

free. 

To date, the Committee has developed exams for retail motor fuel dispensers (RMFD), basic package checking, and 

small capacity scales Class III. Additional examinations will be offered in the following order: 

 Vehicle tank meters 

 Medium capacity scales 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

ADDIE Analysis, Design, Development, 

Implementation, and Evaluation NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

ANSI American Nation 

al Standards Institute NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

BOK Body of Knowledge OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

CWMA Central Weights and Measures 

Association PDC Professional Development Committee 

ISO International Standardization 

Organization RSA Registered Service Agents 

ICE Institute for Credentialing Excellence SME Subject Matter Expert 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures SWMA Southern Weights and Measures Association 

WWMA Western Weights and Measures 

Association 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 4 

 Large capacity scales 

 LPG 

 Price Verification 

Based on a 2011 survey, the existing priorities for the next exams include taximeters, mass flow meters, timing 

devices, and packaging and labeling requirements. The Committee continues to solicit feedback on priorities for 

future exams. Please contact the Committee Chair through NCWM Headquarters. A listing of modules and other 

potential exam subjects is provided in the PDC Curriculum Work Plan (PDC Appendix A). 

At the 2014 NCWM Interim meeting, the Committee heard the following comments on this item: 

 Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota Weights and Measures Director, made the comment that she had her light duty 

inspectors take the basic package checking exam, and even though they were trained to do volumetric 

testing, they did not pass the exam because they do not apply the principles in the field very often. 

Practical experience and not just book learning is necessary to pass the test. Ms. Carol Hockert, NIST, 

OWM, agreed and said that NIST, OWM’s basic package checking course covers only checking packages 

labeled by weight and the intermediate class is on packages labeled by volume. Mr. Ross Andersen 

indicated that he and the Committee will look at the issue and see if something needs to change with regard 

to this package checking test. The committee plans to survey the states to see if there is agreement that 

testing packages labeled by volume is really an intermediate, and not a basic, skill. 

 In response to a question on how to find current EPOs from NIST Handbook 112, Ms. Hockert said that the 

EPOs were in the process of being updated but would be back on the NIST, OWM website this spring. The 

Committee suggests that anyone interested in obtaining the most current EPOs should contact NIST OWM. 

 Mr. Jerry Buendel, Washington Program Manager, asked that the Committee not lower the bar on the 

exams but keep them at a high level. Mr. Bunendel expressed the need to have the best questions possible 

to maintain the integrity and the quality of the certification. He also requested exam takers get feedback 

when they failed an exam so they can improve on the areas that need to be strengthened. Mr. Dale 

Saunders, PDC Committee Chair, responded on behalf of the Committee that providing feedback to the 

exam takers could jeopardize the ability to get accreditation for the Certification Program. Ms. Quinn 

offered the opinion that most people know which questions they are unsure of or struggled with. 

 Mr. Andersen commented that as Certification Coordinator, his job is to regularly evaluate the exam 

questions to make sure the exams are balanced, relative to the Module and chosen competency level, to 

check whether individual questions are mechanically flawed or don’t fit the learning objective in the 

module, and to check whether the competency level of the learning objectives are correct. While high 

failure rates may indicate problems with the exam questions, it may also indicate that candidates are not 

well prepared for the type of exam they are taking. 

 Mr. Kurt Floren, Los Angeles County Agriculture Commissioner, expressed his appreciation to Mr. 

Andersen and the subject matter experts who do not receive compensation for the time and the effort they 

are putting into this process. Mr. Andersen clarified that recently retired weights and measures individuals 

will be compensated somewhat to help write some of the questions for upcoming exams, as explained in 

the NCWM Board of Directors’ report, Item 110-2. 

Status of Current tests 

Current tests – RMFD, Small Capacity Scales Class III, and Basic Package Checking 

The Committee reported that exam statistics show steady improvement over time, indicating that much of the 

problem with passing the tests has to do with a need to acclimate to the learning objectives in the modules and 

to the experience of on-line testing. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 5 

Retail Motor Fuel Devices FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total 

# of Registrants 76 107 29 212 

# of Certificates Issued 45 83 18 146 

% certificates per registrants 59 % 78 % 62 % 69 % 

Small Capacity Scales Class III FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total 

# of Registrants - 17 51 68 

# of Certificates Issued - 6 18 24 

% certificates per registrants - 35 % 35 % 35 % 

Package Checking Basic FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total 

# of Registrants - 15 27 42 

# of Certificates Issued - 5 11 16 

% certificates per registrants - 33% 41% 38% 

The vehicle tank meters (VTM) exam is in development now, as well as the medium and large capacity scale exams. 

The SMEs are currently writing the questions. The Certification Coordinator is currently seeking SMEs for the LPG 

liquid measuring exam. A notice about SMEs for the price verification exam will come out later this spring. The 

Committee thanks those who have already volunteered to be SMEs.

The Committee wishes to acknowledge the SMEs currently working on the VTM and medium and large capacity 

scale exams: 

Vehicle Tank Meters 

Medium Capacity Scales 

Large Capacity Scales 

Conrad Brown, ME Mark Buccelli, MN, Ret 

Charles Carroll, MA Jim Daggon, Rice lake Weighing 

Gabe Frezzo, Industry, PA Dennis Fox, Central Illinois Scale 

Lewis Hutfles, KS Nathan Gardner, OR 

Paul Jordan, CA Joe Grell, Rice Lake Weighing 

Antony Joseph, NY Roger Macey, CA, Ret 

John Kirk, VA Matthew Maiten, Santa Barbara, CA 

Gary Kneissel, MN Mike Mann, WA 

Mike Mann, WA Albie Michelson, WY, Ret 

Albie Michelson, WY, Ret John Pasko, WI 

Ron Pierce, PA Kevin Pfeiffer, VA 

Gary Sassaman, Liquid Meas & Controls, PA Doug Rudy, PA 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 6 

Vehicle Tank Meters 

Medium Capacity Scales 

Large Capacity Scales 

Scott Simmons, CO Mike Smith, NY 

Mike Smith, NY Richard Suiter, NE, NIST, Ret 

Michael Swimm, ME Courtney Ward, Quality Scales 

Otto Warnlof, MN/NIST, Ret Otto Warnlof, MN, NIST, Ret 

Jared Williams, WI 

Ray Woolfolk, AK 

Jane Zulkiewicz, Barnstable, MA 

The Committee also wants to assure members that SMEs will not compromise their ability to be trainers. SMEs will 

not be allowed to have access to more than 25 % of the exam questions. 

Mr. Don Onwiler made a comment that this restriction on access to the test questions is an important part of 

maintaining the integrity of the exam process as the certification program moves toward formal accreditation. 

Eventually, exam questions may need to be copyrighted. SMEs should note that they should modify exam questions 

before submitting them to the Certification Coordinator if they wish to continue to use those questions in their own 

exams. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

WWMA supports the continued development of the Certification and Proficiency Testing Program. The 

membership recognizes the value of the test in improving skills, enhancing credibility of both weights and measures 

officials and registered service agents. The Committee commends the efforts made by the volunteer subject matter 

experts, contract staff, and NCWM leadership involved in this initiative. 

NEWMA members recognize the importance of the certification exams in demonstrating knowledge and skills in 

utilizing the handbook, and enhancing the credibility of both weights and measures officials and registered service 

agents. Members continue to appeal for an overview of their certification exam results so they can determine where 

skills need improvement. Some individuals are still experiencing problems with timeouts and citation issues. A 

suggestion was made to again review the amount of time that was allowed to complete each section of the exam. 

NEWMA is thankful to the volunteer efforts of the subject matter experts, the Certification Coordinator, and others 

involved in the development and implementation of the certification examinations. 

At the 2014 CWMA Annual Meeting, an industry representative asked why so few people were taking the 

certification tests. Minnesota indicated that their inspectors would only be taking the test every five years, unless 

there was job turnover. Ohio indicated that labor contracts needed to be renegotiated before they could require their 

inspectors to take the tests. Mr. John Gaccione said that the Northeast states also were bound by labor contracts that 

made requiring the tests difficult. They currently require civil service exams. Iowa indicated some states might 

want to use the tests but might lack the staff and time to develop a program. The room was polled on how the tests 

were being used: 

 Two states (Minnesota and Missouri) require their investigators to take and pass the certification tests. 

 Two states (Iowa and Ohio) are working on requiring that their registered service agents take the test. 

Ohio is offering five continuing education credits or each test taken and passed by an inspector. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 7 

410-2 I Training 

The purpose of this item is to share best practices and approaches to training in response to the broad training needs 

of weights and measures jurisdictions, and to serve as a link to various training materials on the web. Eventually, 

Item 410-2 will become the home for the training material program currently under development by the NCWM 

Board of Directors. 

The Committee reported that the Board of Directors is assembling a new work group to be headed by Michael 

Cleary, former Director of the California Division of Measurement Standards. The function of the work group will 

be to develop guidance on the scope of training for weights and measures officials, and will report to the PDC. 

Anyone interested in serving on this working group should contact the NCWM Board of Directors. Appendix D has 

been added which includes; A Competency- Based Evaluation Scale, an Interpersonal Skills for Field Training 

Inspectors document, Standardize Evaluation Guidelines, a Routine Observation Report Form, and a Training 

Program for Department of Commerce Weights and Measures Investigator I Training. Please note that the newly 

added items in Appendix D are a work in progress and may change somewhat in the future. 

 Mike Cleary gave an overview of the objectives and progress of the Training Manual Task Group. 

Members include: 

o Mike Cleary, Chair, California (Retired) 

o Craig Harris, Ohio 

o Josh Nelson, Oregon 

o Debbie Radar, Arizona 

o Julie Quinn, Minnesot 

o Scott Simmons, Colorado 

o Agatha Shields, Ohio 

o Paul Jordan, California 

o Greg Gholston, Missouri 

o Nathan Gardner, Oregon 

 The objectives of this group are to: 

o Gather subject matter experts. 

o Identify the core competencies necessary to be a successful weights and measures inspector. 

o Develop a comprehensive field training guide comprised of core competencies linked to the 

handbooks. 

o Develop a competency based evaluation process. 

o Develop selection criteria for Field Training Inspectors (FTI) and those who will manage the field 

training and their relationship to management. 

o Develop a Routine Observation Form (ROF) that lists basic employee skills during the training period. 

o Develop a detailed rating system for the ROF. 

o Develop a rating system for the core competencies checklist. 

To date, the task group has developed the ROF, a detailed rating for the ROF, a rating methodology (a 

competency based evaluation scale), and criteria guide for selecting field training inspectors. 

 Ms. Hockert stated that there have been two Train the Trainer classes, one in April 2013 and another in 

December 2013. A subsequent Train the Trainer course for those who took the first class will be offered in 

April 2014. The goal is to develop a long term training program to build a pool of regional trainers for both 

their states and for their regions. She also said that NIST OWM will conduct a half-day training event at all 

the regional meetings for managers to evaluate the success of the training. 

 Mr. Andersen suggested that trainers should be encouraged to take the existing NCWM certification exams 

to become familiar with the types of questions asked. He also suggested trainers incorporate the NCWM 

modules in all of their training plans. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 8 

Regional Associations Comments: 

The WWMA supports the development of a field training program for weights and measures officials. The training 

program will be a valuable resource in the technical training, professional development, and evaluation of weights 

and measures officials. The program, as envisioned, will allow officials to quickly tailor training programs to the 

individual program’s needs, provide an outline for each segment of the training, and supply tools for tracking the 

trainee’s progress and proficiency. The members urge the NCWM PDC and the Board to support this project and 

closely track its progress. 

NEWMA believes that training and development is an important component to any weights and measures program.

410-3 I Instructor Improvement 

Report Cleanup: 

Interim 2013 Meeting: The Committee agreed to move the historical data in the current item to Appendix C with 

the intention of moving it into the Committee archives at the 2014 Interim. Moving forward, historical information 

will be archived, and this item will contain only current action items. 

Current Items: 

NIST, OWM provided two Train the Trainer courses as a way to increase the number of trainers available to teach 

OWM courses. Additional classes will be offered in the future. The training is free, and OWM asks for a minimum 

commitment from each participant of leading one to two training courses with a NIST, OWM trainer in the 

subsequent year. Expenses involved with teaching the course(s) are covered by OWM. Thirty-seven individuals 

have been trained thus far. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

The WWMA expresses its gratitude to NIST, OWM and commends them for offering this valuable course. The 

training is designed to improve the quality of weights and measures regulatory activities, enhance the skills of the 

staff, and promote uniformity. The trained trainers are a beneficial resource, which is available to all jurisdictions. 

This initiative is an excellent example of the innovative partnership between NIST and NCWM. 

NEWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: A comment was made that having regional trainers that are well trained in adult 

learning, as well as in technical material, will be beneficial in helping individuals to retain information when training 

is given. NIST, OWM is doing a great job! 

CWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: NIST, OWM reported that 37 student-trainers from 30 states had participated in the 

Regional Trainer Program so far, and a few were almost ready to start training others on their own. Ohio reported 

that their trainers were much more effective because of this training. Minnesota asked if similar training could be 

developed for staff who trains new hires one-on-one in the field. NIST, OWM prefers to concentrate its efforts on 

areas where there are gaps; so they will not be organizing that kind of training. They recommended the Bob Pike 

Group and the Training Clinic (both in Minnesota) for developing field trainers. 

410-4 I Recommended Topics for Conference Training 

The Board of Directors has charged the Committee with recommending appropriate topics for the technical sessions 

at future Annual Meetings. The Board of Directors asked the PDC to review and prioritize possible presentations 

and submit those to NCWM Chairman. The Chairman will coordinate with NCWM staff to secure presenters and 

schedule the sessions. 

The Committee acknowledged the continued interest for a presentation on “Making Sense of Electronic Receipts” 

and is seeking assistance in identifying a suitable presenter on the topic. A comment was heard from the floor that 

“Price Posting on Retail Motor Fuel Devices” should be added to the list so the new changes can be explained. 

The Committee would like to recommend that the regional associations and NCWM consider offering training on: 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 9 

 Making Sense of Electronic Receipts; 

 Training the Trainer in Adult Learning Techniques; 

 Ethics for Weights & Measures Officials; and 

 Data Privacy Issues Faced by Weights & Measures Officials. 

The PDC continues to carry the following list and recommends these topics for possible training seminars, 

roundtables, or symposia for presentation at future NCWM meetings: 

 Guidelines for Supplemental Declarations (recommended by PALS);

 Alternative Fuels Issues (Fuel Volatility, Ethanol Blending, and Biodiesel Blend); 

 Ergonomics (including Proper Lifting Techniques, Back and Stress Techniques, and Office Ergonomics); 

 Public Relations (specifically dealing with aggressive/angry people) (recommended by the SWMA); 

 General Safety Issues (recommended by the WWMA); 

 Defensive Driving (recommended by the WWMA); 

 Administrative Civil Penalty Process (recommended by the WWMA);

 Price Verification (recommended by the WWMA); 

 Customer Service (recommended by the WWMA); 

 Moisture Loss; 

 Documenting Investigations for Court Proceedings; 

 Honing Presentation Skills; 

 Emerging Issues; 

 Implementing New RMFD Price Posting and Computing Capability Revisions (recommended by the 

WWMA); 

 Fundamentals of the National Type Evaluation Program (recommended by the WWMA); 

 Electric Vehicles: Commercial Devices, Method of Sale, Advertising and Labeling (recommended by the 

WWMA); 

 Understanding the International Weights and Measures Standards Development System (recommended by 

the WWMA); and 

 Crane Operation and Safety (recommended by the NEWMA). 

The following is a list of recent presentations. Presentations since 2010 are available at 

www.ncwm.net/meetings/annual/archive: 

 Taximeter Technology Advancements (Mr. Matt Daus, International Association of Transportation 

Regulators, 2013); 

 Advanced Vehicles and Fuel Quality (Mr. John M Cabaniss, Jr., Association of Global Automakers, 2013); 

 Economic Justification and Demonstrating Value of Weights and Measures (Mr. Tim Chesser, Arkansas 

Bureau of Standards, 2012); 

 Conducting Effective Marketplace Surveys and Investigations (Ms. Judy Cardin, Wisconsin Weights and 

Measures, 2012);

 Public Relations and Customer Service as Regulators (Mr. Doug Deiman, Alaska Division of Measurement 

Standards/CVE, 2012); 

 An Overview of Unit Pricing in the United States (Mr. David Sefcik, NIST, OWM, 2011); 

 Grocery Unit Pricing in Australia (Mr. Ian Jarratt, Queensland Consumers Association, 2011); 

 Grocery Unit Pricing in Canada (Mr. Ian Jarratt, Queensland Consumers Association, 2011); 

 The U.S. Hydrogen Measuring System: The Turning Point? (Ms. Kristin Macey, California Division of 

Measurement Standards, 2011); 

 Corrosion in Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Underground Storage Systems (Mr. Prentiss Searles and Ms. Lorri 

Grainawi, American Petroleum Institute, 2010); 

 Risk-Based Inspection Schemes (Mr. Henry Oppermann, Weights and Measures Consulting, LLC, 2010); 

 Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) (Mr. Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc., and Mr. Randy Moses,Wayne,2009); 

 Fuel Volatility and Ethanol Blending (Mr. Jim McGetrick, BP Products, 2009); 

 Investigative Techniques (Mr. Michael Cleary, Retired, 2009); 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 10 

 Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Field Test Procedures;

 Elements of an Effective Safety and Health Program (Mr. Dan Whipple, Organization???, 2008); 

 Analyzing Temperature Compensation Data (Mr. Henry Oppermann, NIST, OWM, and Mr. Steven 

Malone, Nebraska Division of Weights and Measures, 2007); 

 The Great Temperature Compensation Debate (Mr. Ross Andersen, New York Bureau of Weights and 

Measures, 2007); 

 NIST Handbook 44, Scale Code Tare Changes (Mr. Steve Cook, NIST OWM, XXXX DATE). 

Regional Associations Comments: 

The WWMA recommends adding the following topic to the Conference training list: “Outreach and Promotional 

Materials.” For example, outreach to legislative bodies, the general public, civic groups, industry, and news/social 

media. 

The CWMA recommends training on the 2012 changes in NIST Handbook 44 related to pre-delivery and postdelivery discounts on retail motor fuel dispensers. 

420 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

420-1 I Safety Awareness 

 Mr. Brett Gurney, Utah Weights & Measures Program Manager, notified the Committee that he is now the 

representative for the Western Weights and Measures Association and will be submitting his article soon. 

 Ms. Julie Quinn reminded the Committee that Regional Safety Liaisons should contact the states within 

their regions to obtain information about the general types of safety problems experienced. Jurisdictions 

are encouraged to send their safety reports and issues to their Regional Safety Liaison, who in turn will 

forward them to the PDC. 

Below is a list of the Regional Safety Liaisons. Regional Associations should keep the committee updated on 

current liaison assignments. 

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA): 

Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota Weights and Measures Division 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA): 

Mr. Michael Sikula, New York Bureau of Weights and Measures 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA): 

Mr. Matthew Curran, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA): 

Mr. Brett Gurney, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 

The Committee will continue asking the regions to prepare articles for the NCWM Newsletter and has revised the 

schedule as follows for future issues. The Committee plans to notify the Regional Safety Liaisons as their 

assignment date approaches. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 11 

Region Issue Article Deadline Published 

WWMA 2014, Issue 1 18-Jan-14 February 

CWMA 2014, Issue 2 16-Apr-14 May 

NEWMA 2014, Issue 3 17-Jul-14 September 

SWMA 2015, Issue 1 24-Jan-15 February 

Email all articles to NCWM headquarters at info@ncwm.net. 

The Committee would like to thank those persons who submitted safety related articles to NCWM Newsletter. In 

particular, the Committee recognizes the contributors for the 2012 NCWM Newsletters. 

o Behavior Based Safety, 2013 Issue 1 (Julie Quinn, Minnesota) 

o New Requirements for Right-to-Know Training, 2013 Issue 2 (Mike Sikula, New York) 

The Committee asks for suggestions for safety articles that people would like to see in future newsletters and/or 

safety issues that need to be addressed immediately. The PDC reminds regional associations to check the 

submission deadlines for their upcoming article assignments. Send completed articles to NCWM headquarters by 

the submission deadline. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

The WWMA reported that Mr. Gurney, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food will replace Mr. Deiman as 

WWMA regional safety liaison. The WWMA thanks Mr. Deiman for his service and leadership. 

CWMA 2014 Annual Meeting: Minnesota echoed Mr. Bob Murnane’s comment from the NCWM Interim Meeting, 

that this item was one of the most important but least developed items on the agenda, and urged volunteers to join 

the Committee specifically to work on developing it. A discussion of common safety issues ensued. The following 

safety concerns and incidents were reported: 

 Electrical Hazards 

o Grounding problem in an electric pump on a prover caused a fire and destruction of a return hose 

o Electrical grounding problem at a dispenser caused the death of a young girl at a marine fueling station 

when she grabbed the dock 

 Physical hazards from the general public 

o Drive by shootings at gas stations when inspectors were present

o Bank robbery in a grocery store while the inspector was checking cash register scales 

o Inspectors being struck, or nearly struck, by vehicles while they worked 

o Inspectors not knowing electric vehicles were in their work area because the vehicles make no sound 

o People smoking in gas stations 

o People on cell phones, particularly at gas stations 

 Physical hazards from business owners and clients 

o Inspector being jumped from behind by an angry station owner 

o Inspector being locked in an office by an angry owner 

o Grenade found in the cabinet of a RMFD at a location where the owner was hostile to the inspector 

 Snakes in RMFD cabinets 

 Confined spaces – scale pits 

OSHA requiring a respiratory program when inspectors have to work at sites which require them to use respirators. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

PDC - 12 

420-2 I PDC Publication 

No comments were received at the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting. The PDC will work with NCWM staff to revamp 

the NCWM webpage to improve accessibility to PDC publications. 

Regional Associations Comments: 

The WWMA recognizes the value of the improved website and commends NCWM for its work. 

Mr. Dale Saunders, Virginia | Committee Chair 

Ms. Cheryl Ayer, New Hampshire | Member 

Ms. Kristin Macey, California | Member 

Mr. Stacy Carlsen, Marin County, California | Member 

Ms. Julie Quinn, Minnesota | Member 

Mr. Mr. Richard Shipman, Rice Lake Weighing Systems | Associate Membership Representative 

Mr. Ross Andersen | Certification Coordinator 

Professional Development Committee 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan 

PDC - A1 

Appendix A 

Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan 

Revised January 2014 

Module/Subject 

Level 1/Level 2/Level 3 

1. Fundamentals of Weights and Measures 

1.1. Introduction to Weights and Measures Programs 

1.2. Weights and Measures Laws and Regulations 

1.3. Field Standards and Test Equipment 

1.4. State Program Scope and Overview 

1.5. Enforcement Powers 

2. Weights and Measures Administration 

2.1. Fundamentals of Weights and Measures Administration (Commercial System, Powers and Duties, etc.) 

2.2. Administration Functions (Personnel, Management, Budget, Safety, etc.) 

2.3. Legislation and Regulations (Legal Considerations, Interaction with Legislature, Stakeholders, Industry, etc.) 

2.4. Regulatory Control (Device Inspection, Commodities, Complaints)

2.5. Laboratory Metrology Administration (Purpose of Laboratory, Responsibilities of Metrologist, NIST 

Expectations for Recognition of Laboratory, Quality System, Training Requirements, etc.) 

2.6. Public Relations and Communications (Publicity, Public Relations, Communications) 

3. Laboratory Metrology 

3.1. NIST Fundamentals of Metrology 

3.2. NIST Mass Metrology Seminar 

3.3. NIST Volume Metrology Seminar 

3.4. NIST Length Metrology Seminar 

3.5. NIST Advanced Mass 

4. Device Control Program 

4.1. Safety Considerations 

4.2. NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control 

4.3. Weighing Systems, General 

4.3.1. Static Electronic Weighing Systems, General 

4.3.2. Static Mechanical and Hybrid Weighing Systems, General 

4.3.3. Dynamic Weighing Systems, General 

4.3.4. Precision Weighing Systems Class I and II 

4.3.5. Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class III 

4.3.6. Medium Capacity Weighing Systems Class III 

4.3.7. Large Capacity Class III and III L Weighing Systems (Vehicle and Livestock) 

4.3.8. Large Capacity Class III and III L Weighing Systems - Advanced 

4.3.9. Railroad Track Weighing Systems 

4.3.10. In-Motion Railroad Track Weighing Systems 

4.3.11. Hopper Weighing Systems 

4.3.12. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems 

4.3.13. Automatic Weighing Systems 

4.3.14. Belt Conveyor Weighing Systems 

4.3.15. In-Motion Monorail Weighing Systems 

4.3.16. Point-of-Sale Weighing Systems 

4.3.17. Other Specialty Weighing Systems 

4.4. Dynamic Measuring Systems – General 

4.4.1. Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Professional Certification Program Curriculum Work Plan 

PDC - A2 

4.4.2. Loading Rack and Other Stationary Metering Systems 

4.4.3. Loading Rack and Other Stationary Metering Systems – Advanced 

4.4.4. Vehicle-Tank Meter Systems 

4.4.5. Vehicle-Tank Meter Systems – Advanced 

4.4.6. Milk Metering Systems 

4.4.7. Water Meters 

4.4.8. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) / Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Metering Systems 

4.4.9. LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Metering Systems – Advanced 

4.4.10. LPG Vapor Meter Systems 

4.4.11. Mass Flow Metering Systems 

4.4.12. Other Metering Systems (Cryogenics, Carbon Dioxide, etc.) 

4.5. Static Volume Measuring Systems – General 

4.5.1. Liquid Measures 

4.5.2. Farm Milk Tanks 

4.5.3. Dry Measures 

4.6. Other Measuring Systems 

4.6.1. Taximeters and Odometers 

4.6.2. Wire and Cordage Measuring Systems 

4.6.3. Linear Measures 

4.6.4. Timing Devices 

4.6.5. Weights 

4.6.6. Multiple Dimension Measuring Systems 

4.7. Quality Measuring Systems 

4.7.1. Grain Moisture Meters 

4.7.2. NIR Grain Analyzers 

4.7.3. Carcass Evaluation Systems 

5. Market Practices, Laws and Regulations (NIST Handbook 130) and Commodities (NIST Handbook 133) 

5.1. Safety Considerations – Market Practices, NIST Handbook 130, NIST Handbook 133

5.2. NIST Handbook 130 – Laws and Regulations 

5.2.1. NIST Handbook 130 – General Provisions 

5.2.2. Packaging and Labeling Regulations 

5.2.3. Method of Sale Regulations 

5.2.4. Quality of Automotive Fuels and Lubricants 

5.2.5. Price Verification 

5.3. NIST Handbook 133 – Package Net Contents Control 

5.3.1. Commodities – General 

5.3.2. Packages Labeled by Weight, Standard and Random 

5.3.3. Packages Labeled by Weight, Special Commodities 

5.3.4. Packages Labeled by Volume (Volumetric and Gravimetric Testing)

5.3.5. Packages Labeled by Volume, Special 

5.3.6. Packages Labeled by Length/Area/Thickness 

5.3.7. Packages Labeled by Count 

5.3.8. Other Package Types 

5.4. Test Purchases 

5.5. E-Commerce 

Note: Initial Verification has been intentionally been left off this listing and will be addressed later. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B1 

Appendix B 

History of Professional Certification Program 

Source: 

Carryover Item 401-1 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its Agenda in 2003 and has 

undergone continuing development.) The numbering change reflects harmonization in all NCWM reports. Copies 

of reports from recent years are also available on the website under interim and annual meeting archives pages. 

Background/Discussion: 

It is important that users of the Professional Certification Program understand how the pieces fit together and form a 

coherent system. To illustrate the relationships the Committee can describe the system as a triangle of 

interdependent parts (see diagram below). The standards come in the form of goals with measureable learning 

objectives. The education part involves training provided to help the candidate reach the desired level of proficiency 

for each of the learning objectives. The certification involves an assessment of proficiency that measures whether or 

not the objectives have been met. 

Certification Triangle 

The Committee has until now focused attention on the standards and the certification pieces in the triangle as 

illustrated in the following flowcharts. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B2 

Standard Subsystem 

Certification Subsystem 

The Committee has described this work in a number of documents. In those documents the Committee is using 

terminology consistent with current usage in the education and certification field. The following important terms 

will be used throughout the Committee’s work on the subject. 

Body of Knowledge (BOK) – refers broadly to the knowledge and skills required to function as a weights and 

measures professional. The term may refer broadly to the entire scope of knowledge and skills required within the 

profession or in a more directed manner to any selected subset for which the particular person is responsible. The 

BOK describes what you expect the weights and measures professional to achieve as opposed to how he/she will 

achieve it. To make the BOK more manageable in administration of the Professional Certification Program, it will 

be subdivided into modules in a tree-like structure moving from general knowledge and skills to more specific. 

Module – refers to a group of related subject materials within the Body of Knowledge Model (BOK). The module 

contains the articulated learning objectives for the subject area. Each module is considered a single, self-contained 

course of study. However, a broader course may span multiple modules and specific training may include only part 

of a module or parts of multiple modules. The PDC has created a standard format to create modules for the 

Professional Certification Program. The Committee has also created the Curriculum Outline and work plans to help 

manage the work activities within the program to create the many modules necessary to cover the entire profession. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B3 

Learning Objective – refers to the articulation of expectations of performance in measureable terms. Learning 

objectives are stated using active terms to be precise and measureable. There are two types of learning objectives, a 

terminal objective, and an enabling objective. Terminal objectives state broadly the expectation of performance. 

The enabling objectives state the specific parts or steps required to demonstrate competence. The PDC has 

developed a guide to writing the learning objectives for both terminal and enabling which include the active verbs 

associated with the cognitive levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy. In training, the instructor will typically choose learning 

activities to explore each of the enabling objectives in an attempt to reach the terminal objective. In assessment, the 

questions will typically test for competence in each of the enabling objectives to demonstrate that the terminal 

objectives have been met. 

Professional Certification – refers to verification of proficiency relative to all or part of the BOK for the profession 

as designated by the PDC for inclusion in a certification exam. The selected BOK includes all or part of specific 

modules, and it is documented in an exam description. Each of the modules, or combinations, is given a specific 

weighting in the design of the exam. After obtaining a passing score on the exam, the candidate is issued a 

certificate stating he/she has met the competency standard. 

Curriculum – refers to the list of modules that are used to document the BOK (see Appendix A). 

Bloom’s Taxonomy – refers to a classification of levels of cognitive leaning widely used in the field of education. 

The levels are knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, integration, and evaluation. The active verbs used in 

the articulation of learning objectives define the cognitive level. In training, the learning activities are matched to 

the cognitive level. In assessment, the form of the question is also matched to the cognitive level. The use of 

Bloom’s Taxonomy is described in detail in the Body of Knowledge Model document. 

The PDC has prepared program documents that are available on NCWM website. 

 The Curriculum Outline, which breaks the profession of weights and measures into component parts called 

modules. 

 The Body of Knowledge Model, which explains how to create modules to document the learning 

objectives. 

 The Modules developed thus far. 

 The Certifications developed thus far. 

Results of the Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems exam indicate it will be very important as the program moves 

forward that trainers integrate the learning objectives into their materials and design courses in such a way that 

candidates will achieve the desired levels of learning. See Item 401-2 Instructor Improvement. 

2011 NCWM Interim Meeting: The Committee addressed the need to build partnerships between the states, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), and NCWM. 

Each group has roles in relation to the Certification Triangle as shown in the diagram below. 

Professional Certification Program 

Applying Certification Triangle (Triumvirate Partnership) 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B4 

States NCWM PDC NIST 

 National Certified Workforce 

 Assessment Tools and 

Certification Triangle Applied 

 Student Meets Training 

Milestones 

 Feedback to Trainer and 

Employee 

 Value Exam Results = 

Recognition + Adult Learning 

 Develop New Training Standards 

 NCWM/NIST Regional Education 

and Training 

 Website and Administer 

Professional Certification 

Program 

 Enlist SMEs 

 Learning Objectives and 

Standards 

 Curriculum Work Plans, 

Discipline, Segments 

 Write/Verify Exam Questions 

 Exam Evaluation/Statistical 

Analysis 

 Training and Education 

 Instructor Improvement “ADDIE” 

 State Instruction Support 

 Technical Materials 

 Train the Trainer Material 

 Classroom and Field Training 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: The Committee received a comment from NIST OWM that there is a need to 

provide an assessment tool to measure basic competence in fundamental subject areas such as NIST Handbook 44. 

They hope to partner with NCWM to administer those assessments using NCWM testing service. This would assure 

that participants at NIST OWM sponsored training possess basic levels of proficiency in prerequisite materials so 

that instructors can deliver the primary material rather than spend time bringing all students up to the prerequisite 

level. 

The Committee agrees and believes this fits with ongoing efforts to create a BOK and an exam to assess competence 

in mathematics for the entry level inspector. This could also be a useful tool to any jurisdiction offering training in 

these basic areas. The Committee will call these baseline competency examinations defined as: 

Baseline Competency Examination - refers to verification of proficiency relative to one of the basic modules in the 

BOK for the profession. After obtaining a passing score on the exam, the candidate is issued a certificate stating 

he/she has met the competency standard. 

The initial modules under consideration for the basic competency examinations are: 

 Module XX. Weights and Measures Core Mathematics 

 Module 4.2. NIST Handbook 44 – Introduction to Device Control 

 Module 4.3. Weighing Systems – General 

 Module 4.4. Dynamic Volume Measuring Systems – General 

The BOK document for the Core Mathematics module has been drafted and will be posted on the website and 

appears in Appendix B. 

The professional certifications currently developed (or in development) are: 

 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems (Available) 

 Package Checking Basic (Available) 

 Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class III (Available) and 

 Vehicle Tank Meters (In Development) 

The Committee reported that 18 Subject Matter Expert (SME) volunteers are working on the basic package checking 

exam and 20 SME volunteers are working on the small capacity scale Class III exam. Those exams are nearing 

completion. Invitations will be sent shortly to NCWM members to solicit SME volunteers to work on the vehicle 

tank meter exam. The Committee noted that SMEs are the backbone of the program but also that they have 

competing priorities. One consideration is the idea of doing this work using web meetings, one to brief and train 

SMEs at the start of a project, and one at the end to resolve any remaining issues with complex questions on the 

exam. The idea is to minimize the time commitment of our SME volunteers while maintaining high quality in our 

exams. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B5 

The PDC conducted a survey in November 2011 to evaluate priorities for future exam development, appropriate 

range of device capacities to include in the medium or large capacity scale modules, request feedback from people 

who had taken the Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems Exam, appropriateness of our examinations for Registered 

Service Agents (RSA’s), and potential problems in standardizing exams on the current NCWM standards. 

The Committee received 134 responses covering 25 states, approximately 80 % weights and measures and 20 % 

industry. Based on the responses the Committee has selected the following subjects for priority development and 

will be requesting that the Board of Directors extend the Certification Coordinator’s contract for these new projects: 

 Medium Capacity Scales 

 Large Capacity Scales III and IIIL 

 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid 

 Price Verification 

Survey questions on the Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems Exam indicated that the majority were somewhat or 

very satisfied with the test taking experience, that the exam questions were appropriate to the basic level inspector, 

that the questions were straight forward and clearly written, and that they were able to finish in the allotted time. 

The only problems identified seemed to be related to computer connections and loading of graphics. NCWM staff 

worked with the testing service to mitigate these issues. 

On the issue of using NCWM professional certifications for RSAs, the majority responded with interest in this area. 

The Committee worked with NCWM staff to solicit RSA volunteers to take the exam for free in order to obtain 

feedback. Volunteers who passed the exam would receive the formal certificate if they were members or if they pay 

the $75 testing fee as non-members. Four RSAs took the exam thus far and others are scheduled to take it. The 

Committee will gather additional data, evaluate the results, and report at the Annual Meeting. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: Several state officials questioned the appropriateness of charging these volunteers 

for the certificate if they are non-members. They noted that the service agents invested considerable time in taking 

the exam so that those who passed could have been rewarded with a waiver of the fee. Mr. Onwiler, NCWM 

Executive Director, reported that the exam fee structure is controlled by the Board of Directors. The exam fee is 

waived for members as a way to improve membership value. The exam has always been available to service agents, 

but this was a means of acquiring volunteers for data collection without making them pay fees as non-members. 

The Committee verified that participants were advised of the conditions when the volunteers were contacted. The 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) made a proposal in 2011 that NCWM consider a tiered 

membership that would allow for a group rate category or reduced fees for non-members presently employed in a 

weights and measures related field wishing only to take the examinations. The Committee will ask the Board of 

Directors to consider these comments. 

On the subject of the use of the current NCWM standard as the basis of all exams, the feedback from the survey 

clearly indicated that this should not be a problem for most jurisdictions. Therefore the Committee will develop all 

exams based on the current editions of NCWM standards. 

Officials had concerns about preparing their workforce for taking the Retail Motor Fuel Dispensing Systems Exam. 

As the PDC proceeds in offering other certifications, the Committee wants jurisdictions and industry to feel 

supported and confident that the training they provide for their workforce will be comprehensive and will prepare 

their people to take the certification exams without providing them with the exam questions. The Committee 

therefore recommends better communication so they understand what tools are available to help them create their 

own comprehensive training programs. The critical viewpoint is that a professional has to be prepared to perform 

the job and not just prepared to take the exam. This is the age old question of training to the learning objectives (the 

BOK) or training to the exam. The Committee strongly believes that training has to focus on the BOK and not on 

the exam questions. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: The Committee met with the Board of Directors to provide an update on progress 

and agree on priorities. The Certification Coordinator reported that two additional question banks for small capacity 

scales Class III and package checking had passed the technical review and were submitted to NCWM Headquarters. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B6 

He also reported that SME volunteers are now working on the vehicle tank meter exam, and that he is expecting to 

start the search for SME volunteers for the medium and large capacity scale exams shortly after the Annual Meeting. 

NCWM Executive Director Don Onwiler reported that there has been a slight glitch in the system that must be 

corrected before two new the exams can be opened for use. This involves making sure that Headquarters controls 

the individual’s access to exams. Each candidate gets access to initially take the exam and then can get a retest if 

they fail. The original process had given the candidate access to all exams using the same credentials. As soon as 

this is corrected they will broadcast the availability of the two new exams. 

The idea of accrediting the certification program was discussed. The Executive Director reported that he had been 

discussing the idea with the Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE) to see what parts of our program might be 

potential stumbling blocks. One area involves the SMEs who develop and vet the test questions. Our problem is that 

our SMEs are virtually all trainers within their jurisdictions and the vetting and training functions need to be 

separated. One possible avenue that we are pursuing is to restrict the access each SME has to the exam bank by only 

allowing them to review a part (~ 1/4) of the test bank. The advice also suggested that SMEs be asked to sign over 

rights to the test questions and that NCWM seek to copyright its exams. The Committee and the Coordinator will 

continue to work with the Executive Director toward the goal of meeting the accreditation standards and both the 

Coordinator and Headquarters will work on documenting procedures as a necessary step in that process. The 

Executive Director will continue to seek advice towards this long term project from ICE. 

The Executive Director provided the Committee and the Board of Directors with following statistics on the Retail 

Motor Fuel Exam. 

FY 2011 FY 2012 

Number of Individuals taking the exam 76 128 

Number of Organizations taking the exam 32 68 

Number of Exams taken 189 Note(1) Note (2) 

Number of Certificates issued 45 79 

 Further Breakout State Gov’t 

 Local Gov’t 

 Industry 

 86 

37 

5 

Note 1. In the Beta testing phase several took the exam multiple times. 

Note 2. Results unavailable yet for FY 12. 

The Committee and the Board of Directors agreed that priorities will remain on the Professional Certifications. The 

Committee will not be pursuing the competency exams. This will help focus efforts to get the exams out based on 

priorities established by the survey the Committee conducted. 

The Committee understands that the SMEs are a critical part of the certification program. The Committee wants to 

recognize the individuals that are contributing and also encourage others to volunteer on future projects (i.e., the 

medium and large capacity scale exams) that will start soon. To this end the Committee wants to express gratitude 

by giving recognition to the following who contributed to the package checking and small capacity scale Class III 

exams. 

 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B7 

Package Checking Basic Small Capacity Scales Class III 

D'Arcy, Carlos, Florida Smith, Dan, Arkansas 

Wilson, Peter, Virginia D'Arcy, Carlos, Florida 

Gurney, Brett, Utah Wilson, Peter, Virginia 

Chesser, Tim, Arkansas Gurney, Brett, Utah 

Merritt, Kevin, Idaho Chesser, Tim, Arkansas 

Shultz, Steve, Nevada Merritt, Kevin, Idaho 

McGee, Robert, South Carolina Shultz, Steve, Nevada 

Hicks, Tyler, Oklahoma Stokes, John, South Carolina 

Johnson, Ray, New Mexico McGee, Robert, South Carolina 

Paquette, Marc, Vermont Hicks, Tyler, Oklahoma 

Tubacki, Jeff, Illinois Johnson, Ray, New Mexico 

Dillibaugh, John, Pennsylvania Paquette, Marc, Vermont 

Miller, Rachelle, Wisconsin Tubacki, Jeff, Illinois 

Feagan, Bruce, Washington Dillibaugh, John, Pennsylvania 

Butcher, Ken, NIST, OWM Miller, Rachelle, Wisconsin 

Feagan, Bruce, Washington 

The Committee heard testimony from a number of individuals during the open hearings and appreciates the 

comments. In particular, the Committee is very pleased that states are starting to find ways to integrate our standards 

and the certifications in their programs. One state reported their efforts to mandate in regulation that Registered 

Service Agents get NCWM certification to demonstrate competence. Another is giving CEUs to county officials 

who obtain NCWM Certification. Others are using the exam results to evaluate their training efforts. One 

jurisdiction is using NCWM certifications in labor relations to demonstrate that retention and promotion decisions 

are being based on an unbiased third party assessment. The CWMA is considering whether it might be possible to 

use the NCWM exam in their reciprocal testing program for RSAs. 

One state director reported that he had his entire staff take the RMFD exam. He provided some valuable feedback 

that the Committee and the Coordinator will consider. One involved making clear which version of the Handbooks 

is being used in the exams. He also reported that candidates taking the exam wanted to learn about which questions 

they got wrong. He also wanted the Committee to look at extending the Certification Program to accredit the overall 

weights and measures program. 

The Committee understands the concern about the wrong answers, but maintaining integrity of the test precludes us 

from giving that kind of specific feedback on the exam. At the end of the exam, the candidate is provided with the 

pass/fail on each segment of the exam and the final score. The candidate is also provided with the option of 

designating the e-mail address where the results will be sent. Thus, the results could go to a supervisor or the 

director. The Committee is considering avenues to provide feedback that will help states identify potential 

weaknesses in their training programs. Again, the Committee wants to divert the focus from the test back to 

ensuring mastery of the learning objectives in the BOK. To that end, the Committee is considering providing 

general statistics on each part of the exam so that a jurisdiction/company could compare their staff’s results with the 

composite of all those who took the exam. There is a further fear that providing detailed feedback on specific 

learning objectives where exam results showed low scoring would then divert the focus from the broad objectives of 

the BOK. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B8 

CWMA 2012 Interim Meeting: There was general support for removing much of the content in this item and 

making it reference material on the NCWM website. There was question regarding how NCWM assesses exam 

difficulty and a suggestion to look at professional certification programs for other industries to see what the passing 

rates are and what they use to know if the exams are at the appropriate difficulty level. There were several 

suggestions to improve the exam process, including a flag button on each test question that test takers could select to 

notify that a specific question was problematic. Another was to provide a direct link at the end of the test to a 

survey site or other site for immediate feedback on the test. Another suggestion was to disclose to test takers which 

areas of NIST Handbook 44 they should study based on their results, without being told the actual questions that 

were incorrect. This would maintain the integrity of the test while providing guidance to the test taker. 

WWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: The WWMA PDC chair presented a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the 

Professional Certification Program (PCP) entitled “Using the NCWM Program” during the open hearings. One 

comment/question was received during the open hearings regarding the time limit to take an exam after an 

individual has registered and received their passcode. The Committee, in conversation with the NCWM Executive 

Director by telephone, confirmed that there is no time limit for initial log in or between taking the first and second 

exam. Furthermore, if a NCWM member fails the second exam, he or she can reapply and retest until they pass the 

exam, free of charge. The Committee discussed the draft FAQ sheet developed by Mr. Ross Andersen and 

recognized that it is a good start and is in need of further development. The Committee is willing to assist with 

enhancing and clarifying this document. The Committee discussed the exam result data compiled on the three 

exams to date. The RMFD exam has been available since 2010. The Package Checking Basic and Small Capacity 

Scales Class III have been available since August 2012. The Committee recognized the likelihood that the pass/fail 

rate on the exams to date may not reflect the difficulty of the exam since many may be taking the exams to 

familiarize themselves with the exam process, not necessarily for obtaining the certificate. The Committee 

discussed accreditation of the PCP, the benefits to both industry and regulatory individuals, and the issue created by 

crossover between persons serving as both Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and trainers. The Committee discussed 

the difference between certification to demonstrate basic competency, accreditation, and licensing with continuing 

education requirements. The Committee believes that for the PCP to be accredited, more information is needed 

about the specific accreditation requirements so the NCWM Professional Development Committee (NCWM PDC) 

can efficiently and correctly design the Program. The Committee encouraged the WWMA audience to take one or 

more of the three exams that are available. The Committee discussed the need for volunteer SMEs, exam results 

data, and feedback on the exam taking experience, to assist the NCWM PDC in the continuous improvement of 

existing exams, and development of future exams. Feedback can be submitted to the NCWM PDC through NCWM 

via e-mail to info@ncwm.net or call (402) 434-4880. The concept of free exams or a “rollback” in pricing for a 

period of time was discussed. There may be jurisdictions, business organizations, or other entities that desire to take 

the exams, but find the cost of membership is prohibitive. The Committee believed there might need to be an initial 

incentive to encourage participation. The Committee recommends the following: 

 NCWM survey jurisdictions to find out the number of Registered Service Agents (RSA) within the 

jurisdiction, whether these jurisdictions require the RSA to pass an examination, and what fees and 

timelines are associated with these requirements; Determining the number of jurisdictions that require 

licensing and the content of their examinations, e.g. regulatory vs. technical requirements, would allow the 

NCWM PDC to evaluate the appropriateness of administering the same exams for RSA’s or development 

of separate exams particular to RSA’s. The jurisdictions using these written exams in their training 

programs could do so in conjunction with a field component to certify inspectors and RSA’s. 

 NCWM Executive Director continue research into the accreditation requirements and recommend the 

appropriate accreditation body for the PCP; Weights and measures jurisdictions and industry organizations 

that may require certification recognize the value and credibility provided through formal accreditation. 

 NCWM PDC continue its work refining the PCP FAQ Sheet. The WWMA PDC Committee is willing to 

assist with enhancing and clarifying this document; The PCP FAQ Sheet is a valuable tool for new exam 

takers. 

 NCWM PDC consider implementing a policy of offering newly introduced exams at a reduced price for a 

fixed period of time (e.g., $30 per exam for six months) providing the exam taker agree to provide feedback 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B9 

on the exam contents and exam taking experience before receiving their certificate. NCWM needs to 

encourage the widest possible participation in the early stages of PCP development. To bring the PCP to 

full program fruition, offering incentives to exam takers may assist the NCWM in reaching its goals. 

One jurisdiction indicated that they would begin using the examinations as part of their annual performance plans 

and performance evaluations for their staff. The Committee realized that the PCP was originally designed for 

weights and measures officials, but discussed whether the exams should be modified for RSA to put more emphasis 

on proper calibrations, sealing, etc. 

 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – History of Professional Certification Program 

PDC - B10 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – History of Instructor Improvement 

PDC - C1 

Appendix C 

History of Instructor Improvement 

Source: 

Carryover Item 401-3 (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its agenda in 2003.) 

Background/Discussion: 

Prior to the 2010 Annual Meeting, Ms. Harris, NIST OWM, provided the Committee with reference material on 

teaching methods and assessment of training success. Distilling the essence of these materials, the Committee 

believes that instructors need training in more than just the technical material; they need training in setting the 

learning objectives, developing the training materials with those objectives in mind, selecting training methods that 

incorporate adult learning styles, and evaluating the effectiveness of their training. 

Education Subsystem 

The chart below covers three levels of learning objectives and relates them to (1) the training activities most likely to 

be successful and (2) the best methods for assessing the success of the training. The curriculum segments state the 

learning objectives using verbs similar to those in the bottom row of the table. These drive both the training 

activities required to promote adult learning and the assessment tools appropriate to measure success at that level. 

Assessments Multiple Choice Multiple Choice Practical Examples Short Answer

Training Activities Lecture 

Videos 

Examples 

Discussion 

Review 

Learner 

Presentation 

Exercises 

Simulations 

Demonstrations 

Cognitive Levels Knowledge Comprehensive Application 

Define 

Relate 

List

Restate 

Discuss 

Describe 

Identify

Employ 

Apply 

Use 

Illustrate

NIST, OWM has expressed strong interest in collaborating with NCWM in efforts to educate instructors in adult 

learning techniques and relating them to the learning objectives in NCWM curriculum. The Committee will be 

posting NIST, OWM material on converting technical content to training material on the PDC training resources 

web pages. The importance of pre-training analysis and post-training evaluation cannot be overestimated. Failure 

to include these steps often leads to failure of training efforts. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – History of Instructor Improvement 

PDC - C2 

Professional Certification Program 

Systems Approach to Training Evaluation 

The Committee is calling on the states and other training developers to implement the Analysis, Design, 

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model in their training preparations and post training 

evaluation. Everyone needs to participate in the development of new BOK modules and then encourage their 

trainers to use existing BOK modules in their training plans. 

The Committee encourages members to also look at the presentation on A Complete Training Program prepared by 

Carol Hockert, NIST, OWM. The presentation outlines ways to develop training programs and improve instruction 

of weights and measures material. Contact Ms. Hockert for a copy. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: Advisors from NIST, OWM reported that they are using NCWM BOK in preparing 

new training initiatives. They are stressing adult learning techniques, particularly focusing on the use of hands-on 

training as the most popular and effective training tool. This ties in closely with the new baseline competency 

exams discussed in Item 410-1. NIST, OWM is using these exams to ensure students in NIST sponsored training 

courses are competent in prerequisite course materials prior to taking training. They reported that they are already 

drafting questions for the baseline competency exams. They see significant efficiencies in using NCWM testing 

services for this purpose since they are already in place. 

Ms. Hockert, NIST, OWM, recommended a basic math prerequisite for persons taking Metrology or other related 

weights and measures courses sponsored by NIST. The math exam would allow trainees to demonstrate entry level 

math skills and make the training process more efficient and effective. One official discussed the California 

licensing requirement of a college degree which requires a certain number of math courses and asked if this would 

satisfy the need for the math prerequisite. Several California officials expressed concern about the Professional 

Certification Program replacing existing state licensing programs, and if adopted it might require amendment of 

existing state statutes. Because math competency is an essential skill for weights and measures work, the 

Committee recommends that the PDC include in its scope the development of an exam to demonstrate basic math 

competency before taking the Fundamentals of Metrology or other training courses at NIST. 

SWMA 2011 Annual Meeting: It was stated that we should consider training state trainers on adult learning 

techniques as well as subject matter. No further recommendations were made. 

NCWM 2012 Annual Meeting: The Committee stressed instructor improvement. The Committee reviewed the 

importance of using the NCWM learning objectives and the ADDIE model in training. This stresses the importance 

of training to the goals in the Body of Knowledge and not training to pass the test. If the training is appropriate and 

has been delivered effectively, the employee should have no problem passing a fair exam. The end is not a 

certificate on the wall, but rather a competent inspector. In other words; 

JOB SUCCESS = EXAM SUCCESS 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – History of Instructor Improvement 

PDC - C3 

Carol Hockert, NIST OWM, stressed that good training requires a partnership between the trainee, trainer, and the 

supervisor. The Committee agrees that buy-in from all levels is critical to training success. 

CWMA 2012 Interim Meeting: The Committee recommended archiving most of the content in this item to the 

NCWM website as reference material. 

WWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: The Committee noted it is in the best interest of NIST and NCWM that regional 

training efforts be of the highest quality and uniform throughout the United States. The Committee recommends the 

following: 

 Regional trainers be selected as per the process agreed upon between NIST and NCWM; 

 Regional trainers receive courses on adult learning techniques and converting technical information into 

training materials; 

 Regional trainers be afforded the opportunity to shadow NIST trainers as they perform training in 

individual jurisdictions; and 

 The use of funds from the Associate Membership Committee or the NIST Training Initiative Grant is made 

available for this purpose. 

NEWMA 2012 Interim Meeting: Members expressed interest in NIST Train-the-Trainer classes. A demonstration 

was provided on how to access materials for taking the Professional Certification Exams and then for taking the 

exams. The Committee encouraged those in attendance to seek certification of their inspectors. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – History of Instructor Improvement 

PDC - C4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – Training Manual 

PDC - D1 

Appendix D 

Training Manual 

A Competency-Based Evaluation Scale

Numerical/Adjective Rating:

5 = Outstanding 

Can perform this skill without supervision or assistance with proficiency in speed, quality

quantity, self-initiative, reliability and judgment; can lead or assist others in performing 

this skill. 

4 = Above Standard 

Can perform this skill consistently within established standards of speed, quality and

quantity without assistance and / supervision. 

3 = Standard 

Can perform this skill generally consistent with established standards of speed, quality 

and quantity, but requires periodic assistance and or supervision. 

2 = Short of Standard 

Can perform this skill only with some assistance and or supervision to insure consistency

with established standards of speed, quality and quantity; Able to perform some parts of

the skill, but cannot perform the entire skill. 

1 = Unacceptable 

Has limited ability or knowledge to perform this skill; Continuous assistance and or

supervision required; Performance does not meet established standards of speed, quality

and quantity; Demonstrates possible problems in having the learning ability to acquire the 

skill. 

Not Responsive to Training 

Has been repeatedly instructed in a particular subject matter and still fails to demonstrate

a knowledge of the subject or is unable to perform the particular task which would

exhibit this knowledge, the training instructor should rate the new inspector NRT the

training instructor the narrative comments the training attempted and the results of the

new inspectors attempt to perform the task. 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – Training Manual C – History of Instructor Improvement 

PDC - D2 

Interpersonal Skills For Field Training Inspectors 

Commitment to service: 

Predisposition to seek responsibility 

Responsive to the public need 

Responsive to the goals of the Department and weights and measures 

Oral Communication and Listening: 

Conveying ideas to another in a coach-pupil atmosphere 

Clear and Concise in nature 

Responsive to the trainee’s needs 

Ability to adjust to the personality of the trainee 

Patience 

Flexibility: 

Ability to adapt to changing conditions as needed 

Planning and Organizing: 

Implementing decisions according to a timeline 

Utilizing resources at your disposal to achieve a desired result 

Knowledge of subject matter 

Follow Through: 

Verifying effectiveness 

Accessing results 

Timely response to inquires 

Essential FTI Duties

Observer: 

Patient oversight of the trainee 

Allowing the trainee to act, then giving feedback as to performance 

Implies listening as well as viewing
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – Training Manual 

PDC - D3 

NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES FIELD TRAINING PROGRAM 

INSPECTOR ROUTINE OBSERVATION REPORT 

STANDARDIZED EVALUATION GUIDELINES 

PERFORMANCE 

1. REPORT WRITING: 

 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 

 General inability to accurately organize a concise, understandable report in a timely fashion:

 a. Omission or misstatement of facts 

 b. Elements of violation missing/incomplete inspections 

 c. Confusing or misleading narrative 

 d. Continual spelling errors 

 e. Consistent improper grammar 

 f. Illegible 

 g. Excessive time used 

 COMPETENT 

 General ability to write reports accurately in organized and timely fashion: 

 a. Complete statement of facts 

 b. Specific violation elements delineated/completes thorough inspections 

 c. Legible 

 d. Minimal spelling errors 

 e. Correct grammar 

 f. Concise, understandable language 

 g. Reasonable time used in completion of necessary reports 

2. DRIVING SKILLS: 

 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 

 Incorrect evaluation of driving situations with loss of vehicle control: 

 a. Continually violates Vehicle Code 

 b. General disregard for public safety 

 c. Involvement in preventable accidents 

 d. Inappropriate use of safety lighting equipment 

 e. Excessive and inappropriate speed 

 f. Inability to exit vehicle safety 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – Training Manual C – History of Instructor Improvement 

PDC - D4 

NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES FIELD TRAINING PROGRAM 

ROUTINE OBSERVATION REPORT (ROR) 

(DOCUMENTED AT LEAST WEEKLY) 

TRAINEE: FTI: 

DATE: PHASE: DATE: 

RATING INSTRUCTIONS: Rate observed performance of trainee in the following categories. 

*NI = Needs Improvement; **C = Competent; NO = Not Observed 

A. PERFORMANCE 

1. Report Writing NI C NO 

2. Driving Skills: Routine NI C NO 

3. Self-initiated Activity NI C NO 

4. Knowledge of locations NI C NO 

5. Stress Control: Verbal/Behavior NI C NO 

6. Safety: Self/Others NI C NO 

7. Violator Control: Verbal/Physical NI C NO 

8. Decision-Making/Problem-Solving NI C NO 

9. Coordination: Multiple Tasks NI C NO 

B. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 

1. Communication Skills NI C NO 

2. Acceptance of Criticism NI C NO 

3. Behavior Toward Citizens NI C NO 

4. Behavior Toward regulatory Personnel NI C NO 

5. Self-Image/Confidence NI C NO 

C. KNOWLEDGE 

1. Agencies Policies/Procedures NI C NO 

2. Enforcement Codes NI C NO 

3. Resources NI C NO 

4. Inspection Procedures/Techniques NI C NO 

D. JOB READINESS 

1. General Appearance NI C NO 

2. Forms/Equipment /Specialized Equipment NI C NO 

3. Informed on Current Issues/Community Problems NI C NO 

-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- 

TRAINEE SIGNATURE FTO SIGNATURE 
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – Training Manual 

PDC - D5 

TRAINING	PROGRAM	FOR	DEPARTMENT	OF	COMMERCE	

WEIGHTS	AND	MEASURES	INVESTIGATOR	I	TRAINEE	

I. PURPOSE

Very	few,	if	any,	entry	level	candidates	for	Weights	and	Measures	Investigator	I	positions	

have	well‐rounded	experience	working	with	weighing	and	measuring	devices.		Even	candidates	

from	private	industry	involved	in	the	manufacture	or	repair	of	weighing	and	measuring	devices	

normally	have	experience	with	only	one	or	two	types	of	devices,	and	are	not	familiar	with	the	

principals	of	legal	metrology,	or	have	experience	working	as	government	regulators.		A	significant	

training	period	is	necessary	to	teach	candidates	with	demonstrated	aptitudes	the	specific	skills	they	

need	to	function	successfully	as	a	Weights	and	Measures	Investigator	I	before	they	are	able	to	work	

on	their	own	and	assume	responsibility	for	a	territory.	

This	training	program	is	designed	to	facilitate	the	recruitment	of	entry	level	candidates	

capable	of	mastering	the	required	skills	including	minority	and	women	applicants	in	conjunction	

with	the	Department	of	Commerce’s	Affirmative	Action	Program.	

II. METHODS FOR TRAINEE SELECTION

Job	openings	will	be	posted	on	the	state	employment	website	as	light	duty	or	heavy	duty	

territories	become	vacant.		The	posting	will	make	it	clear	whether	the	vacancy	being	posted	is	a	

light	duty	or	a	heavy	duty	position.		Jobs	will	also	be	advertised	on	electronic	sites	or	in	print	

publications	aimed	at	women	and	minorities	in	an	effort	to	get	a	candidate	pool	which	is	

representative	of	the	state’s	population.		Application	is	via	resume	on	the	state	employment	

website.		All	resumes	are	reviewed	to	find	candidates	who	possess	the	following	prerequisite	

capabilities:	

 Ability	to	interact	in	a	professional	manner	with	a	wide	variety	of	people	including	

co‐workers,	members	of	the	public,	business	owners	and	service	agents,	and	

employees	of	other	government	agencies	such	as	the	DNR	and	the	MPCA;			

 Ability	to	communicate	complex	technical	information	coherently	in	both	written	

and	verbal	formats	;		

 Ability	to	work	independently	with	little	supervision	and	to	manage	scheduling	and	

routing	work	in	a	large	territory;				

 Computer	skills	sufficient	to	work	from	a	remote	laptop	through	a	VPN	connection;		

 Mechanical	skills	sufficient	to	maintain	their	vehicles,	test	equipment	and	standards	

in	good	condition,	as	well	as	to	assess	the	likelihood	of	mechanical	tampering	in	the	

weighing	and	measuring	devices	they	inspect;			

 Physical	ability	to	walk,	stand	and	sit	for	extended	periods	of	time,	to	lift	up	to	fifty	

pounds	repeatedly	throughout	the	day,	and	to	work	outside	in	all	weather	

conditions	for	up	to	ten	hours	a	day;   
PDC 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – Training Manual C – History of Instructor Improvement 

PDC - D6 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 1 

Report of the 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee 

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, Chairman 

North Carolina 

500 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the NTEP Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) for the 99th Annual Meeting 

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the Interim Report offered 

in the NCWM Publication 16, testimony heard at public hearings, comments received from the regional weights and 

measures associations and other parties, the NCWM 2014 Online Position Forum, the addendum sheets issued at the 

Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the voting session of the Annual Meeting. The 

informational items presented below were adopted as presented when the Committee’s report was approved. 

Table A identifies the agenda items and appendix items. The agenda items in the Report are identified by Reference 

Key Number, title, page number and the appendices by appendix designations. The acronyms for organizations and 

technical terms used throughout the agenda are identified in Table C. The first three digits of the Reference Key 

Numbers of the items are assigned from The Subject Series List. The status of each item contained in the report is 

designated as one of the following: (D) Developing Item: the Committee determined the item has merit; however, 

the item was returned to the submitter or other designated party for further development before any action can be 

taken at the national level; Informational (I) Item: the item is under consideration by the Committee but not 

proposed for Voting; (V) Voting Item: the Committee is making recommendations requiring a vote by the active 

members of NCWM; (W) Withdrawn Item: the item has been removed from consideration by the Committee. 

Table B provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in its entirety. 

Some Voting Items are considered individually, others may be grouped in a consent calendar. Consent calendar 

items are Voting Items that the Committee has assembled as a single Voting Item during their deliberation after the 

Open Hearings on the assumption that the items are without opposition and will not require discussion. The Voting 

Items that have been grouped into consent calendar items will be listed on the addendum sheets. Prior to adoption of 

the consent calendar, the Committee entertains any requests from the floor to remove specific items from the 

consent calendar to be discussed and voted upon individually. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced font

(e.g., new items), and 3) nonretroactive items are identified in italics. When used in this report, the term “weight” 

means “mass.” 

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have 

been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units. 

Subject Series List 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 500 Series 

International .................................................................................................................................................... 510 Series 

Activity Reports .............................................................................................................................................. 520 Series 

Conformity Assessment Program ................................................................................................................... 530 Series 

NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy .............................................................................................. 540 Series 

Other Items – Developing Items ..................................................................................................................... 550 Series 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 2 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Reference Key Title of Item Page NTEP

500 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

510 INTERNATIONAL .......................................................................................................................................... 3

510-1    Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) ................................................................................... 3

510-2    Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) ................................................................................... 4

520 ACTIVITY REPORTS..................................................................................................................................... 5

520-1    NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports ......................................................... 5

520-2    NTEP Sector Reports ................................................................................................................... 6

530 CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................................... 8

530-1    Conformity Assessment Program ................................................................................................ 8

540 NCWM PUBLICATION 14 – NTEP ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY ....................................................... 11

540-1    20.3.1.1. Certification Body’s Responsibilities ......................................................................... 11

550 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS .................................................................................................. 13

550-1 D NTEP Contingency Plan ............................................................................................................ 13

Appendices

A Item 520-1: NTEP Statistics Report ..................................................................................................... A1 

B Item 520-2: Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting Summary ............................................................... B1 

C Item 520-2: Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary ........................................................................ C1 

D Item 520-2: Measuring Sector Meeting Summary ............................................................................... D1 

E Item 520-2: Software Sector Meeting Summary .................................................................................. E1 

F Item 520-2: Weighing Sector Meeting Summary ................................................................................. F1 

Table B 

Voting Results 

Reference Key 

Number

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Results

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Report Voice Vote Adopted 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 3 

Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

AQL Acceptable Quality Level MTL Manufacturers’ Testing Laboratories 

B Basic Publication NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures 

CC Certificate of Conformance NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

CIML International Committee of Legal 

Metrology NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 

CTT Conformity to Type NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee 

DoMC Declaration of Mutual Confidence OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

IV Initial Verification OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement R Recommendation 

MC Measurement Canada SC Technical Subcommittee 

MDMD Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices TC Technical Committee 

MRA Mutual Recognition Arrangement VCAP Verification Conformity Assessment 

Program 

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

510 INTERNATIONAL 

510-1 Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) 

Background/Discussion: 

The MRA between Measurement Canada (MC) and NTEP labs originated April 1, 1994. Since that time, the 

original MRA has expanded, and a second MRA covering measuring devices was developed. On Tuesday 

July 19, 2011, NCWM Chairman Mr. Tyson and MC President Mr. Johnston signed a renewal MRA that combines 

the weighing and measuring devices into one document and provides for continued cooperation between the two 

organizations and continuation of the beneficial partnership. The new MRA is effective for five years. 

The scope of the current MRA includes: 

 gasoline and diesel dispensers; 

 high-speed dispensers; 

 gasoline and diesel meters intended to be used in fuel dispensers and truck refuelers; 

 electronic computing and non-computing bench, counter, floor, and platform scales with a capacity up to 

1000 kg (2000 lb); 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 4 

 weighing/load receiving elements with a capacity of up to 1000 kg (2000 lb); 

 electronic weight indicating elements (except those that are software based [i.e., programmed by 

downloading parameters]); and 

 mechanical scales up to 10 000 kg (20 000 lb). 

MC, NTEP, and all of our mutual stakeholders agree that the MRA is a benefit for the North American weights and 

measures industry. The NTEP Committee appreciates the efforts and cooperation of Measurement Canada. The 

Committee continues working with MC to explore the possibility of expanding the scope to include Multiple 

Dimension Measuring Devices (MDMD) and higher capacity scales. Technical obstacles have prevented inclusion 

of both MDMD and higher capacity scales for now, but NTEP and MC remain committed to continue to discuss 

expansion. NTEP also requested that tests conducted at manufacturers’ premises under the supervision of an NTEP 

evaluator be included in the scope of the MRA. MC expressed the desire to keep these evaluations outside the scope 

of the MRA for scales, load receiving elements, and electronic weight indicating elements. 

NCWM private sector members continue to reiterate their desire to see MDMD included under the MRA. MC and 

the NTEP Committee continue to discuss and evaluate matters regarding such an expansion of the MRA. During the 

2013 Annual Meeting, MC agreed to give further consideration to expansion of the MRA to include MDMDs and to 

recognition of data collected by NTEP evaluators at manufacturing facilities. During the 2014 Interim Meeting, MC 

expressed their interest in including MDMDs under the MRA. NTEP has notified the MDMD Work Group and has 

charged them with: 1) identifying differences in requirements and test procedures; 2) making recommendations to 

harmonize NIST Handbook 44 when appropriate; and 3) making recommendations to change NCWM Publication 

14 as deemed appropriate. 

