\ m

*0*CAU Of * NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 645

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

1982
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology. THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers: Absolute Physical Quantities 2 — Radiation Research — Chemical Physics —

Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Manufacturing

Engineering — Building Technology — Fire Research — Chemical Engineering2 THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers: Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234.

J Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
Report of the

67th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1982

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Atlanta, Ga., July 12-16, 1982

Report Editors: Albert D. Tholen

Louis E. Barbrow

Ann P. Heffernan

I*** of c04> United States Department of Commerce

\ Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

pppn / National Bureau of Standards

%*au <* Ernest Ambler, Director

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 645, 325 pages (Jan. 1983)

Issued January 1983
ABSTRACT

These are the proceedings of the 67th National Conference on Weights

and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Atlanta, Ga . , July 12-16, 1982, and attended by State, county, and city

weights and measures officials, and representatives of the Federal Government, business, industry, and consumer organizations. Reports by the several standing and annual committees of the Conference comprise the major portion of the publication. Included also are papers presented by

Conference officials and other authorities from Government and industry.

Major issues discussed at the National Conference included longrange plans for training, enforcement uniformity, national type evaluation programs and a new publication on type evaluation examinations , new

design and performance requirements for commercial weighing and measuring

instruments, cash and credit sales at retail motor fuel outlets, studies

of model State laws and regulations, a tentative code for grain moisture

meters, and adoption of several NBS Handbooks by NCWM. Key words: Education programs; grain moisture; international recommendations; legal metrology; measurement assurance; metrication; model laws and regulations; packaging and labeling; pattern approval; specifications

and tolerances; technology transfer; training; type evaluation, weights

and measures

.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 26-27766

Opinions expressed in non-NBS papers are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the National Bureau of Standards. Non-NBS authors

are solely responsible for the content and quality of their submissions.

ii
CONTENTS

(Note: The reports of the standing and annual committees and the treasurer's report, which

were presented on Thursday, have been arranged together beginning on page for easier

reference.

)

Officers of the Conference - v

Standing Committees v

Annual Committees vii General Committee Hearings, Monday and Tuesday, July 12-13, 1982 viii AFTERNOON SESSION - Tuesday, July 13, 1982 CROSSROADS FOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, Edward C. Heffron, Chief, Food and Dairy Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture 1 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - 6 STANDARDS CODE: TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE, Donald S. Abelson, Director, Technical Trade Barriers Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President 7 THE DIRECTION FOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AT THE CROSSROADS, Ernest Ambler, Director, National Bureau of Standards 13 PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS 18 AFTERNOON SESSION - Wednesday, July 14, 1982 REPORT OF THE ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE 19 ASSOCIATIONS' SPOT REPORTS: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association, by Allan M. Nelson 20 Northwest Weights and Measures Association, Richard C. Suiter 21 Southern Weights and Measures Association, Stan J. Darsey 22 Western Weights and Measures Association, Wesley R. Mossberg 23 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, James B. Grant 24 American Petroleum Institute, by Richard Southers 25 Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, by Alfred E. Johanson 27 National Scale Men's Association, by James A. King, Jr. 28 Scale Manufacturers Association, by Raymond J. Lloyd 30 ALL-DAY SESSION - Thursday, July 15, 1982 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

List of State Voting Representatives 32

1. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND

COORDINATION, Presented by Edward C. Heffron, Committee Chairman 33

2. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS, Presented by John J. Bartfai, Committee Chairman 69

3. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES, Presented by Frank C. Nagele, Committee Chairman 159

4. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER

AFFAIRS, Presented by Joseph L. Swanson, Committee Chairman 216

5. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON, Presented by Kendrick J. Simila, Committee Chairman 233

iii
REPORTS OF THE ANNUAL COMMITTEES

6. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, Presented by Edward C. Heffron

Conference Chairman 281

7. REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE, Presented by Philip A. Stagg, Committee Chairman 291

8. REPORT OF THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE, Presented by Kendrick J. Simila, Committee Chairman * 293

9. REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE, Presented by James H. Spencer, Committee Chairman 295

10. REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER, Presented by Allan M. Nelson, Treasurer 296 Conference Registration List 298

iv
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

PRESIDENT: Ernest Ambler, Director, National Bureau of Standards EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: A. D. Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights

and Measures, National Bureau of Standards

CHAIRMAN: E. C. Heffron, Michigan

VICE CHAIRMEN: E. F. Delfino, California

C. E. Forester, Texas

S. F. Valtri, Philadelphia, PA

R. W. Walker, Indiana

TREASURER: A. M. Nelson, Connecticut

CHAPLAIN: F. W. Daniels, Wayne County, IN

(All officers are, ex officio, members of the Executive Committee) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

J. W. Abbott, Missouri

J. C. Blackwood, Dallas, TX

G. S. Franks, Cumberland City, NJ

P. M. Fullinwider, Arizona

T. E. Kirby, Georgia

G. N. Magnuson, Washington

B. P. Niebergall, North Dakota

J. Rothleder, California

R. J. Silcock, Terre Haute, IN

C. T. Smith, South CarolinaAPPOINTED OFFICIALS

K. R. Gridley, New York

W. L. Sullivan, Seatte, WA

L. Barker, West Virginia

J. H. Akey, Wisconsin

STANDING COMMITTEES

The number of years each committee member has remaining to serve on the committee as

of the 67th Conference is shown in parentheses. Also noted are the new appointees and newly designated committee chairmen. NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION

E. C. Heffron, Chairman

J. J. Bartfai, Chairman, L & R Committee

F. Nagele, Chairman, S & T Committee

J. L. Swanson, Chairman, Education Committee

K. J. Simila, Chairman, Liaison Committee

(A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary)

(The members of this committee include the presiding chairmen of the other four standing committees and the Conference chairman, who serves as the chairman of this committee.

C. H. Greene, New Mexico, will serve as chairman next year.)

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

J. J. Bartfai, Chairman, New York (1)

S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas

W. R. Mossberg, California (2)

E. P. Skluzacek, Minnesota (3) D. E. Stagg, Alabama (4)

(C. S. Brickenkamp, Technical Advisor, NBS)

(G. E. Mattimoe is appointed for a 5-year term to replace S. F. Hindsman. Mr. Bartfai

continues as chairman.)

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

:

PARLIAMENTARIAN: ASSISTANT TREASURER:

v
SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

F. Nagele, Chairman, Michigan

L. H. DeGrange, Maryland (1)

S. A. Colbrook, Illinois (2)

D. A. Guensler, California (3)

F. A. Gerk, New Mexico (4)

(0. K. Warnlof, Technical Advisor, NBS)

(R. W. Probst, Wisconsin, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace F. Nagele. Mr. DeGrange replaces Mr. Nagele as chairman.) EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

J. L. Swanson, Chairman, Alaska (2)

R. W. Walker, Indiana

S. J. Darsey, Florida (1)

T. F. Geiler, Massachusetts (3)

B. R. Niebergall, North Dakota (4)

(R. N. Smith, Technical Advisor, NBS)

(P. A. Stagg is appointed for a 5-year term to replace R. W. Walker. Mr. Swanson con- tinues as chairman.) LIAISON

K. J. Similar, Chairman, Oregon (3)

M. S. Thompson, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles , McGee and Hastings, Ltd.

E. J. Stephen, Utah (1)

C. R. Cavagnaro, U. S. Office of Consumer Affairs (2) N . D. Smith, North Carolina (4)

(S. Hasko, Technical Advisor, NBS)

(Chip Kloos is appointed for a 5-year term to replace M. S. Thompson. Mr. Stephen

replaces Mr. Similar as chairman.)

vi
ANNUAL COMMITTEES Auditing

J. H. Spencer, Mississippi, Chairman

B. R. Niebergall, North Dakota

J. Silvestro, New Jersey

E. M. Hannish, Laporte County, IN, Chairman

L. D. Draghetti, Massachusetts

E. Keeley, Delaware

K. J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman

S. D. Andrews, Florida

E. F. Delfino, California

J. F. Lyles, Virginia

S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas

J. L. O'Neill, Kansas

R. L. Thompson, Maryland

P. A. Stagg, Louisiana, Chairman

J. W. Abbott, Missouri

R. J. Anderson, New York

K. S. Butcher, West Virginia

E. Gadberry, Indiana

J. A. Huey, California

0. D. Mullinax, Georgia

T. M. Stabler, Toledo Scale Company, Chairman

L. D. Agniel, Jr., Chilewich Corporation

B. L. Bloser, Brooks Instrument Division - Emerson Electric

A. E. Johanson, Foremost-McKesson

C. Kloos, Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc.

N. D. Peterson, General Mills, Inc.

A. T. Rhoads, Milk & Ice Cream Associations

R. Southers, American Petroleum Institute

L. Waite, Diamond International Corporation

R. R. Wells, Seraphin Test Measure Company

Credentials

Nominations

Resolutions

Associate Membership

REGISTRATION Dawn Alger Karen Barkley

Ann Heffernan Kim Henderson

Pricilla Steele GUEST REGISTRATION

Irene Warnlof

vii
STATE LABORATORY

METROLOGIST WORKSHOPS

Monday, July 12, 1982 and Wednesday, July 14, 1982

The Monday workshop concentrated on the activities of the regional measurement assurance

programs (RMAP) , the results of RMAP round robin testing, and the OWM program to certify

state laboratories by measurement area in 1983. The Wednesday workshop was a joint session with the Task Force on Grain Moisture Meters. Test procedures and problems related to grain moisture meter testing were discussed.

Mr. Martin T. Coile, metrologist, Georgia Weights and Measures Laboratory, served as chairman of the 1982 NCWM Metrologist Workshops.

GENERAL COMMITTEE HEARINGS

Monday, July 12, 1982 and

Tuesday, July 13, 1982 Monday and Tuesday were set aside for general meetings of the five Conference Standing

Committees. Notices of these general meetings were carried in the Conference Announcement

booklet, in all pre-Conference publicity, and in the printed Conference program. Many

delegates participated in the committee general meetings and presentations were given by

representatives of weights and measures, industry, government, and consumer groups. The discussions that took place played an important role in guiding the committees in their deliberations and in the preparations of their final reports. The final reports of the committees will follow later in this publication and will reflect the discussions that took

place and the actions taken by the Conference at the time the final reports were presented

to the delegates.
CROSSROADS FOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Presented by EDWARD C. HEFFRON, Chief, Food and Dairy Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture

Lansing, Michigan

Welcome to the 67th annual Conference on Weights and Measures. It is a privilege to be at this 67th Conference

and especially to address the Conference as its Chairman. Each of us is here with a purpose that can impact on the lives of everyone in our country and of millions beyond our borders. It is an awesome responsibility that we have

assumed, often underrated by those intimately involved, but

one that can be met because of the organization and rela- tionship of the weights and measures officials, National

Bureau of Standards, Office of Weights and Measures, Con- ference on Weights and Measures, and the weights and measures industry.

The wisdom of this relationship was probably not fully envisioned

when in January 1905 seven States and the District of Columbia met in Washington. Keep in mind the National Bureau of Standards was only

formed a few years earlier on March 3, 1901. Although this 1905 session is regarded as the founding session of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures, it was the second conference in April 1906 that decided upon a permanent organization and an annual meeting. The

1905 founding meeting was preceded by a nonacceptance of a National

Bureau of Standards' invitation to a "State sealers' meeting" in 1903 and 1904. The formation of the National Bureau of Standards and subsequently the National Conference on Weights and Measures was

certainly a product of a nonuniform, unscientific, and unrealiable

array of standards throughout the State and local jurisdictions. It is important to note that the formation of the National Bureau of Standards in 1901 was specifically to be the nucleus of a national

standardizing laboratory. The triumvirate of the National Bureau of Standards, National Conference on Weights and Measures, and State and local weights and measures officials had met its first crossroads and realized its needs, how to meet them, and how to anticipate meeting

future needs. History clearly indicates that the response to the first crossroads was correct. By 1912, the National Conference on Weights and Measures included almost 100 officials representing 25 States and 34 cities. It is a unique organization serving as an interface between the National Bureau of Standards and the State and

local weights and measures jurisdictions.

The credit for wisdom of this Federal/State and local gov- ernmental relationship perhaps is more accurately placed with the writers of the United States Constitution. In article 1, section 8, the States agreed "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect

1
taxes, duties, imports and excises, to

commcr defense and general welfare :f money, regulate the value thereof, and

standard of weights and measures. Th not delegated tc the United States by

by it to the States ere reserved to th people." The language clearly indicat

power of "fixing" the standards of uei

tc themselves the responsih ilicy tf re The vision of the States in the e coupled with the actions of the U.S. C

5 render ds a end founders of the Kationa

>iea seres has a emir red _s a. tits tare NBS/HCWM relationship. The reason for tionship continues. The State and loc

where commerce takes place, readily ettes sidle r: ars lover court

system, and close tc rf.e reeds cf the a:rsuner, Tease regulatory

jurisdictions also recognize their inherent "sovereignty uniquenesses*

and that lack of scientific and technological capahllities limits

their needed capacity to cause uniform, objective, credible regulatory

actions

.

ties identified above, alone has qualities unavailable to the rcgu. lator. So other single governmental agency has scientific and tech—

nical resources and credibility , coupl e : wi th : t j e 1 1 ivi t j art t om- prehensive communication with those in tee aree tf veigiiug and measuring stieute at: tethntlogy. as dees the Sacirnal I. tea. :: Standards. Ir addition, the Isaticnal I _rea_ :f Standards attests :: fulfill the rele of an objective, relatively r.tia rased nnsrit'_ticn tc establish end maintain authenticity cf scaccaccs circugh cr: casus cf calibration of State and local standards, and audits and certification

of State metrologists and laboratories. The national Bureau of

Standards, through its Iffite tf heights arc Pleasures, als: nas the rtle to fill of a single agency resource far expertise ere comprehersiveness t: serve as a denudation far vaights ar: naas.res rreining programsj formal and informal.

opportunity to talk with many of you and meet with ant talh many times

with the National Bureau of Standards Director, Dr. Artier, and his

staff. In addition, I was able on February 9 of this year to testify

before the U.S. House of lerresentetf.es Sue : rnmtt tea :n Stience.

Technology, and Research. In all of these cases I was carrying on the

efforts of my predecessors and of you who have been involved in

assuring the fulfillment of obvious rales tf tee i»eti:nel En rean tf Standards, National Conference on Heights and Measures, and weights

and measures officials .

ray dects art rrcvide the the United States ... to coin

of foreign coin, and to fix the

is article continues the powers

the lonscitutitu ntr crahititec

1

r
It is to these efforts that I will direct the remainder of this address. One of the rewards of serving as Chairman is the privilege

of observing and commenting on key subjects that have a vital impact

on us. To avoid any possibility of overloading and confusing these remarks, I have decided to limit my discussion to two issues before

the Conference this year: the National Type Approval Program and the National Certification Training Program. These programs have been

developed to their current status only because of the efforts and cooperation of many dedicated persons over an extensive period of time

.

Progress has been possible because of the determination of the National Conference on Weights and Measures and the National Bureau of Standards, specifically Director Ernest Ambler. Dr. Ambler has been

willing to listen, solicit ideas and other input, and implement

changes directly and through assignment of talented and resourceful

administrators and staff members. Notable have been the transfer of the Office of Weights and Measures into the Office of Product Standards Policy which is directly responsible to Dr. Ambler, and the commitment of the Bureau to a National Type Approval Program, a Certification Training Program, and other related program areas vital

to the progress of the NBS/NCWM role fulfillment. You and I at this meeting, as the voting members of NCWM, have

the opportunity to assure the progression towards a National Type

Approval Program and a National Certification Training Program. The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

has worked diligently to bring forth a proposal for a comprehensive,

flexible training program adaptable to each of our existing or, as the case may be, non-existing training programs. The proposal will for

the first time coordinate training from a basic to an advanced level

to include existing programs, self-help programs, and formalized

training in various weights and measures fields. This Committee, with

our approval at this meeting, plans to establish a working subcommittee to direct the development and implementation of modules intended

for the training of the field inspector. The National Bureau of Standards has committed to the National Conference on Weights and Measures

approximately $150,000 per year for the next two years, beginning

October 1, 1982, to permit necessary support for completion of the proposed modules. Representatives of the Committee have attended

various regional and other weights and measures meetings to explain

the program and solicit comments and recommendations. This has for many years been identified as a priority need — it still is and is now ready to be considered by the Conference so that it can proceed to completion and utilization. This issue is basic to the very existence

and success of our weights and measures regulatory program — we are fortunate to be a witness and contributor to its progress.

3
The second issue (also one being considered at this Conference

for approval to continue developmentally) is the concept of the National Type Approval Program (NTAP)

.

The need of a national type approval program was discussed as early as the 4th National Conference on Weights and Measures in 1908. A prerequisite to the formation of any type approval program was

perhaps best expressed at the 10th conference in 1915 by Dr. S. W. Stratton, then Director of National Bureau of Standards. He stated,

"It is our disposition not to meddle with those things that belong to the States, but there are a few things that ought to be national in character, in order that you may have uniformity."

Various attempts were basically all futile until 1976 when the

61st Conference endorsed and supported the National Bureau of Standards' prototype examination program. This led to action the fol- lowing year by the 62nd Conference to establish a "Task Force on National Type Approval (NTATF)." The charge to the task force, headed

by Ezio Delfino of California, was to ultimately recommend a course of action to strengthen both the national and State programs or to establish new programs. As a member of this task force, I was pleased

to see input from all segments of the weighing and measuring community

and was confident an acceptable proposal would be forthcoming. We are

at this crossroad after realizing that many States have neither the resources nor the capability (nor the commitment in many cases) to do type evaluation testing and are fully supportive of a national program

that will provide for uniformity of testing and acceptance of test results. At these crossroads we further realized that the National

Bureau of Standards, by virtue of its role as a technical advisor to the States in developing national standards and as party in the study

and development of international standards, has the experience and expertise to provide technical advice on a national basis. As I mentioned earlier, Director Ambler has committed the National Bureau

of Standards to fulfillment of its vital supportive role in the National Type Approval Program. The key supportive roles of the National Bureau of Standards include: 1) establishment and maintenance of Design and Performance Standards into Handbook 44 through

the National Conference on Weights and Measures; 2) development of test criteria and design checklists, Laboratory Authorization criteria,

similarly through NCWM; and 3) issuance of a National Bureau of Standards type evaluation certificate.

I commend the Task Force on National Type Approval for its dedication over these years leading to the recommended "National Type

Approval Program" concept. The presentation of this proposal for our consideration at this 67th conference is only one part in the progression towards workable reality.

I thank all the members of the standing committees, annual

committees, various task forces, and the special groups and their

-
National Bureau of Standards and industry advisors for presenting to this 67th Conference many important issues for consideration. I am

confident that you, as voting members of this Conference, will resolve

this challenge by knowledgeable, deliberate actions that will cause a continuation of this progress in the pursuit of measurement equity.

5
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BY CHAIRMAN HEFFRON

It is my privilege as your Conference Chairman to announce the ap- pointments to the Standing Committees.

To the outgoing committee members we again express our thanks, and to the new committee members who are taking on these added responsibilities

we express our assurance that this will be an enjoyable and rewarding

experience

.

The new appointees are: COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Mr. George Mattimoe, Deputy Director of Measurement Standards, State

of Hawaii, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Sam Hindsman

whose term is expiring. COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Mr. Robert Probst, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, State

of Wisconsin, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Frank

Nagele whose term is expiring. COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Mr. Philip A. Stagg, Director of Weights and Measures, State of Louisiana, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Robert

Walker whose term is expiring.

Mr. Bruce Niebergall, Director of Weights and Measures, State of North Dakota, is appointed for a 4-year term to replace Mr. Al Christie who has resigned. COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

Mr. Chip Kloos, Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc., Fullerton, California, is appointed for a 5-year term to replace Mr. Merrill Thompson, whose

term is expiring.

Certificates of Appreciation

Chairman Heffron presented Certificates of Appreciation to: Sam Hindsman

Frank Nagele

Merrill Thompson

State of Arkansas, L & R Committee

State of Michigan, S & T Committee

Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, Liaison

Committee

Robert Walker State of Indiana, Education Committee

6
STANDARDS CODE: TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE

Presented by DONALD S. ABELSON, Director,

Technical Trade Barriers, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President

The focus of my presentation today is perhaps a bit

wider than that of other speakers who address this sixty- seventh meeting of the Weights and Measures Conference. I am here to talk about U.S. trade, a new international agree- ment that has been developed to help American exporters get

a fair shake abroad, and how you, as State and local government officials can help out. FUNCTIONS OF TRADE OFFICE

I work for a small office under the President that has as its sole concern coordinating the trade policy of the United States. In the twenty years since the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative was

created it has dealt mostly with negotiating tariff reductions in an attempt to facilitate international trade. Just recently, however, we finished negotiating a series of non-tariff measure agreements with the aim of reducing barriers to trade that were created by means other than tariffs. We have agree- ments on, among others, subsidization of exports, dumping of products, Government purchasing requirements and standards-related activities. STANDARDS CODE

In the jargon of trade policy "standardization" and "certification" are called "technical trade barriers". Hence the official name

of the agreement on standards-related activities is the "Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade." Since its entry into force two-andone-half years ago, it has been simply referred to as the "Standards

Code."

The Standards Code came out of U.S. exporters concerns during the late 1960 's that European Governments and industries were developing

standards and establishing certification systems purposely to exclude

U.S. goods. Moreover, an international survey revealed that standardsrelated activities were claimed as barriers in a number of trade

cases

.

The Standards Code's goal is the elimination of technical barriers or disincentives to trade — those technical measures that can be manipulated by trading countries to unfairly prevent or restrict

the importation of goods. In order to do this the Standards Code established a set of principles, which include:

7
- not using standards (both voluntary and mandatory) , testing

procedures, or certification systems — 'standards-related activities' — to create unnecessary trade barriers;

- providing access to national and regional certification

systems;

- basing , when appropriate, domestic standards on international

standards and those drafted in terms of performance rather than design

criteria; and

- using open or transparent procedures (like the U.S. has) when

engaging in domestic standards-related activities, thus creating a world-wide information network.

Let me assure you that these principles, along with the rest of the Code's obligations, were not arrived at overnight, but rather through negotiations that lasted for close to ten years. I had the good fortune to be involved in these negotiations during the Tokyo

Round multilateral trade negotiations and to have as advisors such

fine people as Whitaker and Barton of UL, Falk and McAdams of the electrical and electronics industries, Peyton of ANSI, and Cavanaugh

of ASTM. COOPERATION OF STATE AND STATE GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS

The best way for the U.S. Government to ensure that foreign

countries live up to their Standards Code commitments is to keep

careful watch over what they do and to be sure that we in the United

States live up to our Code obligations. That is where you all come

in. The Federal Government needs your cooperation in this matter.

We need to make sure that when State and local government bodies

prepare, adopt, and apply standards or rules for certification

systems, that they abide by all of the principles I just listed. That means

,

- not using standards to create unnecessary trade barriers;

- providing access to certification systems;

- basing domestic standards on appropriate international

standards and those drafted in terms of performance rather than design

criteria; and

- using open or transparent procedures when engaging in domestic

standards-related activities.

What this all boils down to is that it is now just as important

when engaging in standards-related activities to consider foreign

interests as it is to consider U.S. interests. Why? Because we want

foreign governments to consider the interests of U.S. exporters when

8
they develop standards. That way we have the best chance of increasing the flow of U.S. goods in international trade and helping

along our domestic economy. EFFECT OF STANDARDS CODE ON TRADE

The Standards Code has been in effect for two years now and it appears to be working.

- I say this because we have been able to resolve standardsrelated trade problems in a noncontentious way . - I say this because more trading nations have signed the standards code than any other nontariff measure agreement — 35 countries, including most of western Europe, some Eastern block

countries, Canada, Japan, and several developing countries such as Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, Pakistan, Tunisia, Argentina,

Chile, Brazil, and Egypt. Even tiny Rwanda, in Africa, has signed the Standards Code.

- I say this because we have held numerous bilateral discussions

on a Government level to iron out trade problems, using the Code's principles. For example, we have already met with the British,

French, Germans, Japanese, and EC Commission officials.

- I say that the Code is working because the information network

established in the Standards Code is working; working to alert foreigners of U.S. standards-related activities, and more importantly

working to alert U.S. interests of foreign activities. INFORMATION NETWORK

I would like to review the status of the information network. Under the Standards Code signatories are to make sure that all standards-related activities are published while they are still

proposals so that interested parties in other signatories have the opportunity to provide comments. Further, the Standards Code requires

that signatories notify the GATT Secretariat of all mandatory central Government standards-related activities. In the U.S. this means

Federal Government mandatory standards. The GATT Secretariat then transmits these notices to other signatories, thereby providing, for example, U.S. interests the opportunity to comment on proposed French

or Japanese Government mandatory regulations.

In the United States, a majority of notices on proposed voluntary

standards can be found in the "ANSI Reporter" or other similar newsletters. As I understand it, a majority of notices of proposed

State government voluntary and mandatory standards are published in official gazettes or newspapers, or are directly sent to concerned

interests.

Regarding U.S. Government notices to the GATT, the National

Bureau of Standards has established a U.S. inquiry point, the

9
Save in o

r . S

.

- - - -

The "Standards Information Office ' nas retertlT

report on the operatiom of the U.S. ifiij point, fa

l-.'.d t: maiie relieving s'ittitt. ?. ry

:

Hie United States beeTM reporting proposed regeJ

19S0. The first official GAIT notification, from Caa

it Farmery. . >rring 1*61, 21 p reposed 7.5. ml

to the GATT, out :f a trial of 99 notifi caries . In

In 1961. tre 2J-— is 32 signatories sent tie 1- 5 tat as had the most notif Japan, Spain, and Sweden

; tommett period f

:

periois ezteed the Standards Code Committee.

In 1962, we have thus fet hat 11- t:t trite trns . rr vhiti 1; are from tie Inired £tates.?:ii_t issns-iLiii Fining

1-Ai: Ministerial art Triennial Eerie, rr the Lois

*e ir. the lateral IrTerrm

set of the General Agreement o tahe piece this Fall, called t high-level meetings, all of th

t 1 £ 1 : t _ e eimer e t inn r : via

r

Included in this discossiom, «

measures todes , titluding the The U.S. has developed a list of issoes that nigkt be wIMlii li

e: this Ministerial meeting. Ir addition, ve ere preparing f:r tre

riree-;-eer re- rev :f tie rperatarr :f tre rtarrrrts lite, t: :e held just before the Minis t art si meetings. At tins riree-jear re—rev. signettries vnll have tre thence t: re-riev tov the lite ms tmttrrr

for them and tt raise issres t.mteming tre lore

.

Ftr example, the lilted States relieve: that ire lode should

cover all products treder internationally — ininstrial ant

agrri_lr-_ral products. Int. reat_se tre lota s ir-rarage :: "'rroress

ID
products are not covered by the Code. We may want to look into this

issue during the trienniel review.

In addition, the United States has remained concerned that because it is excluded from regional standards-related activities,

these may promulgate standards or maintain certification systems that are detrimental to U.S. interests. We may want to investigate the activities of regional bodies during the Code's triennial review.

It should be made clear, however, that we are not planning to 'renegotiate' the Standards Code. Like to most other signatories, it appears to us to be too early to engage in such an extensive dialogue.

What we are seeking is a consensus interpretation of the Code's provisions

.

BILATERAL ISSUES Over the past two years, the U.S. Government has raised bilateral

standards-related issues directly with foreign Governments in an effort to resolve problems. There are two results from these bilateral discussions that I would like to mention.

- acceptance of test data : as we begin to discuss increasingly

more complex standards issues with our trading partners, I become more

convinced of the importance in establishing viable mechanisms to arrange for the mutual acceptance of test data, taking into account

the highly technical nature of such undertakings. In order to accomplish this task, the Federal Government is committed to relying

upon the expert services and talent in the non-Federal sector. For

example, we worked closely with UL and AHAM officials in reaching

agreement with Japan. It is only through close cooperation between

the Federal and non-Federal sectors that the goal of acceptance of test data can be finally reached.

- third country trade problems : the problems that U.S. interests

encounter in exporting are similar to those encountered by other

exporters. We have a mutual interest in ensuring that foreign markets

are indeed open. For example, we have ongoing discussions with the Government of Japan aimed at improving Japanese import testing and approval procedures. These procedures also affect foreign producers,

and might be the focus of harmonized efforts. This has already

happened to some extent in that when European requests are granted by

the Japanese, U.S. producers also receive the benefits of such liberalization. But, Japan is not the only country in which our mutual interests lie. We are concerned about the trading practices of European countries and of the European Community itself. CONCLUSION

It is our sincere goal to work with you in the area of weights

and measures, and more generally in all standards-related activities

11
of State and local governments, to help sell U.S. goods abroad. We hope that we can demonstrate to foreigners that the U.S. market is the most open in the world and that we expect to gain treatment in foreign

countries similar to that which foreigners have learned to expect in the United States.

12
THE DIRECTION FOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AT THE CROSSROADS

An Address by ERNEST AMBLER

Director, National Bureau of Standards

It is a great pleasure to be with you in Atlanta and address you as President of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. This is the fourth time that I have

done so, and this has helped to reinforce the very special

relationship between the National Bureau of Standards and

the National Conference.

Since my first address to you in 1976, many changes have occurred; perhaps, most significant is the current struggle to control

the cost of government at all levels. Budgets are being scrutinized

for possible reductions, and at the same time, the complications and complexities of services that government must provide are increasing.

Today's weights and measures devices are becoming "systems," with the increasing application of electronics and computers making these systems possible. While these new systems are bringing expanded

capabilities and economies to their owners, they are introducing added demands on the State and local weights and measures official.

In recognition of the new and demanding roles that we all must

play, this year's conference theme is "Crossroads for Weights and Measures." We are indeed at a crossroad filled with challenges. In my opinion, the challenges can be solved given goodwill and genuine

cooperation among all interested parties. The entire weights and measures community represented in this Conference, the National Bureau

of Standards, the manufacturers, and users are working closer together

than ever before to resolve these challenges. As a result of many

interactions during the past year, I believe our mutual goals and our individual limitations have been brought into clearer focus. For my

own part, I believe the direction to take at the crossroad is clear.

I believe that the NBS leadership role which is needed is one

that makes it possible for the State and local governments to exercise

their individual authorities on a collective basis while achieving

uniformity in legal metrology in the U.S. The continuing sponsorship

of the NCWM, and the provision of technical assistance are all appropriate elements of NBS leadership. The increasing importance of weights and measures in international issues requires an effective

partnership between the Federal Government and State and local governments. However, it is important to recognize that excessive dependence

on NBS is not desirable. Along with budget cuts, the current Administration places a premium upon returning government functions to the State and local level to the maximum extent possible.

13
During the past year, I have held discussions on Weights and Measures with your leadership, with the Scale Manufacturers Association, and testified at hearings held by the House Science and Technology Committee, plus many other group and individual discussions.

This has helped to clarify positions and achieve a more coordinated

plan for the future. Regarding the hearings held by the House Committee, I was very much surprised by the strongly critical testimony presented by representatives of this Conference and by the Scale Manufacturers Association. I had not realized the extent of the differences between

your expectations for NBS support of weights and measures and our program commitments. To make sure that such divergences don't recur,

I have personally become involved in reviewing our relationships and

this program.

As a result of this review, several changes seemed appropriate

and were implemented. First, I have reassigned the weights and measures program to my Office. This move was incorporated into a larger reorganization which brought several similar programs together

under the management of Dr. Stanley Warshaw, who reports directly to me as Director of the Office of Product Standards Policy. Through

this reassignment, the weights and measures program will receive more

of my attention, as well as an enrichment of resources, by drawing upon the related skills in laboratory evaluation and standards development contained in the Office of Product Standards Policy.

I also provided additional funding this year which is being used

to broaden the role of the National Bureau of Standards research staff

in the use of new weights and measures technology. Results of that research will enhance the capabilities of States to upgrade their

laboratories and field activities in addressing the rapid technical

changes that have occurred. My staff has also reviewed the technology issues related to the introduction of devices based on recent innovations in load cells,

electronics, and microprocessors. We have concluded that an effective

and appropriate way for the Bureau to assist in these areas is through

the development of a national type evaluation program. Such a program

requires special technical skills which could not be economically

duplicated in every State, or even in every "type approval" State. The consequence of not having a national type evaluation program is continued non-uniformity among type-approval States, resulting in:

(a) increased costs to device manufacturers who must seek approvals in multiple States; and

(b) likelihood of barriers to Interstate Commerce due to varying

State type approval requirements.

14
Moreover, without a national type evaluation program, the United

States would be unable to fully participate in international certification arrangements (e.g., within OIML) , which are expected to come

into existence in the future. The current situation will also lead to continued introduction of nonconforming weighing and measuring devices

into non type-approval States. These trends, both national and international, indicate the need for the development of a nationwide

type evaluation program which is uniform and more efficient than the current combination of the prototype examination program at NBS and

the 14 State programs. One of the principal benefits to the weights

and measures officials of a national type evaluation program will be

the provision of descriptions of the new devices and straightforward

instructions for use by the local inspector in testing the new de- vices .In 1976, your Policy and Coordination Committee established a "Task Force on National Type Approval Program" to develop the concept.

The Task Force was organized with representation of weights and measures officials and of the Associate Membership. The Task Force

focused on the design of a program to make better use of nationwide

resources and at the same time satisfy some of the concerns facing the Nation by developments in device technology.

It was also the consensus of the Task Force members that any national system should be developed in an incremental fashion.

The Task Force on Type Approval has recommended a preferred

concept of "A National Type Approval Program." My staff has developed

an NBS plan to:

1. Chart the path to follow by all parties involved in establishing a national program; and

2. identify the roles, responsibilities, and resources needed

to establish and operate the program. Our plan has been submitted to your officers and Task Force

members. Your Policy and Coordination Committee is requesting "the approval of the Conference" this week, in order to "proceed with the development of a national program based on the concept proposed by the Task Force."

In this tight economy, with limited Federal resources, it is essential that everyone with a role to play in developing this program

make a full commitment. The need for domestic uniformity and enhancement of industry's international trade ability are valid reasons to work towards a national program.

I would now like to clarify what I see as the lines of demarcation between NBS and State responsibilities in this effort. For

our part, I am committing the National Bureau of Standards to:

15
coordinating the development of the program, developing criteria and procedures for laboratory

authorization,

designing the evaluation certificate and attachments and providing technical advice and assistance to the Conference

committee in the development of evaluation criteria and test procedures

.

Our plan calls for the implementation of the program in October 1984. In order for this timetable to be met, several milestones are necessary which are the responsibility of this Conference's membership.

The concept must be approved at this Conference.

Type evaluation test criteria developed by your Specifications

and Tolerances Committee need to be reviewed and adopted.

Laboratory authorization criteria and procedures being developed

by NBS need to be reviewed for adoption at next year's meeting. A model regulation recognizing the national type evaluation

certificate must be developed by your Laws and Regulations Committee,

approved by NCWM, and legally adopted in all the States.

1 also want to say a few words about training. NBS now trains

the State metrologists , and I believe that the States and the National

Conference on Weights and Measures are well satisfied with the training. The training of State metrologists is a task NBS is willing to undertake because it supports the transfer of technology to the State laboratories. This enables your laboratories to use this technology

while releasing NBS resources to work on measurement research.

It should be clear, however, that NBS has neither the mission,

skills, nor resources to provide the training needed for the 3,000

State officials nationwide. The only place to do that job is locally,

using your own resources and those of industry or those available to you at local schools, community colleges, and universities. However,

because of the rapid introduction of electronic technology into the marketplace, NBS plans to support this Conference in developing

training material to assist the Conference in a "start-up" so that you

can "catch-up" . NBS intends to make a grant in two annual installments of $150,000 in 1983 and $150,000 in 1984 to the Conference to support the development of a National Training Program. We expect the Conference leadership to manage these funds, emphasizing the development of electronic training and its integration into the overall

primary training manuals currently under development. This one-time

grant is intended to provide you time to plan for and to obtain the resources to accomplish additional future training needs

.

I certainly understand the concerns that have been expressed by

the NCWM this past year. NBS has no intention of abandoning the close

16
association with the States, this Conference, and the related private

sector interests. However, the Bureau cannot simply respond to every

request for support.

In conclusion, let me repeat that weights and measures organizations across the country are at a crossroad. We must make sure that

the State laboratories, which we helped to equip over the years, have

the basic capabilities to do their job —that the instruments are properly calibrated, that there is assurance that measurements made

are proper, and that the metrologists in those laboratories possess

the technical knowledge for using their instruments. Today's economic

climate and technical challenges demand that we require proper and effective expenditures of our collective resources. Resources should

not be expended in any program that is deemed to have limited utility

or cost effectiveness.

The development and implementation of a national type evaluation program requires the commitments by all of you that I have outlined

and that are detailed in the NBS plan being reviewed by your leadership.

I expect us all to move through this crossroad with confidence,

determination, and cooperation.

17
PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS Ernest Ambler presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference

who, by attending the 66th Conference in 1981, reached one of the atten

dance categories for which recognition is made—attendance at 10, 15, o 20 meetings.

Award Recipients

20 Years Warren J. Dub sky

Chester S. Zmudzinski Dresser Industries, IncorporatedSt. Joseph County, IN

15 Years William G. Dox Walter F. Gerdom, Jr. Edwin M. Hanish

Lyman D. Holloway

Charles W. Moore

Monmouth County, NJ

Tokheim Corporation

Laporte County, IN State of Idaho Madison County, IN

10 Years

James H. Akey

James C. Blackwood

Vincent J. Del Giudice

Kenneth F. Hammer

Arnold J. Heilman, Jr. Raymond Helmick

D. J. Hine

Alfred E. Johanson

Patrick E. Nichols

Austin T. Rhoads Norman M. Ross Guy J. Tommasi

Raymond R. Wells

State of Wisconsin

City of Dallas, TX Del Giudice Associates

Colt Industries

City of Allentown, PA Peabody Coal Company

Basic Resource Services, Inc. Foremost-McKesson, Inc. Alameda County, CA Milk and Ice Cream Associations

City of Omaha, NE City of Middletown, CT Seraphin Test Measure Company

18
REPORT OF THE ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE Presented by THOMAS M. STABLER, Manager

Toledo Scale Company

The Georgia Department of Agriculture is the co-sponsor with the Associate Membership Committee of the outing and chicken barbecue at Stone Mountain on Wednesday evening, July 14, 1982, and has made all arrangements for transportation, the meal, cold drinks, and stern-wheeler

boat ride on Stone Mountain Lake. The Department has assured Conference

attendees unparalleled "Southern Hospitality". The Associate Membership

Committee is grateful for the assistance and fine cooperation of all who participated in the arrangements.

The Associate Membership Committee also recognizes and applauds

the eighty individuals, firms, and associations that have contributed to the industry-sponsored event each year at the National Conference on Weights and Measures. This enjoyable event brings industry and officials

together, some with their families, in a relaxed atmosphere in contrast

to the full schedule of conference work. The Associate Membership

event is always well attended and appreciated by Conference Delegates.

As a follow-up to discussions concerning increased participation

by Associate Members in conference committee deliberations, the Associate

Membership supports the concept of open meetings at all sessions of conference committees. Further, we suggest that if a closed meeting is warranted because of proprietary topics, notice to this effect should

be given well in advance of the committee meeting.

In general, however, open meetings are in the best interest of officials and industry alike due to shared goals of equity and uniformity. All interested parties should have the opportunity to attend and participate

in committee meetings associated with the National Conference; and,

Organizational Manuals and Conference Announcements should reflect this

policy.

It is the view of the Associate Membership that open meetings

enhance deliberations of the Conference and contribute significantly to the democratic process which NBS and all participants justifiably

endorse

.

We look forward to serving the National Conference Members again

next year in Sacramento.

19
ASSOCIATIONS' SPOT REPORTS

NORTHEASTERN WEIGHTS & MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by ALLAN M. NELSON, Association Treasurer and Metrologist, State of Connecticut

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Associations 1 s 10th Annual

Conference was held March 29th through April 1, 1982, at the Hotel

Hershey, in Hershey, Pennsylvania. The Conference was hosted by the Pennsylvania Association of Weights and Measures. Conference Chairman, Sam Valtri, Chief, Philadelphia Bureau of Weights and Measures, and his Committee presented an excellent program, which was both timely and educational, creating much interest from

those in attendance. Highlights of the Conference included a talk, "Balancing Our Act",

by Al Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, "Weights and Measures Enforcement - Past & Present", presented

by Ed Wolski, "Training, Evaluation, and Certification of Weights and Measures Officials", given by Joe Swanson, and a panel presentation,

"Budget Methods and Procedures." NEMAP, Northeastern Measurement

Assurance Program, also held two, half-day working sessions in conjunction

with the Conference.

The Conference is very fortunate to have an active associate

membership. The members from industry have been most co-operative and supportive in all aspects of Conference activity and have played a most

important part in the success of the Conference since its inception.

Conference Chairman, Sid Colbrook, of the Illinois Department of Agriculture, has announced that the 11th Annual Conference will be held

in Columbus, Ohio, March 14 through 18, 1983, at the Sheraton Columbus

Hotel. A most informative program is being planned, with one of the highlights being a tour of Columbus area scale companies. An invitation

to National Conference participants is extended and we look forward to your participation in our Conference.

20
THE NORTHWEST WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by RICHARD C. SUITER, Association President and Administrator of Standards Laboratories, State of Nebraska

The forty-fifth Northwest Conference on Weights and Measures was held on April 14-16 in Des Moines, Iowa, with representatives from all seven Member States in attendance. There were also numerous interested

parties from other jurisdictions and private industry for an approximate

attendance of 125. One day was devoted to presentations by Industry Representatives

as well as a display of new equipment for both weighing and liquid measurements. Some time was also devoted to discussion of Handbook 44, the new Scale Tolerance Code, Packers and Stockyards Programs, Federal

Inspection of Grain, and National Training and Certification for Weights

and Measures Officials. These sessions were very informative. At the meeting held here all Member States were represented. Two resolutions were presented and adopted: (1) a resolution to commend

Jim O'Connor and Bob Hollis and Iowa Weights and Measures Staff for an excellent conference in Des Moines and (2) a resolution to request the National Conference on Weights and Measures to prepare at its Interim

Meeting at least three Conference Structure Proposals for consideration

at the 68th Annual Meeting in 1983. The Interim Meeting of the Northwest Conference is to be held October 13 and 14th, 1982, in Fargo, North Dakota. The 46th Annual

Meeting is to be hald April 5 through 7, 1983, at the Marriot Motel in Omaha, Nebraska.

21
SOUTHERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by STAN J. DARSEY, Association President and

Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures,

Tallahassee, Florida

The Southern Weights and Measures Association will meet October

17-21, 1982 at the Round Holiday Inn downtown, 316 West Tennessee

Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301. We are planning an informative program

with a Sunday night reception and a Wednesday afternoon outing. We invite all of the NCWM members to attend. We need the input of all Weights & Measures related industry representatives to develop a productive

conference

.

We usually have good weather in October, so we look forward to having you visit Florida's capital city. The SWMA has met in Florida

six times before but never in our capital city.