Mettler-Toledo commented that their company has experienced MRA application issues due to differences in the 

test weights used for evaluation of high precision Class I and II balances. NTEP will discuss the issues with MC. 

During the 2014 Annual Meeting, MC announced their agreement to accept test data recorded by an NTEP evaluator 

at a manufacturer’s facility, as per the NTEP contingency plan, if the test site and test plan were agreed upon prior to 

testing. 

The NTEP Committee is in discussion with MC to include Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices (MDMD) in the 

MRA. MC is requesting that they be the primary laboratory for MDMD evaluations conducted under the MRA. The 

Committee is requesting input from U.S. manufacturers and the MDMD Work Group (WG). A meeting of the 

MDMD WG has been scheduled for October 28-29, 2014 in Reynoldsburg, OH. 

510-2 Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) 

Background/Discussion: 

Information regarding the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) MAA can be found at 

www.oiml.org/maa. NCWM has signed the OIML MAA Declaration of Mutual Confidence (DoMC) for 

Recommendation (R) 60 Load Cells as a utilizing participant. A utilizing participant is a participant which does not 

issue any OIML Certificate of Conformance (CC) nor OIML Test Reports and/or Test Reports under a DoMC but 

does utilize the reports issued by issuing participants. 

A meeting of the Committee on Participation Review (CPR) for R 60 and R 76 was held September 21 - 23, 2011, in 

Braunschweig, Germany. Dr. Ehrlich, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Weights 

and Measures (OWM); Mr. Barton, NIST, OWM; and Mr. Truex, NCWM attended the meeting. A recent meeting 

of the CPR was hosted by NIST March 18 - 19, 2014, and was attended by Dr. Ehrlich, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Darrell 

Flocken, NCWM. 

The United States (NTEP) supported the OIML B 10 documents for the MAA with the provision that the use of 

manufacturer test data was clearly identified on the MAA test report because NTEP cannot use manufacturer test 

data towards issuance of an NTEP certificate. Consequently, the CIML voted and approved the Amendment to B 10 

to allow the inclusion of test data from manufacturers, on a strictly voluntary basis, at its October 2012 meeting in 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 5 

Bucharest, Romania. Dr. Ehrlich gave an update to the Committee during the 2013 Interim Meeting, reviewing the 

history of the above discussions, deliberations, and CIML votes, confirming that the outcomes aligned with the NTEP 

Committee's recommendations and the instructions provided by the NCWM Board of Directors.

Dr. Ehrlich requested in January 2013 that NCWM review its MAA policy regarding participation in R 76. The 

NCWM Board recapped the decision process to participate as a utilizing participant for R 60. Existing policy from 

2006 is not to participate in R 76 until NCWM is able to do so as an Issuing Participant. The Board revisited the 

2006 discussions leading to that decision, including considerations for NTEP labs’ workload, potential lost 

expertise, concerns with quality of evaluations at some foreign labs, etc. Dr. Ehrlich wanted NCWM to reconsider 

and, if there was no possibility in sight that the NCWM could become an Issuing Participant, then it should consider 

becoming a Utilizing Participant for OIML R 76. Some U.S. manufacturers support NCWM policy, but others 

would like to have one-stop shopping. The MAA also includes R 51 (water meters) and R 117 (RMFD) may be 

added soon. Since there are no new developments to effect the decision, the NCWM Board of Directors agree to 

maintain existing policy at this time. 

From January 2011 to June 2014, 32 NTEP certificates for load cells were issued under the MAA. The NTEP 

Administrator reviewed all MAA test data and drafted the CCs. 

520 ACTIVITY REPORTS 

520-1 NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports 

Background/Discussion: 

During the 2014 Annual Meeting, Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, updated the Committee on NTEP laboratory and 

administrative activities. 

The NTEP weighing and measuring laboratories held a joint meeting April 2 - 4, 2013, in Greensboro, North 

Carolina. The NTEP laboratories, NTEP Committee, and NCWM Board of Directors expressed appreciation to 

Gilbarco for allowing the NTEP measuring laboratories to utilize their facilities and equipment for hands on 

training. Special thanks were extended to Gordon Johnson and Gilbarco employees that participated in the training 

exercises. 

The NTEP weighing laboratories met in August 2013 prior to the meeting of the NTEP Weighing Sector in Albany, 

New York, and the NTEP measuring laboratories met in October 2013, prior to the NTEP Measuring Sector meeting 

in Charleston, West Virginia. The 2014 meeting of the NTEP Participating Laboratories was held April 1 - 3 in 

Albany, New York. 

In 2011 the Committee announced plans survey NTEP customers and NTEP laboratories regarding customer 

service. The survey is released to active CC holders. The Board routinely reviews the results of the survey to form 

a continuous improvement plan for NTEP. With any survey, the challenge is to develop a document that is concise 

enough that customers will respond, while also providing a meaningful set of data. To date, the NCWM Board of 

Directors is finding general approval of NTEP services. 

During the 2014 Annual Meeting, Mr. Truex updated the Committee on NTEP laboratory and administrative 

activities. The Committee reviewed NTEP statistics through June 2014. The review of statistics shows that 

incoming applications are relatively comparable to normal, and there exist no significant laboratory backlog issues. 

The State of Oregon has expressed their intent to pursue authorization as an NTEP Participating Field Laboratory for 

large capacity weighing devices. NTEP is working with Oregon toward that goal. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 6 

520-2 NTEP Sector Reports 

Background/Discussion: 

All NTEP Sector reports were available to members at the time NCWM Publication 15 was published. The NTEP 

Committee is committed to ensuring that electronic versions of Sector reports are available with NCWM Publication 

15 in the future. Please note that the Sector reports will only be available in the electronic version of NCWM 

Publication 15 at ncwm.net/meetings/interim/archive; they will not be available in the printed versions of NCWM 

Publication 15. 

NTEP Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector: 

The NTEP Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector last met February 22 - 23, 2012, in St. Louis, Missouri. A final draft of the 

meeting summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and 

approval (See Appendix B). A meeting for the Sector had been scheduled for February 19 - 20, 2013, in North 

Carolina. The meeting was cancelled due to a lack of significant NTEP agenda items; however, a meeting of the 

U.S. National Work Group was held.

The NTEP Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector meeting was held February 20, 2014 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. For 

questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector 

Technical Advisor: 

Technical Advisor 

Mr. John Barton 

NIST, OWM 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Phone: (301) 975-4002 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: john.barton@nist.gov 

NTEP Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors: 

The NTEP Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors held a joint meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, 

August 20 - 21, 2013. A draft of the final summary was provided to the Committee prior to the 2014 NCWM 

Interim Meeting for review and approval. (See Appendix C) 

The next meeting of the NTEP Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors is scheduled for 

August 20 21, 2014, in Kansas City, Missouri. For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose 

items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector Technical Advisor: 

Technical Advisor 

Ms. G. Diane Lee 

NIST, OWM 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20707 

Phone: (301) 975-4005 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: diane.lee@nist.gov 

NTEP Measuring Sector: 

The NTEP Measuring Sector met October 9 - 10, 2013, in Charleston, West Virginia. A draft of the final summary 

was provided to the Committee prior to the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval. (See 

Appendix D.) 

The next meeting of the NTEP Measuring Sector Meeting is scheduled for October 3 - 4, 2014, in Raleigh, North 

Carolina, in conjunction with the Southern Weights and Measures Association’s 2014 Annual Meeting. For 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 7 

questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector 

Technical Advisor: 

Technical Advisor 

Mr. Clark Cooney 

NIST, OWM 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Phone: (301) 975-4615 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: clark.cooney@nist.gov 

NTEP Software Sector: 

The NTEP Software Sector met March 19 - 20, 2013, in Columbus, Ohio. A final draft of the meeting summary was 

provided to the Committee prior to the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval. (See Appendix E.) 

The next meeting of the NTEP Software Sector is scheduled for August 27 - 28, 2014, in Atlanta, Georgia. The first 

day of the meeting will be a joint meeting of the NTEP Weighing and Software Sectors. For questions on the 

current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector Chair and/or the 

NTEP Administrator: 

Chair 

Mr. James Pettinato 

FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions, Inc. 

1602 Wagner Avenue 

Erie, PA 16510 

Phone: (814) 898-5250 

Fax: (814) 899-3414 

E-mail: jim.pettinato@fmcti.com 

NTEP Administrator 

Mr. Jim Truex 

NCWM 

1135 M Street, Suite 110 

Lincoln, NE 68508 

Phone: (740) 919-4350 

Fax: (740) 919-4348 

E-mail: jim.truex@ncwm.net 

NTEP Weighing Sector: 

The NTEP Weighing Sector met August 27 - 28, 2013, in Albany, New York. A final draft of the meeting summary 

was provided to the Committee prior to the 2014 NCWM Interim Meeting for review and approval (see 

Appendix F). 

The next NTEP Weighing Sector meeting is scheduled for August 26 - 27, 2014, in Atlanta, Georgia. The second 

day of the meeting will be a joint meeting of the NTEP Weighing and Software Sectors. For questions on the 

current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector Technical Advisor: 

Technical Advisor 

Mr. Rick Harshman 

NIST, OWM 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Phone: (301) 975-8107 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: richard.harshman@nist.gov 

The NTEP Committee reviewed and approved all 2013 NTEP Sector reports during the 2014 Interim Meeting. 

The Board has approved a meeting of the Multiple Dimension Measuring Device Work Group for 

October 28 - 29, 2014, at the Ohio Department of Agriculture complex in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. For more 

information contact WG Chair Mr. Robert Kennington (rkennington@cubiscan.com), or NTEP Specialist 

Mr. Darrell Flocken (darrell.flocken@ncwm.net). 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 8 

530 CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 

530-1 Conformity Assessment Program 

Background/Discussion: 

The Conformity Assessment Program was established to ensure devices produced after the device has been typeevaluated and certified by NTEP continue to meet the same requirements. This program has three major elements: 

1) Certificate Review (administrative); 2) Initial Verification (inspection and performance testing); and 3) Verified 

Conformity Assessment (influence factors). This item is included on the Committee’s agenda to provide an update 

on these elements. 

Certificate Review: 

Certificates are constantly under review by NTEP staff and laboratories. Many active certificates are amended 

annually because of manufacturer submission for evaluation or issues reported by the states pertaining to 

information on the certificate. When the devices are re-evaluated and certificates are amended, all information is 

reviewed and necessary steps are taken to assure compliance and that accurate, thorough information is reported on 

the certificate. 

In an effort to keep certificate information up to date, the Committee continues to offer an opportunity for active 

certificate holders to update contact information that is contained in the “Submitted By” box on certificates. This is 

offered during the payment period of their annual maintenance fee. Many Certificate of Conformance (CC) holders 

have taken advantage of the opportunity. 

Initial Verification (IV): 

The IV initiative is ongoing. Field enforcement officials perform an initial inspection and test on new installations 

on a routine basis. The Committee recognized that the states do not want IV reporting to be cumbersome. 

An IV report form has been developed. The Committee desired a simple form, perhaps web-based for use by state 

and local regulators. The form has been approved by the Committee and distributed to the states. A completed form 

can be submitted via mail, e-mail, fax, or online. The form is available to regulatory officials who are members of 

NCWM at www.ncwm.net/ntep/conformity/verification. 

During the 2014 Annual Meeting, NTEP acknowledged that the regulators have not bought into the IV report form. 

Industry representatives stated that IV is very important to ensure conformity assessment and the NCWM should 

push harder for reporting of non-compliance issues found during IV. 

VCAP: 

NCWM has been concerned about production meeting type and protecting the integrity of the NTEP CC since the 

inception of NTEP. The board has consistently reconfirmed its belief that conformity assessment is vital to NTEP’s 

continued success. 

Load cells traceable to NTEP certificates were selected for the initial assessment effort. NCWM elected to require a 

systems audit checklist that is to be completed by an outside auditor and submitted to NCWM per 

Section 221.3.3.3.5 of the VCAP requirements. A VCAP Systems Audit Checklist for Manufacturers and a VCAP 

Systems Audit Checklist for Private Label Certificate Holders have been developed and are available on the website 

at www.ncwm.net/ntep/conformity/vcap/checklists-faqs. Additionally, the Committee developed a new NCWM 

Publication 14, administrative policy to distinguish between the requirements for parent NTEP certificate holders 

(21.3.3.2) and private label certificate holders. The requirements in 21.3.3.7. track the private label checklist 

requirements: traceability to parent NTEP CC, traceability of the private label cell to a VCAP audit, purchase and 

sales records, plan to report non-conforming product and non-conforming product in stock, plan to conduct internal 

audits to verify non-compliance action, and internal audit records. 

As a result of VCAP activities, 24 load cell certificates, involving 12 different certificate holders, were changed to 

“inactive” status. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 9 

In 2012, the Committee announced that the next device category is weighing/load receiving elements, 2000 lb 

capacity and less, using load cells that are not traceable to their own NTEP certificate. The following compliance 

timeline was developed for weighing/load receiving element CC holders with active certificates using non-NTEP 

load cells. The Committee encourages affected certificate holders to start the process immediately. 

NCWM/NTEP VCAP Compliance Timeline 

Weighing/Load Receiving Element, 2000 lb Capacity and Less Using Non-NTEP Load Cells 

January 2012 – 

Ongoing 

July 2012 – 

November 2013 

July 2012 – 

May 2014 

July 2012 – 

November 2013 December 2013 June 2014 

 NTEP to 

review and 

refine VCAP 

procedures 

 NTEP answers 

incoming 

questions 

 NTEP notifies 

active CC 

holders of 

VCAP 

requirements 

 Parent CC 

holders to put 

VCAP QM 

system in 

place 

 CC holder to 

have audit 

conducted by 

Certified Body 

 Submit audit 

report to 

NCWM/NTEP 

 Private Label 

CC holders to 

put VCAP QM 

system in 

place 

 CC holder to 

have audit 

conducted by 

Certified Body 

 Submit audit 

report to 

NCWM/NTEP 

 NTEP 

evaluates 

incoming 

audit reports 

 NTEP 

contacts CC 

holders not 

meeting 

VCAP 

requirements 

to encourage 

compliance 

 NCWM 

declares CCs 

inactive if 

Parent CC 

holder fails to 

comply with 

VCAP 

 NCWM 

declares CCs 

inactive if 

Private Label 

CC holder 

fails to 

comply with 

VCAP 

NTEP reported that 25 weighing element certificate holders (44 active NTEP CCs) were identified and all were 

notified. The following disclaimer has been advertised and communicated by NCWM: “NCWM is working to 

identify all active certificates for weighing elements 2000 lb capacity and less, using non-NTEP load cells. As a 

courtesy, certificate holders are being notified of VCAP requirements and the established timeline. Please note that 

the NCWM Board of Directors does not consider it to be NCWM's responsibility to notify all certificate holders and 

affected certificates. Certificate holders are responsible for reviewing their active NTEP certificates and compliance 

with VCAP.” As a result of VCAP, 13 certificates, involving 10 different certificate holders, were declared inactive 

January 1, 2014.

The Committee has received letters, questions, and many other inquiries pertaining to VCAP. The Committee has 

worked diligently to answer the questions submitted in a very timely manner. The Committee knows that additional 

questions will be posed as VCAP progresses. Certificate holders and other interested parties are encouraged to 

submit written questions to the NTEP Committee. The Committee is pleased to report that it has been successful in 

answering all the questions to date. Clerical changes have been made to affected VCAP documents as deemed 

necessary. 

The Committee had discussions about the required number of audits for facilities that manufacture multiple device 

types. For example, if a company had successful audits for two device types, they might submit a request for a 

delay from audit requirements for remaining device types, stating that they are all subjected to the same processes 

and will be audited in the next cycle. The Committee agreed to the request in principal and directed the NTEP 

Administrator to develop NCWM policy language for consideration during the next Board meeting. As a result the 

following policy was adopted by the NCWM Board in October 2013.

Adding Device Categories to VCAP: 

Purpose: To establish criteria for NTEP and NTEP certificate holders who have successfully completed a VCAP 

audit in the proper response when a new device category is added to the VCAP. 

Background: It has come to the attention of the NTEP Committee that when a new device category is added to the 

VCAP, the addition might create a potential problem for NTEP certificate holders who have already successfully 

completed a VCAP audit. The request submitted asks NTEP to recognize previous VCAP audits when adding new 

device types to the VCAP. It makes sense to allow certificate holders, who have already successfully completed a 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 10 

VCAP certification audit, to cover the new device category under their existing quality management system until the 

due date of their next VCAP audit. Once all the device types have been added, the question will become moot 

within three years since the next regularly scheduled audit will address all device types within that facility. 

Likewise, NTEP already applies the same philosophy when a new model is introduced by the same certificate 

holder. That is, the new model is considered covered by the audit because it is a process audit, not a device 

evaluation. This effectively allows a certificate holder to conduct a single audit for all device categories under the 

VCAP umbrella. 

Policy: 

When a new device category is added to the VCAP requirement, NTEP will recognize the current VCAP 

audit certification in effect, submitted by a certificate holder, for the same certificate holder and same 

production facility(s), to cover the new device category, continue the manufacturing process for devices 

covered by NTEP certificates in the newly added device category, until the due date of the next VCAP 

audit. 

Example: If a company had successful audits for two device types, they might submit a request for 

exemption from audit requirements for remaining device types, stating that they are all subjected to the 

same quality management system and will be included in the next audit cycle. The next VCAP audit must 

be done within three years of the last audit and address all applicable device types produced within that 

facility.

Seven weighing device categories subject to influence factors, as defined in NIST Handbook 44, were identified and 

are subject to VCAP audits. The VCAP process requirement is ongoing for load cells and weighing elements that 

use non-NTEP load cells. Certificate holders for these device types are encouraged to take note that the NTEP 

Committee and NCWM Board is seriously considering the application of the VCAP requirement to all five 

remaining categories in the very near future. If and when the VCAP requirements are applied, the certificate holder 

would be required to have an on-site audit of the manufacturer's quality system and on-site random and/or review of 

a production device by an outside auditor to verify compliance with VCAP. Certificate holders are encouraged to 

research the VCAP requirements on the NCWM website under the NTEP, Conformity Assessment section. 

Certificate holders are encouraged to review the VCAP requirements applicable to their devices and report concerns 

to the NTEP Committee. It is important to reiterate that the NCWM Board of Directors does not consider it to be 

NCWM's responsibility to notify all certificate holders. Certificate holders are responsible for reviewing their active 

NTEP certificates and compliance with VCAP. 

An NTEP Committee proposal to expand VCAP was advertised prior to the Annual Meeting, on the NCWM 

website and during this Annual Meeting via a handout. The Committee was strongly considering inclusion into the 

Verified Conformity Assessment Program of Electronic Weighing Instruments and Main Elements with capacities 

≤ 2000 lbs of the following Device Types: 

 Complete Scales*, 

 Indicating Elements, 

 Automatic Weighing Systems, 

 Weighing/Load Receiving Elements, 

 Belt-Conveyor Scales, and 

 Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems. 

This includes both Manufacturers and Private Label Holders of Certificates of Conformance (CC) for these Device 

Types. 

*The category of complete scales includes types such as but not limited to Computing, Non-computing Point of 

Sale, Crane, Monorail, Hopper, and Grain Test Scales. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 11 

During the 2014 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard objections from several companies to expanding VCAP to 

all the device types. The Committee also heard objections to weighing/load receiving elements being included on 

the list of device types. It became obvious to the Committee that there is a difference in interpretation stemming 

from the conflicting list of device types in Publication 14 Administrative Policy (specifying weighing/load receiving 

elements using non-NTEP load cells) versus the list of devices to be tested for influence factors in Publication 14, 

DES, Technical Policy (specifying weighing /load receiving elements). 

The Committee decided to only include indicating elements at this time and approved developed timeline below. 

Certificate holders should take notice that the other categories will be considered and may be added in the very near 

future. The Committee will continue to take comments pertaining to the weighing elements conflict and ask the 

NTEP Weighing Sector for input. 

NCWM/NTEP VCAP Compliance Timeline 

Indicating Elements

Jan 2015 – 

March 2015 

Jan 2015 – 

May 2016 

Jan 2015 – 

Nov 2016 

Jan 2015 – 

Dec 2016 Jun 2016 Dec 2016 

NTEP notifies 

active CC holders 

of VCAP 

requirements 

Parent CC holders 

to put VCAP QM 

system in place 

Private Label CC 

holders to put 

VCAP QM 

system in place 

NTEP evaluates 

incoming audit 

reports 

NCWM 

declares CCs 

inactive if 

Parent CC 

holder fails to 

comply with 

VCAP 

NCWM declares 

CCs inactive if 

Private Label 

CC holder fails 

to comply with 

VCAP CC holder to have 

audit conducted 

by Certified Body 

CC holder to 

have audit 

conducted by 

Certified Body 

NTEP contacts 

CC holders not 

meeting VCAP 

requirements to 

encourage 

compliance Submit audit 

report to 

NCWM/NTEP 

Submit audit 

report to 

NCWM/NTEP 

540 NCWM PUBLICATION 14 – NTEP ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY 

540-1 20.3.1.1. Certification Body’s Responsibilities

Source: 

NTEP Committee 

Purpose: 

Clarify that NCWM employees may perform VCAP audits under the NTEP Conformity Assessment Program. 

Item under Consideration: 

Amend NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Policy as follows: 

21.3.3 NTEP Verified Conformity Assessment Program Procedures 

Many NTEP certified devices must meet NIST Handbook 44 requirements for influence factors. It 

is not possible to verify these requirements during the Initial Verification in the field. Therefore, 

manufacturers of metrological devices (instruments) and/or components (modules) which are subject 

to influence factors, as defined in NIST Handbook 44, must have a Verified Conformity Assessment 

Program (VCAP) in place to ensure that these metrological devices and/or components are produced 

to perform at a level consistent with that of the device and/or component previously certified. The 

Verified Conformity Assessment Program audit will be at one or more sites as required to verify 

compliance. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 12 

For weighing devices that are subject to influence factors, NTEP will require an initial on-site audit 

of the manufacturer’s quality system and on-site random testing and/or review of a production 

device(s) (instrument(s)) by the Registrar or an NCWM authorized technical employee to verify 

that all items listed below are currently implemented and functioning to verify compliance to the 

appropriate sections of NIST Handbook 44. 

It is important for NTEP to know the types of devices included in the VCAP audit and it is for this 

reason that the certificate holder shall prepare a controlled quality management system (QMS) 

document listing the range of parameters that cover the devices included in the audit. The certificate 

holder shall include in this document all certificates and device parameters (For example: different 

models, capacities, e-min, n-max, sizes etc.) for the applicable device category. For example, in a 

load cell audit, a range of capacities of the load cells included in the audit shall be listed in the 

report. This document shall be available for the VCAP auditor and NTEP upon request and may be 

included as an annex to the audit report if desired. 

21.3.3.3 Certification Body’s Responsibilities and NCWM Technical Employee 

Responsibilities: 

21.3.3.3.1 The selected Certification Body is to be accredited by ANSI-ASQ National 

Accreditation Board (ANAB). The ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board is the 

U.S. accreditation body for management systems. ANAB accredits certification 

bodies (CBs) for ISO 9001 quality management systems (QMS) and ISO 14001 

environmental management systems (EMS), as well as a number of industryspecific requirements, or equivalent. 

21.3.3.3.2 With accreditation to Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes (3596/3821) or 

equivalent. 

Sequence Number 2007 NAICS, U.S. Code 2007 NAICS U.S. Title 

847 333997 Scale and Bench Manufacturing 

21.3.3.3.3 The selected Certification Body shall have international auditors available. 

21.3.3.3.4 The Certification Body or NCWM technical employee is required to notify 

NCWM when a major breakdown of the NTEP CC holder’s VCAP program is 

found. 

21.3.3.3.5 The Certification Body or NCWM technical employee shall submit a completed 

“Systems Audit Checklist” to NCWM. Submitted documents must contain a clear 

statement of compliance as a result of the VCAP audit. 

Background/Discussion: 

NCWM has hired a new employee who will serve in many facets of the NTEP Activities. One such activity is the 

Verified Conformity Assessment Program. In addition to reviewing the audit reports submitted to NCWM, the 

employee will also be available to follow up on audits and conduct VCAP audits. NCWM has establish fees 

comparable to those of other organizations providing similar services to ensure that it is not underpricing and putting 

those organizations at a competitive disadvantage on pricing. 

As VCAP expands to reach the full scope of the NTEP Administrative Policy in Publication 14 there may be a lack 

of available auditors to meet the demand. Audits are required every three years at each facility and many are in 

process now of undergoing their second audits. 

During the 2014 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments complimenting the actions taken by NCWM and 

heard a request that the supplemental guide go into more detail pertaining to the test sample selection criteria. 

NTEP is working to improve the guide. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 13 

550 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS 

550-1 D NTEP Contingency Plan 

Source: 

NTEP Committee 

Purpose: 

NTEP Contingency Plan was created to keep NTEP operating and to ensure that NTEP services are available at an 

adequate level including an appropriate number of laboratories and personnel (evaluators) to maintain viable support 

for NTEP services, including MRAs, MAAs, and potentially to be an R 76 Issuing Participant. 

Item Under Consideration: 

The NTEP Committee discussed contingency planning for continuity of NTEP operations. With the state of today’s 

economy, one of the NTEP-authorized labs could close due to government budget cuts. How would NTEP maintain 

workflow? Are there additional states interested in applying to become an NTEP field lab or an NTEP brick-andmortar lab? The 2014 hiring of an NTEP Specialist helps with contingency concerns. The Committee continues to 

discuss these issues during long-range planning sessions and welcomes comments from the membership. 

Background/Discussion: 

The Committee continues to consider whether NCWM should: 

1. Have additional evaluators under contract to conduct testing at manufacturers’ facilities and assist state 

NTEP laboratories? 

2. Have an NCWM brick and mortar NTEP laboratory and NTEP evaluators? 

3. Use a private third party laboratory to conduct NTEP evaluations? 

4. OIML MAA Participation as an issuing or utilizing participant. 

The Committee has heard testimony expressing support and concerns pertaining to the options. Several stated that 

the Committee should consider adding OIML MAA participation as a Utilizing Participant to the list. Others have 

urged the Committee to continue working on the idea of NCWM NTEP evaluators, an NCWM NTEP lab, and 

keeping all options open. One member asked the Committee to consider accepting manufacturer compliance data in 

lieu of hiring NTEP contractors. Another suggestion from the floor was to consider strengthening and utilizing IV 

as part of the NTEP process. A representative of a state brick and mortar NTEP laboratory asked the Committee to 

move cautiously forward and not destroy the state NTEP labs. He expressed concern that the establishment of an 

NCWM NTEP brick and mortar lab could lead to significant legal complications for the states. 

The Committee continues to reiterate to the membership that, at this time, the preferred course of action would be 

the option of evaluators under contract or use NCWM NTEP staff to assist the laboratories. The Committee 

recognizes the commitment that the states with NTEP laboratories have made over the years and would only resort 

to contingency measures in the event of a severe loss of state lab resources. Labs are handling current demands 

without a need for contingency measures. The Committee is updated on the status of the participating laboratories, 

personnel, and backlog on a quarterly basis and will continue to keep NTEP contingency a priority. 

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina | Committee Chair 

Mr. John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York | NCWM Chairman

Mr. Ron Hayes, Missouri | Chairman-Elect 

Mr. James Cassidy, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts | Member 

Mr. Jerry Buendel, Washington State | Member 

Mr. Jim Truex, NCWM | NTEP Administrator 

National Type Evaluation Program Committee 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

NTEP - 14 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Statistics Report 

NTEP - A1 

Appendix A 

NTEP Statistics Report 

General NTEP Statistics Last Year This Year Grand Total 

10/01/12 – 9/30/13 10/01/13 – 6/30/14 10/1/00 – 6/30/14 

Total Applications 

Processed (8) 255 (32) 251 (184) 3538 

Applications Completed 252 230 3436 

New Certificates Issued 253 214 3062 

Active NTEP Certificates 

on 6/30 1977 1887 

 ( ) = Reactivations 

Assignments to Labs per 

Year 10/1/12 – 9/30/13 10/1/13 – 6/30/14 10/1/00 – 6/30/14 

California (1) 38 29 (17) 475 

Canada 2 1 (4) 46 

GIPSA-DC 1 0 17 

GIPSA-KC 9 6 102 

Maryland (7) 50 (2) 35 (46) 453 

New York (2) 10 7 (19) 180 

NIST Force Group 4 4 (1) 96 

North Carolina 8 20 (4) 140 

Ohio 62 37 (28) 876 

NTEP Staff (2) 70 109 (12) 1019 

Applications Not Yet 

Assigned to a Lab 6 

( ) = Reassignments from another lab

Process Statistics 2013 - 2014 2000 - 2014

Average Time to Assign an 

Evaluation 3.8 Days 8.6 Days 

Average Time to Complete 

an Evaluation 131.2 Days 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Statistics Report 

NTEP - A2 

Report on Evaluations in Progress 

Evaluations in Progress 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 

Over 1 

Year Total 

June 30, 2010 37 12 11 13 24 97 

October 30, 2010 40 30 8 8 20 106 

December 31, 2010 39 25 22 5 20 111 

March 31, 2011 37 27 13 19 17 107 

June 30, 2011 47 20 7 7 21 102 

September 30, 2011 42 28 11 5 19 105 

December 31, 2011 37 19 23 5 17 101 

March 31, 2012 40 17 7 21 14 99 

June 30, 2012 41 21 10 6 20 98 

September 30, 2012 50 30 15 7 19 121 

December 31, 2012 32 24 17 7 18 98 

March 31, 2012 36 12 14 12 18 92 

June 30, 2013 53 18 6 6 19 102 

September 30. 2013 44 32 5 4 21 106 

December 31. 2013 41 25 24 2 24 116 

March 31, 2014 53 23 13 17 11 117 

June 30, 2014 55 30 14 8 19 126 

 

In Progress by Lab 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 

Over 1 

Year Total 

California 7 6 5 0 7 25 

Canada 0 1 0 0 0 1

GIPSA-DC 0 0 0 0 1 1 

GIPSA-KC 4 2 0 1 1 8 

Maryland 6 5 3 1 1 16 

New York 1 1 1 0 0 3

NIST Force Group 1 0 2 2 2 7 

North Carolina 6 8 2 1 1 18

Ohio 9 2 1 3 6 21

NTEP Staff 16 4 0 0 0 20

Unassigned 5 1 0 0 0 6 

 Total 

Pending: 126 
Report on Applications Received by Quarter 

 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-

Oct – Dec 81 59 59 58 47 55 56 76 71 58 59 

Jan – Mar 99 62 55 62 74 63 54 105 42 69 75 Apr – Jun 54 76 68 65 71 64 54 64 61 82 71 Jul - Sep 38 59 44 70 48 64 63 61 56 65 75 

Total 272 256 226 255 240 246 227 306 230 274 280 2

Average Per Quarter Overall: 65.1 Average Per Quarter This FY: 83.7 

NTEP– A3
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Statistics Report 

NTEP - A4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – 2013 Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Summary 

NTEP - B1 

Appendix B 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Belt-Conveyor Scale (BCS) Sector Meeting Summary 

No meeting took place for 2013. 

INTRODUCTION 

The charge of the BCS Sector is important in providing appropriate type evaluation criteria based on specifications, 

tolerances and technical requirements of NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, Sections 1.10. General Code and 2.21. Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Systems. The Sector’s recommendations are presented to the NTEP Committee each January for approval and 

inclusion in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists and Test Procedures for national type evaluation. 

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties. The BCS Sector did not meet during 2013; therefore, there is no 2013 report. 

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Note: It is the policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to use metric units of measurement in 

all of its publications; however, recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and 

measures associations have been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references in 

inch-pound units. 

 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – 2013 Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Summary 

NTEP - B2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALL LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C1 

Appendix C 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary 

August 21 - 22, 2013 

Kansas City, Missouri 

INTRODUCTION 

The charge of the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector is important in providing appropriate type evaluation criteria based 

on specifications, tolerances and technical requirements of NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and 

Other Technical Requirements for Weight and Measuring Devices, Sections 1.10. General Code, 5.56. Grain 

Moisture Meters and 5.57. Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers. The Sector’s recommendations are presented to the 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee each January for approval and inclusion in NCWM 

Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures for national type evaluation. 

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors, and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced font

(e.g., new items), and 3) nonretroactive items are identified in italics. There are instances where the Sector will use 

red text and/or highlighted text to bring emphasis to text that requires additional attention. When used in this report, 

the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Note: It is the policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to use metric units of measurement in 

all of its publications; however, recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and 

measures associations have been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references in 

inch-pound units.

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Title of Content Page NTEP C

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Report on the 2013 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings ..................................................................... 3

2. Report on NTEP Evaluations and Ongoing Calibration Program (OCP) (Phase II) Testing ................... 3

3. Review of OCP (Phase II) Performance Data .......................................................................................... 4

4. Amend Table S.2.5. of §5.56.(a) in NIST Handbook 44 - Update ........................................................... 4

4.a. Proposed Changes to Table S.2.5. in Appendix C of the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 .......... 6

4.b. Proposed Changes to the Checklist of the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 ................................ 8

4.c. Proposed Changes to the Checklist of the NIR Grain Analyzer Chapter of Publication 14 .......... 8

5. Item 356-1 Printed Ticket User Requirements – Update ......................................................................... 8

6. Modify the Definition of Remote Configuration Capability Appearing in Appendix D of NIST 

Handbook 44 to Recognize the Expanded Scope of “Remote Configuration Capability” (S&T 

Developing Item 360-7) ......................................................................................................................... 12
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C2 

7. Status of Interagency Agreement and Impact of UGMA (new GIPSA designated) Meter on Another 

5-year Agreement ................................................................................................................................... 15

8. Near Infrared Corn NTEP Support ......................................................................................................... 17

9. Test Weight per Bushel Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerance ......................................................... 19

10. Report on International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) TC 17/SC 1 R 59 Moisture Meters 

for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds and proposed changes to the NTEP humidity test for grain moisture 

meters and near infrared grain analyzers ................................................................................................ 22

11. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds ............ 25

12. Software Sector Items ............................................................................................................................ 26

13. Update on Proficiency Testing ............................................................................................................... 36

14. The Feasibility of a Phase II program for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers ............................................. 38

15. Next Sector Meeting .............................................................................................................................. 38

16. Update on the New Meter Technology .................................................................................................. 39 

Table B 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

BIML International Bureau of Legal Metrology NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee 

CD Committee Draft OCP Ongoing Calibration Program 

CIML International Committee of Legal 

Metrology 

OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

CIPM International Committee of Weights and 

Measures 

OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

D Document R Recommendation 

EMRP European Metrology Research Program S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

FGIS Federal Grain Inspection Service SC Subcommittee 

GA Grain Analyzer SD Secure Digital 

GIPSA Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration 

TC Technical Committee 

GMM Grain Moisture Meter TW Test Weight 

MRA Mutual Recognition Agreement UGMA Unified Grain Moisture Algorithm 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures 

USB Universal Serial Bus 

NIR Near Infrared Grain Analyzer USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

USNWG United States National Working Group 

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C3 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

1. Report on the 2013 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings 

The 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting was held January 27 - 30, 2013 in Charleston, South Carolina. At that meeting, 

no recommended amendments to NCWM Publication 14 for grain analyzers were provided to the NTEP committee. 

Several of the recommended changes to NCWM Publication 14 that were discussed at the 2012 Sector meeting were 

pending voting at the 2013 Annual Meeting and will be reviewed later in Agenda Item 4 as proposed changes to the 

2013 edition of NCWM Publication 14. See the table of ammendments and changes to NCWM Publication 14 

below. 

The 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting was held July 14 - 18, 2013, in Louisville, Kentucky. There were two Grain 

Analyzer Sector voting items on the agenda. Item 356-1, Table S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of 

Sealing and Item 356-2, UR.3.4. Printed Tickets. See Grain Analyzer agenda Item 4, and agenda Item 5 below, 

for details. There was also one Grain Analyzer Sector Developing item on the S&T agenda, Item 360-7, Appendix 

D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability. See Grain Analyzer agenda Item 6, below, for details. 

Mr. Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator, reported that 37 states were represented at the NCWM 2013 Annual Meeting. 

Jim also provided an overview of the structure of NCWM Inc., Handbook 44, and NCWM Publication 14. At the 

Annual Meeting, Item 356-1, Table S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing and Item 356-2, 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets were adopted. Item 360-7, Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration 

Capability remains a Developing item for additional input from the Sectors. 

Amendments/Changes to the Grain Moisture Meters and Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Chapters 

in the 2013 Edition of NCWM Publication 14 

Section Number Amendment/Change 

Page 

(2013 

Edition) 

Source: 2013 

Grain Analyzer 

Sector Meeting 

Summary 

Appendix C 

Table S.2.5 Categories 

of Device and Methods 

of Sealing 

Amend Category 3 to remove the word “remotely” 

from the second paragraph. Add a paragraph to 

Category 3a and 3b 

GMM-37 Agenda Item 4.a. 

GMM Checklist Code 

Reference: S.2.5. 

Provisions for Sealing - 

Category 3 devices 

Amend paragraph 4.6.36 and 4.6.37 to reflect the 

changes that were made in Appendix C, Table S.2.5 

GMM-21 Agenda Item 4.b. 

NIR Checklist Code 

Reference S.2.6. 

Provisions for Sealing 

Amend paragraph 4.9.16. to delete remotely and add 

“OR” following the sentance in 4.9.16.1 

NIR-15 Agenda Item 4.c. 

2. Report on NTEP Evaluations and Ongoing Calibration Program (OCP) (Phase II) Testing 

Ms. Cathleen Brenner, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the NTEP Participating 

Laboratory for grain analyzers brought the Sector up to date on NTEP Evaluation (Phase I) activity. She also 

reported on the collection and analysis of Grain Moisture Meter OCP (Phase II) data on the 2012 crop. Ms. Brenner 

will identify, for the 2013 harvest, the models enrolled in Phase II. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C4 

Ms. Brenner reported that there are three models enrolled in Phase I and one of those models is near completion and 

will be joining models enrolled in the Phase II program for the 2013 harvest. The second model is enrolled for 

moisture and the third model for extending the temperature ranges. 

Ms. Brenner also reported on the collection and analysis of Grain Moisture Meter OCP (Phase II) data on the 

2012 crop. For the 2013 harvest there are seven models enrolled in Phase II. The manufacturers will be charged on 

the basis of six models because, using GAC2500-UGMA data, DICKEY-john can automatically back calculate 

calibrations to the GAC2500 without having to run samples on the GAC2500*. Phase II data collection for the 

2013 harvest began in early August. 

The seven meters: 

1. Bruins Instruments – OmegAnalyzerG 

2. DICKEY-john Corp. – GAC2000 (NTEP Version), GAC2100a and GAC2100b 

3. DICKEY-john Corp. – GAC2500 (*See note above. Will not run samples on this model.) 

4. DICKEY-john Corp. – GAC2500-UGMA 

5. Foss North America – Infratec 1241 

6. Perten Instruments Inc. – AM5200 and AM5200-A (The AM5200-A is UGMA Certified.) 

7. The Steinlite Corporation – SL95 

The 2013 Phase II enrollment cost to each manufacturer, based on 6 device types, is $8,750. 

3. Review of OCP (Phase II) Performance Data 

At the Sector’s August 2005 meeting, it was agreed that comparative OCP data identifying the Official Meter and 

listing the average bias for each NTEP meter type should be available for annual review by the Sector. Accordingly, 

Ms. Brenner, GIPSA, the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain Analyzers will present data showing the 

performance of NTEP meters compared to the air oven. This data is based on the last three crop years (2010 - 2012) 

using calibrations updated for use during the 2013 harvest season. The 2010-2012 Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) 

Phase II comparison graphs are available for view or can be downloaded for printing at the following web address: 

http://www.ncwm.net/resources/dyn/files/1081743z9820e9b2/_fn/GMMBiases13.pdf 

Ms. Brenner reported that on May 1, 2013, the USDA GIPSA official moisture meter for all fifteen NTEP grains 

switched to the Unified Grain Moisture Algorithm (UGMA) technology. The “Official Meter” designation in the 

above camparison charts is the UGMA master sytem which has three years worth of data. The UGMA models, 

Perten AM 5200-A and Dickey-john GAC 2500 Unified Grain Moisture Algorithm (UGMA) meters do not have 

three years data. A randomized assignment of codes was used for the individual manufacturers based on the grain 

groupings with data for the individual manufacturers, so the code identified as “Meter 1”on the charts represents a 

the same manufacturer on each chart; “Meter A” is a different manufacturer on each chart, etc. 

The overall performance of the meters looked good for most grains with the exception of Long Grain Rice, which 

had the most variation between the official meter and other meters in the program. 

4. Amend Table S.2.5. of §5.56.(a) in NIST Handbook 44 - Update 

Source: 

NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Purpose: 

Delete “remotely” from the second paragraph of Category 3 requirements that begins, “When accessed remotely ...” 

to make it clear that the requirements of Category 3 apply whether accessed manually using the keyboard or 

accessed by remote means, and add the modified second paragraph of Category 3 requirements to Categories 3a and 

3b to make it clear that these requirements apply to all the subcategories of Category 3. At the 2013 Annual 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C5 

Meeting, S&T Item 356-1, amendments to Table S.2.5. of Section 5.56.(a) in NIST Handbook 44 as noted in the 

item under consideration below, were adopted. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Table S.2.5. 

Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Methods of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration capability. Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for 

calibration parameters (000 to 999) and one for configuration 

parameters (000 to 999). If equipped with event counters, the 

device must be capable of displaying, or printing through the 

device or through another on-site device, the contents of the 

counters. 

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, but 

access is controlled by physical hardware. 

A device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote 

configuration mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measure mode while enabled for remote 

configuration. 

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 (000 to 999) and one 

for configuration parameters (000 to 999). If equipped with 

event counters, the device must be capable of displaying, or 

printing through the device or through another on-site device, 

the contents of the counters. 

Category 3: Remote configuration capability access 

may be unlimited or controlled through a software 

switch (e.g., password). 

When accessed remotely for the purpose of modifying 

sealable parameters, the device shall clearly indicate 

that it is in the configuration mode and shall not be 

capable of operating in the measuring mode. 

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 (for 

calibration changes consisting of multiple constants, the 

calibration version number may be used rather than the 

calibration constants). A printed copy of the information must 

be available through the device or through another on-site 

device. The event logger shall have a capacity to retain 

records equal to twenty-five (25) times the number of 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.) 

Category 3a: No remote capability, but operator is able 

to make changes that affect the metrological integrity of 

the device (e.g., slope, bias, etc.) in normal operation. 

When accessed for the purpose of modifying sealable 

parameters, the device shall clearly indicate that it is in 

the configuration mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measuring mode. 

Same as Category 3 

Category 3b: No remote capability, but access to 

metrological parameters is controlled through a 

software switch (e.g., password). 

When accessed for the purpose of modifying sealable 

parameters, the device shall clearly indicate that it is in 

the configuration mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measuring mode. 

Same as Category 3 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1999 and January 1, 201X] 

(Amended 1998 and 201X) 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C6 

Note: Zero-setting and test point adjustments are considered to affect metrological characteristics and must be 

sealed. 

(Added 1993) (Amended 1995 and 1997) 

Background/Discussion: 

All of the GMMs in Categories 3, 3(a), and 3(c) of Table S.2.5. use an electronic method of sealing, and most of 

them also offer access to the configuration mode thorough a keyboard entered password. In this mode, sealable 

parameters can also be changed locally through the keyboard. Category 3 of Table S.2.5. currently includes the 

following requirement: 

When accessed remotely for the purpose of modifying sealable parameters, the device shall clearly 

indicate that it is in the configuration mode and shall not be capable of operating in the measuring mode. 

At its 2011 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, the Sector agreed by consensus that the following changes to 

Table S.2.5. of Section 5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44 should be forwarded to the S&T Committee for 

consideration: 

 Add a note to Table S.2.5. to recognize the expanded scope of “remote capability”. 

 Delete “remotely” from the second paragraph of Category 3 requirements that begins, “When 

accessed remotely ...” to make it clear that the requirements of Category 3 apply whether accessed 

manually using the keyboard or accessed by remote means. 

 Add the modified second paragraph of Category 3 requirements to Categories 3a and 3b to make it 

clear that these requirements apply to all the subcategories of Category 3. 

At the suggestion of National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST), Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), 

the Table S.2.5. changes approved by the Sector in 2011 have been separated into two independent items: one 

dealing with the changes to Category 3 and its subcategories (as shown in Item Under Consideration) and one 

dealing with the modification of the definition of remote configuration capability appearing in Appendix D of NIST 

Handbook 44 to recognize the expanded scope of “remote capability.” This independence insures that one item will 

not hold up the other from consideration. 

At the 2013 Annual Meeting, S&T Item 356-1, amendments to Table S.2.5. of Section 5.56.(a) in NIST 

Handbook 44 as noted in the item under consideration above, were adopted. With the adoption of the amendments 

to Table S.2.5. the following related changes will be made to both the GMM Chapter and the Near Infrared (NIR) 

Grain Analyzer Chapter of NCWM Publication 14. These changes are shown in Items 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) 

following: 

4.a. Proposed Changes to Table S.2.5. in Appendix C of the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 

Table S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing 

Table S.2.5. 

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 (000 to 999) and one for 

configuration parameters (000 to 999.) If equipped with 

event counters, the device must be capable of 

displaying, or printing through the device or through 

another on-site device, the contents of the counters. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C7 

Table S.2.5. 

Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing 

Categories of Device Method of Sealing 

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 

shall not be capable of operating in the 

measure mode while enabled for 

remote configuration. 

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 (000 to 999) and one for configuration 

parameters (000 to 999.) If equipped with event 

counters, the device must be capable of displaying, or 

printing through the device or through another on-site 

device, the contents of the counters. 

Category 3: Remote configuration capability, access 

may be unlimited or controlled through 

a software switch (e.g. password). 

 When accessed remotely for the 

purpose of modifying sealable 

parameters, the device shall clearly 

indicate that it is in the configuration 

mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measure mode. 

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 (for calibration changes consisting of multiple 

constants, the calibration version number may be used 

rather than the calibration constants.) A printed copy of 

the information must be available through the device or 

through another on-site device. The event logger shall 

have a capacity to retain records equal to twenty-five 

(25) times the number of 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.) 

Category 3a: No remote capability, but operator is 

able to make changes that affect the 

metrological integrity of the device 

(e.g. slope, bias, etc.) in normal 

operation. 

When accessed for the purpose of 

modifying sealable parameters, the 

device shall clearly indicate that it is 

in the configuration mode and shall 

not be capable of operating in the 

measure mode. 

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the remote 

configuration mode and shall not be capable of 

operating in the measure mode while enabled for remote 

configuration. 

Category 3b: No remote capability, but access to 

metrological parameters is controlled 

through a software switch (e.g. 

password). 

When accessed for the purpose of 

modifying sealable parameters, the 

device shall clearly indicate that it is 

in the configuration mode and shall 

not be capable of operating in the 

measure mode. 

Remote configuration capability, access may be 

unlimited or controlled through a software switch (e.g. 

password). 

Non-retroactive as of January 1, 1999. Amended 1998 and 201X 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C8 

4.b. Proposed Changes to the Checklist of the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 

For Category 3 Devices 

4.6.36. If a measurement is in process when the device is accessed remotely for 

the purpose of modifying sealable parameters, the measurement is either: 

 Yes No N/A 

 Terminated Before Results can be Displayed or Printed OR

 Completed Before Entering the Configuration Mode 

4.6.37. When accessed remotely for the purpose of modifying sealable parameters, 

the device clearly indicates that it is in the configuration mode and is not 

capable of operating in the measure mode. 

 Yes No N/A 

4.6.37.1 Describe the method used to seal the device or access the 

audit trail information: 

 

4.c. Proposed Changes to the Checklist of the NIR Grain Analyzer Chapter of Publication 14 

Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzers use an electronic method of sealing similar to those of GMMs, and most 

of them also offer access to the configuration mode thorough a keyboard entered password. In this mode, 

sealable parameters can be changed locally through the keyboard. At the 2011 NTETC Graina Analyzer Sector 

Meeting, the Sector agreed that contingent upon acceptance of Item Under Consideration the NIR Check List of 

NCWM Publication 14 should be modified to delete “remotely” from Section 4 Design of NIR Analyzers, 

paragraph 4.9.16 as shown below. 

4.9.16. If a measurement is in process when the device is accessed remotely for 

the purpose of modifying sealable parameters, the measurement is either: 

 4.9.16.1 Terminated before results can be displayed or printed. OR Yes No N/A 

 4.9.16.2 Completed before entering the configuration mode Yes No N/A 

4.9.16.3 Describe the method used to seal the device or access 

theaudit trail information: 

 

Conclusion: 

This item was included on the Grain Analyzer Sector’s 2013 Agenda as an update on the amendments to 

Table S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing in NIST Handbook 44, Grain Moisture Meter Code 

Section 5.56.(a) that were adopted at the July 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Sector was in agreement with the 

changes that were adopted at the July 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting and by consensus agreed to the subsequent 

changes to Publication 14. 

5. Item 356-1 Printed Ticket User Requirements – Update 

Source: 

Grain and Feed Association of Illinois (2012) 

Purpose: 

Change the mandatory printing of tickets from grain moisture meters to an “on demand at the time of transaction” 

printing and remove the requirement of printing the calibration version identification. Note that the S&T Committee 

did not agree with proposed removal of the requirement to print the calibration version identification; this position is 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C9 

reflected in the version of the proposal currently under consideration by the Committee. This item was adopted at 

the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend NIST Handbook 44, Grain Moisture Meter Code 5.56.(a) as follows: 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets. 

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket at the time of the transaction or as otherwise 

specified by the customer. The printed ticket shall include the date, grain type, grain moisture 

results, and test weight per bushel, and calibration version identification. The ticket 

information shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system. 

(Amended 1993, 1995, and 2003, and 2013) 

Background: 

According to the submitter, the user requirement to provide a printed ticket for every single load is unrealistic in the 

country elevator industry. Traffic patterns at country elevators do not lend themselves to providing a printed ticket 

to all customers and customers really don’t want them. As the speed and capacity increases in the industry, 

outbound scales are being located at a distance from the inbound scale and the scale house where the moisture tester 

is located to alleviate traffic bottlenecks. When the outbound scale is located away from where the ticket is printed, 

the truck driver must circle back around to pick up the ticket, thus, causing logistical problems. In addition, since 

meters are sealed, inspected and required to have the correct calibration, there is no need for the calibration version 

identification to be printed on the ticket. Also, most customers are not going to know if it is the correct calibration 

version identification or not. There have been problems getting the information from the grain moisture meter to the 

grain accounting system – especially the calibration version identification. Some grain accounting systems have to 

be “hard coded” for calibration version identification which must be changed whenever the calibration changes. The 

change will be at an added cost for the industry. 

When a consumer pays at a gas pump, they have the option of a receipt on demand at the time of transaction or not 

receiving a receipt. There would be a cost savings to moisture meter users as they would save on paper and filing 

space, and in the situation where the calibration version identification is “hard coded,” there will be a cost savings of 

the expense to have the grain accounting software provider make those changes. 

Since moisture meters are capable of printing the ticket, some would argue that they should just go ahead and print 

them and provide them to the customer. In addition, the requirement does not say when the ticket shall be given to 

the customer; thus, the printed tickets could be saved for weeks, months, or even years in case the customer had a 

concern at some point. Printing the calibration version identification ensures the correct calibration is being used. 

The submitter proposed amendments to paragraph UR.3.4. Printed Tickets as follows: 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets. 

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket on demand at the time of the transaction showing the 

date, grain type, grain moisture results, and test weight per bushel, and calibration version 

identification. The ticket information shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system. 

(Amended 1993, 1995, and 2003, and 20XX) 

Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 2011 Interim Meeting: Some jurisdictions opposed the 

proposal citing that it is a fundamental element of a point of sale transaction that there is either a witness to the 

transaction or that a receipt is made available. Others supported the item and recognized that many customers refuse 

to take the printed tickets. The CWMA believes that the calibration version identification is not necessary on the 

ticket since most jurisdictions are already verifying the calibrations version when the device is inspected. This 

proposal is not eliminating the opportunity for the seller to obtain a printed ticket. The CWMA forwarded the item 

to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C10 

Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 2011 Annual Meeting: The committee heard no comments 

on this item. The WWMA amended the proposal to make the language consistent with other codes such as 3.32. 

LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code paragraph UR.2.6. Ticket Printer: Customer 

Tickets. The WWMA forwarded the modified version below to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets. 

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing at the time of the transaction or as otherwise 

specified by the customer. The printed ticket shall include the date, grain type, grain moisture 

results, and test weight per bushel, and calibration version identification. The ticket information

shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system. 

(Amended 1993, 1995, and 2003, and 20XX) 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 2011 Interim Meeting: There were no comments. 

Deferring to the expertise of the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector, NEWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, 

recommending it as a Developing Item. 

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 2011 Annual Meeting: Ms. Tina Butcher, NIST Technical 

Advisor, noted that the proposed language submitted was slightly different from that discussed by the NTETC Grain 

Analyzer Sector and provided a summary corresponding to this item prepared by Ms. Diane Lee, Grain Analyzer 

Sector Technical Advisor. Ms. Butcher also pointed out that WWMA proposed alternate language that is consistent 

with printed tickets requirements in other codes. The SWMA agreed that the customer should be given the option of 

receiving a printed ticket from a transaction and that the proposed changes would clarify the responsibility of the 

device user. The SWMA preferred the option forwarded by WWMA since it mirrors existing language in other 

NIST Handbook 44 codes. The SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item as 

revised by WWMA. 

NCWM 2012 Interim Meeting: The S&T Committee received comments in support of the alternative language 

submitted by the WWMA. NIST, OWM reported that the proposed language submitted to the regional weights and 

measures associations was different from that agreed to by the Grain Analyzer Sector at its August 2011 meeting. 

The Grain Analyzer Sector had specifically opposed deleting the phrase “calibration version identification.” NIST, 

OWM also noted that not all grain moisture meters are Category 3 devices; consequently, calibration version 

identification information is a critical component on the printed receipt to reconstruct the basis for a sale and help 

officials to resolve complaints. 

The Committee agreed that the version proposed by WWMA and SWMA was preferable since it mirrors similar 

language in other NIST Handbook 44 codes. The Committee also agreed that, given the Grain Analyzer Sector’s 

opposition to deleting the reference to “calibration version identification,” this phrase should be retained in the 

paragraph. The Committee presented an amended version of the proposal. The Committee recognized that the 

regional associations were not aware of the Sector’s position on the proposed deletion of the reference to the 

calibration version and that the submitter has not had an opportunity to review the significant changes from the 

original version. The 2012 S&T Committee designated this item as an Informational Item to allow additional 

opportunity for input. 

At the Sector’s August 2012 meeting, one member suggested that the phrase “or as otherwise specified by the 

customer” be modified to read “or as agreed to by the customer.” Customers are not going to proactively specify 

how elevator record keeping systems are put together, but they can agree that this information comes on a settlement 

sheet. A contract for the sale of grain at some future date with XYZ Grain contains a phrase that the seller agrees to 

XYZ Grain’s various transaction policies. By signing the contract, the seller agrees to accept settlement sheet 

information via a web listing that can be accessed with a computer or possibly using a smart phone. The seller is not 

“specifying” how he wants to receive the “ticket” information, he is just “agreeing” to receive it in a different 

manner. 

The wording proposed by the Sector in 2011, “A printed ticket shall be made available to the customer upon request 

at the time of transaction...” did not require the customer to do anything if he didn’t want a ticket, but it did require 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C11 

him to ask for one if he wanted one. The wording in the Item Under Consideration required the customer to say, “I 

don’t want a ticket ...” if a ticket wasn’t wanted. If he said nothing, he would be given a ticket (or offered one). 

Other Sector members felt that the wording of the Item Under Consideration allowed flexibility, and most were in 

favor of accepting the Item Under Consideration. An attempt to obtain a consensus on the S&T Committee’s 

proposal was unsuccessful due to one jurisdiction’s belief that ...”a ticket is given to the customer no matter what.” 

There was further discussion on whether the wording in the Item Under Consideration, “... at the time of the 

transaction or as otherwise specified by the customer” means that the customer gets a ticket at the time of transaction 

or at a later specified time. Some believed that “as otherwise specified by the customer” could mean “never” or “in 

another form.” Sector Chairman, Ms. Cassie Eigenmann, DICKEY-john, Corp., reminded the Sector that the reason 

Illinois Grain & Feed Association submitted the request for change was because they did not want to have to print a 

ticket at the time of transaction unless the customer requested one at the time of transaction. 

It was pointed out that unless a ticket is printed by the GMM before the grain sample is “dumped” from the GMM it 

may not be possible for the GMM to print a ticket for that transaction. The information, however, could reside in 

the memory of the elevator’s grain transaction system and could be printed in another form for example, on a 

settlement sheet that is sent (or transmitted) to the seller later. Further discussion suggested that the S&T proposed 

wording could be interpreted to mean that elevators that captured GMM information in their grain transaction 

system at the time of transaction would not have to supply a GMM printed ticket at time of transaction unless 

requested by the customer at time of transaction. If the elevator is using a GMM that is equipped to record and that 

was put into service before January 1, 1998, the elevator would be required to give the customer a printed ticket at 

the time of transaction (need print only percent moisture content and grain selected). 

Grain Analyzer Sector 2012 meeting: The Sector agreed in a vote of nine in favor and one opposed to the Item 

Under Consideration. 

WWMA received no comments on this item at its 2012 Annual Meeting. The WWMA believed the intent in the 

amended proposed language is similar to other codes in HB 44 and sufficiently gives options of how printed tickets 

are provided to the customer. WWMA supported the item and recommended that it be a Voting Item. 

NEWMA supported this item as a “Voting” item at both its 2012 Interim Meeting and 2013 Annual Meeting. 

The SWMA received no comments at its 2012 Annual Meeting. The Committee recognized that the NCWM S&T 

Committee designated this as an Informational item to allow additional time for the weights and measures 

community, including the original submitter to review the changes made to the proposal during the 2012 NCWM 

Interim Meeting. The Committee believes that adequate time has elapsed to allow for comment. The Committee 

noted that the NTEP Grain Sectors have also reviewed the proposal, as modified, and have expressed no opposition. 

SWMA recommended that the item be a Voting item. 

During its Open Hearings at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Ms. Juana 

Williams (NIST, OWM) who noted that OWM believes the suggested changes to UR.3.4. Printed Tickets are 

appropriate and notes that the language is similar to other codes in NIST Handbook 44. OWM agrees with the Grain 

Analyzer Sector’s decision to retain the requirement for recording the “calibration version identification.” OWM 

notes that while “Category 3” devices would require the printing of the calibration version identification 

information, not all grain moisture meters are “Category 3” devices. Having this information printed on receipts 

provides customers and officials with the means to verify that correct calibration settings are being used for a given 

transaction. The Committee received no other comments on this item. Hearing no opposition to the proposed 

changes, the Committee agreed to recommend the proposal for a vote. 

NCWM 2013 Online Position Forum: One Government representative opposed the proposal, with no additional 

comments. During Open Hearings at the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard no comments in 

opposition to this item. NIST, OWM reiterated its comments from the 2013 Interim Meeting. The Item Under 

Consideration was adopted at the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C12 

Conclusion: 

This item was included on the Grain Analyzer Sector’s 2013 Agenda as an update on the amendments to 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets in NIST Handbook 44, Grain Moisture Meter Code 5.56.(a) that were adopted at the 

July 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Sector was in agreement with the changes that were adopted at the 

July 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting.

6. Modify the Definition of Remote Configuration Capability Appearing in Appendix D of NIST 

Handbook 44 to Recognize the Expanded Scope of “Remote Configuration Capability” (S&T 

Developing Item 360-7) 

Source: 

NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Purpose: 

Table S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing that appears in Section 5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44

lists acceptable methods of sealing for various categories of GMMs. When the Sector first recommended adding the 

table to NIST Handbook 44 at their September 1996 meeting, the concept of making a change to a GMM from a 

remote site involved information “...sent by to the device by modem (or computer).” In 2011 this concept has 

expanded to include the ability of the measuring device to accept new or revised sealable parameters from a memory 

chip (e.g., an SD Memory Card that may or may not itself be necessary to the operation of the device), external 

computer, network, or other device plugged into a mating port (e.g., Universal Serial Bus (USB) port) on the 

measuring device or connected wirelessly to the measuring device. The changes proposed in Item Under 

Consideration expand the scope of “remote configuration capability” to cover instances where the “other device” 

may be necessary to the operation of the weighing or measuring device or which may be considered a permanent 

part of that device. 

Item Under Consideration: 

remote configuration capability. – The ability to adjust a weighing or measuring device or change its sealable 

parameters from or through some other device that is not may or may not itself be necessary to the operation 

of the weighing or measuring device or is not may or may not be a permanent part of that device. [2.20, 2.21, 

2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 5.56(a)] 

(Added 1993, Amended 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Two common types of removable data storage devices are the USB flash drive and the Secure Digital (SD) memory 

card. A USB flash drive is a data storage device that includes flash memory with an integrated USB interface. USB 

flash drives are typically removable and rewritable, and physically much smaller than a floppy disk. A SD card is a 

non-volatile memory card format originally designed for use in portable devices. The SD standard is maintained by 

the SD Card Association. 

Removable digital storage devices can be used in GMMs as either “data transfer” devices which are not necessary to 

the operation of the GMM or as “data storage devices” which are necessary to the operation of the GMM. 

A USB flash drive is most likely to be used as a “data transfer” device. In a typical “data transfer” application, the 

USB flash drive is first connected to a computer with access to the web. The computer visits the GMM 

manufacturer’s web site and downloads the latest grain calibrations that are then stored in the USB flash drive. The 

USB flash drive is removed from the computer and plugged into a USB port on the GMM. The GMM is put into 

“remote configuration” mode to copy the new grain calibration data into the GMM’s internal memory. When the 

GMM has been returned to normal operating (measuring) mode the USB flash drive can be removed from the 

GMM. 

Although an SD memory card could also be used as a “data transfer device,” it is more likely to be used as a “data 

storage device.” In a typical “data storage device” application, the SD memory card stores the grain calibrations 

used on the GMM. The SD memory card must be plugged into an SD memory card connector on a GMM circuit 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C13 

card for the GMM to operate in measuring mode. To install new grain calibrations the GMM must be turned “off” 

or put into a mode in which the SD memory card can be safely removed. The SD memory card can either be 

replaced with an SD memory card that has been programmed with the new grain calibrations or the original SD 

memory card can be re-programmed with the new grain calibrations in much the same way as that described in the 

preceding paragraph to copy new grain calibrations into a USB flash drive. In either case, the SD memory card 

containing the new calibrations must be installed in the GMM for the GMM to operate in measuring mode. In that 

regard, the SD memory card ) can be considered a “permanent part” of the GMM in that the GMM cannot operate 

without it. 

Note: In the above example “SD memory card” could be any removable flash memory card such as the Secure 

Digital Standard-Capacity, the Secure Digital High-Capacity, the Secure Digital eXtended-Capacity, and the Secure 

Digital Input/Output, which combines input/output functions with data storage. These come in three form factors: 

the original size, the “mini” size, and the “micro” size. “Memory Stick” is a removable flash memory card format, 

launched by Sony in 1998, and is also used in general to describe the whole family of Memory Sticks. In addition to 

the original Memory Stick, this family includes the Memory Stick PRO, the Memory Stick Duo, the Memory Stick 

PRO Duo, the Memory Stick Micro, and the Memory Stick PRO-HG. 

At its 2012 meeting, the Grain Analyzer Sector agreed by consensus to accept the Item Under Consideration and 

recommended forwarding this item to the S&T Committee for consideration. 

WWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: Ms. Juana Williams (NIST, OWM) supported the intent. She talked about this item 

in conjunction with Item 356-1, S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing. This is a complex item 

affecting multiple other devices; therefore the proposal requires further consideration. The language in the proposal 

to amend the definition of remote configuration capability is confusing. The Committee believes the current 

definition already allows the use of remote configuration devices and allows the flexibility desired. The 

ramifications of changing the definition could affect other devices in NIST Handbook 44. WWMA did not forward 

this item to NCWM. 

SWMA 2012 Annual Meeting: There were no comments. After reviewing the proposal and considering the 

potential impact on other device types, the Committee recommended this as a Developing Item. The Committee 

asks that the Sector continue to obtain input on the definition and the impact the changes would have on other device 

types. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item and assigning its development 

to the Grain Analyzer Sector. 

During its Open Hearings at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Ms. Williams 

(NIST, OWM). OWM suggests the Committee consider this item as a Developing item to allow other Sectors to 

discuss how a change to the definition may affect other device types of similar design and to consider changes if 

needed. OWM recognizes that the current definition for “remote configuration capability” may not address those 

grain moisture meters (GMMs) which can only be operated with a removable data storage device, containing, 

among other things, the grain calibrations intended for use with the GMM, inserted in the device (as was described 

by the Grain Analyzer Sector). As such, OWM notes that current sealing requirements were developed at a time 

when such technology likely didn’t exist, nor could be envisioned, and are based on the current definition of remote 

configuration capability. Because the current definition was never intended to apply to this “next generation” 

technology, OWM suggests that those charged with further development of this item may wish to revisit the five 

philosophies of sealing and consider whether a new paragraph, completely separate from current sealing 

requirements, might be appropriate and a better option, than the one currently proposed. The five philosophies of 

sealing are included in the 1992 Report of the 77th National Conference on Weights and Measures (Report of the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee). Another option, preferred over the changes currently proposed, would 

be to add a separate statement to the current definition of “remote configuration capability” to address removable 

storage devices. For example, the following sentence might be considered as an addition to the current definition for 

“remote configuration capability:” 

Devices which are programmed using removable media (such as SD cards, flash drives, etc.) that 

may or may not be required to remain with the device during normal operation are also considered 

to be remotely configured devices. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C14 

The Committee also heard comments from Dmitri Karimov (LC), speaking on behalf of the MMA, who made two 

points: (1) flow computers may already have these capabilities, thus it may be more appropriate to consider adding 

requirements to the General Code so that the requirements will be uniformly applied to all device types; and (2) the 

Committee should look ahead and consider other capabilities that may or already have emerged such as wireless 

communication and configuration. 

The Committee acknowledged the comments indicating that the current definition of “remote configuration 

capability” was developed at a time when certain technologies, such as blue tooth, SD storage devices, flash drives, 

etc., didn’t exist. The Committee recognized that it may be difficult to modify the existing definition and associated 

requirements to be flexible enough to address emerging and future technologies without having a significant (and 

possibly detrimental impact) on existing devices. Consequently, rather than modifying the current definition, the 

Committee concluded that a better approach might be to develop an entirely separate set of security requirements 

that would apply to emerging technologies. The Committee believes that additional work is needed to develop 

proposed definition(s) and associated requirements and decided to designate the item as Developmental. The 

Committee requests other Sectors review the Grain Sector’s proposed modification to the definition as well as 

OWM’s suggestions and provide input. 

At their 2013 Annual Meetings, both NEWMA and CWMA supported this as a Developing item. NEWMA heard 

from NIST who encouraged members to consider this work as it applies to all device types. 

On the 2013 NCWM Online Position Forum, one Government representative indicated a neutral position on this 

item with no additional comments. 

NCWM 2013Annual Meeting Open Hearings: The Committee heard comments from Ms. Williams (NIST, OWM) 

who reiterated OWM’s comments from the 2013 Interim Meeting, suggesting that it may be appropriate to develop 

separate requirements to address new and future technologies which can be remotely configured with removable 

media. OWM plans to develop draft language and ask for input from the various Sectors at their upcoming 

meetings. Ms. Williams also noted the suggestion made at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting by Mr. Dmitri 

Karimov, LC, speaking on behalf of the MMA, that a provision might be added to the General Code to address this 

type of equipment. 

Ms. Julie Quinn (Minnesota) agreed with OWM’s comments and indicated support for possibly including 

requirements in the General Code to address newer and emerging technologies. Mr. Karimov (LC), speaking on 

behalf of MMA, concurred with this suggestion. 

The Sector is asked to review and discuss the proposed language, and propose any additional language for changes 

to the definition of remote configuration capability. 

Conclusion: 

At the time of the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, OWM had not drafted a definition for remote 

configuration capability to address devices which are programed using removable media such as SD cards or flash 

drives. During the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, the Sector discussed other ways devices can be 

remotely configured that should also be considered when drafting a definition for remote configuration capability to 

address these devices. 

Mr. Hurburgh mentioned that we also need to consider devices that use cloud computing to remotely confirgure a 

device and suggested that we consider the various ways a device can be remotely confirgured. 

The Sector agreed that OWM should develop a proposal for a definition for remote configuration capability that 

addresses devices that use removable media such as SD cards, flash drives or other methods not covered by the 

existing definition. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C15 

7. Status of Interagency Agreement and Impact of UGMA (new GIPSA designated) Meter on 

Another 5-year Agreement 

Source: 

Cathy Brenner, USDA, GIPSA 

Background/Discussion: 

The current Interagency Agreement is the fourth 5-year agreement of the on-going calibration program. The 

agreement was signed in March 2010 and runs through analysis of the 2014 crop and issuance of the 2015 

Certificates of Conformance (CC). Thus, we have just started the fourth year of the current agreement. It should be 

noted that annual calibration activities occur in two government fiscal years and are better defined by a starting date 

of July 1. The current 5-year agreement 2010 - 2014 is included in the table below: 

Proposed NTEP On-going Calibration Program Fee Schedule 

For Year 2010 to 2014

(1) 

Total 

Meters 

(including 

official 

meter) 

(2) 

Meters 

In NTEP 

Pool 

(3) 

Cost Per 

Pool 

Meter 

(4) 

Total 

Program 

Cost 

Funding Contribution From Participants 

(5) 

NIST 

(6) 

GIPSA 

(7) 

Mfg’s 

(total 

funding 

from 

mfg’s) 

(8) 

Cost Per 

Meter 

Type 

2 1 22,500 22,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 3,750 

3 2 22,500 45,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 5,000 

4 3 22,500 67,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 5,625 

5 4 22,500 90,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 6,000 

6 5 22,500 112,500 30,000 30,000 52,500 8,750 

7 6 22,500 135,000 30,000 30,000 75,000 10,715 

8 7 22,500 157,500 30,000 30,000 97,500 12,185 

9 8 22,500 180,000 30,000 30,000 120,000 13,335 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C16 

Explanation of columns in the Fee Schedule table: 

Column Explanation (or formula for calculating) 

(1) Total Meters The number of meter types (including the Official GIPSA meter) that will 

share in the NTEP calibration costs. 

(2) Total Meters in NTEP Pool The number of meter types other than the Official meter that will share in 

the NTEP calibration costs. 

(3) Cost per Pool Meter The cost associated with each pool meter in the program. 

(4) Total Program Cost A per meter type cost of $22,500 times the number of NTEP ”pool” 

meters. 

(5) NIST Contribution One-third the total program cost up to a maximum of $30,000. 

(6) GIPSA Contribution One-third the total program cost up to a maximum of $30,000. 

(7) Manufacturers Contributions 

(total funding from manufacturers) 

Total Program Cost minus NIST Contribution minus GIPSA Contribution. 

(8) Cost per Meter Type Manufacturers' Contributions divided by Total Meters (including the 

official meter). 

The GIPSA Technology and Science Division is currently seeking, and expects to obtain, agency support for another 

Interagency Agreement. Challenges include a continuing government-wide emphasis on fee supported programs. 

We would like to complete GIPSA discussion this fall and draft a proposal for NIST consideration next spring. 

Program costs are difficult to project. GIPSA recently evaluated its fee structure for evaluation testing and is in the 

process of evaluating fee structures for the commodity program (currently used for reference lab fees). The fee 

structure has a built in annual fee increase and there is discussion of building in annual fee increases for the 

commodity program as well. Listed below is the evaluation testing fee structure as published in the Federal 

Register, http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/Federal%20Register/fr13/04-15-2013a.pdf , for May 2013 through Fiscal 

Year 2017. 

Effective Date Hourly Rate 

May 1, 2013 $87.40 

October 1, 2013 $89.20 

October 1, 2014 $91.00 

October 1, 2015 $92.90 

October 1, 2016 $94.80 

On May 1, 2013, GIPSA completed the transition from the Dickey-john GAC2100 to the GIPSA UGMA master 

system using the Dickey-john GAC2500-UGMA and the Perten AM5200-A as the official moisture meters. GIPSA 

is in the early stages of determining how the program to maintain the official inspection system moisture calibrations 

may change due to the implementation of the UGMA technology for official moisture determinations. The NTEP 

Phase II, On-going Calibration Program, is built on top of the official moisture calibration program. TSD believes 

that the on-going calibration program has been very successful in meeting standardization goals and is working to 

keep fee increases at a reasonable level as it is extremely unlikely that either NIST or GIPSA will be able to increase 

their support beyond the current maximum of $30,000 per year. 

In order to provide the standardization services to the commercial system, GIPSA TSD is currently discussing 

options for improving the process and reducing the burden on all parties. GIPSA is seeking input from the Sector on 

limiting the number of samples tested to a maximum of 10 samples per two-percent moisture interval for all grains. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C17 

At the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector meeting, the Sector discussed limiting the samples tested per twopercent moisture interval in the ongoing calibration program to a minimum to keep any fee increase to a minimum 

for this testing. It was noted that fewer sample are needed to calibrate the new UGMA meters It was also noted that 

GIPSAs fees are increasing and with no changes to the program the manufacturers fees will increase. During the 

discussion one alternate proposal was to base the cost on one-third shared cost of the program where GIPSA and 

NIST cover one-third of the cost of the program each and manufacturers split one-third of the cost. It was noted 

during the meeting that due to budget issues GIPSA and NIST will likely not be able to fund more that the $30 000 

per year. 

Conclusion: 

Ms. Brenner agreed to review the statistics to determine how the sample size of up to 30 samples per two-percent 

moisture interval per grain type was established and to investigate the impact of reducing the sample size to 

10 sample per two-percent moisture interval per grain type. The Sector agreed by consensus to reduce the number 

of samples used in the ongoing calibration program for each two-percent moisture range per grain type as long as the 

integrity of the program is not affected. 

8. Near Infrared Corn NTEP Support 

Source: 

Cathy Brenner, USDA GIPSA 

Purpose: 

When the NIR Corn constituent ranges listed in NCWM Publication 14 were created, there was a market for high oil 

corn. That market has changed and GIPSA is not receiving these types of samples which are needed to maintain the 

sample set criteria currently listed in NCWM Publication 14. In 2012, Iowa State University received some high oil 

corn samples from a seed company. Iowa State informed the NTEP laboratory that organic breeders are increasing 

oil in some specialty hybrids. The NTEP laboratory is working with Iowa State to obtain additional samples to try 

and rebuild its sample library for two complete sets of NIR Corn Accuracy. 

Item Under Consideration: 

The question for the Sector is whether or not NCWM Publication 14 should be changed to exclude corn or change 

the oil constituent range in NCWM Publication 14 from the 3 - 9 range at 0 % M.B. to a commodity corn oil 

constituent range of 3 - 5 range at 0 % M.B. It should also be noted that Publication 14 includes constituent ranges 

and tolerances for corn starch. The NTEP laboratory has not evaluated any NIR instruments for corn starch due to 

the difficulties in obtaining the samples that meet the requirements for the accuracy set. 

Proposed changes to NCWM Publication 14, Near Infrared: 

III. Accuracy, Precision and Reproducibility Requirements 

Grain analyzers will be tested for accuracy, repeatability (precision), and reproducibility over the applicable 

constituent concentration ranges shown in Table 1. Instrument and calibration performance will be 

individually tested for each grain type and constituent. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C18 

Table 1. Constituent Ranges for Type Evaluation 

Grain Type Constituent Constituent Range 

(%) at Moisture Basis 

(M.B.) Shown 

Low Moisture 

Range 

High Moisture 

Range 

Durum Wheat Protein 10 – 18 at 12 % M.B. 

10 % – 12 % 13 % – 15 % 

Hard Red Spring Wheat Protein 10 – 19 at 12 % M.B. 

Hard Red Winter Wheat Protein 8 – 18 at 12 % M.B. 

Hard White Wheat Protein 9 – 16 at 12 % M.B. 

Soft Red Winter Wheat Protein 9 – 12 at 12 % M.B. 

Soft White Wheat Protein 8 – 15 at 12 % M.B. 

All-Class Wheat Calibration* Protein 8 – 19 at 12 % M.B. 

Wheat Excluding Durum* Protein 8 – 19 at 12 % M.B. 

Two-rowed Barley Protein 8 – 17 at 0 % M.B. 

Six-rowed Barley Protein 8 – 17 at 0 % M.B. 10 % – 12 % 13 % – 15 % 

All-Class Barley Calibration* Protein 8 – 17 at 0 % M.B. 

Corn Or

Corn 

Protein 8 – 12 at 0 % M.B. 

11 % – 13 % 14 % – 16 % Oil Or

Oil 

 3 – 9 at 0 % M.B. 

Or

 3 – 5 at 0 % M.B. 

Starch 67 – 73 at 0 % M.B. 

Soybeans 

Protein 30 – 40 at 13 % M.B. 

10 % – 12 % 13 % – 15 % 

Oil 16 – 21 at 13 % M.B. 

Note: Calibrations marked with an asterisk (*) are "Multi-class" calibrations

Background/Discussion: 

The challenge is that Iowa State may not have sufficient samples that are large enough to provide the NTEP 

laboratory with appropriate amounts of the samples to allow for testing. When testing, the laboratory will consume 

approximately 150 grams from each sample. Iowa State has also worked with several NIR manufacturers to develop 

corn calibrations for their instruments and may not have a large number of samples that have not been included in 

any of these calibrations. Dr. Charles Hurburgh also indicated that the newer high oil hybrids may not be well 

predicted on the current GIPSA calibration that is used to screen samples for the accuracy set selection. 

The Grain Analyzer Sector is asked to consider the proposed change and discuss the proposed changes during the 

Sector meeting. 

At the August 2013 Sector meeting, Ms. Brenner restated her concerns with getting an appropriate sample size to 

perform the official test for high oil corn and her proposal to reduce the constituent range for corn as shown above. 

It was noted during the discussion that there is a limited market for high oil corn because of the current market for 

other oils. It was also noted that business conducted for high oil corn is done on a contractual basis. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector agreed by consensus to leave the current ranges as listed in NCWM Publication 14 and the type of corn 

used within the stated range will be supported by statistics. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C19 

9. Test Weight per Bushel Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerance 

Source: 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Adkisson, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois

Purpose: 

Due to problems cited in the grain and feed industry, review and make any needed changes to the test weight per 

bushel tolerances in NIST Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a). 

Item Under Consideration: 

During the discussion of this item at the 2012 Sector meeting it was noted that because the system is rapidly 

changing over to the new UGMA technology which is going to result in the improvement in TW readings, TW 

should resolve itself as older instruments are retired. It was also mentioned that test weight data is needed to review 

the current system to make any needed changes to test weight per bushel and that sample selection when testing 

meters for test weight, should be reviewed. It was receommended that TW per bushel comparison charts be 

developed for review. Ms. Cathy Brenner developed these charts and the Sector is asked to review these charts for 

discussion during the meeting. The charts are available for review or can be downloaded for printing at the 

following web address: 

http://www.ncwm.net/resources/dyn/files/1081742zef27d924/_fn/TW+2013+Sector+Meeting.pdf 

Background/Discussion: 

This is a carryover from the Sector’s 2011 meeting. Mr. Adkisson, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois, cited 

problems his industry is having regarding Test Weight (TW) per bushel. GMMs that have failed TW during field 

inspection are sent to the manufacturer for repair. When the meters are returned, the reports indicate that no 

problems have been found. There are also situations where a meter has failed TW. When the state inspector 

subsequently tested the elevator’s quart kettle it matched the meter, but it didn’t match the state inspector’s sample. 

This is particularly frustrating for the country elevators in Illinois that are using the GMM TW only as a screening 

tool. 

At the Sector’s August 2011 meeting, a task group was formed to investigate the whole TW system with the goal of 

defining procedures that would improve TW both for the user and for the inspection system. Past data obtained by 

the Sector had indicated that the existing tolerances were reasonable. It was felt that increasing TW tolerances would 

only cover up the problems. What was needed was an investigation of the whole system of calibrating meters, then 

translating that calibration into the field, and then keeping it that way. 

Dr. Charles R. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State University, agreed to head the task group. Other TW Task Group members 

included: 

 Mr. Jeffery Adkisson – Grain and Feed Association of Illinois 

 Ms. Diane Lee – NIST, OWM 

 Ms. Cassie Eigenmann – DICKEY-john Corporation 

 Mr. Ivan Hankins – Iowa Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures 

 Mr. Tim Kaeding – Perten Instruments, Inc. 

 Mr. Karl Cunningham – Illinois Department of Agriculture 

Further action on the issue of tolerances was postponed until the TW Task Group was able to recommend 

appropriate action. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C20 

In Early 2012 the TW Task Group developed the following list of Action Items: 

 Survey the grain industry as to the frequency of discounting each of the major grains (wheat, corn, and 

soybeans) for test weight, and within those discounted the frequency of use of the meter test weight 

versus the cup-bucket test weight. 

 Survey the industry for comparative data between meters and an Official GIPSA agency on the same 

samples. 

 Develop a draft procedure for sample selection and pre-qualification. 

Dr. Hurburgh reported that discounting for low TW was not an issue in either 2010 or 2011. TWs for corn were so 

high that discounting was not an issue. Within Iowa most grain elevators were using the TW reported by their 

GMM. Only a few were using the standard quart kettle method. This is likely to change in the 2012 harvest as low 

TWs are likely to be more common. Also, there may not be as much TW increase in drying as would normally be 

expected. TW may come up again as a discount factor. 

Same sample TW data has not been collected comparing grain elevator GMMs with an Official GIPSA agency. 

Dr. Hurburgh explained that this information should be relatively easy to obtain, because in almost every case when 

a train is officially graded the samples are run at the grain elevator first. Since last year’s Sector meeting, the rapid 

acceptance of the new UGMA GMMs as Official Meters for corn, soybeans, sunflowers, and grain sorghum (with 

the remaining grains scheduled to switch to UGMA GMMs for Official Inspection on May1, 2013), has altered 

some of the issues. The new technology not only provides a better moisture measurement, but a better TW 

measurement as well. 

The remaining action item that the task group believed was necessary was a procedure for pre-qualifying TW 

samples as being good predictors for the TW function as well as moisture function. Most states pre-screen moisture 

samples to get the outliers out of the system. That pre-qualification would have to be expanded if TW is to be 

actively used to reject meters on the basis of TW. 

Dr. Hurburgh recommended that the Sector not adjust TW tolerances at this time, because the system is rapidly 

changing over to the new technology which is going to result in the improvement in TW readings. The problem 

should resolve itself as older instruments are retired. 

Mr. Karl Cunningham, Illinois Dept of Agriculture, informed the Sector that Illinois’s TW rejection rate has gone 

down in the last two years. He has no problem with TW on the meters in his laboratory and doesn’t think the 

present tolerances are a problem. Many of the field problems may be due to rough handling of the meters during 

shipping. Mr. Cunningham advises elevators who have to have their devices worked on to take them to the 

manufacturer’s service department themselves if at all possible. 

Mr. Tim Kaeding, Perten Instruments, suggested that there might be value in expanding the Phase II OCP grain 

moisture comparison charts to include TW. Dr. Hurburgh recommended that a TW comparison chart showing the 

spread of TW measurements for individual meters against the corresponding official quart kettle TW measurements 

would address the tolerance issue, whereas a bias plot would not. He suggested plotting meter TWs on the x-axis 

and quart kettle results on the y-axis. A best-fit line could be drawn for each meter. 

The Sector agreed that TW comparison charts should be prepared for the three grains which are most likely to be 

subject to discounts on the basis of TW: corn and two wheat classes. The wheat classes selected were: Hard Red 

Winter and Soft Red Winter. Manufacturer approval is required for NTEP Phase II TW performance data to be 

released for publication even if individual instruments are not identified. The two meter manufacturers present 

indicated that they would approve the release of this data. Permission would have to be obtained from the other 

manufacturers. The Sector agreed to postpone further action on changing TW tolerances until more information was 

available. 

At the August 2013 Sector Meeting, Ms. Brenner reviewed test weight per bushel data for Corn, Hard Red Winter 

Wheat and Soft Red Winter Wheat (See charts below). The data showed that NTEP meters aligned closely with the 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C21 

official quart kettle test weight per bushel measurements. States noted that they have seen a significant 

improvement in test weight per bushel measurements and lower complaints have been received concerning test 

weight. Mr. Karl Hansan stated that he is collecting data on the moisture changes in grain samples over time when 

using the samples in the field. This data can be used to improve the field inspection of the test weight per bushel 

measurements on grain analyzers. Ms. Lee, provided a draft copy of a weights and measures newsletter article 

entitled “Determining Reference Test Weight per Bushel Value of Grains.” Following the August Sector Meeting 

the article was published in the Weights and Measures newsletter (Weights and Measures Connection) and can be 

accessed at: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/WMConnections.pdf. This article will help to ensure that 

States are following proper procedures when assigning reference test weight per bushel values to grains used to test 

instruments that provide test weight per bushel measurements. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C22 

Conclusion: 

The Sector agreed to continue to monitor the issue of test weight per bushel and Mr. Hansan agreed to share the field 

data on the changes in grain samples used in field testing. 

10. Report on International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) TC 17/SC 1 R 59 Moisture Meters 

for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds and proposed changes to the NTEP humidity test for grain moisture 

meters and near infrared grain analyzers 

Source: 

Cathy Brenner, USDA, GIPSA 

Purpose: 

Harmonize OIML and NTEP test procedures to align the U.S. humidity test procedures with the OIML D 11 Damp 

Heat test procedure. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Replace the current Humidity test in Publication 14 for both moisture and protein with the International OIML D 11 

Damp heat test as shown below. If the following changes are approved, then the detailed procedure in Appendix A 

for Grain Moisture Meters will need to be revised by the NTEP laboratory. 

For Grain Moisture Meters – 

Damp Heat 

Each instrument (power on) will be placed in an environmental chamber at 22 °C and 30 % relative 

humidity for 16 hours. Three HRW wheat samples, one selected from each of the 2 % moisture 

intervals, will be placed in the environmental chamber two hours prior to testing. Each sample will be 

analyzed five times and removed from the chamber. The environmental chamber will be set to the 

maximum ambient temperature specified by the manufacturer or 45 °C whichever is less and a relative 

humidity of 50 % but not to exceed the absolute humidity of 20 g/m3 for 16 hours. The samples will be 

placed in the environmental chamber two hours prior to testing. Each sample will be analyzed five 

times. A maximum bias shift of 0.18 % of grain moisture content per sample is allowed between the 

average readings at the lower temperature and those made at the higher temperature. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C23 

For Near Infrared Grain Analyzers – 

Damp Heat 

Each instrument (power on) will be placed in an environmental chamber at 22 °C and 30 % relative humidity 

for 16 hours. Three HRW wheat samples, one selected to represent the low (10 % to 12 %), medium (12 % 

to 14 %), and high (14 % to 16 %) protein levels, will be placed in the environmental chamber two hours prior 

to testing. Each sample will be analyzed five times and removed from the chamber. The environmental 

chamber will be set to the maximum ambient temperature specified by the manufacturer or 45 °C whichever is 

less and a relative humidity of 50 % but not to exceed the absolute humidity of 20 g/m3

 for 16 hours. The 

samples will be placed in the environmental chamber two hours prior to testing. Each sample will be 

analyzed five times. A maximum bias shift of 0.18 % of grain moisture content per sample is allowed 

between the average readings at the lower temperature and those made at the higher temperature.

Background/Discussion: 

This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of OIML TC 17/SC 1 for the 

Grain Analyzer Sector and to those Sector members that participate on the United States National Working Group 

(USNWG) on grain moisture meters. In addition the Sector is asked to review a proposal to change the Humidity 

test in NCWM Publication 14 to align with the OIML D 11 and IEC damp heat test procedure. 

OIML TC 17/SC 1 was tasked to revise OIML R 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds to reflect new 

technologies and acual grain analysis. The Co-Secretariats (China and the United States) are working closely with 

an International Project Group to revise OIML Recommendation R 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and 

Oilseeds. The United States completed a six committee draft (6 CD) of OIML R 59, which was circulated to the 

international project group and the U.S. National Working Group (USNWG) on grain moisture measuring devices 

for review and comment on March 6, 2013. The U.S. Co-secretariat requested that the comments to the 6 CD be 

submitted by June 6, 2013. The U.S. Secretariat collated the United States and international comments to the 6 CD 

and these comments were reviewed at the TC 17/SC 1 meeting hosted by NIST, OWM July 23 - 24, 2013. 

At the TC 17/SC 1 July 23 - 24, 2013, meeting, comments to the 6 CD were reviewed and the major discussion was 

harmonization of test procedures between OIML TC 17/SC 1 R 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds 

and OIML TC 17/SC 8 Recommendation on Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds. 

At the July 2013 meeting, it was discussed that the international damp heat test (OIML D 11 and IEC) is 

significantly different from the NTEP Humidity test. The international test is more robust and more accurately 

reflects the environmental conditions an instrument is likely to encounter in field use. The damp heat test is 

conducted at a maximum temperature of either the manufacturer specified upper ambient temperature or 30 °C and a 

maximum relative humidity of 85 %. The damp heat test is designed to evaluate the device under the environmental 

(temperature and relative humidity) conditions it will encounter during operation. 

At the December 1991 organizational meeting, the NIR Wheat Protein Analyzer Sector reviewed the USDA Federal 

Grain Inspection Service’s (FGIS) Design Criteria and Operational Performance Specifications (DCOPS) for Grain 

Constituent Measuring Instruments using Near Infrared Spectroscopy dated January 1989. The NTETC NIR Sector 

recommended that the environmental tests, including humidity, listed in the DCOPS be adopted and that tolerances 

for some test may need to be re-evaluated. The humidity test was designed to evaluate the affect of humidity on the 

instrument while holding the temperature constant. 

At the March 1992 NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector Meeting, the FGIS Moisture Handbook, NIST 

Handbook 44, and OIML International Recommendation R 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” 

were reviewed. The Subcommittee discussed that humidity might have considerable affect on the performance of 

thermogravimetric devices and resistance meters. It was suggested that humidity tests could be adapted from the 

OIML R 59 Damp heat, stead state test. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C24 

The moisture subcommittee met in August 1992 and recommended the humidity test that is currently in NCWM 

Publication 14 which agrees with the NIR test. At the October 1992 NTETC grain moisture meter Sector meeting, 

the Sector approved the recommendations made by the subcommittee for the humidity test. 

Since 1994, no device has failed the humidity test for either moisture or protein. 

The proposed damp heat test for the OIML Protein document specifies the test as shown below. At the July 2013 

meeting, it was agreed to review the number of replicates used for the test. The number of replicates per sample 

being considered is five. 

C.5.4 Damp heat

EUT Two sample instruments of the submitted type, set-up according to clause C.2.1. 

Spare unit A sample instrument of the submitted type, set-up according to clause C.2.1. and maintained at 

reference conditions for the duration of the test. 

Grain samples One set from a single grain type comprised of three samples that represent the legally relevant 

PMB range (i.e., one sample for each low, mid and high PMB). Allowable grains are specified 

by the national responsible body. Wheat is the preferred grain type. 

Except during analysis, each sample is kept in its enclosure during the test. 

The enclosed samples are only introduced to the damp heat two hours prior to testing. 

Samples used in a climatic test shall not be reused in other tests. 

Standards IEC 60068-2-78 [16], IEC 60068-3-4 [17] 

Test method and 

procedure 

(in brief) 

Test Cab: Damp heat, steady state. 

The test consists of exposure to the specified maximum temperature and the specified 

constant relative humidity for the specified time. The change of temperature shall not exceed 

1 °C/min during heating up and cooling down. The absolute humidity of the test atmosphere 

shall not exceed 20 g/m3

. When testing is performed at temperatures lower than 35 °C, the 

relative humidity shall not exceed 50 %. 

Six PMB measurements on every sample are taken using each unit, at every test condition: 

i) EUT and grain samples at reference temperature 

ii) EUT after damp heat exposure, grain samples at maximum temperature and RH 

iii) EUT and grain samples after recovery at reference conditions 

Sample 

monitoring 

To ensure that heating, exposure to moisture and recovery do not change the PMB of grain 

samples significantly, the grain samples are monitored by a spare unit. 

Test severity Exposure duration (after EUT stabilisation): two days; Maximum RH: 85 % 

Maximum temperature: TH or 30 oC 

TH is the maximum temperature in the operating range specified by the national responsible 

body. 

Suggested steps 1) The EUT is powered on and stabilised at reference temperature. 

2) In a separate chamber, the spare unit is powered on and equilibrated at reference temperature 

with the grain samples. 

3) Sample 1 is analysed once on instrument 1, then once on instrument 2, then once on the spare 

unit. Further PMB measurements are taken across the three units in the same manner, until six 

PMB measurements are recorded for each instrument. 

4) Step 3 is repeated for the other two grain samples. 

5) The EUT is subjected to the maximum temperature and humidity and stabilised. The 

exposure duration is observed. Two hours prior to the end of the exposure duration, the 

enclosed grain samples are introduced to damp heat conditions. 

6) All the hot grain samples are analysed in turn on both units of the EUT, alternating between 

the two instruments, until three PMB measurements per grain samples are recorded for each 

instrument. 

7) The samples are retained at the location of the EUT for as long as necessary to equilibrate at 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C25 

the maximum temperature. Each sample is analysed three times on both units of the EUT again. 

8) After ensuring that six PMB measurements on each hot sample are recorded for each 

instrument, the EUT and grain samples are recovered to reference temperature. 

9) Steps 3 – 4 are repeated. 

Test result Values for the error shift on every grain sample are calculated at each test condition for each 

unit (of the EUT). 

Error shift (damp heat) = (Mean PMB condition ii – Mean PMB condition i) 

Error shift (recovery) = (Mean PMB condition iii – Mean PMB condition i) – Correction* 

*Application of a correction is required if a significant change in the sample PMB during 

heating and/or recovery is indicated by the sample stability test. 

Grain sample 

stability test and 

correction 

The PMB variation on a grain sample calculated from measurements on the spare unit, shall be 

within the limit in Table 4 column 9 for no correction to apply. 

Sample PMB variation (recovery) = Mean PMB (condition iii) – Mean PMB (condition i) 

Any sample PMB variation that exceeds the limit, shall be applied as a correction, e.g., 

Sample PMB variation (recovery) = Correction for error shift (recovery) 

Acceptance 

requirements 

All values for the error shift (i.e. with any necessary correction) shall be within the limit in 

clause 4.5 Table 4 column 9. All operational functions shall operate as designed. 

During the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector meeting, the Sector reviewed the proposal to replace the NTEP 

Publication 14 GMM and NIR humidity test procedure with the OIML D 11 damp heat test procedure. It was noted 

that the proposed changes to the humidity test in NCWM Publication 14 were based on OIML D 11 requirements 

Damp heat test, Severity level 1. During discussion of this item, It was mentioned that the temperature and humidity 

levels as specified in OIML D 11 may pose unsafe operating conditions to laboratory staff and also that grain 

moisture meters are not designed to operate in these extreme conditions. A question was asked if another severity 

level in D 11 would more closely match the testing that is currently in NCWM Publication 14 and that has been used 

for many years in the United States. Ms. Lee, reviewed OIML D 11 requirements following the meeting and found 

that both severity level 1 and 2 exceed the temperature and humidity levels specified in NCWM Publication 14. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector agreed by consensus that the OIML D 11, Damp heat test, is much too severe for grain moisture meters 

and that Publication 14 should not be changed to meet the requirements of OIML D 11. 

11. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds 

Background/Discussion: 

This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of OIML TC 17/SC 8 to the 

Grain Analyzer Sector and to those Sector members that participate on the U.S. National Working Group (USNWG) 

on grain protein measuring instruments. OIML TC 17/SC 8 was formed to study the issues and to develop a 

Recommendation on Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds. Australia is the Secretariat for 

this subcommittee. The third committee draft (3 CD) for this Recommendation was circulated to the U.S. National 

Working Group for comments on July 3, 2012, for review and comment and comments were requested by 

September 8, 2012. The U.S. comments to 3 CD were forwarded to the Secretariat and the Secretariat developed the 

4 CD based on these comments. 

The 4 CD was circulated to the USNWG on grain protein measuring instruments on April 9, 2013 and comments to 

the 4 CD of TC 17/SC 8 were requested by June 13, 2013. The U.S. comments to the 4 CD were forwarded to the 

Secretariat. The United States was requested to vote on the 4 CD and a vote of no was provided due to a number of 

differences in the test procedures of the OIML Recommendation for Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal 

Grain and Oil Seeds and the OIML Recommendation 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal Grain and Oilseeds. 

A meeting was hosted by NIST, OWM, July 24 - 25, 2013, to discuss the comments to the 4 CD for the 

Recommendation on Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and Oil Seeds. Discussions on 4 CD dealt 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C26 

mostly with harmonization of testing with the 6 CD of the OIML Recommendation R 59 Moisture Meters for Cereal 

Grain and Oilseeds, software requirements, and influence quantities and test sample temperature. 

At the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, the the Sector reinterated their concerns with the OIML D 11 

damp heat test. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector agreed that the damp heat test in OIML Recommendation on Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal 

Grain and Oil Seeds, 4 CD should be replaced with the humidity test as written in OIML R 59 CD 6. 

12. Software Sector Items 

(a) Identification of Certified Software 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Purpose: 

Review and provide comment to the Software Sector reports and conculsion on software issues.

Background: 

This item originated as an attempt to answer the question “How does the field inspector know that the software 

running in the device is the same software evaluated and approved by the lab? In previous meetings it was shown 

that the international community has addressed this issue (both WELMEC and OIML). 

From WELMEC 7.2:

Required Documentation: 

The documentation shall list the software identifications and describe how the software identification is created, 

how it is inextricably linked to the software itself, how it may be accessed for viewing and how it is structured 

in order to differentiate between version changes with and without requiring a type approval. 

From OIML D-31: 

The executable file “tt100_12.exe” is protected against modification by a checksum. The value of checksum as 

determined by algorithm XYZ is 1A2B3C. 

Previous discussions have included a listing of some additional examples of possible valid methods (not limiting): 

 CRC (cyclical redundancy check) 

 Checksum 

 Inextricably Linked version no. 

 Encryption 

 Digital Signature 

Is there some method to give the weights and measures inspector information that something has changed? 

Yes, the Category III Audit Trail or other means of sealing. 

How can the weights and measures inspector identify an NTEP Certified version? 

They can’t, without adding additional requirements like what is described here, in conjunction with including the 

identifier on the CC).

The Sector believes that we should work towards language that would include a requirement similar to the 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) requirement in NIST Handbook 44. It is also the opinion of 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C27 

the Sector that a specific method should not be defined; rather the manufacturer should utilize a method and 

demonstrate the selected identification mechanism is suitable for the purpose. It is not clear from the discussion 

where such proposed language might belong. 

NTEP strongly recommends that metrological software be separated from non-metrological software for ease of 

identification and evaluation. 

From OIML: 

Separation of software parts – All software modules (programmes, subroutines, objects etc.) that perform 

metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data domains form the 

metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or sub-assembly). The conformity 

requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked according to Section G-S-X.X. 

If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically significant as a 

whole. 

(Segregation of parameters is currently allowed - see table of sealable parameters) 

Initial draft proposed language: (G-S.1.1.?) 

NIST Handbook 44 (This has been written into G-S.1.d.3): Identification of Certified Software: 

Software-based electronic devices shall be designed such that the metrologically significant software is 

clearly identified by the version or revision number. The identification, and this identification of the 

software shall be inextricably directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The version or 

revision number may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated to the 

metrologically significant software. 

From NCWM Publication 14: 

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the need for 

further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on devices without 

breaking a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules (programs, 

subroutines, objects, etc.) that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically 

significant data domains form the metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or 

sub-assembly) . If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically 

significant as a whole. The conformity requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked 

according to Section G-S-X.X.

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is directly and 

inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision identifier is comprised 

of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents the metrological significant 

software and which does not. 

From OIML D-31: 

Legally relevant software of a measuring instrument/electronic device/sub-assembly shall be clearly identified 

with the software version or another token. The identification may consist of more than one part but at least one 

part shall be dedicated to the legal purpose. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C28 

The identification shall be inextricably linked to the software itself and shall be presented or printed on 

command or displayed during operation or at start up for a measuring instrument that can be turned off and on 

again. If a sub-assembly/an electronic device has neither display nor printer, the identification shall be sent via 

a communication interface in order to be displayed/printed on another sub-assembly/electronic device. 

The first sentence of the first paragraph above is already addressed in NIST Handbook 44’s marking requirements. 

In 2010, the Sector recommended the following change to NIST Handbook 44, General Code: G-S.1.(d) to add a 

new subsection (3): 

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic

devices; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 20XX) 

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. 

The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall 

be dedicated to the metrologically significant software. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X] 

(Added 20XX) 

Also the Sector recommended the following information be added to NCWM Publication 14 as 

explanation/examples: 

 Unique identifier must be displayable/printable on command or during operation, etc. 

 At a minimum, a version/revision indication (1.02.09, rev 3.0 a, etc.). Could also consist of/contain 

checksum, etc. (crc32, for example) 

There was some additional discussion on this item regarding where this new requirement was best located. It was 

suggested that the first sentence of G-S.1.d.(3) could be added as a clause to the base paragraph G-S.1.(d) text, (e.g., 

“the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based devices, which shall be 

directly and inseparably linked to the software itself;”).

It also was suggested that the second sentence in G-S.1.d.(3) might be more suitable for NCWM Publication 14, as it 

describes more ”how” than ”what” the requirement entails. 

In addition, the Sector considered the following information to be added to NCWM Publication 14 as 

explanation/examples: 

 The current software identifier must be displayable/printable on command during operation (or made 

evident by other means deemed acceptable by G-S.1.). 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C29 

 At a minimum, the software identifier must include a version/revision indication (1.02.09, rev 3.0 a, etc). It 

could also consist of/contain checksum, etc (crc32, for example). 

 The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated 

to the metrologically significant software. 

Other questions that are still outstanding: 

 If we allow hard-marking of the software identifier (the Sector has wavered on this in the past), does the 

above wording then imply that some mechanical means is required (i.e., physical seal) to ”inseparably link” 

the identifier to the software? 

 If a device is capable of doing so, does it still have to be able to display, print or communicate the identifier 

somehow, even if it is hard-marked? 

At the 2012 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, there was some discussion as to where the terminology regarding 

inextricably linking the software version or revision to the software itself belonged. At the moment, it is not 

incorporated in the proposed text for G-S.1. NCWM Publication 14 may be a better option for the time being. This 

would be another item that would benefit from further explanation in a supplementary document. 

Several Sector members were of the opinion that attempting to make this change at the same time as the earlier 

changes might be a difficult sell. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, reiterated the necessity of baby steps. 

In 2012, the Sector thus recommended adding the following to NCWM Publication 14 and forward to NTETC 

Weighing, Measuring, Grain Analyzer Sectors for feedback: 

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the need for 

further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on devices without 

breaking a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules (programs, 

subroutines, objects, etc.) that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically 

significant data domains form the metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or 

sub-assembly). If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically 

significant as a whole. The conformity requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked according to 

Section G-S-X.X. 

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is directly and 

inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision identifier is comprised 

of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents the metrological significant 

software and which does not. 

Discussion: 

The Measuring Sector reviewed this item and had no feedback other than a statement that they support the 

continuing/ongoing efforts of this Sector. The Weighing Sector summary mentioned that no one opted to provide 

comment. They agreed to take no further action on this item, pending further action from the Software Sector. This 

was specifically in reference to the accepted symbols. 

For the time being, Jim Truex recommended that we not attempt to provide a definition for “software-based device.” 

We discussed the possibility of combining this change with the first agenda item, which had been attempted in 

previous years. Alternatively, if the NIST Handbook 44 changes from agenda item 1 are made, this agenda item 

could be addressed in NCWM Publication 14. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C30 

Conclusion:

After further discussion, the wording in G-S.1.(d) under agenda item 1 was changed. Agenda Item 2 will remain; 

however, it will address potential changes to NCWM Publication 14 and contain no suggested modifications to 

NIST Handbook 44. (See changes and conclusion under agenda item 1 for further details). 

The Sector Chair volunteered to review the existing slide presentation detailing the purpose of these changes, to 

ensure that it accurately reflects this information. 

(b) Software Protection/Security 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Background: 

The Sector agreed that NIST Handbook 44 already has audit trail and physical seal, but these may need to be 

enhanced. 

From the WELMEC Document: 

Protection against accidental or unintentional changes 

Metrologically significant software and measurement data shall be protected against accidental or unintentional 

changes. 

Specifying Notes: 

Possible reasons for accidental changes and faults are: unpredictable physical influences, effects caused by user 

functions and residual defects of the software even though state of the art of development techniques have been 

applied. 

This requirement includes consideration of: 

a) Physical influences: Stored measurement data shall be protected against corruption or deletion when a 

fault occurs or, alternatively, the fault shall be detectable. 

b) User functions: Confirmation shall be demanded before deleting or changing data. 

c) Software defects: Appropriate measures shall be taken to protect data from unintentional changes that 

could occur through incorrect program design or programming errors (e.g., plausibility checks). 

Required Documentation: 

The documentation should show the measures that have been taken to protect the software and data against 

unintentional changes. 

Example of an Acceptable Solution: 

 The accidental modification of software and measurement data may be checked by calculating a 

checksum over the relevant parts, comparing it with the nominal value and stopping if anything has 

been modified. 

 Measurement data are not deleted without prior authorization, e.g. a dialogue statement or window 

asking for confirmation of deletion. 

 For fault detection see also Extension I. 

The Sector continued to develop a proposed checklist for NCWM Publication 14. The numbering will still need to 

be added. This is based roughly on R 76-2 checklist and discussions beginning as early as the October 2007 NTETC 

Software Sector Meeting. The information requested by this checklist is currently voluntary, however, it is 

recommended that applicants comply with these requests or provide specific information as to why they may not be 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C31 

able to comply. Based on this information, the checklist may be amended to better fit with NTEP's need for 

information and the applicant's ability to comply. 

The California, Maryland, and Ohio laboratories agreed to use this check list on one of the next devices they have in 

the lab and report back to the Sector on what the problems may be. In February 2011, the North Carolina laboratory 

was also given a copy of the checklist to try. 

1. Devices with Embedded Software TYPE P (aka built-for-purpose)

1.3. Declaration of the manufacturer that the software is used in a fixed 

hardware and software environment. AND

 Yes No N/A 

1.4. Cannot be modified or uploaded by any means after securing/verification. Yes No N/A 

Note: It is acceptable to break the "seal" and load new software, audit trail is 

also a sufficient seal. 

1.5. The software documentation contains: 

1.5.3. Description of all functions, designating those that are 

considered metrologically significant. 

 Yes No N/A 

1.5.4. Description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention). Yes No N/A 

1.5.5. Software Identification, including version/revision Yes No N/A 

1.5.6. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A 

1.6. The software identification is: 

1.6.7. Clearly assigned to the metrologically significant software and

functions. 

 Yes No N/A 

1.6.1. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A 

1.6.2. Provided by the device as documented. Yes No N/A 

1.6.3. Directly linked to the software itself. Yes No N/A 

2. Personal Computers, Instruments with PC Components, and Other Instruments, Devices, Modules, and 

Elements with Programmable or Loadable Metrologically Significant Software TYPE U (aka not builtfor-purpose) 

2.1. The metrologically significant software is: 

2.1.4. Documented with all relevant (see below for list of documents) 

information. 

 Yes No N/A 

2.1.5. Protected against accidental or intentional changes. Yes No N/A 

2.2. Evidence of intervention (such as, changes, uploads, circumvention) is 

available until the next verification/inspection (e.g., physical seal, 

Checksum, Cyclical Redundancy Check (CRC), audit trail, etc. means of 

security). 

 Yes No N/A 

3. Software with Closed Shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs possible for the user)

3.1. Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g., function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short 

descriptions. 

 Yes No N/A 

3.2. Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands. 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C32 

4. Operating System and/or Program(s) Accessible for the User 

4.1. Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the 

machine code of the metrologically significant software (program 

module(s) subject to legal control Weights and Measures jurisdiction and 

type-specific parameters). 

 Yes No N/A 

4.2. Check whether the metrologically significant software will detect and act 

upon any unauthorized alteration of the metrologically significant 

software using simple software tools (e.g., text editor). 

 Yes No N/A 

5. Software Interface(s) 

5.1. Verify the manufacturer has documented: 

5.1.6. The program modules of the metrologically significant software 

are defined and separated. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.7. The protective software interface itself is part of the 

metrologically significant software. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.8. The functions of the metrologically significant software that can 

be accessed via the protective software interface. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.9. The parameters that may be exchanged via the protective 

software interface are defined. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.10. The description of the functions and parameters are conclusive 

and complete. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.11. There are software interface instructions for the third party 

(external) application programmer. 

 Yes No N/A 

The Maryland laboratory had particular questions regarding 3.1 and 5.1. The information for 3.1 could be acquired 

from an operator’s manual, a training video, or in-person training. The items in 5.1 were confusing to the 

evaluators. The terminology is familiar to software developers, but not necessarily others. It was indicated that 

manufacturers were typically quick to return the filled out questionnaire, but he didn’t know how his laboratory was 

supposed to verify that it was true. Generally, the laboratories wouldn’t be expected to verify things to that level. 

For example, if the manufacturer states that a checksum is used to ensure integrity, the laboratories wouldn’t be 

expected to evaluate the algorithm used. 

The intent was to see whether the manufacturer had at least considered these issues, not for evaluators to become 

software engineers. Perhaps a glossary or descriptive paragraphs might be added to assist the evaluators for if the 

manufacturer has questions for the evaluators. 

OIML makes use of supplementary documents to explain the checklist they use. Below are links: 

http://www.oiml.org/publications/D/D031-e08.pdf 

http://www.welmec.org/latest/guides/72.html 

http://www.welmec.org/fileadmin/user_files/publications/2-3.pdf

WELMEC Document 2.3 is the original source for our checklist, but it’s been significantly revised and simplified. 

Mr. Payne, Maryland Department of Agriculture, is going to review the other documents and come up with some 

suggestions for the checklist. Mr. Roach, California Division of Measurement Standards, is going to begin using 

the checklist. The international viewpoint is that any device running an operating system is considered to be 

Type U. Mr. Roach mentioned that they’re having lots of problems with “skimmers” stealing PIN’s. Is there some 

way they can detect this? 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C33 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., mentioned that he liked Measurement Canada’s website. When 

answering similar questions, different pages would appear, based on answers to those questions: 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm00573.html. 

At the 2011 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, the laboratories were polled to obtain any feedback on the use of the 

checklist. Maryland attempted to use this checklist a few times. They had some difficulty obtaining answers from 

the manufacturers because the individual(s) interacting with the Maryland evaluator didn’t always have the required 

information on hand. More experience in using the checklist will help determine what needs to be revised. 

It was suggested that the checklist could be sent to manufacturers for their feedback as well, with the stipulation that 

it a completely voluntary exercise and purely informational at this point. The laboratories will coordinate with 

willing manufacturers to obtain feedback. 

Work is ongoing on this item with the intent that it eventually will be incorporated as a checklist in NCWM 

Publication 14; again the laboratories are requested to try utilizing this checklist for any evaluations on softwarebased electronic devices. 

The checklist has been reviewed with an eye to making its terminology clearer to laboratories. Some examples and 

clarifications have been added as shown in the discussion section of this item. The revised checklist will be 

distributed to the laboratories for additional review. Maryland and California laboratories agreed to use the checklist 

on a trial basis. 

Discussion: 

Over the past year, attempts to use the current checklist did not meet with many difficulties. The checklists were 

given to the manufacturers to fill out, and that seemed to work rather well. Minor modifications (in red above) 

were made to clarify certain confusing areas or eliminate redundancy 

Conclusion: 

The next step will be to forward it to the four Sectors; we can report that the labs have tried using it on a trial basis, 

and we’re ready to recommend it for NCWM Publication 14 with the modification suggested here, such as the 

removal of the Type P/Type U wording.

(c) Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Background: 

After the software is completed, what do the manufacturers use to secure their software? The following items were 

reviewed by the Sector. Note that agenda Item 3 also contains information on Verified and Traced updates and 

Software Log.

1. Verify that the update process is documented. (OK) 

2. For traced updates, installed Software is authenticated and checked for integrity. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the authenticity of the loaded software (i.e., that it originates 

from the owner of the type approval certificate). This can be accomplished (e.g., by cryptographic means like 

signing). The signature is checked during loading. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument shall 

discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the integrity of the loaded software (i.e., that it has not been 

inadmissibly changed before loading). This can be accomplished for example, by adding a checksum or hash 

code of the loaded software and verifying it during the loading procedure. If the loaded software fails this test, 

the instrument shall discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C34 

Examples are not limiting or exclusive. 

3. Verify that the sealing requirements are met. 

The Sector asked, “What sealing requirements are we talking about”? 

This item is only addressing the software update, it can be either verified or traced. It is possible that there are 

two different security means, one for protecting software updates (software log) and one for protecting the other 

metrological parameters (Category I II or III method of sealing). Some examples provided by the Sector 

members include but are not limited to: 

 Physical seal, software log 

 Category III method of sealing can contain both means of security 

4. Verify that if the upgrade process fails, the device is inoperable or the original software is restored 

The question before the group is, Can this be made mandatory? 

The manufacturer shall ensure by appropriate technical means (e.g., an audit trail) that traced updates of 

metrologically significant software are adequately traceable within the instrument for subsequent verification 

and surveillance or inspection. This requirement enables inspection authorities, which are responsible for the 

metrological surveillance of legally controlled instruments, to back-trace traced updates of metrologically 

significant software over an adequate period of time (that depends on national legislation). The statement in 

italics will need to be reworded to comply with US weights and measures requirements. 

The Sector agreed that the two definitions below for Verified Update and Traced Update were acceptable. 

Verified Update 

A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user. 

Traced Update 

A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or audit trail. 

Note: It’s possible that the Philosophy of Sealing section of NCWM Publication 14 may already address the above 

IF the definitions of Verified and Traced Updates (and the statement below) were to be added. The contrary 

argument was that it may be better to be explicit). 

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is required for a Traced Update. A log entry representing a traced 

software update shall include the software identification of the newly installed version. 

The Sector recommended consolidating the definitions with the above statement thus: 

Verified Update 

A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user. 

Traced Update 

A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or Category 3 audit trail. The 

audit trail entry shall include the software identification of the newly installed version. 

In 2012, the Sector recommended that as a first step, the following be added to NCWM Publication 14: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C35 

The updating of metrologically significant software, including software that checks the authenticity 

and integrity of the updates, shall be considered a sealable event. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, indicated his opinion that the above sentence is unnecessary since it’s self-evident. 

It was agreed by the group however to ask the other Sectors for feedback on the value of this addition. 

Though the Sector is currently considering only the single sentence be incorporated into NCWM Publication 14 for 

the time being, ultimately, the Sector may wish to advance the remaining language of the original item submission. 

Discussion:

The Sector had no information indicating that the other Sectors had yet been approached for feedback on the value 

of the addition of the proposed sentence. 

Conclusion: 

This Sector would like the other Sectors to evaluate this for inclusion in NCWM Publication 14. We’d also like to 

include some description indicating that an existing audit trail should be protected during a software update, though 

that may already be a requirement. This does appear to be addressed in the Requirements for Metrological Audit 

Trails Appendices in NCWM Publication 14.

At the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, Mr. Truex provided a review of the Software Sector’s proposals 

for changes to NCWM Publication 14 Identification of Certified Software, Software Protection/Security, and 

Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration. Manufactuers had a number of question to include “What is the 

baseline for which software is considered metrologically significant?” After some discussion the manufacturers 

requested that they be given additional time to review the proposed changes and to allow their software designers an 

opportunity to look at the proposed changes to software. Ms. Brenner sent an e-mail on August 29, 2013, to all 

NTEP grain analyzer manufacturers requesting that comments be submitted to Ms. Lee by October 15, 2013. 

Conclusion: 

Grain Analyzer Manufacturers provided the following comments to the Software Sector’s proposal for changes to 

NCWM Publication 14: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C36 

Grain Analyzer Manufacturer’s Comments to 

Software Sector’s Proposed Changes to Publication 14 

Manufacturer 

GA Sector 

Item Comment Proposed change 

Dickey-john 12a We currently don’t separate the metrologically 

significant code or identify it’s version in the 

application. We can do this, but it will require a 

significant code change and validation. 

Question 1: Does the metrological significant code 

need to be actually separate from the application or 

is a label in the application identifying the version 

of the prediction module used acceptable. This 

will result in less changes to the code. 

Question 2: What if we had added a test on the 

prediction module that inserted key values into the 

engine, that we would document in the 

metrological specific tests, that would give a 

specific answer? For example, if the prediction 

module is the same then the same inputs with the 

same calibration file will yield the same results 

from version to version; log those results and 

include in the metrological report. 

Object to 12.a – The 

document insists that we 

separate the legally relevant 

code and make separate 

binaries. 

We could simply add a 

label that is bound to the 

prediction module code. 

Adding this label could tie 

the prediction module to 

the version, and will allow 

us to separately maintain 

revision control of that 

code. However, the code 

itself will not be a separate 

binary. 

FOSS General Since FOSS distributes instruments worldwide, 

having NTEP and OIML requirements the same 

would be beneficial. I know efforts are being made 

to have the 2 as similar as possible. A concern is 

the potential that software code that is adopted 

would invalidate the currently approved 

instruments. A preferred outcome would be that 

once software code is adopted, only instruments 

seeking approval (not currently approved) would 

be required to meet the code. 

In addition manufacturers that attended the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Meeting, expressed an interest in attending 

the next 2014 Software Sector meeting to provide additional input. 

13. Update on Proficiency Testing 

Source: 

Dr. Hurburgh, Iowa State University 

Purpose: 

Develop an air-oven proficiency testing program to ensure state laboratory and manufacturers air-oven 

measurements are traceable to the official USDA, GIPSA air-oven measurements. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Update on progress of the ongoing air-oven proficiency testing program for states maintaining a grain moisture 

laboratory and GMM manufacturers. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C37 

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2009 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, Dr. Hurburgh, Iowa State University, urged the representatives 

from the American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS) to prepare a proposal so that the collaborative (air-oven) study 

could be conducted on an on-going basis rather than on an ad hoc basis. He cautioned that the proposal would have 

to include corn and wheat as well as soybeans. 

At the 2011 NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting, Ms. Johnson, AOCS, proposed an air-oven/GMM proficiency 

testing series designed specifically to address the needs of GMM manufacturers and states maintaining a grain 

moisture laboratory. AOCS would administer the program, oversee distribution of samples, compile results, 

perform statistical analysis of results, and distribute a report to participants. AOCS does not collect the samples. 

This is subcontracted to suitable providers. AOCS does not have laboratories. Since GIPSA/FGIS is a certified 

laboratory already participating in the AOCS Soybean Quality Traits program, GIPSA air-oven results could be 

reported for comparison. 

At the Sector’s August 2012 meeting, the Sector learned that Ms. Christine Atkinson will be taking over the 

Proficiency Testing program for States and interested manufacturers formerly headed by Ms. Amy Johnson. 

Ms. Atkinson verified that participant’s cost will remain $100 per year. The Sector reiterated that the program 

should focus solely on the standard FGIS air-oven method. Instrument results will not be reported. Participants’ 

air-oven results will be compared against GIPSA’s standard FGIS air-oven results. In response to Ms. Atkinson’s 

question about scheduling, the Sector was in general agreement that samples should ship after harvest, preferably 

between mid-January and mid-February with participants’ results due 30 days after the shipping date. 

The Sector agreed upon the following Program Details: 

Samples – Soybeans 2, Corn 2, Hard Red Winter Wheat 2 

 Cost to Participants - $100/year 

 Schedule: 

 Samples (6) ship between January 15 and February 15. 

 Samples must be tested within 5 business days of receipt with results due 30 days after the 

shipping date. 

 Reports to be posted on www.SoybeanQualityTraits.org by 1 May. 

 Only the GIPSA oven results will be identified. Individual manufacturer’s and State participant’s oven 

results will be assigned an identifier known only to the manufacturer or State participant. Instrument 

results will not be reported. 

 Detailed Participant Instructions will be provided to each participant. 

An update on any progress of proficiency testing will be discussed at the Sector meeting. 

At the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector meeting, no report was provided on AOAC’s efforts to conduct 

proficiency testing for grain moisture. Mr. Karl Cunningham, Illinois, and Mr. Kenvin Hansan agreed to work 

together to conduct a grain moisture proficiency test. 

Conclusion: 

Mr. Cunningham agreed to provide the samples for proficiency testing and Mr. Hansan agreed to analyze the data in 

accordance with the procedures used to conduct proficiency testing in the state laboratory program. Mr. Hansan also 

agreed to collect data on test weight per bushel which may be useful in field test procedures for evaluating test 

weight per bushel on instruments. See agenda item 9 for the discussion on test weight per bushel. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C38 

14. The Feasibility of a Phase II program for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers 

Source: 

Dr. Hurburgh, Iowa State University 

Background/Discussion: 

The GIPSA Grain Inspection Advisory Committee recommends that GIPSA initiate research to determine the 

feasibility of extending the theory of “equivalency” to multiple-constituent instruments in order to utilize 

standardized technology while maintaining accuracy and consistency in measurement of wheat protein. 

Ms. Eigenmann provided an update on the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee’s Resolutions. The Sector discuss 

the feasibility of an ongoing calibration program also referred to as a Phase II program for Near Infrared Grain 

Analyzers (NIR) instruments that measure wheat program. The Phase II program for grain moisture is a program 

that monitors the moisture calibrations on grain moisture meters annually. As changes to the calibrations occur due 

to grains, climate, etc., data collected in this program allows for changes to moisture calibratons annually and ensure 

equivalency among the different moisture meter models. The Advisory committee is recommending that this 

program be extended to include NIR instruments that measure wheat protein. It was noted that there could be 

multiple NIR instruments for wheat protein introduced into the market and that it may be advisable to have the 

Phase II program extended to NIR instruments that measure wheat protein. It was also mentioned that currently 

there are few States that are checking wheat protein on multi-constituient instruments. 

GIPSA currently has an annual review program for the official protein system but would have to consider the cost 

associated with extending the program for other NIR wheat protein analyzers It was noted during the discussion that 

GIPSA currently has hourly rate fees set that could be applied to a phase II program for wheat program. 

Unlike moisture where there may be changes to the calibrations annually, there will not be year to year changes for 

wheat protein. As such, consideration may be given to conducting the program less than annually, and considering 

reviewing wheat protein calibrations every 3, 4, or 5 years, as appropriate. In addition it was noted that there also 

has to be a mechanism to get manufacturers calibration data for calibration review. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector will continue to discuss the feasibility of a phase II program for wheat protein giving consideration to the 

following issues: 

 How the program will be funded, 

 How often the calibrations for wheat protein will be updated, which will likely affect the cost, 

 How many devices are currently being used in commercial transactions, and 

 If being used commercially in a State, what is needed by States to begin testing these devices. 

15. Next Sector Meeting 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for Wednesday, August 20 and Thursday, August 21, 2014, at the Chase 

Suites by Woodfin at KCI in Kansas City, MO. Sector members are asked to hold these days open pending 

confirmation of availability of facility, determination of agenda items, exact meeting times, and meeting duration. 

Final meeting details will be announced by early June 2014. 

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2014 meeting, please contact any of the following persons by 

June 1, 2014: 

 Jim Truex, NTEP Administrator at jim.truex@ncwm.net 

 G. Diane Lee, NIST Technical Advisor, at diane.lee@nist.gov 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C39 

16. Update on the New Meter Technology 

Background/Discussion: 

During the August 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector meeting, Dr. David Funk, Deputy Director and Chief Scientist, 

GIPSA-FGIS, Technology and Science Division, updated the Sector on the new Unified Grain Moisture Algorithm 

(UGMA) meter technology. 

Since the August 2012 Grain Analyzer Sector, the implementation of the new UGMA moisture meters for official 

inspection of corn, soybeans, sorghum, and sunflowers occurred on September 10, 2012, at which time the Perten 

AM 5200-A and the Dickey-john GAC 2500-UGMA replaced the Dickey-john GAC 2100 as the approved moisture 

meter models for those grains. The conversion to the use of UGMA-Compatible moisture meters was completed on 

May 1, 2013, with all officially-inspected grains and commodities switched to the UGMA-Compatible moisture 

meters. As of May 1, 2013, the GAC 2100 is no longer approved for official inspection of any grain or commodity 

under FGIS jurisdiction. 

There was further discussion of test weight and the UGMA meters and the variation in different test methods. It was 

noted that the ISO and U.S. methods for test weight differ in the kettle size and fill method which contributes to 

variations in the results of the two methods. Also, both methods are user dependent. 

Dr. Funk mentioned that tests were being performed reviewing the Official UGMA meter test weight per bushel 

measurement results to determine if these measurements could be used for Official test weight per bushel 

measurements. It was noted that results may be available from this testing in September 2013. The use of UGMA 

meters to determine official test weight per bushel results would expedite the official test weight measurement and 

might provide for greater uniformity. 

Additional information on UGMA moisture meter implementation can be found on the GIPSA web 

page: http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/fgis/equipment.html. 

 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix C – 2013 Grain Analyzer Sector Summary 

NTEP - C40 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D1 

Appendix D 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Measuring Sector Annual Meeting Summary 

October 9 - 10, 2013 

Charleston, West Virginia 

INTRODUCTION 

The charge of the NTETC Measuring Sector (herein after referred to as “Sector”) is to provide appropriate type 

evaluation criteria based on specifications, tolerances and technical requirements of NIST Handbook 44, 

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, Sections 

1.10. General Code and all portions of Section 3 including codes for Liquid Measuring Devices, Vehicle Tanks 

Meters, Liquid Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Measuring Devices, Cryogenic Liquid Measuring Devices, 

Milk Meters, Water Meters, Mass Flow Meters, and Carbon Dioxide Liquid Measuring Devices. The Sector’s 

recommendations are presented to the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee each January for 

approval and inclusion in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures for national 

type evaluation. 

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors, and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced font

(e.g., new items), and 3) nonretroactive items are identified in italics. There are instances where the Sector will use 

red text and/or highlighted text to bring emphasis to text that requires additional attention. When used in this report, 

the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Note: It is policy to use metric units of measurement in publications; however, recommendations received by 

NCWM technical committees and regional weights and measures associations have been printed in this publication 

as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units. 

 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D2 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Title of Content Page NTEP D

CARRY-OVER ITEMS: ............................................................................................................................................ 4

1. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U “Evaluating Electronic Indicators Submitted 

Separate from a Measuring Element” ..................................................................................................... 4

NEW ITEMS: .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

2. Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist .............................................................................................. 6

3. N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices, 2013 NCWM S&T Committee Item 330-3 ................................................ 8

4. Corrections/Editorial for 2014 NCWM Publication 14 ........................................................................ 11

5. Product Families Table Addition - Dimethylether (DME) ................................................................... 15

ADDITIONAL ITEMS AS TIME ALLOWS: ....................................................................................................... 16

6. Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability, NCWM S&T 

Committee Item 360-7 ............................................................................................................................. 16

7. Identification of Certified Software ....................................................................................................... 19

8. Software Protection/Security .................................................................................................................. 20

9. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration ......................................................................................... 24

10. LNG Metering Applications ................................................................................................................... 27 

Appendices 

Appendix A –– Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators with Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) .. D / A1 

Appendix B –– Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist (Agenda Item 2) ................................................... D / B1 

Appendix C –– Excerpt from NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee 2013 Annual Report, 

Item 330-3 (Agenda Item 3) ..................................................................................................... D / C1 

Appendix D –– Product Families Table, NTEP Technical Policy C – Units for Viscosity 

(Agenda Item 4a) ..................................................................................................................... D / D1 

Appendix E –– Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist (Agenda Item 4b) ................................................. D / E1 

Appendix F –– Proposed Additions to the Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Cash-Activated 

RMFDs (Agenda Item 4c) ......................................................................................................... D / F1 

Appendix G –– Proposed Changes to the ECR Interfaced with RMFDs Checklist (Agenda Item 4e) ............. D / G1 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D3 

Table B 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

CC Certificate of Conformance OIML International Organization of 

Legal Metrology 

DMS Division of Measurement Standards OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

(NIST) 

ECR Electronic Cash Register PD Positive Displacement 

HB 44 NIST Handbook 44 “Specifications, Tolerances, 

and Other Technical Requirements for 

Weighing and Measuring Devices” 

Pub 14 NCWM Publication 14 

LMD Liquid Measuring Devices RMFD Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 

mA milliamp SI International System of Units 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and Measures S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology VTM Vehicle Tank Meter 

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program W&M Weights and Measures 

NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

This glossary is meant to assist the reader in the identification of acronyms used in this agenda and does 

not imply that these terms are used solely to identify these organizations or technical topics. 

Technical Advisor’s Note: I was unable to attend the Sector meeting due to a Federal Government shutdown. I 

want to extend thanks to Sector Chairman, Mr. Mike Keilty, and Sector Member, Mr. Paul Glowacki, for providing 

notes from the meeting and enabling me to prepare this summary. 

 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D4 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

Carry-Over Items: 

1. Add Testing Criteria to NTEP Policy U “Evaluating Electronic Indicators Submitted Separate from a 

Measuring Element” 

Source: 

California NTEP Lab 

Background: At its 2007 meeting, the Measuring Sector heard that Technical Policy U in NCWM Publication 14 

allows for testing an indicator separate from a measuring element. However, specific test criteria had not been 

developed for this practice. The Sector heard a recommendation to develop and add specific criteria for testing an 

indicator separate from a measuring element. 

From 2007 to 2010, the California NTEP laboratory worked to develop a checklist, but had received limited input on 

the drafts. At the 2009 Sector meeting, Mr. Dan Reiswig provided an update to the Sector on progress to develop 

criteria for separate electronic indicators. He reported that the draft checklist provided to the Sector follows the 

general format of NCWM Publication 14 and the main test procedures are at the end of the document. At the 2010 

Sector meeting, Mr. Reiswig presented a list of the areas of the checklist that specifically needed further attention 

and review. Attachments 1 and 2 to the Sector’s 2010 Meeting Agenda submitted by Mr. Reiswig, contain the draft 

checklist and proposed revisions to Technical Policy T. 

At its 2011 meeting, the Sector agreed that additional work is needed to finalize the checklist. Mr. Rich Miller 

(FMC) volunteered to serve as Chair of the Work Group and Sector Technical Advisor, Mr. Marc Buttler (NIST, 

OWM), will assist as needed, and monitor progress of work. Work Group members are listed below: 

Electronic Indicators Checklist Work Group 

Chair: Rich Miller, FMC 

Members: Dmitri Karimov, Liquid Controls 

Mike Keilty, Endress + Hauser 

Review & Comment: Mike Frailer, MD W&M 

Allen Katalinic, NC DMS 

Technical Advisor: Marc Buttler, NIST, OWM 

Established at the October 21 - 22, 2011, Measuring Sector Meeting

Technical Advisor’s Note, August 2013: Mr. Michael Frailer, Maryland Weights and 

Measures retired June 2013. Ms. Tina Butcher, NIST, OWM has replaced Mr. Marc Buttler, 

as NIST Technical Advisor. 

The Work Group was asked to address the highlighted sections in the draft checklist from Mr. Reiswig 

(Attachment 1 to the Sector’s 2011 Meeting Agenda) along with the five points below and submit the finished 

checklist to the two lab representatives listed above for review and comment. 

1) A minimum of 10 000 pulses must be collected. To ensure that there will be a change in the displayed 

indication for each pulse received, the electronic indication should be scaled such that the value of the 

smallest indicated division should equate to less than or equal to the value associated with one input pulse. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D5 

2) It is important to validate whether ± 1 pulse is an appropriate tolerance, taking into consideration applicable 

OIML requirements. 

3) The number of different temperature inputs and API gravity values that would need to be tested to 

adequately verify the temperature compensation function of an electronic indicator must be determined. 

Spot checking of three random tables at three different temperatures would be adequate to verify an 

indicator’s temperature compensation feature is functioning properly. 

4) The Work Group should add a step in the checklist for checking multipoint calibration along with 

associated guidance. This guidance should emphasize the necessity of working with the manufacturer of 

each device in order to set up tests to properly check multipoint calibration using simulated pulses. 

5) Addressing various different input signal formats including pulses, analog, and digital communication will 

be challenging. Analog (4-20 mA) input devices are to be excluded from the scope at this time. The Work 

Group is asked to address pulse (frequency) signals in the final version of the checklist and is asked to 

consider whether or not to also include digital communications.

Also at that meeting, Mr. Miller reported that FMC had a new electronic indicator with frequency input (serial 

communication was not part of the scope) nearing release and anticipated submitting it for evaluation by the end of 

2012. He proposed using the evaluation, applying both the current standards and proposed checklist, to help refine 

the checklist and California volunteered to serve as the evaluating laboratory. The Sector agreed with this proposal. 

During that meeting, Mr. Jack Kiefert volunteered to join the Work Group. 

At the 2012 Sector meeting, FMC reported that, due to a heavy backlog, the California laboratory was not available 

to conduct an evaluation prior to the end of January 2013. However, plans are in place for the North Carolina 

laboratory to conduct an evaluation sometime in December 2012. The Sector agreed to maintain the item on its 

agenda to allow this work to be completed. 