22
WESTERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

Presented by WESLEY R. MOSSBERG, Association President

and Director, Department of Weights and Measures,

Los Angeles County, California

The Western Weights & Measures Association officers are: President: W. R. Mossberg, Los Angeles County

Vice-President: Edison J. Stephens, State of Utah

Secty-Treas: John Lewis, State of Washington (Retired) The 24th Western Weights & Measures Association Conference was held last year in Helena, Montana. Some of the issues acted on are as follows

:

1. Voting procedure - returning to Roberts Rules of Order.

2. Change the structure of the Board of Directors to include

four local officials, with State representatives.

3. The usefulness of our affiliation with NASDA was discussed.

4. The Ray Rebuffo Award to the outstanding sealer went to Ken Simila of Oregon.

5. The Les Murphy Award to the outstanding industry member went to Ted Mantes of the Mantes Scale Company.

6. A special luncheon was held in honor of Harold E. Wollin,

retired Executive Secretary of NCWM. A plaque was presented to him depicting the fourteen western States

and signed by all attendees.

The 1982 Conference will be held at the Snow Bird Lodge in Salt

Lake City, Utah, the week of September 20, 1982. All persons with an interest in weights and measures are invited to attend and participate.

23
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE

Presented by JAMES B. GRANT, Executive Secretary, NASDA

During our many years of partnership, State and local weights and measures agencies have attained a highly productive working relationship

with the National Bureau of Standards. This succesful partnership

depends in large part on the ability of the NBS Office of Weights and Measures to continue to provide national coordination and certain basic

support services to State and local agencies. Our Association is therefore extremely concerned about the future

of OWM and its ability to perform the high quality technical and training

support services that have been very beneficial to State and local

agencies. Recent reports by the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service document the recent decline in OWM staff

and funding, and criticize the reduced level of weights and measures programs within the National Bureau of Standards.

A Congressional hearing on this topic was conducted last June by

the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology. Our Association provided testimony at that hearing and said that a strong,

adequately staffed Office of Weights and Measures is essential to the work of State and local weights and measures agencies. We appreciate

the interest of Chairman Walgren and his Subcommittee colleagues in the future of OWM, and look forward to working with the Subcommittee on possible amendments to the NBS Organic Act aimed at strengthening the role of OWM as an important part of the National Bureau of Standards. Our Association also plans to work with the various budget and appropriations committees to assure adequate funding for OWM training

programs that have proven so successful in keeping State and local officials abreast of the most recent testing methods and technologies.

Another item of concern to our Association is the future of the Master Track Scale Program which provides verification of rail track

scales in cooperation with State and local certification programs. You

may recall that the program was transferred from NBS to the Federal

Grain Inspection Service a year ago. We have made considerable progress

with FGIS on implementing the program, but we are very much concerned

about budget cuts that threaten its continuation.

Let me also take this opportunity to call your attention to the Association's strong support for the grain moisture meter specifications

and tolerances developed by the National Task Force on Grain Moisture

Measurements. This is a major step in the establishment of nationwide

standards, and I urge this Conference to adopt the Task Force report.

24
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE Presented by RICHARD SOUTHERS, Manager

Operations and Engineering, API

It is my pleasure to once again have the privilege of informing

the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures about

some of the American Petroleum Institute's activities that are related

to Conference concerns

.

The first activity has been brought to your attention before. It

is the study on the effects of temperature adjustment in the marketing

segment of the petroleum industry. The purpose of the study, which is being done for us by the Radian Corporation, is to provide information

that will permit analysis of the effects of temperature adjustment at each transaction point in the marketing chain. Another way to state it

is, from refinery to consumer. Currently some seventeen States have laws or regulations relating

to the practice of temperature adjustment. Some require the practice

in specific instances while others prevent its use. Generally speaking,

these laws or regulations originate with a specifie interest group. Due to the lack of generally available information, it has been difficult

for industry or regulatory officials to make informed assessments of

the total effect these regulations have or may have. The report, which

should be available sometime in October, will enable dealers, jobbers,

regional independents, or large integrated companies to make an evaluation

of the effect that regulating the practice of temperature adjustment

may have on their particular operation. Regulatory officials can also make appraisals of the effects upon the marketplace in their area and upon their own activities. Anyone wishing to have a copy of the report

can let me know and I will see that they get one as soon as it is available

.

The second activity is one that is just getting started. It is a study of metering capabilities at the retail level. The purpose of the study is to determine the capability of existing equipment to perform

at lower tolerance levels. When the present tolerance levels were being proposed for conference

adoption, petroleum industry representatives voiced no objection because

they "felt" that the reductions proposed presented no real problem. At

the same time it was recognized that there was no factual information

available that would indicate just what would be a practical limit to tolerance reduction. At some point the expense of maintaining or achieving compliance would exceed any benefits that could accrue to either party in the transaction.

This project is envisioned to include approximately one hundred

service stations with appropriate geographical distribution. Calibration

tests will be performed on a monthly basis for one year. In addition,

laboratory tests will be conducted to investigate other factors such as

25
temperature effects and higher speeds for computers . We will also be analyzing testing procedures. The total project is estimated to take approximately eighteen months to complete.

With the increase in value of petroleum, it is likely that both

buyer and seller will become more concerned with the accuracy of these measuring devices. Through this project, in which we will welcome

participation by the Conference, it is hoped that informed decisions

can be made if further tolerance reductions are proposed.

26
INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON PACKAGING AND LABELING

Presented by ALFRED E. JOHANSON, Vice-Chairman,

ICPL, and Counsel, Foremost-McKesson, Inc. The Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling (ICPL) is an

ad hoc group of over 100 representatives of companies and trade associations

in the packaged goods industries. One of the principal functions of

the committee is to serve as a communications . link between the conference

and industry. We have just begun to serve a similar role with respect

to the international organization of legal metrology (0IML)

.

ICPL is committed to the proposition that communication between

industry and regulatory officials is mutually beneficial. Accordingly,

we welcome the opportunities that have been made available for more participation in the affairs of the Conference.

ICPL held its annual meeting on Tuesday. At that meeting we elected new officers who will take office at the end of this Conference. They are: Chairman - Bob Nelson of General Mills; Secretary-Treasurer - Joe Bow of the Single Service Institute; and Vice Chairmen - Lucien

Agniel, Ralph Miller, Austin Rhoads , Merrill Thompson, and myself.

27

I
NATIONAL SCALE MEN'S ASSOCIATION

Presented by JAMES A. KING, JR., President NSMA

and President, J. A. King and Co., Inc. The National Scale Men's Association is the ONE broad based group

that is all encompassing - we do not favor any element. We have strong

self-imposed and rigidly enforced limitations. We do not promote the interest of one group over another. We take pride in being that one organization in which ALL of us are welcome. It is where inspectors

and weights and measures officials, executives and mechanics, salesmen

and engineers, dealers and manufacturers can: meet, work, and learn

together. We are an equal opportunity embracer.

We stress that we are not chartered as a trade organization. We

have no mechanism, no structure, and no desire to influence pending or proposed legislation. Rather, we serve: our members, our industry,

scale users, and the general public. We have made great progress

towards becoming a technical society - towards becoming a business-like

organization; perhaps, better said, toward becoming a professional-technica

society. We are recognized as a "Service" or IRS tax exempt organization.

Such a classification loosely parallels the category assigned to the Chamber of Commerce. It is most important to realize and understand

that NSMA functions as a VOLUNTARY organization - those who guide and direct NSMA do so voluntarily, without pay, and at their own expense.

Now, I will try to bring you up-to-date on NSMA. As of the end of last month, we had 2076 members in good standing; if 350 delinquints pay up, we could have a possible total of over 2400. So far this year,

we have enrolled 153 new members.

We just had a most successful Annual Technical Conference in Dallas in early May. There were 1720 in attendance (that was up 7% from

1981). We had delegates from 45 states, District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, five Canadian provinces, Mexico, and 20 other foreign countries.

Eighty-one companies exhibited in 140 booths - an excellent exhibit.

We are developing a series of video-tape training films and will

have tapes on several subjects available for free use by divisions or

for the industry at the nominal cost of $50.00 per copy. Topics available

are

:

1. Electronic Conversion for Mechanical Scales

2. Calibration of Multiple Load Cell Electronic Weighing Device

3. Controls and Setup Procedure for Digital Weight Indicator

4. Setup, Operation, and Calibration of an Electronic Counting

Scale

28
There are more to follow. Our SALEMEN'S HANDBOOK OF METROLOGY, several years in preparati

was published in 1981. It is an excellent technical manual, and we

have received many, many favorable comments. Without a doubt, it is tops for our "best seller" list.

29
SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION , INC Presented by RAYMOND J. LLOYD, Executive Director, SMA Thank you again, on behalf of the officers, directors, and members

of the Scale Manufacturers Association for this opportunity to bring

the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures up-to-date

on SMA's activities and programs. First let me introduce our 1982-1983 officers and directors:

President -- William H. Perry, Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company

Vice President -- Peter R. Perino, Transducers, Inc. Directors, in addition to the officers:

Fred H. Katterheinrich , Hobart Corporation

George N. Krassner, Streeter-Amet Measurements Systems

Harry E. Lockery, Hottinger Baldwin Measurements, Inc. Arnold A. Toivonen, HCR International

Robert M. Zweig, John Chattillon & Sons, Inc. We feel our participation in the Conference continues to benefit

both the weights and measures community and the scale industry, as well

as the general public. We appreciate the strong spirit of cooperation

among the Conference leadership and committees, the Office of Weights

and Measures, the Office of Product Standards Policy, and the Office of Domestic and International Standards.

The Liaison Committee's interim report on NCWM-NBS relationships

notes SMA's participation in hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology. We were pleased

to joint with the Conference in contributing to the positive movement

toward strengthening the OWM and its support of NCWM. Dr. Ernest

Ambler's address to this year's Conference and his recent visits to two scale manufacturing facilities were indications of progress.

SMA is proud of its role in development of the new proposed MBS handbook, Type Evaluation Examinations, Criteria and Test Procedures , which was submitted for adoption at this 67th National Conference. Many

of our members have been active in the Weighing Subgroup of the National

Type Approval Task Force. Harry Lockery, a member of the SMA Board of Directors, chaired this important effort.

We are continuing our efforts to advise weights and measures officials

of progress toward a new tolerance structure in the U.S. Daryl Tonini, SMA technical director, will again make presentations at the regional association meetings this year, as he did last year.

In the area of international standards, members of SMA chair OIML working groups on load cells and electronic weighing. Several SMA repre- sentatives attended meetings in Paris this spring on OIML's electronic

weighing proposals. Daryl Tonini also is a member of the U.S. Advisory

Committee on International Legal Metrology, which advises NBS on U.S. positions

.

30
Our publications program is an active force in communicating technical and general information to appropriate officials. Since last year's

NCWM, we have updated the American National Standard on scale safety. We presently are revising two publications endorsed by the Conference -- Design

and Installation of Pit Scales for Highway Vehicles and Axle Loads and Construction Standards for Vehicle Scale Pits . We also carry considerable

information on weights and measures developments in our newsletter, The Weighlog , which is mailed to W & M officials when appropriate. You also receive copies of our annual membership directory. The excellent working relationship between SMA and the weights and measures community is reflected by the list of speakers at out 1982 Annual

Meeting. The list included Dr. Edward Heffron, chairman of this year's

National Conference; Charles Smith of the South Carolina W & M Department;

and Albert Tholen, chief of OWM. We anticipate that W & M speakers also

will address our members at our 1982 Fall Meeting in Washington.

(NOTE: National headquarters of the Scale Manufacturers

Association was moved on September 24, 1982, to 1133 Fifteenth Street, N.W. , Washington, D. C. 20005. New phone number is 202-429-9440.)

31
STATE REPRESENTATIVES

The following is a list of designated State representatives who were present

and voting on the reports presented by the Conference standing and annual committees: State Representative Alternate

1

.

Alabama Don E. Stagg John B. Rabb

2. Alaska Joseph Swanson

3. Arizona Patricia Fullinwider Darwin L. Sorensen

4. Arkansas Sam Hindsman Bill Sullivant

5. California Ezio Delfino Darrell Guensler

6. Colorado Leo Letey

7. Connecticut John Bennett Allan Nelson

8. Delaware Eugene Keeley

9. District of Columbia No Representative

10. Florida Sydney Andrews Stan Darsey

11. Georgia Thomas Kirby S. S. Abercrombie

12. Hawaii George Mattimoe

13. Idaho Lyman D. Holloway

14. Indiana Robert W. Walker

15. Illinois Sidney A. Colbrook Wayne Behrns

16. Iowa James M. O'Connor Robert Hollis

17

.

Kansas John L. O'Neill Donald Lynch

18. Kentucky Charles Prebble

19. Louisiana Philip A. Stagg

20. Maine Gaylon Kennedy

21. Maryland R. Thompson Lacy H. DeGrange

22. Massachusetts Charles Carroll

23. Michigan Edward Heffron Frank Nagele

24. Minnesota Edward Skluzacek George MacDonald

25. Mississippi James Spencer

26. Mis souri J. W. Abbott

27. Montana Gary Delano

28. Navajo Nation Ray Helmick

29. Nebraska John Alloway

30. Nevada No Representative

31

.

New Hampshire No Representative

32. New Jersey James Bird Joseph Silvestro

33. New Mexico Fred Gerk Richard Schulmeister

34. New York John Bartfai Ross Anderson

35. North Carolina N. David Smith L. F. Eason

36. North Dakota Bruce Niebergall

37. Ohio Kenneth R. Adcock Fred Clem

38. Oklahoma H. H. Latham

39. Oregon Ken Simila

40. Pennsylvania Fred Thomas

41. Puerto Rico Maria Maldonado Juan Rios

42. Rhode Island No Representative

43. South Carolina Charles Smith John V. Pugh

44. South Dakota Barbara Boddicker

45. Tennessee Dale Wilkinson Robert Williams

46. Texas Charles Forester Bill Quicksall

47. Utah Edison Stephens

48. Vermont Trafford Brink

49. Virginia James Lyles Robert Shelton

50. Washington William Sullivan Gil Allen

51. West Virginia Kenneth Butcher

52. Wisconsin Robert Probst

53. Wyoming No Representative

54. Virgin Islands No Representative
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY

AND COORDINATION

Presented by EDWARD C. HEFFRON, Chief,

Food and Dairy Division, Michigan Department

of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan

VOTING KEY

100 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination submits its final report to the 67th National Conference on Weights and Measures. The report represents recommendations of the committee

that have been formed on the basis of written and oral presentations made during the general meeting

of the committee.

The Voting Item is: 101 - Task Force on National Type Approval

Information Items are: 102 - Task Force on Package Control

103 - National Weights and Measures System

104 - Report on the United States Metric Board

105 - Position Statement - The Metrication of the United States of America

106 - Report on the International Organization of Legal Metrology

101 TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL TYPE APPROVAL

The Task Force on National Type Approval and its several working groups

met throughout the year and have made considerable progress toward their

objectives

.

A. Policy Working Group

The efforts of the Policy Working Group were explained by Chairman George

Mattimoe. The overall goal of the Working Group is to develop a concept

for a National Type Approval Program that would be acceptable to the States, industry, and the National Bureau of Standards. The Working Group

documented certain background assumptions and objectives.

Background.

1. The enforcement authority for most weights and measures functions

rests with the individual States. Each State has the authority

and is mandated to test devices to determine compliance with

device design and performance criteria. A manufacturer wishing

to install devices across the country must comply with all the

33
requirements of each State. Twelve States have laws or regulations

requiring that a device be submitted for examination before it can be installed in their State. This results in considerable expense

and marketing delays to a device manufacturer. The remaining

States either (a) turn to another agency, typically NBS, to deter- mine if a device has been examined and complies with requirements,

or (b) conduct more extensive field inspections and examinations

on a new device when it is first encountered in the field. This results in varying opinions on whether or not a device complies

with requirements and leads to nonuniform enforcement practices

regarding the device.

2. A State is normally not in a good position to evaluate a device

for nationwide application. The NBS by virtue of its role as a technical advisor to the States, as a clearinghouse for enforcement

problems, and as participant in the review and development of international standards, has the exposure, knowledge, and experience

with which to best evaluate a device.

3. The nonuniformity in enforcement across the country causes conflicts

between manufacturers and enforcement officials. The OWM is called upon to try to resolve these conflicts and is viewed as the most authoritative voice on weights and measures issues.

4. Uniform test procedures and criteria acceptable to all parties are essential to successfully conducting an examination program. Handbook 44 is written in general terms to apply to a wide range

of devices and, consequently, interpretations are necessary. Uniformity of test procedures, criteria, and interpretations can be achieved most easily if only one agency is involved. Attempting

to maintain uniformity among several agencies would require a considerable amount of resources.

5. Manufacturers want a single examination to satisfy the approval

requirements for the entire country. This would minimize cost and facilitate production and marketing. The States are more likely

to accept a device approval issued by NBS than a report issued by

a single State.

6. OIML is considering the establishment of an OIML mark that would

permit a device to undergo a type approval examination in one country and then be accepted by all countries. If this should

develop, U.S. manufacturers would like the United States to have

ready a program to conduct type approval that would eliminate possible political or economic considerations from affecting a type

approval examination on their equipment. Because of the complexity

of the type approval examinations conducted in European countries,

it is believed that only a type approval program conducted by the NBS would be acceptable to European countries.

34
7. The prototype examination program has several benefits to the NBS.

In the effort to promote uniformity in weights and measures enforcement, and in serving as a technical advisor to the States and the National Conference on Weights and Measures, the Office of Weights

and Measures must be knowledgeable in the operation of devices,

understand the technology being used, and be aware of the latest developments in the commercial measurement system. The NBS gains

this knowledge by conducting the examination program. This know- ledge and the program itself are necessary to develop and resolve technical issues for Handbook 44; lead to the development of test procedures, type approval criteria, and written training material;

and aid manufacturers to implement new concepts in the measuring

process by facilitating acceptance of the device by the States. Objectives

.

1. Assure that devices used in commerce comply with weights and measures enforcement requirements;

2. Assure the enforcement officials that devices used in commerce comply with design, performance, and operation requirements,

freeing the officials to concentrate their resources on testing

for compliance with performance criteria that are affected by the installation, maintenance, and use of devices;

3. Aid manufacturers of devices by eliminating the need to submit a device to many agencies for examinations, hence reducing costs and marketing delays, and facilitating interstate marketing;

4. Establish uniform criteria, procedures, and interpretations of requirements that eliminate conflicting enforcement practices and that ultimately reduce device cost since a device does not have to be designed or programmed with options to meet conflicting require- ments ; 5. Aid international marketing by U.S. companies by having U.S. requirements consistent with international requirements where

appropriate and by giving the United States a firmer position to influence international requirements;

6. Establish a mechanism that facilitates timely device innovation.

The Working Group approached its task from two points of departure:

1. Establishment of a new not-for-profit organization, "NTAP, Inc."

to operate the national program;

2. Evolution of a national program involving existing organizations,

but formalizing procedures and roles.

35
The Working Group presented both concepts to the P & C Committee.

After examination of both concepts, plus consideration of written

comments from State and industry representatives, the second concept

(based on an evolutionary process) was accepted as the preferred ap- proach.

The recommended concept follows: A NATIONAL TYPE APPROVAL PROGRAM*

(NTAP)

PROGRAM GOAL:

To:

1. establish a National Type Approval Program (NTAP)

that will lead to uniformity of design, engineering, and operational examination and testing of new commercial weighing and measuring devices

among the various Federal and State jurisdictions

domestically, and

2. provide the technical and administrative basis

for acceptance of NTAP' s certificate of approval

by the 50 States and OIML member countries.

PROGRAM SCOPE:

The National Type Approval Program (NTAP) for commercial

weighing and measuring devices and field test standards is

a program for identifying, through uniform examination and

testing procedures , those specific devices and equipment

(by manufacturer and model) that meet national legal metrology standards.

National legal metrology standards include applicable

specifications, tolerances, and other design, engineering,

technical , procedural, and administrative requirements for

commercial weighing and measuring devices and field test

*This concept is based on and is an expansion of "A National

Type Approval Program (NTAP) for Weighing and Measuring

Devices (Draft Plan)" developed by the NCWM Task Force on Type Approval following the 62nd Annual Meeting of the

NCWM. Following the adoption of this plan (including

related changes in the NCWM By-laws and procedures) by the

NCWM, the Task Force for Type Approval will be abolished;

its Policy Working Group will be reconsitituted as the NTAP

Advisory Committee; its Technical Working Groups will be

reassigned as subcommittees of the NCWM Specifications and

Tolerances (S&T) Committee.

36
standards as published in NBS Handbooks or in handbooks,

guidelines, or other references established by the NTAP and

adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM).

The NTAP is designed to recognize the roles of existing

organizations and does not require the establishment of any new organization. The NTAP formalizes the roles and interrelationships of these existing organizations. Participation

in the NTAP by device manufacturers is voluntary.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE:

The NTAP is a close association of:

1. The National Bureau of Standards, Office of Weights

and Measures (NBS, OWM), and NBS technical Divisions;

2. The State and local government weights and measures

organizations;

3. Other associated Federal organizations including

a. Packers and Stockyards, U. S. Department of

Agriculture

b. Federal Grain Inspection Service, U. S. Department

of Agriculture;

4. Device manufacturers and other private sector interested

parties or organizations; and

5. The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM).

The primary organizational relationships are depicted in

Figure 1. NBS/OWM will provide technical and administrative assistance

for:

1. Coordinating with other existing organizations such as Scale Manufacturers Association, Gas Pump Manufacturers

Association, American Petroleum Institute, Meter

Manufacturers Technical Center, American Society for

Testing and Materials, National LP Gas Association,

American National Standards Institute, etc.

2. Initial training of staff and/or auditing of testing

laboratories.

3. Managing the program and conducting certain device

examinations.

37
01 V o> u w •O P

a M a p

V O U /-s a UT3 £ M » 1

a o

a « u > O CJ O 55 O H

CJ W w O P W P 9 (0 0> H J 10 4-1 o u

(0 00 V O •h a

a -h n m «

O 01 3 T3 •H )-t •h 3e w S-l o oi P RJ (3 0> rH w a oi O cm o » or pq CO H

W

TJ

P.

(0 73a

« 01 p <u CO p

oc •rl a

•H i

Jd O

00 u

•H §

J! CO

co i

u o

0> U

ja £> O CO

SO CO O P

d oi O V

cj JC

f-i CM 38
BOARD OF GOVERNORS:

The activities, policies, and procedures of the NTAP will be

governed and directed by the NCWM Policy and Coordination

Committee sitting as a Board of Governors of NTAP. Operational management of the NTAP will be under the supervision

of the Executive Secretary of the NCWM.

NTAP ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

The NTAP Advisory Committee (AC) to the NTAP Board of

Governors shall represent the interests of device and

equipment manufacturers, marketers, and users in each

sector of the weighing and measuring device fields as classified by the individual device codes of NBS Handbook

44 (and other applicable handbooks) . The Board of Governors

is empowered, however, to designate individual device code

combinations to be represented by a "combined-code" member

seat. The AC Chairperson will sit as a member of the NCWM

P&C Committee only when that body is dealing with NTAP

business.

NTAP OPERATION:

Participating Laboratories

Type approval examination of devices under the NTAP is the

responsibility of participating laboratories. To become a participating laboratory, an applicant must provide the

necessary facilities, test equipment, standards, and personnel to conduct type tests. Requirements are those adopted

by the NCWM. Members of the NTAP Advisory Committee

(excluding any who are representing or connected to the

laboratory under consideration) will serve as a review and

evaluation committee for accreditation of participating

laboratories.

Ongoing audit of participating laboratories will be con- ducted by the staff of the NBS/OWM. Audit reports will be

made to the NCWM Board of Governors which will authorize the

issuance of a laboratory certificate as appropriate based

upon positive audit reports and adequacy of testing demand.

Participating laboratories must use the NTAP test protocols

(checklists and procedures) developed by the appropriate

subcommittees of the NCWM S&T Committee and adopted by the

NCWM.

SUBMISSION OF DEVICES TO NTAP: Device manufacturers, assemblers, or distributors seeking

an NTAP Certificate of Approval for any model or design of

weighing or measuring device may contact the nearest Participating Laboratory certified to test that type of device. The

39
performing laboratory will notify the NBS/OWM (by telephone

and confirmed by letter) of the request including identification of the device by manufacturer, name and type of device,

model designation, and copy of the written application.

Upon completion of the examination, the participating laboratory will submit a Report of Test to NBS. Assuming the device

met all examination requirements, results will be reviewed by

the NBS/OWM. If that review confirms examination results, an NBS Certificate will be issued. The Certificate will be sent

to the applicant and copies sent to all State and Federal

weights and measures agencies. An annual listing of all

Certificates issued will be provided by the NBS/OWM and

published as part of the Annual NCWM Proceedings.

FINANCING:

Participating laboratories will establish fees for examinations based on type, capacity, and other relevant factors

(such as State regulations or corporate fiscal structure) . Proposed fee schedules must be submitted as a part of the

application for Certification by the NBS and reasonableness

of that fee structure will be a factor in the decision

regarding laboratory certification. The testing laboratory

will bill the device manufacturer (or requestor) directly

and the payment for the examination will be paid directly

to the participating laboratory.

The billing for examinations will include a nominal "surcharge" to be used by NBS to fund expenses associated with

administration and management of the NTAP. Such expenses

will include review of reports, preparation of certificates,

mailing, and other such costs incurred. Participating

laboratories will submit surcharge monies collected by them

to the NBS on a quarterly basis.

ACTIONS REQUIRED:

1. Conduct a meeting (under sponsorship of NCWM) of all interested parties to develop "final" NTAP plan

2. Make a survey of potential participating laboratories

3. Revise NCWM By-laws to provide for its participation in

the NTAP Program

4. Develop laboratory certification criteria

5. Continue development of device and equipment examination

criteria

40
6. Adoption of (4) and (5) by the NCWM

7. State action to legally

a. accept and require NBS Certificates of Approval and

b. operate a participating laboratory and employ a fee basis for operation (if qualified)

ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: 1. Request Congressional action to mandate NBS/OWM participation in its support of:

a. the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM)

b. the NTAP as defined in this Plan

2. Invite a Canadian representative as an "observer" to the NTAP Board of Governors.

3. Further develop Plan for:

a. "permanance evaluation"

b. an appeal process procedure

d. the extent of information to be provided in publications of examinations and reports (e. g. , test

procedures, manufacturers' drawings, etc. ) e. the correction of oversights or errors made in device examinations and reports

4. Have Task Force conduct a further study to examine need

for bilateral (i.e., Canadian) or multilateral (i.e.,

OIML) reciprocity.

-END OF CONCEPTThe P&C Committee requests the approval of the Conference to proceed

with the development of a national program based on the concept pro- posed by the Task Force.

B . Technical Working Group . This report is provided on behalf of the Technical Working Group Chairman,

Harry Lockery.

41
Weighing Sub-group , The Weighing Sub-Group has had the following meetings

during and since the National Conference.

One 1/2 day meeting at NCWM in July. Two 1/2 day meetings at the Western meeting in Helena, Montana.

Two full days of marathon meetings in Kansas City on October 26 and 27. Status of Work

The sub-group has completed its review of the draft document on Type

Approval Criteria and Test Procedures prepared by OWM in concert with

California and the Federal Grain Inspection Service.

The existence of this document (Type Approval Criteria and Test Procedures)

accelerated our work by at least a year. Our many thanks to OWM

(Warnlof and Oppermann) , FGIS, and the State of California.

Our review consisted of reviewing all of the comments on the draft document received from outside the sub-group. We also discussed

comments on the document made by sub-group members. As a result of all of this dicussion, revisions, additions, and deletions were made

to the draft document. The SMA staff has kept the draft updated on

the word processor at SMA headquarters.

Consensus within the sub-group has been reached on all aspects of the draft document. This has been a beautiful example of the consensus process in action. The revised draft document has been edited for language and format. Introductory remarks were added including definition of "type", the policy on the use of error weights, and historical background. This

work will be completed early in December.

The draft document was submitted to the S&T Committee at the interim

meeting including the recommendation to keep the document alive and effective. In submitting the document to the Committee, we highlight

important changes made to the document by the sub-group. There remains work to be added including FGIS check lists related to grain hoppers and some material from packers and stockyards. We understand that none of this material is controversial and most of it

is already a matter of regulation. There should be no problem incorporating this into our work. The sub-group will meet shortly after

the Interim meeting, probably in Washington, to:

1. Review and act upon S&T comments.

2. Add the few remaining FGIS and P&S inputs.

We will then resubmit the document in final form to the S&T Committee

for inclusion in their report to the NCWM. We hope they will recom- mend adoption by the National Conference this summer.

42
Given adoption by NCWM, we can move further towards reciprocity on

type approval among jurisdictions and agencies. Much of that, of

course, will have to come out of the Policy Working Group headed by

George Mattimoe.

Liquid Measuring Devices Sub-group

This sub-group has completed review and revision of the check lists

and test procedures for liquid measuring devices. The results have been submitted to the S&T Committee.

Their work on vehicle tank meters is about 75% complete. A complete

draft is nearly completed. The technical working group efforts are well along and there is still

a good chance for having all of the work completed in time for pre- sentation to the National Conference in July.

Summary

We could not have come this far without the good start given us by

OWM, California, and FGIS in the draft document. There has been a lot

of hard work on the part of Weights and Measures and industry members

of the Weighing Sub-Group who contributed most objectively.

Respectively submitted:

A. Lockery, Hottinger Baldwin, Chairman

J. Bartfai, New York

E. Delfino, California, Chairman, Task Force

G. Mattimoe, Hawaii, Chairman, Policy Working Group

C. Parent, Gilbarco

T. Stabler, Toledo Scale

E. Stadolnik, Massachusettes

Public Members

R. Anderson, New York

L. DeGrange, Maryland

D. Mahoney, Federal Grain Inspection Service, USDA

F. Nagele, Michigan

C. Oakley, Packers and Stockyards, USDA

H. Oppermann, National Bureau of Standards

C. Smith, California

0. Warnlof, National Bureau of Standards

Weighing Industry Sector

H. Lockery, Hottinger Baldwin, Chairman

A. Goldberg, Howe-Richardson

W. Goodpaster, Cardinal Scale

R. Hurley, Fairbanks

F. Katterheinrich, Hobart

J. Robinson, Association of American Railroads

T. Stabler, Toledo Scale

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association

43
Measuring Industry Sector

W. Gerdom, Tokheim, Chairman

M. Belue, Southwest Pump

W. Dubsky, Dresser Wayne

A. Evans, Veeder-Root

R. Fonger, Bennett Pump

W. Keay, Tokheim

A. Kroll, Gilbarco

W. Reitz, Liquid Controls TASK FORCE ON TYPE APPROVAL

(Item 101 was adopted)

102 TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

This task force is a subgroup of the NCWM special study group on a na- tional weights and measures system for the U.S. During the Interim Committee Meetings for the 67th National Conference

held in January, 1982, at Gaithersburg , the Task Force members present

met on two occasions to review work in progress and discuss plans for

the future. Following the 1981 National Conference in St. Louis, the Task Force

initiated activity on three of the recommendations of its predecessor

body, the NCWM Special Study Group on Enforcement Uniformity. The recommendations of that body are incorporated under Item 101 in the Report of the Policy and Coordination Committee to the 66th NCWM in July, 1981. ACTIVITY I - DEVELOPMENT OF A SHORT EASY-TO-FOLLOW POCKET FIELD

MANUAL OF PACKAGE SAMPLING AND NET CONTENT CHECKING

PROCEDURES

Initial work in this area included the review of the results to date

of two concurrent efforts to produce a document of this type. These

are 1. The State of California's drafting of a document titled

"Sampling and Testing Procedures for Estimating Container Fill of Packaged Commodities", and 2. The National Bureau of Standards draft

in process of an abbreviated Handbook 133 "pocket manual". ACTIVITY II - ASSISTING IN IDENTIFYING: A. - TRAINING NEEDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN PACKAGE CONTROL WORK, AND B. - TRAINING RESOURCES AVAILABLE

TO MEET THOSE NEEDS. Work in this area to date by members of the Task Force has identified

some of the training needs for personnel involved in package control

to include:

44
1. Fundamentals (units of measure, reading labels,

calculations, rounding, etc.)

2. basic statistics

3. sampling techniques (locating and isolating lots, selecting

samples, etc.)

4. tare determination procedures

5. data recording, computation, and interpretation

6. handling and use of official agency field standards and equipment (e.g. "hardware")

7. application of official agency regulatory requirements (e.g.

compliance standards or "software").

In addition some work has been done on the identification of training

programs on package control which could or will be available to inspectors

.

The most significant and complete program identified to date is the

one being prepared by C. Brickenkamp and S. Hasko of the National

Bureau of Standards, Office of Weights and Measures. The program will

consist of seven modules or sessions on video tape and will be presented

primarily to State training officials responsible for training the inspectors. The first module has been presented to Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Some elements of training in package control have been identified as being under development or to some extent available already. These

include:

1. plans by Texas A & M University to develop one or two training

modules on statistical sampling and Handbook 133, if their program is authorized and funded;

2. basic material on statistical sampling and package inspection

techniques available through the Institute for Weights and Measures in their courses 105, Introduction to Package

Control, and 202, Package Control;

3. courses in mathematics and statistical sampling offered at the two California junior colleges (Yuba College in northern

California, and Golden West College in southern California)

which offer Associate of Science (two-year) degree programs

in Measurement Science, and also possibly at Alfred College

in New York. ACTIVITY III - COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF PACKAGE NET CONTENT REGULATORY SYSTEMS INTERNATIONALLY

The Task Force on Package Control heard a report on progress in a study comparing the regulatory systems in place of eight countries,

and the European Economic Community and on work in progress in two international standards setting bodies on the subject of regulation of

45
the net quantity of contents of prepackaged commodities . The Inter- national Comparison outline which follows as Appendix A gives details

of this phase of the activity complete to date. Countries reviewed as of this writing were The Netherlands, United

Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and Mexico.

The EEC point of pack system was reviewed. The status of efforts hy

the International Organization for Legal Metrology (OIML) and the Codex Alimentarious Commission of the FAO/WHO were also reviewed.

Regulatory systems for prepackages were examined on the following

characteristics: 1. architecture of the regulations, 2. place of inspection, 3. definition of net weight, 4. standard for judging

compliance, 5. treatment of hygroscopic commodities, 6. definition

of tare, and 7. inspection procedures. Between now and the annual meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measure the following work is contemplated. A matrix

based on the characteristics listed above will be constructed to make

comparisons between and among regulatory systems convenient. It is anticipated that several more countries will be included in the review. The Task Force will seek to collect information from industires and weights and measures officials in foreign countires on such issues as the cost effectiveness of programs in place and what has been the experience of weights and measures officials in administering the "e" system in place in the European Economic Community. The Task Force

will work with the Office of Product Standards Policy and Mr. David

Edgerly to attempt to collect this type of information.

The Task Force hopes to be able to report on further progress in all

of these activity areas at the NCWM Conference in Atlanta in July,

: ; £ i

.

-6
APPENDIX A INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON

NET WEIGHT/PACKAGING LAWS European Economic Community

A. Architecture of regulations

1. Council Directive. On January 20, 1976 The Council of

the European Communities adopted a Directive relating

to the making-up of pre-packaged products (76/211/EEC)

.

The Directive has the purpose of unburdening trade between Member States, informing consumers, and specifying

tolerable negative errors for prepackages. The Directive

was designed to take effect over an 18-month period so that national legislation and organization could be adjusted to the new rules.

2. Implementing Regulations. The Directive is implemented

by each Member country, which must adopt laws, regulations,

and/or administrative provisions needed to comply with

the Directive, as to goods traded between the Member

countries. At the same time, the Member Countries may

regulate in whatever fashion they chose, the prepackaging

of goods prepackaged and sold within their own borders.

3. Member Laws.

a. Netherlands.

1. System is optional for packers —those

who do not wish to apply the EEC directives may proceed under the prior rules. In the Netherlands, the pre-existing principle

was for minimun weights with packers

overfilling by 3 times the standard

deviation. However, even with minimum

requirements, the Dutch allowed reasonable

percentages for commodities that dried

out.

2. New regulations provide for inspection

in the packer's facility, together with

the obligation to keep records of inspections. State officials are empowered to make unannounced inspections. The Dutch

approve a packer's inspection procedures

based on review of the methods and frequency of inspections, the number and selection of samples, and the statistical

calculations of results. All equipment

used for testing by the packer must be officially calibrated and declared

suitable for the job. The packer cannot

change his internal net weight inspection

procedures without the prior consent of the Service of Weights and Measures.

47
b. Great Britian.

1. On April 4, 1979 the Weights and Measures

Act 1979 was adopted, to take effect at several times during the subsequent 10 months . The Act set forth the new system of quantity control for packaging

goods (referred to as the "average"

system) in order to comply with the Council Directive. The Act is reported

at Vol. 49 Weights and Measures at Page

1541.

2. The corresponding regulations [S.I. 1979

No. 1613] are not applicable to several

types of commodities, for example, (1) "catchweight packages", that is, what we call random packages; (2) packages in quantities less than 5 g or 5 ml; and

(3) packages not marked with the EEC mark where either the goods are to be processed further or the goods are intended for export. Packages are to be checked by the packer or importer prior

to their leaving the plant and the Government assesses fees for checking

and certifying equipment.

Place of Inspection. The Council Directive does not specify

the place of inspection. However, it does specify in Article

5 that no Member State may prohibit the marketing of prepackages

that satisfy the requirements of the Directive. The Directive

does indicate that a packer may add to the net weight statement

an "e" showing that his production is subject to the inspection

procedures specified in the Directive. This can take place

anLy at the plant. Therefore, the effective point of inspection us i be the plant

.

1. Plant. The regulations of the Netherlands specifically,

and the regulations of Great Britian by implication,

provide that inspection of EEC Member commodities must

be at the plant.

2. Warehouse. No specific mention.

3. Place of Importation. Both sets of regulations mention

inspection at the point of importation.

4. Retail/Commercial Establishments. Both sets of regulations

allow inspection at retail and commercial establishments

for commodities nor marked with the IPC mark.

48
C. Definition of Net Weight. The Council Directive uses the term "nominal weight", which is the weight indicated on the package. The concept is contrasted to the "actual contents" which is defined as the "quantity of product which [the

package] in fact contains."

D. Standards for Judging Compliance.

1. The EEC Directive does not require minimum weight to be labeled in prepackages.

2. The EEC Council Directive requires that (a) "the actual

contents shall not be less, on average, than the nominal

quantity." In addition, no package can have a negative

error greater than twice the tolerable negative error

given in the Directive (the ranges are from 4.5 percent

to 1.5 percent). Further, the number of packages that may have a negative error greater than that listed in the Directive is limited on the basis of the size of the sample, the size of the lot, and the repetition of

the sampling. The lowest number that can justify

rejection of a lot on this criterion is 2, where destructive

testing must be done, while the highest number is 9, where the lot consists of 3,201 items or more and the total sample includes 160 items.

E. Treatment of hygroscopic commodities.

1. Allowable Variations. No such variations specified or referred to in the Council Directive.

2. When Packed. The language "when packed" is not specifically

mentioned, but to the extent that the "e" certifies

full weight at the time of pack, it serves the same purpose

.

3. Inspection Only at Plant. The Council Directive does not specifically set allowances from nominal weight for commodities that are affected by climatic conditions.

However, since inspection and marking of the package

with the EEC mark is done at the plant, the "problem"

of moisture loss or gain during distribution is avoided.

a. The British regulations make special provision for packages of "desiccating goods". An inspector may

inspect a group of such packages at any time, but

the test "...shall not be carried out in any case where the packer of the packages or, as the case may be, the importer of them has taken reasonable

steps to ensure that the inspector who proposes to carry out the test knows or can readily ascertain -

49
(a) . . . that the packages in question were made up or, as the case may be, were

imported more than 7 days before the beginning of the day on which he proposes

to carry it out; and

(b) ... that the packages were made up more

than twenty-four hours before the beginning

of the day on which he proposes to carry

it out." [SI 1979 Np. 1613, 27 (4)]

4. Overpacking Required. Not required except to the extent of meeting variations that might arise from

packaging variations due to machinery problems.

F. Tare Definition. The Council Directive does not mention

tare. The subsequent technical amendments of the annexes to the directives, issued as a Commission Directive, states that "The procedure for measuring the actual contents of a prepackage may be the subject of domestic regulations in each Member State." Neither the British statute nor the British Regulations define tare. However, the definition may be contained in the section of the regulations that set out the procedure for testing packages. This section is not published here.

G. Inspection Procedures.

1. The Council Directive specifies detailed procedures for sampling and testing compliance. However, the Directive

requires only that the effect of the procedure used "be comparable" to the reference method. Commission Directive

78/891/EEC provides a measure of comparability for use by Member States in terms of percentage deviations of the abscissa of the ordinate point from the reference

standard

.

Checking is carried out by sampling in two steps which

provide data on (1) the actual contents of each package

in the sample, and (2) the average of the actual contents

of the packages in the sample. Sampling plans may be nondestructive or destructive. Destructive testing, as

a general rule, should not be used for batches (lots) of less than 100, since the testing if carried out must

be 100%. Batches are defined as maximum hourly output of the packing line or 10,000. Selection of the sample must

be random. The check on the average actual contents requires

calculation of the standard deviation. Acceptance

50
criteria for the average are based upon sample and lot size

.

2. The Dutch regulations provide guidance on when

destructive testing must be carried out; if the dispersion of tare weights of the empty-packages

is too great, then destructive testing must be

used. Even in non-destructive testing, at least

10 packages must be opened, since these 10 tares

are necessary to determine dispersion.

The Dutch have adopted acceptance/rejection criteria

representing the Student's t-test with a 0.995 confidence level.

11. Canada

A. Architecture of Regulation

1. Requirements for packaging and labelling are set out in national law. The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act approved on June 10, 1971 prohibits the sale or importation

into Canada of any prepackaged product that does not bear a label showing the net weight or net contents.

It provides for inspection and, if appropriate, seizures.

In addition, The Act provides for standardization of containers

.

2. The Act authorizes the Governor to make regulations

that (a) exempt products, (b) exempt types of transactions,

(c) define "principal display panel", (d) list expressions

that would constitute false or misleading representations,

(e) set tolerances for net weight statements; etc. However, new regulations were issued during the week of December 31, 1981 and are not yet available in this country.

2. No information is available on the powers of the Provinces

to adopt rules and regulations for net weight compliance

checking.

B. Place of Inspection. The statute does not limit the place

or time at which an inspector may inspect prepackaged products.

C. Definition of Net Weight. The statute does not define net weight

.

D. Standard for Judging Compliance. The statute permits deviations

from stated net weight in accordance with tolerances that

are set by regulations.

51

"This section shall not apply to any goods exposed

for sale or sold by weight in a package if -

(a) the weight of the goods is subject to variation

by reason of climatic influences; and

(b) the package bears a conspicuous label or inscription showing the words 'Net weight when

packed', together with such weight."