In August 2013, Work Group Chairman, Mr. Rich Miller, informed the Technical Advisor that the North Carolina 

laboratory conducted an evaluation on FMC’s new indicator. During the evaluation, Mr. Miller and the North 

Carolina laboratory evaluators reviewed the checklist and identified some suggested areas for revision. 

Discussion: The Sector heard an update on the Work Group’s progress. 

During the meeting, Mr. John Roach (California) recommended retaining Checklist Item 2.24 under Code Reference 

G-S.5.7., noting that this requirement is specified in NIST Handbook 44 and Mr. Jim Truex (NTEP Director) and 

Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls) agreed that the item should not be stricken. The Sector also discussed the 

merits of conducting permanence tests on electronics. The following additional general questions and comments 

were made regarding permanence tests, including suggestions that the permanence criteria section in the proposed 

checklist needs additional work: 

 NCWM Publication 14 specifies a 20-day permanence test on electronics (e.g., digital indicators) specified 

in NCWM Publication 14. Additionally, NCWM Publication 14 specifies 20- and 30-day permanence tests 

specified for various types of Liquid-Measuring Devices. 

 For indicators that will be used in vehicle-mounted installations, vehicle-mounted permanence tests are 

needed. 

 There is a general feeling amongst Sector members present that permanence testing is not needed for 

electronics unless the electronics are used in a vehicle-mounted application. 

 Software updates would not necessarily require a permanence test. Note that California uses a 20-day 

permanence test in their evaluations of new equipment. Canada requires a permanence test on initial 

evaluations, but not for updates to software. 

 This document only addresses electronic indicators with frequency input and, thus, does not apply to 

indictors such as those for mass flow meters. 

 The five points listed in Mr. Reiswig’s proposal may not adequately be covered in the checklist and should 

be reviewed. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D6 

 Will the test evaluate the form of pulse scaling? How will “edge counting” and “threshold levels” be 

addressed? 

Mr. John Roach noted that he conducts two or three evaluations of electronic indicators per year and he requires 

permanence tests; however, he has not used the draft checklist. Sector members present noted that the work group 

primarily consisted of Mr. Rich Miller (FMC) and Mr. Allen Katalinic (North Carolina). The draft checklist was not 

distributed nor reviewed outside of the workgroup and Mr. Katalinic has additional comments on the most recent 

draft. The Sector Chairman proposed that the work group continue its work for another year, giving consideration to 

the Sector’s discussion and comments and bring the checklist back to the Sector at its next meeting. 

Decision: The Sector concluded that additional work is needed on the checklist and agreed in a vote as follows to 

carry this item over to its next meeting: 

Proposal: Carry this item over to the next Sector meeting and ask that the sub-group continue its work and consider 

the points raised in the Sector’s discussion of this item. 

Yes: 8 

No: 0 

Result: Passed 

The Sector proposed no changes to NCWM Publication 14. 

New Items: 

2. Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist 

Source: 

NTEP Measuring Labs 

Recommendation: 

Modify Section 1. General in the Liquid Measuring Devices Checklist as shown in Appendix B to this summary to 

include specific procedures for evaluating the permanence of marking. 

Background: 

At the spring 2013 NTEP Laboratory meeting, the measuring labs noted that the checklist for Digital Electronic 

Scales of NCWM Publication 14 provides detailed information about how to test the permanence of markings on the 

device. The labs propose replicating this language in the LMD checklist to add clarity for manufacturers and NTEP 

evaluators. 

Discussion: 

Mr. Truex (NTEP Director) explained the proposed revisions and noted that these revisions are not new procedures; 

the NTEP laboratories have conducted the tests shown in Appendix B to this summary on weighing and other device 

types for many years. The intent was not to impose more stringent requirements, but to ensure that the permanence 

criteria are uniformly applied; as such, the tests should be consistent regardless of the type of device. Without 

specific guidelines, the application of the permanence criteria is left to the judgment of individual evaluators and can 

lead to unintentional inconsistencies. Mr. Truex also noted that the language in proposed Sections 1.8 and 1.9 is 

new, but not controversial. Mr. John Roach (California) noted that these procedures are used for all tests in 

California and pointed out the need to ensure consistency among evaluations. Sector members asked about 

corresponding Canadian methods and Mr. Dennis Beattie (Measurement Canada) noted that Canada’s methods are 

similar and have been for some time. 

Mr. Mike Keilty (Endress + Hauser) commented that the use of “wood of a pencil” seems excessive and suggested 

deleting the reference. Mr. Truex noted that this criterion is already part of NCWM Publication 14; the current 

proposal is not to modify current permanence test requirements, but such a proposal could be considered as part of a 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D7 

future proposal. Mr. Henry Oppermann (W&M Consulting) explained that the reference to the wood pencil was to 

prevent the use of a harsher material such as a knife or screwdriver blade. 

Several Sector members expressed concern that the changes outlined in the Appendix B to this summary propose 

changes that address all aspects of permanence criteria for markings, not just the criteria for the permanence of 

lettering. For example, proposed changes include additions of criteria for the “Permanence of Attachment of 

Badge” and title heading for the “Location and Visibility of the Marking Information.” Mr. Rich Tucker (RL 

Tucker Consulting) also noted that requirements for permanence of the label are addressed in specific checklist 

sections and suggested that these requirements should be addressed only in the specific sections of the checklist to 

avoid possible conflicts. 

Sector members expressed concerns that the changes to the checklist format and content to mirror corresponding 

permanence criteria in the weighing checklists are too extensive. The Sector considered taking time during or 

immediately after the meeting to review the proposal and suggest alternate changes; however, there was a feeling 

that there was not sufficient time to do this. Consequently, the Sector agreed to limit its consideration of the 

proposed changes to only address permanence of lettering. 

 Decision: After considering proposed changes to include specific criteria for determining permanence of 

marking information, the Sector agreed to make only the following changes. The Sector did not accept any 

other changes recommended in the original proposal; the original proposal is included in Appendix B to 

this summary for reference. Under Section 1. General, Code Reference G-S.1. Identification, delete the 

second and third paragraphs that currently appear after the example for “Vehicle Tank Meters” as follows: 

Vehicle Tank Meters 

 Serial number is required on the meter; it is a major component of the system since it is required 

for the system to operate. 

 Serial number is required on the indicating elements. 

Equipment must be marked on a surface that is an integral part of the device, and the marking must be 

visible after installation. If the required information is not positioned in a visible location after installation, 

a duplicate, permanent identification badge must be located in a visible location after installation. A 

removable cover is an acceptable location for the required information only if a permanent ID badge is 

located elsewhere on the device. 

The information may be on a metal or plastic plate that is attached with pop rivets, adhesive, or 

other means, but removable bolts or screws are not permitted. A foil or vinyl badge may be used 

provided that it is able to survive wear and tear, remains legible, and is difficult to remove. The 

printing on a foil badge must be easily readable and not easily obliterated by rubbing with a 

relatively soft object (e.g., the wood of a pencil.) 

Location of the information: 

 Add the following heading and text after the heading of “Required Markings” prior current checklist item 

1.1: 

Required Markings: 

Permanence of Marking Information: 

“Permanent” markings address two aspects: (1) if the markings are on a plate or badge, then 

the marking badge must be “permanently” attached to the device, and (2) the printed 

information will withstand wear and cleaning. 

The identification marking must be permanent, able to survive normal wear and tear, and 

remain legible. If located on a metal or plastic plate or badge, it must be attached with pop 

rivets or adhesive, or equivalent permanent means; removable bolts or screws are not permitted. 

A foil badge is permitted provided that it is durable, is able to survive wear and tear, remains 

legible, is difficult to remove, and exhibits obvious evidence of an attempt to remove the marking 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D8 

or badge. The printing on a foil badge must be easily readable and not easily obliterated by 

rubbing with a relatively soft object (e.g., the wood of a pencil). 

Location of the information: 

Permanence of Lettering: 

The following test procedure shall be used to determine the permanence of the identification 

markings. The lettering for the markings is subjected to the following tests to simulated 

accelerated wear. The markings are then compared with a typical set of labels exhibiting various 

degrees of wear, graded from minimal effect (7) to excessive unacceptable wear (1). 

Attempts are made to remove the marked information whether on a badge (plate) or on the 

device itself, using the following means. 

 Rub over one letter of the marking at least 20 times using an ink eraser in the same manner 

and force as one would normally exert while erasing an inscription written with a ball point 

pen. 

 Note: For consistency of application, all NTEP labs are to use Eberhard Faber ink eraser type 

#110 (no longer commercially available); the Papermate Black Pearl; or the Papermate Union 

110. 

 Clean the marking or badge with the following cleaners presumed to be “readily available.” 

Marking information remains legible after following the above procedures using: 

1.1 Disinfecting cleaning liquid and a damp cloth. Yes No N/A 

1.2 “Soft” household cleaning powder and a damp cloth. Yes No N/A 

1.3 Window cleaning fluids and a damp cloth. Yes No N/A 

Note: For consistency of application, NTEP labs use “409,” Bon Ami, and Windex brands of products for 

tests in parts 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 respectively. 

All equipment shall be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior surface 

that is visible after installation with the following information (prefix lettering 

may be initial capitals, all capitals, or all lower case): 

1.4 The name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor. Yes No N/A 

[Renumber subsequent paragraphs.] 

3. N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices, 2013 NCWM S&T Committee Item 330-3 

Source: 

NCWM S&T Committee 

Recommendation: 

At the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee requested assistance and input from the NTEP 

Measuring Sector on a proposal recommending changes to the requirements for special tests of wholesale meters. 

The Sector is asked to consider the proposals currently under consideration by the S&T Committee and to provide 

suggestions on how the Committee might best address the concerns expressed. Appendix C to this summary 

includes an excerpt from the 2013 S&T Committee’s Annual Report with full details of the item. An abbreviated 

synopsis of the item is included below in the “Background” information. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D9 

Background: 

At the 2013 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the S&T Committee considered a proposal under Item 330-3 on 

its agenda to modify the requirements for special tests of wholesale meters. The purpose of the proposal is to better 

align the special test requirements in NIST Handbook 44 with the current testing procedures, measuring practices, 

and technology changes while maintaining the integrity of the special test. 

The “Item Under Consideration” as currently shown on S&T Committee’s agenda is as follows: 

Amend paragraph N.4.2.4. as follows: 

N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices. – “Special” tests shall be made to develop the operating characteristics of a 

measuring system and any special associated or attached elements and accessories. 

N.4.2.4.1. Special Test, Type Evaluation. – “Special” tests shall be made during type evaluation 

include a test at the slower of the following rates: 

(a) 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate; or 

(b) The minimum discharge rate marked on the device. 

Add a new paragraph N.4.2.4.2. as follows: 

N.4.2.4.2. Special Test, Field Evaluation. – “Special” tests shall be made during field tests at or 

near the minimum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of installation, but not 

less than the minimum discharge rate marked on the device. 

In its deliberations of this item, the S&T Committee heard from the submitter, Mr. Constantine Cotsoradis (Flint 

Hills Resources) who noted that the current language in NIST Handbook 44 is very restrictive. Even in systems 

where the flow can be reduced, it is difficult to set the flow and maintain it at the target flow rate over the course of 

an entire test. 

During the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee heard comments expressing concern that, without a 

test conducted near the minimum flow rate marked on the device, an official or device owner cannot adequately 

assess the condition of the meter and determine if the device is being properly maintained. The official also needs to 

be able to verify performance at other flow rates within the range of the meter. 

At the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard similar comments along with comments from NIST, 

OWM regarding the purpose of the special test. The Committee heard additional comments suggesting that details 

of testing might be better addressed in the NIST Examination Procedure Outlines. The Committee heard additional 

comments suggesting that details of testing might best be addressed in the NIST Examination Procedure Outlines. 

Mr. Karimov, speaking on behalf of the MMA, expressed concern about testing at flow rates which create pressures 

exceeding the rated pressure of the meter. 

The Committee received the following alternate proposal from Mr. Randy Jennings (Tennessee) through the NCWM 

Online Comment Forum: 

N.4.2.4.1. Special Test, Type Evaluation. – “Special” tests shall include a test at the slower of the 

following rates: 

(a) Approximately 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate; or 

(b) The approximate minimum discharge rate marked on the device. 

At the 2013 Annual Meeting, the Committee received the following alternate proposal from the submitter of the 

item; this proposal was also supported by Mr. Jennings. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D10 

N.4.2.4.2. Special Test, Field Evaluation. – A “Special” test shall be made during field tests at 

or near the minimum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of installation, but not 

less than the minimum discharge rate marked on the device. Additional “Special” tests may be 

conducted at flow rates down to and including the maximum discharge rate marked on the 

device. 

Given the wide range of questions and concerns raised about the most appropriate way to address this issue, 

Mr. Michael Keilty (Endress + Hauser), chairman of the NTEP Measuring Sector, recommended that the item be 

moved to an information status. He suggested asking the Sector to review this issue and provide suggestions to the 

Committee on how to best address special tests on wholesale devices. This suggestion was supported by several 

other NCWM members as well as the S&T Committee. 

Discussion: 

Mr. Karimov , speaking on behalf of the MMA, summarized the item as presented by the submitter of the item. He 

noted that the design of many loading-rack metering systems is such that flow rate is automatically controlled; the 

user is not able to adjust the flow rate to the minimum flow rate marked on the meter. He also noted that the MMA 

has concerns that, if additional back pressure is created by artificially reducing the flow rate, system pressures may 

exceed the pressure ratings of the meter. Mr. Keilty noted that the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code and the LiquidMeasuring Devices Code both have “special test” tolerances which would apply to tests conducted at lower flow 

rates; the Mass Flow Meters Code does not have “special test” tolerances. 

Mr. Dennis Beattie (Measurement Canada) commented that their officials require the owner to reprogram the system 

to deliver at lower flow rates so that performance can be verified at lower flow rates during official testing of the 

meter. Several commented that this might be difficult to do for smaller metering systems such as retail motor-fuel 

dispensers. The group also discussed how this requirement might apply to retail devices and how it would apply to 

wholesale devices. 

The Sector also discussed the alternate proposal presented by Mr. Randy Jennings (Tennessee). Some members 

were concerned about the use of the word “maximum” and questioned whether or not this was intended to refer to a 

“miminum.” Concern was also expressed that the use of the word “approximate” could be problematic and may 

lead to inconsistent application. 

Mr. Oppermann noted that weights and measures officials and service companies need to be able to conduct tests at 

lower flow rates as a means to assess the condition of the meter. This allows officials to ensure that the meter is 

being maintained properly and allows service personnel to assess how best to service equipment. Mr. Allen 

Katalinic (North Carolina) provided a specific example in which an operator was consistently operating the system 

at lower flow rates, emphasizing the need to test the system at lower flow rates. 

Mr. Oppermann noted that the proposed language does not appear to require any test at lower flow rates and the 

group concurred with his interpretation. Given the importance of conducting tests over a range of flow rates, 

including tests at lower flow rates, Mr. Oppermann suggested the Sector advise the S&T Committee that the Sector 

does not support the proposal. This motion was seconded by Mr. Jerry Butler (North Carolina) and supported by the 

Sector. 

Decision: 

The Sector considered the proposals presented to the S&T Committee under its 2013 Agenda Item 330-3 for 

modifying the requirements under LMD Code Paragraph N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices that apply to “Special Tests.” 

The Sector recognized the need to conduct tests at lower flow rates as a means to verify performance of the meter 

across its flow range and ensure proper maintenance by the device owner. The Sector does not concur with the 

language in either proposal being considered by the S&T Committee and agreed to forward this position to the S&T 

Committee. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D11 

4. Corrections/Editorial for 2014 NCWM Publication 14 

Source: 

NTEP Administrator 

Background and Discussion: 

Several changes that were recommended by the 2013 Measuring Sector and approved by the NCWM NTEP 

Committee were not correctly implemented in the 2013 NCWM Publication 14. These proposed changes are 

outlined in the following subitems. During the Sector meeting, NTEP Director, Mr. Truex, noted that these items 

were recommended and approved by the NTEP Committee and the proposed agenda items are an accurate 

description of those changes. He also noted that Appendices D, E, F, and G did not get posted with the meeting 

agenda and he circulated a copy of the first day of the Sector meeting. 

a. Product Families Table, NTEP Technical Policy C – Units Correction 

Recommendation: 

Modify Technical Policy C. Product Categories and Families for Meters to correct the viscosity units for 

turbine meters as shown in Appendix D to this summary. 

Background: 

At its 2012 meeting, the Sector agreed to make changes correcting the unit labeling of all references to 

kinematic viscosity under the turbine meter columns of the Product Families Table in Technical Policy C 

to centistokes (cSt). Several changes that were recommended by the 2013 Measuring Sector and 

approved by the NCWM NTEP Committee were not correctly implemented in the 2013 NCWM 

Publication 14. This item is included to correct these inadvertent omissions. 

Discussion/Decision: 

The Sector reviewed the proposed changes in Appendix D and accepted the changes by consensus 

without additional comments. 

b. LMD Checklist References for Card Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Recommendation: 

Consolidate references to “credit- or debit-card activated” retail motor-fuel dispensers in the “Checklist 

and Test Procedures for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers” and correct references to printed receipt 

requirements to reflect NIST Handbook 44 language by making the following modifications: 

 Delete Sections 7.18 through 7.21 and move this text (with some minor modifications to reflect 

current NIST Handbook 44 language) to “LMD – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for 

Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers” Section 40. Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispensers. 

o Move the preamble to Sections 7.18 through 7.21. to the beginning of the “NTEP LMD 

Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers.” 

o Create a new “Code Reference G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements” under “NTEP 

LMD Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispensers,” and move the text currently in Sections 7.20 and 7.21 to this new code reference. 

o Create a new Code Reference heading for LMD Code paragraphs S.1.6.7. Recorded 

Representation and S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions Where a PostDelivery Discount(s) is Provided and insert text from 7.18 through 7.19., modified to reflect 

current NIST Handbook 44 language in this new reference. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D12 

 Delete Section 15. Card Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers, which is redundant to “LMD – 

Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers” 

Section 40.1 through 40.4. 

 Delete Section 16. Test Methods for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers, which is 

redundant to“LMD – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Card-Activated Retail MotorFuel Dispensers” Section 41. Test Methods. 

Attachment E to the Sector’s agenda outlined specific proposed changes to the checklist. 

Discussion: 

The Sector reviewed proposed changes in Attachment E to the Sector’s agenda. The Sector discussed 

changes in checklist item Section 40 in detail. 

Decision: 

The Sector concurred with the proposed changes in the document, with the exception to the proposed 

checklist item 40.8; the Sector also noted duplication in the paragraph numbering with two items being 

numbered 40.8. The Sector was concerned with inclusion of the “Yes,” “No,” and “N/A” checkboxes. 

The Sector agreed to strike the first item numbered “40.8;” however, the Sector agreed to retain the text 

in that item asking for a designation of the option(s) available for providing a receipt and incorporate that 

text into the previous Checklist item 40.7.

Appendix E to this meeting summary shows the final version of the proposed changes, including the 

revisions described above in section 40 that were adopted by the Sector. 

c. LMD Checklist – Checklist and Test Procedures for Cash-Activated RMFDs 

Recommendation: 

Add the following new section at the end of Publication 14 LMD Checklist, Checklist and Test 

Procedures for Cash-Activated RMFDs to include references to receipt requirements for LMD Code 

paragraph S.1.6.7. as shown in Attachment F to the Sector’s meeting agenda. 

Background: 

In reviewing the references to printed receipt requirements in the LMD and associated checklists, the 

technical advisor noted that there are no references to the requirements for printed receipts in the section 

of the Checklist addressing Cash-Activated Dispensers. The proposed changes will make this section 

consistent with the sections on card-activated RMFDs and for ECRs interfaced with RMFDs. 

Discussion: 

The Sector reviewed proposed changes in Attachment F to the Sector’s agenda. The Sector discussed 

changes in checklist item Section 17 in detail. 

Decision: 

The Sector concurred with all changes except for the proposed Checklist item 17.11 which asked for a 

designation of the type(s) of receipts provided, similar to the item described in agenda item (c) above. 

The Sector was concerned with inclusion of the “Yes,” “No,” and “N/A” checkboxes. The Sector agreed 

to retain the text asking for a designation of the option(s) available for providing a receipt by moving this 

text to item 17.10. The Sector agreed to strike the remainder of item 17.11 and renumber subsequent 

checklist items.

Appendix F to this meeting summary shows the final version of the proposed changes adopted by the 

Sector, including the revisions to Section 17 described above. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D13 

d. LMD Checklist – Post-Delivery Discounts – Formatting Change 

Recommendation: 

Modify Publication 14 LMD Checklist Code Reference S.1.6.8. as follows to create separate checklist 

items for each piece of information required on the receipt and to include specific checklist line items for 

systems that are capable of providing electronic receipts. 

Code Reference: S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions Where a Post-Delivery 

Discount(s) is Provided 

7.44. Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, wWhere a 

post-delivery discount(s) is(are) applied, the sales receipt must 

provide: 

the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price that 

were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the delivery 

prior to any post-delivery discount(s);an itemization of the 

post-delivery discounts to the unit price; and the final total 

price of each fuel sale after all post-delivery discounts are 

applied 

 Yes No N/A 

7.44.1. the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or 

code number; 

7.44.12. the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price 

that were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the 

delivery prior to any post-delivery discount(s); 

 Yes No N/A 

7.44.23. an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit 

price; and 

 Yes No N/A 

7.44.34. the final total price of each fuel sale after all postdelivery discounts are applied. 

 Yes No N/A 

7.44.5. For systems that are capable of generating electronic 

receipts, the customer must be given the alternative 

option of receiving a hard copy receipt in lieu of or in 

addition to the electronic receipt. 

Indicate the option(s) available: 

 Hard-copy or Electronic 

 Hard-copy and Electronic

 Yes No N/A 

Background: 

The proposed change would assist NTEP laboratories in identify specific areas to be evaluated as part of 

reviewing the requirements for a receipt specified in NIST Handbook 44 LMD Code paragraph S.1.6.8. 

These changes also make this checklist item consistent with LMD Checklist item 7.19.2. 

Discussion: 

The Sector reviewed the recommendation above and concurred with all but Section 7.44.5., which asked 

for a designation of the type(s) of receipts provided, similar to the item described in agenda items (b) and 

(c) above. The Sector was concerned with inclusion of the “Yes,” “No,” and “N/A” checkboxes. The 

Sector agreed to retain the text asking for a designation of the option(s) available for providing a receipt 

by moving this text to immediately follow item 7.44.4. The Sector agreed to strike the remainder of 

Item 7.44.5. 

Decision: 

The Sector agreed to recommend the following changes for inclusion in NCWM Publication 14:
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D14 

Code Reference: S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions Where a Post-Delivery 

Discount(s) is Provided 

7.44. Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, wWhere a 

post-delivery discount(s) is(are) applied, the sales receipt must 

provide: 

the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price that 

were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the delivery 

prior to any post-delivery discount(s); an itemization of the 

post-delivery discounts to the unit price; and the final total 

price of each fuel sale after all post-delivery discounts are 

applied 

 Yes No N/A 

7.44.1. the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or 

code number; 

7.44.12. the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price 

that were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the 

delivery prior to any post-delivery discount(s); 

 Yes No N/A 

7.44.23. an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit 

price; and 

 Yes No N/A 

7.44.34. the final total price of each fuel sale after all postdelivery discounts are applied. 

 Yes No N/A 

 Indicate the option(s) available for providing a receipt: 

 Hard Copy or Electronic 

 Hard Copy and Electronic

e. ECRs Interfaced with RMFDs Checklist, Section 3. Recorded Representations 

Recommendation: 

Modify the ECRs Interfaced with RMFDs checklist to: 

 Make changes to the preamble and other text to be consistent with corresponding 

requirements for card- and cash-activated RMFDs; 

 Add specific references to receipt requirements specified by LMD Code paragraph S.1.6.7, 

including the option of an electronic receipt; 

 Create individual numbered checklist items for each of the three sub-bullets under the 

requirements for post-delivery discount receipts as specified in LMD Code paragraph 

S.1.6.8.; and 

 Reorganize the order of items by moving the references to paragraph S.1.6.8. to follow those 

for S.1.6.7. 

Specific proposed changes are outlined in Attachment G. 

Background: 

The proposed changes are to ensure consistency with corresponding changes in corresponding sections of 

the LMD checklist for RMFDs. 

Discussion: 

The Sector reviewed proposed changes in Attachment G to the Sector’s agenda. The Sector discussed 

changes in Checklist item Section 3.2 in detail. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D15 

Decision: 

The Sector concurred with all changes except for the proposed Checklist item 3.2, which asked for a 

designation of the type(s) of receipts provided, similar to the item described in agenda items (b), (c), and 

(d) above. The Sector was concerned with inclusion of the “Yes,” “No,” and “N/A” checkboxes. The 

Sector agreed to retain the text asking for a designation of the option(s) available for providing a receipt 

by moving this text to item 3.1. The Sector agreed to strike the remainder of item 3.2 and renumber 

subsequent checklist items. 

Appendix G to this meeting summary shows the final version of the proposed changes adopted by the 

Sector, including the revisions to section 3 described above. 

5. Product Families Table Addition - Dimethylether (DME) 

Source: 

Mr. John Roach (California NTEP Laboratory) 

Background: 

NTEP has received requests to evaluate metering systems for Dimethylether (DME), which is not currently 

referenced in the Product Families Table of NCWM Publication 14. The California NTEP laboratory reports the 

following regarding this product:

 DME seems to have similar characteristics of propane. 

 CA has one client that has an LPG (propane) RMFD which is approved for several different PD meters. 

PD meters are viscosity sensitive in cP centipoise. 

 NCWM Publication 14 states that Propane is 0.098 cP at 60 °F. 

 DME is not currently referenced in the Pub 14 and it should be added. 

 This product may be very popular. 

 CA DMS chemists note that DME is being used in other counties for fuel and cooking. You can fill a 

propane container just like propane with DME. 

 The submitting manufacturer provided the following data regarding DME along with relative values for 

Commercial Propane: 

o Liquid specific gravity at 60 ° = 0.66 Propane = 0.510 

o Vapor specific gravity at 60 °F = 1.59 Propane = 1.5 

o Centipose viscosity at 60 °F = 0.15 Propane = 0.11 

Because this is the first NTEP evaluation of this product and this will set a precedent for how to address this product 

with regard to any resulting Certificate and its associated coverage, the California NTEP laboratory wants to ensure 

that adequate testing is conducted. The California Laboratory has informed the applicant that testing will need to be 

conducted with DME as well as LPG product unless the Measuring Sector and NTEP Committee determine 

otherwise. However, the question has been posed of whether or not the testing with both products is necessary. 

Recommendation: 

The California NTEP laboratory has asked that the Measuring Sector review the properties of this product; 

determine where it best fits within the Product Families Table of NCWM Publication 14; identify required testing 

parameters; and provide any additional guidelines for evaluating laboratories and manufacturers regarding the NTEP 

evaluation of meters used in this application. 

Discussion: 

Mr. John Roach (California) introduced the item and summarized the intent of the recommendation, noting that he is 

attempting to get clarification on the criteria based upon questions raised by a dispenser manufacturer. Mr. Jim 

Truex (NTEP Director) noted that the NTEP laboratories are not comfortable with adding DME to the “compressed 

gases” category since this would allow the product to be included on a Certificate that covers this category without 

testing the meter with DME. Mr. Dennis Beattie (Measurement Canada) noted that compatibility of materials is a 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D16 

concern and Mr. Mike Keilty (Endress + Hauser) and Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls) gave examples of 

materials that are and are not compatible with DME. 

Mr. Roach asked the Sector to consider whether a test is needed on a meter delivering DME in addition to testing 

with another product(s) in the compressed gases category. He also asked whether testing could be run on the same 

meter with a different meter factor. He noted that he believes a permanence test should be conducted. 

Though acknowledging that the chemical properties of DME appear similar to propane, Sector members present did 

not have in-depth experience with DME nor specific data to illustrate similarity of meter performance with the two 

products. 

Mr. Henry Oppermann (Weights & Measures Consulting) noted that there are three facets of this issue that need to 

be addressed and the Sector agreed with this analysis of the issues to be addressed: 

(1) Conducting type evaluation on a dispenser metering DME to gain a type approval for DME only. 

(2) Conducting tests on a dispenser using DME and then using propane to obtain type approval on both 

products. Submitting this data to the Measuring Sector in an effort to possibly obtain broader coverage 

of different types of meters by getting a change to the product families criteria. 

(3) Considering the need to re-open the discussion to further define the product families criteria by 

identifying the important product characteristics that defines the product category for each meter type. 

The material compatibility of the meters should not be a W&M issue; the manufacturer must ensure that 

the materials are appropriate for each product measured by the meter. 

Decision: 

The Sector considered whether or not DME can be added to a Certificate that has been issued to a meter based on 

testing conducted with commercial propane. The Sector acknowledged that the properties of DME may be similar 

to that of commercial propane; however, the Sector agreed that, if a Certificate has been issued based on testing with 

propane, additional testing is needed with DME in order to add DME to the Certificate. If a meter is only tested 

with DME, then the resulting Certificate will apply only to DME. If data is provided from NTEP testing of a meter 

using both propane and DME, the Sector is amenable to further considering whether or not it might be appropriate to 

include the chemical DME in the “Compressed Liquids” category of the Product Families Table. However, the 

Sector does not plan to undertake an effort to collect such data. 

Additional Items as Time Allows: 

If time permits, the NCWM S&T Committee and the NTEP Software Sector would appreciate input from the 

Measuring Sector on the measuring-related issues that are outlined in the remaining agenda items below. A copy of 

any regional association modifications or positions will be provided to the Sector when these are made available by 

the regions. 

6. Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability, NCWM S&T Committee Item 360-7 

Source: 

2013 NCWM S&T Committee (2012 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary) 

Background/Discussion: 

At its 2012 meeting, the Grain Analyzer Sector agreed to forward a proposal to amend the definition of “remote 

configuration capability” in NIST Handbook 44 to the S&T Committee for consideration. The following changes 

were proposed: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D17 

remote configuration capability. – The ability to adjust a weighing or measuring device or change its sealable 

parameters from or through some other device that is not may or may not itself be necessary to the operation 

of the weighing or measuring device or is not may or may not be a permanent part of that device. [2.20, 2.21, 

2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 5.56(a)] 

(Added 1993, Amended 20XX) 

The Sector noted in their proposal that removable digital storage devices containing the latest grain calibrations can 

be used in grain moisture meters (GMMs) as either data transfer devices that are not necessary to the operation of 

the GMM or as data storage devices which are necessary to the operation of the GMM. If removable data storage 

devices are necessary to the operation of the device, they are not covered by the current definition of remote 

configuration capability. 

A USB flash drive is most likely to be used as a data transfer device. In a typical data transfer application, the USB 

flash drive is first connected to a computer with access to the GMM manufacturer’s web site to download the latest 

grain calibrations that are then stored in the USB flash drive. The USB flash drive is removed from the computer 

and plugged into a USB port on the GMM. The GMM is put into remote configuration mode to copy the new grain 

calibration data into the GMM’s internal memory. When the GMM has been returned to normal operating 

(measuring) mode, the USB flash drive can be removed from the GMM. 

Although a Secure Digital (SD) memory card could also be used as a data transfer device, it is more likely to be used 

as a data storage device. In a typical “data storage device” application, the SD memory card stores the grain 

calibrations used on the GMM. The SD memory card must be plugged into an SD memory card connector on a 

GMM circuit card for the GMM to operate in measuring mode. To install new grain calibrations the GMM must be 

turned “off” or put into a mode in which the SD memory card can be safely removed. Either the SD memory card 

can be replaced with an SD memory card that has been programmed with the new grain calibrations, or the original 

SD memory card can be re-programmed with the new grain calibrations in much the same way as that described in 

the preceding paragraph to copy new grain calibrations into a USB flash drive. In either case, the SD memory card 

containing the new calibrations must be installed in the GMM for the GMM to operate in measuring mode. In that 

regard, the SD memory card (although removable) can be considered a permanent part of the GMM in that the 

GMM cannot operate without it. 

Note: In the above example SD memory card could be any removable flash memory card such as the Secure Digital 

Standard-Capacity, the Secure Digital High-Capacity, the Secure Digital Extended-Capacity, and the Secure Digital 

Input/Output, which combines input/output functions with data storage. These come in three form factors: the 

original size, the mini size, and the micro size. A Memory Stick is a removable flash memory card format launched 

by Sony in 1998, and is also used in general to describe the whole family of Memory Sticks. In addition to the 

original Memory Stick, this family includes the Memory Stick PRO, the Memory Stick Duo, the Memory Stick PRO 

Duo, the Memory Stick Micro, and the Memory Stick PRO-HG. 

During its Open Hearings at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Ms. Juana 

Williams (NIST, OWM). OWM suggested the Committee consider this item as a Developing item to allow other 

Sectors to discuss how a change to the definition may affect other device types of similar design and to consider 

changes if needed. OWM recognizes that the current definition for “remote configuration capability” may not 

address those grain moisture meters (GMMs) which can only be operated with a removable data storage device, 

containing, among other things, the grain calibrations intended for use with the GMM, inserted in the device (as was 

described by the Grain Analyzer Sector). As such, OWM noted that current sealing requirements were developed at 

a time when such technology likely didn’t exist, nor could be envisioned, and are based on the current definition of 

remote configuration capability. Because the current definition was never intended to apply to this “next 

generation” technology, OWM suggested that those charged with further development of this item may wish to 

revisit the five philosophies of sealing and consider whether a new paragraph, completely separate from current 

sealing requirements, might be appropriate and a better option, than the one currently proposed. The five 

philosophies of sealing are included in the 1992 Report of the 77th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee). Another option, preferred over the changes currently 

proposed, would be to add a separate statement to the current definition of “remote configuration capability” to 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D18 

address removable storage devices. For example, the following sentence might be considered as an addition to the 

current definition for “remote configuration capability:” 

Devices which are programmed using removable media (such as SD cards, flash drives, etc.) that may or 

may not be required to remain with the device during normal operation are also considered to be 

remotely configured devices. 

The Committee also heard comments from Mr. Karimov (Liquid Controls), speaking on behalf of the MMA, who 

made two points: (1) flow computers may already have these capabilities, thus it may be more appropriate to 

consider adding requirements to the General Code so that the requirements will be uniformly applied to all device 

types; and (2) the Committee should look ahead and consider other capabilities that may or already have emerged 

such as wireless communication and configuration. 

The Committee acknowledged the comments indicating that the current definition of “remote configuration 

capability” was developed at a time when certain technologies, such as blue tooth, SD storage devices, flash drives, 

etc., didn’t exist. The Committee recognized that it may be difficult to modify the existing definition and associated 

requirements to be flexible enough to address emerging and future technologies without having a significant (and 

possibly detrimental impact) on existing devices. Consequently, rather than modifying the current definition, the 

Committee concluded that a better approach might be to develop an entirely separate set of security requirements 

that would apply to emerging technologies. The Committee believes that additional work is needed to develop 

proposed definition(s) and associated requirements and decided to designate the item as Developmental. The 

Committee requests other Sectors review the Grain Sector’s proposed modification to the definition as well as 

OWM’s suggestions and provide input. 

During the 2013 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, the NTEP evaluators were asked if they were aware of or had observed 

during any of their evaluations of a weighing or measuring device, one which required some form of memory card 

or data storage device be installed in order for the device to be operational in the measuring or weighing mode. A 

weighing representative from Measurement Canada reported that he had observed scales having flash drives (some 

of which were micro in size) that are sealed via physical seal that contain calibration information and possibly even 

the operating system stored on a card, which must remain in the device in order for the device to be operational. 

The U.S. NTEP evaluators (i.e., on both the weighing and measuring side) reported they had no knowledge of such 

technology being used in devices they had evaluated, but they also acknowledged that it could have been present 

without them noticing it during the evaluation process. 

At the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, OWM reiterated comments it made at the 2013 Interim Meeting suggesting it 

may be appropriate to develop separate requirements to address new and future technologies that can be remotely 

configured with removable media. OWM indicated it plans to develop draft language and request input from the 

various Sectors at their upcoming meetings. Two additional comments were made in support of possibly including 

requirements in the General Code of NIST Handbook 44 to address newer and emerging technologies. 

Additional background information relative to this item can be found in 2013 NCWM Publication 16 at: 

http://www.ncwm.net/resources/dyn/files/1025938z8fff0401/_fn/2013_ST_Pub16.pdf 

Recommendation: 

The Sector is asked to identify the various types of removable storage media (e.g., USB flash drives, SD memory 

cards, etc.) currently in use with measuring equipment and explain the functionality of that media. OWM 

anticipates possibly using the information provided by the Sector to develop some draft proposals to amend NIST 

Handbook 44 to adequately address the security of the metrological significant parameters of devices using such 

media. Members of the Sector may wish to review NCWM Publication 14 LMD Technical Policy, Checklists, and 

Technical Procedures, Appendix B Requirements for Metrological Audit Trails prior to the Sector meeting to refresh 

their understanding of the various acceptable means of providing security. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D19 

Discussion: 

Sector Chairman, Mr. Keilty (Endress + Hauser) introduced the item and described Endress + Hauser’s process for 

storing significant parameters in removable media which is part of the device and under physical security. The 

ensuing discussion centered largely on the definitions of the various types of devices and how removable media 

might be used with them. Mr. John Roach (California) noted that a removable memory stick or memory card is 

covered by the current definition of “remote configuration” and NTEP Director, Mr. Truex, noted that this view is 

consistent with that of NIST, OWM. The Sector agrees that the current language in NIST Handbook 44 addresses 

devices that can be adjusted using these types of removable media. 

Decision: 

The Sector does not support the language “may or may not be necessary” because this phrase changes the category 

of what is considered “remote configuration capability.” The Sector agreed that, if the card (or other removable 

device) needs to be a part of the measuring device for normal operation, then the card is effectively part of the 

device; in that case, the measuring device is a Category 1. If the card is only used for configuration or calibration 

and is not necessary for the operation of the measuring device, the measuring device is a Category 2. The Sector 

discussed whether or not additional guidance might be needed on what is covered by each sealing category; 

however, concluded that the definitions are adequate as currently written. 

7. Identification of Certified Software 

Source: 

NTEP Software Sector

Background: This item originated as an attempt to answer the question “How does the field inspector know that 

the software running in the device is the same software evaluated and approved by the lab?” In previous meetings it 

was shown that the international community has addressed this issue (both WELMEC and OIML). 

At the 2012 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, there was some discussion as to where the terminology regarding 

inextricably linking the software version or revision to the software itself belonged. The Sector recommended 

adding the following to NCWM Publication 14 and forward to NTETC Weighing, Measuring, and Grain Analyzer 

Sectors for feedback: 

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the need for 

further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on devices without breaking 

a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules (programs, subroutines, objects etc.) 

that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data domains form the 

metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or sub-assembly). If the separation of the 

software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically significant as a whole. The conformity 

requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked according to Section G-S-X.X. 

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is directly and 

inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision identifier is comprised 

of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents the metrological significant 

software and which does not. 

Recommendation: 

The Software Sector is requesting feedback on the following language developed by the Software Sector in 2012 for 

possible future inclusion into NCWM Publication 14 Weighing Devices, DES pages 22-23, Section 3. Additional 

Marking Requirements – Not Built-for-Purpose Software-Based Devices: 

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the need for 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D20 

further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on devices without breaking 

a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules (programs, subroutines, objects etc.) 

that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data domains form the 

metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or sub-assembly). If the separation of the 

software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically significant as a whole. The conformity 

requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked according to Section G-S-X.X. 

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is directly and 

inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision identifier is comprised of 

more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents the metrological significant software 

and which does not. 

Discussion: 

Sector Chairman, Mr. Mike Keilty (Endress + Hauser), introduced the item and NTEP Director, Mr. Jim Truex, and 

he provided additional details on the item. Mr. Truex noted that the Grain Analyzers Sector looked at the proposal 

and agreed to consider the proposal at greater length. Grain analyzer manufacturers also agreed to take the item to 

their software experts for additional input band bring any recommendations back to the Sector. Mr. Truex reported 

that the Weighing Sector proposed adding the two paragraphs, with the exception of the last sentence of paragraph 

one. Mr. Truex noted that, in the LMD checklist, the language might be considered for addition to checklist item 

1.6. He also commented that questions have been raised by inspectors about how to find software that has a newer 

revision number that the software found in the device that the inspector is examining. While the Software Sector 

includes representatives from four state weights and measures programs, there are no field inspectors on the Sector. 

Mr. Keilty noted that the first paragraph in the recommendation appears permissive, whereas the second appears to 

be a requirement. He also stated that he would like the opportunity to further consider the proposed language and to 

take it to his company’s software engineers for review and input. Mr. Paul Glowacki (Murray Equipment) indicated 

he would like to do the same. Mr. Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco) commented that Gilbarco’s software is not written in 

this way and some commented that there may be differences in firmware versus software. 

Mr. Dennis Beattie (Measurement Canada) commented that it is difficult for the Software Sector to anticipate future 

devices given the approaches used in developing software today. He noted there is a need for the Sector to focus on 

future and cutting edge technology rather than be overly concerned about how potential changes might affect 

existing equipment. He reported that the WELMEC standards requires manufacturers to explain the numbering 

schemes used in their equipment, and the numbering scheme is to be identified on the type approval certificate. 

Decision: 

After considerable discussion of the proposed changes, the Measuring Sector rejected the recommendation to 

include the proposed changes in NCWM Publication 14. Measuring Sector manufacturers asked for additional time 

to consider the proposal and carry it back to their respective companies’ software engineers for input. The Sector 

agreed to carry this item over to its next meeting to allow the manufacturers time to study this issue and bring back 

alternative(s) to consider. 

8. Software Protection/Security 

Source: 

NTEP Software Sector

Background 

The Sector agreed that NIST Handbook 44 already has audit trail and physical seal, but these may need to be 

enhanced. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D21 

From the WELMEC Document: 

Protection against accidental or unintentional changes: 

Metrologically significant software and measurement data shall be protected against accidental or unintentional 

changes. 

Specifying Notes: 

Possible reasons for accidental changes and faults are: unpredictable physical influences, effects caused by user 

functions and residual defects of the software even though state of the art of development techniques have been 

applied. 

This requirement includes consideration of: 

a) Physical influences: stored measurement data shall be protected against corruption or deletion when a fault 

occurs or, alternatively, the fault shall be detectable. 

b) User functions: confirmation shall be demanded before deleting or changing data. 

c) Software defects: appropriate measures shall be taken to protect data from unintentional changes that could 

occur through incorrect program design or programming errors (e.g., plausibility checks). 

Required Documentation: 

The documentation should show the measures that have been taken to protect the software and data against 

unintentional changes. 

Example of an Acceptable Solution: 

 The accidental modification of software and measurement data may be checked by calculating a checksum 

over the relevant parts, comparing it with the nominal value and stopping if anything has been modified. 

 Measurement data are not deleted without prior authorization (e.g., a dialogue statement or window asking 

for confirmation of deletion). 

 For fault detection see also Extension I. 

The Sector continued to develop a proposed checklist for NCWM Publication 14. The numbering will still need to 

be added. This is based roughly on R 76-2 checklist and discussions beginning as early as the October 2007 NTETC 

Software Sector Meeting. The information requested by this checklist is currently voluntary; however, it is 

recommended that applicants comply with these requests or provide specific information as to why they may not be 

able to comply. Based on this information, the checklist may be amended to better fit with NTEP's need for 

information and the applicant's ability to comply. 

The California, Maryland, and Ohio laboratories agreed to use this check list on one of the next devices they have in 

the lab and report back to the Sector on what the problems may be. In February 2011, the North Carolina laboratory 

was also given a copy of the check list to try. 

1. Devices with Embedded Software TYPE P (aka built-for-purpose)

 1.1. Declaration of the manufacturer that the software is used in a fixed hardware 

and software environment. AND

 Yes No N/A 

 1.2. Cannot be modified or uploaded by any means after securing/verification. Yes No N/A 

Note: It is acceptable to break the "seal" and load new software, audit trail is 

also a sufficient seal. 

1.3 The software documentation contains: 

1.3.1. Description of all functions, designating those that are considered 

metrologically significant. 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D22 

1.3.2. Description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention). Yes No N/A 

1.3.3. Software Identification, including version/revision Yes No N/A 

1.3.4. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A 

1.4. The software identification is: 

1.4.1. Clearly assigned to the metrologically significant software and functions. Yes No N/A 

1.4.2. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A 

1.4.3. Provided by the device as documented. Yes No N/A 

1.4.4. Directly linked to the software itself. Yes No N/A

2. Personal Computers, Instruments with PC Components, and Other Instruments, Devices, Modules, and 

Elements with Programmable or Loadable Metrologically Significant Software TYPE U (aka not builtfor-purpose) 

2.1. The metrologically significant software is: 

2.1.1. Documented with all relevant information. (see below for list of 

documents) 

 Yes No N/A 

2.1.2. Protected against accidental or intentional changes. Yes No N/A 

2.2. Evidence of intervention (such as, changes, uploads, circumvention) is 

available until the next verification / inspection (e.g., physical seal, Checksum, 

Cyclical Redundancy Check (CRC), audit trail, etc. means of security). 

 Yes No N/A 

3. Software with Closed Shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs possible for the user) 

3.1. Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g., function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short 

descriptions. 

 Yes No N/A 

3.2. Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands. 

 Yes No N/A 

4. Operating System and/or Program(s) Accessible for the User 

4.1. Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the 

machine code of the metrologically significant software (program module(s) 

subject to legal control Weights and Measures jurisdiction and type-specific 

parameters). 

 Yes No N/A 

4.2. Check whether the metrologically significant software will detect and act upon 

any unauthorized alteration of the metrologically significant software using 

simple software tools (e.g., text editor). 

 Yes No N/A 

5. Software Interface(s) 

5.1.Verify the manufacturer has documented: 

5.1.1. The program modules of the metrologically significant software are 

defined and separated. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.2. The protective software interface itself is part of the metrologically 

significant software. 

 Yes No N/A

5.1.3. The functions of the metrologically significant software that can be 

accessed via the protective software interface. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.4. The parameters that may be exchanged via the protective software Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D23 

interface are defined. 

5.1.5. The description of the functions and parameters are conclusive and 

complete. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.6. There are software interface instructions for the third-party (external) 

application programmer. 

 Yes No N/A 

The Maryland laboratory had particular questions regarding 3.1. and 5.1. The information for 3.1. could be acquired 

from an operator’s manual, a training video, or in-person training. The items in 5.1. were confusing to the 

evaluators. The terminology is familiar to software developers, but not necessarily others. It was indicated that 

manufacturers were typically quick to return the filled out questionnaire, but he didn’t know how his laboratory was 

supposed to verify that it was true. Generally, the laboratories wouldn’t be expected to verify things to that level. 

For example, if the manufacturer states that a checksum is used to ensure integrity, the laboratories wouldn’t be 

expected to evaluate the algorithm used. 

The intent was to see whether the manufacturer had at least considered these issues, not for evaluators to become 

software engineers. Perhaps a glossary or descriptive paragraphs might be added to assist the evaluators for if the 

manufacturer has questions for the evaluators. 

OIML makes use of supplementary documents to explain the checklist they use. Below are links: 

http://www.oiml.org/publications/D/D031-e08.pdf 

http://www.welmec.org/latest/guides/72.html 

http://www.welmec.org/fileadmin/user_files/publications/2-3.pdf

WELMEC Document 2.3 is the original source for our checklist, but it’s been significantly revised and simplified. 

Mr. Payne (Maryland Department of Agriculture) is going to review the other documents and come up with some 

suggestions for the checklist. Mr. Roach (California Division of Measurement Standards) is going to begin using 

the checklist. The international viewpoint is that any device running an operating system is considered to be 

Type U. Mr. Roach mentioned that they’re having lots of problems with “skimmers” stealing PINs. Is there some 

way they can detect this? 

Mr. Lewis (Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.) mentioned he liked Measurement Canada’s website. When 

answering similar questions, different pages would appear, based on answers to those questions: 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm00573.html. 

At the 2011 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, the laboratories were polled to obtain any feedback on the use of the 

checklist. Maryland attempted to use this checklist a few times. They had some difficulty obtaining answers from 

the manufacturers because the individual(s) interacting with the Maryland evaluator didn’t always have the required 

information on hand. More experience in using the checklist will help determine what needs to be revised. It was 

suggested that the checklist could be sent to manufacturers for their feedback as well, with the stipulation that it a 

completely voluntary exercise and purely informational at this point. The laboratories will coordinate with willing 

manufacturers to obtain feedback. 

Work is ongoing on this item with the intent that it eventually will be incorporated as a checklist in NCWM 

Publication 14; again the laboratories are requested to try utilizing this checklist for any evaluations on softwarebased electronic devices. 

The checklist has been reviewed with an eye to making its terminology clearer to laboratories. Some examples and 

clarifications have been added as shown in the discussion section of this item. The revised checklist will be 

distributed to the laboratories for additional review. Maryland and California laboratories agreed to use the checklist 

on a trial basis. 

Over the past year, attempts to use the current checklist did not meet with many difficulties. The checklists were 

given to the manufacturers to fill out, and that seemed to work rather well. Minor modifications (in red above) were 

made to clarify certain confusing areas or eliminate redundancy. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D24 

Recommendation: 

The Software Sector is recommending that each NTETC Sector consider adding the proposed software checklist 

(shown in the table above) to their respective and appropriate NCWM Publication 14 device checklists. Thus, the 

MS was asked to consider whether or not it is appropriate to add the proposed software checklist to NCWM 

Publication 14, and if so, to which of the checklists within NCWM Publication 14 Liquid Measuring Devices it is be 

included (for example, LMD General, RMFD, ECR-LMD, etc.). 

Discussion: 

Mr. Truex (NTEP Director) introduced the item and noted that the Software Sector made this recommendation in 

March 2013. He reported that the Grain Analyzer Sector rejected the proposal as did the Weighing Sector. A 

concern on the part of the other Sectors was that these criteria could not be applied to older devices and the issue of 

establishing non-retroactive requirements needs to be addressed. The Sectors also noted that the proposed language 

is not supported by corresponding requirements in NIST Handbook 44. A question was raised about Checklist Item 

1.2., which implies that it is not permissible to load any metrological or non-metrological software without breaking 

a seal. Additionally, some terms such as “fixed software” and “software environment” were not defined and there 

was confusion about other terminology. There was general lack of understanding of the proposed requirements and 

many present were unable to see the direction in which the proposed changes were heading. 

Mr. Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco) questioned whether or not there are concerns about the need for evaluator training. 

Mr. Dennis Beattie (Measurement Canada) pointed out that these requirements are a very small subset of the 

WELMEC requirements referenced. He also suggested that the issue of retroactivity be addressed first; he noted 

that Measurement Canada is working on a non-retroactive bulletin that will be based on WELMEC 7.2 and the 

manufacturer will be required to demonstrate that the device minimizes the ability for fraud. Mr. Truex stated that 

NTEP does not plan to go forward with software testing and evaluation directly. 

Mr. John Roach (California Division of Measurement Standards) and Mr. Allen Katalinic (North Carolina) 

suggested that the Sector consider taking a small step of putting something into NCWM Publication 14 as a starting 

point. Although the Sector discussed this item at length, the Sector was unable to reach agreement on any proposed 

language and noted that many present did not feel they had the expertise to speak on the issue of software attributes. 

Decision: 

After considerable discussion and debate on the proposed changes, the Measuring Sector rejected the 

recommendation to include the proposed changes in NCWM Publication 14. Measuring Sector manufacturers were 

unable to add any contributions during the meeting that would lead to agreement to include the proposed changes in 

NCWM Publication 14, citing a lack of expertise to make an informed proposal or decision. However, the 

manufacturers committed to the task of taking this issue to their companies’ software engineers to flesh out the 

proposal. The Sector agreed to carry this item over to its next meeting to allow the manufacturers time to study this 

issue and bring back alternative(s) to consider. 

9. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration 

Source: 

NTEP Software Sector 

Background: 

After the software is completed, what do the manufacturers use to secure their software? The following items were 

reviewed by the Sector. Note: Agenda Item 3 also contains information on Verified and Traced updates and 

Software Log.

1. Verify that the update process is documented. (OK) 

2. For traced updates, installed Software is authenticated and checked for integrity. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the authenticity of the loaded software (i.e., that it originates 

from the owner of the type approval certificate). This can be accomplished (e.g., by cryptographic means like 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D25 

signing). The signature is checked during loading. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument shall 

discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the integrity of the loaded software (i.e., that it has not been 

inadmissibly changed before loading). This can be accomplished for example, by adding a checksum or hash 

code of the loaded software and verifying it during the loading procedure. If the loaded software fails this test, 

the instrument shall discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

Examples are not limiting or exclusive. 

3. Verify that the sealing requirements are met. 

The Sector asked, “What sealing requirements are we talking about?” 

This item is only addressing the software update, it can be either verified or traced. It is possible that there are 

two different security means, one for protecting software updates (software log) and one for protecting the other 

metrological parameters (Category I, II, or III method of sealing). Some examples provided by the Sector 

members include but are not limited to: 

 Physical seal, software log 

 Category III method of sealing can contain both means of security 

4. Verify that if the upgrade process fails, the device is inoperable or the original software is restored. 

The question before the group is, “Can this be made mandatory?” 

The manufacturer shall ensure by appropriate technical means (e.g., an audit trail) that traced updates of 

metrologically significant software are adequately traceable within the instrument for subsequent verification 

and surveillance or inspection. This requirement enables inspection authorities, which are responsible for the 

metrological surveillance of legally controlled instruments, to back-trace traced updates of metrologically 

significant software over an adequate period of time (that depends on national legislation). The statement in 

italics will need to be reworded to comply with U.S. weights and measures requirements. 

The Sector agreed that the two definitions below for Verified update and Traced update were acceptable. 

Verified Update 

A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user. 

Traced Update 

A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or audit trail. 

Note: It’s possible that the Philosophy of Sealing section of NCWM Publication 14 may already address the above 

IF the definitions of Verified and Traced Updates (and the statement below) were to be added. The contrary 

argument was that it may be better to be explicit). 

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is required for a Traced Update. A log entry representing a traced 

software update shall include the software identification of the newly installed version. 

The Sector recommended consolidating the definitions with the above statement thus: 

Verified Update 

A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D26 

Traced Update 

A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or Category 3 audit trail. The 

audit trail entry shall include the software identification of the newly installed version. 

In 2012, the Sector recommended that as a first step, the following be added to NCWM Publication 14: 

The updating of metrologically significant software, including software that checks the authenticity and 

integrity of the updates, shall be considered a sealable event.

Mr. Truex (NTEP Administrator) indicated his opinion that the above sentence is unnecessary since it’s self-evident. 

It was agreed by the group, however, to ask the other Sectors for feedback on the value of this addition. Though the 

Sector is currently considering only the single sentence be incorporated into NCWM Publication 14 for the time 

being, ultimately, the Sector may wish to advance the remaining language of the original item submission. 

Discussion:

The Sector had no information indicating that the other Sectors had yet been approached for feedback on the value 

of the addition of the proposed sentence. 

Recommendation: 

The Software Sector is requesting each of the NTETC Sectors review and provide feedback on the following draft 

language it developed for consideration of adding it to NCWM Publication 14: 

The updating of metrologically significant software, including software that checks the authenticity and 

integrity of the updates, shall be considered a sealable event.

Should the MS agree this language is appropriate, it might then consider where within NCWM Publication 14 

Liquid-Measuring Devices this sentence should be inserted. The Sector might consider including it in the 

appropriate sealing sections of Publication 14 relating to auditing trails. For example: 

 LMD Checklist: 

o General, Section 2. Graduations, Indications and Recorded Representations, Code Reference G-S.8. 

o RMFDs, Section 9. Measuring Elements, Code Reference S.2.2. Provision for Sealing and Code 

Reference: S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Devices with a Single Provision for Sealing 

o Wholesale and Loading Rack Meters, Section 19. Measuring Elements, Code Reference 

S.2.2. Provision for Sealing and Code Reference: S.2.7.3. Provision for Sealing - Automatic 

Temperature Compensation 

o Vehicle-Tank Meters, Section 26. Measuring Elements, Code Reference S.2.2. Provision for Sealing 

and Code Reference: S.2.6.2. Provision for Sealing 

o LPG and NH3 Meters, Section 31. Measuring Elements, Code Reference S.2.2. Provision for Sealing 

o Mass Flow Meters, Section 36. Measuring Elements, Code Reference: S.3.5. Provision for Sealing 

o Water Meters Checklist, Section 45 Measuring Elements, Code Reference: S.2.1. Provision for Sealing 

o Hydrogen Gas Measuring Devices, Section 51. Design of Measuring Elements and Measuring 

Systems, Code Reference: S.3.3. Provision for Sealing 

o LMD Checklist Appendix B Requirements for Metrological Audit Trails 

 ECR-LMD Checklist 

o Section 4. Provisions for Sealing, Code Reference: G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic 

Adjustable Components 

The Software Sector is also requesting feedback from the other NTETC Sectors regarding whether or not additional 

language such as the following is needed in NCWM Publication 14 to make clear that an existing audit trail should 

be protected during a software update. In the background information provided for this item, it was noted that the 

Software Sector noted that this does already seem to be addressed in the Requirements for Metrological Audit 

Trails. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D27 

1. The audit trail data shall be: 

3.5.1.1.1. Stored in non-volatile memory and shall be retained for at least 30 days if power is removed 

from the device. AND

3.5.1.1.2. Protected from unauthorized erasure, substitution, or modification. 

Discussion: 

Mr. Truex (NTEP Director) described feedback from the Weighing Sector and Grain Sectors in their discussions of 

this item. Mr. Beattie (Measurement Canada) noted that the software described in the recommendation policies the 

authenticity of the existing software in an electronic weighing or measuring system. This software would be 

separate from audit trail information and the event of a change in software would be considered a metrologically 

significant event. In discussing this item, some members noted that there are no NIST Handbook 44 requirements to 

support the language proposed for inclusion in NCWM Publication 14. 

Decision: 

The Measuring Sector rejected the recommendation to include the proposed changes in NCWM Publication 14. 

Measuring Sector manufacturers were unable to add any contributions during the meeting that would lead to 

agreement to include the proposed changes in NCWM Publication 14; however, they committed to the task of taking 

this issue to their companies’ software engineers to flesh out the proposal. The Sector agreed to carry this item over 

to its next meeting to allow the manufacturers time to study this issue and bring back alternative(s) to consider. 

10. LNG Metering Applications 

Source: 

Michael Keilty, Endress + Hauser, Chairman, NTEP Measuring Sector

Background: 

The number of LNG dispensing applications is growing in the United States NIST Handbook 44 does not 

specifically address this application and many questions have come up regarding the requirements for metering 

devices at both retail level and also for large capacity and wholesale applications. Likewise, there are many 

questions about the appropriate testing procedures and criteria for these applications. Questions about this 

application have arisen within OIML R 117 discussions and Canada has a draft regulation for dispensing LNG 

already developed. NIST has begun reviewing proposed approaches for addressing LNG within NIST 

Handbook 44; however, does not have any specific proposals for consideration at this point.

Recommendation: 

While there is no specific recommendation for the Sector to consider, the Sector is asked to provide input on how to 

best address this product in NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14 as well as for suggestions on proposed 

testing criteria. Additional information may be provided by Mr. Keilty at the Sector Meeting. 

Discussion: 

Mr. Keilty introduced this item and noted related work taking place as part of an OIML project on OIML R 117-2. 

Mr. Beattie described some changes that Canada plans to propose to R 117-1 relative to LNG, although he noted that 

these changes will not be considered until R 117-1 is open for revision. Mr. Beattie described examples of a 

dispensing system for LNG and the group discussed various aspects of these measuring systems, including the use 

of vapor return lines as opposed to venting. Mr. John Roach (California Division of Measurement Standards) 

reported some challenges in selecting an appropriate reference scale for use in testing these systems, noting that 

platform scales are not generally practical and hanging scales have seemed to work best. Mr. Roach also noted that, 

of the LNG systems tested under NTEP, LNG was used as the test produce in one of the systems where a vapor 

recovery system was used; the other three used liquid nitrogen and the liquid nitrogen was vented. He reported that 

draft sizes were varied and a tolerance of 1.5 % was applied. He also noted that one manufacturer wanted to use a 

turbine meter in the testing; in this case, he believes testing needs to be conducted at additional flow rates. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

NTEP - D28 

Decision: 

This item was included on the Sector’s agenda for information purposes only to allow the Sector to discuss some 

aspects of testing LNG systems. Consequently, the Sector made no decisions on this item. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A1 

Appendix D/Sub-Appendix A 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators with Simulated Inputs 

(Agenda Item 1) 

April 18, 2013 

This checklist is used for Technical Policy U. Evaluating electronic digital indicators submitted separate from 

a measuring element. This section is intended for lab testing only. Is permanence necessary? If new 

evaluation (yes) if updating existing CC (no). 

Code Reference: G-S.1. Identification 

All equipment shall be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior visible surface after installation. It must 

contain the following information (prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals, or all lower case): 

1.1. Name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer. Yes  No  N/A 

1.2. A model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design. The Model 

designation shall be prefaced by the word “Model”, “Type”, or “Pattern.” 

These terms may be followed by the term “Number” or an abbreviation of that 

word. The abbreviation for the word "Number" shall, at a minimum, begin with 

the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.) The abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be 

“Mod” or “Mod.” 

Yes  No  N/A 

1.3. Except for not built-for-purpose, software-based devices, a nonrepetitive serial 

number. The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a 

symbol, that clearly identifies the number as the required serial number. 

Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter 

“S,” and abbreviations for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with 

the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.). 

Yes  No  N/A 

1.4. For not built-for-purpose, software-based devices the current software version 

or revision designation. The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by 

the word “Version” or “Revision” as appropriate and either word may be 

followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviations for the word “Version” 

shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V.” The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference G-S.1. (e).
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A2 

1.5. The NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a corresponding CC 

addendum number for devices that have a CC. The number shall be prefaced 

by the terms “NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be followed 

by the word “Number” or an abbreviation for the Word “Number.” The 

abbreviation shall as a minimum begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

The device must have an area, either on the identification plate or on the device 

itself, suitable for the application of the Certificate of Conformance Number. If 

the area for the CC Number is not part of an identification plate, then note its 

intended location below and how it will be applied. Ex. May be part of W&M 

display screen, using the requirements of section 1.6.2 

Location of CC Number if not located with the identification: 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not Built-forPurpose, Software-Based Devices Not Built-for-Purpose Devices, Software-Based

1.6. For not built-for-purpose, software-based devices the following shall apply: 

 1.6.1. The required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) 

shall be permanently marked or continuously displayed on the 

device; or 

 1.6.2. The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be: 

 permanently marked on the device; or 

 continuously displayed; or 

 accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if 

necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu and submenu 

identification include, but are not limited to “Help,” 

“System Identification,” “G-S.1. Identification,” or 

“Weights and Measures Identification.” 

Note: For (1.6.2.), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be 

listed on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that 

was evaluated.

 

AK - This is not a lab issue, this is a field requirement due to the fact that the 

equipment is being lab evaluated, the evaluator will not see the end use installation. 

Code Reference: G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud 

This applies to all metering system indicators installed at a fixed location or vehicle tank meter applications and 

controlled remotely or within the device itself. 

This requirement addresses the process of changing the unit price or unit prices set in a metering system. 

Other item fall under facilitation of fraud, needs more input 

Example if Cat 3 device verify passwords and audit trail is correct.... 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A3 

1.9. The system shall prevent a change of unit price during a delivery. Yes  No  N/A 

 

AK – This is not a lab issue, this is a field requirement due to the fact that the 

equipment is being lab evaluated, the evaluator will not see the end use installation. 

Code Reference: G-S.4. Interchange or Reversal of Parts 

If a metering system has parts that may be interchanged or reversed in normal field assembly, the system shall either 

be constructed so that reversal will not affect the accuracy of the system or the parts must be marked to indicate 

their proper position. For most metering devices, this applies only to the reversal of connectors of cables to 

peripheral devices. 

If a metering system has any parts that may be interchanged or reversed in normal field assembly, the parts must 

either be: 

1.13. Constructed so that reversal will not affect performance, Yes  No  N/A 

1.14 Marked or keyed to indicate their proper positions. May have multiple cable 

connections but not interchangeable due to different plug styles, or;

Yes  No  N/A 

1.15. Cables are connected but are not removable without breaking a seal and 

opening housing. (Note: may need NIST Handbook 44 requirement to 

cover this) 

Yes  No  N/A 

2. Indications, and Recorded Representations Look at different codes 

Code Reference: G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements 

Several general requirements facilitate the reading and interpretation of displayed values. Each display for quantity 

or total price must be appropriate in design and have sufficient capacity for particular applications to be suitable for 

the application. Metering devices must be capable of indicating the maximum quantity and money values that can 

normally be expected in a particular application. 

2.1. Minimum quantity value indications. 

 2.1.1. Display is capable of 1 Yes  No  N/A 

 2.1.2. Display is capable of 0.1 Yes  No  N/A 

 2.1.3. Display is capable of 0.01 Yes  No  N/A 

 2.1.4. Display is capable of 0.001 Yes  No  N/A 

 2.1.5. Display is capable of other (fill 

in blank): needs comment 

section 

 

2.2. Money value display. . 

 2.2.1. a. Money value is properly displayed and verify rounding 

b. Verify the presents of currency symbol i.e. dollar sign “$” 

or “Dollars” Yes  No  N/A 

 

Yes  No  N/A 

3.2. The indications must be clear, definite, and accurate. 

 2.2.1. Values must be clear, definite, and accurate Yes  No  N/A 

 2.2.2. Unit of measure is programmable Gallon, Liter, Pound Yes  No  N/A 

 2.2.2. Unit of measure is applied by permanent marking on indicator 

housing 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.3. The indications must be easily read under normal operating conditions. Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A4 

2.4. Symbols for decimal points shall clearly identify the decimal position. 

(Generally acceptable symbols are dots, small commas, or x.) 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.5. The zero indication must consist of at least the following minimum 

indications as appropriate: 

 2.5.1. One digit to the left and all digits to the right of a decimal point. Yes  No  N/A 

 2.5.2. If a decimal point is not used, at least one active decade must be 

displayed. 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.6. Totalizer values must be accurate to the nearest minimum interval with decimal 

points displayed or subordinate digits adequately differentiated from others, if 

applicable. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and Representation 

Basic operating requirements for devices: 

2.7. All digital values of like value in a system shall agree with one another. Yes  No  N/A 

2.8. A digital value coincides with its associated analog value to the nearest 

minimum graduation. 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.9. Digital values shall round off to the nearest minimum unit that can be indicated 

or recorded. 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.10. When a digital zero display is provided, the zero indication shall consist of at 

least one digit to the left and all digits to the right of the decimal point. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Agreement of indications shall be checked for several deliveries. The totalizer shall be checked for accuracy 

and agreement with individual deliveries and with other totalizers in the system. 