3. Inspection Only at Plant. No limit on inspections.

4. Overpacking Required. Under Section 18 (4a), no overpacking

to compensate for moisture loss is required.

F. Tare Definition. None

G. Inspection Procedures. None

IV. Australia

A. Architecture of Regulation.

1. National law. At the national level, Australia does not regulate packaging and labeling except for imports

and exports by means of the Commerce (Trade Descriptions)

Act 1905-1973. According to this law, no one may

import or export packaged goods unless they contain a trade description of the "nature, number, quantity...

or weight of the goods...", 2 Acts of the Parliament

1901-1973, pp. 779-784, Section 3(a).

However, on a related matter -- the identity and value

of standards of measure, the national Government does provide for uniformity under the Weights and Measure

(National Standards) Act 1960-1973.

2. Implementing regulations. Rules for packaging and labeling are adopted by each State. These State laws are not available at this time. In connection with

weights and measures, the national law does not preempt

State law unless that law is "...inconsistent with an express provision of this Act or of the regulations..."

Section (4)2, p. 488, 12 Acts of the Parliament 1901-1973.

3. Copies of State law and regulation are not available.

B. Place of Inspection. None

C. Definition of Net Weight. None

53
D. Standard for Judging Compliance. None

E. Treatment of Hygroscopic Commodities. None

F. Tare Definition. None

G. Inspection Procedures. None

V. Japan.

This country does not allow the importation of most food and agricultural commodities. However, informal advice from companies doing business in Japan indicates that inspections are conducted at the point of sale.

VI. Mexico. Informal advice from companies doing business in Mexico indicates

that inspections are conducted at the point of sale. VII. International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)

A. Architecture of Regulation. This organization is an international body that promulgates standards for consideration of member countries.

B. Place of Inspection. The draft now being circulated for comment and consideration assumes that inspection may be carried on at any point in distribution.

C. Definition of net weight. No definition is given in the draft inspection procedures.

D. Standard for Judging Compliance. The inspection procedures

outlined by the draft contain 3 levels for judging

compliance of samples taken from lots of packaged products.

With each application of the procedure, the risk of rejecting a lot that is in compliance decreases. The risk

in "screening" is approximately 16%; the risk in taking

official action short of penal sanctions is approximately

2.5%; and the risk for seeking penal sanctions is 0.04%.

E. Treatment of Hygroscopic Commodities. The inspection

procedures do not make allowances for weight changes after packaging, since the statistical assumptions used in predicting compliance of the lot from the characteristics of

the sample are not modified for different types of commodities

.

F. Tare Definition. The draft procedures do not define tare.

54
G. Inspection procedures. Lot sizes may range from 100 to 10,000. No specific sample sizes are given. Selection of samples is not required to be random under all circumstances

.

VIII. Codex Alimentarius Commission, FAO

A. Architecture of Regulation.

1. General Principles. Codex, too is an international

organization. It provides guidelines and standards for

the purpose of promoting uniformity among member

nations of the United Nations. The currently effective

Recommended International General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (CAC/RS 1-1969) provides

that prepackaged foods be labelled with (1) the name of

the food, (2) a list of ingredients, (3) net contents,

(4) name and address of the manufacturer, packer,

distributor, importer, exporter, or vendor, and (5) the country of origin.

2. Implementing regulations. The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling is considering

recommended regulations for sampling and net weight

sampling

.

3. Member Country Laws and Regulations. Codex standards must be adopted by a country in accordance with its established legal and administrative procedures.

According to the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius, adoption may be (1) full acceptance, (2) target acceptance in which the country agrees to adopt

the standard after a period of years, or (3) acceptance

with minor deviations.

B. Place of Inspection. The Committee is now considering

proposals prepared by the Secretariat and is preparing to send out questionnaires to Member countries. The proposed

methods would cover consignment of foods moving in international trade. The Committee therefore does not contemplate that its procedures would be applied at the retail level or in the factory.

C. Definition of Net Weight. No specific definition is given,

since the main purpose of the Committee is to develop

sampling methods. The current General Standard provides

that net contents be declared either by volume or weight,

except that foods packed in a liquid medium which is discarded by the consumer must be labeled by drained weight.

D. Standard for Judging Compliance. Sampling for analysis and sampling for net weight are treated separately. The potential standards for the first type of inspection are

55
outlined in the Committee's questionnaire as being (1) sampling by variables, with the standard deviation of each

variable known; (2) sampling by variables but with no knowledge of standard deviations; and (3) sampling by

attributes. No specific numbers on acceptance or rejection

are proposed, since the usual statistical assumptions would

not be appropriate for all types of sampling.

As to sampling for net weight, the Committee has asked for comments on three standards for judging compliance,

notwithstanding the EEC commitment to the average concept. The three possibilities are labelled as (1) the Acceptable

Quality Level or High Acceptance Probability, (2) the Indifferent Quality Plan, and (3) the Moderate Acceptance

Probability Plan. The probability of acceptance of a lot based upon sampling under the three "plans" is,

respectively, 95%, 50%, and 84%.

E. Treatment of Hygroscopic Commodities. There is no mention

of this type of commodity.

F. Tare Definition. There is no definition in the recommended

sampling methods. The General Standard defines container as "...any form of packaging of food for sale as a single item,

whether by completely or partially enclosing the food, and includes wrappers;...".

G. Inspection Procedures. No specific procedures have yet been

proposed

.

Respectively submitted:

A. Johanson, Foremost McKesson, Inc., Co-Chairman

K. Simila, State of Oregon, Co-Chairman

J. Alloway, State of Nebraska

R. Belliveau, Proctor & Gamble Co.

C. Kloos , Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc.

D. Offner, City of St. Louis, Missouri

N. Peterson, Counsel to General Mills

D. Stagg, State of Alabama TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

103 NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SYSTEM

The 66th NCWM considered it important to continue a study on what the role of Weights and Measures Administration should be to meet the needs of society. Social, political, economic, and technical changes

and advancements must be considered to determine the full scope of such a program.

The final objective of the special study group appointed as a con- sequence of NCWM acceptance of Item 101 of the Report of the P&C

56
Committee of the 65th Conference is to develop the means to execute

the recommended Metrological Control Plan for the United States. A number of sub-parts must be addressed to facilitate such a Plan. The

focus of the special study group during 1981 was largely on a selection

of the sub-parts. Concurrently, work progressed through other channels

to develop a National Type Approval Program, a pilot peer evaluation

program, a national training program, an inspector certification

program, and changes in the NBS Organic Act to assist the activities

of the Office of Weights and Measures.

The special study group plans to shift its emphasis from a holding

condition pending supplementary developments to that of a detailed

examination of each element of the Metrological Control Plan (MCP) and

to work out the specific feasibility of the complementary activities

called for by the participants in such a Plan. This will call for a reorganization of the special study group and a clear-cut execution of the charter imposed by P&C Item 101 (65th

Conference)

.

Consistent with the considerations of MCP are the following concerns:

The Task Force on package control has continued its efforts and is making a separate report. Weights and Measures enforcement has historically been the prerogative of State government until Federal

legislation authorized certain Federal agencies, such as the USDA,

FDA, FTC, etc. to regulate certain items, products, and commodities in package form. The proliferation of rules relating to declaration of contents when adopted on an uncoordinated basis by these agencies

causes enforcement problems with the States. Changes in marketing and business practices along with advancements in device and packaging technology all have affected the ability of weights and measures officials to cope with the long-standing com- mission "To Maintain Equity in the Marketplace".

Congressional hearings on the NBS Organic Act have focused on the steady decline of resources available for support by OWM/NBS to the States and NCWM. NBS management recently announced a reemphasis in weights and measures as a result of their evaluation of the support

needs of the States. The current political climate and management policy at NBS in conjunction with new technology and marketing practices cause this

Committee to recommend certain changes, although a total program

cannot be formulated at this time. Recommendations for immediate consideration are:

1. Continue to petition Congress to amend portions of the NBS Organic Act to mandate certain responsibilities to the Director

of NBS; to restore the RR Track Scale calibration programs to NBS; and to restructure the existing visiting Committee.

57

1
2. Review Federal Statutes to develop a model that would place in one agency all rule-making powers that relate to "declaration of contents on packages". Such rules would be based on actions of the NCWM. An additional recommendation, to meet current needs, is to revise the Model State Weights and Measures Law to include:

1. Responsibility for the verification and certification of all physical standards of Weights and Measures used by Weights and Measures Officials, other law enforcement agencies, and industry.

Such certificates when executed in accordance with State Law would be "prima facie" evidence of authenticity of the calibration

of such standards.

2. Provide for the adoption by citation.

Tentative recommendations with regard to the objectives of the study

group are categorized as follows:

A. Administration and Enforcement

It is apparent the States need, now more than ever, to draw on OWM/NBS for guidance, technical assistance, and training information and as a repository of knowledge. In this regard, OWM/NBS

should be legally mandated to provide this service. This service

should include an expanded metrology control program (mass,

length, volume, temperature, and pressure); assistance in coordinating

and developing programs for regional conferences; publishing of handbooks; reporting on new technology; and re-institution of its former program dealing with case law in weights and measures. OWM should also coordinate State involvement in FPLA, OIML, and metric activities so that the States have only one agency to deal

with.

B . Metrology Laboratory Facilities and Programs

Demands on State metrology laboratories are increasing both as to the number of requests and the scope of calibrations. The need

for an accurate calibration and certification system for legal,

commercial, and industrial standards, traceable to NBS , is paramount

and mechanisms must be sought to extend the system from State laboratories to indigenous industry. It is noted that NBS management

revealed an intention to increase metrology service to the States. This plan must eventually include additional categories (temperature, pressure, etc.) to meet the increasing demands of industry on State metrology laboratories. The continued publication of standards, specifications, and calibration procedures is a necessary

function of NBS to insure the uniform transfer of measurement

standards

.

58
c. Device Control and Verification

Further attention must be given to the current report of the Task

Force on Type Approval which describes a National Type Approval

Program. Focus should be on the current approach used in most jurisdictions to test and inspect every commercial weights and measures device at least once in each year. Cost-benefit eval- uations must be developed to determine whether other systems

(official testing on a sampling basis- or by qualified service

agencies) is acceptable.

However, the goal should be uniformity of the test and inspection

procedure used in all States. Standard examination procedures

and uniform training is the key to this. The continued updating

and publication of Examination Procedure Outlines (NBS-112) and appropriate training models and aids provided by OWM/NBS is a basic requirement. Development of a national program of type

approval as conceived by the Task Force will result in published

examination procedures, related testing equipment, and training

manuals

.

D. Report by Special Task Force on Package Control

See Item 102 In summation, the study should be continued to coordinate all relevant

material and activities not previously available for review and study. The group will continue to develop both short and long term proposals

and recommendations but will focus on an integrated national system.

Conference officers are encouraged to schedule presentations before

national associations of governors, legislators, county governments,

and municipalities because it is imperative that the legal, social,

and economic justification for State Weights and Measures programs be brought to their attention.

Respectively submitted:

J. Bird, New Jersey, Chairman

E. Delfino, California

W. Gerdom, Tokheim

C. Greene, New Mexico

R. Hurley, Fairbanks

G. Johnson, Foremost McKesson

C. Kloos , Hunt Wesson

L. Meyer, COCO

R. Probst, Wisconsin

K. Simila, Oregon

T. Stabler, Toledo Scale

E. Stadolnik, Massachusetts

R. Thompson, Maryland

SPECIAL STUDY GROUP, NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SYSTEM

59
104 UPDATE ON U.S. METRIC BOARD REPORT

by

Sydney D. Andrews NCWM Representative to USMB

I appreciate this opportunity to bring you up-to-date on what has happened

to the U. S. Metric Board since my report at the Interim Meetings which

was published in the announcement booklet and which appears following

this update. There is really little new to add, except that it is now pretty certain the Board will be terminated on September 30, 1982. Last week in Washington we held what probably will be our final meeting.

Of the seventeen positions authorized under the Metric Conversion Act of

1975 only nine remain filled. For more than two years, as terms of members expired there have been no new appointments. We had reports from representatives of the American National Metric Council, the Metric

Operating Committee of the Interagency Committee on Metric Policy, the National Council on State Metrication, and the Office of Productivity,

Technology, and Innovation in the Department of Commerce. They each

presented their plans for future operations in the absence of the U.S. Metric Board. We also received from the Government Printing Office the

"U.S. Metric Board Summary Report - July 1982". A copy of this final

report is available at the registration desk for each State Director of Weights and Measures. Anyone else wishing copies should request it from: U.S. Metric Board, Suite 400, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,

Virginia 22209. Certain responsibilities set forth in the Act will remain in force until

the Act is repealed, or amended. It now appears that these responsibilities will be assumed by the Office of Productivity, Technology, and Innovation in the Department of Commerce. The approval for $300,000

and seven positions to carry out these responsibilities appears fairly

certain. Also, after recent consultations with those in charge of this

office I am optimistic that they will continue sponsoring the Interagency Committee on Metric Policy and its Metric Operating Committee, as well

as the National Council on State Metrication. These organizations, which

were sponsored by the U.S. Metric Board, are already in place and func- tioning. As coordinating bodies they can be very valuable to the future

of voluntary metrication in this country.

With the demise of the Metric Board virtually certain now, I would like

to reiterate my previous plea that the National Conference on Weights

and Measures join with other organizations that share the feeling that metrication is in the best interest of our country, and work for its ultimate adoption. Also, I urge you to pass an amended version of the resolution proposed as Item 105 of the Interim Meeting Report of the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination which appeared

in the announcement booklet. This will reaffirm the Conference's support

for metrication at a time when I feel it is much needed.

60
This is probably my last report to you as your representative to the U.S. Metric Board. I wish it could be more up-beat. Although some good was accomplished, I have been disappointed that the Board was not able to

do more to help the cause of metrication. I have at times been frustrated

by my inability to influence decisions of the Board to take more positive

actions regarding metrication. However, at all times I have been very

proud to be your representative, and I will be forever grateful to the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for giving

me this opportunity to serve you.

REPORT ON THE UNITED STATES METRIC BOARD

By far the most important news about the U.S. Metric Board is that in

all probability it will be eliminated by the process of just not

funding it at the end of the fiscal year 1982. The House appropriated

2.7 million dollars to carry the Board through the fiscal year 1982

and, although we were not happy with it, we at least felt we could make some progress with that kind of money. However, the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations met and decided they would reduce our budget to 1.5 million with a termination date of March 30, 1982. This meant they were allowing just enough money to give the Board a decent

burial. We made contact with some members of Congress and were able

to persuade the powers that be to allow the Board to continue until

the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. It now appears we will be funded by what the Congress calls a continuing resolution

which means we will operate at a spending level of approximately 2 million dollars for the rest of the fiscal year. It is very doubtful

that the Board will be funded beyond that. My personal feelings are somewhat mixed on this and I have tried to contact representative samples of the constituency I represent; I find

they share the same feeling - quite doubtful about continuing the U.S. Metric Board. Those of us who were definitely pro metric, and anxious

to see the Metric Study implemented through Congressional action, have been disappointed not only in the Act itself, but in the actions of

the Board. Rather early in its history the Board adopted a resolution

that virtually neutralized us as far as taking any positive action for metrication was concerned; the resolution has caused problems. As is the case with any Federal agency starting from scratch, the first year

we suffered from organizational problems. The second year we spent

too much time bickering over procedural matters, and not getting a whole lot accomplished. Then, the "San Francisco Resolution" came along which virtually neutralized us. By the third year our staff was fairly organized and I was pleased with some of the work they were

doing; but the Board itself did not seem to get together much on what

our real purpose was. Last July when I appeared before the Conference,

it was only about a week after the Charlotte Board meeting. I reported

that for the first time since I had been on the Board I saw some evidence of real progress. Some positive things had come out of that meeting indicating that action would be taken toward some fine programs

I was quite encouraged and I am happy to say that since that time some

of these things have come to fruition.

61
We have engaged in several research projects. Some of them have been

completed and reports have been made. I would like to encourage any

of you who have an interest in this sort of thing to write the Board

and tell them that you would like copies of the research reports, or any other information that they might have put together as a result of some of our studies. Among other things, we revised the very popular

document which came out of the National Bureau of Standards when they

housed the Office of Metric Information. It was called "All About

Metric". We have updated it and the new version is a very fine document

that can be used by school children, or lecture groups, or most anyone.

We authorized a study of the conversion of wine and distilled spirits

containers. That study has been used by us to try to discover what

mistakes were made, and what should be avoided in future conversion

processes. I think it will serve a useful purpose for any industry

that is contemplating such a move. I sincerely hope that they will

call on the Board, or at least use that study if the Board is not in existence, to try to avoid some of the mistakes that were made and

also, perhaps avoid some of the problems that the wine and distilled

spirits industry encountered in their consumer relations during that conversion

.

We engaged in a rather extensive consumer program study and had a fine

report. Much of the information that was surfaced by that report has been adopted by the Board, at least as a matter of policy. Some suggestions have been implemented but, unfortunately, the full time consumer specialist that we agreed should be hired by the Board was never employed simply because we just did not have the funds. I hope

the general public will not perceive that as a lack of concern for consumer interest because I believe I can safely say that one of the

few things the Board has agreed upon is that we must address the needs, and the interest, of the consumers in any metrication program

by bringing them into the planning and discussions at an early stage. The small business cost benefit study I think was a fine piece of work

and it revealed that small businesses that had been called on to supply metric equipment, or metric goods, to some of the large

industries had not experienced the great problems that were predicted

for them. They had made no great investment in metric conversion, or metric tools, but had been able to handle these changes more or less

in the same manner they would any request from their customers such as

a change in design, or a change in the type of metal that was being

used in a particular product. The study indicated that it was handled

as any other business change would be handled, and did not reveal drastic changes and drastic costs being encountered by small business.

One of the programs that the U.S. Metric Board voted to take part in, and do whatever we could to capitalize on, was the 1984 Olympic Games.

As you know, practically all of the track and field events in Olympic

Games are actually carried on in metric dimensions. One of the things

that annoyed many of us who were pro metric was that the networks handling the 1980 Games constantly converted the results of events even though they were actually being performed in metric dimensions.

62
We were in hopes that maybe we could persuade them to report them just

as they were being conducted. This could actually have been a great

education, and awareness tool. Obviously, that program will have to be abandoned now as will some of the other good things we planned.

We did some very clever, as well as effective, TV commercials during

the period when we were making the conversion to the gasoline dispensers. Others had been scheduled but, reluctantly, we will have to discontinue

that program for lack of funds. One of the other sacrifices we will

have to make due to lack of funds is to give up our open forums and moving the meetings around the country so that we can raise metric

awareness. All future meetings are scheduled in Washington from now on trying to conserve funds, but one of the great losses I think will be

that we will have no more public forums. We do plan to have our May

meeting in Washington immediately following the ANMC meeting

and so we hope we will get a little extra participation for the U.S. Metric Board as well as the ANMC by combining the two. One of the real regrets I have about the decision to phase out the Metric Board and reduce our budget to just absolute bare bones is that

the National Council on State Metrication will probably be one of the casualties. One of the good things I think the Board did was sponsoring

this organization because I think it is extremely important that State metric people be brought together to discuss common problems and plan

common goals just as the National Conference on Weights and Measures

brings State people together from the weights and measures community.

I think it was quite appropriate for the Metric Board to be the sponsor

of that group just as it is appropriate for the National Bureau of Standards, working through the Office of Weights and Measures, to support the National Conference. I regret that because of budget

limitations we were not able to fund this on a total basis to get it off to a good start, but we had a pretty good response for the only

two meetings we had, simply by funding the travel. It helped a lot in that it at least got the State people into the arena and many of them

did come to the meetings even though the State had to pick up the per

diem. We planned a third meeting but, unfortunately, that will have

to be cancelled. There is a report that has been issued on the last meeting in Des Moines. Some of you attended that meeting and if you

would like a copy of the report it is available from the Metric Board

Office. At the San Diego Meeting the first week in January, the Board

had presented to it two sector plans by the American National Metric

Council's committees on instruments, and also on chemicals and allied

products. Those plans were reviewed by our staff people and analyzed

in view of our guidelines. The Planning and Coordinations Committee

reviewed the staff's work and made a recommendation that the Board

endorse those plans. The Board, after further study, went along with

the endorsement. So, it is rather ironic that we finally got something

to do - and did something positive, and now it looks like we are going

to be put out of business.

If the Board is not continued, and if the Act is not repealed, then

some Federal agency is going to have to accept the responsibility for

63

I
carrying out the provisions of the Act assigned to the Board. I have

some feelings on that myself and I would like to share them with you

so that you can tell me if I am not properly representing your views.

If this comes to pass I would hope that this work would be transferred

back to the Department of Commerce and, of course, handled at the National Bureau of Standards in the Office of Weights and Measures.

If you disagree with that point of view I hope you will express it to

me. I am your representative on the U.S. Metric Board, and it is my responsibility to try to represent your views, not necessarily mine,

and the only way that I can do that is if you share your views with

me

.

If I get the opportunity at the hearings I would like to recommend

that a small cadre from the U.S. Metric Board staff, which is familiar

with all of the things that have been done for some three or four years, might be assigned to this type of work in OVM with proper

funding. It makes no sense whatsoever to transfer these responsibilities

to anyone unless it is going to be properly funded. And so, I hope

you will let me know if you have any feelings to the contrary.

Although the Board's performance has left much to be desired by those

of us who favor metrication, some good work has been done. I do not think the Metric Board has had any significant impact on metric con- version in this country. The increasing use of the metric system was occurring in this country before the Board was created, and I think it will continue to increase after the Board ceases to exist. The one thing that really bothers me about Congress terminating the Metric

Board is a fear that the general public will perceive it as a with- drawal of the Federal Government's support of this movement. I also fear that those who have opposed metrication will seize the opportunity

to spread the word that the movement has failed, and we can now return

to business as usual - using our old customary system.

To help overcome such perceptions it will be necessary for those of us who believe metrication is in the best interest of our country to renew our dedication, and increase our support. Therefore, I would

like to conclude this report with a recommendation that the 66th National Conference on Weights and Measures restate its belief that conversion to the metric system of measurement is in the best interest

of our country, and demonstrate our support of metrication by

appointing a committee, or task force, on metrication to further this

cause by our own initiatives, and by joining with others, such as the American National Metric Council and the United States Metric

Association in raising metric awareness, and encouraging metric use.

105 POSITION STATEMENT - THE METRICATION

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Following the report by Mr. Andrews on the status of the U.S. Metric

Board, the Committee discussed its concern regarding the loss of metric information and coordination functions if the Board is dissolved. As a result of the discussion, the Committee agreed on the following resolution:

64
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

POSITION STATEMENT January 28, 1982

The Metrication of the United States of America

The National Conference on Weights and Measures, upon considering the possibility of the dissolution of the United States Metric Board, has adopted the following position:

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has historically

supported and continues to support metrication within the United

States, and furthermore recommends the assignment* of the essential

functions of the United States Metric Board, contingent with

provisions of funding and staffing, to the Department of Commerce.

Note. In the FY 1983 budget, the Federal functions and responsibilities

for voluntary metric conversion remaining after the U.S. Metric Board

is terminated have been assigned to the Office of Productivity, Technology,

and Innovation of the Department of Commerce.

65
105-1 ADMINISTRATION STATEMENT ON METRICATION

President Ronald Reagan sent the following letter dated March 9, 1982

to Louis Polk, Chairman of the U.S. Metric Board:

I want to thank the past and present members and staff of the

U.S. Metric Board for your service to the Nation in reducing the obstacles to voluntary metrication. You have succeeded in your

objective of educating the American people about the meaning of metric measurements in everyday life.
I appreciate your cooperation in the orderly phaseout of the Board's activities as part of my program to reduce government

spending and streamline its operations.

As you know, the Secretary of Commerce will be responsible for my

Administration's continued support of voluntary metrication. I am sure that Secretary Baldridge and his staff will appreciate

any advice you and the Board may have to offer with respect to his enhanced responsibilities.

Let me assure you of my support for the policy of voluntary

metrication expressed in the Metric Conversion Act of 1975. Finally, I want to personally thank you for your career of service to the Nation in the field of metrology.

With best regards,

106 REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

OF LEGAL METROLOGY (OIML) The committee was pleased to receive the following report from Mr. David

Edgerly, Manager of Domestic and International Standards Program, NBS

.

Over the past year, OIML committees have been very active in areas of interest to the NCWM. In September 1981, an international seminar on electronic weighing and metering systems was held in Boras, Sweden, to exchange views on the various approaches to verifying the performance

of electronic equipped weighing and metering systems. In October

1981, the French sponsored a working group meeting on grain moisture

meters at which a 3rd pre-draft OIML International Recommendation was

reviewed. As a result of this meeting, a 4th pre-draft has been

circulated within OIML member nations for approval. In May 1982, the United States hosted another meeting of OIML PS7/RS2 on electronic

weighing systems to discuss its 2nd pre-draft International Recommendation. A final draft OIML Recommendation on load cells was also completed

during this past year. Work is also proceeding in OIML on methods and devices for verifying liquid metering devices and on revision of the OIML Recommendation on measuring tapes and rules.

67
Activity has also begun within OIML on packaging and labeling under a committee chaired by the United States. This work (under PS20) will

focus on package labeling requirements and on methods for verifying

package quantity of contents declarations. Representatives of OWM

and/or the NCWM have taken part in all of these activities.

The United States has assumed responsibility for a technical committee

on packaging within OIML. Initial concern centers on harmonizing

requirements relating to labeling and to statistical methods for verifying package quantity of contents declarations. Accordingly, an organizational meeting for the purpose of establishing U.S. National

Working Groups to assist with developing recommendations dealing with

package labeling and sampling is being held in conjunction with the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Working groups for the parent committee and the subcommittee on labeling are to be considered

.

E. C. Heffron, Michigan, Chairman - NCWM

J. J. Bartfai, New York, Chairman - L&R Committee

F. Nagele, Michigan, Chairman - S&T Committee

K. J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman - Liaison Committee

J. L. Swanson, Alaska, Chairman - Education Committee

A. D. Tholen, NBS, Executive Secretary - NCWM

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL MEASUREMENT POLICY AND COORDINATION

(On motion of the Committee chairman, the report of the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination voting key items 100 through 106 was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The results

of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table

that follows. The Conference also authorized the Executive Secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference .

)

VOTING RESULTS- -Committee on National Measurement Policy

and Coordination

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Voting Key

Yes No Yes No

101 46 0 38 0

68
FINAL REPORT

OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

VOTING KEY

200 The Committee on Laws and Regulations presents its report

to the 67th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

This report consists of the interim report as printed in the Conference Announcement and as amended by the final

report. The report comprises recommendations of the com- mittee formed on the basis of written and oral comments

received during the year and oral presentations made during

the general meeting of the committee. All section references and references to model regulations are with

respect to National Bureau of Standards Handbook 130, 1982 Edition, "Model State Laws and Regulations" (H-130)

.

NOTE: Except where paragraphs or sections are to be added or com- pletely revised, changes to Handbook 130 are shown as follows: that which is to be deleted is shown lined out, and that which is to be added is underlined.

201 HANDBOOK 130 - GENERAL

201-1 ADOPTION BY CITATION

(This item was carried over from the 66th NCWM, 1981, in which it was assigned voting key 201-1.) At the 1980 annual meeting of the National Conference, the Laws and Regulations Committee was asked to explore a workable method of adoption by the States of Handbook 130 "Model State Laws and Regulations" by citation. Chairman John J. Bartfai asked Allen J. Farrar,

Legal Advisor for the National Bureau of Standards, to select a special study group with representatives from State government and industry. Members of the group are Neil D. Magnus, Deputy Attorney

General, Division of Law and Public Safety, State of New Jersey, and Neal D. Peterson, attorney for General Mills, Inc. The special study group met on February 6, 1981 and agreed to prepare

a questionnaire for State officials to determine current practices

regarding adoption of model laws and model regulations. The questionnaire was prepared and reviewed by group members and in consultation

with the Office of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards. During March 1981, the questionnaire was sent by Chairman

Bartfai to all State officials and the District of Columbia.

69

I
The questionnaire asked for information on the manner in which each

State adopted Handbooks 44 and 130 and subsequent changes in those model laws and regulations. An analysis of responses as prepared by

the special study group follows. Analysis of Adoption by Citation Survey

by A. J. Farrar, N. D. Magnus, and N. D. Peterson

Forty-three States and the District of Columbia (which will hereinafter be referred to as a State) , responded to the survey. A summary

of the responses follows: QUESTION 1(a) - How does your State adopt revisions of NBS Handbook

44? Nineteen States do so by statute: Alaska*, Arkansas*, Georgia,

Illinois, Maine*, Maryland*, Michigan, Mississippi*, New Hampshire*,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma*, Pennsylvania*, Utah*, Vermont

Virginia*, Washington*, West Virginia, and Wisconsin*.

Eighteen States adopt such revisions by regulation: Alabama, Colorado

the District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico*, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode

Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming. Seven States adopt revisions by statutes and implementing regulation:

California, Connecticut*, Missouri*, New Jersey, New York*, South

Dakota, and Tennessee. Thirteen of the 18 States that provide for automatic adoption of revisions do so by statute, two by regulation, and three by statute

and implementing regulation.

North Carolina said it had assumed that revisions are automatically

incorporated, although their statute does not specifically refer to revisions. However, their legal staff has raised questions about this

point; they are therefore considering adopting the handbook by regulation so that revisions can be incorporated as they are introduced.

Wyoming has a regulation which states that the "current edition" of Handbook 44 shall govern; however, changes do not seem to be adopted

automatically because, in response to a later question, they responded

that notice and hearing were required to adopt Handbook 44. Although three of the named "statute and implementing regulation"

States indicated that their statutes and implementing regulation provide for automatic adoption of revisions, Tennessee probably does also

*States identified with asterisk provide for automatic adoption of revisions

.

70
however, we did not have a copy of its implementing regulation at the time of this survey in order to verify this. See figure 1(a) for a graphical summary of this question.

QUESTION 1(b) - How does your State adopt revisions to the model

regulations in NBS Handbook 130? Five States adopt revisions to the model regulations by statute: Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Vermont.*

Fourteen States adopt revisions of Handbook 130 by regulation:

Florida**, Illinois, Louisiana**, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico,

Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,

Washington, and West Virginia. One of these States qualified its response by saying that some of the changes to Handbook 130, are "so broad that only the Legislature could enact them."

Six States utilize statutes and implementing regulations: Connecticut,

Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

Two States fall into an "other" category: the responses of Maine

(which automatically adopts the Model State Packaging and Labeling and Method of Sale Regulations) and Rhode Island were not definitive

enough to be categorized.

Thirteen States have not adopted Handbook 130: Alaska, Arkansas,

Colorado, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, New

York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Some of these States reported, however, in other surveys such as the one compiled and reported in Handbook 130 that they have adopted

certain individual model laws or regulations of which Handbook 130 is composed. Vermont is the only State reporting adoption of revisions of Handbook

130 automatically by citation. It does so by statute. Maine adopts

part of Handbook 130 automatically.

See figure 1(b) for a graphical summary.

*States identified with asterisk provide for automatic adoption of revisions

.

**Florida and Louisiana adopt portions of Handbook 130 by statute and portions by regulation, so they have been included in both categories

in the graphical summary.

71
25

20 -

15

10

1(a) How does your state adopt revisions of NBS Handbook 44

V~/\ Automatically ^* by citation

18

-7-7- 2/

Statute Regulation

3

Statute &

Regulation

25 1(b)-How does your state adopt revisions to the model regulation in NBS Handbook 130?

20 - Automatically

by citation

15

10

14

5 -

13

Statute Regulation Stat.& Other Have not Reg. adopted

72
QUESTION 2(a) - In order to adopt NBS Handbook 44 does the procedural

law of your State require:

Thirteen States require none of the above because adoption is automatic.

Of the notice and hearing States, three require hearings only if one

is requested by 25 or more people, and in two others the hearing

requirement is waived if no one asks for one. In that same category

some additional requirements were: review of the regulation by the State Office of Administrative Law (California) , review by an Administrative Procedure Committee (Florida) , review by the Attorney General

and a legislative review committee (Connecticut and Kansas) , and legislative approval of any regulation (required by two States) . One of the notice and hearing States also reported that both would be required

if it were adopting such changes by regulation, but that the State, in fact, adopts changes by statute. There are several problems with question 2(a). As written, it can be understood as asking what the procedural requirements for initial

adoption of Handbook 44 are. The answer obviously would vary depending

on whether the States chose to do so by statute or by regulation.

However, the question may have been interpreted differently by different

States. Some may have read it as referring to the procedural requirements applicable to the adoption of revisions of Handbook 44, which led thirteen States to respond that there were none because they adopt

revisions automatically, and some may have read it as referring to the initial adoption of H-44, which caused other automatic adoption

States to respond that a variety of procedures were required.

The same problems are also found in part (b) of Question 2, and they may explain the inconsistency between these responses and those to both

parts of Question 1. QUESTION 2(b) - In order to adopt any model regulation in NBS Handbook

130, does the procedural law of your State require:

Public Hearings - 0 Public Notice - 3 Public Notice and Hearings - 34 Other Requirements - 2

Public Hearings

Public Notice

Public Notice and Hearings

Other requirements

0

2 26

1

73
One of the public notice States said that hearings, although not required, are held as a matter of course. Three notice and hearing

States said a hearing is required only if requested by an interested

party, while three others in that group said that a hearing is required only if requested by 25 or more people.

Two notice and hearing States reported that they have not adopted any model regulations in Handbook 130, but said that a notice and hearing

would be required if they had adopted any model regulation.

Regarding other requirements, one notice and hearing State requires

review by its Board of Agriculture and the Legislature; California,

Connecticut, Florida, and Kansas have the same requirements as they

set forth in their response to Question 2(a) above; and another State

also has legislative review requirements.

2(a)- In order to adopt NBS Handbook 44, does the procedural law of your state require: 35 L_

Hearing Notice Notice & Other None

(only) (only) Hearing (auto)

2(b)-ln order to adopt any model regulation in NBS Handbook

130, does the procedural law of your state require:

Hearing Notice Notice& Other

(only) (only) Hrng. 74
QUESTION 3(a) - What is the frequency in your State of adopting

revisions of NBS Handbook 44 following recommendations of such adop

tion by the National Conference on Weights and Measures?

Yearly - 15 Other than yearly - 11, including:

Every other year

As often as necessary

Every 3 to 5 years Varies

Very infrequently

3

3

1

1

1 Of the two remaining "other than yearly" responses, one said "as sooi as possible after recommendation by NCWM," and the other said "never

in the past but recommending yearly in the future." QUESTION 3(b) - What is the frequency of adopting revisions of the model regulations in NBS Handbook 130? Yearly - 5 Other than yearly - 23, including:

Other responses under the "other than yearly category" included - "whenever possible," "depends on type of change, internal factors"

"as soon as possible after recommendation by NCWM," "no established

schedule," "H-130 has not been adopted," "H-130 is only used as a guideline" and "none in the past but recommending yearly in the future." Eight States said or implied that the question was not applicable because they had not adopted the Handbook.

In addition, one State which answered yearly said adoptions were by

reference

.

As deemed necessary

Seldom

Every 2 years

- 10

- 5 - 1

75
25 3(a) What is the frequency in your state of adopting

revisions of NBS Handbook 44...?

20

15

10

15

YEARLY EVERY AS OTHER

OTHER NECESSARY

YEAR

25 3 (b) -What is the frequency in your state of adopting

revisions of the model regulations in NBS

Handbook 130 ...? 20

15

10

10

YEARLY AS SELDOM

NECESSARY

76
QUESTION 4 - Which version (year) of the model regulations in NBS Handbook 130 has your State adopted?

Packaging & Labeling Unit Pricing

None - 4 None - 23 Unknown - 2 Enforced by A few parts another agency - 1 of 1953 - 1 1964 - 1 1964 - 1 1971 - 1 1966 - 1 1968 - 2 Registration of Servicepersons

1970 - 1 and Agencies

1970, with

'79 revisions - 1 None - 11 1971 - 2 Own licensing

1972 - 2 law - 1 1973 - 1 Unknown - 2 1974 - 2 1959 - 1 1975 - 1 1964 - 1 1976, with 1966 - 1 amendments - 1 1969 - 1 1979 - 2 1970 - 2 1980 - 2 1970 with 79 revisions - 1 Method of Sale 1971 - 1 1974 - 1 None - 13 1978 - 1 A few parts 1979 - 1 of 1953 1980 - 2 1964

1969 Open Dating

1971 1972 None - 21 1973 1971 - 1 1975 1974 - 1 1976 1979 1980 Portions only - 11

Eight States said that they had not adopted any version of Handbook 130.

77
QUESTION 5 - Would your State consider adopting model regulations that you deem appropriate either as guidelines or intact as written?

Pa ckaging and Labeling

Guidelines

Intact Neither

- 19 - 15

3, including:

"Have own version1 Method of Sale Guidelines - 18 Intact - 10 Neither - 5, including one State with no authority to adopt such a regulation, and two with own law on the subject

Unit Pricing

Guidelines

Intact Neither

- 11 - 8 - 12, including: "Own law" "Too many uncontrollable variables"

"Insufficient public support, legislative sym- pathy or departmental interest"

Registration of Servicepersons and Agencies

Guidelines

Intact Neither

- 18

- 77, including:

"Covered by statute' "Not cost effective'

Open Dating

Guidelines - 19 Intact - 6 Neither - 10 Of the States which answered "Neither,"

7 furnished additional comments as shown below

"Covered by statute" - 1 "Another agency handles" - 3 "Being considered by legislature" - 1 "Shortage of help" - 1 "Too many uncontrollable variables" - 1 "Insufficient public support, etc." - 1

78
Additionally, one State gave no specific answers but said that it "by and large adopted the model regulations intact." Another simply

responded "yes."

One State, which said it would consider adopting Unit Pricing and Open

Dating regulations intact, qualified that information by adding that

the Legislature, however, had already done something different. Another

gave a similar response to the Registration of Serviceperson and Service

Agency regulation.

Regarding the Registration of Serviceperson regulation, one State in

the "Neither" category said that it believed "the regulation should be mandatory, with penalties for violations."

One State responded "Neither" to all model regulations in Handbook 130 because it "provided adequate regulation in other formats."

An estimate of the level of error that may exist in responses to Questions 4 and 5 was obtained by comparing the responses received to this questionnaire with the results of another Committee on Laws and Regulations Survey of the Model Regulation for the Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies. Of 10 States that are known to have adopted the Model Registration Regulation intact, and to have

also responded to this questionnaire, six States answered by checking

"guidelines," two States did not answer this part, and only two States correctly checked "intact as written."

79
o

SO
QUESTION 6 - Two versions of Question 6 were asked. Thirty-one of the

44 returned questionnaires contained the following Question 6: How does your State adopt administrative regulations? Do regulations originate with the Legislature or with adminstrative

agencies? Please provide copies of procedural statutes, regulations, court decisions or Attorney General opinions that control the process. Ten States responded merely that regulations originate with administrative agencies. One State advised that there was no legislative

review of its regulations, another said that notice of the proposed

rulemaking is required to be given, and one State said that notice and hearing are required. Seven States said that their regulations originate with administrative

agencies, but are subject to review by the Legislature or some part

thereof. One of those seven also has a provision for review by the Attorney General. One State said that a hearing is required, as well

as review by the Governor and the Legislature.

One State said that it requires notice, hearing, and review by the State's Administrative Procedure Committee.

One State said that its regulations originate with administrative

agencies; after notice and hearing they are referred to the State Attorney General for review and recorded with the Secretary of State.

In that State all regulations by statute have a two year sunset provision. This State is currently in the process of rewriting its statutes to cover all important matters formerly covered by regulations,

so that they need not be re-enacted every two years.

One State responded that administrative regulations may originate with

either the administrative agency, the Legislature, or both. One State (Alabama) reported regulations are promulgated after notice

and a hearing before the State Board of Agriculture and Industries.

The remaining 13 questionnaires contained this version: How are federal regulations and subsequent revisions thereof adopted in your State (i.e., regulations appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations)? ... Bear in mind that NBS Handbook 44 and

the model regulations in NBS Handbook 130 are not federal regulations.

81
By Statute

By Regulation

By Statute and Implementing Regulation

Other

- 1 - 2 - 42, including:

By administrative agencies

- 4 - 1 No Answer

Other Possible Inconsistencies in Survey Responses

In addition to the inconsistencies discussed under Questions 2, 4, 5, and 6, the responses of several States displayed other apparent

internal inconsistencies, which reflect a difference between the information intended to be collected by the study group and the understanding of the question by those responding.

The District of Columbia stated that it adopted revisions of Handbook

44 by statute and, in support, attached a copy of an Order of the City's Board of Commissioners adopting the handbook. Evidently the Board of Commissioners have legislative powers in the city.

California stated that revisions to Handbook 130 were adopted by statute and implementing regulation and that it adopts revisions

yearly. It then stated, in response to Question 4, that it has not

yet adopted Handbook 130' s model regulations. New Hampshire said that it adopts revisions of Handbook 130 automatically, and yet in response to Question 4 it said it had adopted the following versions of the model regulations: 1969 (Packaging and Labeling), 1969 (Method of Sale), 1974 (Unit Pricing), 1970 (Registration of Servicepersons and Agencies) , and 1974 (Open Dating) . New

Hampshire may have responded with the year of initial adoption of these regulations. It also said that it adopted Handbook 130 revisions

by statute, but supplied copies of model regulations in support. Tennessee responded that it adopts revisions to Handbook 44 by statute. However, the statute supplied requires its Commissioner of Agriculture

to adopt regulations with regard to tolerances, specifications, etc., and provides that these standards shall be those contained in Handbook

44, with revisions. Therefore, Tennessee is classified in the "statute

and implementing regulation" category, although this classification

has resulted by inference.

Eight States submitted additional materials regarding adoption of future amendments by reference. They are: Alaska — Chapter 11 of the Alaska Administrative Code says that under

presently controlling court decisions, an agency may not adopt by

reference future amendments of standards promulgated by third parties.

Additional Materials Submitted

82
Connecticut — Attorney General's Opinion that the State Weights and Measures Chief feels upholds their statute, which adopts future amendments of Handbook 44 automatically. However, the opinion does

not address itself to the issue of whether amendments adopted after

the enactment of the statute are properly incorporated therein.

Hawaii — State statute prohibits adoption of future amendments of third party standards through the use of such terms as "as may be amended," among others. A specified version of these standards must

be adopted.

Idaho — State administrative procedure act, in a section governing

incorporation by reference, requires compliance with the same notice

and hearing provisions governing the original adoption when incorporating subsequent amendments.

Iowa — State Agriculture Department's legal counsel makes the following statement: "In adopting federal regulations through administrative

rule or the legislative process, it is essential that the federal regulations be limited to a given date."

Kansas — Two cases and an Attorney General's Opinion were cited,

stating that adoption by reference must be to a specific version.

Adoption of future amendments is an unlawful delegation of legislative

authority.

Michigan — Attorney General's Opinion was cited, reaching the same conclusion as the materials supplied by Kansas, above. The opinion

cites a Michigan case upon whose holding the opinion is based. North Carolina — Its statute as written adopts Handbook 44 by reference without any mention of revisions. They have been assuming that revisions were automatically adopted. However, due to questions

raised by their legal staff, they are considering adopting the Handbook by regulation so that they may incorporate revisions as they are adopted.

Study Group Observations

Although there were a few problems, this survey was quite useful in that

we now know that at least 18 States, and possibly as many as 19, presently permit incorporation of future amendments of Handbook 44 by

reference (it is possible that this approach could be used for Handbook

130) . We now also know that seven of the eight States listed above

under the heading "Additional Materials Submitted" have problems with

adopting something not yet in existence. But as for the remaining

States, we still do not know how many of them have a definite prohibition against such an approach.

83
Study Group Recommendations

The Study Group net again on July 1, 1982, in order to prepare recommendations for the Committee. These are:

1. A notification of changes and actions taken at the National

Conference should be communicated to the weights and measures

administrators by the Chairman of the Conference as promptly as possible following the annual meeting. The Study Group feels

such communication would prove beneficial in that it would give

the States added impetus to start the necessary procedures that would bring about the incorporation of those changes or other NCWM actions in the States' weights and measures laws and regulations. Further, this prompt notification is preferable to that of simply allowing the delegates to return to their

respective States carrying with them their notes and

recollections of such changes as may have taken place or of waiting for the official report of the Conference to be issued

seme six or seven months after the Conference has ended.

2. The Study Group feels that adoption by the States of the model

lavs and model regulations in Handbook 130 might receive a more

favorable and speedy acceptance if the title of Handbook 130 was

changed by substituting the word "uniform" for the verb "model"

in the title. The Study Group recognizes that such change may be viewed as merely cosmetic rather than substantive. The word

"mcdei" is intended to provide a guide for the States and thereby

allow each State to utilize those portions of the model laws or regulations which best fit its requirements rather than simply

adopting it in totality which is what the word "uniform" might

seem to imply. In fairness, it should be pointed out that the decision to offer this recommendation was more or less evenly

divided among the members of the Committee. While the issue is not free from doubt as to its wisdom or possible effectiveness,

it is apparent that the adoption of the regulations in Handbook

130 has gone on at a rather slow pace. Hence, on balance, it is felt that the change could prove helpful. Lawyers, who after all

are instrumental in bringing about the necessary adoption (inasmuch

as the process of adoption is essentially a legal process) , are relatively mere comfortable through experience and training with

a "uniform" law or regulation than with so-called "model" laws or regulations

.

3. In order to encourage the adoption by citation of the regulations

in Handbook 130, several sections should be added to the Model State Weights and Measures Law the wording of which would be similar to that of Section 4 concerning Handbook 44. The Study Group proposes

to provide wording for these several sections that would immediately

follow Section 4 of the Model State Weights and Measures Law and that would permit automatic adoption of each of the regulations set out in Handbook 130. As there is insufficient time between now and the Conference to provide the appropriate wording for those new

84
sections, it is requested that the Committee agree to give the Study Group additional time to draft such sections for consideration by the Committee at its next interim meeting. Such wording,

if it were then approved by the Committee, could be presented for next year's Conference.

In connection with this latter recommendation, the Study Group proposes that a transmittal letter be furnished to the Superintendent of Weights and Measures of each State urging him

to coordinate with the Attorney General of his State the wording

of those sections so as to be certain that such wording is not

contrary to the constitutional requirements of that particular

State. The Study Group will prepare for consideration by the Committee such a transmittal letter. The Study Group will

furnish the Committee a draft of such a letter at the same time

that the proposed wording of the new sections is provided.

Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommends continuation of this task by the Special

Study Group and that this item be carried over. (Item 201-1 was adopted.)

202 MODEL STATE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

202-1 SECTION 12. SALE FROM BULK

The Northwest and the Western Weights and Measures Associations

proposed modifications to this section in order to permit retail motor

fuel deliveries to be sold without a delivery ticket even though a single delivery can easily exceed $20 as provided in the Model Law. The Committee discussed the two alternatives proposed by each association: (1) exempting retail motor fuel deliveries up to and including

30 gallons; (2) changing the requirement for a delivery ticket from

sales in excess of $20 to sales in excess of $100. The Committee is opposed to the second solution, namely raising the dollar value of sales for which a delivery ticket is required because

other commodities (such as firewood) are delivered as a sale from bulk

and the Committee feels the consumer deserves a receipt for delivery

in these instances. When the Committee investigated the first solution offered, namely

exempting retail motor fuel deliveries of less than 30 gallons, it became apparent that the problem was not Section 12, but the definition of "Sale from Bulk," Section 1.8. It reads: The term "sale from bulk" means the sale of commodities when the quantity is determined at the time of sale.

85
This definition would require a delivery ticket with any purchase over

$20 —from a butcher (for example) when he or she weighs the product at the time of sale even though the process of weighing can be seen by

the purchaser. Similarly, a retail motor fuel delivery can be witnessed

by the buyer as to the amount delivered by the fuel dispenser. In fact, the Committee believes the intent of Section 12 is to protect

the consumer when he or she is not able to witness the measurement as when heating oil or other fuel is delivered to a home, prewrapped and frozen packages from a side of beef are delivered, etc. If this is in fact the intent of Section 12, as the Committee believes it is, then Section 1.8 should be modified.

The Committee recommends discussion of this issue at the annual con- ference and asks for additional input and interpretations by interested

parties. The Committee does not intend to recommend a change to the Model Law at this time, but if the Committee's interpretation is correct, a change of wording of Section 1.8 should be considered in

the coming year. As a first draft of such wording, the Committee

offers the following for information only: SECTION 1.8. SALE FROM BULK: The term "sale from bulk" means the sale of commodities when the quantity is determined at the time of sale, and the buyer or seller is not able to witness the measurement.

The Committee recommends that this item be carried over. (Item 202-1 was adopted.)

203 MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

203-1 FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION REVIEW OF MODEL REGULATIONS

(This item was carried over from the 66th NCWM, 1981, in which it was assigned a voting key of 204-4.)

In 1981, the Liaison Committee requested the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to review the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation as to the consistency of the NCWM model regulation metric

labeling provisions with Federal regulations. No response has yet been

received from USDA, and FTC responded that the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires metric equivalents to be stated on packages in the same way as inch-pound disclosures are made (this means the Models are consistent with FTC requirements in this regard) . FTC also provided a copy of its staff guidelines pertaining to metric. Further communications

will be made with FTC to determine the force and effect of these guidelines and whether the NCWM models can be seen to be in conflict with such guidelines

.

The FDA provided a considerable review of the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, the Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale

of Commodities, and the Guidelines for the Method of Retail Sale for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (adopted by the NCWM in 1980). FDA's review covered more than the question of consistency of optional

86
metric labeling. The Committee discussed each comment by FDA with a representative of FDA at the Interim Meetings.

Each comment in reference to the Model State Packaging and Labeling

Regulation is addressed below. Comments in reference to the Model

State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities are found in voting keys 204-1 and 206-6 and that comment pertaining to the Guidelines for the Method of Sale for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables is taken

up in voting key 206-7. 203-1-1 SECTION 2.2. CONSUMER PACKAGE: PACKAGE OF CONSUMER

COMMODITY

FDA suggested changing "customarily produced or distributed for sale"

to "sold" in order for the Model to have the same wording as FDA

regulations. The Committee argued that such change in wording might

endanger the jurisdiction of weights and measures in warehouse or packaging plant locations where packages are not sold but are produced

or distributed for sale. Therefore, the Committee recommends no change to the present wording.

203-1-2 SECTION 6.1. GENERAL (PACKAGES SUBJECT TO FAIR PACKAGING

AND LABELING ACT) FDA suggested inserting a caution that packages subject to the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) must be labeled in inch-pound units.

Metric units may also be declared and may even appear first on the label, but inch-pound units must be declared. The Committee recommends,

therefore, a footnote be added to Section 6.1. as follows: Packages subject to the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act must be labeled in inch-pound units of measure. Metric units may

also be declared on the principal display panel and may even appear first. 203-1-3 SECTION 6.3. NET QUANTITY FDA recommended referencing aerosol packages. Therefore, the Committee

recommends the following revision:

6.3. NET QUANTITY. — A declaration of net quantity of the commodity in the package, exclusive of wrappers and any other material packed with such commodity ( except as noted in Section

10.3) shall appear on the principal display panel of a consumer package and, unless otherwise specified in this regulation (see

subsections 6.7. through 6.8.3.), shall be in terms of the largest

whole unit. 203-1-4 SECTION 6.5.2. UNITS OF TWO OR MORE MEANINGS

FDA recommended amplifying or omitting the phrase "such distinction

may be omitted when... the proper meaning is obvious" because it seems

to ignore the requirements for the dual declaration for sizes less

87
than one gallon. The Committee argues that this section was not meant

to indicate that dual declaration was not necessary, but instead to indicate that the word "fluid" could be dropped under certain circumstances. The Committee, therefore, recommends inserting in the example the full net contents label so that there will be no misunderstanding of the intent. The Committee recommends the following revision:

6.5.2. UNITS OF TWO OR MORE MEANINGS. — When the term "ounce"

is employed in a declaration of liquid quantity, the declaration

shall identify the particular meaning of the term by the use of

the term "fluid"; however, such distinction may be omitted when,

by association of terms (for example, as in "20 fluid ounces, 1 pint 4 ounces"), the proper meaning is obvious. Whenever the declaration of quantity is in terms of the dry pint or dry quart,

the declaration shall include the word "dry."

203-1-5 SECTION 8.2.1. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF NUMBERS AND LETTERS

The FDA recommended deleting the proviso in this section concerning

the minimum height standard for the "m" in the symbol "mL" since this

conflicts with FDA regulations. (This proviso does not agree with FTC

staff guidelines on metric either.) The Committee recommends the following revision:

8.2.1. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF NUMBERS AND LETTERS. — The height of any letter or number in the required quantity declaration shall be not less than that shown in Table 1 with respect to the area

of the panel, and the height of each number of a common fraction

shall meet one-half the minimum height standards-^ P-revided-ift-fche ease-e#-the-symbel-#©r-»±ililite?--the-lim--9hdii-meet-©ne-hai#

fehe-ffiiftiaum-height-sfcaftdard . In the case of the symbol for milliliter, the "m" shall meet the minimum height standard.

203-1-6 SECTION 10.3. AEROSOLS AND SIMILAR PRESSURIZED CONTAINERS FDA made no specific recommendations at this time, but noted in written comments to the Committee that FDA has not yet responded to the NCWM petition to require net weight on aerosols. Therefore, the Committee recommends no change to this section.

203-1-7 SECTION 13.1. (a) "CENTS-OFF" REPRESENTATIONS

FDA recommended adding further examples such as are described in FDA

regulations. The Committee recommends the following revision:

13.1. "CENTS-OFF" REPRESENTATIONS. —

(a) The term "cents-off representation" means any printed matter

consisting of the words "cents-off" or words of similar

import (bonus offer, 2 for 1 sale, lc sale, etc.) placed

88

1
upon any consumer package or placed upon any label affixed

or adjacent to such package, stating or representing by

implication that it is being offered for sale at a price

lower than the ordinary and customary retail sale price. 203-1-8 SECTION 13. L. (b) (5)a. "CENTS-OFF" REPRESENTATIONS

FDA recommended rewording this section to fully conform to existing FDA regulations. As currently stated, the Model is a word-for-word

copy of FTC regulations. Therefore, the Committee recommends no change at this time. The Committee will investigate whether FDA and

FTC requirements are consistent and whether other means can be devised

in order to make the Model consistent with both FDA and FTC regulations.

(Item 203-1 was adopted.)

203-2 NONWOVEN SYNTHETIC SCOURING PADS: VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED NET QUANTITIES

(This item was carried over from the 66th NCWM, 1981, in which it was

assigned a voting key of 202-3.) The Committee received more detailed data from the 3M Company concerning their request for individual package variations specific for this

commodity. After lengthy discussion, the Committee did not feel ready

to endorse 3M's request yet because:

o The data provided by 3M covered only one size of product

(approximately 9" by 6" dimensions) . The Committee would

like to see measurement data on other sizes of products if

it is to consider a special variation for nonwoven synthetic

scouring pads in general.

o There was no information provided by 3M as to whether the data on non-3M products is from one or several competitors.

The Committee would ideally like to see data from as many

manufacturers as possible before making any recommendations.

The sentiments of the Committee will be transmitted to 3M together

with its thanks for 3M work and cooperation to date. The Committee emphasizes that the variations that are being considered

here are not tolerances for all packages but are, instead, maximum

individual package variations to be used in addition to the average requirement for a lot, shipment, or delivery. The Committee recommends

holding this item over the coming year. (Item 203-2 was adopted.)

203-3 BAKERY PRODUCTS: VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED NET WEIGHTS

The American Bakers Association proposes the need for special variations for bakery products similar to Section 10.9.3. Textiles:

Variations from Declared Dimensions. Neither the permitted variations

in Handbook 67 ("Unreasonable Minus or Plus Errors") or in Handbook

133 ("Maximum Allowable Variations") are large enough, they contend,

39
for the special quality control problems prevalent in their industry. The Association and several individual members met with the Committee

and described some of the special problems facing those producing

yeast-leavened or chemically-leavened bakery products. The major

problem cited was that there are several steps after dividing the dough prior to packaging a finished product (rising, baking, cooling,

slicing, icing, etc.) that contribute greatly to final package weight

variations; however, only the initial dividing of the dough permits

direct control by the packager. The Association intends to provide

data to the Committee to indicate the extent of their need. They

intend to provide data on several types of products and several

different bakeries (both large and small) . They have also requested

the assistance of the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau

of Standards, to guide then in data collection and compilation.

The Committee recommends carrying this item over until a specific

proposal is offered.

The Committee would like, however, to clarify the intent of this

proposal as well as the interpretation of Section 10.9.3. Variations

from declared contents are not to be interpreted as tolerances for all packages. It is intended that these variations are to be applied to individual packages only; the average net contents of a lot, shipment,

or delivery must still equal or exceed the label declaration (the average requirement)

.

(Item 203-3 was adopted.)

204 MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR IKE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

204-1 FDA REVIEW: PACKAGES SUBJECT TO FAIR PACKAGING ANB LABELING ACT

As discussed in voting key 203-1-2 with respect to the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation, the Committee recommends a footnote

be added to Section 1 and Section 2 headings of the Method of Sale Regulation as a caution that packages subject to FPLA must be labeled

in inch-pound units. The Committee recommends the footnote to read as follows

:

Packages subject to the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act must be labeled in inch-pound units of measure. Metric units may

also be declared cn the principal display panel and may even appear first.

(Item 204-1 was adopted.)

204-2 SECTION 1.3. BUTTER, OLEOMARGARINE, AND MARGARINE

(This item was carried over from the 66th NCWM, 1981, in which it was assigned a voting key of 203-1.)

The NCWM voted last year to retain the 500 g size permitted in Section

1.3. (b) for butter, oleomargarine, and margarine. At the Conference,

information was introduced to the Committee that Section 407(b)(2) of

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) prohibits the sale

90
of oleomargarine or margarine in package sizes greater than one pound.

The Liaison Committee requested clarification of this issue from both

the U.S. Metric Board and the FDA. Section 407(b)(2) of the FDC Act provides that "[n]o person shall

sell, or offer for sale, colored oleomargarine or colored margarine

unless... the net weight of the contents of any package sold in a retail establishment is one pound or less." 21 U.S.C. 347(b)(2).

It is FDA's opinion that any State regulation authorizing the sale of oleomargarine in packages in excess of one pound would be superseded

by Section 407(b)(2) of the FDC Act, and any sale or offer for sale of such oleomargarine would constitute a violation of Section 407(b)(2).

Accordingly, to the extent that the Model State Regulation is interpreted as permitting the sale of 500-g packages of oleomargarine, such

sales would be prohibited by section 407(b)(2) of the FDC Act. The Committee is of the opinion that this portion of the FDC Act is archaic and unnecessary, and that margarine packagers ought to be able

to market their product with the same freedom butter packagers presently

have. Therefore, the Committee will request the Liaison Committee to petition FDA to bring this issue before Congress in its annual review with

Congress of needed legislation and legislative changes to the FDC Act.

In the meantime, the Committee recommends adding the following statement

as a footnote to Section 1.3: Oleomargarine and margarine are not permitted in multiples of one pound, 500 grams, or multiples of 500 grams because Section

407(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits

margarine and oleomargine packaged in sizes greater than one pound

.

The Committee would also like to alert weights and measures enforcement

officials that there are products which are sold in refrigerated cases

in supermarkets often beside margarine and often in 2-pound packages. These products are often labeled as "spread." They are not margarine

in terms of the FDA standard defining margarine (at least 80% fat)

.

These products are not restricted by the above mentioned section of the FDC Act. (Item 204-2 was adopted.)

204-3 SECTION 1.5. MEAT, POULTRY, AND SEAFOOD With increasing appearance of convenience foods in the retail meat

case, meats such as pork chops, veal, etc., are being prepared by

the retail store with stuffing ready for cooking. Section 1.5. requires the labels of ready-to-cook, stuffed poultry products to indicate the total net weight of the poultry product and the minimum

net weight of the poultry in the product. This requirement should

be broadened so as to include stuffed meat as well as stuffed poultry.

91
Since it is possible for some stuffing mixtures to contain meat or poultry, the Committee also recommends clarifying language to indicate

that the minimum weight statement apply only to the stuffed poultry or meat and not to the meat content, if any, of the stuffing mixture.

The Committee proposes amending the last paragraph of Section 1.5 as follows:

In the case of ready-to-cook, stuffed poultry or meat products,

the label must show the total net weight of the stuffed poultry

or meat product and the minimum net weight of the poultry or meat

in the product excluding that meat or poultry which may be part

of the stuffing . (Item 204-3 was adopted.)

204-4 SECTIONS 1.6(b) AND 1.7(b) METRIC EQUIVALENTS TO INCH- POUND SIZES FOR FLUID MILK PRODUCTS AND OTHER MILK PRODUCTS

The Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

permits packages to be put up either in inch-pound or metric sizes. Sections 1.6(b) and 1.7(b) specifically list metric equivalents to the inch-pound sizes permitted in subsections (a) of each section. No other section in the Model Regulation specifically lists metric

equivalents to inch-pound sizes and no section lists inch-pound

equivalents to metric sizes. Since it was the intent of the NCWM to permit for any product in the Model Regulation either metric or inch-pound sizes as the primary declaration (with inch-pound or metric

equivalents also on the principal display panel if required or desiredsee voting key 203-1-2 and 204-1) , the Committee recommends deleting

Sections 1.6(b) and 1.7(b) and renumbering the remaining paragraph in each section as follows:

1.6. FLUID MILK PRODUCTS. — All fluid milk products, including

but not limited to milk, lowfat milk, skim milk, cultured milks,

and cream shall be packaged for retail sale only in volumes per subsection 1.6(a) or subsection 1.6(b) ©f~£e)-: Provided , that inch-pound sizes less than 1 gill and metric sizes less than 100 milliliters shall be permitted.

(a) Inch-Pound Volumes - 1 gill, 1/2 liquid pint, 10 fluid

ounces, 1 liquid pint, 1 liquid quart, 1/2 gallon, 1 gallon,

1-1/2 gallons, 2 gallons, 2-1/2 gallons, or multiples of 1 gallon

.

4b>—Mefcrie-Velttmes i±8-miliili*e*s--336-m±iiii±tei?9T-296

m±iliiitef9T-4?3-iaiiiilitei?ST-946-miiiiiitei?ST-4:T89-l±te5fST 5T78-lite¥sT-^-r6?-lite¥9T-7T§6-i±fcefST-9T45-iitef9T-©i?

4e> (b) Metric Volumes - 125 milliliters, 250 milliliters, 500 milliliters, 1 liter, or multiples of 1 liter (effective

January 1, 1982).

92
1.7. OTHER MILK PRODUCTS. — Cottage cheese, cottage cheese products, and other milk products that are solid, semi-solid,

viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid, as defined in the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance of the U.S. Public Health Service, as amended in 1965, shall be sold in terms of weight: Provided , that cottage cheese, cottage cheese products, sour cream, and yogurt shall be packaged for retail sale only in weights per subsection 1.7(a) or subsection 1.7(b) er—£e)-: and Provided further,

that multipack or single serving inch-pound sizes of 6 ounces or

less shall be sold only in whole ounce increments, and that metric sizes of 200 grams or less shall be sold only in 25-gram

increments

.

(a) Inch-Pound Weights - 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 64, 80, and 128 ounces avoirdupois.

and-8T62-kiieg¥ams-4e##eet±ve-^aRuai?y-iT-4:982>T 4e> J(b)_ Metric Weights - 250, 375, 500, 750 grams; 1, 2, and 4 kilograms (effective January 1, 1982).

(Standard package sizes shall apply to low fat and dry curd cottage cheese products as of July 1, 1976.)

(Item 204-4 was adopted.)

204-5 ICE CREAM AND FROZEN DESSERT COMBINATION FOODS

(This item was carried over from the 66th NCWM, 1981, in which it was

assigned voting key 203-6.) A variety of types of frozen dessert foods are being sold in combination

with each other (ice cream, cookies, coatings, etc.) and are being

labeled differently from packager to packager. In addition, the net contents declarations as presently expressed on the packages make

compliance testing impossible. For example, an ice milk dessert in a cone with chocolate and nut topping is labeled " 3 fl oz ice milk and

1 cone." Another example, an ice cream and cookie sandwich, is labeled "3 fl oz sandwich." A third example, another sandwich, is labeled "3 fl oz plus 2 wafers." The weight or other declaration of the wafer, cookies, cone, or topping is not made and it would be quite

difficult to separate the ice cream, ice milk, etc. from the rest of the dessert in order to determine compliance with the 3 fl oz statement.

The Committee believes that the key to this problem lies in the definition of this type of product, believes that it is a combination

food, and therefore that such products should be labeled by net weight

of the total product. The Committee intends to find out by formal

request to FDA whether that agency would agree with this interpretation. This item will be carried over until next year. (Item 204-5 was adopted.)

93
z:;z i?::i::s

rsidered by the

:e temir.clcgy

;

rails in thickness.

turn requires reri: rem "riln" :c:ur =

ccr.sur.er

sections

ireustry

_ = . . . c

cr.e cre_e ::

- - . — .-^ rreduors re

2.12.6.) to

r r :r : sal re 2.12.1 for !

: r :r_ c : _ve ::.v.e-f 2.12.5. and

ed. One

e::-_:r.s 1. 12. 1. errs creviced

liccle reel differ

filr. ir the rearket;

d: -ic-y :urself arc 2.12.2. through 2.

leetirg arc

: reduce for

verge:

e. 7c r exarrpie, rev- are as srrerg arc

rver.cier.al polyethylene

•eight cf thickness

ces, rcr

94 4
o The absence of a declared net weight does not prevent the use of weight as an enforcement screening device for bags

and wrap. The unit weight of any polyethylene product can be determined and used to calculate an expected net weight

for the package. Only those packages that fall short of the calculated weight need undergo more rigorous measurements of length, width, etc. The Committee discussed the need to define how net weight would be obtained and declared for Sections 2.12.1, 2.12.5, and 2.12.6 (sheeting and film) . Industry and weights and measures officials at the interim hearings agreed that Section 4.6.3. of NBS Voluntary Product

Standard 17-69 should be the formula used to calculate the net weight

that should appear on the label. Since Voluntary Product Standard

17-69 (VPS) is no longer maintained by the Department of Commerce,

National Bureau of Standards, and has not been adopted yet by other

standardization bodies, the committee recommends that the new weight

calculation contained in the VPS be specifically described in the model regulation.

Therefore, the Committee proposes modifying Section 2.12 as follows:

2.12. POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS. — Consumer products offered and exposed for sale at retail shall be sold in terms of:

2. 12.1. SHEETING AND FILM

(a) length and width

(b) area in square feet or square meters

(c) thickness

(d) weight

2. 12.2. FOOD WRAP ANB-FifcM.

(a) length and width

(b) area in square feet or square meters

2. 12.3. LAWN AND TRASH BAGS. —

(a) count

(b) dimensions

(c) thickness

2. 12.4. FOOD AND SANDWICH BAGS

(a) count

(b) dimensions

Products not intended for the retail consumer shall be offered

and exposed for sale in terms of:

2. 12.5. SHEETING AND FILM.

(a) length

(b) width

(c) thickness

(d) weight

2. 12.6. BAGS. —

(a) count

(b) dimensions

(c) thickness

(d) weight

95
1.16.1.1. riZCIirS HZ1A15 . — loll, silver, platinum, or any

.;ez ::np: = ei parrl" :r -mple-ely :f .nese retels :r "ieir

= 11:7= eni in v'-ic'- ine ri:Ve: v = l_e :f tie neral in tie item

1= principally lie grit, silver. :r platinum component.
The conversion chart shall also display a table of troy weights

indicating grains, pennyweights, and troy ounces. The Committee would like to point out that the customary unit of measure for precious metals is troy weight rather than avoirdupois;

therefore, the latter (avoirdupois) should not be permitted as a method of sale or unit of measure.

The Committee also points out that Section 4 of the Model Weights and Measures Law prescribes that commercial devices must meet Handbook 44 requirements. The Specifications and Tolerances Committee has addressed

the issue of suitable equipment for weighing precious metals in prior

years

.

After publication of the agenda, the Committee received a proposal

which included the following:

o require a delivery ticket to include (among other identification) total weight of the item in troy units, the price

per unit troy per karat value, and the total price.

o require posting of acid etch colors associated with the determination of karat value or fineness.

The consideration of the appropriateness of this proposal or similar

proposals could not be adequately evaluated by the Committee during

the interim meeting or subsequently; therefore, the above proposal

(requiring a delivery ticket and requiring color posting) will be carried over for the coming year. (Item 204-7 was adopted.)

204-8 POTTING AND TOP SOIL Potting and top soils and soil amendments have been appearing in the marketplace labeled either by weight or by dry volume or both. There

is no trade association representing manufacturers of these products;

therefore, the Committee invited several individual packagers to share their views on appropriate labeling. There are several materials used as bases to these products, among

them: sand, peat, bark, soil, and several man-made materials. Their

densities vary considerably from one another, and there is a large

variation in their moisture content. The Committee is of the opinion

that the appropriate net contents statement should be dry volume,

(with or without net weight as the packager chooses) . The Committee

solicits the opinions and experience of the Conference membership and other interested parties during the coming year as to whether a method

of sale should be recommended for this product. The Committee,

therefore, recommends carrying this item over. (Item 204-8 was adopted.)

97

would broaden the use of registered private service firms in routine

commercial device testing and approval (see Report of the 66th National

Conference on Weights and Measures, 1981, p. 107). Since there is overlap

between the proposed Model Program and the existing Model Registration

Regulation, the Committee on Laws and Regulations expressed the need

to study the Model Registration Regulation in parallel with its study

of the proposed Model Program.

The study explores such issues as the following:

o Since State and local governments have a responsibility to optimize their resources on every level, are registration

programs (such as the Model Registration Regulation or any other type in place at State level) perceived by the States' to be resource beneficial in obtaining device compliance?

o What is the status of the adoption of the Model Registration

Regulation by the States?

o What are the options for improving the provisions of the Model Registration Regulation?

o Neither the Model Registration Regulation nor the Model Program

for Field Verification of Devices provides clear guidance on optimal administration, management, and use of registration,

registered agencies, and agency test results. As a result, a diversity of operations under the loose heading of "registration

programs" and a diversity of implementation schemes of the Model

Registration Regulation should be apparent among those States

that have adopted it. An investigation of the various

implementation schemes for registration in place today should provide guidance for improving the implementation and use of the Model Registration Regulation, the proposed Model Program

for Field Verification of Devices, or any other registration

program. There were two main sources of data for this study: (1) a questionnaire sent out by the NCWM Committee on Laws and Regulations and

(2) a collection of State laws and regulations maintained by the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) , National Bureau of Standards, on most, but not all, of the States. The conclusions of the study are based on a combination of the results of the questionnaire, study of the State laws and regulations, the author's knowledge, and discussions

with experienced State and local regulatory officials.

99
In March, 1981, a questionnaire was mailed out by the Chairman of the NCWM Committee on Laws and Regulations to the 50 State weights and measures directors, 21 major city and county weights and measures

directors, the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico (PR), and the Virgin Islands (VI) (Report of the 66th National Conference on Weights

and Measures, 1981, p. 106). Local jurisdictions to which the questionnaire was sent were selected arbitrarily based on a mailing list of larger local jurisdictions used by the OWM. All 50 States, DC, and PR responded by mail. Although only 7 of the 21 local agencies responded by

mail, a telephone followup confirmed that no local jurisdictions had

registration programs different from that of its State except for New York

City (which responded by mail) . From files of State and territorial laws and regulations kept by the OWM and from information obtained by telephone,

it was determined that the Virgin Islands does not yet have implementing

regulations accompanying their weights and measures code. (VI did not respond to the mail questionnaire.) Therefore, a total of 54 responses

(from the 50 States, DC, PR, VI, and New York City) have been tallied and reported in the next section. A detailed description of the questionnaire

and responses is appended to this report.

5-_~ = ry : f I-es. i:r.r.= ire ?.e = -l:s Both mandatory and voluntary device service agency registration programs

are in place in weights and measures jurisdictions (see Appendix, question

1) , although a large proportion have no registration programs at all. Voluntary registration programs, such as the Model Registration Regulation, are those in which device repair persons and repair firms may voluntarily register with the weights and measures regulatory agency and,

by registering, obtain the privileges of removing rejection tags and of placing new or repaired equipment into service until such time as an official examination can be made. Twenty out of 54 responding jurisdictions reported having a voluntary registration program. Mandatory

registration programs are those that require all device repair persons

or firms to be registered with the weights and measures jurisdiction

in order to do business in that jurisdiction. Seventeen out of 54 jurisdictions reported a mandatory registration program. Seventeen jurisdictions reported no registration program. The Model Registration Regulation is the oldest model regulation that has not been significantly revised since its endorsement by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures. In the 16 years of its availability

for use by the States, only 10 of 54 jurisdictions have adopted the Model Registration Regulation intact. Three more States reporting

mandatory programs have adopted the Model Regulation verbatim except

fcr references to "voluntary" and "voluntarily." However, the rate of adoption of this model regulation is not noticeably slower than for other model regulations. For example, it took nearly 60 years to achieve nationwide adoption by the States of Handbook 44.

100
Adoption of Model Regulation

* Number of States Adopting

13 Number of Jurisdictions Not Adopting Model41

Voluntary

10

Mandatory

3

Voluntary

10

Mandatory

14

No Prog.

16

Other

1

* Includes 3 States that adopted the model regulation substantially

but not entirely.

The specific requirements, responsibilities, and privileges of device

service firms are very different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction

(even among those jurisdictions that have adopted the Model Registration

Regulation). For example, of the 37 jurisdictions that report a registration program, 22 register both servicepersons and agencies;

12 register only the repair person; and 3 register only repair firms.

(See the Appendix, question 3.) Of 37, 16 jurisdictions only require

filling out a form (including payment of a fee for 11 of the 16); 14 require an oral and/or written test; and 12 require some kind of demonstration of capability (5 of these 12 also give oral or written

tests). (See the Appendix, question 5.) Of 37, 13 jurisdictions

require service agencies to possess specific types and amounts of testing standards; 23 only require that standards be "adequate" and/or

certified, only one jurisdiction has no requirements. (See the Appendix,

questions 6 and 8.) There is even more variety in the administration of registration

programs. For example, 9 jurisdictions do not classify service

agencies according to device type, 28 of the 37 jurisdictions with

registration programs classify service firms in categories ranging

from simple "meter" and "scale" subdivisions to more complicated

categorizations as to capacity of device or combination of services

provided by the firm. (See the Appendix, question 2.) Even though

the Model Registration Regulation permits reciprocity agreements

between weights and measures jurisdictions, 9 of the 13 States that have fully adopted the model do not recognize another State's

registration. This indicates the variety of administrative deviations

in practice even among those States that have fully adopted the Model

Registration Regulation. (See the Appendix, question 16.) Management of these programs is also quite different from jurisdiction

to jurisdiction. For example, of the 37 jurisdictions with registration

programs, 8 jurisdictions use both the place-in-service reports issued

by the service firm and the retest results of their own staff to review

the quality of work of the particular repair firm, 22 use only the firm's place-in-service reports, and 7 use only the routine or random

reinspection by their own staff. (See the Appendix, question 10.) Of

101
37, 20 jurisdictions do not accept reports of tests performed by service

firms as official verification of device performance, while 17 do accept these reports as official. (See the Appendix, question 15.) There is even diversity as to what constitutes a violation and the extent of enforcement of these types of regulations. Of 37, failure

to have equipment calibrated constituted a violation in 8 jurisdictions,

a history of violations is required in 11; poor quality of workmanship

was specifically mentioned in 20 jurisdictions; and repaired or installed

devices not meeting technical specifications was cited by 9 jurisdictions

as constituting a violation (there was considerable overlap among

responses). (See the Appendix, question 17.) Of 37, 23 jurisdictions

have suspended or withdrawn registration, whereas 14 have never done so. (See the Appendix, question 18.) Of 37 jurisdictions with registration

programs, 14 have provisions for fines for failure to comply with the regulation and 23 do not. (See the Appendix, question 19.) When viewing the results of the questionnaire, however, general

correlations can be seen between the voluntary or mandatory character

of a program and its implementation. All jurisdictions that reported a performance requirement for registration operate voluntary registration

programs. In contrast, a majority of those jurisdictions reporting no requirements for registration other than completion of a form (and,

perhaps, payment of a fee) operate mandatory registration programs (see

Appendix, question 5). A majority of those jurisdictions reporting

specific testing equipment requirments (including calibration and examination requirements) operate voluntary registration programs

(Appendix, questions 6 and 8); whereas a majority of those reporting

no minimum technician qualification requirements operate mandatory

programs (Appendix, question 7). Mandatory registration jurisdictions represent the majority of those

that reported having a fine schedule for failure to comply with registration requirements (Appendix, question 19); however, they also represent

the majority of those who reported never having suspended or withdrawn

registration (Appendix, question 18) and of those who reported no savings resulting from a registration program (Appendix, question 20).

Need for Regulations and What They Accomplish

The differences that this survey has revealed between mandatory and voluntary registration programs having been summarized the advantages

and disadvantages of each are worth detailing. Voluntary registration

programs do not identify all device repair services available in a jurisdiction. Since good device service is perceived by many weights

and measures agencies as absolutely essential for maintaining device

accuracy, some type of accounting and control of device service agencies

and/or agents is also seen as quite important. Voluntary registration

does not accomplish this. Mandatory registration programs do keep track

of all device servicepersons operating within a jurisdiction.

102
Because voluntary programs are perceived as just that - voluntary,

there may be a reluctance on the part of program administrators to require much from those voluntarily registering. However, it is just this aspect of the program that should help to maintain quality

standards in those registered. The device agency or agent applies for registration voluntarily, but the weights and measures administrator

must be selective about whom he registers. Those people or agencies

registered will, in effect, be extensions of his own staff, having the power to place repaired equipment into service without that equipment

having to be tested by a weights and measures official before use. Such extensions of his staff must be selected carefully. It may be

that the importance of such selectivity is not well understood in all jurisdictions having voluntary programs.

In contrast, mandatory programs, because they require registration of all device service agents or agencies, may not politically be capable

of great "selectivity" in registering agencies (see Questions 5, 6, and 7) . One weights and measures official expressed a perception

which may be shared by others: "After all, I would be taking his

livelihood away if I withdrew registration." A few States have bonding requirements in addition to mandatory

registration (see question 7 in the Appendix) . The Committee questionnaire did not investigate how a device owner went about a claim on an agency's bond, nor whether any claims had been made in the recent past.

(Bonding is a type of insurance in which a percentage of the total bond

is paid as an annual premium to a bonding company. The bonding amounts

that are used by those States reporting do not exceed $1000. Premiums

of one to five percent are commonly charged.) For a bond of $1000, it

is unlikely that a bond company can afford to investigate the capability

of the service technician being bonded, so it is not realistic to expect

that bonding companies will weed out poor performers unless claims on

the bonds are very easy to substantiate.

The belief appears to be widely held that letting registered repair

firms place equipment into service without weights and measures official

inspection should be a last resort, and only when weights and measures

budgets and manpower have been reduced to the barest minimum. It is true that organizing and maintaining an effective, efficient device

repair registration program is not easy, that it requires careful

planning, well-documented operated procedures, and time-consuming

management, but it is likely to be very satisfactory in any jurisdiction looking for greater efficiencies in operations and willing to manage some device testing rather than actually perform device testing.

The importance of keeping easily retrievable records on service agent

work, on following up to determine the quality of the work, and of following through on hearings necessary to prove poor quality work

deserving withdrawal of registration, must all be stressed.

103
For jurisdictions with voluntary programs, it is important to keep in

mind the selectivity that should he maintained in such programs, and

the necessity of gathering and maintaining performance data on service

agents in order to decide on whether to register or terminate registration. For jurisdictions wi

recuire-e" 15 £5 for licensing servic

can provide data to i the quality of work

service. Of course, inspection and monit

question 11) augment

rcifures cfficial rc the service technici,

V i t~ £ 5 £ - c f - Z £ £ Z = r r £~ g c whether a service agent

inQ£ii£t£ ir.£r£cricr. £r.

^5e s

(2) Addition of qualifications of individual or service agency;
of repair site (some jurisdictions reported that repair firms

that had adequate equipment did not always bring that equip- ment to each repair site)

;

(4) Addition of more specific information to be included on the place-in-service reports, including type of test and equip- ment used to determine compliance of commercial device;

(5) Addition of requirement that registration be based on quality of past performance and that maintenance of registration be based on both review of place-in-service

reports and on reinspection (even if only occasionally)

;

(6) Addition of specifications of what action, or failure of action, constitutes a violation of the regulation; and

(7) Addition of a requirement that the registration certificate

automatically expire at the end of the biennium for standards

calibration and that the certificate will be reissued only

if all requirements of the weights and measures agency

are met. (This addition was suggested by Florida in order

to make removal from the registration list easier; otherwise,

a public hearing would be required.)

Some of these additions can be made by the jurisdiction and incorporated

as part of its operation and policy manuals; others (such as items 6 and 7) will probably have to be incorporated by regulation.

For jurisdictions with mandatory registration programs, the results of this study indicate such jurisdictions may wish to install some type

of two-stage registration, combining the best qualities of the mandatory

and voluntary programs. The first stage would license and account for all device repair firms and the second stage registrants would be given the privileges of removing rejection tags and placing rejected

equipment in service (etc.). The second-stage registration would be available to a selected few agencies or servicepersons whose performance justified such privilege (based upon a review of, say, at least one year's service record).

Finally, some comments about the present NCWM Model Registration Regulation and its relationship to the proposed Model Program for Field

Verification of Devices are in order. It is not a great step from permitting service agencies to put equipment into service after installation or repair to permitting them to put equipment into service

after routine maintenance (without repair). It may be asked, though,

how much device inspection and testing is actually done by service

agencies or how much they are presently capable of doing without

conflict of interest. Let us examine the responses to Question 15 of the questionnaire. The question asked whether weights and measures

officials accepted reports of tests of service agencies as official

verification of device performance; the requirements for these

105
f : ; i s
Appendix

Of the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands, only one jurisdiction failed to respond (Virgin Islands) to the questionnaire. From files of State and territorial laws and regulations kept by the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) , and from information obtained by telephone, it was determined that the Virgin Islands does not yet have implementing regulations accompanying

their weights and measures code, but their basic code permits the weights and measures director to set rules in this area. Two responses were received from Puerto Rico but there were some inconsistencies between them, so judgments had to be made as to which

response to record for Puerto Rico. Responses were also received by

mail from seven of 21 municipal and county jurisdictions, with a telephone follow-up confirming the fact that those jurisdictions that did not respond by mail also did not have registration programs

separate from those of their States. Only New York City was included

in the final tally because this city's registration requirements were

the only ones of any city or county that reported at variance with the State. Thus a tally of 54 jurisdictions is recorded: 50 States,

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and New York City. The questionnaire was also mailed to the following local weights and measures jurisdictions: Bucks County PA, Indianapolis IN, Akron OH, Oakland CA, Omaha NE, Philadelphia PA, Middlesex County NJ, Kansas City

KS, St. Louis MO, San Jose CA, Minneapolis MN, Agawam MA, Dade

County FL, Chicago IL, Birmingham AL, Dallas TX, Ventura County CA, Los Angeles County CA, Cincinnati OH, and Seattle WA. A copy of the questionnaire appears on the following pages.

107
STATE, COUNTY , OR CITY NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE ON MODEL STATE REGULATION FOR THE VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION

OF SERVICEPERSONS AND SERVICE AGENCIES FOR COMMERCIAL WEIGHING AND MEASURING DEVICES

1966

1. Background

The Regulation covering the registration of servicepersons and service

agencies was developed and adopted by the National Conference on Weights

and Measures in 1966. It was designed to promote uniformity among those jurisdictions that provided for or were contemplating the establishment

of some type of control over the servicing of commercial weighing and measuring devices. It offers to a serviceperson or to a service agency

the opportunity to register which carries with it the privilege of restoring devices to service and of placing new or used devices in service

.

Two unique features of the registration plan are its voluntary nature

and the provision for reciprocity. Registration is not required;

however, the privileges gained make it attractive. Also, in order to provide maximum effectiveness of the program and to reduce to a minimum

legal obstacles to service across State lines, provision is made for reciprocity among States having similar voluntary registration policies

both in recognition of registered servicemen and agencies and of certification of standards and testing equipment.

The Laws and Regulations Committee of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures is studying this regulation and its implementation in the

U.S. This survey has been designed to help the Committee focus on the issues, strengths, and weaknesses of this regulation in today's Weights

and Measures. Please add comments not only on what your jurisdiction currently has in force but also what needs to be done (in comments area)

.

Please return by May 1, 1981.

Is registration of service persons or service agencies

Comments

voluntary [ ] mandatory [ ] no registration program [ ] other (explain)

:

108
Are there different classes of service agencies

according to their capability to repair different

devices (liquid meters vs. small capacity scales,

etc.)?

a. No

b. Yes; if so, explain

Is registration of

a. service agencies and service persons

b. only service agencies

c. only service persons

If registration is on service agency, is list of service technicians required?

a. No

b. Yes

and periodically updated?

a. No

b. Yeshow often? What are requirements for registration?

a. oral test NoYes (if yes, on what subjects)

c. demonstration test

NoYes (if yes, on what subjects)

d. completion of form and/or payment of fee

NoYes

Do you have minimu equipment standards for service

agencies?

a. No

b. Yes (if yes, what are they in each area?

109
Comments

7. What constitutes minimum qualifications of service

personnel?