2.11. All digital values of like value in a system agree with one another. Yes  No  N/A 

2.12. Digital values coincide with associated analog values to the nearest minimum 

graduation. 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.13. Digital values “round off” to the nearest minimum unit that can be indicated or 

recorded. 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.14. The device totalizer shall agree with the total of the individual deliveries and 

with other totalizers in the system. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.3. Size and Character 

Digits used for comparable values must be uniform in size and character, but subordinate values may be displayed 

in different and less prominent digits than more significant values. The latter more likely occurs on analog devices. 

In digital indications, the digits are usually of uniform size throughout a particular display. The size of digits may 

differ for different quantities, for example, the quantity and unit price digits may be smaller than the total price 

digits. 

2.15. Yes  No  N/A 

2.16. Indications and recorded representations shall be appropriately portrayed or 

designated. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.4. Values Defined 

2.17. Values shall be adequately defined by a sufficient number of figures, words, 

symbols, or combinations, which are uniformly placed so that they do not 

interfere with the accuracy of the reading. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.2.5. Permanence 

2.18. Indications, or recorded representations and their defining figures, words, and 

symbols shall be of such character that they will not tend to easily become 

obliterated or illegible. What permanence quantities should be verified for 

electronic devices with graphical displays? 

Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A5 

Code Reference: G-S.5.3., G-S.5.3.1. Values of Graduated Intervals or Increments 

2.19. Digital indications, and recorded representations shall be uniform in size, 

character, and value throughout any series. Quantity values shall be defined by 

the specific unit of measure in use. 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.20. Indications shall be uniform throughout any series. Yes  No  N/A 

2.21. Quantity values shall be identified by the unit of measure. Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.4. Repeatability of Indications 

The quantity measured by a device shall be repeatable within tolerance for the same indication. One condition that 

may create a problem is that the value of the quantity division may be large relative to the tolerance. A delivery 

must be within tolerance wherever the delivery is stopped within the nominal indication of the test draft. Meters 

that may be at the tolerance limit may be out of tolerance at an extreme limit of the nominal quantity indication. 

2.22. When a digital indicator is tested, the delivered quantity shall be within 

tolerance at any point within the quantity-value division for the test draft. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.6. Recorded Representations 

2.23. All recorded values shall be digital. (See also G-UR.3.3.) Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.5.7. Magnified Graduations and Indications 

2.24. Magnified indications shall conform to all requirements for graduations

and indications. 

Code Reference: G-S.6. Marking, Operational Controls, Indications, and Features 

All operational controls, indications, and features shall be clearly and definitely identified. Nonfunctional keys and 

annunciators shall not be marked because their marking implies that the key or annunciator is functional and should 

be inspected or tested by the enforcement official. Keys and operator controls that are visible to a customer in a 

direct sale transaction shall be marked with words or symbols to the extent that they can be understood by the 

customer and aid in understanding the transaction. Keys that are visible only to the console operator need to be 

marked only to the extent that a trained operator can understand the function of each key. 

2.25. All operational controls, indications, and features including switches, lights, 

displays, and push buttons shall be clearly and definitely identified. 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.26. All dual function (multi-function) keys or controls shall be marked to clearly 

identify all functions. 

Yes  No  N/A 

2.27. Non-functional controls and annunciators shall not be marked (in the graphical 

display example they would be dimmed etc.) 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.7. Lettering, Readability 

2.28. Required markings and instructions shall be permanent and easily read. Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.8. Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components, and Provision for Sealing of Adjustable 

Components or Audit Trial 

2.29. Electronic adjustable components that affect the performance of a device shall 

provide for an approved means of security (e.g. data change audit trail) or for 

physically applying a security seal. These components include the following: 

(1) mechanical adjustment mechanism for meters, (2) the electronic calibration 

factor and automatic temperature compensator for electronic meter registers, 

(3) selection of pressure for density correction capability and correction values, 

and 

Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A6 

The following philosophy and list of sealable parameters applies to provision for sealing all liquid-measuring 

devices. 

 

An electronic data audit trail is a means of allowing a weights and measures inspector to review how many times 

any electronic adjustment, which affects the accuracy of a volume measurement has been changed. The information 

contained in the audit trail shall consist of a cumulative and non-destructible number (even if a power failure 

occurs) which increments each time any of the adjustments required to be sealed have been changed. The electronic 

data audit trail information shall be capable of being recalled by the official on the main display of the device. 

As a minimum, devices which use an audit trail to provide security for sealable parameters shall satisfy the 

following criteria and shall use the format set forth in Appendix A of the checklist for Liquid-Measuring 

Devices. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A7 

Philosophy for Sealing 

Typical Features to be Sealed 

Principles for Determining Features to be Sealed 

The need to seal some features depends upon: 

 The ease with which the feature or the selection of the feature can be used to facilitate fraud; and 

 The likelihood that the use of the feature will result in fraud not being detected. 

Features or functions which the operator routinely uses as part of device operation, such as setting the unit prices on 

dispensers and maintaining unit prices in price look-up codes stored in memory, are not sealable parameters and 

shall not be sealed. 

If a parameter (or set of parameters) selection would result in performance that would be obviously in error, such as 

the selection of parameters for different countries, then it is not necessary to seal the selection of these features. 

If individual device characteristics are selectable from a “menu” or a series of programming steps, then access to the 

“programming mode” must be sealable. (Note: If an audit trail is the only means of security, then the audit trail 

shall update only after at least one sealable parameter has been changed; simply accessing the sealable parameters 

via a menu shall not update the audit trail.) 

If a physical act, such as cutting a wire is required to change a parameter setting and physically repairing the cut is 

required to reactivate the parameter, then this physical repair process would be considered an acceptable way to 

select parameters without requiring a physical seal or an audit trail. 

Typical Features and Parameters to be Sealed 

The following provides examples of configuration and calibration parameters that are to be sealed. The examples 

are provided for guidance and are not intended to cover all possible parameters. 

Calibration Parameters: Calibration parameters are those parameters whose values are expected to change as a 

result of accuracy adjustments. Examples include the following. 

1. Measuring element adjustments where linearity corrections are used (e.g., flow rate 1 and meter factor 1, flow 

rate 2 and meter factor 2, etc.). 

2. Mass flow meter adjustments for zero adjustments (not simply setting the display to zero) and span settings. 

Configuration Parameters: Configuration parameters are those parameters whose values are expected to be 

entered only once and not changed after all initial installation settings are made. Examples include the 

following. 

1. Octane or other blend setting ratios 

2. Temperature, pressure, density, and other sensor settings for zero, span, and offset values 

3. Measurement units 

4. Temperature compensation table, liquid coefficient of expansion, or compressibility factors or tables 

5. Liquid density setting and allowable liquid density input range 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A8 

6. Vapor pressures of liquids if used in calculations to establish the quantity 

7. Meter or sensor temperature compensation factors 

8. On/off status of automatic temperature, pressure, or density correction 

10. Automatic or manual data input for sensors 

11. Filtering constants 

Liquid-Measuring Device Features and Parameters 

Typical Features or Parameters to be Sealed Typical Features or Parameters Not 

Required to be Sealed 

Measuring element adjustment (both mechanical 

and electronic) 

Analog-to-digital converters 

Linearity correction values Quantity division value (display resolution) 

Measurement units (e.g., gallons to liters) Double pulse counting 

Octane blend setting for retail motor-fuel 

dispensers 

Communications 

Any tables or settings accessed by the software or 

manually entered to establish the quantity (e.g., 

specific gravity, pressure, etc.) 

Density ranges 

Pulsers 

Signal pick-up (magnetic or reluctance) 

Temperature probes and temperature offsets in 

software (S.2.5.4 VT)

Pressure and density sensors and transducers 

Flow control setting (e.g., flow rates for slowflow start, quantity for slow-flow start and 

stop) 

Temperature compensating systems (on/off) 

Differential pressure valves 

As a point of clarification, the flow control 

settings referenced above are those controls 

typically incorporated into the installations of 

large-capacity meters (wholesale meters). The 

reference does not include the point at which retail 

motor-fuel dispensers slow product flow during a 

prepaid transaction to enable the dispenser to stop 

at the preset amount. 

Note: The above examples of adjustments, parameters, and features to be sealed are to be considered "typical" or 

“normal” This list may not be all inclusive. Some parameters other than those listed, which affect the metrological 

performance of the device, must be sealed. If listed parameters or other parameters, which may affect the 

metrological function of the device, are not sealed, the manufacturer must demonstrate that all settings comply with 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A9 

the most stringent requirements for the application of the device (i.e., the parameter does not affect compliance with 

Handbook 44). 

Category 1 Devices (Devices with No Remote Configuration Capability): 

 The device is sealed with a physical seal or it has an audit trail with two event 

counters (one for calibration, the second for configuration). 

Yes  No  N/A 

 A physical seal must be applied without exposing electronics. Yes  No  N/A 

 Event counters are non-resettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes  No  N/A 

 Event counters increment appropriately. Yes  No  N/A 

 The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for at 

least 30 days while the device is without power. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 Accessing the audit trail information for review shall be separate from the 

calibration mode. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 Accessing the audit trail information must not affect the normal operation of the 

device. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 Accessing the audit trail information shall not require removal of any additional 

 parts other than normal requirements to inspect the integrity of a 

physical security seal. (e.g., a key to open a locked panel may be required). 

Yes  No  N/A 

Category 2 Devices (Devices with Remote Configuration Capability but Controlled by 

Hardware): 

 The physical hardware enabling access for remote communication must be onsite. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 The physical hardware must be sealable with a security seal or Yes  No  N/A 

 The device must be equipped with at least two event counters: one for calibration, 

the second for configuration parameters 

 - calibration parameters event counter 

 - configuration parameters event counter 

Yes  No  N/A 

 Verify that all metrological relevant parameters are logged to Event Counter 

(S.2.2) 

 Adequate provision must be made to apply a physical seal without exposing 

electronics. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Yes  No  N/A 

 Event counters are non-resettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes  No  N/A 

 Event counters increment appropriately. Yes  No  N/A 

 Event counters may be located either: 

 - at the individual measuring device or 

 - at the system controller 

Yes  No  N/A 

 If the counters are located at 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. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 An adequate number (see table below) of event counters must be available to 

monitor the calibration and configuration parameters of each individual device. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 The device must either: 

 - clearly indicate when it is in the remote configuration mode or 

 - the device shall not operate while in the remote configuration mode. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 If capable of printing in the calibration mode, it must print a message that it is in 

the calibration mode. 

Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A10 

 The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for at 

least 30 days while the device is without power. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 The audit trail information must be readily accessible and easily read. Yes  No  N/A 

Minimum Number of Counters Required 

Minimum Counters Required for 

Devices Equipped with Event 

Counters 

Minimum Event Counter(s) 

at System Controller 

Only one type of parameter 

accessible (calibration or 

configuration) 

One (1) event counter One (1) event counter for each 

separately controlled device, or 

one (1) event counter, if changes 

are made simultaneously. 

Both calibration and 

configuration parameters 

accessible 

Two (2) event counters Two (2) event counters for each 

separately controlled device, or 

two (2) or more event counters if 

changes are made to all 

controlled devices 

simultaneously. 

Category 3 Devices (Devices with Unlimited Remote Configuration Capability): 

Category 3 devices have virtually unlimited access to sealable parameters or access is controlled though a password. 

 the device must either: 

- Clearly indicate when it is in the remote configuration mode, or 

- The device shall not operate while in the remote configuration mode 

Yes  No  N/A 

 The device is equipped with an event logger Yes  No  N/A 

 Verify that all metrological relevant parameters are logged to Audit trail (S.2.2) 

 The event logger automatically retains the identification of the parameter 

changed, the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter. 

Yes  No  N/A 

Yes  No  N/A 

 Event counters are nonresettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes  No  N/A 

 The system is designed to attach a printer, or other communications device (i.e. 

Ethernet, Serial Communications, USB, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc) which will allow 

an interface to a printer or allow for the creation of a digital copy (file) for future 

reference 

Yes  No  N/A 

 The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for at 

least 30 days while the device is without power. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 The event logger must 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. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 The event logger drops the oldest event when the memory capacity is full and a 

new entry is saved. 

Yes  No  N/A 

 Describe the method used to seal the device or access the audit trail information. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A11 

Code Reference: G-UR.1.1. Suitability of Equipment 

A register / indicator must be properly designed and have sufficient capacity to be suitable to use in a particular 

application. A register / indicator must measure the appropriate characteristics of a commodity to accurately 

determine the quantity, , have sufficient capacity to indicate the quantity measured and the associated total price if it 

is a computing device. The register/ indicator must have the proper capacity to operate over the actual frequency 

range for the application, and the device must have a quantity division appropriate for the application. 

2.24. The equipment is suitable for its intended application. Remove? Yes  No  N/A 

. Compliance to this requirement is determined by the permanence test. Unless 

specific tests are developed this has no meaning! AK_ RM - Agreed

2.26. Simulator tests: All tests shall have a minimum of 10,000 pulses applied to the device for 

each test. Test with a minimum of two API/Density settings. Is this appropriate for all 

indicator technologies PD, Mass, Mag, etc? AK RM – Yes as this is a check list for a register / 

indicator it shall be compatible for all measurement technologies.

Notes, items that need to be added to table / Checklist: 

a. Information needs to be added to capture different K-Factor values 

b. All API tables to be included on certificate shall be verified 

c. Verify extreme endpoints and a center point of each table 

Product: Meter Factor: K Factor: 

1 Test with liquid temperature between 55 °F to 

65 °F at the manufactures rated maximum 

frequency/pulse rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

2 Test with liquid temperature between 55 °F to 

65 °F at manufactures rated minimum 

frequency/pulse rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

3 Test with liquid temperature below 35 °F at 

manufactures rated maximum frequency/pulse 

rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

4 Test with liquid temperature below 35 °F at 

manufactures rated minimum frequency/pulse 

rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

5 Test with liquid temperature above 100 °F at 

manufactures rated maximum frequency/pulse 

rate. 

API Gravity: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

6 Test with liquid temperature above 100 °F at 

manufactures rated minimum frequency/pulse 

rate. 

API Gravity: This way or

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

7 Test with liquid temperature between 55 °F to 

65 °F at the manufactures rated maximum 

frequency/pulse rate. 

API Gravity/Density: This 

way 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

8 Test with liquid temperature between 55 °F to 

65 °F at manufactures rated minimum 

frequency/pulse rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Checklist for Testing Electronic Digital Indicators w/Simulated Inputs (Agenda Item 1) 

NTEP - D / A12 

9 Test with liquid temperature below 35 °F at 

manufactures rated maximum frequency/pulse 

rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

10 Test with liquid temperature below 35 °F at 

manufactures rated minimum frequency/pulse 

rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

11 Test with liquid temperature above 100 °F at 

manufactures rated maximum frequency/pulse 

rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 

12 Test with liquid temperature above 100 °F at 

manufactures rated minimum frequency/pulse 

rate. 

API Gravity/Density: 

Temperature: 

Yes  No  N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix B – Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist (Agenda Item 2) 

NTEP - D / B1 

Appendix D/Sub-Appendix B 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist 

(Agenda Item 2) 

1. General 

Code Reference: G-S.1. Identification 

Virtually all weighing and measuring equipment must be clearly and permanently marked with, or display, the 

manufacturer's name or trademark, model designation, and serial number. Service station dispensers, 

consoles, cash registers interfaced with dispensers, retrofit computing registers, and customer card-activated 

terminals must all have these markings. 

Marking of Serial Number: 

As a practical matter, some equipment need not have a serial number. "Satellite" modules in a modular system 

(e.g., keyboard module and cash drawer) need not have serial numbers because they do not have any 

“intelligence.” A serial number is required in the following circumstances: 

Separate Device 

A device is capable of operating as a weighing or measuring device without interfacing with or connecting to 

other components. 

Separate Main Element 

Primary indicating elements must be marked. The device is a major element in the weighing or measuring 

system, which means, it is metrologically significant to the operation and/or performance of the system and 

interfaces with different compatible main elements. Examples include the following: indicating elements, 

weighing elements, meter registers, meter measuring elements (vehicle tank meters and loading rack meters.) 

Component 

The device is a component in a system, may be used in different models of devices, and is sufficiently 

complex to warrant a separate evaluation and a separate CC (e.g., load cells and vapor recovery nozzles.) 

Such a device may or may not be placed into an enclosure with other components of the system. When 

installed in an enclosure, the complete device must be marked with a serial number, and the one serial number 

will suffice for the entire collection of components. If not placed in an enclosure with other components, the 

component must be marked with a serial number. 

The following are examples of the application of these criteria: 

Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers: 

 Whole unit requires a serial number. 

 Indicating elements do not require a separate serial number. 

 Measuring element does not require a separate serial number. 

 The measuring element is metrologically significant because it affects the operation of the system as a 

whole; however, it is always enclosed in a housing, which has a S/N for the whole device. 

Note: A conventional nozzle on a retail motor fuel dispenser is not a sufficiently complex device to warrant a 

special type evaluation or a serial number. The nozzle does not affect the accuracy of the delivery. A separate 

requirement addresses the anti-drain valve. A vapor recovery nozzle does warrant a separate evaluation 

because it is a complex device, and it does have the potential to affect the accuracy of the device during the 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix B – Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist (Agenda Item 2) 

NTEP - D / B2 

normal operation of the device. One model of vapor recovery nozzle can be used on many models of 

dispensers. The proper operation of a vapor recovery nozzle and system is "important" as defined by federal 

regulations. Thus, it is reasonable to require a vapor recovery nozzle to be marked with a serial number. 

Vehicle Tank Meters 

 Serial number is required on the meter; it is a major component of the system since it is required for the 

system to operate. 

 Serial number is required on the indicating elements. 

Equipment must be marked on a surface that is an integral part of the device, and the marking must be visible 

after installation. If the required information is not positioned in a visible location after installation, a 

duplicate, permanent identification badge must be located in a visible location after installation. A removable 

cover is an acceptable location for the required information only if a permanent ID badge is located elsewhere 

on the device. 

The information may be on a metal or plastic plate that is attached with pop rivets, adhesive, or other means, 

but removable bolts or screws are not permitted. A foil or vinyl badge may be used provided that it is able to 

survive wear and tear, remains legible, and is difficult to remove. The printing on a foil badge must be easily 

readable and not easily obliterated by rubbing with a relatively soft object (e.g., the wood of a pencil.) 

Location of the information: 

Required Markings: 

All equipment shall be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior surface 

that is visible after installation with the following information (prefix lettering 

may be initial capitals, all capitals, or all lower case): 

1.1. The name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor. Yes No N/A 

1.2. A model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the 

device. The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” 

“Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms may be followed by the word 

“Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.) 

The abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix 

lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals, or all lower case. 

 Yes No N/A 

1.3. Except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and not 

built for purpose, software-based devices, a non-repetitive serial number. 

The serial number shall be prefaced by the words “Serial Number” or an 

abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the number as the required 

serial number. Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, 

begin with the letter “S,” and abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as 

a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.) 

 Yes No N/A 

1.4. For not built-for-purpose, software based devices the current software 

version designation. The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by 

the word “Version” or “Revision” as appropriate and either word may be 

followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviations for the word 

“Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V.” Abbreviations 

for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “R.” 

The abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with 

the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.) 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix B – Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist (Agenda Item 2) 

NTEP - D / B3 

Location and Visibility of Marking Information: 

Required information shall be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior surface that is visible after 

installation as follows: 

1.5. Equipment must be marked on a surface that is an integral part of the 

device. 

Location of Marking Information:________________________________

 Yes No N/A 

1.6. Markings must be visible after installation. If the required information is 

not positioned in a visible location after installation, a duplicate, 

permanent identification badge must be located in a visible location after 

installation. A removable cover is an acceptable location for the required 

information only if a permanent ID badge is located elsewhere on the 

device. 

 Yes No N/A 

Permanence of Marking Information: 

“Permanent” markings address two aspects: (1) if the markings are on a plate or badge, then the 

marking badge must be “permanently” attached to the device, and (2) the printed information will 

withstand wear and cleaning. 

The identification marking must be permanent, able to survive normal wear and tear, and remain 

legible. If located on a metal or plastic plate or badge, it must be attached with pop rivets or 

adhesive, or equivalent permanent means; removable bolts or screws are not permitted. A foil 

badge is permitted provided that it is durable, is able to survive wear and tear, remains legible, is 

difficult to remove, and exhibits obvious evidence of an attempt to remove the marking or badge. 

The printing on a foil badge must be easily readable and not easily obliterated by rubbing with a 

relatively soft object (e.g., the wood of a pencil). 

Permanence of Attachment of Badge: 

1.7. Attempt to remove the badge by pulling it off or prying off a metal badge 

that is attached using only adhesive; removal must be "difficult" at all 

temperatures. If the badge can be removed, it must show obvious evidence 

that the badge was removed. Acceptable indications are destruction of the 

badge by tearing, permanent and extensive wrinkling, or repeated 

exposure of the word "VOID" upon removal of the badge. 

If required markings are behind a door or panel, the manufacturer is 

encouraged to put a label on the outside of the device that explains where 

the ID information is located. 

 Yes No N/A 

1.8. If the information required by G-S.1. is placed on a badge or plate, the 

badge or plate must be permanently attached to the device. See 

criteria above for permanence of Attachment of Badge. 

 Yes No N/A 

1.9. If the markings for other than device identification required by G-S.1. 

is placed on badge or decal, then the badge or decal must be durable 

(difficult to remove at all temperatures.) 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix B – Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist (Agenda Item 2) 

NTEP - D / B4 

Permanence of Lettering: 

The following test procedure shall be used to determine the permanence of the identification 

markings. The lettering for the markings is subjected to the following tests to simulated 

accelerated wear. The markings are then compared with a typical set of labels exhibiting various 

degrees of wear, graded from minimal effect (7) to excessive unacceptable wear (1). 

Attempts are made to remove the marked information whether on a badge (plate) or on the device 

itself, using the following means. 

 Rub over one letter of the marking at least 20 times using an ink eraser in the same 

manner and force as one would normally exert while erasing an inscription written with a 

ball point pen. 

 Note: For consistency of application, all NTEP labs use Eberhard Faber ink eraser type #110 

 Clean the marking or badge with the following cleaners presumed to be “readily 

available.” 

Marking information remains legible after following the above procedures using: 

1.10. Disinfecting cleaning liquid and a damp cloth. Yes No N/A 

1.11. “Soft” household cleaning powder and a damp cloth. Yes No N/A 

1.12. Window cleaning fluids and a damp cloth. Yes No N/A 

Note: For consistency of application, NTEP labs use “409,” Bon Ami, and Windex brands of products for 

tests in parts 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10 respectively. 

Code Reference: G-S.1. (e) 

1.13. An NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a corresponding CC 

addendum number for devices that have (or will have) a CC. The number 

shall be prefaced by the terms “NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These 

terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation for the 

word “Number.” The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall as a 

minimum begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.) 

 Yes No N/A 

The device must have an area, either on the identification plate or on the 

device itself, suitable for the application of the Certificate of 

Conformance Number. If the area for the CC number is not part of an 

identification plate, then note its intended location below and how it will 

be applied. 

1.13.1. Location of CC Number if not located with the identification 

information: 

 

Code Reference: G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not Builtfor-Purpose, Software-Based Devices 

1.14. For not built-for-purpose, software-based devices the following shall apply: 

1.14.1. The required information in G-S.1 Identification. (a), (b), (d), and 

(e) shall be permanently marked or continuously displayed on 

the device. OR

 Yes No N/A 

1.14.2. The Certificate of Conformance Number shall be: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix B – Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist (Agenda Item 2) 

NTEP - D / B5 

1.14.2.1. Permanently marked on the device. OR Yes No N/A 

1.14.2.2. Continuously displayed. OR Yes No N/A 

1.14.2.3. Accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if 

necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu and 

submenu identification include, but are not limited to 

“Help,” “System Identification,” “G S.1. 

Identification,” or “Weights and Measures 

Identification.” 

 Yes No N/A 

Note: For (1.6.2.), clear instructions for accessing the information required in 

G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed on the CC, including information 

necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was 

evaluated. 

1.15. The identification badge must be visible after installation. Yes No N/A 

1.16. The identification badge must be permanent. Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix B – Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist (Agenda Item 2) 

NTEP - D / B6 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix C – Excerpt from NCWM S&T Committee 2013 Annual Report (Agenda Item 3) 

NTEP - D / C1 

Appendix D/Sub-Appendix C 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Excerpt from NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

2013 Annual Report 

(Agenda Item 3) 

330-3 I N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices 

(The status of this item was changed from Voting to Informational.) 

Source: 

Flint Hills Resources (2013) 

Purpose: 

To better align wholesale meter testing with current testing procedures, measuring practices and technology changes 

while maintaining the integrity of the special test. 

Item Under Consideration: 

Amend paragraph N.4.2.4. as follows: 

N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices. – “Special” tests shall be made to develop the operating characteristics of a 

measuring system and any special associated or attached elements and accessories. 

N.4.2.4.1. Special Test, Type Evaluation. – “Special” tests shall be made during type evaluation 

include a test at the slower of the following rates: 

(a) 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate; or 

(b) The minimum discharge rate marked on the device. 

Add a new paragraph N.4.2.4.2. as follows: 

N.4.2.4.2. Special Test, Field Evaluation. – “Special” tests shall be made during field tests at or 

near the minimum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of installation, but not less 

than the minimum discharge rate marked on the device. 

Background/Discussion: 

This proposal is intended to clarify that conducting a slow flow test to the marked minimum discharge rate is 

required for type evaluation and testing to the minimum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of 

installation for routine field inspections is appropriate. It would: 

1) Remove the rigidity of the current language and provide for flexibility and efficiency while maintaining the 

requirement to test at different flow rates to determine the accuracy of a measuring system; 

2) Differentiate between testing for type evaluation and field verification; 

3) Reflect changes in field testing procedures, technology, and industry practices; and 

4) Improve meter performance by establishing a meter factor for the slowest preset flow rate. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-appendix C – Excerpt from NCWM S&T Committee 2013 Annual Report (Agenda Item 3) 

NTEP - D / C2 

The current language is very rigid and does not take field installation conditions into consideration. It may not be 

possible or practicable to achieve the marked minimum discharge rate during field tests without changes to upstream 

equipment (valves, pumps, etc.), changing the flow computer programmed presets, or changing the idling of other 

fueling bays during testing. 

The Code does not allow for any deviation from the “shall” test at the marked minimum discharge rate. Current 

loading rack systems generally do not have a discharge nozzle or other physical means downstream of the meter to 

control or restrict the flow rate. Today, most rely on pumps and valves upstream of the meter and preprogrammed 

flow rates for specific products with an assigned meter factor for each flow rate and product. The proposed change 

would still allow for testing at the marked minimum discharge rate when there is a discharge nozzle or other 

physical means in use downstream of the meter to restrict flow, but would recognize the need to vary from the 

marked minimum discharge rate for systems not so equipped. 

The submitter notes that it is more productive to verify that the system is operating properly when used in its 

intended manner and set-up rather than alter the system for test-purposes and then return it to its “as-used 

condition.” Adjusting the system to flow at the marked minimum discharge rate by making changes to the system 

when that flow rate is not used introduces variables into the system not normally seen and adds little to no value. 

Even if the system can achieve the marked minimum discharge rate (for example, through the use of a discharge 

nozzle), it is not always practical or possible to hit it exactly when testing. The variables involved with proving 

while multiple bays are operating at a loading rack can make achieving the target flow rate difficult. It is not really 

necessary to test exactly at the marked minimum flow rate to develop the operating characteristics of a meter. 

However, NIST Handbook 44 offers no room for deviation. Today, a wholesale meter tested “near,” but not exactly 

“at,” the marked minimum discharge rate is not being tested in accordance with the requirements of NIST 

Handbook 44. This problem may never be an issue, but it might (the history regarding the change to NIST 

Handbook 44 Introduction section illustrates why the language in the handbook must match the application of it in 

the field). Amending the current language as proposed will remove this risk, however, slight. 

In the LMD Code, retail motor-fuel devices with a marked minimum flow rate are tested “at or near the marked 

minimum flow rate,” but are not required to be tested at exactly the marked minimum. If this is acceptable for a 

retail motor-fuel dispenser then it should be acceptable for a wholesale meter. The proposal would make testing 

more uniform and consistent among different, but similar device types. 

The purpose of this proposal is not to do away with a special test, but to make the test more reasonable. The 

proposal would allow the integrity of the test process to be maintained while providing both industry technicians and 

weights and measures officials the flexibility to test the meter in a manner that is more reflective of actual field 

testing and device use. It is designed to test meters not at the design flow rate, but at the flow rate at which they are 

actually used. It does not preclude a weights and measures inspector from testing at the marked minimum flow rate; 

it just removes the mandate to conduct it at that flow rate 

The submitter points out the following supporting arguments: 

 The marked minimum and maximum discharge rates are design parameters, not operational parameters. 

 The Mass Flow Meters Code does not require testing at the marked minimum discharge rate. It requires, at 

a minimum, that one test be conducted at the minimum flow rate of the installation. 

 The principle of testing as used and not to the design parameters is present in other codes and testing. It 

exists for scales since scales are not required to be tested to their design parameters; they are only tested as 

set up and used. A scale may be rated at a capacity range of 100 000 lb to 200 000 lb and a scale division of 

20 lb or 50 lb, but it will only be tested based on its conditions of installation regardless of how it could be 

used. 

 NIST Handbook 44 does not require that a measuring system be tested at the marked maximum discharge 

rate because it recognizes the measuring system may not be able to achieve the marked maximum 

discharge rate due to the conditions of installation. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix C – Excerpt from NCWM S&T Committee 2013 Annual Report (Agenda Item 3) 

NTEP - D / C3 

 There is no regulation requiring a meter to be able to discharge at its marked minimum discharge flow rate; 

the marked minimum discharge flow rate is a design parameter not a use requirement. 

 Not all tests in the test notes section are required to be conducted in the field as is noted in NIST 

Handbook 44 Introduction Section S. Using the Handbook, which states: “Since some sections are 

designed to be applied to tests performed under laboratory conditions, it would be impractical or unrealistic 

to apply them to field tests. Not all tests described in the “Notes” section of the handbook are required to 

be performed in the field as an official test.” Based on this section, it could be argued that a “special” test 

is not even required; however, the submitter believes that the special test has value and is not seeking to 

eliminate the test entirely. 

The proposal doesn’t specify the exact flow rate, but requires a test at the minimum flow rate based on the system 

and the establishment of a meter factor at that flow rate. The added flexibility and establishment of a meter factor 

during the test is important for both industry technicians and weights and measures officials. 

The proposed change is similar to the recommended tests described in API Manual of Petroleum Measurement 

Standards (MPMS) Chapter 6.2 Loading Rack Metering Systems - “When using electronic presets with multiple 

flow rate configurations, the establishment of multiple meter factors may be required. This is particularly true when 

low flow start-up and shutdown sequences are employed to prevent system shock and static electricity generation 

(see API RP 2003).” 

A potential argument in opposition to the proposal is that, even if the system is not being used at the marked 

minimum discharge rate at the time of test, it could be used later; thus, it is important to not only test as found, but as 

it could be used. While there is some merit to this argument, it is not consistently applied since many systems are 

tested as found, not as they could be used. There is also no incentive for a fuel terminal to not test their system as 

used. Further, the current practice is to set a calibration factor for all flow rates, so it is unlikely that the system 

would be changed after testing without additional testing and establishment of a calibration factor. 

Based on comments received at its 2012 Interim Meeting, the CWMA amended the original proposal to reflect 

language that was applicable to field practices and current with technology. The language was also amended to 

maintain special tests as a requirement during type evaluation, but optional for other examinations. CWMA 

supported the item as amended and forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Voting Item. The proposal 

submitted by the CWMA is as follows: 

N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices. – “Special” tests shall be made during type evaluation to develop the 

operating characteristics of a measuring system and any special associated or attached elements and accessories. 

“Special” tests shall include a test at the slower of the following rates: 

(a) 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate; or 

(b) The minimum discharge rate marked on the device. 

N.4.2.5. Wholesale Devices; Other Tests. – Other tests may be made during field tests at or near the 

minimum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of installation for all wholesale devices. 

(a) For devices equipped with electronic preset flow rates, tests may be conducted at any electronic 

preset flow rate used, including the slowest flow rate, when multiple flow rate configurations 

are used to deliver product. 

(b) “Normal” applicable tolerances shall apply to tests conducted. 

U.R.3.6.4. Wholesale Devices; Electronic Preset Flow Rates – A meter factor shall be established for all 

electronic preset flow rates used to deliver product.
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-appendix C – Excerpt from NCWM S&T Committee 2013 Annual Report (Agenda Item 3) 

NTEP - D / C4 

At the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Mr. Ross Andersen (retired New York) 

who suggested that, if the concern is that there is not enough flexibility in the reference to “20 % of the marked 

maximum,” the focus should be placed on modifying this reference rather than making other proposed changes. He 

provided alternative language for the Committee to consider. The Committee also received written and verbal 

comments from NIST, OWM noting that the proposed language would not consider any test conducted at lower 

flow rates to be “normal” tests and, therefore, such tests would be required to meet “normal” test tolerances. 

OWM commented that it is important to verify the performance of a meter over the range of flow rates for which it 

is designed to operate. The “normal” test (as described in N.4.1. Normal Tests.) combined with a “slow flow” test 

(as described in N.4.2.4. Wholesale Devices) allows an inspector or serviceperson to verify the performance of a 

meter over the range in which it is typically used under the conditions of its installation. For positive displacement 

meters with single point calibration, the results of both tests can be used to determine whether or not a particular 

meter is providing accurate measurement over the complete range of operating speeds associated with its installation 

and whether the meter is in good operating condition. Product discharge rates are affected by installation 

particulars, (e.g., the diameter of the piping, pump speed, etc.) and these can be changed after installation, thus, 

affecting meter performance. For these reasons, NIST, OWM recommends the slow flow test remain a required part 

of an official test as was originally intended by the original submitter of this item. As a general rule, NIST, OWM 

recommends that test procedures considered part of an official examination of a commercial weighing or measuring 

device not be made elective because, as such, they create the potential for inconsistent enforcement of legal 

requirements amongst weights and measures jurisdictions. 

The proposed new paragraph N.4.2.5. Wholesale Devices; Other Tests. allows for a test at the minimum discharge 

rate marked on the device but would have the effect of eliminating the application of the “Special Test” tolerance, 

which currently applies to the results of a test conducted at flow rates below a certain point. Since the test would no 

longer be considered a “Special Test,” basic tolerances (i.e., 0.3 % maintenance and 0.2 % acceptance) would apply 

and these tolerances are more stringent than the current “Special Test” tolerance of 0.5 % specified in NIST 

Handbook 44. NIST, OWM is concerned about the impact this change may have on existing in-service wholesale 

equipment that might currently be able to comply with the “Special Test” tolerance, but may not be able to comply if 

that tolerance were tightened. For example, in instances where the minimum discharge flow rate developed under 

the conditions of installation (i.e., the test condition specified in proposed new paragraph N.4.2.5.Wholesale 

Devices; Other Tests.) for a wholesale device already in service, is equivalent to the lesser of the two rates specified 

in N.4.2.4., the flow rate for the test, whether applying proposed paragraph N.4.2.5. or existing paragraph N.4.2.4., 

would be the same, yet a more stringent tolerance would apply under proposed paragraph N.4.2.5. 

An additional concern is that if the parameters of the test were changed from those currently specified in (a) and (b) 

of paragraph N.4.2.4. to the proposed “at or near the minimum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions 

of installation” the change would provide device owners the latitude of being able to try and extend the service life 

of a meter by compensating for badly worn or otherwise defective parts simply by increasing the minimum flow rate 

of product through it. Although such action would constitute a violation of G-UR.4.3. Use of Adjustments, it might 

be very difficult for officials to recognize and enforce. 

For these reasons, NIST, OWM proposed alternate language (which combines elements of the original proposal and 

the CWMA alternative) as a means to provide more flexibility in conducting special tests, while retaining the 

original intent of the special test as a tool for verifying the condition of the meter. 

NIST, OWM also commented that additional work is needed to develop minimum testing requirements for 

equipment with multi-point calibration capability to ensure consistency in inspection and testing of these systems. 

Mr. Henry Oppermann (Weights and Measures Consulting) echoed NIST, OWM’s concerns regarding the need to 

conduct special tests as a means to assess the condition of the meter. He acknowledged that the current language in 

NIST Handbook 44 may not provide the same flexibility that is provided for other meter types (for which tests can 

be “at or near” the marked minimum); however, he expressed concern about backing off of a proper test for what 

appears to be primarily convenience. Mr. Constantine Cotsoradis (Flint Hills Resources) pointed out that with many 

current systems; there frequently is not a way to restrict the flow rate. Mr. Richard Suiter (Richard Suiter 

Consulting) further commented that the location where flow is restricted (e.g., before vs. after the meter) during 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix C – Excerpt from NCWM S&T Committee 2013 Annual Report (Agenda Item 3) 

NTEP - D / C5 

special tests can also affect the results of testing, and this should be considered in constructing the final language 

(and associated test procedures) for any proposed change. 

Mr. Dmitri Karimov (Liquid Controls Corporation, LLC), speaking on behalf of the MMA, noted that the proposal 

has the effect of (1) providing some flexibility in establishing a flow rate near the marked minimum flow rate rather 

than at the minimum; (2) changing the tolerances that would apply to tests conducted at slower flow rates; and (3) 

specifying the establishment of meter factors for preset flow rates. Of these three facets, MMA only supports the 

first. He noted that some registers may use different types of calibration factors and addressing these variations in a 

single paragraph would be difficult. He further noted that, if changes are made to the test conditions in the LMD 

Code, similar changes should be made to other measuring codes as needed to ensure consistency. 

Ms. Julie Quinn (Minnesota) noted that Minnesota believes that it is necessary to conduct testing at every flow rate 

where the device is configured; however, the factors at these various points do not need to be different. 

The Committee acknowledged the comments in support of maintaining the requirement for conducting special tests 

during routine field inspections, but modifying paragraph N.4.2.4. to provide for some flexibility in the rate at which 

a special test is conducted. In recognition of limitations which may prevent some systems from being tested exactly 

at the marked minimum flow rate, the Committee agreed that modification to the language to be more consistent 

with other measuring devices is appropriate. Based on the support heard for the language proposed by NIST, OWM 

with respect to N.4.2.4.1. Special Test, Type Evaluation and N.4.2.4.2.Special Tests, Field Evaluation, the 

Committee agreed to recommend this alternative language as shown in the Item Under Consideration above for a 

Vote. 

In reviewing the remaining portion of the proposed changes, the Committee noted the considerable debate regarding 

the inclusion of the User Requirement regarding the establishment of meter factors for preset flow rates. Based on 

this opposition, the Committee considered splitting this proposal into two items: one item to address the proposed 

changes to the Notes and a second item to address the proposed changes to the User Requirements. However, there 

was very limited support for the proposed changes to the User Requirement. Thus, the Committee decided to 

eliminate the proposed paragraph U.R.3.6.4 Wholesale Devices; Electronic Preset Flow Rates from the Item Under 

Consideration. 

At their 2013 Annual Meetings, NEWMA and the CWMA supported the item as a Voting Item and commented that 

they believe the concerns stated by NIST, OWM and others at the NCWM Interim meeting have been sufficiently 

addressed by the NCWM S&T Committee. 

Two Government representatives indicated a position of support on the NCWM Online Position Forum. Another 

Government representative, Mr. Randy Jennings (Tennessee) indicated opposition to the proposal and, noting that 

the item appeared on only one regional weights and measures association agenda, expressed concern that the item 

requires more vetting. Mr. Jennings expressed concern about the phrase “developed under the conditions of the 

installation,” and noted that this may be interpreted to mean that, if a system can be installed to run at maximum 

flow rates other than “start-up” and “shut-down,” then an official cannot request that the system be “chocked” to 

reduce the flow. He further commented that the reduced flow test has always been effective in detecting and 

diagnosing wear in the meter. He also noted that Tennessee has a valve on its prover that can be used to reduce the 

flow rate during a slow flow test. Mr. Jennings proposed the following alternative changes to paragraph 

N.4.2.4.1. Special Test, Type Evaluation which would make the current requirement less restrictive, yet achieve a 

compromise to help all stakeholders: 

 N.4.2.4.1. Special Test, Type Evaluation. – “Special” tests shall include a test at the slower of the 

following rates: 

(a) Approximately 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate; or 

(b) The approximate minimum discharge rate marked on the device. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-appendix C – Excerpt from NCWM S&T Committee 2013 Annual Report (Agenda Item 3) 

NTEP - D / C6 

During its Open Hearings at the 2013 Annual Meeting, the Committee received a proposed modification to the Item 

Under Consideration by the original submitter Mr. Cotsoradis. In addition to the other changes proposed in the Item 

Under Consideration, Mr. Cotsoradis proposed replacing the new paragraph N.4.2.4.2. with the following: 

N.4.2.4.2. Special Test, Field Evaluation. – A “Special” test shall be made during field tests at or near 

the minimum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of installation, but not less than the 

minimum discharge rate marked on the device. Additional “Special” tests may be conducted at flow 

rates down to and including the maximum discharge rate marked on the device. 

Mr. Jennings supported this proposed modification by Mr. Cotsoradis. 

Mr. Cotsoradis further noted that the current language in NIST Handbook 44 is very restrictive. Even in systems 

where the flow can be reduced, it is difficult to set the flow and maintain it at the target flow rate over the course of 

an entire test. 

NIST, OWM noted that, according to the 1949 NCWM S&T Committee Report, requirements to conduct “Special 

Tests” were established in 1949. The report states that “Special” tests are not defined in detail except that such tests 

shall include tests at specified minimum discharge rates; other details of “Special” tests are left to the judgment of 

the official. The primary purpose of the “Special” test is to determine the condition of the meter and determine 

whether or not the user is maintaining the equipment in proper operating condition. As noted in comments during 

the 2013 Interim Meeting, the results of a “Special” test, conducted at a slow flow rate, when compared with the 

result of a “Normal” test can indicate the condition of the meter. In general, the greater the difference between 

meter errors observed for the “Normal” and “Special” test, the stronger the indication that the meter is in need of 

reconditioning. It is questionable whether or not two tests conducted at flow rates that are not appreciably different 

will provide adequate information about the condition of a meter. If the features of a particular installation do not 

permit testing at the slower rates as currently required in paragraph N.4.2.4.Wholesale Devices, paragraph 

G-UR.4.4. Assistance in Testing Operations may be applied to facilitate a proper test. OWM also pointed out that 

when this requirement was first added the dominant meter technology was positive displacement meters. Since that 

time a number of different technologies have been developed and it may be necessary to reassess what minimum 

testing is necessary. OWM also noted that in training provided by NIST on testing of these systems, NIST, OWM 

recommends running tests at slightly above the targeted flow rate; this helps to prevent the flow rate from dropping 

below the meter’s marked minimum flow rate and, thus, helps to ensure a fair test of the metering system. NIST, 

OWM also reiterated comments it made during the 2013 Interim Meeting concerning the need to develop testing 

requirements for equipment with multi-point calibration capability. 

Mr. Andersen suggested that the specifics of what testing is required would best be addressed in the NIST EPOs. 

Mr. Karimov expressed concern about testing at flow rates which create pressures exceeding the rated pressure of 

the meter. The Committee heard additional comments from conference members expressing confusion over what 

minimum testing should be required. 

Mr. Michael Keilty (Endress + Hauser), chairman of the NTEP Measuring Sector, recommended that the item be 

moved to an information status. He suggested asking the Sector to review this issue and provide suggestions to the 

Committee on how to best address special tests on wholesale devices. This suggestion was supported by several 

other NCWM members. 

The Committee agreed to ask the Measuring Sector to review and provide suggestions on this issue. Consequently, 

it changed the status of this item from “Voting” to “Information” to allow for additional input from the Sector and 

other interested parties. 

Additional letters, presentations and data may have been part of the Committee’s consideration. 
NTEP - D / D1

Appendix D/Sub-Appendix D 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Product Families Table, NTEP Technical Policy C – Units Correction 

(Agenda Item 4a) 

Mass Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Magnetic Flow Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements 

T

Product Ca

Test B To cover a range of the following products, test with one product having a low specific gravity and test with a second product having a high specific gravity. The Certificate of Conformance will cover all products in all product categories listed in the table under Test B within the specific gravity range tested.  Test B does not apply to product categories of 

liquefied gases, compressed liquids, cryogenic liquids or heated products. 

Test F 

To cover a range of the following products, test with one product having a specified conductivity. The Certificate of Conformance will cover all products with conductivity equal to or above the conductivity of the tested liquid.  Test F does not apply to product categories of 

potable water, non-potable water, tap water, water mixes of alcohols and glycols, fertilizers, suspension fertilizers, liquid feeds, clear liquid fertilizers, chemicals or crop chemicals A, B, C, or D. 

 Test F does not apply to product categories of 

liquefied gases, or compressed liquids. 

Test C 

To cover a range of products within each product category, test with one product having a low viscosity and test with a second product having a high viscosity within each category. The Certificate of Conformance will cover all products in the product category within the viscosity range tested. 

Test E 

To cover a product catega low kinemsecond produviscosity withof Conformanproduct categorange tested.1

Note: Product categories under Test B were 

formerly referred to collectively as “Normal 

Liquids.”

Product Category: 

Alcohols, Glycols and Water Mixes Thereof (Alc 

Gly) 

Alcohols, G

Typical 

Products 

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 F) 

Product 

Category 

Typical 

Products 

Conductivity 

(microsiemens/centime

ter) 

Product Categor

y 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP) 

Typical 

Products 

Butanol 0.81 Alc Gly Butanol Alc Gly Butanol 3.34 Butanol Ethanol 0.79 Alc Gly Ethanol 0.0013 Alc Gly Ethanol 1.29 Ethanol Ethylene 1.19 Alc Gly Ethylene Alc Gly Ethylene Glycol 25.5 Ethylene Glyc

1 Viscosity (dynamic) is measured in centipoise. Kinematic viscosity is measured in centistokes. Source for some of the viscosity value informa

Measurement Canada "Liquid Products Group, Bulletin V-16-E (rev.1), August 3, 1999."  centistokes (10-6 m2/s) = centipoise (10-3 kg/m·s) ÷ density (kg/m3) OR centistokes (cSt) = 1.002 × centipoise (cP) ÷ density (SG) 

2 The specific gravity of a liquid is the ratio of its density to that of water at standard conditions, usually 4 C (or 40 F) and 1 atmosphere. The 

conditions is approximately 1000 kg/m3 (or 998 kg/m3). The specific gravity of a gas is the ratio of its density to that of air at standard condition

one atmosphere. 
NTEP - D / D2

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Glycol Glycol

Isobutyl 0.81 Alc Gly Isobutyl 0.02 Alc Gly Isobutyl 4.54 Isobutyl 5.62

Isopropyl 0.79 Alc Gly Isopropyl 3.5 Alc Gly Isopropyl 2.78 Isopropyl 3.53

Methanol 0.80 Alc Gly Methanol 0.44 Alc Gly Methanol 0.64 Methanol 0.80

Propylene 

Glycol 1.04 Alc Gly Propylene Glycol Alc Gly Propylene Glycol 54 Propylene Glycol 52

Banvel 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A 6 Oil (#5, #6) FL&O

Test C

Product Category:

Crop Chemicals (Type A) (CC-A)

Test E

Product Category:

Compressed Liquids, Fuels and Refrigerants 

NH3 (Comp liq)

Herbicides 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Asphalt FL&O

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Kinematic 

Viscosity1 

(60 °F) centistokes (cSt)

Paraquat 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Avgas FL&O Banvel 4 – 400 Anhydrous 

Ammonia 0.31

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Typical

Products

Conductivity

(microsiemens/centime

ter)

Product 

Categor

y 

Test C

Product Category:

Crop Chemicals (Type A) (CC-A) continued

Test E

Product Category:

Compressed Liquids, Fuels and Refrigerants 

NH3 (Comp liq) continued

Prowl 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Biodiesel 

above B20 FL&O

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Kinematic 

Viscosity1

(60 °F) centistokes (cSt)

Round-up 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Bunker Oil FL&O Herbicides 4 – 400 Butane 0.32

Touchdown 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Cooking Oils FL&O Paraquat 4 – 400 Ethane

Treflan 0.7 – 1.2 CC-A Corn Oil FL&O Prowl 4 – 400 Freon 11 0.21

Adjuvants 0.7 – 1.2 CC-B Crude Oil FL&O Round-up 4 – 400 Freon 12 0.27

Fumigants 0.7 – 1.2 CC-B Diesel Fuel3 FL&O Touchdown 4 – 400 Freon 22 1.46

Fungicides 0.7 – 1.2 CC-B Fuel Oil

(#1, #2, #3, #4) 0 FL&O Treflan 4 – 400 Propane 0.195

Insecticides 0.7 – 1.2 CC-B Gasoline4 FL&O

Test C

Product Category:

Crop Chemicals (Type B) (CC-B)

Test E

Product Category:

Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade 

Liquid oils (FL&O)

Fungicides 1 – 1.2 CC-C Jet A FL&O

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Reference Kinematic 

Viscosity1

(60 °F) centistokes (cSt)

Micronutrients 0.9 – 1.65 CC-D Jet A-1 FL&O Adjuvants 0.7 – 100 6 Oil (#5, #6) 73 – 14,500

Hydrochloric 

Acid 1.1 Chem Jet B FL&O Fumigants 0.7 – 100 Asphalt

 3 Diesel fuel blends (biodiesel with up to 20 % vegetable or animal fat/oil.) 4 Gasoline includes oxygenated fuel blends with up to 15 % oxygenate. 

NTEP Committee 2014 Final ReportAppendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector SummarySub-Appendix D 

– Product Families Table, NTEP Technical Policy C 

– Units Correction (Agenda Item 4a)
NTEP - D / D3

Mass Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Magnetic Flow Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements 

T

Product Ca

Phosphoric Acid 1.87 Chem JP4 FL&O Fungicides 0.7 – 100 Avgas Sulfuric Acid 1.83 Chem JP5 FL&O Insecticides 0.7 – 100 Biodiesel abov

B20 

3-10-30 0.9 – 1.65 Fert JP7 and JP8 FL&O 

Test C 

Product Category: 

Crop Chemicals (Type C) (CC-C) 

Bunker Oil 

4-4-27 0.9 – 1.65 Fert Kerosene FL&O Typical Products Reference Viscosity1 (60 F) centipoise (cP) Cooking Oils 9-18-9 1.32 Fert Light Oil FL&O Fungicides 20 – 900 Corn Oil 10-34-0 1.39 Fert Lubricating Oils FL&O Test C Product Category: Crop Chemicals (Type D) (CC-D) Crude Oil 20 % Aqua-Ammonia 0.89 Fert Olive Oil FL&O Typical Products Reference Viscosity1 (60 F) centipoise (cP) Diesel Fuel3 28 %, 30 % or 32 % 

1.28 – 

1.32 Fert Peanut Oil FL&O Micronutrients 20 – 1000 Fuel Oil (#1, #

#3, #4) 

Typical 

Products 

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 F) 

Product 

Category 

Typical 

Products 

Conductivity 

(microsiemens/centime

ter) 

Product Categor

y 

Test C 

Product Category: 

Chemicals (Chem) 

Test E 

Fuels, Lubric

Liqui

Ammonia Nitrate 

1.16 – 

1.37 Fert SAE Grades FL&O 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP)

Typical 

Products 

Clear Liquid Fertilizer 

1.17 – 

1.44 Fert Soy Oil 0 FL&O Hydrochloric Acid 0.80 – 1. 0 Gasoline4 

Nitrogen Solution 

1.17 – 

1.44 Fert Spindle Oil FL&O Phosphoric Acid 161 Jet A 

N-P-K Solutions 1.2 – 1.4 Fert Sunflower Oil FL&O Sulfuric Acid 1.49 Jet A-1 Urea 1.89 Fert Vegetable Oil 0 FL&O 

Test C 

Product Category: 

Compressed Liquids, Fuels and Refrigerants 

(Comp liq) 

Jet B 

6 Oil (#5, #6) 0.9 FL&O Asphalt Heated Typical Products Reference Viscosity1 (60 F) centipoise (cP) JP4 Asphalt FL&O Bunker C Heated Anhydrous Ammonia 0.188 JP5 Avgas FL&O Carbon Tetra- Chloride Solv Cl Butane 0.19 JP7 and JP8 Biodiesel above B20 0.86 FL&O Methylene- Chloride Solv Cl Ethane Kerosene Bunker Oil 0.99 FL&O Perchloro- Ethylene Solv Cl Freon 11 0.313 Light Oil 
NTEP - D / D

4

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Cooking Oils 0.92 FL&O TrichloroEthylene Solv Cl Freon 12 0.359 Lubricating Oils 22 – 1250

Corn Oil 0.91 FL&O Acetates Solv 

Gen Freon 22 1.99 Olive Oil 127

Crude Oil 0.79 –

0.97 FL&O Acetone .02 Solv Gen Propane 0.098 Peanut Oil 11 – 122

Diesel Fuel3 0.84 FL&O Ethylacetate 0.00001 Solv 

Gen

Test C

Product Category:

Clear Liquid Fertilizers (Fert)

SAE Grades 214 – 4037

Fuel Oil

(#1, #2, #3, #4) 0.9 FL&O Hexane 0 Solv Gen

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP) Soy Oil 97.6

Gasoline4 0.72 FL&O MEK 0.1 Solv 

Gen 9-18-0 Spindle Oil

Jet A FL&O Toluene 0 Solv 

Gen 10-34-0 48 Sunflower Oil 97.1

Jet A-1 0.76 FL&O Xylene 0 Solv 

Gen

20 % AquaAmmonia 1.1 – 1.3 Vegetable Oil 145

Jet B FL&O Deionized Water 28 %, 30 % or 32 % 31 – 110

Test E

Product Category:

Solvents General (Solv Gen)

JP4 0.76 FL&O Demineralized Water Ammonia Nitrate 11.22

Typical

Products

Reference Kinematic 

Viscosity1

(60 °F) centistokes (cSt)

JP5 0.76 FL&O Clear Liquid 

Fertilizer 31 – 110 Acetates 0.47

JP7 and JP8 0.76 FL&O Nitrogen Solution 31 – 110 Acetone 0.43

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Test D

To obtain coverage for a product category, test 

with one product in the product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover all 

products in the category.

• Test D does not apply to product categories of 

pure alcohols, pure glycol, pure water, 

solvents chlorinated, solvents general, fuels, 

lubricants, industrial and food grade liquid 

oils.

• Test D does not apply to product categories of 

liquefied gases, compressed liquids or heated 

products.

Test C

Product Category:

Clear Liquid Fertilizers (Fert) continued

Test E

Product Category:

Solvents General (Solv Gen) continued

Appendix D NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report

– 2013 Measuring Sector Summary

Sub-Appendix D 

– Product Families Table, NTEP Technical Policy C 

– Units Correction (Agenda Item 4a)
NTEP - D / D5

Mass Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Magnetic Flow Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements 

T

Product Ca

Kerosene 0.75 FL&O 

Typical 

Products 

Conductivity 

(micro-siemens/ 

centimeter) 

Product Categor

y 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP) 

Typical 

Products 

Light Oil 0.86 FL&O 

Water Mixes of Alcohols and Glycols 

Alc Gly N-P-K Solution Ethylacetate 

Lubricating Oils 0.80 – 0.90 FL&O Banvel CC-A Urea 1 Hexane Olive Oil 0.92 FL&O Herbicides CC-A 

Test C 

Product Category: 

Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade 

Liquid Oils (FL&O) 

MEK 

Peanut Oil 0.9 – 1.0 FL&O Paraquat CC-A Typical Products Reference Viscosity1 (60 F) centipoise (cP) Toluene SAE Grades 0.9 FL&O Prowl CC-A 6 Oil (#5, #6) 66 – 13,000 Xylene Soy Oil 0.93 FL&O Round-up CC-A Asphalt 100 – 5000 

Test A 

The following tested and Conformance

Spindle Oil FL&O Touchdown CC-A Avgas 1.5 – 6 Typical Products Sunflower Oil 0.93 FL&O Treflan CC-A Biodiesel above B20 10.12 Banvel Vegetable Oil 0.92 FL&O Adjuvants CC-B Bunker Oil 11,200 Herbicides Liquid Molasses 1.25 Liq Feed Fumigants CC-B Cooking Oils 9.93 Paraquat Molasses Plus Phos Acid and/or Urea (TreaChle) 

1.1 – 1.3 Liq Feed Fungicides CC-B Corn Oil 4 Prowl 

Carbon TetraChloride 1.6 Solv Cl Insecticides CC-B Crude Oil 3-1783 Round-up MethyleneChloride 1.34 Solv Cl Fungicides CC-C Diesel Fuel3 10 Touchdown PerchloroEthylene 1.6 Solv Cl Micronutrie nts CC-D Fuel Oil (#1, #2, #3, #4) 8 to 88 Treflan TrichloroEthylene 1.47 Solv Cl Hydrochlor ic Acid 395000 Chem Gasoline4 0.28 Adjuvants Acetates 0.93 Solv Gen Phosphoric Acid 56600 Chem Jet A 1.5 – 6 Fumigants 
NTEP - D / D6

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Typical

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category

Typical

Products

Conductivity

(micro-siemens/

centimeter)

Product 

Categor

y 

Test C

Product Category:

Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and Food Grade 

Liquid Oils (FL&O) continued

Typical

Products

Product

Category

Acetone 0.8 Solv Gen Sulfuric 

Acid 209000 Chem Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP) Fungicides CC-C 

Ethylacetate 0.96 Solv Gen 9-18-0 Fert Jet A-1 1.36 Insecticides CC-B

Hexane 0.66 Solv Gen 10-34-0 Fert Jet B 1.5 – 6 Fungicides CC-C

MEK 0.81 Solv Gen 20 % AquaAmmonia Fert JP4 1.02 Micronutrients CC-D 

Toluene 0.87 Solv Gen 28 %, 30 %

or 32 % Fert JP5 1.94 Hydrochloric Acid

Chem

Xylene 0.89 Solv Gen Ammonia 

Nitrate Fert JP7 and JP8 1.82 Phosphoric Acid Chem

Beverages 1.0 Water

Clear 

Liquid 

Fertilizer

Fert Kerosene 1.94 Sulfuric Acid Chem

Deionized 1.0 Water Nitrogen 

Solution Fert Light Oil 13.47 NH3 Comp Liq

Demineralized 1.0 Water N-P-K 

Solutions Fert Lubricating Oils 20 – 1000 20 % AquaAmmonia Fert

Juices 1.0 Water Urea 5000 Fert Olive Oil 116.8 28 %, 30 % or 

32 % Fert

Milk 1.0 Water Liquid 

Molasses 300 Liq Feed Peanut Oil 11 – 110 9-18-0 Fert

Nonpotable 1.0 Water

Molasses 

Plus Phos 

Acid and/or 

Urea 

(TreaChle)

Liq Feed SAE Grades 192 – 3626 10-34-0 Fert

Potable 1.0 Water 3-10-30 Sus Fert Spindle Oil Ammonia Nitrate Fert

Tap Water 1.0 Water 4-4-27 Sus Fert Soy Oil 90.6 Clear Liquid 

Fertilizer Fert

Appendix D NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report

– 2013 Measuring Sector Summary

Sub-Appendix D 

– Product Families Table, NTEP Technical Policy C 

– Units Correction (Agenda Item 4a)
NTEP - D / D7

Mass Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Magnetic Flow Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements 

T

Product Ca

Test D To obtain coverage for each of the following product categories, test with one product in each product category. The Certificate of Conformance will cover the products in the product category in which a product was tested. 

Beverages Water Sunflower Oil 90.1 Nitrogen Solu

Typical 

Products 

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 F) 

Product 

Category Juices Water Vegetable Oil 133 N-P-K Solutio

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 

0.6 – 0.8 

(1=Air) Comp gas Nonpotable 725 Water Urea 

Anhydrous Ammonia 0.61 Comp liq Potable 725 Water Bicep Butane 0.595 Comp liq Tap Water 725 Water Broadstrike 

Typical 

Products 

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 F) 

Product 

Category 

Test C 

Product Category: 

Flowables (Flow) 

Typical 

Products 

Ethane Comp liq Typical Products Reference Viscosity1 (60 F) centipoise (cP) Doubleplay Freon 11 1.49 Comp liq Bicep 20 – 900 Dual Freon 12 1.33 Comp liq Broadstrike 20 – 900 Guardsman Freon 22 1.37 Comp liq Doubleplay 20 – 900 Harness Propane 0.504 Comp liq Dual 20 – 900 Marksman Liquefied Natural Gas Cryo LNG Guardsman 20 – 900 Topnotch Liquefied Oxygen 0.66 Cryo LNG Harness 20 – 900 Asphalt Nitrogen 0.31 Cryo LNG Marksman 20 – 900 Bunker C Asphalt Heated Topnotch 20 – 900 Liquid MolassBunker C 1.1 Heated 

Test C 

Product Category: 

Heated (Heated) 

Molasses plus Phos Acid andUrea (TreaCh

5 This data point is suspected to be lower than that of normal tap water supplied for residential consumption. 
NTEP - D / D8

Mass Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Magnetic Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements

Turbine Flow Meter

Product Category and Test Requirements

Test A

The following products must be individually 

tested and noted on the Certificate of 

Conformance.

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP) Carbon TetraChloride

Solv Cl

Typical 

Products

Specific 

Gravity2

(60 °F)

Product 

Category Asphalt 100 – 5000 MethyleneChloride Solv Cl

Compressed 

Hydrogen Gas 

(H or H2)

0.07 

(1=Air) Comp H2 Bunker C 11,200 PerchloroEthylene Solv Cl

Liquid Carbon 

Dioxide

1.12

(-40 °F) Liq CO2

Test C

Product Category:

Liquid Feed (Liq Feed)

TrichloroEthylene Solv Cl

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP) 3-10-30 Sus Fert

Liquid Molasses 8640 4-4-27 Sus Fert

Molasses Plus Phos 

Acid and/or Urea 

(TreaChle)

2882

Compressed 

Hydrogen Gas (H 

or H2)

Comp H2

Liquid Carbon 

Dioxide Liq CO2

Test C

Product Category:

Solvents Chlorinated (Solv Cl)

Test D

To obtain coverage for a product category, test 

with one product in the product category. The 

Certificate of Conformance will cover all 

products in the category.

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP)

Typical

Products

Product

Category

Carbon TetraChloride 0.99 Liquefied Natural 

Gas Cryo LNG

Test C

Product Category:

Solvents Chlorinated (Solv Cl) continued

Liquefied Oxygen Cryo LNG

Typical

Products

Reference Viscosity1

(60 °F) centipoise (cP) Nitrogen Cry LNG

Methylene-Chloride 0.46 Beverages Water

Perchloro-Ethylene 1 Deionized Water

Trichloro-Ethylene 0.6 Demineralized Water

Appendix D NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report

– 2013 Measuring Sector Summary

Sub-Appendix D 

– Product Families Table, NTEP Technical Policy C 

– Units Correction (Agenda Item 4a)
NTEP - D / D9

Mass Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Magnetic Flow Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements 

T

Product Ca

Test C 

Product Category: 

Solvents General (Solv Gen) 

Juices 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP) Milk 

 Acetates 0.44 Nonpotable  Acetone 0.34 Potable  Ethylacetate 1.36 Tap Water  Hexane 0.34  MEK 0.45  Toluene 0.62 

 Xylene 0.86

Test C 

Product Category: 

Suspension Fertilizers (Sus Fert) 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP)

 3-10-30 100 – 1000  4-4-27 20 – 215 

Test D 

To obtain coverage for a product category, test with one product in the product category. The Certificate of Conformance will cover all products in the category. 

Product Category: 

Water (Water) 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP) 

 Beverages 1.0  Deionized 1.0  Demineralized 1.0  Juices 1.0  Milk 1.0  Nonpotable 1.0  Potable 1.0 

Test D 

Product Category: 

Water (Water) continued 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP) 

 Tap Water 1.0 
NTEP - D / D10 

Mass Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Magnetic Flow Meter 

Product Category and Test Requirements 

Positive Displacement Flow Meter Product 

Category and Test Requirements 

T

Product Ca

Test A 

The following products must be individually tested and noted on the Certificate of Conformance. 

Product Category: 

Cryogenic Liquids and Liquefied Natural Gas 

(Cryo LNG) 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP) 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

 Liquefied Oxygen 0.038 

 Nitrogen 1.07 

Test A 

The following products must be individually tested and noted on the Certificate of Conformance. 

Product Category: 

Compressed Hydrogen Gas (Comp H2) 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP) 

Compressed Hydrogen Gas (H or H2) 

0.0097 

Test A 

The following products must be individually tested and noted on the Certificate of Conformance. 

Product Category: 

Liquid Carbon Dioxide (Liq CO2) 

Typical 

Products 

Reference Viscosity1

(60 F) centipoise (cP) 

Liquid Carbon Dioxide 0.194 
NTEP - D / D11

Product Category Table – Category Abbreviations 

Abbreviation Product Category Abbreviation Product Cate

Alc Gly Alcohols, Glycols and Water Mixes Thereof Fert Fertilizers CC-A Crop Chemicals (Type A) FL&O Fuels, Lubricants, Industrial and CC-B Crop Chemicals (Type B) Flow Flowables CC-C Crop Chemicals (Type C) Heated Heated Products (Above 50 C) CC-D Crop Chemicals (Type D) Liq Feed Liquid Feeds Chem Chemicals Liq CO2 Liquid Carbon Dioxide Comp gas Compressed Gases Solv Chl Solvents Chlorinated Comp H2 Compressed Hydrogen Gas Solv Gen Solvents General Comp liq Compressed Liquids (Fuels and Refrigerants, NH3) Sus Fert Suspension Fertilizers Cryo LNG Cryogenic Liquids and Liquefied Natural Gas Water Water 

Note: The Typical Products listed in this table are not limiting or all-inclusive; there may be other products and product tradproduct family. Water and a product such as stoddard solvent or mineral spirits may be used as test products in the fuels, lubricgrade liquid oils product family. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-appendix D – Product Families Table, NTEP Technical Policy C – Units Correction (Agenda Item 4a) 

NTEP – D / D12 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix E – LMD-Checklist Criteria for Card Activated RMFDs, Rev. 11-23-13 (Agenda Item 4b) 

NTEP – D / E1 

Appendix D/Sub-Appendix E 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Permanence of Markings, LMD Checklist 

(Agenda Item 4b) 

LMD Checklists and Test Procedures for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers – Card-Activated 

RMFDs: 

 Delete the following text associated with Sections 7.18 through 7.21: 

Credit Card- or Debit Card-Activated Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser 

On card-activated retail motor fuel dispensers, the customer authorizes the dispenser by inserting the 

card or swiping the card through a slot. On credit card transactions, the customer is typically billed 

through the same methods as have been used for credit transactions handled through a station 

attendant. On debit card transactions, payment is made directly from the purchaser's account by 

electronic funds transfer. 

7.18 A receipt must be available to the customer at the completion of the 

transaction. The issuance of the receipt may be initiated at the option 

of the customer. 

 Yes No N/A 

7.19 The customer receipt must contain the following information: 

7.19.1 The identity (codes may be used) of the product purchased, 

the quantity purchased, the unit price, and the total price. 