8. Is all service agency equipment examined and tested

by State laboratory?

a. Yes [ ] b. No, if not , what constitutes certified standards

and testing equipment for a service agency? [ ]

9. What privileges do registered agency /servicepersons

have?

a. remove rejection tags and place in service

rejected [ ] b. place new equipment in service [ ] c. other (explain) . [ ]

10. What reports or procedures are used to review the quality of work done by the agency?

a. place in service report [ ] b. other (explain) [ ]

11. Do you maintain witness of test arrangements with

servicepersons?

a. No.

b. Yes

12. Do you have guidelines or requirements as to how soon newly repaired or installed equipment is inspected by

an enforcement official after a registered service agency installs or repairs a device?

a. No [ ] b. Yes (if yes, what are requirements or guidelines?) [ ]

110
Comments

13. Does the weights and measures jurisdiction use a variable frequency of inspection program?

a. No [ ] b. Yes (if yes, please send copy of program

or describe [ ]

14. Does this variable frequency program operate

differently for newly repaired or installed

equipment than for existing in-service equipment?

a. No [ ] b. Yes [ ] 15. Does your jurisdiction accept reports of tests performed by service agencies as official

verification of device performance?

a. No [ ] b. Yes [ ] If yes, what are requirements for these agencies

(enclose copy of requirements, if necessary)

and what inspections and tests do service

agencies perform?

specifications [ ] tolerances [ ] user requirements [ ] general code requirements [ ] 16. Is registration reciprocal with other States?

a. No [ ] b. Yes [ ] If yes, which other States?

How is reciprocity instituted (memo of agreement, etc.); maintained (copy of reports, etc.)?

17. What constitutes grounds for suspense or withdrawal of Registration Certificate?

Ill
Comments

18. Has your jurisdiction ever suspended or withdrawn

a Certificate of Registration?

a. No [ ] b. Yes (if yes, for what reasons?) [ ]

19. Are there provisions for fines for failure to comply with

regulation?

a. No [ ] b. Yes (if yes, what are they?) [ ]

20. Has a registration of servicepersons saved government

inspection time?

a. No [ ] b. Yes (if yes, approximately how much?) [ ]

112
Committee on Lavs and Regulations Questionnaire

QUESTION 1 Is registration of servicepersons or service agencies

Voluntary?

Mandatory?

No registration?

Other?

20 jurisdictions

17 jurisdictions

16 jurisdictions

1 jurisdiction

Voluntary

Registration

(20)

Mandatory

Registration

(17)

No

Registration

Program

(16)

Other Type

Of Control

(1)

Figure 1. Type of Registration Program - Mandatory or Voluntary

Of the 16 jurisdictions that reported no registration program, five

also responded that the adoption of some type of program was being

considered. Only one jurisdiction reported a device repair oversight program different from registration, either voluntary or mandatory.

This State authority reported the State had the power to refuse authorization to remove repair orders; this power was described as a "negative-option clause." It is possible that other jurisdictions

that reported no registration programs might also have (and have used)

this authority. Based on OWM's collection of State laws and regulations, it was

determined that 10 of the 20 jurisdictions that reported a voluntary

registration program have fully adopted the NCWM Model Regulation.

Four more have adopted the model in part and six use the model as a guideline. Of these last six, one State does not have specific

registration requirements in rule or regulation, but nonetheless

carries out a voluntary registration program.

It is interesting to note that three States reporting mandatory reg- istration programs have fully adopted the NCWM model regulation except

for those places where the words "voluntary" or "voluntarily" appear

in the model.

Thus, it can be said that 13 States have fully adopted the NCWM model

regulation. This tally does not correspond to the number of States reported in Handbook 130 to have fully adopted the model. However,

the count reported in the present study is more accurate because it is based on a paragraph by paragraph review of the regulations on file

for each State, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.

113
In contrast, the tally reported in Handbook 130 is the result of a telephone request to each jurisdiction as to whether its laws and regulations are based completely, only in part, etc., upon NCWM models.

The tally in the next issue of Handbook 130 for this model regulation

will be adjusted to indicate the results of this study. The results

from this question are: TYPES OF REGISTRATION PROGRAMS AND EXTENT OF USE OF NCWM MODEL

VOLUNTARY

Model Fully Adopted Model Model Used a S Adopted in Part Guideline

FL MT AL

ID HE ND AZ KY SC TX HI MM SD HI KS MO UT PR VT

WI nc reg

MANDATORY

Model Adopted Model Model Used as X odel Not Fully Adopted in Part Guideline Used

(Except for "Yci") AR CA MS CT NH CO NV IA TN GA NM NJ

IL NC NYC ME OK

NO REGISTRATION PROGRAM

AK MD OH WA

DE MA PA WV

IN Ml RI DC LA NY VA VI

OTHER TYPE OF CONTROL

OR (See text)

114
QUESTION 2 - Are there different classes of service agencies according

to their capability to repair different devices (liquid meters vs. small capacity scales, etc.)? Yes No AL - scales - up to 400 lb CA

- large capacity CT

AZ - no information MS AR - wholesale MO

retail NH

large capacity ND

small capacity SC CO - small capacity (up to 2000 lb) TN large capacity (over 2000 lb) NYC

FL - classed according to equipment & ability , e.g.

:

all scales

up to 5000 lb etc. GA - 6 classes of scales LPG meters

moisture meters

HI - liquid measuring

devices - rack

- retail

- drum fillers

scales - heavy capacity

- small capacity

ID - application & identification card describes

single or multiple service qualifications

IL - scales - large capacity

- small capacity

liquid measuring devices

moisture meters

IA - no information

KS - scales - large capacity

- small capacity

KY - meters

scales - large capacity

- small capacity

ME - no information

MN - meters (truck transfer) LPG meters

gas pumps

linear devices

scales - up to 1000 lb

- heavy duty

(continued)

115
Tally (continued) Yes No MT - according to capabilities and test equipment

NE - small scale

large and small scale

gas pump only

gas pump and refined fuel meter

gas pump, refined fuel meter & propane meter

(any other combination of these)

railroad track scale

NV - scales meters miscellaneous equipment

NJ - scales meters

etc

.

NM - scales meters

NC - scales liquid measuring devices

OK - large capacity

small capacity

SD - according to capabilities and amount and

type of calibration equipment

TX - according to type and capacity of device

UT - no information

VT - according to device

WI - scales

liquid

farm bulk tanks

etc

.

WY - large capacity scales

small and large capacity scales small capacity scales and meters

gas pumps

other measuring devices

PR - weighing

measuring _

_

28 " 9 Only the 37 jurisdictions that answered that they had a voluntary or mandatory program could logically respond to this question. Not every jurisdiction that responded affirmatively to this question explained

the classification scheme that it used in its registration program. Responses to this question indicate the breadth of possibilities in keeping track of the myriad capabilities of service agencies in an individual State. Responses may in some cases indicate the concentration of scale repair service agencies as opposed to other types of repair services available.

116
QUESTION 3 - Is registration of Servicepersons and agencies ? Agencies only ? Persons only ? AZ CO AL CA WI AR

CT NYC KS FL KY GA MN

HI MS

ID MO

IL NC

IA OK ME SC MT TX

NE PR

NVNH

NJNM

ND

SDTNUTVTWY

22 TI

Again, only the 37 jurisdictions reporting a registration program are

tallied. The preferred method seems to be keeping track of both

service agencies and servicepersons to monitor both individual

workmanship and company policy and equipment.

It is interesting to note that five of the jurisdictions that have adopted regulations fully in line with the NCWM Model Registration

Regulation (AR, KY, MN, MO, SC) report registration programs of servicepersons only; whereas, the model regulation is written so as

to accept registration of individuals and agencies.

QUESTION 4 - If registration is of a service agency, is list of service technicians required? and how often updated?

This question was intended to determine if those jurisdictions that registered agencies only (CO, WI, NYC in the questionnaire) also controlled in some manner the service persons by reference to their

agencies. Most jurisdictions having programs registering both persons

and agencies also answered this question.

117
Yes (hov often updated ?

)

No

CA (annually, or as new technicians added)

CT (when changes occur) GA (every 6 months)

HI (annually)

ID (annually)

IL (annually)

IA (annually) ME (annually) NE (annually from date of registration)

NV (annually)

NJ (not periodically updated) NM (annually from date of registration

or when changes occur)

SD (annually) TN (every two years)

UT (annually or by request)

WY (every two-three years)

NYC (annually)

17

COVI (every two years)

FLMT

NH (periodically

updated)

5

Did not ;_av NE (every two years)

VT (annually) AZ

3

Of the three jurisdictions that registered only agencies (see Question

6) , only one required a list of service persons (NYC) . Neither

Colorado nor Wisconsin requires such lists. Wisconsin updates those

lists voluntarily supplied on a two year basis. Because of the ambiguous wording of the question, most of those States

that reported a registration system of both agencies and persons also

answered this question. Predictably, in all but three jurisdictions,

these States indicated that they did keep track of which service persons worked for what company. Of the 22 jurisdictions registering

agencies and service technicians (see Question 3) , 16 reported that

they required records on service technicians as part of records on service agencies, three (FL, MT, NH) reported that they did not require lists (but one of the three updates such lists if voluntarily

supplied) , and three more did not answer this question with a specific

yes or no (AZ , ND , VT)

.

Of the three that did not answer whether lists of servicepersons were

required with each agency registration, two of these jurisdictions

responded to the second part of this question, namely, that registration

was updated either annually (Vermont) or every two years (North Dakota)

.

Eleven of the jurisdictions that keep records on service technicians

with each agency require annual updating; one jurisdiction adds that

to an annual updating requirement, requests for changes to a list by

repair firms will be added to their records at any time; one adds to annual reporting a requirement that all new technicians must be reported

as they are hired; and, one adds "when any changes occur."

One State (CT) requires reporting whenever changes occur; one (GA) requires six-month updates; one (TN) requires updates every two years,

118
one (WY) every two to three years, and one (NJ) responded that their

lists were not periodically updated. The predominant registration

scheme appears to be a requirement that each registered agency to provide a list of its service technicians and update that list annually.

The model regulation gives no guidance as to what should be done (if

anything) to keep track of servicepersons 1 affiliations with registered service agencies.

1

Registers

Registers Technicians

Agencies & Registers

Only Agencies Technicians

.=.» -

//

(22) (12)

KEY : Y/A REQUIRES A LIST OF TECHNICIANS WORKING FOR AGENCIES

Figure 2. Type of Registration Program—Who or What is Registered

QUESTION 5 - What are -requirements for registration'

Complete form

or fee Oral test Written test Demonstration

AL (workmanship)

AZAR(no fee) AR(H-44, AR regs) CA

CO CO (H-44, scale knowledge)

CTFL(no fee)

GA

HI

ID (interview)

ILIAKS(no fee) KY

AZ

GA(State L&R,

H-44)

HI(Weights & Measures L&R)

IL(IL L&R, H-44)

IA(IA L&R, H-44)

(continued)

119

FL (everyday

quality of repair)

GA(LPGas)

HI(retests within

20 days of installation

or repair)

IA(no further information)
-ally ; continued'
presumed that all 37 jurisdictions that have registration programs

also keep records or forms on their registrants. Of the 37, 16 jurisdictions reported no further requirements for registration.

Only six jurisdictions give an oral examination, (and one of these is described as an interview rather than oral test) . There was no consensus of subject matter to be included in oral tests. Subjects

include Handbook 44, laws and regulations, device knowledge and scope

of experience. Ten jurisdictions give written exams; one gives a test based on Handbook 44, Handbook 112, and State laws and regulations; four on Handbook 44 and State laws and regulations; one on State laws only; one on Handbook 44 only (and that only for scale technicians) ; one on weights and measures laws and regulations; and two do not give any details about the examination content. One more State reported that consideration was being given to administering a written test. Although 12 jurisdictions responded that they gave demonstration

tests, seven of these 12 clarified their response as meaning that a demonstration test was a review of an agency's or technician's quality

of workmanship. This is not, however, a special test in the sense an oral or written test might be considered special. More will be said about this later.

Of the remaining five of these 12 jurisdictions that may give demonstration tests of the type envisioned by the question, one gave a test for LP Gas device technicians; one gave a test "on some candidates"; one

gave a test on "equipment, repairs, adjustment, and installation"

(although this too might be a check on quality of the technician's

routine workmanship); one considered a demonstration of having the proper equipment and calibration certificate as a demonstration test (therefore, this response was eliminated for demonstration test count); and, one supplied no further information. A summary of responses to this question appears in Figure 3.

5 —

form/fee

only oral test

written

test (10)

(16) (6)

7 +

21

demonstration

test

(5)

pert ormanci

(7)

7 -

KEY : \yy\ VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

| MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 3. Registration Requirements

121
The majority of jurisdictions that require only a form and/or fee are those conducting mandatory registration programs. All of those jurisdictions reporting a performance type of requirement had voluntary

programs

.

QUESTION 6 - Do you have minimum equipment standards for service

agencies?

No Yes (What are minimum standards?)

CA AL - Annual calibration of sufficient weights to MS test scales to 400 lb capacity

MO AZ - Annual calibration and weights and measures

NV sufficient to test types of device registered

NH to service

SC AR - current calibration

IN CO - weights equal to 10 percent of scale capacity,

certified annually

VT CI - appropriate test measures and weights for

HI service rendered

PR FL - appropriate test measures and weights for NYC service rendered

GA - proof of certified equipment

HI - possession of, or available for use, weights

and measures standards and testing equipment

appropriate in design, adequate in amount. and currently certified.

ID - appropriate standards and 10 000 lb for large

capacity scales

IL - 10 000 lb min; 30 000 lb for vehicle or larger

scales

IA - annually sealed test weights; adequate

testing equipment

KS - calibrated test weights

KY - large capacity scales - 10 000 lb of test weight

minimum

small capacity scales - 30-lb test weight kit

minimum

meter mechanics - 5-gal test measure minimum

ME - adequate equipment

MS - pucps - 5 gal test measure

scales - weights to 1/4 capacity of scale

(20 000 lb max) meters - 100-gal prover

LPG meters - 100-gal prover

linear devices - appropriate test tape

(continued)

122
Tally (continued)

No Yes MT - heavy duty scales - 10,000 lb certified test weights

small capacity scales - 30-lb kit, 500-lb of 50-lb weights

retail pumps - 5-gal measure

meters - 100-gal prover

NE - all necessary testing equipment and standards

NJ - appropriate test equipment NM - scales above 2000-lb or 100-kg capacity - test weights to capacity, up to 10 000-lb maximum

meters with capacity greater than 20 gal or 75L/min - prover of capacity to receive test draft as specified in Handbook 44; otherwise

appropriate calibrated equipment and standards

NC - scales - necessary weights

petroleum devices - 5-gal and 1-gal test measure

and other equipment as may be necessary

ND - adequate weights and testing equipment

OK - adequate weights with proof of calibration

every 2 years

SD - scales up to 10 000-lb capacity - minimum of 30001b refined fuel pumps - 5 gal small capacity scales - "appropriate ... such as 31-lb kit" scales with capacity of 10 000 lb or greater - 10 000-lb weights

vehicle scales - 10 000-lb weights, with test unit gross weight at least 20 000-lb refined fuel meters - 100-gal prover minimum

LPG - 55 gal min TX - certified and examined equipment plus test weight requirements

UT - meters and dairy tanks - certified volumetric

provers

small capacity scales - certified weights and weight kits

large capacity scales - certified weights up

to 10 000 lb WY - "we like to have 10 000 lb of test weights

for large capacity"; must have recent calibration

11 26 Only 11 of the 37 jurisdictions with registration programs responded

that they did not have minimum equipment standards for service agents.

However, upon examination of the responses of the remaining 26 jurisdictions, 13 of those that responded that they had minimum equipment

123
requirements said the requirements consisted of "adequate" or "sufficient"

equipment and certified standards.

Of the remaining 13 jurisdictions, five jurisdictions had requirements

for weighing equipment only.

Review of the actual regulations of the 11 jurisdictions that said they

had no minimum equipment standards indicates that seven jurisdictions do indeed require certified weights and provers (MO, NH, SC, TN, VT, WI,

PR).' In addition, the responses to question 8 indicate that, of the remaining four jurisdictions (of the 11 answering "no" to question 6), MS,

NV, and NYC do require certification and laboratory testing of repair

form standards. Therefore, only one State is tallied as having no minimum

equipment requirements. Therefore, Figure 4 indicates that 23 jurisdictions

have no specific minimum requirements other than "adequacy" and certification.

No Minimum

Equipment

Standards

(1)

1 1

7,

Minimum

Standards

Are

"Adequacy?

Certification

(23 > 8 -

22

O t h e r and Additional

Minimum

Equipment

Standards

(13)

KEY VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 4. Equipment Requirements

The answers to this question may indicate the need to further specify

minimum equipment standards for repair firms and technicians in the model regulation. In fact, six of the 14 jurisdictions that have

fully adopted the model regulation have already added specific minimum

equipment requirements in their program.

124
QUESTION 7 - What constitutes minimum qualifications of service

personnel?

None Minimum Qualifications

CA AL - factory training or one year under direction of CO(register registered personnel

firm, not AZ - 18 years old, 70 percent score on test, sufficient

personnel) and appropriate, calibrated standards

FL(agency held AR - pass oral test, show evidence of current certification

responsible) of standards

HI CT - by application, performance, experience

MS GA - bond and proof of certified equipment

NE ID - adequate background, experience, or work under

NV qualified registered personnel

NH IL - knowledge of field in which he is registered

ND IA - bond

SD KS - training with company (such as Toledo, Howe-Richardson

or Fairbanks)

UT KY - references

WI ME - on-the-job or factory training

TX MN - must complete written test and possess test equipment

and copies of laws and regulations

MO - prior training in area of work

MT - experience and test equipment

NJ - certificate of training and/or competency test NM - evidence or reference as to qualifications (upon

request); bonded, competent work

NC - one year's experience in equipment repair

OK - prior training and references

SC - written test on Handbook 44 for scale repair - otherwise no minimum (form asks for references)

TN - prior experience and possession of approved

equipment

VT - starting written exam this year

WY - 3 to 4 letters of recommendation

PR - mechanical experience, knowledge of specifications

and tolerances NYC- 21 years old, U.S. citizenship or declaration of intention to become citizen

13 24 Of 37 jurisdictions with registration progams, 24 responded that their programs set minimum criteria for servicepersons . These criteria

ranged from minimum age, U.S. citizenship, bonding, letters of recommendation, and references to prior training or apprenticeship to passing a written or oral examination. Twelve jurisdications require

prior training or experience; five use some type of testing; three,

bonding; three, references (several jurisdictions reported combinations of requirements); 13 have no minimum qualification standards but

125
two of these pointed out that their programs registered agencies and therefore did not control qualification of persons - leaving that responsibility to the registered agency.

5 —

No Minimum

Technician

Qualification

(13)

5 —

Training/

Experience

(12)

4 —

Pass Test

(5)

KEY: VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

I [ mandatory registration programs

Figure 5. Service Personnel Requirements

Only five of the 15 jurisdictions that give written or oral exams (from

Question 5) mentioned the need to pass an exam as minimum qualifications

for technicians. Only six jurisdictions reported prior experience and

only one (CT) specified prior quality of work as a minimum qualification

This last aspect of the responses is somewhat in conflict with Question 5 which indicated seven jurisdictions require a minimum quality of service

for registration. It is possible that most of those responding to the present question perceived requirements for performance as separate or different from requirements for technician qualifications.

QUESTION 8 - Is all service agency equipment examined and tested by

the State lab? Yes No AL

AZAR

CTFL

GA

HI

IDIL1AKY

all standards calibrated by lab but not tools, scopes, voltmeters, etc.

CA

CO

KS

MS

NV

(OR)- UT - WI - NYCnone required

will accept other NBSapproved lab certificates

weights only

evidence of calibrated test weights

only check certified

standards (with reciprocity)

periodically

90 percent is checked

only certify standards necessary for field testing

accept other State lab certificates

annual test at NYC lab (continued)

126

pi
Tally (continued) Yes No

ME

MNMO - reciprocity with other () indicates State that reports neither mandat

States too nor voluntary registration program.

MT

NENH

NJNM

NC

NDOK

SC

SDTNTX - reciprocity

VTWYPR

29 9

This question was designed to determine whether trucks and other

service equipment were reviewed as to their adequacy or whether just

calibration of field standards took place.

Twenty-nine jurisdictions report that all service agency equipment is examined. Three of these 29 mentioned that reciprocity with other

State programs is also maintained. One State indicated that all agency standards were calibrated by their State metrology lab but

tools, scopes, voltmeters, etc. were not calibrated.

Of the nine jurisdictions not examining agency equipment, only one State (CA) indicated that calibration of working standards was not a requirement. It was determined in the analysis of Question 6 that as many as four jurisdictions (CA, MS, NV, NYC) may not specifically require

calibration of standards; the responses to this question indicate that

two (MS, NV) of these four do require evidence of certified test weights

and one conducts an annual test (of unspecified dimension) at its city

lab (NYC).

127
All Equipment

Examined

(29) Standards

Calibrated

(5) Weights

Calibrated

(2) Nothing

Reauired

(1)

KE v VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

... .c:

s = r,-::e:er sens

AICA

AZAR

:a :a pemit-ec

zz break

COCTn

GA

EI

IA

:<s

MiMO

sisv

NE

CO

ZZ GA

h:

::n.

IA

kSKY

HZ

HSK7XI

SY

SE

Bd]
Tally (continued) Remove rejection tag/ Place new equipment Other

place in service in service (explanation)

rejected equipment

NM NM

NC NC

ND ND OK OK

SC SC

SDTN TN TX TX

UT UT

VT VT

WI VI

WY WY WY - (place used

equip, in service) PR NYC NYC- (remove con- demned tags upon destruction)

36 ~~32 4

In 31 jurisdictions the service agent can both remove a rejection tag and place new equipment in service; in five jurisdictions the service

agent can only remove rejection tags and place rejected equipment in service; and in one jurisdiction, the service agent can only place new

equipment in service and destroy condemned equipment.

Registered

Agent/Agency

May Only Remove

Rej. Tag aPlace

In Service Rejected

Equipment

(5) 16 *

May Remove

Rei. Tag (etc.)& Place New

Equipment

Into Service

(31 )

May Place New Equipment

In Service a Remove Condemnation

Tag Upon Destruction

(1 )

KEY: Y/A VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

I I MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 7. Privileges of Registration

129
It is again interesting to note that three jurisdictions (FL, MO, and

SD) that report privileges only to remove a rejection tag and place

in service previously rejected equipment (rather than including the privilege to place new equipment in service) have fully adopted the model regulation that also gives this latter privilege.

QUESTION 10 - What reports or procedures are used to review the quality

of work done by the agency?

Place-in-service-report Other

AL - random testing by State inspectors

AZAR

CA

CTFL

HI

ID

ILIA

KSKY

ME

MN

MSMO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJNM

NDOK

CO - scales tested as soon as practical

after scale placed in service

'insufficient repair notices"

sent to responsible persons when scale placed in service

by company is rejected again.

Notices reviewed annually. GA

written report

MT

NV

service certification and test report (after service)

ID - tested by weights and measures

after service when possible

KY - review by weights and measures

inspectors after service

(inspector's) test reports on devices repaired or placed in se field inspection

NM - repair firm's test reports and follow up inspection

NC - field inspector's report

ND - test reports

(OR) - how it is found after service

SC - acceptance by customers and routine rechecks

(continued)

130
Tally (continued)

Place-in-service-report Other

SDTNTX TX - reinspection on all out-of-order

devices

UT [UT - considering test of device after

VT placing in service^ WI - reinspect on random basis or if problem suspected

WY WY - field test report PR - reinspection of rejected devices

NYC

30 16 Reported are responses from 38 jurisdictions. Oregon's response was

included because of the singular importance of performance to their program (see Question 1)

.

Twenty-two jurisdictions responded that quality review was accom- plished only by using the agency's placing-in-service reports, eight use routine or random reinspection of the agency's work, and eight use both the placing-in-service reports and retest results.

Place-ln-Service Report

(22)

10

Field Inspection & Place-ln-Service Report

(8) Field Inspection

(8)

KEY: VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

[ | MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 8. Means of Quality Review

It should be pointed out that a majority (12) of those jurisdictions

with mandatory programs (17 in all) use only the place-in-service

report to monitor the work of servicepersons or service agencies.

131
QUESTION 11 - Do you maintain witness of test arrangements with

servicepersons?

No Yes

AZ AL CA AR - nothing in contract

CT CTCO - upon occasion

FL - (if this refers to service

contracts) HI GA KS - sometimes

ID ME

IL MT

IA NV - in some areas, e.g., large

KY capacity meters

MN NH - occasionally

MS NJ - large capacity scales and MO meters only

NE NM

NC OK

TN SD TX WY

UT NYC

VT

WIPR

20 16 No Answer

ND

SC Witness-of-test arrangements are those occasions in which the weights

and measures agency does not actually do the testing of the device but witnesses the test done by another (a service agent in this question)

such that the test results are in lieu of the official weights and measures test performed by weights and measures inspectors. This

question could have been answered by all jurisdictions, including

those that do not have a registration program. Because of where the question appeared in the multipage questionnaire, only those jurisdictions having registration programs responded. Twenty jurisdictions

reported having no witness-of-test arrangements and 16 having such arrangements; one jurisdiction (CT) answered both yes and no and two jurisdictions that responded to the rest of the questionnaire did not answer this question. Three of those 16 that do witness tests said

that such arrangements were only occasional; one said only in some areas (as, for example, large-capacity meters); and, one said only for large capacity scales and meters. Besides providing opportunities to actually see repair or installation capability, witness-of-test would

seem very beneficial in terms of conserving use of governmental equipment

if service agents or agencies possess enough equipment, standards,

etc. to conduct the tests with only a government inspector's presence

necessary. However, if witness-of-test arrangements must be made in order to supplement service agency equipment, the additional costs of scheduling a meeting, rerouting equipment, etc., can be justified only

132
if the government inspection agency must also supplement its own equipment in order to test very large capacity devices.

Witness-of-Test

(16)

KEY : Y/A VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

I I MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 9. Status of Witness-of-Test Arrangements with Service Agencies

There seemed to be no correlation between jurisdictions having specified

minimum equipment requirements for their service agencies (see Question

6) and those that also maintained witness-of-test arrangements.

QUESTION 12 - Do you have guidelines or requirements as to how soon

newly repaired or installed equipment is inspected by an enforcement

official after a registered service agency installs or repairs a device?

No Yes

AR AL randomly checked within 30 days CA AZ randomly checked within 30 days; CO if compliance less than 90 per

ID cent

,

100 percent rechecks. IL CT 10 days ME GA 30 days MT - as soon as possible FL 30 days - we make every effort NE - as soon as possible 20 days NH IA 30 days NC - every effort to inspect KS 30 days

as soon as possible KY between two weeks and one month

OK MN 30 days - not all meet that

(OR) - as soon as possible guideline

SC MS 30 days

SD MO 30 days

TN NV as soon as possible

UT - allow sufficient time of NJ new devices cannot be used until

all working parts to tested properly seat themselves

(continued)

133
Tally (continued)

No Yes

WI NM - 30 days ND - 60 days on new equipment

TX - (no further information)

VT - 5 days for liquid measuring

devices and 10 days for scales

W¥ - 30 days or sooner

PR - as soon as notified

NYC - treated as priority

17 21 Of 37 jurisdictions with registration programs and one with an "other" system (see Question 1), 17 had no guidelines for a reinspection

interval but four of these reported "as soon as possible." One jurisdiction reported they waited "a sufficient time for all parts to seat properly." Twenty-one jurisdictions reported that they do have

guidelines or requirements: for 11 the requirement was 30 days (two of these said random checks only); for one, 20 days; for one, 10 days; for one, two weeks to one month; for one, five days on liquid measuring

devices and 10 days on scales; and, for one, 60 days for new equipment. Three jurisdictions that checked the box labeled "yes" responded the same as four jurisdictions checking the "no" box, that is, "as soon

as possible." One jurisdiction said that new devices could not be used

until tested, so by interpretation, that meant "as soon as possible"

as well. One jurisdiction did not indicate what the time frame for

reir.specticr. was, although that jurisdiction responded that it did

have such guidelines. Twelve of the 17 mandatory programs have either

no guidelines for return time for a retest or else an "as soon as possible" guideline. Figure 10 represents a summary of the responses

.

NO

GUIDE

LINE

(13) ASAP

(8) —J

30 DAYS

(11) 20 DAYS

(1)

10DAYS

(1)

5 D./LMD

2 WKS- 10 DV

30 DAYS SCALES

(1) (1)

60 DAYS NEW

EQUIPMENT

KEY: £/J VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS | 'OTHER* PROGRAM Q MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 10. Time Interval Between Repair (or Installment) and Inspection by Weights and Measures

134
QUESTION 13 - Does the weights and measures jurisdiction use a variable

frequency of inspection (VFI) program?

No Yes

AL CA - one county random samples work,

AZ 22 planning many types of VFI

AR FL - guidance from office as to inspecCO tion problems; increased inspection

of high volume devices, commensurate with work schedules, distances, etc. CTDC - devices must be inspected

every six months

computer printout of commercial

government, private, military

exchanges by island, zip code or randomly

to some extent random inspection unnanounced

not planned, never test 100 percent; therefore must set priorities

a two year schedule for some areas and categories

annually

small scales annually;

large scales at lengthy intervals

due to lack of equipment and staff

no set policy; inspector conducts

his own program

periodic inspection within 30 days

plan different times each year

all devices randomly selected with variable frequency except

200 assigned motor vehicle scales

out of total of 1600, randomly

selected to be tested annually

25 15 This question could have been answered by all jurisdictions, but

again, because of where it appeared in the questionnaire only 39 jurisdictions responded. One jurisdiction answered both yes and no

to this question (WY)

.

Of those that responded affirmatively (that is, that they did have VFI

programs), only four jurisdictions (CA, FL, HI, and WI) provided

descriptions of programs that might be called "structured" VFI programs.

Only two of these (CA and WI) were very specific in nature. Constraints

to accomplishing annual testing apparently have made priority setting

and some type of VFI necessary in at least four jurisdictions (KS, MT,

NV, OK). Random selection of when in a given year to test devices was

a variation of VFI cited in some jurisdictions.

GA HI

IDILIAMN KS MS KY MO ME

NE MT

NJNM NV

NC

(OR) NH

SC ND TN OK TX

UT

WY WY

SD PR - except inspection program VT often interrupted WI

NYC

135
NO

VFI (25) 10-^

VFI (15) 0 JURISDICTIONS WITH VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

H JURISDICTION WITH OTHER TYPE OF CONTROL

PI JURISDICTION WITH NO REGISTRATION PROGRAM

JURISDICTIONS WITH MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 11. Jurisdictions Reporting Variable Frequency of Inspection Programs

Twelve of the 17 jurisdictions reporting mandatory registration

programs do not use any type of VFI. In contrast 10 of the 15 jurisdictions reporting the use of VFI also had voluntary registration

programs

.

QUESTION 14 - Does this variable frequency program operate differently

for newly repaired or installed equipment than for existing in-service

equipment?

No Yes

HI CA - new tested as soon as possible,

KS others on VFI ME FL - new and rejected tested within

NV 30 days NH KY - no further information

OK MT - no further information

SD ND - no further information

VT WI - no further information

WY

9 ~6

This question was intended for those jurisdictions that operated VFI

programs. (From Question 13, it was found that 15 jurisdictions

operate VFI programs.) Of those six jurisdictions reporting differences in their programs for new and existing equipment, only two jurisdictions (CA and FL) provided any further details.

136
VFI PROGRAM

THE SAME FOR

NEW OR OLD

EQUIPMENT

(9) 4

VFI PROGRAM

DIFFERENT FOR

NEW VS. OLD

EQUIPMENT

(6) KEY: Y7/\ JURISDICTIONS WITH VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

1 | JURISDICTIONS WITH MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 12. Operation of Variable Frequency of Inspection Programs

QUESTION 15 - Does your jurisdiction accept reports of tests performed

by service* agencies as official verification of device performance?

No Yes5 (requirements for agencies) AR AL (S,T,U,G) CA AZ (S,T,U,G)

CT CO (status reports, S,T,U,G) HI FL (S,T,U,G)

ID GA (for 30 days) IA IL (S,T,U,G) KY KS (only for new devices) (S,T,U,G) MN ME (T,U,G) MS MT (S,T,U,G) MO NE (until official retest - Handbook 44, NV NM (S,T,G - until retest) NH ND (S,T,U,G) NJ (OR) (no formal requirement)

NC SD OK TN (only in emergency) KEY:

SC VT (until reinspected) (S,T,U,G) TX WI (T) UT WY (Handbook 44 - S,T,U,G) PR

NYC

20 18

specifications S tolerances T user requirements U general code G

Eighteen jurisdictions report that they accept reports of tests by

service firms as official. Of these, four jurisdictions responded

that the status of these tests was official until reinspection by the

137
weights and measures officer. One of these jurisdictions responded

that the test was official "only in emergency," again implying until

reinspection. Of these 18 jurisdictions, ten responded that they

expected requirements including specifications, tolerances, user requirements, and general code requirements to be applied by the service agent or agency. One of the 18 expected only tolerance

requirements to be applied; one, no user requirements; and one, no specifications. A majority (11 of the 17) of the mandatory registration jurisdictions do not consider the report of test performed by

the service agency as official.

NOT

OFFICIAL

(20)

•9 11

MAY BE

OFFICIAL

(18)

YZX JURISDICTIONS WITH VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

JURISDICTION WITH "OTHER" SERVICE AGENT CONTROL

CZI JURISDICTIONS WITH MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 13. The Status of Service Agency Reports of Tests

QUESTION 16 - Is registration reciprocal with other States' No Yes (Which ones?) (How is reciprocity

instituted and maintained?) CA

COCT

FLHI

ILIA

KSKYME

MN

MS

only exams administered

by MO recognized in IL

AL - all States traceable to NBS, oral agreement

copy of reports

- for similar programs, a memo of understanding

- copy of reports

- on certification of weights

- gentleman's agreement with WA, OR, UT, WY, MT (still register companies from these

States who do business in our State)

MO - KS and IL, memo of agreement

MT - notification from other States and copy of calibration certificate for equipment

(OR)- nothing formal

SD(continued)

138
Tally (continued)

No Yes(Which ones?) (How is reciprocity

instituted and maintained?)

NE - only reciprocity on TX - on certified equipment, honor by

equipment calibration gentleman's agreement

NV WI - all certified labs NH

NJNM

NC - calibration honored

NDOK

SCTN

UTVTWY - however, calibration

reciprocity

PR

NYC

27 11 Of the 27 jurisdictions that reported no reciprocity of registration

with other States, four added that they honor calibrations of field

standards performed by other jurisdictions (one honors only one other

State's). Apparently, four of the jurisdictions that report reciprocity with other jurisdictions recognize service agency or person

registrations based on certification of their equipment by other

States. Therefore, the meaning and extent of reciprocity is interpreted

differently by the different States.

NO

RECIPROCITY

(27)

12

KEY:

RECIPROCITY

(11)

JURISDICTIONS WITH VOLUNTARY

REGISTRATION PROGRAMS I "OTHER' CONTROL

I I MANDATORY PROGRAMS

Figure 14. Status of Registration Reciprocity

139
Fifteen of the 17 jurisdictions with mandatory programs have no reciprocity. Nine of the 11 jurisdictions reporting reciprocity have

voluntary programs. Nine of the 14 States that have fully adopted the NCWM model regu- lations do not recognize another State's registration, even though

there is a section in the Model Registration Regulation permitting

such agreements.

QUESTION 17 - What constitutes grounds for suspense or withdrawal of a Certificate of Registration?

AL - failure to provide quality workmanship or maintain standards

AZ - can revoke license; currently revising rules to allow for suspension

AR - violation of Regulation 5 (State regulation)

CA - continued, flagrant violation

CO - 10 percent of installations or service do not meet Handbook 44; failure to comply with State laws or regulations

CT - incompetent, inefficient, unscrupulous, unsuitable, or violation

of Title 43 of CT General Statutes

FL - failure to have standards calibrated (2 years) and excessive

rej ections GA - violation of GA laws, rules, regulations; failure to meet Handbook 44 HI - uncertified standards; not satisfying rules; unsatisfactory

maintenance and repair history

ID - continued poor service

IL - inaccurate fees or no bond; doesn't pass examination; not proper

amount of equipment; cannot install or service properly

IA - poor workmanship

KS - complaints from user; bad record

KY - repeated poor quality work; uncertified weights; on Director's

authority; not following rules, guidelines, forms ME - upon a hearing and notice; found incompetent; inefficient,

unscrupulous, or unsuitable

MN - failure to report, to properly repair or install, to comply with

laws, rules and regulations

MS - improper scale adjustment; removing red tags without repair

MO - poor quality work

MT - continued poor work

NE - failure to pay fee, to have adequate equipment, to obtain annual

calibration

NV - failure to register, report; remove tags without authorization

NH - failure to report; inaccurate tests; noncomplying equipment

NJ - dishonesty, incompetency NM - faulty installation, improper repair; violation of registration

requirements

NC - continued poor performance

ND - equipment not calibrated annually; good cause OK - failure to report, or to repair to specifications

(OR) - history (2 or more) occasions of inadequate service

SC - flagrant incompetency

(continued)
Tally (continued)

SD - (none listed) TN - negligence of duty TX - for good cause UT - failure to certify field standards, to report, to do capable work

VT - violation of regulation or law WI - uncalibrated standards (required every 2 years) WY - overcharge; poor service; impersonating inspector PR - careless, negligent (once) NYC- violation of statute and regulations

Of the 38 responding jurisdictions, 11 report requiring a history of violations in order to suspend or revoke the certificate.

QUESTION 18 - Has your jurisdiction ever suspended or withdrawn a Certificate of Registration?

No Yes (For what reasons?) CA - one in process AL - poor work

CT AZ - failure to comply with statutes GA AR - noncompliance with Regulation 5 ME CO - faulty work

MS FL - see question 17 MO HI - mis-, mal- and nonfeasance

NV - must hold hearings ID - only 2 or 3 times NH IL - no ability to install vehicle scales OK to meet specifications and tolerances ND IA - (no further information)

SC - only warned KS - only one since 1947 - overcharging for TN work, not doing job VT - hearings only KY - repeated poor quality NYC- no records to answer MN - improper and incomplete work

MT - not complying with requirements

NE - failure to have appropriate equipment

calibrated annually NJ - dishonesty, incompetency NM - faulty installation

NC - poor performance, unlawful acts ND - (no further information)

(OR)- suspend departmental authorization to remove tags TX - failure to repair or install to standards, failure to report

UT - failure to keep 10 000 lb of weights

certified

WI - failure to have standards calibrated

WY - incompetence

PR - upon reinspection , found no repair

14 24

141
Although 24 jurisdictions have withdrawn or suspended registration

certificates, two of these jurisdictions reported that this was a rare occurrence and a few rcre inclied the sane. It is r.ct possible tc confirm this because the questionnaire did not ask how many suspensions in a given period a jurisdiction issued. Fourteen jurisdictions rep creed that they had never withdrawn cr suspended registration. Ten of these 1- were jurisdictions with

mandatory programs.

NEVER SUSPENDED OR

WITHDRAWN REGISTRATION

(14)

16 —

HAVE SUSPENDED OR WITHDRAWN

REGISTRATION

(24) KEYVOLUNTARY REGISTRATION

PROGRAMS

OTHER CONTROL

MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAMS

Figure 15. Incidence of Withdrawal of Registration

The need to hold hearings may constitute serious impediments to suspending registration in more than those jurisdictions that re::::e:

this as a trodden. Iccunentaticn of occasions of poor quality work is also difficult and time consuming.

C1"-5..C.> 1? - Are there provisions for iir.es for failure to comply with

the regulation?

AZ AL - nis demeanor /S500 fine, 6 months hard labo

A?. CA - any vitiation a misdemear.cr

CO - only revoke license CZ - S20-200/3 months ir. prison - first convic

FL tion; $50-500/1 year - subsequently

ID GA - registration rejected or suspended, or

IL forfeiture of $1000 bond after hearing

KS HI - misdemeanor SlI-lCC - first conviction;

KY $50-500 - second conviction MN LA - loss of bond

. c ir.ued

1-1
Tally (continued) No Yes (What are they?) MS ME - $100 maximum - first offense; MO $200 maximum - subsequent offense

MT NV - misdemeanor and civil penalty

NE NH ~ first offense - maximum $100; NC subsequent offense - maximum $200 ND - only revoke permit NJ - first offense $50-100 or 10 to 90 days in OK jail second offense $100-250;

SC subsequent offense $250-500

SD NM - $20-500 and/or 90 days to 1 year in jail

TN (OR)- upon conviction "class B misdemeanor"

UT TX - $10-200

WI VT - $200 for first offense;

WY $500 for subsequent offense

PR NYC- $100 maximum

23 15 Fifteen jurisdictions report having a fine schedule for failure to comply with the registration regulation. Ten of the 17 jurisdictions

with mandatory registration programs have provisions for fines. Twenty three jurisdictions do not impose fines. Sixteen of the 20 jurisdictions with voluntary programs do not impose fines.

It is interesting to note that eight of the 15 jurisdictions that do provide for fines if their registration program is not complied with

have never suspended or withdrawn a certificate of registration (see

Question 18). Does this mean that (1) the penalty is too great for

the perceived wrongdoing, or (2) that fines are an easier way to gain

compliance rather than suspension or revocation of registration? The questionnaire was not designed with these possible explanations in mind and so, cannot answer them.

23

NO FINES

(23)

16

FINES

(15)

KEY:

Y7~\ VOLUNTARY CONTROL PROGRAM

"OTHER" CONTROL MANDATORY REGISTRATION PROGRAM

Figure 16. Status of Registration Programs with Provisions for Fines

143
QUESTION 20 - Has a registration of servicepersons/agencies saved government inspection time?

No Undecided Yes (How much?) AZ CA - not determined AL - 50 percent

MS ND - no answer AR - especially witness of test MO SC - possibly CO - do not make special trips after repair NH TX - no comparison CT - ? OK data because FL - very difficult to estimate

TN of age of GA - no information available

PR program HI - two hours/day; 10 hours/week;

NYC 65 days/year

ID - cannot quantify

IL - can schedule inspection at our convenience rather than right away

IA - 20 percent

KS - 50 percent including variable

frequency of inspection

KY - regular schedule rather than accommodating rechecks ME - 50 percent at least MN - In 1976 inspection cycle for volumetric and light capacity was

four years; heavy capacity was

seven years. Since voluntary

registration program, inspection

cycles completed on annual basis.

Twenty-five percent of inspector's

time is used to monitor service people. MT - Cost to industry without it would be hundreds of thousands of dollars NE - convenience of scheduling

NV - unknown savings but equipment

usually passes inspection

NJ - unable to determine how many fuel oil

dealers licensed so they can repair

at night and on weekend without

disruption to service NM - ? NC - not known but new devices can be put

into service without official test NDUT - identifies new installation faster - eliminate inspectors' leg work

VT - 20 percent

WI - may save 20 percent of inspection time WY - assistance to industry for placing

devices into service

8 4 25

144
A clear majority of jurisdictions (25) believes a registration program

is a savings, but there was only one documented case to prove it (MN)

.

Again, it is interesting that five of the eight jurisdictions that did

not feel there was any savings in a registration program have mandatory

programs. Four jurisdictions were undecided about the benefit of such programs

.

206 GUIDELINES AND INTERPRETATIONS

206-1 „ BARK MULCH

Several issues associated with this product were discussed by the Committee: appropriate labeling, package test methods, and allowable

variations. The Committee would especially like to thank the Weights

and Measures Section, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services, for their assistance and data on these issues. 206-1-1 APPROPRIATE LABELING Horticultural and landscaping bark mulch is sold by volume and is usually labeled in terms of cubic feet. The Committee is of the opinion that a label expressing a net weight is not adequate for consumer usage since the product is applied so as to cover a given

area to a given depth. Volume expressed as a cubic measure is,

therefore, most appropriate for this product.

As to metric labeling, the Model State Packaging and Labeling regulation, Section 6.6. (e) specifically states that a declaration of quantity

:

in units of volume other than liquid measure, shall be in terms

of the liter and milliliter, except that the terms cubic meter

and cubic centimeter will be used only when specifically designated as a method of sale. Bark mulch and other kindred products are being labeled in cubic

decimeters (dm3

) for sale both in the U.S. and Canada. The unit is not readily recognized in the U.S. and is not listed as one of the symbols permitted in Section 6.6.1. of the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation (1 dm3 = 1 L) . This product does not come under

the jurisdiction of any Federal agency with respect to net contents

labeling nor does there exist a specific method of sale for bark

mulch. The Committee considered whether other metric units were more appropriate for this product, for example:

3 cu ft = 84.9 L (or 84 L) 84.9 dm3 (or 84 dm3

) 0.0849 m

3 (or 0.084 m

3

) = 84900 cm3 (or 84000 cm3

)

145
(The numbers in parenthesis are based on the assumption that indicating

3 digits in the metric declaration is an exaggeration of the actual packaging accuracy.)

The Federal Trade Commission has issued staff guidelines on metric

equivalents that go beyond guidance currently covered in the NCWM

models. It is called the "Rule of 1000" and is quoted below: Rule of 1000 - For packaged goods, it is preferred that selected

multiple or submultiple prefixes for units result in numerical

values between 1 and 1000, e.g., 1.96 kg, not 1960 g or 750 mm, not 0.75 m. Use only decimal fractions - common fractions, e.g.,

1/2, 1/4, etc., are not permitted.

Applying this rule, either the L or dm3 designation would be appropriate for bark mulch, except that dm3 is not an accepted term in the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

The Committee solicits the opinion of NCWM membership and other interested parties as to whether there exists a need for a method of sale for bark mulch. The Committee will investigate whether labeling

in liters is permitted in Canada (in order to facilitate U.S. manufacturers to sell their products in Canada) and will hold this item over

for further input in the coming year. 206-1-2 PACKAGE TEST METHODS

The Southern Weights and Measures Association and the National Bark

Producers Association, Inc. have requested the assistance of the Committee in establishing uniform measuring procedures to be used by

enforcement agencies to check the accuracy of declarations on packaged

bark mulch. Package sizes vary predominantly from 2 to 3 cu ft. The container used to measure the accuracy of the package label at present

varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as do the filling operations

(fill and shake, tamp down, etc.). Although this issue is not directly

a Laws and Regulations matter, it should be resolved before the next

issue, that of allowable variations, is resolved. Therefore, the Committee recommends the use of the . following test procedure provided

by the National Bark Producers Association on a conditional or trial

basis in order to proceed on enforcement problems that may exist in

the field and in order to accumulate data and information on the magnitude of reasonable variations to be permitted for this product

(see voting key 206-1-4). The Committee requests jurisdictions and companies with different container dimensions or other procedures to submit information on their methods and on differences between their

method and the proposed one below.

The Committee recommends holding this item over for further input

during the coming year.

146
206-1-3 PROVISIONAL METHOD

Construct container with interior dimensions 9 inches by 16 inches by

40 inches high with 2 opposite inside walls of the container marked or scribed at 0.03 ft (0.36 in) intervals above and below the 3 cu ft (36-

in) height. Intervals down to 2.70 ft are recommended. The marks

below 3.00 ft indicate the percentage underfill of a 3-cu ft bag (each 0.03-foot mark is equivalent to 1% of the 3-cu ft label). Variations

in this container design will have to be made to accommodate smaller packages (extend marks further down the container) or rulers not reading to 0.01 in. In the latter case, marks or scribes such as the following would be appropriate (for example). For container marked at 1/8 in intervals, each interval is equivalent to 0.125 x 9 x 16 = 18 cu in (3 cu ft = 5184 cu in; 2 cu ft = 3456 cu in). For each bag of mulch to be measured, pour bag into container, and level the contents by hand. Do not rock, shake, drop, or tamp the container. Read the vertical marks in order to determine package net

contents. 206-1-4 ALLOWABLE VARIATIONS

The National Bark Producers Association has requested and the Southern

Weights and Measures Association has endorsed permitting an individual

package variation of 5%. The suitability of this request cannot be judged without substantially more data than the Committee has had

submitted to it. It is for this reason that the Committee wishes to provisionally recommend the procedure described in the voting key

206-1-3 in order to obtain the necessary data to evaluate the request.

In any event, the variation requested is not to be perceived or applied

as a tolerance. On the contrary, the average requirement must still

be met. What is being considered by the Committee is the suitability

of adding a section similar to Section 10.9.3. Textiles: Variations

from Declared Dimensions. The Committee intends to carry this item

over for further input.

(Item 206-1 was adopted.)

206-2 GUIDELINES ON NET CONTENTS DECLARATIONS IN METRIC UNITS

The Committee discussed the need for additional guidance to packagers

who wish to declare metric units in addition to inch-pound on their

package labels. One question which came before the Committee was: What is the appropriate metric declaration for a package labeled "1 oz;

M should it be "28 g" or "28.3 g" or "28.34 g"? Another related problem was that of a packager who labeled his canned goods "7 oz" in the U.S. and wished to add "200 g" to the same label in order to export the same product to a country with standardized size requirements. (In this latter case, 7 oz is equivalent to 198 g.)

147
The Committee is of the opinion that adequate information and guidance

already exists in the Model State Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Sections 6.8. proviso, 6.10. (with emphasis on 6.10. (d)), and 6.11.3. Thus, if the examples above are evaluated in terms of these sections,

the Committee hopes that this will constitute sufficient guidance for other problems or questions that packagers may have within the general area of metric declarations.

In the example of suitable metric declaration for a 1 oz package, a key to this decision is found in Section 6.11.3. in which it is stated

that "the number of significant digits retained should be such that accuracy is neither sacrificed nor exaggerated." It may be entirely

appropriate that one ounce of candy be labeled 28 g but that one ounce

of costly automotive chemical be labeled 28.34 g. The declaration

should neither exaggerate accuracy (which a candy label reading 28.3 g may do—depending on the measurement accuracy of the candy packaging

system) nor sacrifice accuracy (which a chemical label reading 28.3 g may do if the packager delivers each package with the accuracy of 0.01

g) . Thus, there may be exceptions to the general rule stated in Section 6.11.3. that converted values should be rounded down by

dropping any digit beyond the first three.

In the second example, a packager wishing to meet standardized package

requirements of other countries cannot, within the statement of principle in Section 6.11.3, label 7 oz packages as 200 g. Seven oz

is not equivalent to 200 g and the converted value of 200 g is incorrectly rounded up to 200 g rather than down. There are, however,

two other possibilities that packagers in such situations may wish to explore. The first is to determine if there are restraints (among

Federal regulations which may cover any given product) to making "200

g" the primary (first declaration on the package and then the declaration in parenthesis (or second) to be "7.05 oz" (the calculated

inch-pound representation) . The significance of this change in label

is that the product fill weight may have to be increased in order to meet the average requirement for 200 g (or 7.05 oz). The second possibility is, of course, to consider overlabeling or separate labels

for export. The Committee cannot at this time endorse 7 oz (200 g) net weight

declarations because:

o the weights are not equivalent; therefore, it is possible

for the package to be found in compliance with the inchpound declaration and not with the metric,

o the "equivalent" (second) quantity is not rounded down (so as to never exaggerate the quantity declared)

.

(Item 206-2 was adopted.)

148
206-3 INTERPRETATIONS FOR SECTION 10.5. COMBINATION PACKAGES AND SECTION 10.6. VARIETY PACKAGES, MODEL STATE PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

The Committee reviewed Sections 10.5 and 10.6 of the Model Packaging

and Labeling Regulation in order to determine the need for further

clarification. Several questions have arisen over the years with

respect to:

(1) What are the net contents labeling requirements for seasonal

gift packages composed of varying types of commodities or goods all combined into one package?

(2) Is the example provided in Section 10.6. entirely in keeping

with the declaration requirements? (In this section, it is required that total net contents be declared, but the example shows both total and individual net contents.)

It is the opinion of the Committee that there is no need to modify

these sections, but the discussions below may serve as guidance to enforcement officials and packagers on these sections.

As to the question of labeling requirements for seasonal gift packages,

it must first be determined what the individual units comprising each package are. The following examples are possibilities:

(a) individual packages of sausage, individual packages of cheese;

(b) several kinds of fruits of different weights;

(c) several kinds of fruit, bottle of wine, several packages of cheeses. Examples (a) and (c) above are combination packages and should be labeled with net quantities of each unit or type of unit. It is possible to combine fruit net weight (or count if appropriate) as one declaration, cheese net weight as a second, etc. Example (b) above is a variety package and must be labeled with the total net weight or count (as appropriate) of fruit in the package.

It is also reasonable for packagers to include, for full consumer

information, a declaration of the individual net contents of each type

of package or item in the gift package, although this latter declaration

is not required (e.g., 1 lb bananas, 3 pears, etc.). This is also the key to the second question asked above concerning the example provided

in Section 10.6.; that is, although a declaration of individual item

net contents is not required, packagers are encouraged to provide

additional information wherever useful to the consumer.

(Item 206-3 was adopted.)

149
206-4 GUIDELINES ON THE METHOD OF SALE FOR CLAMS , MUSSELS, AND OYSTERS California Weights and Measures transmitted a notice of FDA recom- mendations for the appropriate method of sale for clams, mussels, and

oysters. An FDA representative at the Interim Meetings could not confirm the validity of these guidelines as agency recommendations and

said, upon a call to FDA's Bureau of Foods, that there seemed to be

some disagreement on the method of sale for these items. The Committee

will transmit a letter of request to FDA for clarification of these guidelines and will carry this item over until next year.

(Item 206-4 was adopted.)

206-5 POLICY AND GUIDELINES ON MOTOR FUEL DELIVERIES (GAS PUMP) PRICE POSTING AS RELATED TO CASH DISCOUNTS With the appearance of different charges for retail motor fuel being

assessed according to whether there is a cash or credit card transaction, the Committee was asked by the Southern Weights and Measures

Association to develop requirements for suitable price posting in order to provide full consumer price comparison information and to reduce the chance of error or fraud in computing a final price. Matters in this area are complicated by the confusion which exists

regarding permissible practices under the Federal Cash Discount Act of 1981 (PL97-25) . This Act prohibits credit card surcharges but permits

discounts from the "regular price" for cash transactions. The Federal

Reserve Board (FRB) , responsible for writing regulations in this area, has proposed an interpretation of the Truth in Lending Act in the Federal Register (47FR20603, dated May 13, 1982). The text of that interpretation specifically concerning motor fuel retailing reads: "Determination of the regular price. The "regular price" is critical in determining whether the difference between the price

charged to cash customers and credit customers is a "discount"

or a "surcharge," as these terms are defined in amended § 103

of the act. The "regular price" is generally the price displayed

on the merchandise being sold. In the sale of motor vehicle

fuel, for example, the regular price is the price displayed at the pump. As a result, the higher price (the open-end credit

or credit card price) must be displayed at the pump, either alone

or along with the cash price. A service station operator may display the cash price of fuel by itself on a curb sign, as long

as the sign clearly indicates that the price is limited to cash purchases .

Since the Committee believes that the FRB interpretations would be additional to existing local requirements, and since many State laws are already in effect in the area of gas pump price posting, the Committee offers policy and guidelines (rather than a model

150
regulation) to be used in conjunction with existing or contemplated

laws and regulations in order to obtain and maintain national

uniformity in this area.

It is the opinion of the committee that the best means for preventing

consumer confusion as to the actual total money value of a transaction

is to automatically compute and display that money value at the motor

fuel dispenser. In recognition of the limitations of existing device

computing capabilities, when both cash and credit card transactions

are offered from a single dispenser, the committee recommends

permitting a cash discount chart to be used when separate pumps or islands cannot be dedicated either only to cash or only to credit card

sales. However, the committee believes that the NCWM should encourage whatever technological innovations are necessary to produce devices

which can compute and display, according to Handbook 44 requirements,

the accurate total money value of a transaction (whether by cash or by

credit card) at a single dispenser. Thus, the use of a cash discount

chart as described below should be viewed as an "interim" practice

similar to the interim practice of half-gallon pricing. The Committee, of course, recognizes that the period of time involved with

such a "interim" practice may be significant because most of the equipment in the field today may require extensive modification or replacement

.

The Committee wishes to thank the many State officials, Federal agency

officials, and industry who provided input and assistance in this

area. Policy and Guidelines on Motor Fuel Deliveries (Gas Pump)

Price Posting Relating to Cash Discounts

Discounting for cash transactions is a management decision of the merchandiser. Those merchants who elect to offer cash discounts on motor fuel must comply not only with the Federal Cash Discount Act but

also with the State and local weights and measures laws and regulations. All such laws are intended to prohibit deceptive,

misleading, or misrepresentative information to the consumer. The following guidelines are intended to apply to price advertising or posting at the streetside or highway as well as at the pump and to the price computed at the dispenser. These guidelines are applicable to other discount offers (such as combination purchases of car wash and

gas for example)

.

1. If a price is posted or advertised, it must be available to all qualified customers. If any condition or qualification

is required to obtain the posted price, that condition must

also be posted clearly and understandably in conjunction

with the price wherever it is posted.

2. The cash price may be disclosed on the posted or advertising

sign by itself as long as the sign clearly indicates that

the price is limited to cash purchases and as long as State requirements do not prohibit it.

151
3. If the merchandiser elects to establish separate pumps or islands for credit card and for cash sales, the pumps or islands shall be clearly identified as "cash" or "credit" to avoid customer confusion.

4. If the merchandiser wishes to offer cash discounts off the credit card price as well as permit credit card sales from a single dispenser, a chart expressed in terms of both the total quantity delivered and the total cash discount

applicable (in lc increments) shall be prominently displayed

so as to be easily read by the customer at the time of purchase. However, this practice should have only "interim"

status

.

5. In order to permit cash and credit card sales from a single

dispenser with the minimum amount of customer confusion, the NCWM should adopt a plan and timetable for changeover to devices that can compute and display final money values for either cash or credit card transactions.

(Item 206-5 was adopted.)

206-6 GUIDELINE OK PACKAGED EOODS AND COSMETICS SOLD EROM VENDING MACHINES

As part of its review of the Model State Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities, FDA recommended adding a statement to Section 3.3 that packaged foods and cosmetics sold in vending machines must in general be labeled in accordance with requirements for similar articles not sold in vending machines (e.g., ingredient declaration

requirements) . The Committee recommends that this information be made

a guideline rather than incorporated as part of the model regulation.

(Item 206-6 was adopted.)

206-7 METHOD OE RETAIL SALE FOR FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

As part of its review of and comments on Handbook 130, FDA recommended

and the Committee concurs that the Guidelines on the Method of Retail

Sale for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables be modified to indicate that whole melons can be sold by either weight or count. The guideline

would be modified in the following way (entire guideline is not reprinted,

only the entry of interest is reproduced here)

.

Commodity Method of Sale Melons (whole) Weight or Count

(Item 206-7 was adopted.)

152
207 OTHER ITEMS

207-1 ANTIFREEZE REGULATION STUDY

At the 61st National Conference on Weights and Measures (1976) the Committee was requested by the Texas Department of Agriculture to draft a model antifreeze regulation. At that time, the Committee felt that this request was outside their area of expertise. The Arkansas

Weights and Measures Division conducted a survey on the status of antifreeze regulations or laws in the States in 1981. It is the opinion of the Committee that the results of this survey may be useful

to other States and therefore is printed as part of the Committee's

report

.

(Item 207-1 was adopted.)

153
Antifreeze Survey

by

Sam F. Hindsman, Director, Weight and Measures Division,

Arkansas Department of Commerce

Purpose: The State of Arkansas does not have an antifreeze

quality law or testing program. This survey

was initiated to determine if the State of Arkansas has a need for such a law and testing

program. Data Collection: The information was gathered by mailing a questionnaire to the Directors of Weights and Measures of each State (see Questionnaire).

Data: See Summary.

Evaluation of Data: The following evaluation is based on 100 percent return of information requested.

66% (33) Did not have an antifreeze law. 34% (17) Did have an antifreeze law. The percent reporting substandard product

(of the 34 percent that do have programs)

is as follows:

59% (10) No problem

24% (4) 1 percent.

5% (1) 4 percent.

12% (2) 5 percent.

Two States had had a testing program (South

Dakota and Washington) , but since they did

not have problems, the programs were discontinued

.

Conclusion: Even though 34% of the States have programs, their

testing programs indicate that 5 percent

substandard product is the maximum illegals found. Considering the lack of serious problems in antifreeze

quality, it was concluded that the State of Arkansas should not initiate an antifreeze quality

testing program.

154
Questionnaire on State Antifreeze Laws Please answer the following questions:

1. Does your State have an antifreeze law: Yes No

2. If your answer is yes to question 1, are you using ASTM testing

procedures? Yes No

3. What has been your experience relative to substandard antifreeze

products? Percent substandard

No problems

4. What area of the testing of antifreeze do you find the most

problem? Number according to the greatest to the least,

number one being the greatest.

Boiling Point Reserve Alkalinity

Specific Gravity

Freezing Point

pH of Antifreeze

Pour Point Ash Content Corrosion

Water Concentration

5. Has the program contributed to providing the consumer with a better quality product? Yes No Thanks for the above information and for an early response.

155
Antif reeze Lav If Yes: ASTM? r - = ^ = = :;:=- Zz STr.TI Yes or No Yes or So Z Substandard - r r ? - ~ 5

m a 0 ° a s. I a : z a r Yes or n ~L i "H. S. < ; 5

Alabama So

Alaska Ho Arizona Yes Yes. Through a 1Z

ConsBercial La Arkansas 80

California Yes Yes Ho problem 2 6 4 3 7 5 8 9 1 Yes

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Connecticut So

Delaware Ho

Florida Yes Yes si 3 5 7 4 6 8 9 2 Yes

Georgia Yes Yes 5Z 1 Yes

Eavaii Yes Yes HA 2 1 Yes

Idaho Bo

Illi-cis So

Indiana So

Iowa Yes Yes Sc prcblar 7 2 9 3 6 8 1 5 4 Yes

Kansas So Kentucky So Louisiana Ho

Mair.e So Maryland So

Massachusetts Yes Yes Ho problem . . Ho problems . Yes

Mic-igan Ho Minnesota So Mississippi Yes Yes 1Z 1 Yes Missouri Ho

Montana Ho

;>"e'rras ;-_a Ho Kevada Yes Yes 4Z 2 3 4 15 Yes Sew Hampshire Ho Kew Jersey Ho Kew Mexico Ho Hew York Ho

Sorth Carolina Yes Yes So problem . . So problems . Yes

Sorth Dakota Yes Yes Ho problem . . Ho problems . Yes

Ohio Ho

Oklahoma Yes Yes Ho problem 2 1 Yes

Oregon Ho

Pennsylvania Ho

?lz.zze Isla-d Ho

South Carolina Yes Yes Ho problem . . So problems . Yes

South Dakota Ho* *Had a 7r:gra~, ziz racial ed by legislature. Tennessee Ho

Texas Yes Yes 1Z 2 7 Yes Utah Bo

Tar^;-; So

Virginia Ho

Washington So* *Had a program, hut no lotiger in effect.

"West Virginia Ho

Wisconsin Yes Yes 1Z 2 3 4 1 Yes

Wycuing Yes Yes Ho problem 1 Yes

136
207-2 MODEL PROGRAM FOR FIELD VERIFICATION OF DEVICES

(This item was carried over from the 66th NCWM, 1981, in which it was assigned a voting key of 205-1.)

Fairbanks Weighing Division of Colt Industries has requested this item

to be tabled until the Conference has had an opportunity to study the results and implications of the survey on the Model State Regulation

for the Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies

for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices (see voting key 205-1). The Committee concurs and recommends tabling this item. (Item 207-2 was adopted.)

J. J. Bartfai, New York, Chairman

S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas

W. R. Mossberg, Los Angeles County, CA

E. P. Skluzacek, Minnesota

D. E. Stagg, Alabama

C. S. Brickenkamp, Technical Advisor, NBS

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary, NCWM

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

(On motion by the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations voting key items 200 through 207-2 was adopted

in its entirety as amended by the Conference. The results of the voting

in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under

the Conference voting system are totalized in the table that follows.

The Conference also authorized the Executive Secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference.

157
VOTING RESULTS—Committee on Laws and Regulation

House of Representatives House of Delegates

Voting Key Yes No Yes No

201- 1 202- 1 203- 1 203-2 203-3 204- 1 204-2

204-3

204-4

204-5

204-6

204-7 204-8 205- 1 206- 1 206-2

206-3 206-4

206-5

206-6 206-7 207- 1 207-2

43

39

43

35

43

33

30

41

38

41

158
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES Presented by FRANK C. NAGELE, Weights and Measures

Specialist, Department of Agriculture, State of Michigan

VOTING KEY

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

submits its report to the 67th National Conference

on Weights and Measures. The report consists of the interim meeting report as offered in the Con- ference Announcement and as amended by the final

report

.

The report comprises recommendations of the Committee that have been formed on the basis of written and oral comments received during the year and oral presentations made during the open meeting of the committee. All recommended amend- ments are to appropriate provisions of the "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Re- quirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices."

NOTE: Except where paragraphs are to be added or completely revised

as indicated, changes are shown as follows: that which is to be deleted is shown lined out, and that which is to be added

is underlined.

301 Section 1.14. GENERAL CODE

301-1 G-T. TOLERANCES

The Committee received comment from two sources to review this section

as it had last year. The view of the Committee has not changed from

that expressed in the past and it senses that support for this view is growing within the Conference. Thus the Committee presents the following

for consideration.

Legal tolerances are for use by regulatory officials in determining if devices in commercial service are maintained in such a manner that the performance errors are sufficiently small that there is no serious

injury to either the buyer or seller of commodities. The theory ex- pressed by Handbook 44 with regard to acceptance and maintenance tol- erances is sound; however, it is the view of the Committee that the conditions or situations when acceptance tolerances are applied are in need of change for the following reasons:

(1) If acceptance tolerance is applicable for a test under existing Handbook 44 requirements, maintenance tolerance

would be applicable for subsequent tests immediately after a 159

I
device is approved. Maintenance tolerances would be applicable for all subsequent tests until a device would be officially rejected for a performance failure. We reason tbat if maintenance tolerances are realistic and establish acceptable

limits of inaccuracy, they should be appropriate for use at

all times.

(2) If adjustment of a device to acceptance tolerance becomes necessary after an official test, the additional service cost

to the device owner that can occur is difficult to justify.

It is often necessary for a service firm to return several

times before a device is within acceptance tolerance although

it may have been within maintenance tolerance after the first

service

.

(3) The cost to regulatory agencies for numerous retests necessary

to verify that a device has been returned to acceptance

tolerance is difficult to justify. Funds expended for retesting a device that is within maintenance tolerance to return

it to acceptance tolerance could be used for testing other devices that may not be functioning within maintenance tolerances . (4) Overall accuracy of devices in use should not deteriorate as

a result of applying maintenance tolerances for all tests except those in G-T.l. (a) and (b) as changed. Section 2.3,

Fundamental Considerations, and G-UR.4.1. and G-UR.4.3. stipulate that service personnel shall adjust as closely as possible to zero error and that equipment owners may not take advantage of the tolerances by adjusting equipment to have a value or give performance at or close to the tolerance limit. This should eliminate the possibility that equipment will be deliberately adjusted to function just within maintenance

tolerances and to the benefit of the user.

(5) It is difficult to interpret the existing paragraphs and especially difficult to define "major reconditioning or overhaul . " The Committee recommends the following:

Amend G-T.l. ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES to read: G-T.l. ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES- -Acceptance tolerances shall apply

as follows:

(a) To any equipment undergoing type approval or prototype examinations . (b) To any equipment undergoing an initial verification.

Add a new definition to read:

160
initial verification. The term initial verification shall mean any

official test of a device during the first 30 days following the notification and/or placing in use of a new weighing or measuring device,

or one that is reinstalled at a different place of business.

The Committee is aware and wishes to inform the Conference that similar

requirements are in effect in other places throughout the world; e.g., The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

(Item 301-1 was defeated)

302 SECTION 2.20. SCALES

302-1 S. 1.4.2. DIGITAL INDICATIONS/VALUES* DISPLAYED, TEMPERATURE

CONDITIONS

Since the adoption of this specification, there have been technological

advances and subsequent changes in the design of new equipment which,

it is assumed, has brought about improved measurements. The principal

problem that had been generated as a result was the lack of an appro- priate type approval test method that can prove conclusively that equipment is designed to meet this specification. Appropriate tests

can be time consuming and require the use of expensive equipment, both

of which may not be readily available. The Committee is pleased to report that this problem has been resolved, along with many others, by

the NTATF Technical Subcommittee on Scales and is included in the check

list referenced in Item 302-15. Still to be resolved are the appropriate performance requirements applicable in this test. It is the view

of the Committee that this technology is not subject to performance

change in use and that maintenance tolerances applied in the conduct of this test are technically sound and equitable. It is on this basis

that the Committee recommends that section T. Tolerances be amended by

adding the following new paragraph:

T.1.9. TO WARM-UP TIME TESTS. - Applicable tolerances shall be applied

.

(Item 302-1 was adopted)

302-2 S.2.1.5. TARE MECHANISM

The Committee received a comment from the NTATF that there was no apparent technical or economic reason for a weighing system to be equipped with a tare division value less than the value of the scale division. The only exception is a monorail scale since these devices

have few scale divisions (usually 1000) and the tare values are usually

constant at a weight value not equal to a scale division.

The Committee was also requested to provide appropriate design constraints

for devices designed to automatically clear an entered tare value.

161
In response to these two important issues the Committee recommends the following code amendments: Amend 5.2.1.4. For monorail scale as follows: S.2.1.4. FOR ON MONORAIL SCALES.- On a monorail scale equipped

with digital indications , means shall be provided for setting the zero-load balance and any tare value of less than fire percent of the seale eapaeity to within 0.02% of scale capacity. On an in- motion system, means shall be provided to automatically maintain

these this conditions. [Added 1974 and Amended 1976, 1982 ] Amend S.2.1.5. Tare Mechanism as follows:

S.2.3. St2t*t5t TARE-ME6HAN1SM. - On agg scale , (except a monorail scale equipped wi th digital indicazicns , the value

of the tare division shall he equal to the value of the

scale division .* The tare mechanism shall operate only in a back- ward direction (that is, in the direction of underregistration)

with respect to the zero load balance condition of the scale. On

a device designed to automatically c lear any tare value

entered, means must be provided to prevent the clearing of

tare until a complete transaction has been indicated .* (-Non

retroactive as of January I, 1983 ) Note: On a computing scale this would require the input of a unit

price and the display of the unit price and the computed positive

total price at a readable equilibrium. On other devices it would

require a weighing operation which includes a tare, net, and gross weight determination.

Add a new paragraph to read: S.2.3. 1. ON MONORAIL SCALES EQUIPPED WITH DIGITAL INDICATIONS .

On a monorail scale equipped with digital indications means shall

be provided for setting any tare value of less than five percent

of the scale capacity to within 0.02% of scale capacity. On an in-motion system means shall be provided to automatically maintain

this condition.

Renumber paragraphs S.2.3. through S.2.6. to 5.2.4. through 5.2.7.

302-3 S.2.4.1. DAMPING MEANS /ELECTRONIC ELEMENTS

The Committee received comment that there seeded to ze a dichct-zy

between this paragraph and paragraph S.2.1.2. Zero Load Adjustment/ On

Scales Used In Direct Sales, as applied to livestock scales. That is, on a livestock scale the maximum allowable motion for the operation of the semiautomatic zero setting mechanism (push-button zero) is one scale division and the maximum allowable motion for the operation of the

(Item 302-2 was adopted)

162
printing mechanism is three scale divisions. It is the view of the Committee that the requirements as they are at present are correct for

the following reasons:

a) In the weighing of livestock, the movement of the animals on

the scale produces a motion so that if the maximum allowable

motion for the printing mechanism were reduced to one scale division, a printing would be extremely difficult. Thus the three scale division value is necessary.

b) The one division limit for the zero setting mechanism is to prevent the operator from rezeroing a part of the load during

a weighing operation. It is possible that during the loading process prior to the entire load being applied (only one animal for example) an equilibrium within plus or minus three

scale divisions could be attained allowing the operator to operate the zero setting mechanism. This action would result

in a weight indication less than the weight of the load.

It is on this basis that the Committee recommends no change from the present status, and hopes that this explanation will aid the Conference

in interpreting these paragraphs.

(Item 302-3 was adopted)

302-4 S.6. MARKING REQUIREMENTS

Among the suggestions received from the NTATF, was a recommendation

that this section be amended to require the value of the scale division

be marked on any device so constructed that this value was not immediately apparent. The Office of Weights and Measures in the conduct of

its prototype examination program has consistently required this marking.

The Committee recommends that this section be amended by adding the following new nonretroactive paragraph:

S.6.2. VALUE OF THE SCALE DIVISION. - The value of the scale division shall be conspicuously marked adjacent to the weight

display on any scale so constructed that the value of the scale divison is not immediately apparent. This value shall be marked

with the nominal capacity in the following manner as appropriate:

Capacity: 100,000 x 20 lb Capacity: 30 x .01 lb On multi-range devices or devices capable of indicating in two or more units, each range and unit shall be marked.

(Item 302-4 was adopted)

163
302-5 UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS

The Committee reviewed, once again, the many problems confronting the official in determining the appropriateness of a device selected by a dealer in retail precious metals trade. The Committee views the guidelines that have been circulated and the discussions held at local and regional meetings as extremely helpful; they have resulted in a clearer

understanding of the problem. However, it does feel that a requirement

specifying the maximum value of the scale division would aid not only

weights and measures officials, but sellers and users of this equipment

as well. Therefore, the Committee recommends code amendment by adding

the following new paragraph:

UR.l. 1.1. FOR JEWELERS SCALES.- The value of the scale division

shall not be greater than 1/50 (2%) of the smallest quantity to be weighed

.

The Committee also recommends the following editorial changes.

(a) Renumber the remaining UR's.

(b) Throughout this section, delete the term "smallest unit" and insert the term "scale division".

(Item 302-5 was defeated)

302-6 UR.2.6.1. APPROACHES/TO VEHICLE SCALES

The Committee received a comment that the word "slightly" as it appears

in subparagraph (c) is not definitive and should be quantified. The Committee agrees and recommends that this paragraph be amended to read:

(c) not less than 10 feet of any approach adjacent to the platform

shall be constructed of concrete or similar durable material

to insure that this portion remains smooth and level and in the same plane as the platform. However, grating of sufficient

strength to withstand all loads may be installed in this

portion: [Amended 1982]

(A motion was made to amend this item by replacing the wording in the final report with the wording that ap- peared in the interim meeting report. A motion to debate passed. The motion on the amendment failed. A motion to table this item passed, thus this item was referred back to the Committee.)

302-7 PRECISION BALANCES

The Committee received several well documented comments concerning the application of certain requirements to precision balances and the probable need for more specific criteria. It is the view of the Com- mittee that the present code does not adequately cover balances, and that Code revision is needed. The most practical solution is separating

164
scales into classes according to the value of the scale division and

the number of scale divisons. This concept is presented in the revised

scale code draft which appears in Item 302-14 of this report. This is another example of the practicality of the principles expressed in that

draft. It is felt that a thorough study of these principles will result in a recognition of the many advantages of that system.

Since the Committee is not recommending Conference action on that item

in its entirety this year, the following course of action is recommended

When precision balances which fit Class I and II are being officially

examined, due regard should be given to the appropriateness of each

code requirement. The intended use of the equipment is especially

important, specifically with respect to design constraints intended to reduce fraudulent operation, since in most instances the highest concern

of the users in laboratories is accuracy and fraud is not even considere

Thus, it is evident that exceptions to the code will be necessary.

(Item 302-7 was adopted)

302-8 MENU SERVICE SCALES. During it's deliberations the technical subcommittee on scales of the NTATF discussed the design and application of devices used to weigh

prepared foods in restaurants. As a result two issues were referred to the Committee. One is the appropriate value of the scale division, the other is the basis for computing the sales price. Since these devices

are presently in use in several States and the possibility exists that their use could expand to other jurisdictions, the Committee presents

the following rationale for the design and operational features of this

equipment

.

(a) The scale is for use in restaurants and cafeterias to weigh

prepared food for consumption by customers. It allows a customer to select from bulk any amount of food to suit his own appetite. Examples of particular foods are salads, french fries, onion rings, and sandwich makings such as sliced meats, cheeses, lettuce, and tomato. Since the design

is not considered appropriate for supermarket use, it is required to be conspiciously marked "For Menu Service Only."

(b) Since most all sales are in amounts less than one pound, it

is considered appropriate to have scale divisons in units of ounces rather than pounds. Thus, unit prices are expressed

in terms of price per ounce. It is believed that prices per

ounce such as 10C, 11C, 19C, etc. rather than prices per pound such as $1.60, $1.76, or $3.04, etc. are easier for a customer to deal with and do in fact facilitate value comparisons . (c) The appropriate value for each scale divison is 0.05 ounce

for several reasons. An equivalent value expressed in pounds is 0.003125. Since that value (0.003125 pound) is

165
impossible to utilize as a real scale divisor., it would have

to be rounded to 0.005 pound. In doing so, the resolution is increased alzcsc two tiroes and also results in dealing with

three decinal places rather than two.

A practical example of the result is as follows:

If a customer "built" a sandwich which weighed 5.25 ounces and was priced at 25c per ounce the display would

read

,

5.25 oz e .23/oz = SI. 21. The sane values expressed in terms of pounds would be,

.328 lb £ S3.68/lb = 51.21.

If the value of tie scale diviscn in this example were to be 0.005 lb the display would read,

.330 lb @ $3.68/lb = 51.21.

(d) Because the error that can result in random weighing can be

large due to the scale division value, the device should not

he used to weigh loads less that lid '1 ounce), and tie scale should be s : narked

,

e Although tie scale will select if ever be used tc weigh

accounts ei-eacer nai one cr two pounds, ci is c:isidered

ape r cp riate to have a scale capacity of 161 ounces '1C pounds

This allows existing weighing elements of that magnitude to

be used: a new design is unnecessary thus realizing a ncre efficient nar^etcng aid measurement system.

To eliminate tie ueed for nee rp relations of existing requirements, the Icmnittee re c emends cede aneiineii as fellows:

Add new User Requirement tc read:

UR. 1.1.2. 71? hZeri" SERYIII SIAIIS.- The value ef tie scale division

shall be not greater than 1.15 ounce. Amend S.l.6.3. lUSTCMERS I;C I lA" l:o by adding the following to the end of the paragraph.

.... except en menu service scales, which siall compute and display

unit prices in terms ef a whole ounce.

Ace a definition as fellows:

zrer.u service scale, a scale designed, marked, and used to weigh

one or more elements comprising a meal fer consumption on the

i remises

.

(Item 302-8 was defeated) 166
302-9 RANDOM LABELS BY COUNT Prepackaging of produce is common and many produce items are properly

sold by count. Supermarkets often use a label produced by a prepackaging scale for this purpose. When the number of items included in the package cannot readily be determined visually by the customer or the package contains six items or more, the count must be declared on the

label. The Committee has been requested to express its view with respect to the design of a random label used for both weight and count. The committee offers the following criteria for the evaluation of the format of such a label.

(a) The quantity block must be headed with the words "Net Weight/

Count". If the printer does not print the specific weight

unit, the preprinted label must include this information; for example, pound, lb, or kg.

(b) The count must be printed in the quantity block.

(c) The count must be printed as an integer without a decimal

point, and modified with the word or symbol for pieces (pes)

or count (ct).

(d) The total package price must appear in the total price block.

(e) When labeled by count the unit price block is to remain

blank, unless the unit price is valid. Examples are: QTY U.P. TOTAL PRICE

6 pes 0.50 $3.00

5 5/. 89 $0.89

Since these labels are not by definition random labels, additionally,

the label must meet the requirements of paragraph S.l.7.2, and the Model Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

(Item 302-9 was adopted)

302-10 SCALES USED FOR WEIGHING GRAIN During the interim meeting representatives of the Federal Grain Inspection Service made presentations concerning their desire for cooperation

with the Conference in all areas of interaction. Specific proposals

were made in two areas. The first dealt with Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems (grain) . This matter is explained in the following letter received by the Committee:

167

I
"The Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) through this letter

to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee, formally requests

the committee give serious consideration to the following proposal

concerning "Automatic Electronic Bulk Weighing Systems (Grain)". Before the next NCWM Conference Interim Meetings the IGIS intends

to draft an additional proposed section to be added to the present

scale code of NBS Handbook 44. We hope to present it to the S&T Committee for their consideration at its interim meeting in January

1983.

If the committee, after study and deliberation, finds the proposal

too bulky to be included in the scale code they may want to propose

to the Conference that the FGIS document be considered as a stand alone or additional code to be included in the Handbook, such as the Belt-Conveyor Scale Cede. FGIS makes this request with the realization that our agency is no longer "new", but has now gained much experience in specific areas not normally encountered by most Weights and Measures iurisdicti

:

as . We also view cur first formal contribution to the NCWM is in the spirit of present ani future wholehearted cooperation.

Our ultimate goal is to eliminate the FGIS regulations in this

area, thus establishing the desired uniformity needed to assure equity in Grain Trade. A positive action or recommendation by the Committee to the Conference would indicate to FGIS that the Conference is in a position needed to assure the nationwide promulgation

within the Weights and Measures community. In this area FGIS would expect guidance from the conference, and expects to draw

from the expertise cf the S&T Committee and any other Weights and Measures jurisdictions that could provide valuable input. FGIS realizes editorial changes will undoubtedly be necessary due

to formal XCWM requirements, which FGIS may not be fully aware of. In this light FGIS would request the committee to permit FGIS to take advantage of the close proximity between our agency and }^BS

Headquarters to coordinate any changes needed to meet the conference

format

.

We had intended to provide the committee with a draft copy of our proposed code or section at this year's interim meeting. However,

the time factor was such that a meaningful document could not be drafted at this time. The Federal Grain Inspection Service wishes

to thank the Committee for this opportunity to present our plan."

The Committee acknowledges with thanks this offer of cooperation and will, during the ensuing year, work diligently with FGIS representatives in the development of appropriate requirements for bulk weighing

systems

.

168
The second dealt with grain test scales. It was indicated that there

are now new devices which do not meet T.3.5. and UR.1.2. but are consi- dered appropriate. The committee agrees with the proposals and recommends

the following:

Amend T.3.5. as follows:

T.3.5. FOR GRAIN-TEST SCALES.- The basic maintenance and acceptance

tolerances shall be as shown in the following table: BASIC TOLERANCE VALUES FOR GRAIN-TEST SCALES. (APPLICABLE TO INCREASING AND DECREASING LOAD TESTS.) CLASS II Test Load Maintenance Acceptance

Tolerances Tolerances

from to and in scale in scale including div (d) div (d) min 5000d 1 0.5 5000d 20 OOOd 2 1.0

20 OOOd 50 OOOd 3 1.5

CLASS III

from to and in scale in scale including div (d) div (d) min 500d 1 0.5 500d 2000d 2 1.0 2000d 10 OOOd 3 1.5 [Amended 1979]

Amend UR. 1.2. as follows

UR.l .2. FOR GRAIN-TEST SCALES ONLY.- The design of a scale selected

for use as a grain test scale shall be either Class II or Class

III as follows: CLASS II Scale Division Number of Divisions Minimum Capacity

(d) (n = Max/d) (Min)

Minimum Maximum

1.0 mg < d < 100 mg 10 000 50 000 50d

169
Class III Scale Division Number of Divisions Minimum Capacity

m (n = Max/d) (Min)

Minimum Maximum

0.1 g < d < 1.0 g 500 10 000 20d

Note: The symbol < means "less than or equal to." Thus, the statement

"1.0 mg < d < 100 mg" is read, "1.0 mg is less than or equal to d and d

is less than or equal to 100 mg."

Add a definition for Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems as follows: automatic bulk weighing system. A weighing system adapted to the automatic weighing of bulk commodities in successive drafts of predetermined amounts, automatically recording the no load and loaded weight

values and accumulating the net weight of each draft. (Item 302-10 was adopted)

302-11 MULT I RANGE SCALES

A multi range scale is a device that can automatically or manually

change the capacity and the value of the scale division. Devices with

these capabilities are presently being manufactured and it is anticipated

that the production and use of these devices will increase. Eventually

there will be a need for specific requirements applicable to these

devices. Until this has been accomplished the Committee offers the following guidelines for the design and test of this equipment.

(a) Must meet existing code tables and tolerances, and/or proposed

tables and tolerances.

(b) The number of scale divisions for each range is determined by

dividing the scale capacity (Cap ) by the value of d for each K

range

.

Examples

:

Cap_ d n K —

0 - 3 kg x 1 g 3000/1 = 3000

3+ - 6 kg x 2 g 6000/2 = 3000

6+ - 15 kg x 5 g 15000/5 = 3000

(c) For manual ranging devices, all requirements shall apply to each range individually, the range in use shall be conspicuously indicated, and the range selected cannot be changed

during a weighing operation or with a load on the load re- ceiving element unless the capacity of a range has been ex- ceeded. The zero indication should not change when different

ranges are selected

170
(d) In the application of S. 1.4.1. Capacity Indication for auto- matic ranging devices the maximum capacity applies and for manual ranging devices the capacity of each range applies.

(e) In the application of S.l.l., S.2.1.2. , and S.2.I.3., the smallest value of d applies.

(f) In the application of S.2.4.1. the value of d in use applies.

(g) Devices equipped with a tare capability must indicate and record values that meet the equation, gross = net + tare.

(h) Devices equipped with semi automatic (push button) tare must

meet tolerances for any indicated load after a maximum tare

has been taken, and the maximum tare capacity shall not exceed the capacity of the first range.

(i) The device must indicate the same value of d for decreasing

loads as indicated for increasing loads.

( j ) The shift test shall be conducted at 1/2 capD for each range. K

(k) The capacity and value of d for each range shall be conspicuously marked on the device.

(Item 302-11 was adopted)

302-12 DYNAMIC WEIGHING OF MOTOR TRUCKS FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES

This subject was included in the Report of the Committee to the 66th National Conference on Weights and Measures in Item 303-6. The information in this item was for the most part a presentation and a proposal

made to the Committee during its interim meeting. In the report to the Conference, the Committee expressed the view that this methodology had

merit, made no recommendation for action, and solicited comments from

all interested parties during the year.