 Yes No N/A 

7.19.2 Where a post-delivery discount(s) is applied, the sales receipt

must provide: 

7.19.2.1 the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price 

that were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the 

delivery prior to any post-delivery discount(s); 

 Yes No N/A 

7.19.2.2 an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit 

price; and 

 Yes No N/A 

7.19.2.3 the final total price of each fuel sale after all postdelivery discounts are applied. See LMD Code S.1.6.8. 

 Yes No N/A 

7.20 Cash Value Card - A cash value card that is initially encoded with the 

purchase price, authorizing a customer to purchase products up to the 

current cash value of the card. The value of the card is decreased in 

amounts equal to individual transactions. 

 Yes No N/A 

Means shall be provided to the customer to determine the initial cash 

value of the card and the remaining cash value prior to and after each 

transaction. 

7.21 Invoice Billing - Invoice billing is a process in which customers are 

billed for one or more transactions at the end of a billing period. 

7.21.1 For computing systems, the date, quantity, unit price, and 

total price shall be recorded and shall agree with the 

indications on the dispenser. 

 Yes No N/A 

7.21.2 When non-computing analog dispensers are used and the 

billing is on the basis of individual quantities for each 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix E – LMD-Checklist Criteria for Card Activated RMFDs, Rev. 11-23-13 (Agenda Item 4b) 

NTEP - D / E2 

transaction (non-cumulative), the value of the smallest unit of 

displayed quantity for each transaction shall be not greater 

than 0.1 gallon providing the “pulser” and the recorded 

quantity used for billing are each equal to or less than 0.01 

gallon. 

7.21.3 All displayed transaction information must be shown for at 

least 30 seconds after completing a delivery or starting the 

next transaction. The delivery is considered complete after the

“handle” is off or after the nozzle has been returned to its 

designed hanging position. 

 Yes No N/A 

 Delete Section 15. Card Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers:

Note: This text is redundant to that in current checklist Sections 40.1 through 40.4. 

15. Card-Activated Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

Code Reference: G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud 

Accidental or intentional fraud causes great concern when customers use card-activated systems 

in service stations, bank-card-activated systems directly access bank accounts. The following 

criteria and test procedures apply to card-activated retail motor fuel dispensers. 

A card-activated system shall authorize the dispensing of product for not more than three 

minutes for the time between authorization and “handle on” at the dispenser. It shall properly 

record transactions on the appropriate card account. 

When a card-activated system is subjected to power loss of greater than 10 seconds, the 

dispenser shall de-authorize. Because systems may be installed with separate power lines to the 

console, card reader, and dispenser, tests should be run with power failures to different parts of 

the system to evaluate the potential for accidental or intentional errors. The appropriate device 

response depends when the power loss occurs during the delivery sequence. 

15.1 The dispenser must de-authorize in not more than three 

minutes if the pump “handle” is not turned on. 

 Yes No N/A 

15.2 If the time limit to deactivate a dispenser is programmable, it

shall not accept an entry greater than three minutes. 

 Yes No N/A 

15.3 When a power loss greater than 10 seconds occurs after the 

pump “handle” is on, the dispenser must de-authorize. 

 Yes No N/A 

15.4 When there is a loss of power, but the pump “handle” is not on, 

the dispenser must de-authorize in not more than three 

minutes. 

 Yes No N/A 

 Delete Section 16. Test Methods for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers: 

Note: This text is redundant to that in current checklist Section 41. 

16. Test Methods for Card-Activated Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

16.1 Authorize the dispenser and, with the pump “handle” on, 

interrupt power to any part (or all) of the system. The pump 

should deauthorize immediately. Specifically: 

16.1.1. Authorize with a card and turn the “handle” on. Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix E – LMD-Checklist Criteria for Card Activated RMFDs, Rev. 11-23-13 (Agenda Item 4b) 

NTEP – D / E3 

Power down briefly, then restore power. Try to 

dispense product: the dispenser must not dispense 

because the power failure should have de-authorized 

the dispenser. 

16.2 Authorize the dispenser using a card (leaving handle off); wait

more than three minutes, and try to start the dispenser. It 

should not start because the authorization should have timed 

out. Specifically: 

16.2.1. Authorize with a card, but do not turn the “handle” 

on. Power down for more than three minutes, and 

then restore power. Try to dispense product; the 

dispenser should have “timed-out” and not dispense. 

 Yes No N/A 

16.2.2. Authorize and dispense with card #1. Allow the 

system to time out and de-authorize (if it does). Do not 

turn off the “handle.” Authorize and dispense with 

card #2. The transactions shall be properly recorded 

for each card. 

 Yes No N/A 

Note: A mechanical register may accumulate the two deliveries, but the 

printed record must not have accumulated values. 

16.2.3. Authorize with card #1. Turn the “handle” on, then 

off. Authorize with card #2. Dispense product and 

complete the delivery. Check the printed receipt to 

verify that the delivery has been properly charged to 

card #2. 

 Yes No N/A 

16.2.4. Turn the dispenser “handle” on, and use a card to 

authorize the dispenser. Turn the “handle” off. After 

a period of 15 seconds, turn the “handle” on. Try to 

deliver product; the dispenser must not dispense. 

 Yes No N/A 

16.2.5. Authorize with card #1 (do not turn the “handle” on) 

and interrupt power for at least 10 seconds. This 

should de-authorize the dispenser. Resupply power; 

turn the “handle” on; try to dispense. The dispenser 

shall not deliver product. 

 Yes No N/A 

Note: The term “handle” generically refers to the handle, flapper, start 

button, on/off switch, or other mechanism used to activate or deactivate 

the dispenser. 

16.2.6. Authorize with card #1; turn the “handle” on, and 

then interrupt power. This should de-authorize the 

dispenser. Resupply power and authorize the 

dispenser with card #2. Then, complete a delivery. 

Verify that the transaction is charged to card #2. 

 Yes No N/A 

Note: This test is not required if the device under test complies with paragraph 16.1. 

16.2.7. Authorize a dispenser with card #1, but do not turn 

the dispenser “handle” on. Try to authorize the same 

dispenser with card #2; it should not be accepted until 

after the 3 minute time-out. 

 Yes No N/A 

16.3. Attempt to override or confuse the card system by varying the 

length of time the card is in the slot, (e.g., vary the “swipe”

times) and pushing all other keys on the keypad during each 

step of the authorization process. 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix E – LMD-Checklist Criteria for Card Activated RMFDs, Rev. 11-23-13 (Agenda Item 4b) 

NTEP - D / E4 

NTEP LMD Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Card-Activated Retail MotorFuel Dispensers: 

 Move the preamble to Sections 7.18 through 7.21. (shown above) to the beginning of the “NTEP LMD 

Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers.” 

 Create a new “Code Reference G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements” under “NTEP LMD 

Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers,” and move 

the text currently in Sections 7.20 and 7.21 (shown above) to this new code reference. 

 Create a new Code Reference heading for LMD Code paragraphs S.1.6.7. Recorded Representation and 

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for Transactions Where a Post-Delivery Discount(s) is Provided and 

insert text from 7.18 through 7.19., modified to reflect current NIST Handbook 44 language in this new 

reference. 

Resulting changes in the “Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for Card-Activated Retail 

Motor-Fuel Dispensers” will appear as follows: 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Liquid Measuring Devices – Additional Checklists and Test Procedures 

for Card-Activated Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

40. Card-Activated Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

On card-activated retail motor fuel dispensers, the customer authorizes the dispenser by inserting the 

card or swiping the card through a slot. On credit card transactions, the customer is typically billed 

through the same methods as have been used for credit transactions handled through a station 

attendant. On debit card transactions, payment is made directly from the purchaser's account by 

electronic funds transfer. 

Code Reference: G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording Elements 

40.1. Cash Value Card - A cash value card that is initially encoded with the 

purchase price, authorizing a customer to purchase products up to the 

current cash value of the card. The value of the card is decreased in 

amounts equal to individual transactions. 

 Yes No N/A 

Means shall be provided to the customer to determine the initial cash 

value of the card and the remaining cash value prior to and after each 

transaction. 

40.2 Invoice Billing - Invoice billing is a process in which customers are 

billed for one or more transactions at the end of a billing period. 

40.2.1 For computing systems, the date, quantity, unit price, and total

price shall be recorded and shall agree with the indications on

the dispenser.

 Yes No N/A 

40.2.2 When non-computing analog dispensers are used and the 

billing is on the basis of individual quantities for each 

transaction (non-cumulative), the value of the smallest unit of 

displayed quantity for each transaction shall be not greater 

than 0.1 gallon providing the “pulser” and the recorded 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix E – LMD-Checklist Criteria for Card Activated RMFDs, Rev. 11-23-13 (Agenda Item 4b) 

NTEP – D / E5 

quantity used for billing are each equal to or less than 0.01 

gallon. 

40.2.3 All displayed transaction information must be shown for at 

least 30 seconds after completing a delivery or starting the next 

transaction. The delivery is considered complete after the 

“handle” is off or after the nozzle has been returned to its 

designed hanging position. 

 Yes No N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud 

There is great concern regarding the potential for accidental or intentional fraud when card-activated systems 

are used in service stations, especially because bank-card-activated systems give direct access to bank 

accounts. The following criteria and test procedures apply to card-activated retail motor fuel 

dispensers. 

A card-activated system shall authorize the dispensing of product for not more than three minutes of the time 

between authorization and “handle on” at the dispenser. It shall properly record transactions on the 

appropriate card account. 

When a card-activated system is subjected to power loss of greater than 10 seconds, the dispenser shall 

deauthorize. Because systems may be installed with separate power lines to the console, card reader, and 

dispenser, to different parts of the system should be tested with power failures to evaluate the potential for 

accidental or intentional errors. The appropriate device response depends upon when the power loss occurs 

during the delivery sequence. 

40.140.3 The dispenser must de-authorize in not more than three minutes if the 

pump “handle” is not turned on. 

 Yes No N/A 

40.240.4 If the time limit to deactivate a dispenser is programmable, it shall 

not accept an entry greater than three minutes. 

 Yes No N/A 

40.340.5 When a power loss greater than 10 seconds occurs after the pump 

“handle” is on, the dispenser must de-authorize. 

 Yes No N/A 

40.440.6 When there is a loss of power, but the pump “handle” is not on, the 

dispenser must de-authorize in not more than three minutes. 

 Yes No N/A 

Code References: S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations; and S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations for 

Transaction Where a Post-Delivery Discount(s) is Provided. 

Except for fleet sales and other price contract sales, for transactions conducted with point-of-sale systems or 

devices activated by credit cards, debit cards, or cash, a printed receipt containing information about the 

transaction shall be available to the customer as outlined in the following items. A printed receipt must 

always be available to the customer upon request and printing of the receipt may be initiated at the 

option of the customer. In addition, some systems may be equipped with the capability to issue an 

electronic receipt; for those systems, the customer may be given the option to receive the receipt 

electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.). 

40.7 The system must provide a receipt to be made available to the 

customer at the completion of the transaction through either: 

40.7.1. a built-in recording element OR Yes No N/A 

40.7.2. a separate recording element that is part of the system Yes No N/A 

Indicate the option(s) available for providing a receipt: 

 Hard Copy or Electronic 

 Hard Copy and Electronic
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix E – LMD-Checklist Criteria for Card Activated RMFDs, Rev. 11-23-13 (Agenda Item 4b) 

NTEP - D / E6 

40.8 Except for transactions where a post-delivery discount is provided, 

the customer receipt must contain the following information: 

40.8.1 The total volume of the delivery; Yes No N/A 

40.8.2. The unit price; Yes No N/A 

40.8.3. The total computed price; and Yes No N/A 

40.8.4. The product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code 

number. 

 Yes No N/A 

40.9 Where a post-delivery discount(s) is applied, the sales receipt must 

provide: 

40.9.1. The product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code 

number; 

40.9.1 the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price that 

were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the delivery 

prior to any post-delivery discount(s); 

 Yes No N/A 

40.9.2. an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit 

price; and 

 Yes No N/A 

40.9.3. the final total price of each fuel sale after all post-delivery 

discounts are applied. 

 Yes No N/A 

41. Test Methods 

41.1. Authorize the dispenser and, with the pump “handle” on, interrupt power 

to any part (or all) of the system. The pump should de-authorize 

immediately. Specifically: 

41.1.1. Authorize with a card and turn the “handle” on. Power down 

briefly then restore power. Try to dispense product, the dispenser 

must not dispense since the power failure should have deauthorized the dispenser. 

 Yes No N/A 

41.2. Authorize the dispenser using a card (leaving handle off), wait more than 

three minutes, and try to start the dispenser. It should not start because the 

authorization should have timed out. Specifically: 

41.2.1. Authorize with a card, but do not turn the “handle” on. Power 

down for more than three minutes, and then restore power. Try to 

dispense product, the dispenser should have “timed-out” and not

dispense. 

 Yes No N/A 

41.2.2. Authorize and dispense with card #1. Allow the system to time out 

and de-authorize (if it does.) Do not turn off the “handle.” 

Authorize and dispense with card #2. The transactions shall be 

properly recorded for each card. 

 Yes No N/A 

Note: A mechanical register may accumulate the two deliveries, but the printed 

record must not have accumulated values. 

41.2.3. Authorize with card #1. Turn the “handle” on, then off. Authorize 

with card #2. Dispense product and complete the delivery. Check 

the printed receipt to verify that the delivery has been properly 

charged to card #2. 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix E – LMD-Checklist Criteria for Card Activated RMFDs, Rev. 11-23-13 (Agenda Item 4b) 

NTEP – D / E7 

41.2.4. Turn the dispenser “handle” on and use a card to authorize the 

dispenser. Turn the “handle” off, then on. Try to deliver product: 

the dispenser must not dispense. 

 Yes No N/A 

For Multi-hose Dispensers: 

41.2.5. Turn the dispenser “handle” on and use a card to authorize the 

dispenser. Turn the “handle” off. After a period of 15 seconds, 

turn the “handle” on. Try to deliver product; the dispenser must 

not dispense. 

 Yes No N/A 

41.2.6. Authorize with card #1 (do not turn the “handle” on) and interrupt 

power for at least 10 seconds. This should de-authorize the 

dispenser. Resupply power, turn “handle” on, and try to dispense. 

The dispenser shall not deliver product. 

 Yes No N/A 

41.2.7. Authorize with card #1, turn the “handle” on, and then interrupt 

power. This should de-authorize the dispenser. Resupply power 

and authorize the dispenser with card #2, then complete a 

delivery. Verify that the transaction is charged to card #2. 

 Yes No N/A 

41.2.8. Authorize a dispenser with card #1, but do not turn the dispenser 

“handle” on. Try to authorize the same dispenser with card #2, it 

should not be accepted until after the three minute time-out. 

 Yes No N/A 

41.3. Attempt to override or confuse the card system by: varying the length of 

time the card is in the slot (e.g., vary the “swipe” times, and pushing all 

other keys on the keypad during each step of the authorization process). 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix E – LMD-Checklist Criteria for Card Activated RMFDs, Rev. 11-23-13 (Agenda Item 4b) 

NTEP - D / E8 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix F – ECR Interfaced w/RMFDs Checklist Criteria for Recorded Representations, Rev 11-12-13 (Agenda Item 4c) 

NTEP - D / F1 

Appendix D/Sub-Appendix F 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Proposed Additions to the Additional Checklists and Test Procedures for 

Cash-Activated RMFDs 

(Agenda Item 4b) 

Code References: G-S.5.1. and S.1.6.7 

Except for fleet and other price contract sales, a printed receipt showing the quantity, unit price, total 

price, and product identity for each fuel delivery in a transaction is required for cash-activated 

RMFDs. A printed receipt must always be available to the customer upon request and printing of the 

receipt may be initiated at the option of the customer. In addition, some systems may be equipped with 

the capability to issue an electronic receipt for those systems, the customer may be given the option to 

receive the receipt electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.). 

Various forms (or representations) of sales receipt formats are acceptable provided they are clear and 

understandable. Guidelines are provided to assist manufacturers and weights and measures officials in 

determining the acceptability of formats. Symbols other than those given below may be acceptable, but 

they will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. More descriptive symbols and terms are acceptable. 

17.10 The system must provide a receipt to be made available to the 

customer at the completion of the transaction through either: 

 Yes No N/A 

 a built-in recording element OR 

 a separate recording element that is part of the system 

 Indicate the option(s) available for providing a receipt: 

 Hard Copy or Electronic 

 Hard Copy and Electronic 

17.11 Except for transactions where a post-delivery discount is provided, 

the customer receipt must contain the following information: 

17.11.1 The total volume of the delivery; Yes No N/A 

17.11.2 The unit price; Yes No N/A 

17.11.3 The total computed price; and Yes No N/A 

17.11.4 The product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or 

code number. 

 Yes No N/A 

17.12 Where a post-delivery discount(s) is applied, the sales receipt must 

provide: 

17.12.1 the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price that 

were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the delivery 

prior to any post-delivery discount(s); 

 Yes No N/A 

17.12.2 an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit 

price; and 

 Yes No N/A 

17.12.3 the final total price of each fuel sale after all post-delivery 

discounts are applied. 

 Yes No N/A 

17.13 The unit of measure shall be clearly defined. Acceptable symbols for 

units are: Gallon Gal, of G for gallons and Liter, l or L for liters. 

Upper or lower case is optional except that a lower case “l” must not 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix F – ECR Interfaced w/RMFDs Checklist Criteria for Recorded Representations, Rev 11-12-13 (Agenda Item 4c) 

NTEP - D / F2 

resemble a “1” (numeral one), (e.g. a script “l” is an acceptable 

symbol for liters.) 

The unit of measure may be defined with either the quantity value, 

(e.g., 10 000 GAL) or with the unit price, (e.g., $1.119/Gal), not 

necessarily both. 

17.14 Acceptable designations of the unit price are: “@” as a prefix to the 

unit price value, an upper or lower case “X” or slash between the 

quantity and unit price, $/G, PPG (price per gallon), PPL (price per 

liter), UP (unit price), P/G, price/Vol, PPU (price per unit), 

DOL/GAL. 

17.15 The total fuel price must be clearly distinguished from other 

information in the fuel transaction. To identify the total fuel sale 

price, use one of the following methods: 

17.15.1 Decimal point in the proper dollar position, (e.g., XX.XX.) If 

a dollar sign is not used, there must be at least one offset 

column of the least significant digit in recorded information, 

other than the sale price. 

 Yes No N/A 

17.15.2 The words gas, diesel, or other product designation may be 

used with the word “SALE” (e.g., “FUEL SALE” or “GAS 

SALE”) or the product identification followed by the sale 

price, (e.g., GAS 20.00.) 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix G – Proposed Changes to the ECRF Interfaced with RMFDs Checklist, Rev 11-12-13 (Agenda Item 4e) 

NTEP - D / G1 

Appendix D/Sub-Appendix G 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Proposed Changes to the ECR Interfaced with RMFDs Checklist 

(Agenda Item 4e) 

3. Recorded Representations 

Code Reference: G-S.5.1. S.1.6.7, and S.1.6.8. 

Except for fleet and other price contract sales, aA sales printed receipt showing the quantity, unit price, 

total price, and product identity for each fuel delivery in a transaction is required for point-of-sale systems. A 

printed receipt must always be available to the customer upon request and printing of the receipt may be 

initiated at the option of the customer. In addition, some systems may be equipped with the capability to 

issue an electronic receipt. Tfor those systems, the customer may be given the option to receive the receipt 

electronically (e.g., via cell phone, computer, etc.). 

Various forms (or representations) of sales receipt formats are acceptable provided they are clear and 

understandable. Guidelines are provided to assist manufacturers and weights and measures officials in 

determining the acceptability of formats. Symbols other than those given below may be acceptable, but they 

will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. More descriptive symbols and terms are acceptable. 

3.1 The system must provide a receipt to be made available to the 

customer at the completion of the transaction through either: 

 Yes No N/A 

 a built-in recording element OR 

 a separate recording element that is part of the system 

 Indicate the option(s) available for providing a receipt: 

 Hard Copy or Electronic 

 Hard Copy and Electronic 

3.2 Except for transactions where a post-delivery discount is provided, the 

customer receipt must contain the following information: 

3.2.1 The total volume of the delivery; Yes No N/A 

3.2.2 The unit price; Yes No N/A 

3.2.3 The total computed price; and Yes No N/A 

3.2.4 The product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code 

number. 

 Yes No N/A 

3.3 Where a post-delivery discount(s) is applied, the sales receipt must 

provide: 

3.3.1 the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price that 

were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the delivery 

prior to any post-delivery discount(s); 

 Yes No N/A 

3.3.2 an itemization of the post-delivery discounts to the unit price; 

and 

 Yes No N/A 

3.3.3 the final total price of each fuel sale after all post-delivery 

discounts are applied. 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix G – Proposed Changes to the ECRF Interfaced with RMFDs Checklist, Rev 11-12-13 (Agenda Item 4e) 

NTEP - D / G2 

3.14 The unit of measure shall be clearly defined. Acceptable symbols for units 

are: Gallon Gal, of G for gallons and Liter, l or L for liters. Upper or lower 

case is optional except that a lower case “l” must not resemble a “1” 

(numeral one), (e.g. a script “l” is an acceptable symbol for liters.) 

 Yes No N/A 

The unit of measure may be defined with either the quantity value, (e.g., 

10 000 GAL) or with the unit price, (e.g., $1.119/Gal), not necessarily 

both. 

3.25 Acceptable designations of the unit price are: “@” as a prefix to the unit 

price value, an upper or lower case “X” or slash between the quantity and 

unit price, $/G, PPG (price per gallon), PPL (price per liter), UP (unit 

price), P/G, price/Vol, PPU (price per unit), DOL/GAL. 

3.36 The total fuel price must be clearly distinguished from other information in 

the fuel transaction. To identify the total fuel sale price, use one of the 

following methods: 

3.36.1 Decimal point in the proper dollar position, (e.g., XX.XX.) If a 

dollar sign is not used, there must be at least one offset column of 

the least significant digit in recorded information, other than the 

sale price. 

 Yes No N/A 

3.36.2 The words gas, diesel, or other product designation may be used 

with the word “SALE” (e.g., “FUEL SALE” or “GAS SALE”) or 

the product identification followed by the sale price, (e.g., GAS 

20.00.) 

 Yes No N/A 

3.47 Each fuel delivery in a transaction for a single customer must be recorded 

separately. 

 Yes No N/A 

3.5 Where a post-delivery discount(s) is applied, the sales receipt must 

provide: - the total quantity, unit price, and total computed price that 

were displayed on the dispenser at the end of the delivery prior to any 

post-delivery discount(s); - an itemization of the post-delivery discounts 

to the unit price; and the final total price of each fuel sale after all postdelivery discounts are applied. See LMD Code S.1.6.8.-: 

 Yes No N/A 

3.68 The product identity for fuel need only distinguish it from other items. The 

product name, code number (similar to a price look-up code), or hose or 

pump number are acceptable designations of product identify. See LMD 

Code S.1.6.4.

 Yes No N/A 

Example 1 Example 2

Meat 3.89 Meat 3.89 

Soda 2.99 Soda 2.99 

Gas 5.080 G @ 1.000 5.08 Gas 4.080 G @ 1.000 4.08 

Cig 1.00 

Note: NIST Handbook 44 does not require that product identification, 

date, and change due be printed on a ticket or a cash register receipt. 

These requirements apply to recorded representations resulting from a 

final sale, not to deposit slips for prepay transactions, etc. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix G – Proposed Changes to the ECRF Interfaced with RMFDs Checklist, Rev 11-12-13 (Agenda Item 4e) 

NTEP - D / G3 

3.79 The quantity representation of an item sold by count must be expressed 

in whole units. An expression of count with a decimal point and 

trailing zeroes, (e.g., 2.00 items) is acceptable provided that fractions 

of a whole unit cannot be expressed. 

 Yes No N/A 

 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix D – 2013 Measuring Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix G – Proposed Changes to the ECRF Interfaced with RMFDs Checklist, Rev 11-12-13 (Agenda Item 4e) 

NTEP - D / G4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E1 

Appendix E 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Software Sector Meeting Summary 

March 19-20, 2013 

Columbus, Ohio 

INTRODUCTION 

The charge of the NTETC Software Sector is important in providing appropriate type evaluation criteria for 

software-based weighing or measuring device based on specifications, tolerances and technical requirements of 

NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring 

Devices, Section 1.10. General Code, Section 2 for weighing devices, Section 3 for liquid and vapor measuring 

devices, and Section 5 for taximeters, grain analyzers, and multiple dimension measuring devices. The Sector’s 

recommendations are presented to the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee each January for 

approval and inclusion in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures, for national 

type evaluation. 

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors, and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced font

(e.g., new items), and 3) nonretroactive items are identified in italics. There are instances where the Sector will use 

red text and/or highlighted text to bring emphasis to text that requires additional attention. When used in this report, 

the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Note: It is the policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to use metric units of measurement in 

all of its publications; however, recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and 

measures associations have been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references in 

inch-pound units. 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Title of Content Page NTEP E

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 2

STATUS REPORTS – RELATED NCWM AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITY ............................................. 2

CARRY-OVER ITEMS .............................................................................................................................................. 3

1. Software Identification/Markings ................................................................................................................ 3

2. Identification of Certified Software ............................................................................................................. 6

3. Software Protection/Security ..................................................................................................................... 10

4. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration .............................................................................................. 14

5. NTEP Application for Software and Software-based Devices .................................................................. 16

6. Training of Field Inspectors ....................................................................................................................... 17
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E2 

NEW ITEMS .............................................................................................................................................................. 20

7. Next Meeting ............................................................................................................................................. 20

8. 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting Report ....................................................................................................... 21

9. 2013 International Report .......................................................................................................................... 21

10. 360-7 D Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability .................................................... 21 

Appendix 

A. Appendix – List of Acceptable Menu Text/Icons for Identification of Certificate Number ............... E / A1

Table B 

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 

Acronym Term Acronym Term 

BIML International Bureau of Legal Metrology OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

CC Certificate of Conformance OWM Office of Weights and Measures 

EPO Examination Procedure Outline PDC Professional Development Committee 

GMMs Grain Moisture Meters PDC Professional Development Committee 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures 

S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee 

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program SMA Scale Manufactures Association 

NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee 

WELMEC European Cooperation in Legal 

Metrology 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key) 

WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS 

The Chair would like to welcome new individuals that have joined the NTETC Software Sector since the last 

meeting. Please welcome: 

 Eric Morabito, New York Bureau of Weights & Measures 

 Gary Benjamin, NCR Corporation 

STATUS REPORTS – RELATED NCWM AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITY 

Attendees of the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting will be asked to share any relevant comments or discussion that took 

place during the open hearings or NCWM Standards and Tolerances (S&T) Committee working sessions. 

Mr. Jim Truex was the only Sector attendee at the Interim Meeting. He doesn’t recall any comments on the floor. 

After the hearings, he had a brief discussion with the S&T Committee, to little effect. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E3 

Dr. Ambler Thompson, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), will provide a synopsis of international 

activity that relates to the work of the Sector. 

The new proposed revision of OIML has increased the risk classifications. The next CIML meeting is set for 

October. 

CARRY-OVER ITEMS 

1. Software Identification/Markings 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Background: 

Since its inception the Sector has wrestled with the issue of software identification and marking requirements. See 

the 2012 Software Sector Meeting Summary and the 2013 Interim Meeting S&T Agenda Item 360-2 for more 

background on this item. 

NIST, OWM had been adding items to the S&T Agendas that confused matters since the perception was that this 

Sector had contributed to this input. Most of the confusion arose in the 1990s, due to some items being approved, 

and others, such as the definitions for “Built-for-Purpose” and “Not-Built-for -Purpose,” not being approved. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, discussed the difficulty there has been in coming to a consensus on these issues 

with a representative of the NTEP Committee. Suggestions from NTEP to come to some resolution has been to 

write an article for the newsletter (which Mr. Bliss, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, had already done, to no effect), sending a 

questionnaire to the NTEP community, asking what they would like to see, and sending a representative from this 

Sector to the S&T Committee. 

Mr. Roach (California Division of Measurement Standards) is concerned that some people may want to interpret GS.1.(c) as requiring a serial number for software. Mr. Lewis (Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc.) pointed out that 

the computer the software was running on could have the serial number, not the software itself. That shouldn’t 

matter, regardless. 

Mr. Bliss (Mettler-Toledo, LLC) pointed out that the terminology in G-S.1. “All equipment,” could be interpreted to 

mean that it doesn’t apply to software. It was proposed that G-S.1.(c) be amended to add “and software.” Mr. Bliss 

suggested submitting a document explaining the reasoning behind the proposed changes, rather than assume the text 

is self-explanatory. Making a presentation to the various Committees on the subject in addition would be beneficial 

as well. If a document is written, perhaps the examples given in G-S.1.(d)(3)(a) can be eliminated. “Metrologically 

significant” isn’t explicitly defined, but it’s been used since time immemorial. 

Attempts to modify G-S.1.1. have been controversial, both in this meeting and in other committees. Unfortunately, 

there has been little constructive feedback from the other Committees. It would probably be easier to incorporate 

specific examples given in G-S.1.1(b)3 in NCWM Publication 14. After some discussion, the previously proposed 

language was modified slightly to address some of the concerns received via feedback from other Sectors and 

interested parties: 

NIST Handbook 44 – Proposed Changes:

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E4 

(b) a model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(1) The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms 

may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The 

abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial 

capitals, all capitals, or all lowercase. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001) 

(c) a nonrepetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and

not-built-for-purpose software-based software devices software;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(Amended 2003) 

(1) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies 

the number as the required serial number. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and 

abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, 

SN, Ser. No., and S. No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based 

electronic devices, which shall be directly linked to the software itself; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 20XX)

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, 

begin with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be accessible via the display. Instructions for displaying 

the version or revision identifier shall be described in the CC. As an exception, permanently 

marking the version or revision identifier shall be acceptable under the following conditions: 

(a) The user interface does not have any control capability to activate the indication of the 

version or revision identifier on the display, or the display does not technically allow the 

version or revision identifier to be shown (analog indicating device or electromechanical 

counter,) or 

(b) the device does not have an interface to communicate the version or revision identifier. 

(e) an NTEP CC number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number for devices that have a CC. 

(1) The CC Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced by the terms 

“NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E5 

abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.) 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and, 2006 and 201X) 

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-For-Purpose all Software-Based Devices. – For

not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, either: 

(a) The required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) shall be permanently marked or 

continuously displayed on the device; or 

(b) The CC Number shall be: 

(1) permanently marked on the device; 

(2) continuously displayed; or 

(3) accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu 

and submenu identification include, but are not limited to, “Help,” “System Identification,” 

“G-S.1. Identification,” or “Weights and Measures Identification.” 

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed 

on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was 

evaluated. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006 and 20XX) 

The new language in G-S.1.1. reflects that the sector reached consensus on the following positions: 

 The software version/revision should (with very few exceptions – see D-31 5.1.1.) be accessible via the 

user interface. 

 The means by which the software version is accessed must be described in the Certificate of Conformance 

(CC). 

The Sector promoted this item following the meeting via several means to try and address the concerns of other 

interested parties. A presentation was generated and shared with the S.M.A. at their meeting. The regions had 

access to this information, as it was posted on the NCWM website. Unfortunately, based on the comments in the 

2013 NCWM Publication 15 Item 360-2, some regions were not aware that this information had been provided. 

During the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, no comments were received relative to this item during the Open 

Hearings. In considering the item, the Committee questioned whether or not the Software Sector was still actively 

working the item. It was reported that the Software Sector believed they had developed the item as much as 

possible, yet the different stakeholders affected by the proposal could not agree on the changes that the Sector had 

proposed. Based upon that update, the Committee agreed to add to its report a request that the Software Sector work 

with the Weighing Sector and Measuring Sector to identify which portions of the proposal need to be modified in 

order that they might be accepted by the entire community. The Committee acknowledges and appreciates the 

efforts of the Software Sector and looks forward to being able to consider a proposal that addresses both the 

identification of software and how it may be accessed. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E6 

Discussion: 

Since the 2012 meeting, the Sector has attempted to promote this item via several means to try and address the 

concerns of other interested parties. A presentation was generated and shared with the S.M.A. at their 2012 meeting. 

Most of the regions had access to this information prior to their meetings, as it was posted on the NCWM website. 

Unfortunately, based on the comments in the 2013 NCWM Publication 15, Item 360-2, some regions were not 

aware that this information had been made available. 

In addition, it was noted that it may be desirable to evaluate options that would lead to fully eliminating GS-1.1. It 

was noted that this would be a more invasive modification to the existing Handbook and perhaps should be put off 

until the first step of addressing software in all devices (not just standalone) was accomplished. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector considers this item sufficiently developed. The one response to our request for review/comment that 

contained negative feedback was undeniably vague and non-constructive. The issue seems to be more one of 

communication/understanding than disagreement with the intent or wording. We may want to consider more direct 

methods, that is, designating a representative to address the regional groups or other Sectors at their meetings. The 

annual meeting may be an appropriate venue for a presentation.

To move this forward, someone should address the regional groups. There are five to six potential venues for 

presentations. The last slide from the current presentation should be eliminated, to avoid confusing matters, for the 

time being. The two regional meetings in the fall (Western and Southern) and the interim meeting are probably 

more critical than the ones in May. Dr. Thompson was asked to relay that we have a presentation available and 

would like to push our proposal as a Voting Item in 2014. To be part of the January 2014 Annual S&T committee’s 

hearings/agenda, this needs to be brought to Mr. Rick Harshman’s attention. Dr. Thompson volunteered to speak 

with him. 

After removing the “and inseparably” terminology from the proposal, the concerns on the possibility of controversy 

were reduced. 

The Sector’s opinion on the interpretation of “directly linked” is that it means that you can’t change the 

version/revision without changing the software. 

It was recommended that a couple examples be added to the current slide presentation, to illustrate the intent of the 

proposed changes. One example might be supermarket-specific software designed to run upon a cash register. 

Another example might be, after a software change, noting that the new software version/revision number is no 

longer the same, and the operator was not prompted to enter a version/revision number. 

Note: The text in red is a modification in the proposal made this year – the new text was inserted to address our 

Agenda Item 2. Upon the suggestion of NIST, OWM, the modifications to NIST Handbook 44 in these items were 

combined to avoid having to forward another proposal to modify Handbook 44 simultaneously or in the immediate 

future. 

2. Identification of Certified Software 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Background: 

This item originated as an attempt to answer the question “How does the field inspector know that the software 

running in the device is the same software evaluated and approved by the lab?” In previous meetings it was shown 

that the international community has addressed this issue (both WELMEC and OIML). 

From WELMEC 7.2:
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E7 

Required Documentation: 

The documentation shall list the software identifications and describe how the software identification is created, 

how it is inextricably linked to the software itself, how it may be accessed for viewing, and how it is structured 

in order to differentiate between version changes with and without requiring a type approval. 

From OIML D-31: 

The executable file “tt100_12.exe” is protected against modification by a checksum. The value of checksum as 

determined by algorithm XYZ is 1A2B3C. 

Previous discussions have included a listing of some additional examples of possible valid methods (not limiting): 

 CRC (cyclical redundancy check) 

 Checksum 

 Inextricably Linked version no. 

 Encryption 

 Digital Signature 

Is there some method to give the weights and measures inspector information that something has changed? 

Yes, the Category III Audit Trail or other means of sealing. 

How can the weights and measures inspector identify an NTEP Certified version? 

They can’t, without adding additional requirements like what is described here, in conjunction with including the 

identifier on the CC).

The Sector believes that we should work towards language that would include a requirement similar to the 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) requirement in NIST Handbook 44. It is also the opinion of 

the Sector that a specific method should not be defined; rather the manufacturer should utilize a method and 

demonstrate the selected identification mechanism is suitable for the purpose. It is not clear from the discussion 

where such proposed language might belong. 

NTEP strongly recommends that metrological software be separated from non-metrological software for ease of 

identification and evaluation. 

From OIML: 

Separation of software parts – All software modules (programmes, subroutines, objects etc.) that perform 

metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically significant data domains form the 

metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or sub-assembly). The conformity 

requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked according to Section G-S-X.X. 

If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically significant as a 

whole. 

(Segregation of parameters is currently allowed – see table of sealable parameters) 

Initial draft proposed language: (G-S.1.1?) 

NIST Handbook 44 (This has been written into G-S.1.(d)(3): Identification of Certified Software: 

Software-based electronic devices shall be designed such that the metrologically significant software is 

clearly identified by the version or revision number. The identification, and this identification of the 

software shall be inextricably directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. The version or 

revision number may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated to the 

metrologically significant software. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E8 

From NCWM Publication 14: 

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the need for 

further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on devices without 

breaking a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules (programs, 

subroutines, objects etc.) that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically 

significant data domains form the metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or 

sub-assembly). If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically 

significant as a whole. The conformity requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked 

according to Section G-S-X.X.

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is directly and 

inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision identifier is comprised 

of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents the metrological significant 

software and which does not. 

From OIML D-31: 

Legally relevant software of a measuring instrument/electronic device/sub-assembly shall be clearly identified 

with the software version or another token. The identification may consist of more than one part but at least one 

part shall be dedicated to the legal purpose. 

The identification shall be inextricably linked to the software itself and shall be presented or printed on 

command or displayed during operation or at start up for a measuring instrument that can be turned off and on 

again. If a sub-assembly/an electronic device has neither display nor printer, the identification shall be sent via 

a communication interface in order to be displayed/printed on another sub-assembly/electronic device. 

The first sentence of the first paragraph above is already addressed in NIST Handbook 44’s marking requirements. 

In 2010, the Sector recommended the following change to NIST Handbook 44, General Code: G-S.1(d) to add a new 

subsection (3): 

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic

devices; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 20XX) 

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that 

clearly identifies the number as the required version or revision. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be 

followed by the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter “R” and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E9 

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself. 

The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall 

be dedicated to the metrologically significant software. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 201X] 

(Added 20XX) 

Also the Sector recommended the following information be added to NCWM Publication 14 as 

explanation/examples: 

 Unique identifier must be displayable/printable on command or during operation, etc. 

 At a minimum, a version/revision indication (1.02.09, rev 3.0 a, etc.). Could also consist of/contain 

checksum, etc. (crc32, for example). 

There was some additional discussion on this item regarding where this new requirement was best 

located. It was suggested that the first sentence of G-S.1.(d)(3) could be added as a clause to the base 

paragraph G-S.1.(d) text, for example, “the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-forpurpose software-based devices, which shall be directly and inseparably linked to the software itself.”.

It also was suggested that the second sentence in G-S.1.(d)(3) might be more suitable for NCWM Publication 14, as 

it describes more “how” than “what” the requirement entails. 

In addition, the Sector considered the following information to be added to NCWM Publication 14 as 

explanation/examples: 

 The current software identifier must be displayable/printable on command during operation (or made 

evident by other means deemed acceptable by G-S.1.). 

 At a minimum, the software identifier must include a version/revision indication (1.02.09, rev 3.0 a, etc). It 

could also consist of/contain checksum, etc. (crc32, for example). 

 The version or revision identifier may consist of more than one part, but at least one part shall be dedicated 

to the metrologically significant software. 

Other questions still outstanding: 

 If we allow hard-marking of the software identifier (the Sector has wavered on this in the past), does the 

above wording then imply that some mechanical means is required (i.e., physical seal) to ”inseparably link” 

the identifier to the software? 

 If a device is capable of doing so, does it still have to be able to display, print or communicate the identifier 

somehow, even if it is hard-marked? 

At the 2012 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, there was some discussion as to where the terminology regarding 

inextricably linking the software version or revision to the software itself belonged. At the moment, it is not 

incorporated in the proposed text for G-S.1. NCWM Publication 14 may be a better option for the time being. This 

would be another item that would benefit from further explanation in a supplementary document. 

Several Sector members were of the opinion that attempting to make this change at the same time as the earlier 

changes might be a difficult sell. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, reiterated the necessity of baby steps. 

In 2012, the Sector thus recommended adding the following to NCWM Publication 14 and forward to NTETC 

Weighing, Measuring, Grain Analyzer Sectors for feedback: 

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the need for 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E10 

further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on devices without 

breaking a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules (programs, 

subroutines, objects etc.) that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically 

significant data domains form the metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or 

sub-assembly). If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically 

significant as a whole. The conformity requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked according to 

Section G-S-X.X. 

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is directly and 

inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision identifier is comprised 

of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents the metrological significant 

software and which does not. 

Discussion: 

The Measuring Sector reviewed this item and had no feedback other than a statement that they support the 

continuing/ongoing efforts of this sector. The Weighing Sector summary mentioned that no one opted to provide 

comment. They agreed to take no further action on this item, pending further action from the Software Sector. This 

was specifically in reference to the accepted symbols. 

For the time being, Jim Truex recommended that we not attempt to provide a definition for “software-based device.” 

We discussed the possibility of combining this change with the first agenda item, which had been attempted in 

previous years. Alternatively, if the NIST Handbook 44 changes from agenda Item 1 are made, this agenda item 

could be addressed in NCWM Publication 14. 

Conclusion:

After further discussion, the wording in G-S.1.(d) under agenda item 1 was changed. Agenda Item 2 will remain; 

however, it will address potential changes to NCWM Publication 14 and contain no suggested modifications to 

NIST Handbook 44. (See changes and conclusion under agenda Item 1 for further details.) 

The Sector Chair volunteered to review the existing slide presentation detailing the purpose of these changes, to 

ensure that it accurately reflects this information. 

The list of acceptable menu text and symbols in Appendix A are intended to assist the labs in finding the 

certification number. The Sector noticed no action by the Sectors had been taken when this list was circulated for 

comment. We would like to remind them that we would like to have it reviewed. We feel that this belongs in, for 

example, the Weighing Device Publication 14, page DES-22, Section 3; the Belt-Conveyor Scales, page BCS-10, 

Section 8.7; the Measuring Devices, page LMD-21, Section 1.6; the Grain Moisture Meter, page GMM-14, 

Section 1 (G.S.1.); and Near Infrared Grain Analyzers, page NIR-8, Section 1 (G.S.1.). 

3. Software Protection/Security 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Background: 

The Sector agreed that NIST Handbook 44 already has audit trail and physical seal, but these may need to be 

enhanced. 

From the WELMEC Document: 

Protection against accidental or unintentional changes: 

Metrologically significant software and measurement data shall be protected against accidental or unintentional 

changes. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E11 

Specifying Notes: 

Possible reasons for accidental changes and faults are: unpredictable physical influences, effects caused by user 

functions and residual defects of the software even though state-of-the-art development techniques have been 

applied. 

This requirement includes consideration of: 

a) Physical influences: Stored measurement data shall be protected against corruption or deletion when a 

fault occurs or, alternatively, the fault shall be detectable. 

b) User functions: Confirmation shall be demanded before deleting or changing data. 

c) Software defects: Appropriate measures shall be taken to protect data from unintentional changes that 

could occur through incorrect program design or programming errors, e.g. plausibility checks. 

Required Documentation: 

The documentation should show the measures that have been taken to protect the software and data against 

unintentional changes. 

Example of an Acceptable Solution: 

 The accidental modification of software and measurement data may be checked by calculating a checksum 

over the relevant parts, comparing it with the nominal value and stopping if anything has been modified. 

 Measurement data are not deleted without prior authorization, for example, a dialogue statement or window 

asking for confirmation of deletion. 

 For fault detection see also Extension I. 

The Sector continued to develop a proposed checklist for NCWM Publication 14. The numbering will still need to 

be added. This is based roughly on R 76-2 checklist and discussions beginning as early as the October 2007 NTETC 

Software Sector Meeting. The information requested by this checklist is currently voluntary; however, it is 

recommended that applicants comply with these requests or provide specific information as to why they may not be 

able to comply. Based on this information, the checklist may be amended to better fit with NTEP's need for 

information and the applicant's ability to comply. 

The California, Maryland, and Ohio laboratories agreed to use this checklist on one of the next devices they have in 

the lab and report back to the sector on what the problems may be. In February 2011, the North Carolina laboratory 

was also given a copy of the checklist to try. 

 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E12 

1. Devices with Embedded Software TYPE P (aka built-for-purpose) 

1.1. Declaration of the manufacturer that the software is used in a fixed 

hardware and software environment. AND

 Yes No N/A 

1.2. Cannot be modified or uploaded by any means after securing/verification. Yes No N/A 

Note: It is acceptable to break the "seal" and load new software, audit trail is 

also a sufficient seal. 

1.3. The software documentation contains: 

1.3.1. Description of all functions, designating those that are 

considered metrologically significant. 

 Yes No N/A 

1.3.2. Description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention). Yes No N/A 

1.3.3. Software Identification, including version / revision Yes No N/A 

1.3.4. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A 

1.4. The software identification is: 

1.4.1. Clearly assigned to the metrologically significant software and

functions. 

 Yes No N/A 

1.4.1. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A 

1.4.2. Provided by the device as documented. Yes No N/A 

1.4.3. Directly linked to the software itself. Yes No N/A 

2. Personal Computers, Instruments with PC Components, and Other Instruments, Devices, Modules, and 

Elements with Programmable or Loadable Metrologically Significant Software TYPE U (aka not builtfor-purpose) 

2.1. The metrologically significant software is: 

2.1.1. Documented with all relevant (see below for list of documents) 

information. 

 Yes No N/A 

2.1.2. Protected against accidental or intentional changes. Yes No N/A 

2.2. Evidence of intervention (such as, changes, uploads, circumvention) is 

available until the next verification / inspection (e.g., physical seal, 

Checksum, Cyclical Redundancy Check (CRC), audit trail, etc. means of 

security). 

 Yes No N/A 

3. Software with Closed Shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs possible for the user) 

3.1. Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g., function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short 

descriptions. 

 Yes No N/A 

3.2. Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands. 

 Yes No N/A 

4. Operating System and/or Program(s) Accessible for the User 

4.1. Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the 

machine code of the metrologically significant software (program 

module(s) subject to legal control Weights and Measures jurisdiction and 

type-specific parameters). 

 Yes No N/A 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E13 

4.2. Check whether the metrologically significant software will detect and act 

upon any unauthorized alteration of the metrologically significant 

software using simple software tools (e.g., text editor). 

 Yes No N/A 

5. Software Interface(s) 

5.1. Verify the manufacturer has documented: 

5.1.1. The program modules of the metrologically significant software 

are defined and separated. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.2. The protective software interface itself is part of the 

metrologically significant software. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.3. The functions of the metrologically significant software that can 

be accessed via the protective software interface. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.4. The parameters that may be exchanged via the protective 

software interface are defined. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.5. The description of the functions and parameters are conclusive 

and complete. 

 Yes No N/A 

5.1.6. There are software interface instructions for the third-party 

(external) application programmer. 

 Yes No N/A 

The Maryland laboratory had particular questions regarding 3.1 and 5.1. The information for 3.1 could be acquired 

from an operator’s manual, a training video, or in-person training. The items in 5.1 were confusing to the 

evaluators. The terminology is familiar to software developers, but not necessarily others. It was indicated that 

manufacturers were typically quick to return the filled out questionnaire, but he didn’t know how his laboratory was 

supposed to verify that it was true. Generally, the laboratories wouldn’t be expected to verify things to that level. 

For example, if the manufacturer states that a checksum is used to ensure integrity, the laboratories wouldn’t be 

expected to evaluate the algorithm used. 

The intent was to see whether the manufacturer had at least considered these issues, not for evaluators to become 

software engineers. Perhaps a glossary or descriptive paragraphs might be added to assist the evaluators for if the 

manufacturer has questions for the evaluators. 

OIML makes use of supplementary documents to explain the checklist they use. Below are links: 

http://www.oiml.org/publications/D/D031-e08.pdf 

http://www.welmec.org/latest/guides/72.html 

http://www.welmec.org/fileadmin/user_files/publications/2-3.pdf

WELMEC document 2.3 is the original source for our checklist, but it’s been significantly revised and simplified. 

Mr. Payne, Maryland Department of Agriculture, is going to review the other documents and come up with some 

suggestions for the checklist. Mr. Roach, California Division of Measurement Standards, is going to begin using the 

checklist. The international viewpoint is that any device running an operating system is considered to be Type U. 

Mr. Roach mentioned that they’re having lots of problems with “skimmers” stealing PIN’s. Is there some way they 

can detect this? 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., mentioned that he liked Measurement Canada’s website. When 

answering similar questions, different pages would appear, based on answers to those questions: 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm00573.html 

At the 2011 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, the laboratories were polled to obtain any feedback on the use of the 

checklist. Maryland attempted to use this checklist a few times. They had some difficulty obtaining answers from 

the manufacturers because the individual(s) interacting with the Maryland evaluator didn’t always have the required 

information on-hand. More experience in using the checklist will help determine what needs to be revised. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E14 

It was suggested that the checklist could be sent to manufacturers for their feedback as well, with the stipulation that 

it a completely voluntary exercise and purely informational at this point. The laboratories will coordinate with 

willing manufacturers to obtain feedback. 

Work is ongoing on this item with the intent that it eventually will be incorporated as a checklist in NCWM 

Publication 14; again the laboratories are requested to try utilizing this checklist for any evaluations on softwarebased electronic devices. 

The checklist has been reviewed with an eye to making its terminology clearer to laboratories. Some examples and 

clarifications have been added as shown in the discussion section of this item. The revised checklist will be 

distributed to the laboratories for additional review. Maryland and California laboratories agreed to use the checklist 

on a trial basis. 

Discussion: 

Over the past year, attempts to use the current checklist did not meet with many difficulties. The checklists were 

given to the manufacturers to fill out, and that seemed to work rather well. Minor modifications (in red above) were 

made to clarify certain confusing areas or eliminate redundancy. 

Conclusion: 

The next step will be to forward it to the four sectors; we can report that the labs have tried using it on a trial basis 

and we’re ready to recommend it for NCWM Publication 14 with the modification suggested here, such as the 

removal of the Type P/Type U wording. 

4. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Background: 

After the software is completed, what do the manufacturers use to secure their software? The following items were 

reviewed by the sector. Note agenda Item 3 also contains information on Verified and Traced updates and Software 

Log.

1. Verify that the update process is documented. (OK) 

2. For traced updates, installed Software is authenticated and checked for integrity. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the authenticity of the loaded software (i.e., that it originates 

from the owner of the type approval certificate). This can be accomplished (e.g, by cryptographic means like 

signing). The signature is checked during loading. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument shall 

discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the integrity of the loaded software (i.e. that it has not been 

inadmissibly changed before loading). This can be accomplished in other words by adding a checksum or hash 

code of the loaded software and verifying it during the loading procedure. If the loaded software fails this test, 

the instrument shall discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

Examples are not limiting or exclusive. 

3. Verify that the sealing requirements are met. 

The Sector asked, “What sealing requirements are we talking about?” 

This item is only addressing the software update, it can be either verified or traced. It is possible that there are 

two different security means, one for protecting software updates (software log) and one for protecting the other 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E15 

metrological parameters (Category I, II, or III method of sealing). Some examples provided by the Sector 

members include but are not limited to: 

 Physical seal, software log 

 Category III method of sealing can contain both means of security 

4. Verify that if the upgrade process fails, the device is inoperable or the original software is restored. 

The question before the group is, can this be made mandatory? 

The manufacturer shall ensure by appropriate technical means (e.g., an audit trail) that traced updates of 

metrologically significant software are adequately traceable within the instrument for subsequent verification 

and surveillance or inspection. This requirement enables inspection authorities, which are responsible for the 

metrological surveillance of legally controlled instruments, to back-trace traced updates of metrologically 

significant software over an adequate period of time (that depends on national legislation). The statement in 

italics will need to be reworded to comply with U.S. weights and measures requirements. 

The Sector agreed that the two definitions below for Verified Update and Traced Update were acceptable. 

Verified Update 

A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user. 

Traced Update 

A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or audit trail. 

Note: It’s possible that the Philosophy of Sealing section of NCWM Publication 14 may already address the above 

IF the definitions of Verified and Traced Updates (and the statement below) were to be added. The contrary 

argument was that it may be better to be explicit). 

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is required for a Traced Update. A log entry representing a traced 

software update shall include the software identification of the newly installed version. 

The Sector recommended consolidating the definitions with the above statement thus: 

Verified Update 

A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user. 

Traced Update 

A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or Category 3 audit trail. The 

audit trail entry shall include the software identification of the newly installed version. 

In 2012, the Sector recommended that as a first step, the following be added to NCWM Publication 14: 

The updating of metrologically significant software, including software that checks the authenticity 

and integrity of the updates, shall be considered a sealable event. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, indicated his opinion that the above sentence is unnecessary since it’s self-evident. 

It was agreed by the group however to ask the other sectors for feedback on the value of this addition. 

Though the Sector is currently considering only the single sentence be incorporated into NCWM Publication 14 for 

the time being, ultimately, the Sector may wish to advance the remaining language of the original item submission. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E16 

Discussion:

The Sector had no information indicating that the other sectors had yet been approached for feedback on the value of 

the addition of the proposed sentence. 

Conclusion: 

This sector would like the other sectors to evaluate this for inclusion in Publication 14.We’d also like to include 

some description indicating that an existing audit trail should be protected during a software update, though that may 

already be a requirement. This does appear to be addressed in the Requirements for Metrological Audit Trails 

Appendices in NCWM Publication 14. 

5. NTEP Application for Software and Software-based Devices 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Background/Discussion: 

The purpose of initiating this item was to identify issues, requirements, and processes for type approving Type U 

device applications. It was suggested that it may be useful to the labs to devise a separate submission form for 

software for Type U devices. What gets submitted? What requirements and mechanisms for submission should be 

available? Validation in the laboratories – all required subsystems shall be included to be able to simulate the 

system as installed. 

Mr. Roach, California Division of Measurement Standards, stated that if the software package being evaluated 

supports platforms/subsystems from multiple manufacturers, testing should be done using at least two 

platforms/subsystems. Scale laboratories and scale manufacturers indicated that this is not usually done for scale 

evaluations. 

Since the NTEP Committee passed the related item at NCWM Annual Meeting, we will continue to work on this. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, indicated that we can move in this direction, but felt that it was somewhat 

premature to develop this thoroughly now. At the point where the Sector has developed checklist requirements, then 

we could move to perhaps add a subsection to current NTEP applications for applicable software. Refer to 

D-31.6.1. It was also agreed that there seems to be no reason for limiting the scope of this item to software-only 

applications, and, hence, all software/software-based devices could benefit from an enhanced application process. 

Hence, the description of this agenda item was modified as shown in the marked up heading. 

Comments given at the meeting indicate that current practice does not require anything different for 

software/software based devices compared to any other type approval. It was also noted that for international 

applications, OIML D-31.6.5 states, “The approval applicant is responsible for the provision of all the required 

equipment and components.” This would likely also be the policy of NTEP. 

Since the checklist is still being tried out by some of the laboratories, the Sector is not quite ready to develop this 

fully. Some documentation that eventually might be required by applicants could include (from WELMEC doc. 7-2, 

Issue 4): 

 A description of the software functions that are metrologically significant, meaning of the data, etc. 

 A description of the accuracy of the measuring algorithms (e.g., price calculation and rounding algorithms). 

 A description of the user interface, menus, and dialogs. 

 A description of the method of sealing. 

 The software identification (version, revision, etc.) and how to view it. 

 An overview of the system hardware, for example topology block diagram, type of computer(s), type of 

network, etc, if not described in the operating manual. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E17 

 An overview of the security aspects of the operating system software (e.g. protection, user accounts, 

privileges, etc). 

 The operating manual. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector recommends including the above bulleted list as an introduction to the checklist as part of our 

recommendation to include the checklist from Agenda Item 3 in NCWM Publication 14. As a description of the 

accuracy of the measuring algorithms, simply declaring the type and class being aimed for may be sufficient. This 

list should reflect the needs of the labs for an evaluation. The bulleted list and the paragraph before it should be 

brought to the labs for an initial review and their input.

6. Training of Field Inspectors 

Source: 

NTETC Software Sector 

Background: 

During discussions at the 2009 NTETC Software Sector Meeting, the Sector concluded that a new agenda item 

should be initiated specific to the training of field inspectors in relation to evaluating/validating software-based 

devices. 

California has an Examination Procedure Outline (EPO) that begins to address this. Use California Handbook 112 

as a pattern template for how it could read. 

Items to be addressed: 

 Certificate of Conformance (CC) 

 Terminology (as related to software) beyond what is in NIST Handbook 44. 

 Reference materials/information sources 

 Safety 

System Verification Tests: 

NOTE: Item numbers 1 through 5 apply to both weighing and measuring devices. Numbers 6 and 7 are specific to 

weighing devices; while numbers 9 and 10 apply to measuring devices. 

1. Identification. The identification (ID) tag may be on the back room computer server and could be viewed 

on an identification screen on the computer monitor. The ID information may be displayed on a menu or 

identification screen. Though currently discouraged, some systems may be designed so the system must be 

shut down and reset to view the ID information. G-S.1. [1.10] 

1.1. Manufacturer. 

1.2. Model designation. 

2. Provisions for sealing. G-S.8. [1.10]; S.1.11 [2.20]; S.2.2 [3.30] 

2.1. Verify sealing category of device (refer to Certificate of Approval for that system). 

2.2. Verify compliance with certificate. 

3. Units of measure. 

3.1. A computer and printer interfaced to a digital indicator shall print all metrological values, intended to 

be the same, identically. G-S.5.2.2.(a); G-S.5.1 [1.10] 

3.2. The unit of measure, such as lb, kg, oz, gal, qts, liters, or whatever is used, must agree. 

4. Operational controls, indications and features (buttons and switches). Verify that application criteria and 

performance criteria are met (refer to Certificate of Approval). 

4.1. Any indication, operation, function, or condition must not be represented in a manner that interferes 

with the interpretation of the indicated or printed values. 

5. Indications and displays. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E18 

5.1. Attempt to print a ticket. The recorded information must be accurate or the software must not process 

and print a ticket with erroneous data interpreted as a measured amount. 

Weighing Devices 

6. Motion detection. 

6.1. For railway track, livestock, and vehicle scales apply or remove a test load of at least 15d while 

simultaneously operating a print button, push-button tare or push-button zero. A good way to do this is to 

try to print a ticket while pulling the weight truck or another vehicle onto the scale. Recorded values shall 

not differ from the static display by more than 3d. Perform the test at 10 %, 50 % and 100 % of the 

maximum applied test load. S.2.5.1.(a) [2.20]; EPO NO. 2-3, 2.4 

6.2. For all other scales, apply or remove at least 5d. Printed weight values must agree with the static 

weight within 1d and must exactly agree with other indications. S.2.5.4.(b) [2.20]; EPO NO. 2-3, 2.4 

7. Behind zero indication. 

7.1 Apply a load in excess of the automatic zero setting mechanism (AZSM) and zero the scale. S.2.1.3. 

[2.20]; EPO NO. 2-3, 2.4, 2.5.2 

Example: On a vehicle scale have someone stand on the scale, then zero them off (AZSM is 3d). Remove 

the weight (person) and note the behind zero display (usually a minus weight value) or error condition. 

7.2. Attempt to print a ticket. With a behind zero condition, (manually or mechanically operated) a negative 

number must not be printed as a positive value. 

8. Over capacity. 

8.1. Manually enter a gross weight if permissible or apply a test load in excess of 105% of the scale’s 

capacity. S.1.7. [2.20]; S.1.12., UR.3.9. [2.20] 

8.2. Attempt to print a weight ticket. A system must not print a ticket if the manually entered weight or load 

exceeds 105 % of the scale capacity. 

Measuring Devices 

9. Motion detection. 

9.1. Initiate flow through the measuring element. Attempt to print a ticket while the product is flowing 

through the measuring chamber. The device must not print while the indication is not stable. S.2.4.1. (3.30) 

10. Over capacity. 

10.1. Attempt to print a ticket in excess of the indicated capacity. A system must not print a ticket if the 

device is manually or mechanically operated in excess of the indicated value. 

NOTE: Be aware of error codes on the indicator which may be interrupted as measured values. 

Mr. Jordan, California Division of Measurement Standards, is already doing something similar, and he may be able 

to assist. Mr. Roach, California Division of Measurement Standards, will talk to him to see whether they’re 

available. In addition, Mr. Parks, California Division of Measurement Standards, is based in Sacramento, 

California, and a potential resource. If the meeting is held in Sacramento next year, they may be able to attend. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, pointed out that the PDC would also be a valuable resource on this subject. 

Mr. Pettinato, Co-Chair, will contact them. 

*NIST Handbook 112 – Examination Procedure Outline for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices.

Discussion:

The Sector would like to enlist field inspectors from a variety of states review California’s Handbook 112, 

especially the excerpt above, to see if they think it would be of use to them. We’ll obtain approval from California 

before we disseminate this documentation. 

The PDC is focused on training sessions at the moment, so it’s unsure how much time they’d have to review this 

currently. 

There is a NIST/NCWM initiative on training. Dr. Thompson is going to bring this to their attention. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E19 

Aside from the general list of things to check, shown above, providing specific examples of scenarios they might 

encounter would likely be useful for field inspectors. A small working group, including Dr. Thompson, Mr. Ken 

Jones (or someone else from California), Mr. Jim Pettinato, (check with Mr. Don Onweiler) possibly other field 

inspectors, etc. would be best to generate some examples. 

A list of terms and acronyms could prove quite useful – not just to field inspectors, but perhaps even more so for 

type evaluators. The following is not really a list of definitions so much as various explanations of terms: 

 CRC: Cyclical Redundancy Check 

 Checksum 

 Embedded software 

 Firmware 

 Version/Revision/Software Identifier: One component of a software identifier might be analogous to a 

model number, another component might be a version/revision, and another component might be a 

checksum. To satisfy the identification requirement, at a minimum, you need an identifier analogous to the 

model and a version/revision. In a product that has multiple pieces of software, you might require multiple 

software identifiers. For purposes of this list, Version and Revision are used synonymously. 

 The difference between a serial number and a version/revision: Serial numbers are unique identifiers for a 

physical product. Identical copies of software can exist on multiple physical pieces of equipment, so serial 

numbers aren’t truly relevant to software. Instead, a version/revision number, tied to the software itself, is 

used to identify the differences between one set of software features and another. In summary, hardware 

needs a serial number, and software needs a version/revision number. 

 Directly linked: Physical marking of hardware with a software version is useless as the software can be 

updated, in which case the physical marking would no longer be accurate. The preferred case is that the 

software self-identifies (displays version number, etc.) continuously or on demand. If the software 

changes, the version must change. There is an exception for situations where the device itself has no means 

to identify the software to the outside world, such as lacking a printer and a display. 

 Hash: This is used for validation and verification that software and/or data is authentic and valid. A hash 

function is any algorithm or subroutine that maps large data sets of variable length to smaller data sets of a 

fixed length. Examples include CRC, checksum, LRC, etc. Hashes are used because there is a very low 

probability of two different data blocks having the same hash code. 

 Signature 

 Metrologically significant software: Software that calculates or affects features and/or measurements that 

are sealable. 

 Software separation: Software can be divided into metrologically significant and non-metrologically 

significant sections. If it is, only metrologically significant software must be controlled. If separation is 

not employed, then the entire software is considered metrologically significant. “Controlled” implies that a 

separate software identifier for the metrologically significant software is used. 

 Software update 

 Sealable parameters: Reference Publication 14 typical features or parameters to be sealed. Note that the 

download of software is recommended to be considered a sealable parameter. 

 User interface: An interface forming the part of the instrument or measuring system that enables 

information to be passed between a human user and the measuring instrument or its hardware or software 

parts, such as, switch, keyboard, mouse, display, monitor, printer, and touch-screen. 

 Communications interface: An electronic, optical, radio, removable storage media, or other technical 

interface that enables information to be automatically passed between parts of measuring instruments, subassemblies, or external devices. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E20 

 Reset/reboot 

 Non-volatile memory 

 Flash 

 Encryption 

 Authentication: Affirmation that the source of the software or data was genuine and recognized. This can 

be done either via an authorized agent or via specific software techniques. Authentication is employed in 

order to prevent loading of malicious software into devices. 

 Third-party software: Software that is loaded into the weighing or measuring system that was not provided 

by the original manufacturer. 

 Program 

 Subroutine 

We will flesh out this list, adding some brief definitions and/or examples. It will then be circulated amongst this 

group for review, and for any additional terms that are identified as being potentially useful. 

Mr. Doug Bliss suggested developing educational presentations on relatively small software subjects, for 

presentation at the conferences, to provide training. We’ll check into availability of time slots. January or next July 

are probably the earliest opportunities. Potential topics might include: 

 General “software isn’t scary” 

 Background on why the software sector exists and what we’re trying to accomplish 

 Something to tie into the training of field inspectors on software 

 Software identification 

 Teaching inspectors how to read a certificate, with an eye toward information pertaining to software 

Conclusion: 

The Sector sees value in assisting in the training of field inspectors on several fronts as indicated by the discussion at 

this year’s meeting. Several initiatives will be floated amongst the NCWM community and the Sector will focus on 

those that seem to have the most interest/benefit to the Conference. 

NEW ITEMS 

7. Next Meeting 

Background: 

The Sector is on a yearly schedule for NTETC Software Sector Meetings. Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, will 

determine when the next meeting is possible. This year was California’s turn in the rotation to host the meeting, but 

due to the uncertainly of New York’s status as potential host, the meeting ended up being back in Ohio. Hence, 

New York and California again are possible locations for the 2014 meeting. 

Albany, New York, and California remain under consideration, with New York being the first choice, preferably as 

late as possible in March. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E21 

8. 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting Report 

There was one item on the NCWM S&T Committee Agenda for the 2012 NCWM Interim Meeting related to work 

done by the NTETC Software Sector. 2012 NCWM Publication 15, S&T Item 360-2 relates to the 2012 NTETC 

Software Sector Agenda Item 1: Marking Requirements. 

The Sector was informed of the S&T Committee decision to continue Item 360-2 as a Developing item. 

9. 2013 International Report 

Dr. Ambler Thompson, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), will provide a synopsis of international 

activity that relates to the work of the Sector. Software Sector Co-Chair, Mr. Jim Pettinato, will summarize the 

discussion that took place at the European Cooperation in Legal Metrology (WELMEC) WG7 meeting in 

December 2011. 

Highlights of interest to the NTETC Software Sector: 

 New WELMEC 7.2 draft document circulated for comment by WG7 

 R-117 working group 

10. 360-7 D Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability 

Source: 

NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector (2013) 

Purpose: 

Expand the scope of definition to cover instances where the “other device” as noted in the current definition, may be 

necessary to the operation of the weighing or measuring device or which may be considered a permanent part of that 

device. 

Item Under Consideration: 

This item is under development. Comments and inquiries may be directed to NIST Office of Weights and 

Measures. 

A proposal to modify the definition for “remote configuration capability” as follows is under consideration: 

remote configuration capability. – The ability to adjust a weighing or measuring device or change its 

sealable parameters from or through some other device that is not may or may not itself be necessary to 

the operation of the weighing or measuring device or is not may or may not be a permanent part of that 

device.[2.20, 2.21, 2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 5.56.(a)] 

(Added 1993, Amended 20XX) 

Background/Discussion: 

Removable digital storage devices can be used in GMMs as either data transfer devices that are not necessary to the 

operation of the GMM or as data storage devices which are necessary to the operation of the GMM. If removal data 

storage devices are necessary to the operation of the device, they are not covered by the current definition of remote 

configuration capability. 

A USB flash drive is most likely to be used as a data transfer device. In a typical data transfer application, the USB 

flash drive is first connected to a computer with access to the GMM manufacturer’s web site to download the latest 

grain calibrations that are then stored in the USB flash drive. The USB flash drive is removed from the computer 

and plugged into a USB port on the GMM. The GMM is put into remote configuration mode to copy the new grain 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E22 

calibration data into the GMM’s internal memory. When the GMM has been returned to normal operating 

(measuring) mode, the USB flash drive can be removed from the GMM. 

Although a Secure Digital (SD) memory card could also be used as a data transfer device, it is more likely to be used 

as a data storage device. In a typical “data storage device” application, the SD memory card stores the grain 

calibrations used on the GMM. The SD memory card must be plugged into an SD memory card connector on a 

GMM circuit card for the GMM to operate in measuring mode. To install new grain calibrations the GMM must be 

turned “off” or put into a mode in which the SD memory card can be safely removed. The SD memory card can 

either be replaced with an SD memory card that has been programmed with the new grain calibrations or the original 

SD memory card can be re-programmed with the new grain calibrations in much the same way as that described in 

the preceding paragraph to copy new grain calibrations into a USB flash drive. In either case, the SD memory card 

containing the new calibrations must be installed in the GMM for the GMM to operate in measuring mode. In that 

regard, the SD memory card (although removable) can be considered a permanent part of the GMM in that the 

GMM cannot operate without it. 

Note: In the above example SD memory card could be any removable flash memory card such as the Secure Digital 

Standard-Capacity, the Secure Digital High-Capacity, the Secure Digital Extended-Capacity, and the Secure Digital 

Input/Output, which combines input/output functions with data storage. These come in three form factors: the 

original size, the mini size, and the micro size. A Memory Stick is a removable flash memory card format launched 

by Sony in 1998, and is also used in general to describe the whole family of Memory Sticks. In addition to the 

original Memory Stick, this family includes the Memory Stick PRO, the Memory Stick Duo, the Memory Stick PRO 

Duo, the Memory Stick Micro, and the Memory Stick PRO-HG. 

At its 2011 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting the Sector agreed by consensus that the following changes to Table 

S.2.5. of §5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44 should be forwarded to the S&T Committee for consideration: 

 Add a note to Table S.2.5. to recognize the expanded scope of remote capability. 

 Delete “remotely” from the second paragraph of Category 3 requirements that begins, “When 

accessedremotely ...” to make it clear that the requirements of Category 3 apply whether accessed 

manually using the keyboard or accessed by remote means. 

 Add the modified second paragraph of Category 3 requirements to Categories 3a and 3b to make it 

clear that these requirements apply to all the subcategories of Category 3. 

After additional review of this item, the NIST, OWM recommended that the changes to Table S.2.5. approved by the 

Sector in 2011 be separated into two independent proposals: one dealing with the changes to Category 3 and its 

subcategories and one recommending a modification of the definition of Remote Configuration Capability appearing 

in Appendix D of NIST Handbook 44 to recognize the expanded scope of remote capability, instead of adding a note 

to the bottom of Table S.2.5. to expanded the definition for remote configuration for grain moisture meters (as 

shown in this proposal). A change to the definition of remote configuration capability will apply to other device 

types. 

2012 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting: The sector agreed by consensus to separate its original proposal into two 

separate proposals and that this proposal to change the definition of Remote Configuration Capability should be 

forwarded to the S&T to Committee for consideration. 

Item 5 of the NTETC, Grain Analyzer Sector August 2012 Meeting Summary covers this subject and will be 

available on NCWM Website, November 2012. 

2012 NCWM Annual Meeting: Ms. Juana Williams NIST, OWM supported the intent. She talked about this item in 

conjunction with Item 356-1: S.2.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing. This is such a complex item 

affecting multiple other devices; therefore, the proposal requires further consideration. The language in the proposal 

to amend the definition of remote configuration capability is confusing. The Committee believes the current 

definition already allows the use of remote configuration devices and allows the flexibility desired. The 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E23 

ramifications of changing the definition could affect other devices in HB 44. WWMA did not forward this item to 

NCWM. 

2012 SWMA Annual Meeting: There were no comments. After reviewing the proposal and considering the 

potential impact on other device types, the Committee recommended this as a Developing Item. The Committee 

asks that the Sector continue to obtain input on the definition and the impact the changes would have on other device 

types. SWMA forwarded the item to NCWM, recommending it as a Developing Item and assigning its development 

to the Grain Analyzer Sector. 

During its Open Hearings at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from Ms. Juana 

Williams (NIST OWM). OWM suggests the Committee consider this item as a Developing Item to allow other 

Sectors to discuss how a change to the definition may affect other device types of similar design and to consider 

changes if needed. OWM recognizes that the current definition for “remote configuration capability” may not 

address those grain moisture meters (GMMs) which can only be operated with a removable data storage device, 

containing, among other things, the grain calibrations intended for use with the GMM, inserted in the device (as was 

described by the Grain Analyzer Sector). As such, OWM notes that current sealing requirements were developed at 

a time when such technology likely didn’t exist, nor could be envisioned, and are based on the current definition of 

remote configuration capability. Because the current definition was never intended to apply to this “next 

generation” technology, OWM suggests that those charged with further development of this item may wish to revisit 

the five philosophies of sealing and consider whether a new paragraph, completely separate from current sealing 

requirements, might be appropriate and a better option, than the one currently proposed. The five philosophies of 

sealing are included in the 1992 Report of the 77th National Conference on Weights and Measures (Report of the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee). Another option, preferred over the changes currently proposed, would 

be to add a separate statement to the current definition of “remote configuration capability” to address removable 

storage devices. For example, the following sentence might be considered as an addition to the current definition for 

“remote configuration capability:” 

Devices which are programmed using removable media (such as SD cards, flash drives, etc.) that 

may or may not be required to remain with the device during normal operation are also considered 

to be remotely configured devices. 

The Committee also heard comments from Mr. Dmitri Karimov (LC), speaking on behalf of the MMA, who made 

two points: (1) Flow computers may already have these capabilities, thus it may be more appropriate to consider 

adding requirements to the General Code so that the requirements will be uniformly applied to all device types; and 

(2) the Committee should look ahead and consider other capabilities that may or already have emerged such as 

wireless communication and configuration. 

The Committee acknowledged the comments indicating that the current definition of “remote configuration 

capability” was developed at a time when certain technologies, such as blue tooth, SD storage devices, flash drives, 

etc., didn’t exist. The Committee recognized it may be difficult to modify the existing definition and associated 

requirements to be flexible enough to address emerging and future technologies without having a significant (and 

possibly detrimental impact) on existing devices. Consequently, rather than modifying the current definition, the 

Committee concluded that a better approach might be to develop an entirely separate set of security requirements 

that would apply to emerging technologies. The Committee believes additional work is needed to develop proposed 

definition(s) and associated requirements and decided to designate the item as Developmental. The Committee 

requests other Sectors review the Grain Sector’s proposed modification to the definition as well as OWM’s 

suggestions and provide input. 

Discussion: 

Mr. Jim Pettinato and Mr. Doug Bliss suggested this alternative, possibly with the addition of some examples: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

NTEP - E24 

remote configuration capability. – The ability to adjust a weighing or measuring device or change its 

sealable parameters from or through some other device that is not may or may not itself be necessary to 

the operation of the weighing or measuring device or is not may or may not be a permanent part of 

that device.[2.20, 2.21, 2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 5.56.(a)] 

(Added 1993, Amended 20XX) 

This proposal is technology-agnostic and addresses the concern that any revision of the definition would be tied to 

existing technology. 

The Sector is curious as to how updates to the calibration parameters via either USB or SD cards are being handled 

to date. For example, when replacing an SD card, are the parameter changes being recorded in an audit trail? 

Conclusion: 

We will forward this comment to the S&T Committee and the Grain Analyzer Sector. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – List of Acceptable Menu Text/Icons for Identification of Certificate Number 

NTEP – E / A1 

Appendix A 

List of Acceptable Menu Text/Icons for Identification of Certificate 

Number 

Table 1 - Software Sector Proposed Menu Text /Icons 

Permitted Menu Text 

examples 

Permitted 

Icon shape 

examples 

Essential characteristics 

Information 

Info 

 Top level menu text or icon 

 Icon text is a lower case “i” with block serifs 

 Text color may be light or dark but must contrast 

with the background color 

 Icon may have a circular border 

 Activation of this menu text/icon may invoke a 

second level menu text/icon that recalls metrology 

information. 

Help 

? 

 Top level menu text or icon 

 Icon text is a question mark 

 Text color may be light or dark but must contrast 

with the background color 

 Icon may have a circular border 

 Activation of this menu text/icon may invoke a 

second level menu text/icon that recalls metrology 

information. 

Metrology 

Metrological Information 

M Top or second level menu text or icon 

 Icon text is an upper case “M” 

 Text color may be light or dark but must contrast 

with the background color 

 Icon may have a circular, rectangular, or rounded 

rectangle border. 

 If present, the activation of this menu text/icon must 

recall at a minimum the NTEP CC number. 

NTEP Data 

N.T.E.P. Certificate 

This one is debatable – what if the certificate is revoked? 

Does NTEP grant holders of CCs the right to display the 

logo on the device, or just in documentation? 

Weights & Measures Info W&M 

W/M 

?

?

?

M
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix E – 2013 NTEP Software Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – List of Acceptable Menu Text/Icons for Identification of Certificate Number 

NTEP – E / A2 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F1 

Appendix F 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Weighing Sector Meeting Summary 

August 27 - 28, 2013 

Albany, NY 

INTRODUCTION 

The charge of the NTETC Weighing Sector is important in providing appropriate type evaluation criteria based on 

specifications, tolerances and technical requirements of NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, Sections 1.10. General Code, 2.20. Scales, 

2.22. Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems, and 2.24. Automatic Weighing Systems. The Sector’s recommendations 

will be presented to the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee each January for approval and 

inclusion in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures for national type evaluation. 

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44, 

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Issues on the agenda of National Conference on Weights and 

Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP 

laboratory representatives, technical advisors, and the NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as 

needed and are open to all NCWM members and other registered parties. 

Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown as follows: 1) deleted language is indicated with a bold face font 

using strikeouts (e.g., this report), 2) proposed new language is indicated with an underscored bold faced font

(e.g., new items), and 3) nonretroactive items are identified in italics. There are instances where the Sector will use 

red text and/or highlighted text to bring emphasis to text that requires additional attention. When used in this report, 

the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Note: It is the policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to use metric units of measurement in 

all of its publications; however, recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and 

measures associations have been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references in 

inch-pound units. 

Table A

Table of Contents

Title of Contents Page NTEP F

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

CARRY-OVER ITEMS .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Recommended Changes to NCWM Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2013 NCWM Annual 

Meeting ....................................................................................................................................................3

1.a. Item 320-1 S.6.4. Railway Track Scales and Appendix D – Definitions....................................... 3

1.b. Item 320-4 Appendix C – Units of Mass (ton) .............................................................................. 6

Acceptable Symbols/Abbreviations to Display the CC Number Via a Device’s User Interface ...........11

DES Section 70. – Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh InMotion ....................................................................................................................................................15

NCWM Publication 14 Load Cell Table 6 – Summary Table Examples ...............................................16

NEW ITEMS ..............................................................................................................................................................20
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F2 

Item 360-7 NIST Handbook 44 Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability ............20

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 76 Digital Controller Element for Load Cells Checklists and Test 

Procedures ..............................................................................................................................................22

NCWM Publication 14 DES Checklists and Test Procedures Section 1 Marking – Applicable to 

Indicating, Weighing/Load-Receiving Elements and Complete Scales .................................................24

NCWM Publication 14 Load Cells – National Type Evaluation Program Terminology for Load Cell 

Parameters ..............................................................................................................................................24

Identification of Certified Software .......................................................................................................25

Software Protection/Security ..................................................................................................................27

Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration ..........................................................................................30

ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................................................33

Appendix

Appendix A - 2013 NTEP Weighing Sector Attendees (to be included in the Sector report) .................. F / A34

Table B

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym Term Acronym Term

ABWS Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures 

Association

AREMA American Railway Engineering 

Maintenance-of-Way Association NTEP National Type Evaluation Program

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology

CC Certificate of Conformance OWM Office of Weights and Measures

DES Digital Electronic Scales R Recommendation

LMD Liquid Measuring Device S&T Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee

MC Measurement Canada SMA Scale Manufacturers Association

MRA Mutual Recognition Agreement WS National Type Evaluation Program 

Weighing Sector

NCWM National Conference on Weights 

and Measures
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F3 

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key)

CARRY-OVER ITEMS 

Recommended Changes to NCWM Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2013 NCWM 

Annual Meeting

Mr. Harshman, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Advisor, provided the Sector with 

specific recommendations for incorporating test procedures and checklist language based upon actions of the 2013 

NCWM Annual Meeting. The Sector was asked to briefly discuss each item and, if appropriate, provide general 

input on the technical aspects of the issues. 

1.a. Item 320-1 S.6.4. Railway Track Scales and Appendix D – Definitions 

Source: 

2013 S&T Committee Final Report 

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NCWM voted to amend NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph 

S.6.4. Railway Track Scales and to add a new definition for “weigh module” to Appendix D. The following 

changes, included below in 1) and 2), were adopted: 

1) Amend NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.6.4. Railway Track Scales. as follows: 

S.6.4. Railway Track Scales. – A railway track scale shall be marked with the maximum capacity of each 

section of the load-receiving element of the scale. Such marking shall be accurately and conspicuously 

presented on, or adjacent to, the identification or nomenclature plate that is attached to the indicating element of 

the scale. The nominal capacity of a scale with more than two sections shall not exceed twice its rated section 

capacity. The nominal capacity of a two section scale shall not exceed its rated section capacity.* 

The nominal capacity marking shall satisfy the following: 

(a) For scales manufactured from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2013: 

(1) The nominal capacity of a scale with more than two sections shall not exceed twice its 

rated section capacity. 

(2) The nominal capacity of a two section scale shall not exceed its rated section capacity.

(b) For scales manufactured on or after January 1, 2014, the nominal scale capacity shall not exceed 

the lesser of: 

(1) The sum of the Weigh Module Capacities as shown in Table S.6.4.M. or Table S.6.4, or; 

(2) Rated Sectional Capacity (RSC) multiplied by the Number of Sections (Ns) minus the 

Number of Dead Spaces (Nd) minus 0.5. As a formula this is stated as RSC x (Ns - Nd - 

0.5); or

(3) 290 300 kg (640,000 lb). 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002] 

(Amended 1988, 2001, and 2002, and 2013) 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F4 

Table S.6.4.M.

Railway Track Scale – Weigh Module Capacity

Weigh Module Length (m) Weigh Module Capacity (kg)

< 1.5 36 300

1.5 to < 3.0 72 600

3.0 to < 4.5 108 900

4.5 to < 7.0 145 100

7.0 to < 9.0 168 700

9.0 to < 10.5 192 300

10.5 to < 12.0 234 100

12.0 to < 17.0 257 600

Note: The capacity of a particular module is based on its length and determined from corresponding 

capacity values specified in Table S.6.4.M.

(Table Added 2013)

Table S.6.4.

Railway Track Scale – Weigh Module Capacity

Weigh Module Length (ft) Weigh Module Capacity (lb)

< 5 80 000

5 to < 10 160 000

10 to < 15 240 000

15 to < 23 320 000

23 to < 29 372 000

29 to < 35 424 000

35 to < 40 516 000

40 to < 56 568 000

Note: The capacity of a particular module is based on its length and determined from corresponding 

capacity values specified in Table S.6.4.

(Table Added 2013)

2) Add the following definition for the term “weigh module” to NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D: 

Weigh Module - The portion of a load-receiving element supported by two sections. The length of a 

module is the distance to which load can be applied. [2.20] 

See the Final Report of the 2013 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 320-1 for additional background 

information on this item to amend NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.6.4. Railway Track Scales and add a 

new definition for “weigh module” to NIST Handbook 44 Appendix D. 

Conclusion: 

The WS agreed to recommend two changes to NCWM Publication 14 DES as follows: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F5 

Change 1: Modify Section 1, the paragraph titled “For railway track and livestock scales” on page DES 17 of 

the 2013 edition as follows: 

For railway track and livestock scales: 

The nominal capacity of a scale with more than two sections shall not exceed twice its rated section capacity. 

The nominal capacity of a two-section scale shall not exceed its rated section capacity. 

For railway track scales the nominal scale capacity shall not exceed the lesser of: 

(1) The sum of the Weigh Module Capacities as shown in Table S.6.4.M. or Table S.6.4, or; 

(2) Rated Sectional Capacity (RSC) multiplied by the Number of Sections (Ns) minus the Number of 

Dead Spaces (Nd) minus 0.5. As a formula this is stated as RSC x (Ns - Nd - 0.5); or 

(3) 290 300 kg (640,000 lb). 

Table S.6.4.M.

Railway Track Scale – Weigh Module Capacity

Weigh Module Length (m) Weigh Module Capacity (kg)

< 1.5 36 300

1.5 to < 3.0 72 600

3.0 to < 4.5 108 900

4.5 to < 7.0 145 100

7.0 to < 9.0 168 700

9.0 to < 10.5 192 300

10.5 to < 12.0 234 100

12.0 to < 17.0 257 600

Note: The capacity of a particular module is based on its length and determined from corresponding 

capacity values specified in Table S.6.4.M.
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F6 

Table S.6.4.

Railway Track Scale – Weigh Module Capacity

Weigh Module Length (ft) Weigh Module Capacity (lb)

< 5 80 000

5 to < 10 160 000

10 to < 15 240 000

15 to < 23 320 000

23 to < 29 372 000

29 to < 35 424 000

35 to < 40 516 000

40 to < 56 568 000

Note: The capacity of a particular module is based on its length and determined from corresponding 

capacity values specified in Table S.6.4.

Devices designed for special applications...

Change 2: Add a new Section 5.5. and accompanying checkboxes to the checklists and test procedures as shown 

below: 

5.5 The nominal scale capacity for railway track scales shall not exceed the 

lesser of (1) The sum of the Weigh Module Capacities as shown in Table 

S.6.4.M. or Table S.6.4, or (2) the Rated Sectional Capacity (RSC) 

multiplied by the Number of Sections (Ns) minus the Number of Dead 

Spaces (Nd) minus 0.5. As a formula this is stated as RSC x (Ns - Nd - 0.5), 

or (3) 290 300 kg (640,000 lb).

Yes No N/A 

NIST Technical Advisor’s note: With respect to Change 1, the WS concluded that it was not necessary in NCWM 

Publication 14 to differentiate between railway track scales manufactured as of January 1, 2014, and those 

manufactured prior to this date because Publication 14 checklists and procedures is only intended to apply to new 

equipment submitted for type evaluation. Thus, there is no need to include in Publication 14 the portion of the 

language that was adopted into NIST Handbook 44 at the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting intended to apply to 

equipment manufactured from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2013. With respect to Change 2, the Sector 

agreed that it was important to add a new Section 5.5. and accompanying checkboxes to alert NTEP evaluators of 

the changes that were adopted and to provide an area on the evaluation form to record whether or not equipment 

being evaluated complies. 

1.b. Item 320-4 Appendix C – Units of Mass (ton) 

Source: 

Mr. Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. (2011 NTETC Weighing Sector Agenda Item 8 and 

2012 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 5) 

Background/Discussion: 

At its 2013 Annual meeting, the NCWM voted in favor of amending Appendix C – General Tables of Units of 

Measurement to recognize “tn” as an acceptable abbreviation for “net” or “short” ton and to add a new footnote, 

where appropriate, to make clear that abbreviations for “net” or “short” ton other than “tn” are considered acceptable

for use with older equipment. The following changes were adopted: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F7 

1) Amend the Units of Mass Table on pages C-19 and C-20 of NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C to recognize “tn” 

as an acceptable abbreviation for “net” or “short” ton, and add a footnote to the table to make clear that 

abbreviations for “net” or “short” ton other than “tn” are considered appropriate for use with older equipment as 

follows: 

Units of Mass

1 assay ton17 (AT) 29.167 grams

1 carat (c) 200 milligrams (exactly)

3.086 grains

1 dram apothecaries (dr ap or 3)

60 grains (exactly)

3.888 grams

1 dram avoirdupois (dr avdp) 2711/32 (= 27.344) grains

1.772 grams

1 gamma (γ) 1 microgram (exactly)

1 grain 64.798 91 milligrams (exactly)

1 gram (g) 15.432 grains

0.035 ounce, avoirdupois

1 hundredweight, gross or long18

 (gross cwt)

112 pounds (exactly)

50.802 kilograms

1 hundredweight, gross or short

 (cwt or net cwt)

100 pounds (exactly)

45.359 kilograms

1 kilogram (kg) 2.205 pounds

1 milligram (mg) 0.015 grain

1 ounce, avoirdupois (oz avdp)

437.5 grains (exactly)

0.911 troy or apothecaries ounce

28.350 grams

1 ounce, troy or apothecaries

 (oz t or oz ap or ℥)

480 grains (exactly)

1.097 avoirdupois ounces

31.103 grams

1 pennyweight (dwt) 1.555 grams

1 point 0.01 carat

2 milligrams

1 pound, avoirdupois (lb avdp)

7000 grains (exactly)

1.215 troy or apothecaries pounds

453.592 37 grams (exactly)

1 micropound (μlb) [the Greek letter mu

 in combination with the letters lb] 0.000 001 pound (exactly)

1 pound, troy or apothecaries

 (lb t or lb ap)

5760 grains (exactly)

0.823 avoirdupois pound

373.242 grams

1 scruple (s ap or ℈)

20 grains (exactly)

1.296 grams

1 ton, gross or long19

2240 pounds (exactly)

1.12 net tons (exactly)

1.016 metric tons

1 ton, metric (t)

2204.623 pounds

0.984 gross ton

1.102 net tons

1 ton, net or short (tn)

x

2000 pounds (exactly)

0.893 gross ton

0.907 metric ton

17 Used in assaying. The assay ton...

18 The gross or long ton and hundredweight are used commercially in the United States to only a very limited extent, usually 

in restricted industrial fields. The units are the same as the British “ton” and “hundredweight.”

19 The gross or long ton... 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F8 

xAs of January 1, 2014, “tn” is the required abbreviation for short ton. Devices manufactured between January 1, 

2008 and December 31, 2013 may use an abbreviation other than “tn” to specify short ton. 

2. Amend the abbreviation “t” for 1 ton (20 hundredweights) beneath the Avoirdupois Units of Mass heading on 

page C-6 of NIST Handbook 44, Appendix C to “tn” and add the same footnote as is being added to the Units of 

Mass table to again make clear that abbreviations for “net” or “short” ton other than “tn” are considered 

appropriate for use with older equipment as follows: 

Avoirdupois Units of Mass6

[The “grain” is the same in avoirdupois, troy, and apothecaries units of mass.]

1 μlb = 0.000 001 pound (lb)

2711/32 grains (gr) = 1 dram (dr)

16 drams = 1 ounce (oz)

= 4371⁄2 grains

16 ounces = 1 pound (lb)

= 256 drams

= 7000 grains

100 pounds = 1 hundredweight (cwt)7

20 hundredweights = 1 ton (t) (tn)x

= 2000 pounds7

In “gross” or “long” measure, the following values are recognized:

112 pounds (lb) = 1 gross or long hundredweight (cwt)7

20 gross or long hundredweights = 1 gross or long ton

= 2240 pounds7

6 When necessary to distinguish... 

7 When the terms “hundredweight” and...

xAs of January 1, 2014, “tn” is the required abbreviation for short ton. Devices manufactured between January 1, 

2008 and December 31, 2013, may use an abbreviation other than “tn” to specify short ton. 

Additional background information relating to this item is available from the following: 

 2012 and 2013 NCWM Final Reports: http://www.ncwm.net/meetings/annual/archive

 2012 Weighing Sector Summary (Agenda Item 5) at: 

http://www.ncwm.net/resources/dyn/files/1060841z7afe16a7/_fn/2012_Weighing_Sector_Meeting+Summ

ary.pdf

Conclusion: 

In discussing this item, the Sector agreed that the word “ton,” when used by itself (i.e., without further clarification 

identifying which ton is meant) to define a value indicated or recorded by a scale is intended solely to represent the 

U.S. short ton. Thus, the word “ton,” when used by itself, is not intended, nor should it be permitted, to define any 

other version (e.g. long ton, metric ton, etc.) of the ton unit. Based on this premise, the WS agreed to recommend 

amending NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 12. Values Defined as follows: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F9 

12. Values Defined 

Code References: G-S.5.2.4., G-S.5.3.1., G-S.5.6. and G-S.5.6.1. 

Graduations, indications, and recorded values that are intended to have specific values shall be adequately 

identified by a sufficient number of figures, words, and symbols. These defining terms shall be uniformly 

placed relative to the graduations, indications, and recorded values and as close as practical to them without 

interfering with their readability. When SI units are used, the symbols shall comply with those in Appendix C 

(General Tables of Units of Measurement) in NIST Handbook 44 or NIST Special Publication SP 811 Guide for 

the Use of International System of Units (SI). Other symbols shall comply with the abbreviations given in 

Appendix C (General Tables of Units of Measurement) in NIST Handbook 44. Exceptions are the abbreviations 

for "carat" (c or ct), U.S. short ton (ton or TN), U.S. "long ton" (LT), and "grain" in NCWM Publication 14, 

DES Section 76. 

Additionally, the WS reviewed the list of acceptable abbreviations/symbols in Appendix C of NCWM 

Publication 14 DES and agreed to forward the following proposed changes to the NTEP Belt-Conveyor Scale (BCS) 

Sector for additional input with the understanding that these proposed changes, if adopted, would likely have a more 

significant impact on BCS manufacturers than manufacturers of other types of scales: 

Appendix C

Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols

This list does not standardize the abbreviations/symbols that must be used, rather, it identifies 

abbreviations/symbols that are routinely acceptable. This list is not limiting or all-inclusive; other 

abbreviations/symbols may be acceptable.

Additionally, the following lists of abbreviations and symbols should be used as a guide; style differences 

are acceptable (e.g., shapes of arrows,)

Device 

Application Term Acceptable NOT Acceptable

General

value of scale division 

(displayed)

d

value of verification scale 

division

e

number of scale divisions n

gross gross, G, GR

Semi-automatic (pushbutton) taretare, T, TA

Keyboard, Programmable 

and Stored tare

tare, T, TA, PT

net net, N, NT

pieces pieces pc, pcs

count count cnt or pc(s) 

is encouraged or ct symbol 

for pieces ct is acceptable 

NIST Handbook 130

c

carat or carat troy – 200 mg c 

NIST Handbook 44 and 

NIST Guide for the Use of 

ct 

not permitted if used as the 

abbreviation for carat and 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F10

International System of Units 

(SI)

count on a scale with an 

enable count feature

short ton ton or tn

Values Defined

SI Units

Notes: Lower case "kg" on 

display panels and keys. 

Lower case "kg" shall be 

used for printing.

NIST Guide for the Use of 

International System of 

Units (SI)

upper case "KG"

Other Symbols NIST Handbook 44,

Appendix C – General 

Tables of Units of 

Measurement

*Exceptions to 

General Tables 

of NIST 

Handbook 44

carat or carat troy – 200 mg ct

common jewelry industry 

abbreviation and is the only 

acceptable abbreviation in 

Canada

ct 

not permitted if used as the 

abbreviation for carat and 

count on a scale with an 

enable count feature

U.S. short ton ton, TN, or tn

for belt-conveyor scales the 

abbreviation "T" is 

acceptable

U.S. long ton LT

Grain grain, GRN, grn, GN

Weighing and 

Indicating 

Elements

accuracy class I, II, III, III L, IIII 

or symbols enclosed in an 

ellipse such as: 

1, 11, 111, 111 L, 1111, 1, 2, 

3 L, 4

maximum number of scale 

divisions

nmax N

section capacity Sec C, Sec Cap SC

Weighing/Load 

Receiving 

Elements

minimum value of 

verification scale division

emin E

Load Cells

maximum number of scale 

divisions

nmax N

single or multiple cell 

applications

S = Single

M = Multiple

load cell verification interval vmin V

ECRs, 

Indicating and 

Recording 

Elements

manual weight entry Manual weight, MAN, WT, 

MANUAL WT, MAN 

WEIGHT, similar statement

"M" or "MW"

symbols for kilogram Same as noted in Section 

11. Values Defined

mixed upper and lower case 

letters are not permitted

ECRs, 

Recorded 

Representations

net weight indication in 

pounds

"pound" or "lb" "#" symbol for pound
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F11

Livestock and 

Animal Scales

Head (sale by) HB, H

Weight (sale by) WT, W

other symbols recognized by 

the Packers and Stockyards 

Administration

Prescription 

Filling Count 

Feature for 

Class I and II 

Scales

minimum piece weight MPW

minimum sample size MSS

minimum sample size in 

weight

MSSW

Belt-Conveyor 

Scales

U.S. short ton (different 

from "General" application)

T

Acceptable Symbols/Abbreviations to Display the CC Number Via a Device’s User Interface

Sources: 

 2009 NTETC Software Sector Agenda Item 3 and 2010 S&T Item 310-3, G-S.1. Identification. (Software) 

 2010 Final Report of the S&T Committee: ncwm.net/content/annual-archive 

 2010 Software Sector summary: http://www.ncwm.net/committees/ntep/sectors/software/archive

 2011 Software Sector summary: http://www.ncwm.net/committees/ntep/sectors/software/archive 

 2011 Final Report of the S&T Committee (Publication 16 and addendum sheets): ncwm.net/content/annualarchive 

 2012 Software Sector summary: http://www.ncwm.net/committees/ntep/sectors/software/archive 

 2012 and 2013 Final Report of the S&T Committee: http://www.ncwm.net/content/annual-archive 

Background/Discussion: 

Local weights and measures inspectors need a means to determine whether equipment discovered in the field has 

been evaluated by NTEP. If so, the inspector needs to know at a minimum the CC number. From this starting point, 

other required information can be ascertained. NIST Handbook 44 currently includes three options for marking of 

the CC: 

1. Permanent marking 

2. Continuous display 

3. Recall using a special operation 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F12

The following draft summary was provided by the chairman of the Software Sector and is being provided to update 

members of the Weighing Sector regarding the discussions/actions taken by the Software Sector during their 

2013 meeting: 

Since its inception the Sector has wrestled with the issue of software identification and marking requirements. See 

the 2012 Software Sector Meeting Summary and the 2013 Interim Meeting S&T Agenda Item 360-2 for more 

background on this item.

NIST OWM had been adding items to the S&T Agendas that confused matters since the perception was that this 

sector had contributed to this input. Most of the confusion arose in the 1990s, due to some items being approved, 

and others, such as the definitions for “Built-for-Purpose” and “Not-Built-for-Purpose,” not being approved.

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, discussed the difficulty there has been in coming to a consensus on these issues 

with a representative of the NTEP Committee. Suggestions from NTEP to come to some resolution has been to 

write an article for the newsletter (which Mr. Bliss, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, had already done, to no effect), sending a 

questionnaire to the NTEP community, asking what they’d like to see, and sending a representative from this Sector 

to the S&T Committee.

Mr. Roach, California Division of Measurement Standards, is concerned that some people may want to interpret 

G-S.1.(c) as requiring a serial number for software. Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. pointed out that 

the computer that the software was running on could have the serial number, not the software itself. That shouldn’t 

matter, regardless. 

Mr. Bliss, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, pointed out that the terminology in G-S.1. “All equipment”, could be interpreted to 

mean that it doesn’t apply to software. It was proposed that G-S.1.(c) be amended to add “and software”. Mr. Bliss 

suggested submitting a document explaining the reasoning behind the proposed changes, rather than assume that the 

text is self-explanatory. Making a presentation to the various committees on the subject in addition would be 

beneficial as well. If a document is written, perhaps the examples given in G-S.1.d.(3)(a) can be 

eliminated. “Metrologically significant” isn’t explicitly defined, but it’s been used since time immemorial.

Attempts to modify G-S.1.1. have been controversial, both in this meeting and in other committees. Unfortunately, 

there has been little constructive feedback from the other Committees. It would probably be easier to incorporate 

specific examples given in G-S.1.1.b.3 in NCWM Publication 14. After some discussion, the previously proposed 

language was modified slightly to address some of the concerns received via feedback from other sectors and 

interested parties:

NIST Handbook 44 – Proposed changes:

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement process but not 

having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of identification with the following 

information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model identifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(1) The model identifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms may be 

followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” 

shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation for the word “Model” 

shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals, or all lowercase. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001) 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F13

(c) a nonrepetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and not-builtfor-purpose software-based software devices software;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(Amended 2003) 

(1) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the 

number as the required serial number. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and abbreviations for the 

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No., and S. No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(d) the current software version or revision identifier for not-built-for-purpose software-based electronic devices,

which shall be directly linked to the software itself; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 20XX)

(1) The version or revision identifier shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly 

identifies the number as the required version or revision. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(2) Abbreviations for the word “Version” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “V” and may be followed by 

the word “Number.” Abbreviations for the word “Revision” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “R” 

and may be followed by the word “Number.” The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, 

begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007] 

(Added 2006) 

(3) The version or revision identifier shall be accessible via the display. Instructions for displaying the version 

or revision identifier shall be described in the CC. As an exception, permanently marking the version or 

revision identifier shall be acceptable under the following conditions:

(a) The user interface does not have any control capability to activate the indication of the version or 

revision identifier on the display, or the display does not technically allow the version or revision 

identifier to be shown (analog indicating device or electromechanical counter) or

(b) the device does not have an interface to communicate the version or revision identifier.

(e) an NTEP CC number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number for devices that have a CC. 

(1) The CC Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be prefaced by the terms “NTEP CC,” 

“CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation of that 

word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No 

or No.) 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the disassembly of a part 

requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and, 2006 and 201X)

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-For-Purpose All Software-Based Devices. – For not-built-forpurpose, software-based devices, either: 

(a) The required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (d), and (e) shall be permanently marked or 

continuously displayed on the device; or 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F14

(b) The CC Number shall be: 

(1) permanently marked on the device; 

(2) continuously displayed; or 

(3) accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu and submenu 

identification include, but are not limited to, “Help,” “System Identification,” “G-S.1. Identification,” or 

“Weights and Measures Identification.” 

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed on the CC, 

including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type that was evaluated. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

(Added 2003) (Amended 2006 and 20XX)

The new language in G-S.1.1. reflects that the sector reached consensus on the following positions:

 The software version/revision should (with very few exceptions – see D-31, 5.1.1.) be accessible via the 

user interface.

 The means by which the software version is accessed must be described in the Certificate of Conformance 

(CC).

The Sector promoted this item following the meeting via several means to try and address the concerns of other 

interested parties. A presentation was generated and shared with the SMA at their meeting. The regions had access 

to this information, as it was posted on the NCWM website. Unfortunately, based on the comments in the 

2013 NCWM Publication 15, Item 360-2, some regions were not aware that this information had been provided.

During the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, no comments were received relative to this item during the Open 

Hearings. In considering the item, the Committee questioned whether or not the Software Sector was still actively 

working the item. It was reported that the Software Sector believed they had developed the item as much as 

possible, yet the different stakeholders affected by the proposal could not agree on the changes that the Sector had 

proposed. Based upon that update, the Committee agreed to add to its report a request that the Software Sector work 

with the Weighing Sector and Measuring Sector to identify which portions of the proposal need to be modified in 

order that they might be accepted by the entire community. The Committee acknowledges and appreciates the 

efforts of the Software Sector and looks forward to being able to consider a proposal that addresses both the 

identification of software and how it may be accessed.

Since the 2012 meeting, the Sector has attempted to promote this item via several means to try and address the 

concerns of other interested parties. A presentation was generated and shared with the SMA at their 2012 meeting. 

Most of the regions had access to this information prior to their meetings, as it was posted on the NCWM website.

Unfortunately, based on the comments in the 2013 NCWM Publication 15, Item 360-2, some regions were not 

aware that this information had been made available. In addition, it was noted that it may be desirable to evaluate 

options that would lead to fully eliminating GS-1.1. It was noted that this would be a more invasive modification to 

the existing handbook and perhaps should be put off until the first step of addressing software in all devices (not just 

standalone) was accomplished.

The Sector considers this item sufficiently developed. The one response to our request for review/comment that 

contained negative feedback was undeniably vague and non-constructive. The issue seems to be more one of 

communication/understanding than disagreement with the intent or wording. We may want to consider more direct 

methods (i.e., designating a representative to address the regional groups or other Sectors at their meetings). The 

annual meeting may be an appropriate venue for a presentation.

To move this forward, someone should address the regional groups. There are five to six potential venues for 

presentations. The last slide from the current presentation should be eliminated, to avoid confusing matters, for the 

time being. The two regional meetings in the fall (Western and Southern) and the interim meeting are probably 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F15

more critical than the ones in May. Dr. Thompson was asked to relay that we have a presentation available and 

would like to push our proposal as a Voting item in 2014. To be part of the January 2014 Annual S&T Committee’s 

hearings/agenda, this needs to be brought to Mr. Rick Harshman’s attention. Dr. Thompson volunteered to speak 

with him.

After removing the “and inseparably” terminology from the proposal, the concerns on the possibility of controversy 

were reduced.

The Sector’s opinion on the interpretation of “directly linked” is that it means that you can’t change the 

version/revision without changing the software.

It was recommended that a couple examples be added to the current slide presentation, to illustrate the intent of the 

proposed changes. One example might be supermarket-specific software designed to run upon a cash register. 

Another example might be, after a software change, noting that the new software version/revision number is no 

longer the same, and the operator was not prompted to enter a version/revision number.

Additional background information relative to this item can be found in: 

 2013 NCWM Publication 16 (S&T Agenda Item 360-2) at: 

http://www.ncwm.net/resources/dyn/files/1025938z8fff0401/_fn/2013_ST_Pub16.pdf

 2012 Software Sector Meeting Summary at: 

http://www.ncwm.net/resources/dyn/files/981563zdcfef44f/_fn/12_Software_Sector_Summary.pdf

Conclusion: 

The WS was asked to review the updated draft summary provided by the chairman of the 2013 NTEP Software 

Sector and consider providing additional input as necessary. In considering the item, a comment was heard 

regarding whether or not a nonrepetitive serial number is needed for software. The example provided was two 

software applications running on a single PC interfaced with two weighing elements. The concern is how would an 

inspector know which weighing system he/she is evaluating. The Sector discussed this concern and agreed to 

forward it to the Software Sector and the S&T Committee for consideration. 

DES Section 70. - Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh 

In-Motion

Source: 

Mr. Ed Luthy, Stock Equipment Company, Inc. (2011 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 6 and 2012 Weighing Sector 

Agenda Item 3) 

Background/Discussion: 

During the 2011 NTEP Weighing Sector Meeting, the Sector discussed a weigh-in-motion system using new 

technology that utilizes continuous rails (no “rail gaps”) on the approaches and weighing areas of the scale. The 

submitter stated that the manufacturer is currently unable to offer this device for sale in the United States in 

commercial applications because current NTEP type evaluation criteria and NIST Handbook 44 requirements are 

written in such a way that makes it impossible for devices incorporating this new technology to comply. For 

example, NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance requires 

clearance be provided around all live parts to the extent that no contacts may result. NCWM Publication 14, DES 

Section 70, Inspect the Scale, Item 4 Rail Gaps states that “the rail gaps should be set at 3/8 inch.” The AAR Scale 

Handbook includes language that allows 1/8 inch to 5/8 inch rail gaps. 

Members of the Sector agreed that they were not willing to recommend deleting references to the required gaps in 

the rail until it is proven that the new technology complies with the tolerances in NIST Handbook 44. Thus, the 

Sector recommended that the applicant move forward with performance testing to confirm that the new technology 

complies with the tolerances in NIST Handbook 44. The Sector agreed that data resulting from the performance 

testing needed to be submitted to the Sector prior to the time that the 2012 NTEP Weighing Sector Agenda was 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F16

developed or the item should not be included as a Carry-over item on that agenda. However, the Sector later agreed 

to retain the item on its agenda in 2012, and again in 2013, even though no data had been submitted because it was 

reported that there existed an open NTEP application for the equipment and that testing was still ongoing. 

For additional background information relative to this item and actions taken by the NTEP Weighing Sector during 

its 2011 and 2012 meetings go to: http://www.ncwm.net/meetings/ntep/weighing/archive. 

Conclusion: 

During the 2013 WS meeting, Mr. Luthy provided an update to members of the Sector on the progress of the NTEP 

evaluation of the equipment. He reported that an NTEP evaluator had recently completed both static and in-motion 

tests and that the device conformed to NIST Handbook 44 tolerances for both tests. Permanence testing was 

expected to take place in approximately 30 days. 

Upon learning that the device complied with applicable tolerances for both static and in-motion tests, the Sector 

agreed to recommend the requirement for 3/8 inch rail gaps specified in NCWM Publication 14, DES Section 70, 

“Inspect the Scale” 4. Rail Gaps (Page DES-115, 2013 Edition) be deleted and subsequent sections of NCWM 

Publication 14 renumbered. 

Mr. Luthy was reminded by Mr. Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor, that in addition to NCWM Publication 14

needing to be changed, there were also requirements in NIST Handbook 44 that would likely need amending in 

order to support the use of continuous rails in the approaches and weighing areas of the scale. Mr. Harshman 

offered to assist Mr. Luthy in completing the forms necessary to propose changes to NIST Handbook 44 and cited 

General Code paragraph G-UR.2.1. Installation and Scales Code paragraph UR.2.4. Foundation, Supports, and 

Clearance as paragraphs possibly needing to be changed in order to allow for the use of continuous rails. Mr. Truex, 

NTEP Administrator, commented that NIST Handbook 44 would likely need to be changed before NTEP would 

issue a Certificate of Conformance (CC) for the device, noting that an NTEP evaluation is intended to verify 

conformance with NIST Handbook 44 requirements. 

NCWM Publication 14 Load Cell Table 6 – Summary Table Examples

Source: 

NTEP Administrator (2012 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 7) 

Background/Discussion: 

The NTEP Administrator was contacted by an individual questioning tolerance values for repeatability and creep 

shown in the example summary table in NCWM Publication 14 – Load Cells Table 6 “Example of a Summary Table 

for a Class III 3000 Single Load Cell” (the reported errors are shown in Table 6 in shaded text). The individual 

reported that: 

1. The tolerance listed on the table should be the value from Table 3 - Tolerance for Class III Load Cells, page 

LC-10. That is, the repeatability error of a Class III 3000 single cell requirement (from Table 3) should be 

0.7v (0-500v); 1.4v (501-2000v); 2.1v (2001-4000v); 3.5v (4001-10 000v), so the value of repeatability 

error shown on Table 6 should be other than 0.35v. 

2. Similar error on Creep (time dependence) of Table 6, the value should follow the mpe Table T.N.4.6., the 

value of creep shown on Table 6 should be 1.05v other than 1.5v. 

3. Same error on Creep change ( I20min-I30min) of Table 6, according to Table T.N.4.6., it should be 0.1575v 

(0.15 × mpe) other than 0.225v. 

Table 6 – 2012 NTEP Publication 14 Load Cell Values (Page LC-17)
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F17

Summary Table

(As requested in Item 12 of the load cell data format paper)

a.

Critical Result4 Tolerance5 Result/Tolerance

Load Cell Error 0.68 v 0.7 v 0.97

b. Repeatability Error 0.19 v 0.35 v 0.55

c. Temperature Effect on MDLO 0.57 vmin/5 C 0.7 vmin/5 C 0.82

d. Creep (time dependence) 0.98 v 1.5 v 0.65

e. Δ Creep = I20 min – I 30 min 0.09 v 0.15 × |mpe| = 0.225 v 0.40

f. Creep Recovery 0.17 v 0.5 v 0.34

g. Effect of Barometric Pressure 0.185 vmin/kPa 1.0 vmin/kPa 0.15

Table 3. 

Tolerance for Class III Load Cells 

NIST Handbook 44

Reference Single Cell Requirement Multiple Cell Requirement

Load Cell Error

Table 6., Class III; 

T.N.3.2. and 

T.N.8.1.1.

0.7 Factor Applied 1.0 Factor Applied

Load Tolerance Load Tolerance

0 – 500 v 0.35v 0 – 500 v 0.50 v

501 – 2000 v 0.70v 501 – 2000 v 1.00 v

2001 – 4000 v 1.05v 2001 – 4000 v 1.50 v

4001 – 10 000 v 1.75v 4001 – 10 000 v 2.50 v

Repeatability Error; 

T.N.5. and T.N.8.1.1.

0.7 Factor Applied 1.0 Factor Applied

Load Tolerance Load Tolerance

0 – 500 v 0.7 0 v 0 – 500 v 1.00 v

501 – 2000 v 1.40 v 501 – 2000 v 2.00 v

2001 – 4000 v 2.10 v 2001 – 4000 v 3.00 v

4001 – 10 000 v 3.50 v 4001 – 10 000 v 5.00 v

Temperature Effect on 

Minimum Dead Load 

Output; T.N.8.1.3. and 

T.N.8.1.1.

0.7 vmin/5 C 0.7 vmin/5 C

Effects of Barometric 

Pressure; T.N.8.2.

Applicable only 

tospecified load cells

1 vmin/1 kPa

Applicable only to

specified load cells

1 vmin/1 kPa

During the 2012 WS Meeting, members voted unanimously in favor of approving the following corrections to 

Table 6 - 2012 NCWM Publication 14 Load Cell Values (Page LC-17): 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F18

Table 6 Corrected Version 2012 NCWM Publication 14 Load Cell Values (Page LC-17)

Summary Table

(As requested in Item 12 of the load cell data format paper)

a.

Critical Result4 Tolerance5 Result/Tolerance

Load Cell Error 0.68 v 0.7 v 0.97

b. Repeatability Error 0.19 v 0.35 v 0.7 v 0.55 0.27

c. Temperature Effect on MDLO 0.57 vmin/5 C 0.7 vmin/5 C 0.82

d. Creep (time dependence) 0.98 v 1.5 v 1.05 v 0.65 0.93

e. Δ Creep = I20 min – I 30 min

0.09 v 0.15 × |mpe| = 0.225 v

0.1575 v

0.40 0.57

f. Creep Recovery 0.17 v 0.5 v 0.34

g. Effect of Barometric Pressure 0.185 vmin/kPa 1.0 vmin/kPa 0.15

4The critical test result is the test result that gives the greatest ratio of result to tolerance. There may be other errors of greater 

absolute value but that give smaller ratios of result to tolerance. 

5The tolerance is the value from the tolerance table of the NTEP procedure that corresponds to the critical test result. 

There were three load cell manufacturer representatives present at the 2012 WS Meeting, who, for unknown reason, 

did not vote. Because those three represented the majority of the load cell manufacturers present at that meeting, it 

was decided that the Sector recommend to the 2012 NTEP Committee that the changes approved by the Sector be 

made to the table, but that the item also remain as a carry-over item on the 2013 WS agenda to allow for additional 

consideration of the changes. 

The NTEP Committee accepted all proposed changes to the table and a corrected version of the table was added to 

2013 NCWM Publication 14 Load Cells to replace the previous existing table. The following two summary tables, 

the lower of which reflects the changes recommended by the WS and approved by 2012 NTEP Committee, appear 

beneath the title “Table 6” on page LC-17 of 2013 NCWM Publication 14 Load Cells: 

Table 6. 

Example of a Summary Table for a Class III 3000 Single Load Cell 

Summary Table

(As requested in Item 12 of the load cell data format paper)

Critical Result2 Tolerance3 Result/Tolerance

Load Cell Error 0.68 v 0.7 v 0.97

Repeatability Error 0.19 v 0.35 v 0.55

Temperature Effect on MDLO 0.57 vmin/5 C 0.7 vmin/5 C 0.82

Creep (time dependence) 0.98 v 1.5 v 0.65

Effect of Barometric Pressure 0.185 vmin/kPa 1.0 vmin/kPa 0.15
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F19

Summary Table

(As requested in Item 12 of the load cell data format paper)

a.

Critical Result4 Tolerance5 Result/Tolerance

Load Cell Error 0.68 v 0.7 v 0.97

b. Repeatability Error 0.19 v 0.7 v 0.27

c. Temperature Effect on MDLO 0.57 vmin/5 C 0.7 vmin/5 C 0.82

d. Creep (time dependence) 0.98 v 1.05 v 0.93

e. Δ Creep = I20 min – I 30 min 0.09 v 0.15 x |mpe| = 0.1575 v 0.57

f. Creep Recovery 0.17 v 0.5 v 0.34

g. Effect of Barometric Pressure 0.185 vmin/kPa 1.0 vmin/kPa 0.15

2The critical test result is the test result that gives the greatest ratio of result to tolerance. There may be other errors of greater 

absolute value but that give smaller ratios of result to tolerance. 

3The tolerance is the value from the tolerance table of the NTEP procedure that corresponds to the critical test result. 

4The critical test result is the test result that gives the greatest ratio of result to tolerance. There may be other errors of greater 

absolute value but that give smaller ratios of result to tolerance. 

5The tolerance is the value from the tolerance table of the NTEP procedure that corresponds to the critical test result. 

For additional background information relative to this item and actions taken by the NTEP Weighing Sector during 

its 2012 meeting go to: http://www.ncwm.net/meetings/ntep/weighing/archive. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector agreed that the changes approved in 2012 to the values in the lower of the two tables beneath the heading 

“Table 6” are correct. In reviewing this item, it was pointed out that the values in the upper table were not changed 

to reflect the corrections that had been made to the values in the lower table and that the upper table also seemed 

redundant. After comparing the information included in the two tables, the Sector agreed, and consequently, 

recommended that the upper table be deleted and the footnotes in the lower table and all subsequent footnotes in 

NCWM Publication 14 Load Cells be renumbered. The following reflects the changes agreed to by the Sector at 

their 2013 meeting concerning this item: 

Table 6. 

Example of a Summary Table for a Class III 3000 Single Load Cell 

Summary Table

(As requested in Item 12 of the load cell data format paper)

Critical Result2 Tolerance3 Result/Tolerance

Load Cell Error 0.68 v 0.7 v 0.97

Repeatability Error 0.19 v 0.35 v 0.55

Temperature Effect on MDLO 0.57 vmin/5 C 0.7 vmin/5 C 0.82

Creep (time dependence) 0.98 v 1.5 v 0.65

Effect of Barometric Pressure 0.185 vmin/kPa 1.0 vmin/kPa 0.15
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F20

Summary Table

(As requested in Item 12 of the load cell data format paper)

a.

Critical Result4 2 Tolerance5 3 Result/Tolerance

Load Cell Error 0.68 v 0.7 v 0.97

b. Repeatability Error 0.19 v 0.7 v 0.27

c. Temperature Effect on MDLO 0.57 vmin/5 C 0.7 vmin/5 C 0.82

d. Creep (time dependence) 0.98 v 1.05 v 0.93

e. Δ Creep = I20 min – I 30 min 0.09 v 0.15 x |mpe| = 0.1575 v 0.57

f. Creep Recovery 0.17 v 0.5 v 0.34

g. Effect of Barometric Pressure 0.185 vmin/kPa 1.0 vmin/kPa 0.15

2The critical test result is the test result that gives the greatest ratio of result to tolerance. There may be other errors of greater 

absolute value but that give smaller ratios of result to tolerance. 

3The tolerance is the value from the tolerance table of the NTEP procedure that corresponds to the critical test result. 

4The critical test result is the test result that gives the greatest ratio of result to tolerance. There may be other errors of 

greater absolute value but that give smaller ratios of result to tolerance. 

5The tolerance is the value from the tolerance table of the NTEP procedure that corresponds to the critical test result. 

Renumber all subsequent footnotes in NCWM Publication 14 Load Cells. 

NEW ITEMS 

Item 360-7 NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D – Definitions: Remote Configuration Capability

Source 

2013 NCWM S&T Committee (2012 Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary) 

Background/Discussion: 

At the 2012 NTEP Grain Analyzer Sector meeting, the Sector agreed to forward a proposal to amend the definition 

of “remote configuration capability” in NIST Handbook 44 to the S&T Committee for consideration. The following 

changes were proposed: 

remote configuration capability. – The ability to adjust a weighing or measuring device or change its sealable 

parameters from or through some other device that is not may or may not itself be necessary to the operation 

of the weighing or measuring device or is not may or may not be a permanent part of that device.[2.20, 2.21, 

2.24, 3.30, 3.37, 5.56(a)] 

(Added 1993) (Amended 20XX)

The Grain Analyzer Sector noted in their proposal that removable digital storage devices containing the latest grain 

calibrations can be used in grain moisture meters (GMMs) as either data transfer devices that are not necessary to 

the operation of the GMM or as data storage devices which are necessary to the operation of the GMM. If 

removable data storage devices are necessary to the operation of the device, they are not covered by the current 

definition of remote configuration capability. 

A USB flash drive is most likely to be used as a data transfer device. In a typical data transfer application, the USB 

flash drive is first connected to a computer with access to the GMM manufacturer’s web site to download the latest 

grain calibrations that are then stored in the USB flash drive. The USB flash drive is removed from the computer 

and plugged into a USB port on the GMM. The GMM is put into remote configuration mode to copy the new grain 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F21

calibration data into the GMM’s internal memory. When the GMM has been returned to normal operating 

(measuring) mode the USB flash drive can be removed from the GMM. 

Although a Secure Digital (SD) memory card could also be used as a data transfer device it is more likely to be used 

as a data storage device. In a typical “data storage device” application, the SD memory card stores the grain 

calibrations used on the GMM. The SD memory card must be plugged into an SD memory card connector on a 

GMM circuit card for the GMM to operate in measuring mode. To install new grain calibrations the GMM must be 

turned “off” or put into a mode in which the SD memory card can be safely removed. The SD memory card can 

either be replaced with an SD memory card that has been programmed with the new grain calibrations or the original 

SD memory card can be re-programmed with the new grain calibrations in much the same way as that described in 

the preceding paragraph to copy new grain calibrations into a USB flash drive. In either case, the SD memory card 

containing the new calibrations must be installed in the GMM for the GMM to operate in measuring mode. In that 

regard, the SD memory card (although removable) can be considered a permanent part of the GMM in that the 

GMM cannot operate without it. 

Note: In the above example, the SD memory card could be any removable flash memory card such as the Secure 

Digital Standard-Capacity, the Secure Digital High-Capacity, the Secure Digital Extended-Capacity, and the Secure 

Digital Input/Output, which combines input/output functions with data storage. These come in three form factors: 

the original size, the mini size, and the micro size. A Memory Stick is a removable flash memory card format, 

launched by Sony in 1998, and is also used in general to describe the whole family of Memory Sticks. In addition to 

the original Memory Stick, this family includes the Memory Stick PRO, the Memory Stick Duo, the Memory Stick 

PRO Duo, the Memory Stick Micro, and the Memory Stick PRO-HG.

During its Open Hearings at the 2013 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee heard comments from 

Ms. Juanita Williams (NIST, OWM). OWM suggested the Committee consider this item as a Developing item to 

allow other Sectors to discuss how a change to the definition may affect other device types of similar design and to 

consider changes if needed. OWM recognizes that the current definition for “remote configuration capability” may 

not address those grain moisture meters (GMMs) which can only be operated with a removable data storage device, 

containing, among other things, the grain calibrations intended for use with the GMM, inserted in the device (as was 

described by the Grain Analyzer Sector). As such, OWM noted that current sealing requirements were developed at 

a time when such technology likely didn’t exist, nor could be envisioned, and are based on the current definition of

remote configuration capability. Because the current definition was never intended to apply to this “next 

generation” technology, OWM suggested that those charged with further development of this item may wish to 

revisit the five philosophies of sealing and consider whether a new paragraph, completely separate from current 

sealing requirements, might be appropriate and a better option, than the one currently proposed. The five 

philosophies of sealing are included in the 1992 Report of the 77th National Conference on Weights and Measures

(Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee). Another option, preferred over the changes currently 

proposed, would be to add a separate statement to the current definition of “remote configuration capability” to 

address removable storage devices. For example, the following sentence might be considered as an addition to the 

current definition for “remote configuration capability:”

Devices which are programmed using removable media (such as SD cards, flash drives, etc.) that may or 

may not be required to remain with the device during normal operation are also considered to be 

remotely configured devices. 

The Committee also heard comments from Mr. Dmitri Karimov (LC), speaking on behalf of the MMA, who made 

two points: (1) flow computers may already have these capabilities, thus it may be more appropriate to consider 

adding requirements to the General Code so that the requirements will be uniformly applied to all device types; and 

(2) the Committee should look ahead and consider other capabilities that may or already have emerged such as 

wireless communication and configuration. 

The Committee acknowledged the comments indicating that the current definition of “remote configuration 

capability” was developed at a time when certain technologies, such as blue tooth, SD storage devices, flash drives, 

etc., didn’t exist. The Committee recognized that it may be difficult to modify the existing definition and associated 

requirements to be flexible enough to address emerging and future technologies without having a significant (and 

possibly detrimental impact) on existing devices. Consequently, rather than modifying the current definition, the 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F22

Committee concluded that a better approach might be to develop an entirely separate set of security requirements 

that would apply to emerging technologies. The Committee believes that additional work is needed to develop 

proposed definition(s) and associated requirements and decided to designate the item as Developmental. The 

Committee requests other Sectors review the Grain Sector’s proposed modification to the definition as well as 

OWM’s suggestions and provide input.

During the 2013 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, the NTEP evaluators were asked if they were aware of or had observed 

during any of their evaluations of a weighing or measuring device, one which required some form of memory card 

or data storage device be installed in order for the device to be operational in the measuring or weighing mode. A 

weighing representative from Measurement Canada reported that he had observed scales having flash drives (some 

of which were micro in size) that are sealed via physical seal that contain calibration information and possibly even 

the operating system stored on a card, which must remain in the device in order for the device to be operational. 

The U.S. NTEP evaluators (i.e., on both the weighing and measuring side) reported they had no knowledge of such 

technology being used in devices they had evaluated, but they also acknowledged that it could have been present 

without them noticing it during the evaluation process. 

At the 2013 NCWM Annual Meeting, OWM reiterated comments it made at the 2013 Interim Meeting suggesting 

that it may be appropriate to develop separate requirements to address new and future technologies which can be 

remotely configured with removable media. OWM indicated it plans to develop draft language and request input 

from the various sectors at their upcoming meetings. Two additional comments were made in support of possibly 

including requirements in the General Code of NIST Handbook 44 to address newer and emerging technologies. 

See Final Report of the 2013 NCWM S&T Committee Agenda Item 356-3 for additional background information on 

this item to amend the definition for “remote configuration capability” in HB 44 Appendix D. 

Conclusion: 

At the 2013 WS meeting, OWM requested members of the Sector help identify the various types of removable 

storage media (e.g., USB flash drives, SD memory cards, etc.) currently in use with weighing equipment and to

describe the functionality of that media. The information provided would likely be used by OWM to develop some 

draft proposals to amend NIST Handbook 44 to adequately address the security of the metrological significant 

parameters of devices using such media. 

The following feedback was provided by members of the Sector to OWM: 

 I am not in favor of changing standards for advances in technology. 

 Both SD cards and USB Flash drives can be used for data transfer and data storage. It would be difficult to 

address all devices by changing the General Code. 

 There are other technologies besides SD and Flash digital storage devices that must be considered 

(e.g., Eprom and EEE, etc). 

 Several members commented that they felt it would likely be necessary to separate requirements in the 

various codes of NIST Handbook 44. 

 It is not reasonable to expect manufacturers to share the technologies used in a public forum such as this 

meeting and it might be better to speak individually with representatives of the different manufacturers. 

At the end of the discussion, a few Sector members offered to provide technical expertise to assist OWM in 

answering any questions that might arise during future development of proposed requirements to address this issue. 

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 76 Digital Controller Element for Load Cells Checklists 

and Test Procedures 

Source: 

NTEP Weighing Labs (2013 NTEP Lab Meeting) 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F23

Background/Discussion: 

Section 76 Digital Controller Element for Load Cells Checklists and Test Procedures was first added to NCWM 

Publication 14 DES in 2013. During a review of the new checklists and test procedures at the April 2013 NTEP Lab 

Meeting, NTEP weighing evaluators questioned whether or not the nominal capacity, scale division d, value of e (if 

different than d), and CLC should be required marking on a Digital Controller Element that does not output a 

calibrated weight value as specified on page DES-134 of 2013 Publication 14 DES. The evaluators noted that 

values corresponding to such marking on a DCE would likely vary depending upon other components used to create 

the scale system, e.g., the weighing/load-receiving element, load cells, etc., in which a DCE is but one part. For this 

reason, the evaluators don’t believe this information should necessarily be required on a DCE and requested that the 

NIST Technical Advisor include a new item on the 2013 WS agenda to determine if the WS shared their view. 

Marking Requirements for DCEs that Do Not Output a Calibrated Weight Values

Mark with: Mark with:

Manufacturer’s ID Manufacturer’s ID

Model Number and Prefix Model Number and Prefix

Serial Number and Prefix Serial Number and Prefix

Temperature Range if required Temperature Range if required 

Certificate of Conformity Number Certificate of Conformity Number

Accuracy Class Accuracy Class

Nominal Capacity Nominal Capacity

 nmax nmax

Scale Division, d Scale Division, d

 Value of e (if different from d) Value of e (if different from d)

 CLC (vehicle, axle load and livestock1) CLC (vehicle, axle load and livestock1)

 Section Capacity (for livestock1and 

 Railway track scales)

 Special Applications

For additional background information relative to this item and actions taken by the NTEP Weighing Sector during 

its 2012 meeting go to: http://www.ncwm.net/meetings/ntep/weighing/archive. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector was asked to review the required marking information shown above for DCEs that do not output 

calibrated weight values, and determine whether or not the marking information struck out and shaded in the above 

illustration is needed. 

In reviewing this item, one member of the Sector (a scale manufacturer representative) described a DCE as a scale 

indicator without a display, which led to a discussion regarding whether or not a DCE needed to be properly 

matched to other components of a scale system in order for the system to be considered suitable. If so, an additional 

column should be added to NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code Table S.6.3.a and include required marking information 

applicable to DCEs. The general consensus of the group was that required marking information for a DCE should 

not be added to Table S.6.3.a., although not everyone completely agreed. Consequently, the WS agreed to 

recommend that the information struck out and shaded in the illustration above be deleted. 

DIGITAL CONTROLLER 

ELEMENT 

Converts outputs from one or more 

load cells to a calibrated digital 

weight value ready for display

DIGITAL WEIGHT 

INDICATING ELEMENT 

Accepts input from Digital Controller 

Element and displays calibrated weight 

value
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F24

NCWM Publication 14 DES Checklists and Test Procedures Section 1 Marking – Applicable to 

Indicating, Weighing/Load-Receiving Elements and Complete Scales

Source: 

NTEP Labs (2013 NTEP Lab Meeting)

Background/Discussion: 

A “Note” in Section 1 of the Checklists and Procedures of NCWM Publication 14 Digital Electronic Scales specifies 

that for consistency purposes the NTEP labs use an Eberhard Faber ink eraser type #110 to verify the permanence of 

the lettering used to mark required information on a device. It has been reported that this particular eraser may no 

longer be available in the marketplace. Consequently, the NTEP lab evaluators were recently asked to try and 

identify a suitable replacement for this eraser; but to date, no replacement has been identified. 

Conclusion: 

The WS was asked to help identify a suitable replacement for the Eberhard Faber ink eraser type #110, which could 

readily be procured by all the NTEP labs at a reasonable cost and enable the NTEP labs to continue testing the 

permanence of lettering used to mark required information on a device using the same testing medium. 

A few Sector members suggested investigating the possibility of using an ink eraser called “Black Pearl” as a 

possible suitable replacement. It was also mentioned that there are clay bars used in the auto detailing industry that 

might prove satisfactory. Mr. Truex agreed to look into the possibility of replacing the current eraser with one of the 

products mentioned and to continue searching until a suitable replacement is found. 

NCWM Publication 14 Load Cells - National Type Evaluation Program Terminology for Load 

Cell Parameters 

Source: Mr. Steve Langford, Cardinal Scale (2013)

Background/Discussion: Mr. Steve Langford has discovered what he believes to be an editorial error in some of 

the text included in Figure 1. Illustration of Load Cell Parameters on page LC-19 of NCWM Publication 14 Load 

Cells. The illustration uses the term “Maximum Dead Load” in association with Dmax to identify the upper extreme 

of the load cell measuring range. Mr. Langford believes the word “Dead” should be removed so that the term reads 

“Maximum Load.” This change would align the text with footnote 7 of the illustration, the definition of Dmax in 

NIST Handbook 44, and OIML R60 Section 2.3.6. 

The WS was asked to review NCWM Publication 14 Load Cells Figure 1. Illustration of Load Cell Parameters and 

determine whether or not the change suggested by Mr. Langford is appropriate and whether or not additional 

changes to any of the text included in Figure 1. are needed. Figure 1. Illustration of Load Cell Parameters has been 

copied from Publication 14 and pasted below with the change suggested by Mr. Langford shaded. Included for 

reference are definitions of “Dmax” and “Dmin,” which were copied from NIST Handbook 44 and Section 2.3.6., 

copied from OIML R 60. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F25

Load Cell 

Specifications

Zero 

Load

Minimum Dead Load 

of Load Cell (Emin)

Maximum Measuring Range

Maximum Capacity 

of Load Cell (Emax)

Safe Load 

Limit (Elim)

Use or Test

Figure 1.

Illustration of Load Cell Parameters

Load Cell Measuring Range6

Maximum Dead Load

During Test or Use7(Dmax)

6The limiting conditions for the measuring range for use or test are the minimum dead load and maximum capacity of the load cell.

7Maximum load for National Type Evaluation Program test must be at least 90% of the maximum capacity of the load cell, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology testing will not go beyond the maximum capacity of the load cell. If the manufacturer test equipment 

limits the loads that may be applied, the manufacturer may test to a load in excess of the maximum capacity of the load cell.

Appendix D – Definitions NIST Handbook 44: 

Dmax (maximum load of the measuring range). – Largest value of a quantity (mass) which is applied to a load 

cell during test or use. This value shall not be greater than Emax.[2.20]

(Added 2005) 

Dmin (minimum load of the measuring range). – Smallest value of a quantity (mass) which is applied to a load 

cell during test or use. This value shall not be less than Emin.[2.20] 

(Added 2006) 

OIML R 60 Metrological Regulation for Load Cells: 

2.3.6 Maximum load of the measuring range (Dmax) Largest value of a quantity (mass) which is applied to 

a load cell during test or use. This value shall not be greater than Emax (see 2.3.5). For the limits on Dmax 

during testing, see A.3.2.4. 

Conclusion: 

The Sector agreed with Mr. Langford’s assertion that the word “Dead” should not appear in association with Dmax

and recommends that the word be removed from the illustration as suggested. 