The Committee has received a number of comments mostly supportive, a few in opposition. The objections were based on a relatively few ex- periences in which it was stated that the proposed tolerance of ±2% was not achievable. Proponents countered that the problem was excessive

speed of the vehicles during the weighing process, and that if speeds were controlled to less than 5 mph the 2% tolerance (the same as applied

to wheel-load weighers) is achievable.

The Committee is aware that the increased interest is a result of the Federal Highway Administration's urging the States to actively pursue a highway weight enforcement program; otherwise the availability of Federal Funds may be jeopardized. There is no doubt that if vehicles

can be weighed accurately in motion a substantial savings in time and money will result for all parties. The key, of course, is accuracy and equity for all concerned.

171
The Committee feels that there is merit in this proposal and has received

a limited amount of data indicating that these devices can meet ±2%

under certain conditions. There is a need, however, for some specific

design criteria applicable to these devices and the Committee will have

prepared for action by the 1983 Conference the necessary recommended

amendments to H-44. (Item 302-12 was adopted)

The Committee, in its report to the Conference in July, will recommend

action by the Conference, based on all of the information available to it at that time

.

302-13 COUPLED IN MOTION WEIGHING OF RAILROAD CARS

The Committee received a proposal that there was a need for the recog- nition of a weighing system used to weigh unit trains only without

specifying limits on the weights of individual cars as presently re- quired by paragraph T.3.8.3.(b). The proposal is as follows: "In the transportation of bulk materials by rail, increasing use

is being made of long 80-100 car trains. The high capital and operating costs of these trains make it imperative that no unavoidable delays are encountered. Therefore, many of these trains are weighed on coupled-in-motion track scales.

In most instances these trains run between one consignor and one consignee. Both the consignor and consignee are primarily interested in the total net weight of product in the train. The only

party interested in the individual car weights is the transporting

railroad. Its interest is to determine if any cars are overweight.

However, the accuracy required for this is of a different order

than that for the consignor/consignee requirements. At present a coupled-in-motion track scale has to meet the require- ments of H-44, Para T.3.8.3.(b). Traditionally this has been

interpreted as using a 10-car test train with 10 test runs to obtain 100 car weights. To meet these tests, scale manufacturers

have to insist on 10-car lengths of effectively straight and level track on either side of the scale. This can be very expensive for the purchaser, in some cases prohibitively expensive, because of the additional track work required. It is also a relatively

ineffective test in meeting the objectives of the consignor and consignee in that this method of testing does not ensure an accurate

total train net weight.

The current provisions of H-44 can be interpreted as using, say, a 100-car train to obtain the 100 car weights. In fact, some rail- roads and some consignees do insist on testing in this manner.

This is a good method of testing in that it is an "as used" method

and allows the system to be adjusted to provide an accurate total train weight. The problem with this, however, is that it is

172
almost impossible to meet current H-44 requirements when tested in this manner. This is not due to any basic scale inaccuracies, but

is due to the unavoidable force between couplers on long trains. These inaccuracies can be compounded by the increasing use of interlocking couplers which have a tendency to bind or lock up solid

.

Many tests have been carried out, including tests by the AREA

Committee 34 which clearly demonstrates that excellent total train

accuracies can be obtained with long trains even though individual

car errors are in excess of H-44 tolerances. Largely as a result

of these tests plus an understanding of the above problems, the AREA intends to introduce into their scale handbook, a separate

tolerance for unit train applications. The AREA Scale Handbook

for track scales is accepted and adopted by the Weighing & Inspection Bureaus, i.e., SWIB, EWIB, WWIB. This means that virtually

all the organizations involved with certifying and overseeing the use of railroad track scales accept the case for and favor a unit

train tolerance. There is considerable support among industry users for a unit

train tolerance. In addition to a total train weight accuracy of 0.2% being acceptable to them, they see it providing the following

advantages

:

1. Permits testing and calibration as used

2. Less costly installations

3. Reduced testing time and costs

4. The ability to weigh in locations where current H-44 individual car requirements cannot be met, but will give

good total train accuracy. Recording of individual car weights is, however, an essential

requirement for detecting overloaded cars. The desirability of a unit train tolerance has been acknowledged in virtually all other countries where rail is used to carry bulk commodities in single

consignor/consignee situations. Therefore, the adoption of a unit

train tolerance would be in line with International Weights and Measures practices.

Proposed Amendment to H-44

T.3.8.3. FOR COUPLED- IN-M0TI0N SCALES USED FOR INDIVIDUAL CAR WEIGHTS.- The basic maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall

be:

(a) The difference between the motion gross weight value and the static gross weight value of the test train shall not exceed

two pounds per 1000 pounds (0.2 percent).

(b) The difference between the motion gross weight values and the static gross weight value on 100 car weights shall meet the following conditions:

173
(1) At least. 70 percent of tie individual car weight differ- ences shall be within plus or minus 0.2 percent.

idividual car weight

minus 0.5 percent.

lifferences shall exceed plus

car weights must be within plus

eigne differences :ac be more 0 and including pins or minus

differences can be more than

1 including plus or minus 1 .

0

•7:1: s:aizs isii jz? 3i: 3.0 -i::-:--s Lance and acceptance tolerances shall be as follows:

r.:: versus ice 5 _r: :f tie c::::c --eights :f ice lupled-in-moticn cesc shall not differ by more

er 1000 pounds (0.2 percent).

Le fined as a number of contiguous cars carrying a :r:i :ne ::r_sign:r c: rte rrtsigcee. The timcer

determined by agreement between consignor/ cons iglerit to this proposal and recommends

phs

:

available concerning tolerances and other criteria. This resource itr:mati:t vas bcth natirnal ate :c:erii:::iil it scree The -"remittee

is especially grateful err tee ::ce v:r> rr ice 5>iA Iiccancec 5tr c crrrrittee :n Irleracres >rt rnly cic ctis s tr : rrrrrictee risccss treacly attrecnate trleratres fcr tie "J . 5 . . --nice vrtli : = rc:c:zr "-ice existing and icier crtsireracirc mtematicual trlerances, but it also developed a new = :c c: sensitivity acr cis crminaticn anc set fcrth. new criteria

f:r rertaic ccrrccrtant envtr cnnental fi::::s sect as cecrceracere . It certainly result it at easier t: _se rcceccent.

rest possible solution err all ::c:erce:, The .rrnccccee is veil avare

tiat the Conference has not bad the benefit of participation in all of this effort, consequently is not in a crsecion at this time to adopt

1%
Therefore, the Committee recommends that State and Regional Conferences

continue to schedule informative presentations that objectively explore

all the issues on tolerances. When the Committee is certain that the Conference has sufficient time to review all those considerations, it will then recommend Conference action. The Committee does believe that the Conference can act now on the Application, Specification, and Notes (except N.1.2.) sections of the Code as presented. There is no material change in these requirements

(except S.I.2., N.2., and N.3.) but rather a reordering of them in a sequence more consistent with the use of the Code. Since beams and poises are indicating elements, the paragraphs directed to them have been moved up front with the other paragraphs dealing with indicating

elements. Wherever possible, requirements applicable to digital equip- ment have been separated from those applicable to analog equipment, so that when digital equipment is being examined it is only necessary to refer to specific applicable paragraphs. This can also be more readily

accomplished by those using the Handbook by noting in the margin of each paragraph heading a specific marking which would indicate the kind

of equipment to which each paragraph applies. An example is: "A" for

analog, "D" for digital, "B" for both, "M" for mechanical, "E" for electronic, and "M.E." for both. The Committee is aware that changes

will need to be made to the UR and definitions sections as well but

time was insufficient to include them at this time. Thus the Committee presents the new code, recommending action on the Application, Specifications, and Notes (except N.1.2.) sections only.

Certain of these paragraphs are subject to amendment by action of this

Conference as referenced in previous scale code items. Appropriate

changes will be made consistent with Conference action on these items.

SEC. 2.20. SCALES

A. APPLICATION

A.l. GENERAL.- This code applies to all types of weighing devices other

then belt-conveyor scales. The code comprises requirements that are generally applicable to all weighing devices, and specific requirements

that are applicable only to certain types of weighing devices. [Amended

1972]

A. 2. WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS AND AXLE-LOAD SCALES.- The requirements for wheel-load weighers and axle-load scales apply only to such scales in official use for the enforcement of traffic and highway laws or for the collection of statistical information by government agencies.

A. 3. - See also General Code requirements.

175

(a) along the line of relative movement between the graduations and the end of the indicator, or

(b) if the indicator is continuous, at the point of widest separation of the graduations.

5.1.4. INDICATORS

.

5. 1.4.1. SYMMETRY . - The index of an indicator shall be sym- metrical with respect to the graduations with which it is associated and at least throughout that portion of its length

that is associated with the graduations.

5. 1.4.2. LENGTH.- The index of an indicator shall reach to the finest graduations with which it is used, unless the in- dicator and the graduations are in the same plane, in which

case the distance between the end of the indicator and the ends of the graduations, measured along the line of the graduations, shall be not more than 0.04 inch.

5. 1.4.3. WIDTH.- The width of the index of an indicator in relation to the series of graduations with which it is used

shall be not greater than

(a) the width of the widest graduation,

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between

weight graduations , and

(c) three-fourths of the width of the minimum clear interval between money-value graduations.

When the index of an indicator extends along the entire

length of a graduation, that portion of the index of the indicator that may be brought into coincidence with the graduation shall be of the same width throughout the length

of the index that coincides with the graduation.

5. 1.4.4. CLEARANCE.- The clearance between the index of an indicator and the graduations shall in no case be more than

0.06 inch.

5. 1.4.5. PARALLAX.- Parallax effects shall be reduced to the practicable minimum.

5.1.5. WEIGHBEAMS

5. 1.5.1. NORMAL BALANCE POSITION.- The normal balance position

of the weighbeam of a beam scale shall be horizontal.

5. 1.5.2. TRAVEL.- The weighbeam of a beam scale shall have equal travel above and below the horizontal. The total travel of the weighbeam of a beam scale in a trig loop or between other limiting stops near the weigh-beam tip shall be not less than the minimum travel shown in table 1. When such

177

I
limiting stops are not provided, the total travel at the weighbeam tip shall be not less than 8 percent of the distance

from the weigh beam fulcrum to the weighbeam tip. TABLE 1.- MINIMUM TRAVEL OF WEIGHBEAM OF BEAM SCALE BETWEEN LIMITING STOPS. Distance from weighbeam fulcrum to Minimum

limiting stops travel between

limiting stops Inches Inch

12 or less 0.4

13 to 20, incl 0.5

21 to 40, incl 0.7 Over 40 0.9 5.1.5.3. SUBDIVISION.- A subdivided weighbeam bar shall be subdivided by means of graduations, notches or a combination

of both. Graduations on a particular bar shall be of uniform

width and perpendicular to the top edge of the bar. Notches

on a particular bar shall be uniform in shape and dimensions

and perpendicular to the face of the bar. When a combination

of graduations and notches is employed, the graduations shall

be so positioned in relation to the notches as to indicate

notch values clearly and accurately.

5. 1.5.4. READABILITY. - A subdivided weighbeam bar shall be

so subdivided and marked, and a weighbeam poise shall be so constructed, that the weight corresponding to any normal poise

position can easily and accurately be read directly from the beam, whether or not provision is made for the optional re- cording of representations of weight.

5. 1.5.5. CAPACITY.- On an automatic-indicating scale having

a nominal capacity of 30 pounds or less and used for direct

sales to retail customers,

(a) the capacity of any weighbeam bar shall be a mul- tiple of the reading-face capacity,

(b) each bar shall be subdivided throughout or shall

be subdivided into notched intervals each equal to the reading-face capacity, and

(c) the value of any turnover poise shall be equal to the reading-face capacity.

S. 1.5.6. POISE STOP.- Except on a steelyard with no zero graduation, a shoulder or stop shall be provided on each

weighbeam bar to prevent a poise from traveling and remaining

back of the zero graduation.

178
S.1.6. POISES.

5. 1.6.1. GENERAL . - No part of a poise shall be readily de- tachable. A locking screw shall be perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the weighbeam and shall not be removable. Except on a steelyard with no zero graduation, a poise shall not be readily removable from a weighbeam. The knife edge of

a hanging poise shall be hard and sharp and so constructed as

to allow the poise to swing freely on the bearing surfaces in

the weighbeam notches.

5. 1.6.2. ADJUSTING MATERIAL . - The adjusting material in a poise shall be securely enclosed and firmly fixed in position,

and if softer than brass it shall not be in contact with the weighbeam.

5. 1.6.3. PAWL.- A poise, other than a hanging poise, on a notched weighbeam bar shall have a pawl that will seat the poise in a definite and correct position in any notch, whereever in the notch the pawl is placed, and hold it there firmly and without appreciable movement. That dimension of the tip of the pawl that is transverse to the longitudinal axis

of the weighbeam shall be at least equal to the corresponding

dimension of the notches.

5. 1.6.4. READING EDGE OR INDICATOR.- The reading edge or in- dicator of a poise shall be sharply defined, and a reading

edge shall be parallel to the graduations on the weighbeam.

5.1.7. CAPACITY INDICATION, WEIGHT RANGES, AND UNIT WEIGHTS.

Except for single or multi-revolution dial scales not equipped with

unit weights, an indicating or recording element shall not display

or record any values when the gross platform load is in excess of 105% of the capacity of the system. The total value of weight

ranges and of unit weights in effect or in place at any time shall automatically be accounted for on the reading face and on any re- corded representation.

5.1.8. FOR COMPUTING SCALES ONLY.

S. 1.8.1. MONEY-VALUE GRADUATIONS.- The value of the graduated

intervals representing money values on a computing scale with

analog indications shall be as follows:

(a) Not more than 1 cent at all unit prices of 25 cents per pound and less.

(b) Not more than 2 cents at unit prices of 26 cents per pound through $1.25 per pound. (Special graduations

defining 5-cent intervals may be employed, but not

in the spaces between regular graduations.)

(c) Not more than 5 cents at unit prices of $1.26 per

pound through $3.40 per pound.

179

'

1
(d) Not more than 10 cents at unit prices above $3.40 per pound.

Value figures and graduations shall not be duplicated in any column or row on the graduated chart. (See also Sec. 1.14; G-S.5.5. , and S. 1.8.2.

)

5. 1.8.2. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATION.- A computing scale with

analog quantity indications used in retail trade may compute

and present digital money values to the nearest quantity

graduation when the value of the minimum graduated interval

is 0.01 pound or less. (See also Sec. 1.14; G-S.5.5.)

5.1.8.3. CUSTOMER'S INDICATIONS.- Weight indications shall

be shown on the customer's side of computing scales when these

are used for direct sales to retail customers. Computing

scales equipped on the operator' s side with digital

indications, such as the net weight, price per pound, or total price, shall be similarly equipped on the

customer' s side (nonretroactive as of 1971). Unit

price displays visible to the customer shall be in terms of

the price per pound and not in fractions or multiples of a pound. [Amended 1975]

5. 1.8.4. RECORDED REPRESENTATIONS, POINT OF SALE SYSTEMS.- The sales information recorded by cash registers when interfaced

with a weighing element shall contain the following information

for items weighed at the checkout stand:

(a) the net weight,

J

(b) the unit price,

(c) the total price, and

(d) the product class or, in a system equipped with

price look-up capability, the product name or code number.

S.1.9. FOR PREPACKAGING SCALES ONLY.

5. 1.9.1. VALUE OF GRADUATED INTERVAL.- On a prepackaging

scale, the graduated intervals representing weight values

shall be uniform throughout the entire reading face, and any recorded representation shall present weight values identical

with those on the reading face. [Made retroactive as of 1972]

5. 1.9.2. LABEL PRINTER.- A prepackaging scale that, as part

of the scale itself or of any auxiliary device attached thereto or used in connection therewith, produces a printed ticket

to be used as the label for a package shall print all values

digitally and of such size, style of type, and color as to be clear and conspicuous on the label. [Made retroactive as of

1972]

Weight values shall be identified by the word "pound," the symbol

"lb", or the sign "#" . [Added 1975 and amended 1976] 180
S.1.10. PROVISION FOR SEALING ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS ON ELECTRONIC

DEVICES.- Provision shall be made for applying a security

seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be

broken before an adjustment can be made to any component

affecting the performance of the device. (Nonretroactive

as of January 1, 1979). [Added 1978]

S.2. DESIGN OF BALANCE, TARE, LEVEL, DAMPING, AND ARRESTING MECHANISMS.

S.2.1. ZERO-LOAD ADJUSTMENT

5.2.1.1. GENERAL.- A scale shall be equipped with means by

which the zero-load balance may be adjusted, and any loose material used for this purpose shall be so enclosed that it cannot shift in position in such a way that the balance con- dition of the scale is altered.

5.2.1. 2. ON SCALES USED IN DIRECT SALES.- A manual zero set- ting mechanism (except on a digital scale with an analog zero adjustment mechanism with a range of not greater than one scale division) shall be operable or accessible only by a tool out- side of and entirely separate from this mechanism, or enclosed

in a cabinet. Except on a Jewelers scale, a balance ball shall either meet this requirement or not itself be rotatable. A semi-automatic zero setting mechanism shall be operable or accessible only by a tool outside of and entirely separate

from this mechanism or enclosed in a cabinet, or shall be operable only when the indication is stable within:

(a) Plus or minus 3 scale divisions for scales of more than

5000 pounds capacity in service prior to January 1, 1981 and

for all axle load, railway track, and vehicle scales.

(b) Plus or minus 1 scale division for all other scales. [Amended 1981]

S.2.1. 3. ON SCALES EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC ZERO

SETTING MECHANISM. - Under normal operating conditions

the maximum load that can be "rezeroed" when all at once either placed on or removed from the platform

shall be:

(a) For bench, counter, and livestock scales -0.6

scale division,

(b) For axle load, railway track, and vehicle scales -

3. 0 scale divisions,

(c) For all other scales -1.0 scale division.

(Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1981)

[Amended 1981]

181
5.2.1.4. FOR MONORAIL SCALES.- On a monorail scale equipped

with digital indications, means shall be provided for setting

the zero-load balance and any tare value of less than five

percent of the scale capacity to with 0.02% of scale capacity. On an in-motion system, means shall be provided to automatically maintain these conditions. [Added 1974 and Amended 1976] 5.2.1.5. TARE MECHANISM. - The tare mechanism shall operate

only in a backward direction (that is, in the direction of underregistration) with respect^to the zero-load balance con- dition of the scale. 5.2.2. BALANCE INDICATOR.- On a balance indicator consisting of two indicating edges, lines, or points, the ends of the indicators

shall be sharply defined and shall be separated by not more than

0.04 inch, measured horizontally, when the scale is in balance.

S.2.2. 1. ON DAIRY-PRODUCT-TEST, GRAIN-TEST, JEWELERS, AND PRESCRIPTION SCALES ONLY [AMENDED 1979].- A dairy-producttest, grain-test, jewelers, or prescription scale shall be equipped with a balance indicator. If this consists of an indicator and a graduated scale that are not in the same plane, the clearance between the indicator and the graduations

shall be not more than 0.04 inch. 5.2.3. DAMPING MEANS.- An automatic-indicating scale, and balance

indicator, shall be equipped with effective means for damping the oscillations whenever such means are necessary to bring the indicating elements quickly to rest. [Amended 1972] 5.2.3. 1. ELECTRONIC ELEMENTS.- Electronic indicating elements

equipped with recording elements shall be equipped with effective means to permit the recording of weight values only when

the indication is stable within:

(a) Plus or minus 3 scale divisions for scales of more

than 5000 pounds capacity in service prior to January

1, 1981 and for all axle load, railway track, livestock,

and vehicle scales.

(b) plus or minus 1 scale division for all other scales. [Amended 1981] The values recorded shall be within applicable tolerances.

5.2.3. 2. ON JEWELERS AND PRESCRIPTION SCALES ONLY.- A jewelers

or prescription scale shall be equipped with appropriate means

for arresing the oscillation of the mechanism.

S.3. DESIGN OF LOAD-RECEIVING ELEMENTS.

182
S.3.1. TRAVEL OF PANS OF EQUAL-ARM SCALE.- The travel between

limiting stops of the pans of a nonautomatic-indicating equal-arm

scale not equipped with a balance indicator shall be not less than

the minimum travel shown in table 2. TABLE 2.- MINIMUM TRAVEL OF PANS OF NONAUTOMATIC INDICATING EQUAL- ARM SCALE WITHOUT BALANCE INDICATOR. Nominal capacity Minimum

travel of pans Pounds Inch

4 or less 0.35

5 to 12, incl 0.5

13 to 26, incl 0.75 Over 26 1.0 5.3.2. DRAINAGE.- A load-receiving element intended to receive

wet commodities shall be so constructed as to drain effectively.

5.3.3. SCOOP COUNTERBALANCE.- A scoop on a scale used for direct

sales to retail customers shall not be counter-balanced by a re- movable weight. A permanently attached scoop-counterbalance shall indicate clearly on both the dealer's and customer's sides of the scale whether it is positioned for the scoop to be on or off the scale

.

S.4. DESIGN OF WEIGHING ELEMENTS.

5.4.1. ANTIFRICTION ELEMENTS.- At all points at which a live part

of the mechanism may come into contact with another part in the course of normal usage, frictional effects shall be reduced to a minimum be means of suitable antifriction elements, opposing sur- faces and points being properly shaped, finished, and hardened. A platform scale having a frame around the platform shall be equipped

with means to prevent interference between platform and frame. 5.4.2. ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS.- An adjustable component such as a nose-iron, pendulum, spring, or potentiometer (but not a component

for adjusting level or zero-load balance) shall be held securely

in adjustment and shall not be adjustable from the outside of the

scale. The position of a nose-iron on a scale of more than 2000

lb capacity, as determined by the factory adjustment, shall be ac- curately, clearly, and permanently defined. [Amended 1975] 5.4.3. MULTIPLE LOAD-RECEIVING ELEMENTS.- Except for bench and

counter scales, a scale with a single indicating or re- cording 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. (Nonretroactive as of 1969.

)

183
1

S.5. MARKING REQUIREMENTS. (See also G-S . 1 .

)

5.5.1. NOMINAL CAPACITY.- The nominal capacity shall be conspicuously marked as follows:

(a) On any scale equipped with unit weights or weight ranges.

(b) On any scale with which counterpoise or equal-arm weights

are intended to be used.

(c) On any automatic-indicating or recording scale so con- structed that the capacity of the indicating or recording

element or elements is not immediately apparent.

[Amended 1978]

(d) On any scale with a nominal capacity less than the sum

of the reading elements.

5.5.2. MARKiNS-REQUiREMENTS- -WEIGHING ELEMENTS.- On a weighing

element not permanently attached to an indicating element,

there shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes

of identification the name, initials, or trademark of the

manufacturer, the manufacturer^ designation that positively

identifies the pattern or design, and the nominal capacity.

[Added and nonretroactive as of 1972]

5.5.3. FOR LIVESTOCK, VEHICLE, AND RAILWAY TRACK SCALES ONLY.- A

livestock, vehicle, or 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.

[Made retroactive as of 1979.] 5.5.4. FOR PREPACKAGING SCALES ONLY.- A prepackaging scale shall

be conspicuously marked on the operator's side and on the opposite

side with the words "For Prepackaging Use Only" or with a similar

and suitable statement.

(See the footnote following the section on user requirements in the Scale Code.)

N. NOTES

N.l. TESTING PROCEDURES

N.l.l. INCREASING-LOAD TEST.- The increasing load test shall be conducted on all scales with the test loads approximately centered

on the load-receiving element of the scale, except on a scale having a nominal capacity greater then the total available known

test load, in which case the available test load is used to greatest

advantage by concentrating it, within prescribed load limits, over

the main load supports of the scale.

184
N.1.2. DECREASING- LOAD TEST.- The decreasing-load test shall be conducted on automatic indicating scales and with test loads equal

to the maximum test load at which the smallest tolerance value would apply; for example on a Class III scale at test loads equal

to 4000d, 2000d, and 500d. The test load shall be distributed ap- proximately evenly on the load receiving element of the scale.

N. 1.2.1. ZERO BALANCE SHIFT.- A balance shift test shall be conducted on all scales after the removal of any test load. The balance should not change, more than the minimum tolerance

applicable. (See also G-UR.4.2.) [Added 1977] N.1.3. SHIFT TEST.

N. 1.3.1. ON BENCH OR COUNTER SCALES.- The shift test shall

be conducted with a half-capacity test load centered succes- sively at four points equidistant between the center and the

front, left, back, and right edges of the load-receiving

element.

N. 1.3.2. ON DAIRY-PRODUCT-TEST SCALES.- The shift test shall

be conducted with a test load of 18 grams, this load being

sucessively positioned at all points at which a weight might

reasonably be placed in the course of normal use of the scale

.

N.1.3. 3. ON EQUAL-ARM SCALES.- The shift test shall be con- ducted with a half-capacity test load shifted, as prescribed

in N.1.3. 1., on each pan, with an equal test load centered on

the other pan.

N. 1.3.4. ON VEHICLE SCALES.- The shift test shall be con- ducted with at least two different test loads successively

distributed between the two load bearings (or other weighing

elements) that support each section of the scale. [Amended

1972]

N. 1.3.5. ON RAILWAY TRACK SCALES WEIGHING INDIVIDUAL CARS IN SINGLE DRAFTS.- The shift test shall be conducted with at least two different test loads, if available, distributed

over, or to the right and left of, each pair of main levers

or other weighing elements supporting each section of the

scale. [Added 1972]

N. 1.3.6. ON ALL OTHER SCALES EXCEPT CRANE SCALES AND HANGING

SCALES.- The shift test shall be conducted on all other

scales, except crane scales and hanging scales, with a half- capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, succes- sively at the center of each quarter of the load-receiving

element, or with a quarter-capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively over each main load support.

185
N.1.4. ZONE OF UNCERTAINTY TEST.- The zone of uncertainty test on

digital instruments shall be conducted under controlled conditions

in which environmental factors are reduced to the extent that they

will not affect the results obtained. [Added 1974] N.1.5. RATIO TEST.- A ratio test shall be conducted on all scales employing counterpoise weights and on nonautomatic-indicating

equal-arm scales.

N.2. VERIFICATION (TESTING) STANDARDS.- Standard weights and masses

used in verifying weighing devices shall comply with requirements of NBS Handbook 105-1 (Class F) or the tolerances expressed in Fundamental

Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., 25% of the smallest tolerance

applied)

N.3. MINIMUM TEST-WEIGHT LOAD FOR IN-SERVICE TESTS. N.3.1. For devices of 100 pound capacity or less, 106% of device

capacity. N.3.2. For devices of more than 100 pound capacity. N.3.2.1. For devices with the value of d equal to or less than 20 pounds, a test weight load not less than lOOOd, but

not more than 106% of scale capacity.

N.3.2. 2. For devices with the value of d more than 20 pounds,

a test weight load not less than 500d. N.3.3. For Railway Track Scales, not less than 30,000 pounds. N.3.3.1. For coupled in motion tests, a test train of 10 cars or more, yielding at least 100 car weights.

N.4. NOMINAL CAPACITY OF PRESCRIPTION SCALES.- In the absence of in- formation to the contrary the nominal capacity of a prescription scale

shall be assumed to be 1/2 apothecaries ounce. [Amended 1972]

T. TOLERANCES [MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE ERRORS (MPE)

]

T.l. PRINCIPLES.

T.l.l. The tolerance for a weighing device is a performance re- quirement independent of the design principle used.

T.l. 2. Weighing devices are divided into accuracy classes according to the number of scale divisions (n) and the value of the scale division (d)

.

T.1.3. The tolerance for a weighing device is related to the value of the scale division (d) and is expressed in terms of a scale division.

186
T.1.4. A minimum capacity is specified in terms of a number of scale divisions to indicate that the use of the device with light

loads is likely to result in large relative errors.

T.2. ACCURACY CLASS. T.2.1. Weighing devices are divided into accuracy classes and de- signated as follows: Special Accuracy

High Accuracy

Medium Accuracy

Ordinary Accuracy

Class I Class II Class III or III L Class IIII T.2.2. The accuracy of class of a weighing device is determined

by the follow table: Number of Scale Divisions

Max Minimum

Capacity

Class Scale Interval d Minimum Maximum Min

I - Special Accuracy

°equal to or less than 0.5 mg 100 °equal to or greater than 1 mg 50 000100 d

II - High Accuracy

°equal to or greater than 1 mg

and equal to or less than 100 mg °greater than 200 mg

100

5 000

50 000

50 000

50 d

III - Medium Accuracy

°equal to or greater than . 1 g and equal to or less than 5 g °equal to or greater than 10 g 100 500

10 000

10 000

20 d

III L - Medium Accuracy/Large Capacity

°equal to or greater than 2 kg 2 000 6 000 20 d IIII - Ordinary Accuracy

°equal to or greater than 5 g 100 1 000 10 d T.3. TOLERANCE APPLICATION

T.3.1. The tolerance values are positive (+) and negative (-), with the weighing device adjusted to zero at no load. When tare

is in use, the tolerance values are applied from the tare zero reference

.

T.3.2. The tolerances apply to increasing, decreasing, and shift

test loads within the temperature limits specified in paragraph

T.9.2.

187
T.3.3. For multiple range weighing devices (variable scale division) , tolerances are based on the value of the scale division of the range in use.

T.4. TOLERANCE VALUES

T.4.1. Except for weighing devices of Class III L, the acceptance

tolerance values are as specified in the following table. ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES

Scale Divisions

Class

I II III IIII

l/2d

0-50 000

0 - 5 000

0 - 500

0 - 50

Id 50 001 - 200 000

5 001 - 20 000

501 - 2 000

51 - 200

1 l/2d 2 l/2d 200 001 + 20 001 - 50 000

2 001 - 4 000 4 000 H 201 - 400 400 h T.4.2. The acceptance tolerance values for weighing devices of Class III L shall be Id for each lOOOd of test load. T.4.3. The maintenance tolerance values for all weighing devices

shall be two times the acceptance tolerance, except at zero load. T.4.4. SEPARATE MAIN ELEMENTS: LOAD TRANSMITTING ELEMENT, INDI- CATING ELEMENT, ETC.- If a main element, separate from a weighing

device, is submitted for type approval, the tolerance for the ele- ment is no more than 0.7 times that for the complete weighing de- vice. This fraction includes the tolerance attributable to the testing devices used.

T.5. AGREEMENT OF INDICATIONS

T.5.1. MULTIPLE INDICATING/RECORDING ELEMENTS, MULTIPLE BALANCING

METHOD.- In the case of multi-indicating/ recording elements,

tolerances shall be applied independently to each separate indicating and recording element of a weighing device. T.5.2. SINGLE INDICATING/RECORDING ELEMENT, MULTIPLE BALANCING

METHOD.- For a single indicator, the indications shall agree within one half division when the method of balancing is changed

(e.g. counter-poise weights applied to the tip of a weighbeam,

unit weights with a dial, etc.) T.5.3. MULTIPLE INDICATING/RECORDING ELEMENT, SINGLE BALANCING

METHOD.- For a weighing device equipped with multiple elements,

used for indicating and/or recording, and a single means for balancing: For the same load, indications or recorded values,

when taken in pairs, shall agree within one-half the value of the scale division in use.

188
T.5.4. TIME DEPENDENCE.- At constant test conditions the indication 20 seconds after the application of a load, and the indication

after one hour shall not differ by more than the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load.

T.6. REPEATABILITY

T.6.1. The results obtained under reasonably constant static test

conditions, by several weighings of the same load, shall agree within the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance for that

load. T.6.2. Any two results obtained under reasonably constant static

test conditions, during the shift test, or section test, shall agree within the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance for that load.

T.7. SENSITIVITY

T.7.1. The sensitivity test shall be conducted on non-automatic

indicating (beam) weighing devices only, with the weighing device

in equilibrium at zero-load and at maximum test load. T.7.1.1. A test load, equivalent to Id at zero and 2d at maximum test load shall cause a permanent change of at least:

(a) On a scale with trig loop but without a balance indicator,

the position of the weighbeam shall change from the center to the outer limit of the trig loop.

(b) On a scale with balance indicator, the position of the indicator shall change at least one division on the graduated scale, the width of the central target area,

or the following value, whichever is greater.

1 mm (0.04 inch) for scales of Class I and II.

2 mm (0.08 inch) for scales of Classes III and IV with a maximum capacity of 30 kg (67.2 lb) or less.

5 mm (0.20 inch) for scales of Classes III, III L, and

IV with a maximum capacity of more than 30 kg (67.2 lb).

(c) On a scale without a trig loop or balance indicator, the position of rest of the weighbeam or lever system shall change from the horizontal or midway between limiting

stops to either limit of motion.

T.8. DISCRIMINATION.- The discrimination test shall be conducted with

the weighing device in equilibrium, at zero load and at maximum test

load.

189
T.8.1. AUTOMATIC INDICATING - ANALOG (I.E., WEIGHING DEVICE WITH

DIAL, DRUM, FAN, ETC.).- A test load of Id shall cause a permanent

change to the indication by at least 0.7 of the test load. T.8.2. AUTOMATIC INDICATING - DIGITAL.- A test load, equivalent

to 1.4 times the minimum division, shall cause a change of indication or printed value of two divisions. This requires that the zone of uncertainty shall not be greater than 0.3 times the value

of minimum division.

(Note: The discrimination test is conducted from the lower or upper edge of the zone of uncertainty for increasing and decreasing load tests, respectively.)

T.9. INFLUENCE QUANTITIES

T.9.1. LEVEL.- If the performance of a portable scale is changed

by an amount greater than the appropriate tolerance when it is moved from a level position and rebalanced in a position that is out of level in any direction by 5%, or approximately 3 degrees,

the scale shall be equipped with level indicating means. (There

is no additional tolerance allowance for out-of-level operating

conditions .

)

T.9.2. TEMPERATURE.- Devices shall satisfy the tolerance require- ments under the following temperature conditions:

T.9.2. 1. If not marked on the device, the temperature limits

are

:

Classes Temperature

III & III L IV

I II +10 °C (50 °F) to +30 °C (86 °F) +10 °C (50 °F) to +30 °C (86 °F) -10 °C (14 °F) to +40 °C (104 °F) -10 °C (14 °F) to +40 °C (104 °F) T.9.2. 2. If temperature limits are marked on the device, the

range shall be at least: Classes Temperatures

III

1 °C (2 °F) & 5 °C (9 °F) III & III L IV

15 °C (27 °F) 30 °C (54 °F) 30 °C (54 °F)

Unless the working temperature range is -10 to +40 °C , the working temperature range shall be stated on the identification

plate

.

190

- - ^
T.9.2.3. TEMPERATURE EFFECT ON ZERO-LOAD BALANCE.- The zero-load indication shall not vary by more than 1 division

per 5 °C change in temperature.

T.9.2.4. OPERATING TEMPERATURE.- An indicating or recording

element shall not display or record any usable values until

the operating temperature necessary for accurate weighing and

a stable zero balance condition, has been attained.

T.9.3. HUMIDITY.- If no particular humidity limit is specified,

the weighing device must satisfy the conditions defined in paragraphs T.4 through T.8 inclusive within 10 to 95% relative humidity,

non-condensing

.

T.9.4. ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY. T.9.4.1. LINE VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY.

(a) Weighing devices that operate using alternating current must perform within the conditions defined in paragraphs

T.4. through T.8. inclusive over the line voltage range

of 100-130 volts rms and over the frequency range of 59.5 to 60.5 Hz.

(b) Battery-operated instruments must perform over the power

source range of 80 to 120 percent of full battery rated voltage, and meet the conditions defined in paragraphs

T.4. through T.8. inclusive.

T.9.4. 2. POWER INTERRUPTION.- An indicating or recording

element shall not display or record any out-of-tolerance

values caused by power interruptions.

T.9.5. BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.- The zero indication must not vary by

more than one (1) scale division for a change in barometric pressure

of 1 kilopascal over the total barometric pressure range of 112 to 124 kilopascals (28 to 31 inches Hg)

.

T.9.6. UNDEFINED INFLUENCE FACTORS.- Other influence quantities

exist and should be taken into account when applying weighing

systems. These include:

Motion

Vibration - steady state and transient

Wind Snow and Rain

Wash Down Gravitational Effects

Radiation Effects

Adverse Loads - Side Loads Adverse Loads - Shock Loads Temperature Gradients

EMI/RFI

Etc.

(A motion to table this item and refer it back to the Committee was passed)

191
302-15 REPORT OF THE NTATF TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCALES

The NTATF technical subcommittee on scales had developed and submitted

to the Committee a final version of their recommendations for the Interpretations, Guidelines, and Test Procedures for Type Evaluation

Examinations. The Committee was extremely pleased with this document

and expresses its appreciation to that technical subcommittee for a super effort. It once again is a clear example of the accomplishment

possible when members of the Conference representing both government

and the private sector work diligently together. This publication will

serve well the needs of the Legal Metrology System in the conduct of type evaluation examinations

.

The document contains too much material to appear in this Conference

Announcement; however copies will be available at the Conference for

all attendees.

The Committee recommends that the technical subcommittee continue its effort, updating this document when deemed necessary, and further

recommends Conference adoption of this document.

(Item 302-15 was adopted)

303 SECTION 3.30. LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

303-1 MATHEMATICAL AGREEMENT/HIGH UNIT PRICES /READING UNCERTAINTY

In last year's report this subject appeared as Item 304-7, and included

almost nine pages of discussion and information. The Committee reconfirms the validity of all of that material and this material was submitted

to the technical subcommittee of NTATF. As indicated in last year's

report, and after a study and review of all the comments received, the Committee recommends the following:

Add the following two new Note paragraphs:

N.4.4. MONEY VALUE COMPUTATION TESTS. N.4.4.1. LABORATORY DESIGN EVALUATION TESTS.- In the conduct

of laboratory design evaluation tests, compliance with paragraph

S. 1.4.4. shall be determined by using the cone gear as a reference for the total quantity delivered. The maximum

allowable variation of the indicated delivered quantity shall be an indication with the index of the indicator in coincidence

within the width of the graduation. The maximum allowable

variation of the indicated sales price shall be plus or minus

one half the value of the smallest money value division.

N.4.4. 2. FIELD TESTS.- In the conduct of field tests to determine compliance with paragraph S. 1.4.4. the maximum

allowable variation in the indicated sales price shall be plus or minus the value of the minimum money value division.

(Item 303-1 was adopted)

192
303-2 S. 1.4.4. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS

The Committee received comment that this paragraph should be amended to preclude the problem of computing-type devices being marketed with

insufficient total sales indications. The Committee also recognizes

that although the recommended field test in N.4.4.1. above is consistent with this paragraph, the recommended field test in N.4.4.2. above allows a computed sales price variation of 1 division, which is in con- flict with this paragraph.

To resolve both of these issues, the Committee recommends that this

paragraph be amended as follows:

S. 1.4.4. MONEY VALUE COMPUTATIONS.- Money-value computations on a retail device shall be of the full-computing

type in which the money value at a single unit price, or at each series of unit prices, shall be computed for every delivery within either the range of measurement of the deviee all deliveries of twenty- five gallons or less or the range of the computing elements, whichever is less greater . [Amended and nonretroactive as of 1983] In a design evaluation test any analog money value indication

shall not differ from the mathematically computed money value

(Quantity x Unit Price = Sales Price), for any delivered quantity,

by an amount greater than one-half the value of the money value

division.

In a field test , the difference shall not be greater than the value of the money value division . [Amended 1982]

(This item was defeated. After a brief explanation

by the Chairman of the Committee a motion to recon- sider this item was passed. The Chairman deleted

from the report the recommendation for amendment to the first paragraph of S. 1.4.4. A motion to recon- sider the second and third paragraphs was passed. Item 303-2 with the first paragraph of S. 1.4.4'. deleted was adopted.)

303-3 SUPPRESSION OF INDICATED VALUES

In last year's report this subject appeared as item 304-6 and is repeated

here for the convenience of the Conference.

The Committee was requested to respond to a question concerning the maximum indicated quantity values that could be suppressed, or not indicated on a digital retail motor fuel dispenser. The Committee had responded to this issue two years ago and established this value as 0.009 gallon or 0.03 liter. Thus the first value indicated must never

be more than 0.01 gallon or 0.04 liter.

193
This decision was based on the following:

1. The first indication on a device indicating in 0.01 gallon divisions is 0.01 gallon, therefore, a device indicating in 0.001 gallon units should be given the same consideration.

2. The equivalent value to 0.009 gallon is 2.08 cubic inches. This

is a significant amount when compared to the tolerances allowed,

and allowing any larger value would make the determination of the performance of the device more difficult and would necessitate

taking additional 5-gallon test drafts.

3. The suppression does not improve the measurement capability but

rather the opposite and tends to cover up other problems, e.g. soft wall hoses.

(This Item was adopted)

In response to the comments received since the Conference, the Committee recommends that paragraph S. 1.4.1. be amended as follows:

S. 1.4.1. FOR RETAIL DEVICES ONLY, EXCEPT SLOW-FLOW METERS/ INDICATION

OF DELIVERY.- A retail liquid-fuel device shall be constructed to show

automatically its initial zero condition and the amounts delivered up

to the nominal capacity of the device, except that the first 0 . 009 gallon or 0 . 03 liter and its associated total sales price need not be indicated . (A motion was made to amend this item by replacing

the value 0.009 with the value 0.019. A motion to debate this amendment was passed. After a brief

debate the amendment was defeated. Item 303-3 was adopted)

.

303- 4 RETAIL MOTOR FUEL DEVICES - DISPENSER/ CONSOLE MONEY-VALUE DIVISION AGREEMENT. Information on this subject appeared in last year's report as Item

304- 3. The Committee's view has not changed that provision must be made in such a system to assure that customers pay only in the same money value divisions as appear on the retail dispenser. The Committee recommends that the Code be amended by adding the following new nonretroactive paragraph:

S. 1.4. 4. 3. MONEY-VALUE DIVISIONS AUXILIARY INDICATIONS.

In a system equipped with auxiliary indications, all

indicated money-value divisions shall be identical.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1984).

(Item 303-4 was adopted)

194
303-5 S.3.1. DIVERSION OF MEASURED LIQUID. The Committee received many comments that motor fuel devices with two delivery outlets used in the fueling of trucks should be allowed to dispense from both outlets simultaneously provided that the installation does not facilitate diverting the flow from the intended receiving

vehicle

.

The Committee agrees and also considered that there were other applications where simultaneous flow is necessary, such as the fueling of certain aircraft and watercraft.