Identification of Certified Software

Source: NTEP Software Sector (2013 Software Sector Meeting)

Background/Discussion: This item originated as an attempt to answer the question “How does the field inspector 

know that the software running in the device is the same software evaluated and approved by the lab?” In previous 

meetings it was shown that the international community has addressed this issue (both WELMEC and OIML). 

At the 2012 NTEP Software Sector Meeting, there was some discussion as to where the terminology regarding 

inextricably linking the software version or revision to the software itself belonged. The Software Sector 

Minimum Dead Load 

During Test or Use (Dmin)
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F26

recommended adding the following to NCWM Publication 14 and forward to NTEP Weighing, Measuring, and 

Grain Analyzer Sectors for feedback: 

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the need for 

further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on devices without 

breaking a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules (programs, 

subroutines, objects, etc.) that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain metrologically 

significant data domains form the metrologically significant software part of a measuring instrument (device or 

sub-assembly). If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the software is metrologically 

significant as a whole. The conformity requirement applies to all parts and parts shall be marked according to 

Section G-S-X.X. 

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is directly and 

inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision identifier is comprised 

of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents the metrological significant 

software and which does not. 

Conclusion: 

Members of the Weighing Sector reviewed the two paragraphs shown above for which the Software Sector 

requested feedback and after agreeing that the last sentence of the first paragraph should be deleted, agreed to 

recommend that both paragraphs (minus the last sentence of the first paragraph) be added to the following 

Sections of NCWM Publication 14: 

 DES Section 3; 

 ECRS Section 5.11; 

 ABWS Section 17.5.; and 

 AWS Section 1.2. 

The following text, less the struck out sentence shown, is recommended by the Sector for insertion into the 

Sections of Publication 14 identified above: 

Identification of Certified Software: 

Note: Manufacturers may choose to separate metrologically significant software from non-metrologically 

significant software. Separation would allow the revision of the non-metrological portion without the 

need for further evaluation. In addition, non-metrologically significant software may be updated on 

devices without breaking a seal, if so designed. Separation of software requires that all software modules 

(programs, subroutines, objects, etc.) that perform metrologically significant functions or that contain 

metrologically significant data domains form the metrologically significant software part of a measuring 

instrument (device or sub-assembly). If the separation of the software is not possible or needed, then the 

software is metrologically significant as a whole. The conformity requirement applies to all parts and 

parts shall be marked according to Section G-S-X.X. 

The manufacturer must describe and possibly demonstrate how the version or revision identifier is 

directly and inseparably linked to the metrologically significant software. Where the version revision 

identifier is comprised of more than one part, the manufacturer shall describe which portion represents 

the metrological significant software and which does not. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F27

Software Protection/Security

Source: 

NTEP Software Sector (2013 Software Sector Meeting)

Background 

The NTEP Software Sector agreed that NIST Handbook 44 already has audit trail and physical seal, but these may 

need to be enhanced. 

From the WELMEC Document: 

Protection against accidental or unintentional changes 

Metrologically significant software and measurement data shall be protected against accidental or unintentional 

changes. 

Specifying Notes: 

Possible reasons for accidental changes and faults are: unpredictable physical influences, effects caused by user 

functions and residual defects of the software even though state of the art of development techniques have been 

applied. 

This requirement includes consideration of: 

a) Physical influences: Stored measurement data shall be protected against corruption or deletion when a 

fault occurs or, alternatively, the fault shall be detectable. 

b) User functions: Confirmation shall be demanded before deleting or changing data. 

c) Software defects: Appropriate measures shall be taken to protect data from unintentional changes that 

could occur through incorrect program design or programming errors, e.g. plausibility checks. 

Required Documentation: 

The documentation should show the measures that have been taken to protect the software and data against 

unintentional changes. 

Example of an Acceptable Solution: 

 The accidental modification of software and measurement data may be checked by calculating a 

checksum over the relevant parts, comparing it with the nominal value and stopping if anything has 

been modified. 

 Measurement data are not deleted without prior authorization, e.g. a dialogue statement or window 

asking for confirmation of deletion. 

 For fault detection see also Extension I. 

The Software Sector continued to develop a proposed checklist for NCWM Publication 14. The numbering will still 

need to be added. This is based roughly on R 76-2 checklist and discussions beginning as early as the October 2007 

NTEP Software Sector Meeting. The information requested by this checklist is currently voluntary, however, it is 

recommended that applicants comply with these requests or provide specific information as to why they may not be 

able to comply. Based on this information, the checklist may be amended to better fit with NTEP's need for 

information and the applicant's ability to comply. 

The California, Maryland, and Ohio laboratories agreed to use this check list on one of the next devices they have in 

the lab and report back to the Sector on what the problems may be. In February 2011, the North Carolina laboratory 

was also given a copy of the check list to try. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F28

1. Devices with Embedded Software TYPE P (aka built-for-purpose)

1.1. Declaration of the manufacturer that the software is used in a fixed hardware 

and software environment. AND

Yes No N/A

1.2. Cannot be modified or uploaded by any means after securing/verification. Yes No N/A

Note: It is acceptable to break the "seal" and load new software, audit trail is also

a sufficient seal.

1.3. The software documentation contains:

1.3.1. Description of all functions, designating those that are considered 

metrologically significant.

Yes No N/A

1.3.2. Description of the securing means (evidence of an intervention). Yes No N/A

1.3.3. Software Identification, including version/revision Yes No N/A

1.3.4. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A

1.4. The software identification is:

1.4.1. Clearly assigned to the metrologically significant software and 

functions.

Yes No N/A

1.4.2. Description how to check the actual software identification. Yes No N/A

1.4.3. Provided by the device as documented. Yes No N/A

1.4.4. Directly linked to the software itself. Yes No N/A

2. Personal Computers, Instruments with PC Components, and Other Instruments, Devices, Modules, and 

Elements with Programmable or Loadable Metrologically Significant Software TYPE U (aka not builtfor-purpose)

2.1. The metrologically significant software is:

2.1.1. Documented with all relevant information (see below for list of 

documents).

Yes No N/A

2.1.2. Protected against accidental or intentional changes. Yes No N/A

2.2. Evidence of intervention (such as, changes, uploads, circumvention) is 

available until the next verification/inspection (e.g., physical seal, Checksum, 

Cyclical Redundancy Check (CRC), audit trail, etc. means of security).

Yes No N/A

3. Software with Closed Shell (no access to the operating system and/or programs possible for the user)

3.1. Check whether there is a complete set of commands (e.g., function keys or 

commands via external interfaces) supplied and accompanied by short 

descriptions.

Yes No N/A

3.2. Check whether the manufacturer has submitted a written declaration of the 

completeness of the set of commands.

Yes No N/A

4. Operating System and/or Program(s) Accessible for the User

4.1. Check whether a checksum or equivalent signature is generated over the 

machine code of the metrologically significant software (program module(s) 

subject to legal control Weights and Measures jurisdiction and type-specific 

parameters).

Yes No N/A

4.2. Check whether the metrologically significant software will detect and act upon 

any unauthorized alteration of the metrologically significant software using 

Yes No N/A
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F29

simple software tools (e.g., text editor).

5. Software Interface(s)

5.1. Verify the manufacturer has documented:

5.1.1. The program modules of the metrologically significant software are 

defined and separated.

Yes No N/A

5.1.2. The protective software interface itself is part of the metrologically 

significant software.

Yes No N/A

5.1.3. The functions of the metrologically significant software that can be 

accessed via the protective software interface.

Yes No N/A

5.1.4. The parameters that may be exchanged via the protective software 

interface are defined.

Yes No N/A

5.1.5. The description of the functions and parameters are conclusive and 

complete.

Yes No N/A

5.1.6. There are software interface instructions for the third party (external) 

application programmer.

Yes No N/A

The Maryland laboratory had particular questions regarding 3.1 and 5.1. The information for 3.1. could be acquired 

from an operator’s manual, a training video, or in-person training. The items in 5.1. were confusing to the 

evaluators. The terminology is familiar to software developers, but not necessarily others. It was indicated that 

manufacturers were typically quick to return the filled out questionnaire, but he didn’t know how his laboratory was 

supposed to verify that it was true. Generally, the laboratories wouldn’t be expected to verify things to that level. 

For example, if the manufacturer states that a checksum is used to ensure integrity, the laboratories wouldn’t be 

expected to evaluate the algorithm used. 

The intent was to see whether the manufacturer had at least considered these issues, not for evaluators to become 

software engineers. Perhaps a glossary or descriptive paragraphs might be added to assist the evaluators if the 

manufacturer has questions for the evaluators. 

OIML makes use of supplementary documents to explain the checklist they use. Below are links: 

http://www.oiml.org/publications/D/D031-e08.pdf

http://www.welmec.org/latest/guides/72.html

http://www.welmec.org/fileadmin/user_files/publications/2-3.pdf

WELMEC document 2.3 is the original source for our checklist, but it’s been significantly revised and simplified. 

Mr. Payne, Maryland Department of Agriculture, is going to review the other documents and come up with some 

suggestions for the checklist. Mr. Roach, California Division of Measurement Standards, is going to begin using the 

checklist. The international viewpoint is that any device running an operating system is considered to be Type U. 

Mr. Roach mentioned that they’re having lots of problems with “skimmers” stealing PIN’s. Is there some way they 

can detect this? 

Mr. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc., mentioned that he liked Measurement Canada’s website. When 

answering similar questions, different pages would appear, based on answers to those questions: 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm00573.html. 

At the 2011 NTEP Software Sector Meeting, the laboratories were polled to obtain any feedback on the use of the 

checklist. Maryland attempted to use this checklist a few times. They had some difficulty obtaining answers from 

the manufacturers because the individual(s) interacting with the Maryland evaluator didn’t always have the required 

information on hand. More experience in using the checklist will help determine what needs to be revised. 

It was suggested that the checklist could be sent to manufacturers for their feedback as well, with the stipulation that 

it be a completely voluntary exercise and purely informational at this point. The laboratories will coordinate with 

willing manufacturers to obtain feedback. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F30

Work is ongoing on this item with the intent that it eventually will be incorporated as a checklist in NCWM 

Publication 14; again, the laboratories are requested to try utilizing this checklist for any evaluations on softwarebased electronic devices. 

The checklist has been reviewed with an eye to making its terminology clearer to laboratories. Some examples and 

clarifications have been added as shown in the discussion section of this item. The revised checklist will be 

distributed to the laboratories for additional review. Maryland and California laboratories agreed to use the checklist 

on a trial basis. 

Discussion: 

Over the past year, attempts to use the current checklist did not meet with many difficulties. The checklists were 

given to the manufacturers to fill out, and that seemed to work rather well. Minor modifications (in red above) were 

made to clarify certain confusing areas or eliminate redundancy. 

Conclusion: 

The WS was asked to consider whether or not it is appropriate to add the proposed software checklist to NCWM 

Publication 14, and if so, to identify which of the checklists within Publication 14 Weighing Devices it is be 

included, e.g., DES, AWS, etc. 

Feedback to the Software Sector. The WS reviewed the checklist and is opposed to adding it to any of the 

Weighing Device checklists within NCWM Publication 14 for the following reasons: 

 nonretroactive application: that is, a concern was raised concerning applying the checklist to existing 

equipment with software. 

 metrological and nonmetrological software issue: that is, Subsection 1.2. of the checklist implies that you 

cannot load any software without breaking a seal. 

 The checklist is not supported by NIST Handbook 44. 

 The meaning of some terms included in the checklist is not clear (e.g., “fixed hardware,” “software 

environment”).

Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration

Source: 

NTEP Software Sector (2013 Software Sector Meeting) 

Background 

After the software is completed, what do the manufacturers use to secure their software? The following items were 

reviewed by the NTEP Software Sector. Note that Agenda Item 3 also contains information on Verified and Traced 

updates and Software Log.

1. Verify that the update process is documented. (OK) 

2. For traced updates, installed Software is authenticated and checked for integrity. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the authenticity of the loaded software (i.e., that it originates 

from the owner of the type approval certificate). This can be accomplished (e.g., by cryptographic means like 

signing). The signature is checked during loading. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument shall 

discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the integrity of the loaded software (i.e., that it has not been 

inadmissibly changed before loading). This can be accomplished, for example, by adding a checksum or hash 

code of the loaded software and verifying it during the loading procedure. If the loaded software fails this test, 

the instrument shall discard it and either use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F31

Examples are not limiting or exclusive. 

3. Verify that the sealing requirements are met. 

The Software Sector asked “What sealing requirements are we talking about?” 

This item is only addressing the software update. It can be either verified or traced. It is possible that there 

are two different security means, one for protecting software updates (software log) and one for protecting the 

other metrological parameters (Category I, II, or III method of sealing). Some examples provided by the Sector 

members include but are not limited to: 

Physical Seal, software log 

Category III method of sealing can contain both means of security 

4. Verify that if the upgrade process fails, the device is inoperable or the original software is restored. 

The question before the group is, can this be made mandatory? 

The manufacturer shall ensure by appropriate technical means (e.g. an audit trail) that traced updates of 

metrologically significant software are adequately traceable within the instrument for subsequent verification 

and surveillance or inspection. This requirement enables inspection authorities, which are responsible for the 

metrological surveillance of legally controlled instruments, to back-trace traced updates of metrologically 

significant software over an adequate period of time (that depends on national legislation). The statement in 

italics will need to be reworded to comply with U.S. weights and measures requirements. 

The Software Sector agreed that the two definitions below for Verified Update and Traced Update were acceptable. 

Verified Update 

A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user. 

Traced Update 

A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or audit trail. 

Note: It’s possible that the Philosophy of Sealing section of NCWM Publication 14 may already address the above 

IF the definitions of Verified and Traced Updates (and the statement below) were to be added. The contrary 

argument was that it may be better to be explicit. 

Use of a Category 3 audit trail is required for a Traced Update. A log entry representing a traced 

software update shall include the software identification of the newly installed version. 

The Sector recommended consolidating the definitions with the above statement thus: 

Verified Update 

A verified update is the process of installing new software where the security is broken and the device must be 

re-verified. Checking for authenticity and integrity is the responsibility of the owner/user. 

Traced Update 

A traced update is the process of installing new software where the software is automatically checked for 

authenticity and integrity, and the update is recorded in a software update log or Category 3 audit trail. The 

audit trail entry shall include the software identification of the newly installed version. 

In 2012, the Sector recommended that as a first step, the following be added to NCWM Publication 14: 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F32

The updating of metrologically significant software, including software that checks the authenticity and 

integrity of the updates, shall be considered a sealable event. 

Mr. Truex, NTEP Administrator, indicated that, in his opinion, the above sentence is unnecessary since it’s selfevident. It was agreed by the group however to ask the other sectors for feedback on the value of this addition. 

Though the Software Sector is currently considering only the single sentence be incorporated into NCWM 

Publication 14 for the time being, ultimately, the Sector may wish to advance the remaining language of the original 

item submission. 

Discussion:

The Software Sector had no information indicating that the other Sectors had yet been approached for feedback on 

the value of the addition of the proposed sentence. 

Recommendation: 

The Software Sector is requesting each of the NTEP Sectors review and provide feedback on the following draft 

language it developed for consideration of adding it to NCWM Publication 14: 

The updating of metrologically significant software, including software that checks the authenticity and 

integrity of the updates, shall be considered a sealable event. 

The Software Sector is also requesting feedback from the NTEP Sectors regarding whether or not additional 

language is needed in NCWM Publication 14 to make clear that an existing audit trail should be protected during a 

software update. In the background information provided for this item, it was noted that the Software Sector noted 

that this does already seem to be addressed in the Requirements for Metrological Audit Trails in Publication 14. 

NIST Technical Advisor’s note: NCWM Publication 14 DES Appendix B item 5 b. on page DES – 156 of General 

Requirements for Metrological Audit Trails addresses the protection of audit trail data as follows and may be why 

the Software Sector has indicated that this issue already seems to be addressed in NCWM Publication 14: 

5.1.6.1. The audit trail data shall be: 

a. Stored in non-volatile memory and shall be retained for at least 30 days if power is removed from the 

device. AND

b. Protected from unauthorized erasure, substitution, or modification. 

This same provision also appears in Publication 14 AWS Appendix B. 

Conclusion: The WS is opposed to adding the proposed sentence into NCWM Publication 14 at this time for the 

following reasons: 

 If this statement were added into Publication 14, it would change the existing sealing requirements for 

devices with category 1, 2, and 3 methods of sealing. Category 1, 2, and 3 sealing does not currently 

require identification of software changes to event counters or event loggers. This would require a change 

to NIST Handbook 44. 

 It’s not clear that the requirement for authenticity and integrity of the updates is limited to only 

metrological significant software. 

The WS currently believes that Publication 14 is not clear on whether or not an existing audit trail should be 

protected during a software update. This issue will need to be addressed as software requirements are added to 

NIST Handbook 44. 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F33

ATTACHMENTS 

2014 Weighing Sector Meeting: NTEP Weighing Sector / August 26-27, 2014 / Site TBD [CA, Chicago, Atlanta, 

Denver]
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

NTEP - F34

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Weighing Sector Attendees 

NTEP – F / A1 

Sub-Appendix A 

National Conference on Weights and Measures / National Type Evaluation Program

Weighing Sector Attendee List Final

August 27-28, 2013 / Albany, NY

Steven Beitzel 

Systems Associates 

1932 Industrial Drive 

Libertyville, IL 60048 

P. (847) 367-6650 

E. sjbeitzel@systemassoc.com 

Luciano Burtini 

Measurement Canada 

2008 Matera Avenue 

Kelowna, BC V1V1W9 

P. (250) 862-6557 

E. luciano.burtini@ic.gc.ca 

Scott Davidson 

Mettler-Toledo, LLC 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

P. (614) 438-4387 

E. scott.davidson@mt.com 

Darrell Flocken 

Mettler-Toledo, LLC 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

P. (614) 438-4393 

E. darrell.flocken@mt.com 

Rick Harshman 

NIST, Weights and Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

P. (301) 975-8107 

E. richard.harshman@nist.gov 

Jon Heinlein 

Transcell Technology, Inc. 

975 East Deerfield Parkway 

Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 

P. (847) 419-9180 

E. jheinlein@transcell.com 

Scott Henry 

Motorola Solutions, Inc. 

1700 Belle Meade Court 

Lawrenceville, GA 30043 

P. (770) 338-3884 

E. scott.henry@motorolasolutions.com 

Ken Jones 

California Division of Measurement Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

P. (916) 229-3052 

E. kjones@cdfa.ca.gov 

Thomas Jones 

Hobart Corporation 

401 West Market Street 

Troy, OH 45374 

P. (937) 332-2427 

E. thomas.jones@hobartcorp.com 

Stephen Langford 

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. 

203 East Daugherty Street 

Webb City, MO 64870 

P. (417) 673-4631 

E. slangford@cardet.com 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix F – 2013 Weighing Sector Summary 

Sub-Appendix A – Weighing Sector Attendees 

NTEP – F / A2 

Paul A. Lewis, Sr. 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 

230 West Coleman Street 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404

P. (715) 234-9171 ext.5322 

E. plewis@ricelake.com 

Ed Luthy 

Schenck Process 

108 Wade Drive 

Dover, OH 44622 

P. (440) 241-0194 

E. e.luthy@schenckprocess.com 

Eric Morabito 

New York State Weights and Measures 

10 B Airline Drive 

Albany, NY 12235 

P. (518) 457-3452 

E. Eric.Morabito@agriculture.ny.gov 

Joe Morrison 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

Weights and Measures 

8995 East Main Street, Building 5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

P. (614) 728-6290 

E. jmorrison@agri.ohio.gov 

Edward Payne 

Maryland Department of Agriculture 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

P. (410) 841-5790 

E. edward.payne@maryland.gov 

Wayne Pugh 

OCS Checkweighers, Inc. 

2350 Hewatt Road 

Snellville, GA 30039 

P. (678) 232-0745 

E. wayne.pugh@ocs-cw.com 

Louis Straub 

Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

3056 Irwin Drive S.E. 

Southport, NC 28461 

P. (910) 253-3250 

E. lstraub@fairbanks.com 

James Truex 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

88 Carryback Drive 

Pataskala, OH 43062 

P. (740) 919-4350 

E. jim.truex@ncwm.net 

Tim Tyson 

Kansas Department of Agriculture 

Weights and Measures Division 

PO Box 19282 

Topeka, KS 66619 

P. (785) 862-2415 

E. tim.tyson@kda.ks.gov 

Robert Upright Jr. 

Vishay Transducers 

42 Countryside Road 

North Grafton, MA 01536 

P. (508) 615-1185 

E. rob.upright@vishaypg.com 
Nominating Committee 2014 Final Report 

NOM - 1 

Report of the 

Nominating Committee 

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, Committee Chair 

North Carolina 

800 INTRODUCTION 

The Nominating Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) met during the 99th National Conference on 

Weights and Measures (NCWM) Interim Meeting, January 19 - 22, 2014, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At that 

time, the Committee nominated persons for the various available Board of Director positions for the 100th NCWM. 

The following report reflects the decisions of the NCWM membership. 

Table A identifies the agenda items by reference key, title of item, page number and the appendices by appendix 

designations, and Table B reflects the Voting Results. 

Table A 

Table of Contents 

Reference Key Title of Item NOM Page

800 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

810 NOMINATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 3

810-1 V Officer Nominations .................................................................................................................... 3

Table B 

Voting Results

Reference Key 

Number 

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates 

Results 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

To Elect the Slate 

of Officers as 

presented in the 

Report 

Voice Vote Adopted 

 
Nominating Committee 2014 Final Report 

NOM - 2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Nominating Committee 2014 Final Report 

NOM - 3 

Details of All Items 

(In order by Reference Key)

810 NOMINATIONS 

(This item was adopted by unanimous vote of the 99th National Conference on Weights and Measures) 

810-1 V Officer Nominations 

Source: 

Nominating Committee 

Purpose: 

Election of NCWM officers 

Item Under Consideration: 

The following slate of officers was selected by unanimous vote of the committee: 

Chairman-Elect: 

Mr. Jerry Buendel, Washington State Weights and Measures 

Board of Directors Active Director – Western: (2 years) 

Mr. Brett Gurney, Utah Weights and Measures 

Board of Directors Active Director – Northeastern: (5 years) 

Mr. Jimmy Cassidy, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts Weights and Measures

Treasurer: (1 year) 

Mr. Mark Coyne, Brockton, Massachusetts Weights and Measures 

Background/Discussion: 

The Nominating Committee met during the 2014 Interim Meeting at the Hotel Albuquerque in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico at which time the Committee nominated the persons listed above to be officers of the 100th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures. In the selection of nominees from the active and associate membership, 

consideration was given to professional experience, qualifications of individuals, conference attendance and 

participation, and other factors considered to be important. 

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina | Committee Chair 

Mr. Charles Carroll, Massachusetts | Member 

Mr. Tim Chesser, Arkansas | Member 

Ms. Angela Godwin, Ventura County, California | Member 

Mr. Joe Gomez, New Mexico | Member 

Mr. Frank Greene, Connecticut, Florida | Member 

Mr. Tim Tyson, Kansas | Member 

Nominating Committee 

 
Nominating Committee 2014 Final Report 

NOM - 4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 1 

99th	Annual	Meeting	Attendees	

Sprague Ackley 

Intermec 

6001 36th Avenue, W 

Everett, WA 98203 

Phone: (425) 501-8995 

E-mail: hsackley@cs.com 

Cary Ainsworth 

USDA, GIPSA 

75 Spring Street, Ste 230 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 

Phone: (404) 562-5426 

E-mail: l.cary.ainsworth@usda.gov 

John Albert 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

1616 Missouri Boulevard 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Phone: (573) 751-7062 

E-mail: john.albert@mda.mo.gov 

Mahesh Albuquerque 

CDLE-Oil & Public Safety 

633 17th Street 

Ste 500 

Denver, CO 80202 

Phone: (303) 318-8502 

E-mail: mahesh.albuquerque@state.co.us 

Ross Andersen 

25 Moon Drive 

Albany, NY 12205 

Phone: (518) 869-7334 

E-mail: rjandersen12@gmail.com 

Paige Anderson 

National Association of Convenience Stores 

1600 Duke Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Phone: (703) 518-4221 

E-mail: panderson@nacsonline.com 

Cheryl Ayer 

New Hampshire Department of Agriculture Markets 

& Food 

PO Box 2042 

Concord, NH 03302 

Phone: (603) 568-3387 

E-mail: cheryl.ayer@agr.nh.gov 

James Barnes 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: 517-655-8202 

E-mail: barnesj10@michigan.gov 

Brett Barry 

Clean Energy 

4675 MacArthur Court, Ste 800 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Phone: (562) 522-7427 

E-mail: bbarry@cleanenergyfuels.com 

Joshua Bates 

Union Pacific Railroad 

1400 Douglas Street 

Omaha, NE 68179 

Phone: (402) 544-9099 

E-mail: jcbates@up.com 

Steve Becker 

Schenck Pross 

Whitewater, WI 

Phone: 

E-mail: 

Steve Beitzel 

Systems Associates, Inc. 

1932 Industrial Drive 

Libertyville, IL 60048 

Phone: (847) 367-6650 

E-mail: sjbeitzel@systemsassoc.com 

Sam Bell 

Echols Oil Company, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1477 

Greenville, SC 29602 

Phone: (864) 233-6205 

E-mail: info@scpma.com 

Stephen Benjamin 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

Phone: (919) 707-3225 

E-mail: steve.benjamin@ncagr.gov 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 2 

Ann Boeckman 

Kraft Food Group, Inc. 

Three Lakes Drive 

Northfield, IL 60093 

Phone: (847) 646-2862 

E-mail: ann.boeckman@kraftfoods.com 

Matt Boes 

Marathon Petroleum LP 

539 S Main Street 

Findlay, OH 45840 

Phone: (419) 421-2243 

E-mail: mdboes@marathonpetroleum.com 

Ethan Bogren 

Westchester County New York 

40 Lake Street 

North Salem, NY 10560 

Phone: (914) 261-2268 

E-mail: erok_24@yahoo.com 

Ted Bohn 

Argonne National Lab 

9700 S Cass Avenue 

Bldg 362-8225 

Lement, IL 60439 

Phone: (630) 816-7382 

E-mail: tbohn@anl.gov 

David Boykin 

NCR Corporation 

200 Highway 74 South 

Peachtree City, GA 30269 

Phone: (770) 288-1556 

E-mail: boykin@ncr.com 

Tim Broemmer 

Avery Weigh-Tronix 

272 Botanical Ridge Dr 

Wentzville, MO 63385 

Phone: (913) 617-9176 

E-mail: tbroemmer@awtxglobal.com 

James Brown 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: brownj11@michigan.gov 

Rex Brown 

Petroleum Equipment Institute 

PO Box 2380 

Tulsa, OK 74101 

Phone: (918) 236-3961 

E-mail: jrbrown@pei.org 

Norm Brucker 

Precision Measurement Standards, Inc. 

1665 Bonaire Path West 

Rosemount, MN 55068 

Phone: (651) 423-3241 

E-mail: sharnoma@frontiernet.net 

Jim Buck 

Oklahoma Dept. of labor 

3017 N Stiles, Ste 100 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Phone: (405) 521-6111 

E-mail: james.buck@labor.ok.gov 

Jerry Buendel 

Washington State Department of Agriculture 

1111 Washington Street 

P.O. Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504-2560 

Phone: (360) 902-1856 

E-mail: jbuendel@agr.wa.gov 

Luciano Burtini 

Measurement Canada 

2008 Matera Avenue 

Kelowna, BC V1V 1W9 

Phone: (250) 862-6557 

E-mail: luciano.burtini@ic.gc.ca 

Tina Butcher

NIST, Office of Weights & Measures 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Phone: (301) 975-2196 

E-mail: tina.butcher@nist.gov 

Jerry Butler 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

Phone: (919) 707-3225 

E-mail: jerry.butler@ncagr.gov 

Brent Calcutt 

Afton Chemical 

2000 Town Center Drive, Ste 1160 

Southfield, MI 48075 

Phone: (248) 350-0640 

E-mail: brent.calcut@aftonchemical.com 

David Calix 

NCR Corporation 

1510 North Walton Boulevard 

Bentonville, AR 72712 

Phone: (479) 372-8407 

E-mail: david.calix1976@gmail.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 3 

Bill Callaway 

Crompco 

1815 Gallagher Road 

Plymouth Meeting, PA 19067 

Phone: (610) 256-7185 

E-mail: bill.callaway@crompco.com 

Todd Campbell 

Clean Energy 

4675 MacArthur Boulevard 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Phone: (949) 437-1201 

E-mail: tcampbell@cleanenergyfuels.com 

Loretta Carey 

U.S. Food & Drug Administration 

5100 Paint Branch Parkway 

College Park, MD 20740 

Phone: (240) 402-1799 

E-mail: loretta.carey@fda.hhs.gov 

Stacy Carlsen 

Marin County Weights & Measures 

1682 Novato Boulevard, Ste 150-A 

Novato, CA 94947-7021 

Phone: (415) 473-6700 

E-mail: scarlsen@marincounty.org 

Tim Carmichael 

CA NGV Coalition 

1029 K Street, #24 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: (916) 448-0015 

E-mail: tim@cngvc.org 

Charlie Carroll 

Massachusetts Division of Standards 

One Ashburton Place, Rm 1115 

Boston, MA 02108 

Phone: (617) 727-3480 

E-mail: charles.carroll@state.ma.us 

Jimmy Cassidy 

City of Cambridge Weights & Measures Department 

831 Massachusetts Avenue 

Cambridge, MA 02139 

Phone: (617) 349-6133 

E-mail: jcassidy@cambridgema.gov 

Chris Chamberlain 

Michigan Department of Agric. & Rural Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: chamberlainc@michigan.gov 

Clarence Chee 

Navajo Nation Business Regulatory Department 

PO Box 663 

Window Rock, AZ 86515 

Phone: (928) 871-6718 

E-mail: locohorse99@yahoo.com 

Tim Chesser 

Arkansas Bureau of Standards 

4608 West 61st Street 

Little Rock, AR 72209 

Phone: (501) 570-1159 

E-mail: tim.chesser@aspb.ar.gov 

Maura Cirilli 

PBF Energy 

4550 Wrangle Hill Road 

Delaware City, DE 19706 

Phone: (302) 834-6068 

E-mail: maura.cirilli@pbfenergy.com 

Jeffrey Clarke 

NGVAmerica 

400 N. Capitol Street 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: (202) 824-7364 

E-mail: jclarke@ngvamerica.org 

Mike Cleary 

4108 Eunice Way 

Sacramento, CA 95821 

Phone: 

E-mail: mcleary55@sbcglobal.net 

Clark Cooney 

NIST, Office of Weights & Measures 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Phone: (301) 975-4615 

E-mail: clark.cooney@nist.gov 

Rodney Cooper 

Tuthill Transfer Systems 

8825 Aviation Drive 

Fort Wayne, IN 46809 

Phone: (260) 755-7552 

E-mail: rcooper@tuthill.com 

Ronny Cornelis 

Curacao Government 

Blanquillaweg 94 

Curacao, Willemstd, 

Phone: (599) 9-517-6669 

E-mail: ronny.cornelis@gobiernu.cw 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 4 

Hayden Cornish 

Schenck Process 

746 E. Milwaukee Street. 

Whitewater, WI 53190 

Phone: (262) 473-2441 

E-mail: h.cornish@schenckprocess.com 

Chuck Corr 

Archer Daniels Midland Company 

1251 Beaver Channel Parkway 

Clinton, IA 52732 

Phone: (563) 244-5208 

E-mail: corr@adm.com 

Constantine Cotsoradis 

Flint Hills Resources 

4111 East 37th Street North 

Wichita, KS 67220-3203 

Phone: (316) 828-6133 

E-mail: constantine.cotsoradis@fhr.com 

Gordon Cox 

Institute of Materials 

4800 James Savage Road 

Midland, MI 48642 

Phone: (989) 615-0144 

E-mail: gcox@savantgroup.com 

Mark Coyne 

Brockton Weights & Measures 

45 School Street 

City Hall 

Brockton, MA 02301-9927 

Phone: (508) 580-7120 

E-mail: mcoyne@cobma.us 

Evan Crotty 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: 

Dave Crowley 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: crowleyd@michigan.gov 

Cecil Culbreth 

CompuCom 

7171 Forest Lane 

Dallas, TX 75230 

Phone: 

E-mail: cecil.culbreth@compucom.com 

Matthew Curran 

Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer 

Services 

3125 Conner Boulevard 

Building 2, MS L2 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 

Phone: (850) 921-1570 

E-mail: matthew.curran@freshfromflorida.com 

Tina Dasbach 

Institute of Materials 

4800 James Savage Road 

Midland, MI 48642 

Phone: (989) 496-2301 

E-mail: tdasbach@savantgroup.com 

Joe Daugherty 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: 

E-mail: 

Jason DeChene 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: 

E-mail: 

J.K. Delahay 

Brother International Corporation 

200 Crossing Boulevard 

Bridgewater, NJ 08807 

Phone: (908) 655-9197 

E-mail: james.delahay@brother.com 

Vicky Dempsey 

Montgomery County Weights & Measures 

24 North Westview 

Dayton, OH 45403 

Phone: (937) 307-0072 

E-mail: demps5806@aol.com 

Rob DeRubeis 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: derubeisr@michigan.gov 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 5 

Bette Dixon 

Sterling Scale Company 

20950 Boening Drive 

Southfield, MI 48075 

Phone: (800) 331-9931 

E-mail: bettedixon@sterlingscale.com 

Gary Ebinger 

Huron Co Weights & Measures 

12 East Main Street, Ste 300 

Norwalk, OH 44857-1545 

Phone: (419) 668-8643 

E-mail: gedinger48@gmail.com 

Joe Eccleston IV 

Maryland Department of Agriculture 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Phone: (410) 841-5790 

E-mail: ecclesjo@mda.state.md.us 

Chuck Ehrlich 

NIST, Office of Weights & Measures 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Phone: (301) 975-4834 

E-mail: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov 

Jeff Fantozzi 

Erie County Auditor’s Office 

247 Columbus Avenue, #210 

Sandusky, OH 44870 

Phone: (419) 627-6650 

E-mail: atozhi1@yahoo.com 

Bob Feezor 

Scales Consulting & Testing 

35 Stonington Place 

Marietta, GA 30068 

Phone: (770) 971-7454 

E-mail: rkfeezor@bellsouth.net 

Scott Ferguson 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: fergusons9@michigan.gov 

Kevin Ferrick 

API 

1220 L Street NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: (202) 682-8233 

E-mail: ferrick@api.org 

Benj Fitzpatrick 

Minnesota Weights & Measures 

14305 Southcross Drive, #150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Phone: (651) 539-1560 

E-mail: benjamin.fitzpatrick@state.mn.us 

Mark Flint 

Archer Daniels Midland 

4666 Faries Parkway 

Decatur, IL 62526 

Phone: (217) 451-3104 

E-mail: mark.flint@adm.com 

Darrell Flocken 

National Conference on Weights & Measures, Inc. 

1135 M Street, Ste 110 

Lincoln, NE 68508 

Phone: (614) 620-6134 

E-mail: darrell.flocken@ncwm.net 

Kurt Floren 

LA County Agricultural Commissioner 

Weights & Measures 

12300 Lower Azusa Road 

Arcadia, CA 91006 

Phone: (626) 575-5451 

E-mail: kfloren@acwm.lacounty.gov 

John Gaccione 

Westchester County Weights & Measures 

148 Martine Avenue, Rm 407 

White Plains, NY 10601 

Phone: (914) 995-2164 

E-mail: jpg4@westchestergov.com 

Steve Galvan 

Michigan Department of Agric. & Rural Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: (517) 622-8202 

E-mail: galvans@michigan.gov 

Win Gardner 

ExxonMobil Corporation 

3225 Gallows Road, Rm 6D0416 

Fairfax, VA 22037 

Phone: (703) 846-5400 

E-mail: k.w.gardner@exxonmobil.com 

Nathan Gardner 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301 

Phone: (503) 986-4764 

E-mail: ngardner@oda.state.or.us 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 6 

Tom Geiler 

313 Riverview Lane 

Centerville, MA 02632 

Phone: (508) 294-1358 

E-mail: tomgeiler56@gmail.com 

Bill Geubelle 

Phillips 66 

1000 S Pine 

Ponca City, OK 74602 

Phone: (580) 767-3400 

E-mail: bill.g.geubelle@p66.com 

Ron Gibson 

Seraphin Test Measure 

30 Indel Avenue 

Rancocas, NJ 08073 

Phone: (609) 267-0922 

E-mail: rgibson@pemfab.com 

Steve Giguere 

Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation & 

Forestry 

28 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Phone: (207) 287-4456 

E-mail: steve.giguere@maine.gov 

Jason Glass 

Kentucky Department of Agriculture 

107 Corporate Drive 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Phone: (502) 573-0282 

E-mail: jason.glass@ky.gov 

Tom Glenn 

Petroleum Quality Institute of America 

Metuchen, NJ 

Phone: 

E-mail: 

Angela Godwin 

Ventura County Department of Weights & Measures, 

California 

800 S Victoria Avenue, #1750 

Ventura, CA 93009 

Phone: (805) 654-2428 

E-mail: angela.godwin@ventura.org 

Joe Gomez 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 30005 

MSC 3170 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

Phone: (575) 646-1616 

E-mail: jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu 

Shawn Good 

Rail Scale, Inc. 

5303 N 800 E 

Wilkinson, IN 46186 

Phone: (317) 339-6486 

E-mail: shawn@railscale.com 

Larry Goodbar 

Yamato Corporation 

1775 S Murray Boulevard 

Colorado Springs, CO 80916 

Phone: (719) 457-3166 

E-mail: goodbar@yamatocorp.com 

Steve Grabski 

Walmart Stores, Inc. 

508 SW 8th Street, MS 0505 

Bentonville, AR 72716 

Phone: (479) 277-8005 

E-mail: steven.grabski@walmart.com 

Frank Greene 

Connecticut Dept of Consumer Protection 

165 Capitol Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Phone: (860) 713-6168 

E-mail: frank.greene@ct.gov 

Chris Guay 

Procter & Gamble Co. 

One Procter & Gamble Plaza 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

Phone: (513) 983-0530 

E-mail: guay.cb@pg.com 

Philip Guillemette 

Flint Hills Resources, LP 

4111 East 37th Street North 

Wichita, KS 67220 

Phone: (316) 828-8440 

E-mail: philip.guillemette@fhr.com 

Brett Gurney 

Utah Department of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Phone: (801) 538-7158 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov 

Carrie Haler 

Pier 1 Imports 

100 Pier 1 Place 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

Phone: (817) 252-8176 

E-mail: cahaler@pier1.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 7 

John Halliwell 

Electric Power Research Institute 

942 Corridor Park Boulevard 

Knoxville, TN 37932 

Phone: (865) 218-8149 

E-mail: jhalliwell@epri.com 

Ivan Hankins 

Iowa Department of Agriculture/Weights & 

Measures 

2230 S. Ankeny Boulevard 

Ankeny, IA 50023-9093 

Phone: (515) 725-1492 

E-mail: ivan.hankins@iowaagriculture.gov 

Krister Hard af Segerstad 

IKEA North America Services, LLC 

420 Alan Wood Road 

Conshohocken, PA 19428 

Phone: (610) 834-0180 

E-mail: krister.hardafsegerstad0@ikea.com 

Jeff Harmening 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: (202) 682-8310 

E-mail: harmeningj@api.org 

Steven Harrington 

Oregon Weights & Measures 

635 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301 

Phone: 

E-mail: sharrington@oda.state.or.us 

Rick Harshman 

NIST, Office of Weights & Measures 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Phone: (301) 975-8107 

E-mail: richard.harshman@nist.gov 

Ryanne Hartman 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: hartmanr4@michigan.gov 

Ron Hayes 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

1616 Missouri Boulevard 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Phone: (573) 751-4316 

E-mail: ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov 

Jon Heinlein 

Transcell Technology, Inc. 

975 East Deerfield Parkway 

Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 

Phone: (847) 419-9180 

E-mail: jheinlein@transcell.com 

Loretta Helwig 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: 

Joe Henmueller 

MAP - The Motorist Assurance Program 

725 E Dundee Road, Ste 206 

Arlington Heights, IL 60004 

Phone: (847) 947-2650 

E-mail: jmh@motorist.org 

Scott Henry 

Motorola Solutions, Inc. 

721 Richmond Court 

Loganville, GA 30052 

Phone: (770) 466-3658 

E-mail: scott.henry@motorolasolutions.com 

Marilyn Herman 

Herman & Associates 

3730 Military Road NW 

Washington, DC 20015 

Phone: (202) 362-9520 

E-mail: mherman697@aol.com 

Jim Hewston 

J.A. King & Co 

6541 C Franz Warner Parkway 

Whitsett, NC 27377 

Phone: (402) 517-0794 

E-mail: jim.hewston@jaking.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 8 

Catharine Hinkley 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: hinkleyc@michigan.gov 

Carol Hockert 

NIST, Office of Weights & Measures 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Phone: (301) 975-4004 

E-mail: carol.hockert@nist.gov 

Jerry Horn 

Chevron Global Downstream, LLC 

100 Chevron Way, Rm 61-4228 

Richmond, CA 94802 

Phone: (510) 242-1367 

E-mail: jerryhorn@chevron.com 

Bill Hornbach 

Chevron Products Company 

6001 Bollinger Canyon Road 

San Ramon, CA 94583 

Phone: (925) 842-3484 

E-mail: billhornbach@chevron.com 

Justin Houghton 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: 

E-mail: 

Fran Houston 

Ohio Department of Agriculture Division of Weights 

& Measures 

8995 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

Phone: (614) 728-6290 

E-mail: houston@agri.ohio.gov 

John Hughes 

Rice Lake Weighing 

230 W Coleman Street 

Rice Lake, WI 54868 

Phone: (507) 399-4629 

E-mail: jhughes@ricelake.com 

Lori Jacobson 

South Dakota Weights & Measures 

118 W Capitol 

Pierre, SD 57501 

Phone: (605) 773-3697 

E-mail: lori.jacobson@state.sd.us 

David Jaskolski 

Pivotal LNG 

1874 Ramblers Road Inn 

Jefferson, GA 30549 

Phone: (404) 783-3550 

E-mail: david.jaskolski@pivotallng.com 

Randy Jennings 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 40627 

Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Phone: (615) 837-5327 

E-mail: randy.jennings@tn.gov 

Jeff Jetter 

Honda R&D Americas, Inc. 

1900 Harpers Way 

Torrance, CA 90501 

Phone: (310) 994-0713 

E-mail: jjetter@hra.com 

Rafael Jimenez 

Association of American Railroad Transportation 

Technology Center 

P.O. Box 11130 

55500 D.O.T. Road 

Pueblo, CO 81001 

Phone: (719) 584-0691 

E-mail: rafael_jimenez@ttci.aar.com 

Joanna Johnson 

Johnson Policy Associates, Inc. 

P.O. Box 13302 

Des Moines, IA 50310 

Phone: (515) 277-4320 

E-mail: jpa.inc@earthlink.net 

Gordon Johnson 

Gilbarco, Inc. 

7300 West Friendly Avenue 

Greensboro, NC 27410 

Phone: (336) 547-5375 

E-mail: gordon.johnson@gilbarco.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 9 

Raymond Johnson Jr. 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 30005 

MSC 3170 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

Phone: (575) 646-1616 

E-mail: rjohnson@nmda.nmsu.edu 

Zina Juroch 

Pier 1 Imports 

100 Pier 1 Place 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

Phone: (817) 252-8348 

E-mail: zmjuroch@pier1.com 

Jeri Kahana 

Hawaii Department of Agriculture 

1851 Auiki Street 

Honolulu, HI 96819 

Phone: (808) 832-0707 

E-mail: jeri.Mm.kahana@hawaii.gov 

Norm Kanar 

SavanTech 

4800 James Savage 

Midland, MI 48642 

Phone: (989) 496-2301 

E-mail: 

Dmitri Karimov 

Liquid Controls 

105 Albrecht Drive 

Lake Bluff, IL 60044 

Phone: (847) 283-8317 

E-mail: dkarimov@idexcorp.com 

Michael Keilty 

Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG USA 

2441 Arapaho Road 

Estes Park, CO 80517 

Phone: (970) 586-2122 

E-mail: michael.keilty@us.endress.com 

Henry Kellogg 

Compucom 

2 Cromer Drive 

Bella Vista, AR 72715 

Phone: (479) 685-6862 

E-mail: henry.kellogg@compucom.com 

Michael Kerr 

Southern Company Services 

228 Bridle Run 

Somerset, KY 42503 

Phone: (606) 305-2419 

E-mail: mlkerr@southernco.com 

Jack Kiefert 

Honeywell Enraf 

1545 Shagbark Way 

Cumming, GA 30041 

Phone: (404) 414-7523 

E-mail: jack.kiefert@honeywell.com 

Doug Killingsworth 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

19 M.L.K. Jr. Drive SW 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

Phone: (404) 656-3605 

E-mail: william.killingsworth@agr.georgia.gov 

Brian King 

Wood Co Weights & Measures 

One Courthouse Square 

Bowling Green, OH 43402 

Phone: (419) 354-9150 

E-mail: bking@co.wood.oh.us 

Steve Kleer 

Marathon Petroleum Company, LP 

2990 South Dixie Highway 

Lima, OH 45804 

Phone: (419) 228-2049 

E-mail: sjkleer@marathonpetroleum.com 

Jean Kliethermes 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Phone: (573) 751-5638 

E-mail: jean.kliethermes@mda.mo.gov 

Tom Konst 

Carroll County Auditor 

119 S Lisbon Street, Ste 203 

Carrollton, OH 44615 

Phone: (330) 627-2096 

E-mail: tfkonst@hotmail.com 

David Kovach 

BP 

150 W. Warrenville Road 

MC J-7 

Naperville, IL 60563 

Phone: 

E-mail: david.kovach@bp.com 

Mike Kunselman 

Center for Quality Assurance 

4800 James Savage Road 

Midland, MI 48642 

Phone: (989) 496-2399 

E-mail: mkunselman@CenterForQA.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 10 

Ryan Lamberg 

National Biodiesel Board 

749 Guerrero Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Phone: (415) 418-0964 

E-mail: rlamberg@biodiesel.org 

Stephen Langford 

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. 

203 East Daugherty Street 

P.O. Box 151 

Webb City, MO 64870 

Phone: (417) 673-4631 

E-mail: slangford@cardet.com 

Chris Lecompte 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: lecomptec@michigan.gov 

James Lee 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: 

Robert Legg 

Southwest Research Institute 

6220 Culebra Road 

San Antonio, TX 78238 

Phone: (210) 522-2071 

E-mail: robert.legg@swri.org 

Russ Lewis 

Marathon Petroleum Company LP 

2901 Camelia Drive 

Flatwoods, KY 41139 

Phone: (606) 921-2009 

E-mail: rplewis@marathonpetroleum.com 

Rich Lewis 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

Agriculture Building 

19 MLK Drive, Rm 321 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

Phone: (404) 656-3605 

E-mail: richard.lewis@agr.georgia.gov 

Paul Lewis 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 

230 West Coleman Street 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404 

Phone: (715) 434-5322 

E-mail: plewis@ricelake.com 

Tom Light 

Sandusky Co Weights & Measures 

100 N Park Avenue Courthouse, Ste 228 

Fremont, OH 43420 

Phone: (419) 334-6129 

E-mail: light_tom@co.sandusky.oh.us 

Tim Lloyd 

Montana Weights & Measures Bureau 

P.O. Box 200516 

Helena, MT 59620-0516 

Phone: (406) 443-3289 

E-mail: tlloyd@mt.gov 

Robert Lopez 

San Luis Obispo County Weights & Measures 

2156 Sierra Way, Ste A 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 

Phone: (805)781-5910 

E-mail: rnlopez@co.slo.ca.us 

Tom Ludi 

Hancock County Weights & Measures Courthouse 

300 S Main Street 

Findlay, OH 45840 

Phone: (419)424-7240 

E-mail: teludi@co.hancock.oh.us 

Girard Lukowiak 

City of East Orange 

143 New Street 

East Orange, NJ 07017 

Phone: (201) 953-4260 

E-mail: glukowiak@gmail.com 

Ed Luthy 

Schenck Process, Inc 

108 Wade Drive 

Dover, OH 44622 

Phone: (440) 241-0194 

E-mail: e.luthy@schenckprocess.com 

Mike Lynch 

ExxonMobil 

600 Billingsport Road 

Paulsboro, NJ 08066 

Phone: (856) 224-2634 

E-mail: michael.j.lynch@exxonmobil.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 11 

Andrew MacAllister 

Daniel Measurement & Control, Inc. 

11100 Brittmoore Park Drive 

Houston, TX 77041 

Phone: (713) 827-4334 

E-mail: andrew.macallister@emerson.com 

Kristin Macey 

California Division of Measurement Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Ste 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

Phone: (916) 229-3000 

E-mail: kristin.macey@cdfa.ca.gov 

Matthew Maiten 

Santa Barbara CountyAgriculture Commissions 

263 Camino del Remedio 

Santa Barbara, CA 93110 

Phone: (805) 681-5600 

E-mail: mmaiten@agcommissioner.com 

Marco Mares 

San Diego County Dept of Agriculture, Weights & 

Measures 

9325 Hazard Way, Ste 100 

San Diego, CA 92123-1256 

Phone: (858) 614-7726 

E-mail: marco.mares@sdcounty.ca.gov 

Rich McComas 

West Virginia Weights & Measures Division of 

Labor 

570 McCorkle Avenue West 

St. Albans, WV 25177 

Phone: (304) 722-0602 

E-mail: rich.d.mccomas@wv.gov 

Jim McGetrick 

BP Products 

Mail Code J-8 

150 W. Warrenville Road 

Naperville, IL 60563 

Phone: (630) 487-1685 

E-mail: james.mcgetrick@bp.com 

John McGuire 

New Jersey State Office of Weights & Measures 

1261 Routes 1 & 9 South 

Avenel, NJ 07001 

Phone: (732) 815-7800 

E-mail: john.mcguire@lps.state.nj.us 

Sean McGuire 

Michigan Deparment of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: mcguires1@michigan.gov 

Paul Menard 

Lexmark International 

740 West New Circle Road 

501C14/082-1 

Lexington, KY 40550 

Phone: (859) 232-7379 

E-mail: menard@lexmark.com 

Dominic Meyer 

KSi Conveyors, Inc. 

2345 U Road 

Sabetha, KS 66534 

Phone: (785) 284-0600 

E-mail: dmeyer@ksiconveyors.com 

Shelly Miller 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture & Consumer 

Protection 

N 3303 County Road E 

Sullivan, WI 53178 

Phone: (608) 516-5362 

E-mail: rachelle.miller@wisconsin.gov 

Kristy Moore 

Renewable Fuels Association 

425 3rd Street, SW, Ste 1150 

Washington, DC 20024 

Phone: (309) 830-6154 

E-mail: kmoore@ethanolrfa.org 

Marcus Moore 

ExxonMobil 

3225 Gallows Road, Rm 6B2117 

Fairfax, VA 22037 

Phone: (703) 846-1529 

E-mail: marcus.moore@exxonmobil.com 

Joe Moreo 

Modoc County Department of Agriculture 

202 West Fourth Street 

Alturas, CA 96101 

Phone: (530) 233-6401 

E-mail: susiephilpott@co.modoc.ca.us 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 12 

Steve Mulvaney 

Chevron 

Richmond, CA 

Phone: 

E-mail: 

Bob Murnane 

Seraphin Test Measure, Co. 

30 Indel Avenue 

P.O. Box 227 

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227 

Phone: (609) 267-0922 

E-mail: rmurnane@pemfab.com 

Peter Murray 

Chart Inc. 

2200 Airport Industrial Boulevard, Bldg. 500 

Ball Groung, GA 30107 

Phone: (678) 467-5484 

E-mail: peter.murray@chartindustries.com 

Doug Musick 

Kansas Department of Agriculture 

1320 Research Park Drive 

Manhattan, KS 66502 

Phone: (785) 564-6700 

E-mail: Doug.Musick@KDA.KS.Gov 

Dianne Naggar 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: Naggard@michigan.gov 

Brendan Neill 

Green Buffalo Fuel, LLC 

720 Riverview Boulevard 

Tonawanda, NY 14150 

Phone: 

E-mail: bneill@greenbuffalofuel.com 

Laurence Nolan 

LA County Agriculture Commission/Weights & 

Measures 

11012 Garfield Avenue 

South Gate, CA 90280 

Phone: (562) 940-8936 

E-mail: lnolan@acwm.lacounty.gov 

Neal Nover 

WinWam Software 

3000 Atrium Way, Ste 2203 

Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-3910 

Phone: (856) 273-6988 

E-mail: NealNov@winwam.com 

Don Onwiler 

National Conference on Weights & Measures, Inc 

1135 M Street, Ste 110 

Lincoln, NE 68508 

Phone: (402) 434-4871 

E-mail: don.onwiler@ncwm.net 

Henry Oppermann 

Weights & Measures Consulting, LLC 

1300 Peniston Street 

New Orleans, LA 70115 

Phone: (504) 896-9172 

E-mail: wm-consulting@att.net 

James Oswald 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: oswaldj@michigan.gov 

Dave Packard 

ChargePoint, Inc. 

406 Seagrove Street 

St. Marys, GA 31558 

Phone: (912) 258-5665 

E-mail: dave.packard@chargepoint.com 

Brian Parnell 

MAPCO Express, Inc. 

7102 Commerce Way 

Brentwood, TN 37027 

Phone: (615) 224-1169 

E-mail: gbparn.ncwm@gmail.com 

Bimal Patel 

Wayne, A GE Energy Business 

3814 Jarrett Way 

Austin, TX 78728 

Phone: (512) 238-3720 

E-mail: bimals.patel@ge.com 

Dan Peterson 

Yokogawa Corporation of America 

2 Dart Road 

Newnan, GA 30265 

Phone: (770) 254-0400 

E-mail: dan.peterson@us.yokogawa.com 

Howard Pine 

New Jersey Weights & Measures 

1261 Routes 1 & 9 South 

Avenel, NJ 07001 

Phone: (732) 815-7805 

E-mail: pineh@dca.lps.state.nj.us 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 13 

Richard Price 

Butte County Weights & Measures 

316 Nelson Avenue 

Oroville, CA 95965 

Phone: (530) 538-7381 

E-mail: rprice@buttecounty.net 

Hal Prince 

Florida Dept or Agriculture & Consumer Services 

6626 Lake Kirkland Drive 

Clermont, FL 34714 

Phone: (850) 921-1570 

E-mail: harold.prince@freshfromflorida.com 

Julie Quinn 

Minnesota Department of Commerce 

14305 South Cross Drive, Ste 150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Phone: (651) 539-1555 

E-mail: julie.quinn@state.mn.us 

Dave Rajala 

Total Meter Services, Inc. 

136 Queen Anne Drive 

Hollidaysburg, PA 16648-9228 

Phone: (814) 693-1055 

E-mail: drajala@totalmeter.com 

Ken Ramsburg 

Maryland Department of Agriculture 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Phone: (410) 841-5790 

E-mail: kenneth.ramsburg@maryland.gov 

Doug Rathbun 

Illinois Department of Agriculture 

801 Sangamon Avenue 

P.O. Box 19281 

Springfield, IL 62794-9281 

Phone: (217) 785-8300 

E-mail: doug.rathbun@illinois.gov 

Ulrich Rauchschwalbe 

Schenck Process GmbH 

Pallaswiesenstr. 100 

Darmstadt, D-64293 

Phone: 49-6151-1531-3374 

E-mail: u.rauchschwalbe@schenckprocess.com 

Doug Raymond 

Raymond Regulatory Resources/NAA 

5857 Trumbull Road 

Geneva, OH 44041 

Phone: (440) 474-4999 

E-mail: djraymond@reg-resources.com 

Tyler Reeder 

National Conference on Weights & Measures, Inc. 

1135 M Street, Ste 110 

Lincoln, NE 68508 

Phone: (402) 434-4880 

E-mail: tyler.reeder@ncwm.net 

Derek Regal 

Tesoro Companies, Inc. 

19100 Ridgewood Parkway 

San Antonio, TX 78259 

Phone: (210) 626-7317 

E-mail: derek.b.regal@tsocorp.com 

Wayne Reinert 

Colroado Oil & Public Safety 

633 17th

 Street 

Denver, CO 80202 

Phone: (303) 883-8323 

E-mail: wayne.reinert@state.co.us 

Walt Remmert 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Bureau of 

Weights & Measures 

2301 North Cameron Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 

Phone: (717) 787-9089 

E-mail: wremmert@pa.gov 

Bob Reynolds 

Downstream Alternatives, Inc. 

4204 Coral Drive 

South Bend, IN 46614 

Phone: (574) 250-2811 

E-mail: rreynoldsdai@att.net 

Rebecca Richardson 

MARC IV Consulting 

2005 Tin Cup Road 

Mahomet, IL 61853 

Phone: (217) 419-3543 

E-mail: rrichardson@marciv.com 

Charlie Riedl 

ANGA 

701 8th Street NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: (614) 980-3341 

E-mail: criedl@anga.us 

Bill Ripka 

Thermo Fisher Scientific 

501 90th Avenue NW 

Minneapolis, MN 55433 

Phone: (800) 445-3503 

E-mail: bill.ripka@thermofisher.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 14 

Lance Robertson 

Measurement Canada 

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9 

Phone: (613) 952-0661 

E-mail: lance.robertson@ic.gc.ca 

Gene Robertson 

Mississippi Dept. of Agriculture & Commerce 

P.O. Box 1609 

Jackson, MS 39215-1609 

Phone: (601) 359-1111 

E-mail: gene@mdac.state.ms.us 

Hector Santini 

Motorola Solutions 

9733 Fredericksburg Road 

Tampa, FL 33635 

Phone: (813) 220-9174 

E-mail: hector.santini@motorolasolutions.com 

Nick Santini 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: santinin@michigan.gov 

Dale Saunders 

Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer 

Services-Weights &Measures 

P.O. Box 1163 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Phone: (804) 786-2476 

E-mail: dale.saunders@vdacs.virginia.gov 

Richard Scali 

Town of Barnstable 

200 Main Street 

Hyannis, MA 02601 

Phone: (508) 862-4778 

E-mail: richard.scali@town.barnstable.ma.us 

Bruce Schultz 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: schultzb1@michigan.gov 

David Sefcik 

NIST, Office of Weights & Measures 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Phone: (301) 975-4868 

E-mail: david.sefcik@nist.gov 

Dick Shipman 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

230 West Coleman Street 

Rice Lake, WI 45868 

Phone: (715) 234-9171 

E-mail: rshipman@ricelake.com 

Jenny Sigelko 

Volkswagen Group of America 

3800 Hamlin Road 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

Phone: (248) 754-4214 

E-mail: jenny.sigelko@vw.com 

Joseph Silvestro 

Gloucester County New Jersey 

64 Forage Drive 

Mickleton, NJ 08056 

Phone: (856) 423-5360 

E-mail: silver7777@comcast.net 

Scott Simmons 

Colorado Oil & Public Safety 

633 17th Street, Ste 500 

Denver, CO 80202 

Phone: (303) 378-1103 

E-mail: scott.simmons@state.co.us 

Larry Simon 

Monterey County Deputy Sealer 

1428 Abbott Street 

Salinas, CA 93901 

Phone: (831) 759-7310 

E-mail: simonll@co.monterey.ca.us 

Dan Smith 

Alaska Division of Measurement Standards/CVE 

11900 Industry Way, Bldg. M, Ste 2 

Anchorage, AK 99515 

Phone: (907) 365-1210 

E-mail: dan.smith1@alaska.gov 

N. David Smith 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

Phone: (919) 707-3033 

E-mail: david.smith@ncagr.gov 

Erica Steinlein 

Trader Joe's 

800 South Shamrock Avenue 

Monrovia, CA 91016 

Phone: (626) 599-3763 

E-mail: esteinlein@traderjoes.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 15 

Brad Stotler 

NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas & 

Truckstops 

1737 King Street, Ste 200 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Phone: (202) 309-0400 

E-mail: bstotler@natso.com 

Lou Straub 

Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

3056 Irwin Drive S.E. 

Southport, NC 28461 

Phone: (910) 253-3250 

E-mail: lstraub@fairbanks.com 

Elisa Stritt 

National Conference on Weights & Measures, Inc 

1135 M Street, Ste 110 

Lincoln, NE 68508 

Phone: (402) 434-4872 

E-mail: elisa.stritt@ncwm.net 

Bill Studzinski 

General Motors - Powertrain Division 

823 Joslyn Road 

Mailcode: 483-730-472 

Pontiac, MI 48340 

Phone: (248) 255-7785 

E-mail: william.studzinski@gm.com 

Larry Stump 

Indiana State Department of Health 

2525 N. Shadeland Avenue, #03 

Indianapolis, IN 46219-1791 

Phone: (317) 356-7078 

E-mail: lstump@isdh.in.gov 

Dick Suiter 

Richard Suiter Consulting 

9819 Anchor Bend 

McCordsville, IN 46055 

Phone: (317) 336-9819 

E-mail: Rsuiter700@aol.com 

Jennifer Thompson 

Mississippi Department of Agriculture & Commerce 

P.O. Box 1609 

Jackson, MS 39215-1609 

Phone: (601) 359-1144 

E-mail: jennifer@mdac.state.ms.us 

Ken Tichota 

FSCP - Weights & Measures 

301 Centennial Mall South 

P.O. Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757 

Phone: (402) 471-3422 

E-mail: ken.tichota@nebraska.gov 

Gary Titus 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: 

Stan Toy 

Santa Clara County Weights & Measures 

1553 Berger Dr 

Building 1, 2nd Floor 

San Jose, CA 95112 

Phone: (408) 918-4633 

E-mail: stan.toy@aem.sccgov.org 

Beth Treseder 

API 

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: (202) 682-8172 

E-mail: tresedere@api.org 

Jim Truex 

National Conference on Weights & Measures, Inc 

88 Carryback Drive 

Pataskala, OH 43062 

Phone: (740) 919-4350 

E-mail: jim.truex@ncwm.net 

Rich Tucker 

RL Tucker Consulting, LLC 

605 Bittersweet Lane 

Ossian, IN 46777 

Phone: (260) 622-4243 

E-mail: rtucker83@comcast.net 

Rob Underwood 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America 

1901 N Fort Myer Drive, Ste 500 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Phone: (703) 351-8000 

E-mail: runderwood@pmaa.org 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 16 

Rob Upright 

Vishay Transducers 

42 Countryside Road 

North Grafton, MA 01536 

Phone: (508) 615-1185 

E-mail: rob.upright@vishaypg.com 

Kevin Upschulte 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

1616 Missouri Boulevard 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, mo 65102 

Phone: (573) 751-4316 

E-mail: kevin.upschulte@mda.mo.gov 

Marie Valentine 

Toyata--TEMA 

1555 Woodridge 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Phone: (734) 995-3692 

E-mail: marie.valentine@tema.toyota.com 

Craig VanBuren 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: vanburenc9@michigan.gov 

Claudia Verdugo 

San Diego County Department of Agriculture 

9325 Hazard Way, Ste 100 

San Diego, CA 92123-1217 

Phone: (858) 694-2778 

E-mail: claudia.verdugo@sdcounty.ca.gov 

Willem Vilders 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: 

Gilles Vinet 

Measurement Canada 

151 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C9 

Phone: (613) 941-8918 

E-mail: gilles.vinet@ic.gc.ca 

Russ Vires 

Mettler-Toledo, LLC 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

Phone: (614) 438-4306 

E-mail: russ.vires@mt.com 

Jack Walsh 

Town of Wellesley 

525 Washington Street 

Town Hall Wellesley 

Wellesley, MA 02482 

Phone: (774) 279-2559 

E-mail: JackBWalsh@verizon.net 

Lisa Warfield 

NIST, Office of Weights & Measures 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Phone: (301) 975-3308 

E-mail: lisa.warfield@nist.gov 

Tommy Watson 

Flint Hills Resources 

2825 Suntide Road 

P.O. Box 2608 

Corpus Christi, TX 78409 

Phone: (361) 242-7328 

E-mail: tommy.watson@fhr.com 

Chester Watson 

Kentucky Department of Agriculture 

107 Corporate Drive 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Phone: (502) 573-0282 

E-mail: chester.watson@ky.gov 

Bob Weidler 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

2219 Carey Avenue 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

Phone: (307) 777-7556 

E-mail: robert.weidler@wyo.gov 

Gordon Wenk 

Michigan Dept. of Agriculture & Rural Development 

525 West Allegan Street 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Phone: (517) 284-5718 

E-mail: wenkg@michigan.gov 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 17 

Zac Wester 

Transfuel dba Blu 

3760 Commons Lane 

Salt Lake City, UT 84010 

Phone: (385) 414-5657 

E-mail: zachary.wester@blulng.com 

Tim White 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: whitet@michigan.gov 

John Willer 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: willerj1@michigan.gov 

Juana Williams 

NIST, Office of Weights & Measures 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Phone: (301) 975-3989 

E-mail: juana.williams@nist.gov 

Bob Williams 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 40627 

Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204-0627 

Phone: (615) 837-5109 

E-mail: robert.g.williams@tn.gov 

Sergio Williams 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: williamss51@michigan.gov 

Michelle Wilson 

Arizona Department of Weights & Measures 

4425 West Olive Avenue, Ste 134 

Glendale, AZ 85302 

Phone: (602) 771-4933 

E-mail: mwilson@azdwm.gov 

Sandra Wilson 

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural 

Development 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Phone: (517) 655-8202 

E-mail: wilsons7@michigan.gov 

Cary Woodward 

Hamilton County Weights & Measures Hamilton 

County Judical Center 

1717 Pleasant Street, Ste 150 

Noblesville, IN 46060 

Phone: (317) 403-0639 

E-mail: cary.woodward@hamiltoncounty.in.gov 

Philip Wright 

Texas Dept. of Ag. 

P.O. Box 12847 

Austin, TX 78711 

Phone: (512) 463-5706 

E-mail: philip.wright@texasagriculture.gov 

Al Wujcik 

PBF Energy 

305 Winterhaven Drive 

Wilmington, DE 19803 

Phone: (302) 893-2569 

E-mail: alexander.wujcik@pbfenergy.com 

John Young 

Yolo County Agriculture Department 

70 Cottonwood Street 

Woodland, CA 95695 

Phone: (530) 666-8148 

E-mail: john.young@yolocounty.org 

Gary Young 

OV Scale & Instruments 

P.O. Box 641 

Carnegie, PA 15106 

Phone: (412) 279-6155 

E-mail: gyoung@ovscale.com 

Scott Zaremba 

Zarco USA Inc 

1548 East 23rd, Ste C 

Lawrence, KS 66046-5117 

Phone: (785) 843-6086 

E-mail: scott@zarco66.com 
Attendees – 2014 Final Report 

ATTEND - 18 

Jane Zulkiewicz 

Town of Barnstable 

200 Main Street 

Hyannis, MA 02601 

Phone: (505) 862-4773 

E-mail: jane.zulkiewicz@town.barnstable.ma.us 

Ryan Zydel 

Micro Motion Inc. 

7070 Winchester Circle 

Boulder, CO 80301 

Phone: (412) 519-2699 

E-mail: ryan.zydel@gmail.com