To accommodate these needs the Committee recommends code amendment as follows

:

Amend S.3.1. to read: S.3.1. DIVERSION OF MEASURED LIQUID.- No means shall be provided

by which any measured liquid can be diverted from the measuring

chamber of the meter or the discharge line therefrom. However,

two or more delivery outlets may be installed if automatic means

are provided to insure that:

a) liquid can flow from only one such outlet at one time, and

b) the direction of flow for which the mechanism may be set at any time is definitely and conspicuously indicated . For devices installed specifically for the fueling of trucks , two outlets may be operated simultaneously if suitable means are pro- vided to prevent diversion of flow to other than the receiving

vehicle . Such means include but are not limited to physical barriers to adjacent driveways , visible valves or lighting systems

indicating which outlets are in operation , and explanatory signs . The provisions of this section shall not apply to measuring devices

with all discharge outlets \\ inches in diameter or larger , when

these outlets are designed to operate simultaneously . Amend UR.2.4. to read: UR.2.4. DIVERSION OF LIQUID FLOW.- A motor-fuel device equipped

with two delivery outlets used exclusively in the fueling of trucks shall be so installed that any diversion of flow fromeither

of the delivery outlets will be readily apparent, to other than

the receiving vehicle cannot readily be accomplished and is readily

apparent . (Item 303-5 was adopted)

195

I
303-6 POWER FAILURE

The Committee discussed the impact of power failure occurring during

the sale and delivery of motor fuel. Discussions were also held at NTATF meetings. It was agreed that problems could develop and there is

a need for additional design criteria. The Committee recommends the Code be amended by adding the following new nonretroactive paragraph:

8.1.4.1.1. INDICATION OF DELIVERY/POWER FAILURE. - In the

event of a power loss adequate means shall be provided to complete any transaction in progress at the time of power

loss. The necessary information such as quantity and unit

price or sales price shall be capable of being determined

for at least 15 minutes at the dispenser or at the console

if accessible to the customer.

Information provided for the user, such as fuel dispensed

and money value totals from the dispenser, shall be retained

in the memory during power loss. (Nonretroactive as of

January 1, 1983)

(Item 303-6 was adopted)

303- 7 REPORT OF THE NTATF TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIQUID-MEASURING

DEVICES

This subcommittee too worked diligently in the preparation of material

for type evaluation examinations. The same comments that appeared in Item 302-15 apply here in all respects. The information that developed

as a result of this cooperative effort will also be available for distribution at the Conference and the Committee recommends its adoption

to be incorporated as a separate section in the publication "Interpretations, Guidelines, and Test Procedures for Type Evaluation Examinations."

(Item 303-7 was adopted)

304 SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE-TANK METERS.

304- 1 TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

Once again the Committee was requested to amend this code with the addition of requirements applicable to automatic temperature compensation.

The Committee's view has not changed since this subject was first

addressed by the Committee. That which follows is consistent with the Committee's recommendations in 1979 and 1980. (1980 Report pages 229-230-231 - Item 304-1)

Since automatic temperature compensators that interface with vehicletank meters are apparently readily available from several manufacturers,

and currently in commercial use, it is the view of the committee that

this technology should be recognized in the Code for Vehicle-Tank

Meters. It is also the Committee's view and intent that this action

neither requires this equipment to be used, nor does it make its use entirely voluntary. It merely removes an obstacle if, in the sale of

196
any product measured by a vehicle-tank meter, it is considered appropriate and legal to compensate for temperature variations.

The specific changes recommended for adoption in the Code are as follows

5.2.4. THERMOMETER WELL. - Means shall be provided for inserting,

for test purposes, a mercury-in-glass thermometer either

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately

adjacent to the meter.

5.2.5. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.- A device may be equipped with an adjustable automatic means for adjusting the indication and registration of the measured volume of product to the volume at 60 °F. 5.2.5. 1. PROVISION FOR DEACTIVATING.- On a device equipped

with an automatic temperature compensating mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of gallons compensated

to 60 °F, provision shall be made to facilitiate the deactivation of the automatic temperature compensating mechanism so that the meter may indicate, and record if it is equipped to record, in terms of the uncompensated volume.

5.2.5. 2. PROVISION FOR SEALING.- Provision shall be made for applying security seals in such a manner that an automatic

temperature-compensating system cannot be disconnected and that no adjustment may be made to the system.

S.5.5. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.- If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator, the primary indicating elements,

recording elements, and recorded representation shall be clearly

and conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 60 °F. N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS.- The "normal" test of a device shall be made

at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated under the conditions of installation. If the device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator, this test should be conducted

with the compensator deactivated and activated .*

'vNote: This amendment clearly states that both activated and deactivated tests are normal tests. N.4.1.1. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.- If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator, the compensator shall be tested by comparing; 1) the volume

indicated or recorded by the device with the compensator

197
connected and operating with, 2) the actual delivered volume

corrected to 60 °F. N.5. TEMPERATURE CORRECTION" . - Corrections shall be made for any

changes in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between time of passage through the meter and time of volumetric determination in the test measure.

T.3. TOLERANCES FOR AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATORS ON VEHICLE

TANK METERS.- To the tolerances that would otherwise be applied to the device under test, there shall be added an amount equal to the change in the volume of the product for a 2 °F change in temperature . UR.2.4. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.- Applicable only when the gallon is defined by State law as a specified volume at a specified

temperature

.

UR.2.4. 1. USE OF AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATORS.- If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator,

this shall be connected, operable, and in use at all times. Such automatic temperature compensator may not be removed,

nor may a compensated device be replaced with an uncompensated

device, without the written approval of the weights and measures authority having jurisdiction over the device. UR.2.4. 2. WRITTEN INVOICES.- Any written invoice based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator shall show thereon that the volume delivered

has been adjusted to the volume at 60 °F. UR.2.4. 3. NONAUTOMATI C TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION.- If the volume of the product delivered is adjusted to the volume at

60 °F, the product temperature shall be taken during the delivery in the liquid chamber of the meter or in the meter

inlet or discharge line adjacent to the meter. The accompanying invoice shall indicate that the volume of the product has been adjusted for temperature variations to a volume of 60 °F and shall also state the product temperature used in making

the adjustment.

(A motion to table was defeated. A motion for a di- vision of the house ^recount) was passed. The recount

results confirmed the defeat of the motion to table. Item 304-1 was defeated.)

198
305 SECTION 3.32. LP GAS LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

305-1 S.2.3. DIRECTIONAL FLOW VALVES. The Committee received comment that this paragraph only required that valves which prevent the reversal of flow be automatic in operation and

that measuring systems must be equipped with such a valve to operate

accurately. The Committee agrees and recommends that this paragraph be amended to read: S.2.3. DIRECTIONAL FLOW VALVES.- A measuring system shall be equipped with a valve or other effective means, automatic in oper- ation and installed in or adjacent to the measuring element, to prevent reversal of flow of the product being measured.

(Item 305-1 was adopted)

305-2 S.2.7.1. FOR RETAIL MOTOR FUEL DEVICES/ZERO-SET-BACK

INTERLOCK.

It was brought to the attention of the Committee that, although this

requirement has been a part of the code since its adoption, many devices

in use today are not equipped with such a mechanism. Industry repre- sentatives admitted that they and weights and measures officials have inadvertently overlooked this paragraph. This condition became apparent

only recently with the increased use of LP gas as a motor fuel for automobiles. The Committee views this requirement as sound and recognizes that immediate compliance is impossible to attain. Therefore,

the Committee recommends that each jurisdiction meet with Industry

representatives to develop a practical program for the conversion of existing equipment over a reasonable period of time. This time period

will vary in each jurisdiction dependent on the number of devices

affected, the availability of equipment for conversion, and the volume

of product sold at each particular location. The Committee further

recommends that all newly installed equipment should be required to be

in compliance with this paragraph.

(Item 305-2 was adopted)

305-3 N.3. TEST DRAFTS.

The Committee received a comment that this paragraph seemed to require

a minimum of a 50-gallon test draft for all devices other than a retail

motor-fuel device. Consequently devices used repeatedly to deliver

drafts equal to 20 gallons or less, for example, those used to fill small recreational type tanks, had to be tested with 50-gallon test

drafts. For clarification purposes the Committee recommends that this

paragraph be amended to read: N.3. TEST DRAFTS.- Test drafts should be equal to at least the amount delivered by the device in one minute at its maximum normal

199

I
discharge rate^ and shall in neease be less than 10 gallons for

a retail motor fnel deviee and 58 gallons for any other devieer

(Item 305-3 was adopted) SECTION 5.52. LINEAR MEASURES.

S.5.2. GRADUATIONS/WIDTH

306 306-1 The Committee received a comment that this paragraph was unusually

restrictive with respect to the design of tapes manufactured at the present time. It was suggested that requiring the width of graduations

to be not greater than one-fourth the width of the smallest graduated

interval was appropriate when the smallest interval was 1/16 inch. Tapes today are graduated in smaller intervals, for example, 1/32 inch

or 1 mm, and to require a graduation width of 1/128 inch or 0.25 mm was impractical. The Committee agrees and feels that a change is necessary

and that measurement integrity will not be compromised. The Committee

recommends this paragraph be amended to read: S.5.2. WIDTH.- The width of the graduations on any measure shall not exceed one-foarth one-half the width of the smallest graduated

interval on the measure, and shall in no case be wider than 0.03

inch. (Item 306-1 was adopted)

307 307-1

OTHER ITEMS NONRETROACTIVE REQUIREMENTS

In accordance with the recommendation in Section 1.10. Introduction, paragraph 5, Classification of Requirements, the Committee recommends

that the following nonretroactive requirements which have been effective

for ten years or more become retroactive.

CODE PARAGRAPH EFFECTIVE DATE

Scale (2.20) Scale (2.20) Scale (2.20) Scale (2.20) Scale (2.20) Farm Milk Tanks

(4.43.) Milk Bottles

(4.44.) Milk Bottles

(4.44.) Wire- and Cordage- Measuring Devices

(5.51.)

S. 1.4.1. Capacity Indication 1/1/81

S. 1.6.3. Customer's Indications (Digital) 1971 5.4.3. Multiple-Load-Receiving Elements 1969

5.6.4. Marking Requirements /Weighing Elements 1972 UR.1.1.7. Value of Smallest Unit/Railway Track 1971 Scales

S.2.2.1. Level Indicating Means/On a Stationary 1969 Tank

S.A.I. Capacity 1969 5.4.2. Identification 1966

5.3.3. Design of Measuring Elements/ 1969 Accessibility

(Item 307-1 was adopted)

200
307-2 CODE FOR MILK METERS (3.35)

This Code has been tentative since 1977. The Committee has not received

any comments since that time and therefore recommends this code be changed from tentative to permanent status. (Item 307-2 was adopted)

307-3 GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

The Committee received many comments on the draft tentative code pre- sented in the Committee's Report to the 66th National Conference. On

the basis of these comments, the task force on grain moisture measurement and the Committee have made changes to that draft and now recommend

that the Code that follows be adopted as a tentative code. During the ensuing year, the Committee and Task Force will be evaluating

the use of transfer standards other than grain to determine suitable

test procedures and tolerances for inclusion in this code at a later

date. They will also be studying and developing, when deemed necessary,

code requirements applicable to fully automatic grain moisture meters.

The Committee would appreciate all information gathered by members of

the Conference on these items as well as the entire tentative code.

201
SECTION 5.56. TENTATIVE CODE GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

This tentative code has only a trial or experimental status and is not

intended to be enforced. The requirements are designed for observation

and study prior to the development and final adoption of code for grain

moisture meters.

A. APPLICATION

A.I.- This code applies to grain moisture meters; that is, devices used

to indicate directly or through conversion and/or correction tables the moisture content of cereal grain and oil seeds. The code consists of general requirements applicable to all moisture meters and specific

requirements applicable only to certain types of moisture meters.

A. 2.- This code does not apply to devices used for in-motion measurement

of grain moisture content or seed moisture content.

A. 3.- See also General Code requirements.

S . SPECIFICATIONS

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS AND OF RECORDED REPRESENTATIONS

.

5.1.1. PRIMARY ELEMENTS

S.l. 1.1. GENERAL.- A meter shall be equipped with a primary

indicating element and may also be equipped with a primary

recording element. If the meter indicates directly and/or is equipped to record, the meter shall indicate and/or record

its measurements in terms of percent moisture content, wet

basis. Subdivisions of the unit shall be in term of decimal

subdivisions (not fractions). If the meter indicates in the conventional scale and requires conversion or correction

tables, the resulting values after use of such tables shall

be in terms of percent moisture content, wet basis. Subdivisions of this unit shall be in terms of decimal subdivisions

(not fractions).

5 . 1 . 2 . GRADUATIONS

5. 1.2.1. LENGTH.- Graduations shall be so varied in length

that they may be conveniently read.

5. 1.2.2. WIDTH.- In any series of graduations, the width of

a graduation shall in no case be greater than the width of

the minimum clear interval between graduations , and the width

of the main graduations shall be not more than 50 percent

greater than the width of subordinate graduations. Graduations shall in no case be less than 0.008 inch in width.

202
S. 1.2.3. CLEAR INTERVAL BETWEEN GRADUATIONS.- The clear in- terval shall be not less than 0.03 inch between graduations.

If the graduations are not parallel, the measurement shall be made

a) along the line of relative movement between the graduations and the end of the indicator, or

b) if the indicator is continuous, at the point of widest

separation of the graduations.

.1.3. INDICATORS

5. 1.3.1. SYMMETRY.- The index of an indicator shall be sym- metrical with respect to the graduations with which it is associated and at least throughout that portion of its length

that is associated with the graduations.

5. 1.3.2. LENGTH.- The index of an indicator shall reach to the finest graduations with which it is used, unless the in- dicator and the graduations are in the same plane, in which

case the distance between the end of the indicator and the

ends of the graduations, measured along the line of the graduations, shall be not more than 0.04 inch. 5.1.3.3. WIDTH.- The width of the index of an indicator in relation to the series of graduations with which it is used

shall be not greater than

(a) the width of the widest graduation,

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between graduations . When the index of an indicator extends along the entire

length of a graduation, that portion of the index of the indicator that may be brought into coincidence with the graduation shall be of the same width as the graduation

throughout the length of the index that coincides with the graduation.

5. 1.3.4. CLEARANCE.- The clearance between the index of an indicator and the graduations shall in no case be more than

0.06 inch.

5. 1.3.5. PARALLAX.- Parallax effects shall be reduced to the practicable minimum.

.1.4. DIGITAL INDICATIONS

S. 1.4.1. MEASUREMENT COMPLETION.- A digital indicating ele- ment shall not display any values (either moisture content or conventional scale) before the end of the measurement cycyle.

203
S . 1 . 4 . 2 . RANGE OF MOISTURE CONTEST . - A digital indicating

element shall not display any values when the moisture con- tent of the grain sample is beyond the operating range of the device

.

5.1.5. RECORDING ELEMENTS

5. 1.5.1. If a meter is equipped with a recording element, it shall record in terms of percent moisture content, wet basis

only, and not in terms of a conventional scale.

5 . 1 .5 . 2 . MEASUREMENT COMPLETION. - A recording element shall not record any values before the end of the measurement

cycle

.

5.1.5. 3. RANGE OF MOISTURE CONTENT.- A recording element

shall not record any values when the moisture content of the grain sample is beyond the operating range of the device.

5.1.6. DESIGN OF DIRECT READING GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

S. 1.6.1. GRAIN OR SEED KIND AND CLASS SELECTION AND RECORDING.- Provision shall be made for selecting and recording, if equipped to record, the kind and class (as appropriate) of grain or seed to be measured. The means to select the kind

and class of grain or seed shall be readily visible and the kind and class of grain or seed selected shall be clearly and definitely identified in letters (such as WHEAT, or WRT,

HRVW, etc.).

S. 1.6.2. OPERATING RANGE.- Provision shall be made for clearly indicating when the operating range of the moisture

meter has beer, exceeded. DESIGN OF MEASUREMENT ELEMENTS

.

5.2.1. DESIGN OF ZERO- SETTING AND TEST PC INT MECHANISMS . - If a grain moisture meter is equipped with a zerc setting and/or test point Mechanism (s) , this (these) mechanism(s) shall be adjustable

only with a tool outside of and entirely separate from this mechanise: cr enclosed in a cabinet. This requirement shall not apply

to manual operations that the operator must make (following operating instructions) in order to obtain a meter reading on a grain

sample

.

5.2.2. PROVISION FOR SEALING.- Prevision shall be made for applying

a security seal in a Banner that requires the security seal to be broken before an adjustment can be made to any component of the

grain moisture ie;er that is set by the manufacturer or authorized

service representative and not intended to be adjusted by the user

.
S.3. ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT . - When the operating instructions for a moisture meter require accessory equipment separate from and external to the moisture meter, such equipment shall be appropriate and complete

for the measurement.

S.3.1. GRAIN-TEST SCALE.- If the moisture meter requires the weighing of the grain sample, the weighing device shall meet the requirements of the General Code and those applicable portions of

the Scale Code. 5.3.2. THERMOMETERS OR OTHER TEMPERATURE SENSING EQUIPMENT.- The temperature sensing equipment or thermometer shall be designed so

as to be in direct contact with a grain sample in a closed container. A thermometer inserted through a small hole in the lid of the con- tainer used to hold the grain sample is acceptable.

5.3.3. CONVERSION AND CORRECTION TABLES.- Conversion and correc- tion tables, charts, graphs, slide rules, or other apparatus to convert the conventional scale values read from a moisture meter

to moisture content values, if such apparatus is required, shall

be appropriate and correct for the moisture meter being used and shall be marked with the following information:

a) name and address or trademark of the manufacturer

b) the type or design of the device with which it is intended to be used

c) date of issue

d) the kind or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture content

d) the limitations of use including but not confined to the moisture measurement range, grain or seed temperature, kind

or class of grain or seed, moisture meter temperature, voltage

and frequency ranges, electromagnetic interferences, and nec- essary accessory equipment.

5.3.4. OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS AND USE LIMITATIONS.- Operating

Instructions shall be furnished by the manufacturer with each de- vice with all of the information required by paragraph S.3.3. Complete information concerning the accuracy, sensitivity, and use

of accessory equipment (e.g. test weight per bushel equipment,

thermometer, etc.) necessary in obtaining a moisture content shall

be included.

N . NOTES

N.l. TESTING PROCEDURES

N.l.l. TRANSFER STANDARDS* - Official grain samples shall be used

as the official transfer standard with moisture content values as- signed with respect to the reference method. Tolerances shall be applied to the average of at least three measurements on each official grain sample. Official grain samples shall be clean, and naturally moist, not tempered (water added).

205
N.1.2. MINIMUM TEST.- As a minimum test, a moisture meter shall

be tested within the operating ranges and for all the kinds of grain or seed that are measured with the device. 1.1.3. TEMPERATURE MEASURING EQUIPMENT . - The accuracy of accessory temperature measuring equipment shall be determined by com- parison with a calibrated laboratory thermometer, that is a partial

immersion thermometer with 0.5 °E (0.25 °C) subdivisions, indicating over a range of from 32 °I to 105 °E (0 °C to 42 °C) with a maximum error of 2 °E (1 °C) . Tests shall be conducted at two temperatures using liquid baths (e.g., ice water and room temperature water) . The two tempueratures selected shall not exceed the range of temperatures identified in the moisture meter operating

instructions

.

A calibrated laboratory thermometer must be used with corrections

in the field.

T. TOLERANCES*

T.l. TO UNDERREGI STRATI ON AND TO OVERRE GI STRATI ON . - The tolerances

hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to erros of underregistration

and errors of overregis tration

.

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES.- Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be

as shown in Table 1. Tolerances are expressed as a fraction of the percent moisture content of the official grain sample, together with a minimum tolerance.

T.3. FOR TEST WEIGHT' PER BUSHEL INDICATIONS OR RECORDED REPRESENTATIVES.

The maintenance and acceptance tolerances on test weight per bushel

indications or recorded representations shall be 0.15 pound per bushel.

* These tolerances do not apply to tests in which grain moisture meters

are the transfer standards.

206
TABLE I.- TOLERANCES FOR GRAIN MOISTURE METERS ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES

Type of grain or seed Tolerance Minimum Acceptance Tolerance

Corn, rice, sorghum, 0.04 of the 0 6 percent in moisture

sunflower percent content moisture

content

All other cereal grains 0.03 of the 0 5 percent in moisture

and oil seeds percent content moisture

content

MAINTENANCE TOLERANCES

Corn, rice, sorghum, 0.05 of the 0 8 percent in moisture

sunflower percent content moisture

content

All other cereal grains 0.04 of the 0 7 percent in moisture

and oil seeds percent content moisture

content

207
UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS

UR.1.1. VALUE OF THE SMALLEST UNIT ON PRIMARY INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS.- The value of the smallest unit on a moisture

meter, whether the moisture meter reads directly in terms of moisture content or when the conventional scale unit is converted or corrected to moisture content, shall be equal to or less than one-half the value of the minimum acceptance tolerance.

UR.1.2. See G-UR.1.2.

UR.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS

The grain moisture meter shall be installed in an environment

within the range of temperature and/or other environmental factors specified in the operating manual and on the conversion or correction tables if such tables are necessary for the operation of the device

.

UR.3. USE REQUIREMENTS

Ur.3.1. OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS.- There shall be conspicuously

posted or displayed the operating instructions for the use of a grain moisture meter. It shall include a list of accessory equipment, conversion and correction charts, if any are required to ob- tain moisture content values, and the kinds of grain or seed to be measured with the moisture meter.

UR.3. 2. OTHER DEVICES NOT USED FOR COMMERCIAL MEASUREMENT.- If there are other moisture meters on the premises not used for trade

or determining other charges for services, these devices shall be clearly and conspicuously marked "Not for Use in Trade or Commerce."

UR.3. 3. MAINTAINING INTEGRITY OF GRAIN SAMPLES.- Whenever there

is a time lapse (temperature change) between taking the sample and testing the sample, means to prevent condensation of moisture or loss of moisture from grain samples shall be used. For example, a cold grain sample may be kept in a closed container in order to permit the cold grain to come to the operating temperature range

of the meter before the grain moisture measurements are made.

UR.3. 4. PRINTED TICKETS.- Printed tickets, if the meter is so equipped, shall be free from any previous indication of moisture

content or type of grain or seed selected. UR.3.5. ACCESSORY DEVICES.- Accessory devices, if necessary in

the determination of a moisture content value, shall be in close proximity to the moisture meter and allow immediate use.

208
UR.3.6. SAMPLING.- A grain sample shall be obtained by following

appropriate sampling methods and equipment. These include, but

are not limited to grain probes of appropriate length used at random locations in the bulk, the use of a pelican sampler, or other techniques and equipment giving equivalent results. The grain sample shall be taken such that it is representative of the

lot. UR.3.7. LOCATION.- See G-UR.3.3... DEFINITION OF TERMS

CEREAL GRAIN AND OIL SEEDS. Agricultural commodities including, but

not limited to, corn, wheat, oats, barley, flax rice, sorghum,

soybeans, peanuts, dry beans, saf flower, sunflower, fescue seed, etc

.

CLASS OF GRAIN. Hard Red Winter Wheat is distinguished from Hard Red Spring Wheat as distinguished from Soft Red Winter Wheat, etc. CONVENTIONAL SCALE. If the use of conversion tables is necessary to obtain a moisture content value, the moisture meter indicating

scale is called "conventional scale." The values indicated by

the scale are dimensionless

.

CONVERSION TABLE. Any table, graph, slide rule, or other external de- vice used to determine the moisture content from the value indi- cated by the moisture meter. CORRECTION TABLE. Any table, graph, slide rule, or other external de- vice used to determine the moisture content from the value indi- cated by the moisture meter when the indicated value is altered by

a parameter not automatically corrected for in the moisture meter

(for example, temperature or test weight). GRAIN MOISTURE METER. Any device indicating either directly or through

conversion tables and/or correction tables the moisture content of cereal grains and oil seeds. Also termed "moisture meter."

GRAIN SAMPLE. That portion of grain or seed taken from a bulk of grain

or seed to be bought or sold and used to determine the moisture

content of the bulk. GRAIN-TEST SCALE. A scale adapted to weighing grain samples used in determining moisture content, dockage, weight per unit volume,

etc

.

KIND OF GRAIN. Corn as distinguished from soybeans as distinguished

from wheat, etc.

209
MOISTURE CONTENT (WET BASIS). The mass of water in a grain or seed sample (determined by the reference method) divided by the mass of

the grain or seed sample expressed as a percentage (%)

.

OFFICIAL GRAIN SAMPLES. Grain or seed used by the official as the official transfer standard from the reference standard method to test the accuracy and precision of grain moisture meters. REFERENCE METHOD. The oven drying methods as specified in U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Instruction 916-6, Chapter XII, dated 11/15/71

or most current USDA methods.

(Item 307-3 was adopted) 307-4 SMALL UTILITIES METERS, LIQUID FEED AND FERTILIZER MEASURING

SYSTEMS, AND MEASURING SYSTEMS FOR CHEMICALS. There were two other important problems for which there was insufficient

time for a complete discussion. These were certain small meters used to measure energy consumption in one form or another by individual units

within a large complex such as a shopping center or an apartment house

and measuring systems for liquid feed and fertilizer and other chemicals

The Committee urges all those interested in these subjects to forward to the Committee during the ensuing year all information available with

an explanation of the problems involved.

(Item 307-4 was adopted)

In continuation of the policy established at last year's Conference, the chronological listing of the OWM Reports of Test completed since last year is included at the end of this Report.

The Committee expresses its sincere and grateful appreciation to all those offering comments and suggestions. In most instances, the information was presented in an orderly and effective manner, which greatly

facilitated review of the information by the Committee and action thereon. It is only through such cooperative effort that the Conference can continue to attain uniform and equitable measurement standards. The Committee also expresses its appreciation to all those participating

in the Interim Meeting. The comments and suggestions greatly aided

the Committee in its deliberations.

F. C. Nagele, Michigan, Chairman

S. A. Colbrook, Illinois

L. H. DeGrange, Maryland

F. Gerk, New Mexico

D. A. Guensler, California

0. K. Warnlof, Technical Advisor, NBS

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary, NCWM

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

210
(On motion by the committee chairman, the report of the Committee

on Specifications and Tolerances voting key items 300 through 307-4

was adopted in its entirety as amended by the Conference. The results

of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table

that follows. The Conference also authorized the Executive Secretary

to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference .

)

211
VOTING RESULTS--Committee on Specifications and Tolerances House of State Representatives House of Delegate:

Voting Key Yes No Yes No

301-1 6 38 7 52 302-1 49 0 57 0 302-2 47 0 56 0 302-3 47 0 59 0 302-4 47 0 64 0 302-5 12 34 10 49 302-6* 46 1 55 1 302-6** 22 24 33 20 302-6* 40 5 56 8 302-7 47 0 60 0 302-8 22 19 21 32 302-9 46 0 58 0 302-10 46 0 55 0 302-11 47 0 57 0 302-12 47 0 59 0 302-13 44 1 32 7 302-14*** 33 13 41 7 302-15 47 0 55 0 303-1 33 1 46 0 303-2 20 21 24 26 303-2**** 39 2 46 3 303-2* 35 1 61 2 303-2 37 0 59 0 303-3*** 34 1 41 13 303-3* 10 28 12 44 303-3 34 5 49 3 303-4 32 5 38 11 303-5 31 4 50 3 303-6 35 2 45 9 303-7 41 0 58 0 304-1* 24 11 30 17 304-1* 33 5 38 14 304-1*** 25 14 33 20 304-1 15 23 26 31 305-1 305-2

305-3 43 0 58 0 306-1 307-2 307-1 44 0 59 0 307-3 44 0 57 0 307-4 36 4 47 0 300 45 0 51 0 * Motion to debate amendment

** Motion on amendment

*** Motion to table   Motion to reconsider ** *** Motion for recount
Jill iSlSSSi ill £§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ ill!

213
.lillllllliSISSSMIiUllllliSiHUSIIK!

3SSSS5S55 5 55 5 «5 5555 i 5S5555555555555s!,5 5 5 2fei»Sg!|x:2m*3"13c**«HW*s *"MSc3*s"

i I.ii

iiil!!fl2!ni!]!lI!!i s !i!.i..iifjJ!3ils lllllllllllf

111 kk.Au H ,„

.h inn i fit|i Hi Hiifffff

1 1 ifilJl fJ iliiiliilJliiiffjiiilfiiliiiiiaiijiiili

|

§t§?f§!IfflllfIllfifiliilllfIfIllllll 5

s

ii

liaasaslaiSlssilllSillsssSSssislssssSs 'd

HI

is

214
h3 t-1 CJ CJ

rH O

O O O rH O so oo o r» m m r» oo oo in co m oo in i—< <t

5b c_> 3 u a

Q Q Q Q Q

(H J

< <

CM m m m m

CM CM

o

d

rH a & to o to a •H o CO •H o

+j > CJ

CO •rl a Q 00 u u d d

CD 00 •h h1

+J d U a •H 3

rH J3 *J (0 60 U 0) •H CO H

u 4-1 l-l •H j d +J d CO

CO CO CO fl q S -d 3 d d

to M « u

to ,P CO

01 (0 o

S5 fit

00o

o

00 in o 1 o o

CM o\

CO w

T3 d 4-> o iH

rl

09 rl < o > d

i—

i

b P 00

to d o

rH H H

O +J

Jh 00 CO

4-> •H £

d o

o Jj CJ d

CO <

rH M

CO a CO d (0 d

o QJ

•rl U Ch

Oh

CO CO O

Ih M

CM CM 00 CM CM CM i—

i

CM 00 00 CM 00

00 00 00 oo 00 00 00 00 \ CO o \ m CM Q 1— *»*. *•*» \ \ ON CM CM o\ CM CM 00 vO CM

CM CO r- CM 00 o CM <r <3\ v£> <r o CM o

<r tN r» r- oo CO m rH rH CO CO CM CO CO co <r CO -J- m m m m m

215
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION,

AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS Presented by JOSEPH L. SWANSON, Director,

Division of Measurement Standards, State of Alaska VOTING KEY

400 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submits its final report to the 67th National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement, and as amended by the final report. The report represents recommendations of the committee that have been formed on the basis of written and oral comments received during the year and oral pre- sentations made during the general meeting of the committee.

One of the important responsibilities of the Committee is the coordinating of National Weights and Measures Week each year. Mr. Tom Geiler

of Hyannis, Mass., who served as National Chairman for the 1982 Week,

is sincerely commended by the Committee for his very successful effort

to secure promotional materials and for his overall effort to make the Week a success. The Committee would like to personally thank Dick Hurley of Fairbanks

Weighing Division of Colt Industries, Tom Stabler of Toledo Scale, Fred

Katterheinrich of Hobart Corporation, and Ray Lloyd of Scale Manufacturers

Association, not only for their individual efforts and help, but also

for the excellent promotional materials they provided for all of the coordinators for the Week. The Committee appoints Bruce Niebergall as Chairman and Peggy Adams of Bucks County Pennsylvania as Co-Chairman for National Weights and Measures Week 1983.

The Committee would like to stress the fact that the Certification

Program is voluntary and that the training module can be used without

the Certification process. However, it believes that to effectively

draft a viable National Training Program the Certification process must

be drafted simultaneously with the training modules.

401 NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

(Item 401 was adopted)

402 NATIONAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

216
The Committee will present to the conference the National Certification

Program in accordance with the time table based on the flow chart in item 403. (Item 402 was adopted)

403 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

BACKGROUND POSITION STATEMENT

Weights and measures enforcement in the United States is not a Federal

function, but a State and/or local responsibility. Although the States

are responsible for enforcement of our system of weights and measures,

the National Bureau of Standards provides technical assistance and advice to promote measurement uniformity and traceability of standards.

This Federal mandate has historically involved technical training.

However, the sudden conversion to new electronic devices in the marketplace requires a training capability beyond the present resources of the NBS Office of Weights and Measures.

Several State and local jurisdictions, NBS, and the private sector are providing training programs for the weights and measures officials on a piecemeal basis today. However, no single organized, integrated,

institutionalized program exists that serves the needs of both new and current officials in a uniform manner. About half of the fifty States and some of the larger local jurisdictions

have appointed training officers and are conducting in-house training

programs for their officials. Some of these programs include classroom

type training as well as field or on-the-job training—others consist

of on-the-job training only and little uniformity of training material

or method exists. For more than twenty years the NBS Office of Weights and Measures has conducted seminar type training at the rate of twenty or more three- to five-day sessions per year, in the individual States or regions of the

U.S. Considering the annual turnover rate of weights and measures

officials of approximately 10%, the annual changes to the weights and measures regulations, and the rapid introduction of new technology in the marketplace, the NBS is supporting the proposed plan as a means to establish the necessary national training program.

The Institute for Weights and Measures, a non-profit group chartered in the State of Ohio, has been offering training programs for weights and measures and industry service personnel for the past two years. Alfred Technical College in Alfred, N.Y. offers a two-year associate

degree course in scale technology aimed at the technician level. Yuba College in Yuba, California offers a two year associate degree

course that includes weights and measures law and enforcement courses.

217
The National Scalemens Association has conducted a program of "Scales"

on Saturday for weights and measures and industry service officials for

a number of years. Many of the Scale, Meter, and Packaging industry officials offer training

and demonstrations of their respective equipment at conferences and training seminars on a continuing basis throughout the U.S. THE CONCEPT

The Committee has determined that four categories of training are necessary to serve the broad needs of weights and measures officials. These

types are Primary, Continuing Education, Specialized Education, and Career Development. Table 1 identifies the suggested delivery agent or agents

for each category; each category of training is described separately in this plan. TABLE 1 Delivery Agents (x) Educational Associations

Category State & Local NBS Institutions Industry Groups

Primary x a Continuing Ed. x a x Specialized Ed. x x Career Dev. x ax

a - Technical advice and review. This training plan also forms the basis for a certification program. PART I - PRIMARY Primary Training is intended for new trainees and for the older experienced officials who wish to become certified in one or more program areas. The training material will be presented in illustrated inspector and instructor manuals. The manuals will contain a general description of the devices or systems to be tested, step-by-step examination procedures,

all H-44 paragraphs that pertain to the device or system, a recommended

time frame for completion of the various parts, and written tests to evaluate performance of the official taking the training. Table 2 lists the program areas identified by the Committee as requiring

a separate training manual.

218
TABLE 2 Primary Training Manuals

Devices

Number Title Devices Covered

Retail Computing

Scales-Mechanical & Electronic

Small Capacity Balances

& Test Scales

Cylinder and Fan Computing

Digital Electronic Computing

Pre-Package, Electronic Cash

Registers

.

Prescription, Jewelers, Cream Test, Moisture Test, Grain Test Scales

Bench, Counter, & Hanging Scales

Medium Capacity Scales Dormant & Industrial

Hanging Scales, Bench & Counter, Automatic & Non- Automatic Indicating

Counter, Portable, Floor,

& Built-in, Automatic & Non-Automatic Indicating,

Monorail & Meat Beams Vehicle & Axle Load Scales Vehicle & Axle Load,

Mechanical & Electronic

Livestock & Animal Scales Livestock & Animal,

Mechanical & Electronic

Hopper Scales Automatic Grain Hopper,

Construction Material Hopper

Mechanical & Electronic

Wheel Load Weighers Wheel Load Weighers,

Mechanical & Electronic

Belt Conveyor Scales Belt Conveyor Scales

All Types-Mechanical & Electronic

10

11

Weights-Equal Arm & Counterpoise

Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

Weights-All Types

Single Product, Blend,

Twin, Motor Fuel Dispensers-Mechanical & Electronic & Electronic

Consoles

219
TABLE 2 - (continued)

Number Title Devices Covered

1213

14

15

16

17

18

19

Liquid Measures

Other Retail Measuring Devices

Large Capacity Meters

Liquefied Petroleum

Gas Meters

Package Control-Labeling

Checking Net Contents

of Packaged Goods

Labeling of Packaged

Products

Model State Law

& Regulations

Communications

Law and Regulations

General

Hand Crank Fuel Pumps

Lubricant Devices

Motor Oil Bottles Loading Rack Meters Vehicle Tank Meters Power Operated & Gravity

Compensated & Uncompensated

LPG Liquid & Vapor

Meters, Retail & Wholesale

& Motor Fuel Devices

Random, Standard, Mass,

Liquid, Linear, Special

Products

Net Contents Statement,

Responsibility, Method of Sale

Legal Authority, Penalties

Weights & Measures Officials)

Device Owners & Operators,

Industry, Consumers.

220
The training manuals will contain drawings, illustrations, and pictures,

and will be supplemented by visual aids for use by the training official

in instruction on the conduct of complete, effective, and uniform

examination of devices systems and marketplace products. When necessary, interpretative material of Handbook 44 requirements will be presented

to assure uniform application of requirements.

It is the intention of the Committee to provide the jurisdictions with

well-structured hard-copy training material that can be universally

accepted and applied across the United States. Before approval by the Conference to publish and distribute any of the manuals requested, a thorough editing and review process will occur. The appropriate NCWM

Committees (s) will be asked to review the material for accuracy of interpretations and technical content. Appropriate industry officials

in the area of technology being considered will be asked for comments

and finally weights and measures officials who have demonstrated expertise in the area under consideration will be consulted. Specialized Training in Electronics and Computer Terminology

During the training Conference for Measurement Practitioners held at Texas A&M University in January of 1981, it was determined that develop- ment of specialized training material in electronics and computer

terminology was necessary. Committee plan calls for the development of this specialized material

on a modular basis for ease of inclusion appropriately throughout the Primary Training manuals. Development of this training material must

be done by a training institution that has expertise in the technical

areas to be addressed. Organizational Responsibilities

Overall responsibility for development of the Primary Training Program

rests with the NCWM leadership. Management of the development will be assumed by the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Education with technical assistance from the National Bureau of Standards. Funding of the program is anticipated by NBS to the Conference in the form of a grant for two years (said funding is contingent on stability

of the funding of NBS by the Congress).

The Conference will contract for specific work to be performed by a training institutions (s) ; said contractor will work under the supervision

and guidance of the Education Committee.

Working Groups, composed of State and local officials and industry

representatives, will be appointed by the NCWM Chairman on the advice

of the Education Committee; each such working group will be assigned

the responsibility to write (or complete if a draft exists) a training

module. See Table 3 for organizational representatives.

221
222
COco

^ CO 0 CD 3 =

CO "D K §

COCD

® ©

CD CD

CO ~ o CD ~ O > E & > E a-

<D C O CD £= o o

E uu la

oO

05 CO o 2g 5° >

223



ACTIVITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Development of the Primary Training Program is expected to extend over

a period of 6-% years. The major responsibilities and events are depicted in Table 4. Certain events in this plan as follows are considered critical and must

take place as specified for the anticipated timely completion of the program:

1. NBS Director addresses Conference to outline NBS support of plan.

2. Conference membership votes to approve proceeding with plan in July 1982.

3. Grant of first NBS funds to Conference to support program occurs

in October 1982.

4. Contractor work statement is completed by Committee and ready for review by December 1982.

5. Conference management approves contractor work statement during

Interim Meeting in January 1983.

6. Contract is awarded to Contractor in February 1983.

7. First working group is established for manual preparation in February 1983.

8. Working group initiates work in March 1983.

9. Contractor initiates work in March 1983. MODULE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

The development (or completion in the case of those already drafted by

Alaska Department of Weights and Measures) of the modules listed in Table 2 will start with the appointment of the first Working Group in February 1983 and continue through January 1989 as outlined below. TABLE 5 Module Working Group First Draft Final Draft

No Appointed Complete Complete Published

1 February 1983 December 1983 March 1984 March 1985

2 March 1983 January 1984 April 1984 April 1985

3 continuing on one month intervals

4 January 1989

227
PART II - CONTINUING EDUCATION

The Continuing Education category consists of training to provide

annual update of the training manuals and initial introduction of new technology that has been developed and introduced during the year. The regional training seminars that are conducted on an annual basis will

provide one mechanism for introducing new material to the weights and measures officials.

OWM/NBS will serve as the principal technical resource and will coordinate

the development of and presentation of all material under this phase of

the program.

The Institute for Weights and Meausres, Texas Engineering Extension

Service, Yuba College, and other educational groups may all become

involved, as delivery agents for training material developed under the Continuing Education category of the program. Industry instructors may be invited to describe new design concepts

during regional seminars and other training seminars conducted on an annual basis to update and supplement the primary material. PART III - SPECIALIZED TRAINING

This category of the program currently includes two well structured

on-going special training programs conducted by NBS: (1) Laboratory

Metrology Training and (2) LPG Meters, Taximeters, Rental Car Odometers.

PART IV - CAREER DEVELOPMENT

Training for administrators and supervisory personnel covering topics

such as Program Development, Budget Preparation, Court Procedures,

Cost-Benefit Analysis, Computerized Recordkeeping, and Communication at all levels falls outside the scope of this plan and is assumed to be an integral part of State personnel programs. Colleges and universities

are the principal source of this type of training.

The Committee requests the authority to establish the necessary sub- committee and working groups to accomplish the above outlined project.

403-1 OWM TRAINING PROGRAM

OWM reported to the Committee that 24 separate training seminars were conducted in 1981; these included 15 general weights and measures

seminars, 4 specialized device seminars, 3 laboratory metrologists

seminars, and two seminars on the new Handbook 133. Work is continuing

with eight well established regional groups representing about half of the fifty States, and efforts continue toward having all the remaining

States become part of a regional group in the future. Industry support

in providing instructors, equipment, and handout material in specific

areas of regional seminars continues to be outstanding and participation

of local service officials continues to increase.

228
OWM produced its first video tape on a general introduction to Handbook

133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods." Six additional

tapes are planned which will explain how to make the necessary calculations and apply the procedures to routine package control. Carroll Brickenkamp and Steve Hasko are offering a two-day seminar on

the procedures presented in the Handbook. The regional concept is suggested as being the most effective for this seminar. Several States

in a given region can send their package supervisors to a central location for the training. 403-2 THE INSTITUTE FOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Mr. Tom Stabler, President of the Institute for Weights and Measures,

met with the Committee during its interim meeting and discussed the activities of the Institute during its first full year of operation.

Mr. Stabler also presented the following report to the Committee regarding

future plans.

"The IWM future program will include training courses, programs, and seminars for weights and measures officials, business and industry

(distributors and users), and for special consumer groups. Formal courses will be designed for specific sectors such as weights

and measures, the small businessman (service company, distributor,

etc.) and technical personnel who install and service weighing and measuring equipment. The Continuing Education Unit (CEU) will be awarded to participants successfully completing these programs. IWM Publication No. 1 describes the Weights and Measures Curriculum.

The Institute will also participate in seminars conducted for and by

these sectors and will provide instruction in administrative and technical

subjects appropriate for the audience group. IWM will sponsor seminars for industry and consumer groups with mutual

interests and concerns; for example, for the energy industries, transportation, and consumers of energy; for grocery manufacturers, retailers,

and consumers.

IWM educational programs are conducted at appropriate locations con- venient in time and distance for attendees. Experience suggests that colleges and universities provide the best facilities for training and

the appropriate environment for learning. Adjunct faculty has been

selected to assure the expertise essential to professional training. All faculty are experienced in their fields and are talented instructors.

The cost of courses, seminars, and training programs is reasonable

because of support by industry and government. Sponsors of programs

and faculty bear the largest share of expenses associated with planning, development of training material, and conduct of training classes.

The Institute For Weights and Measures wishes to cooperate with the National Conference on Weights and Measures and the National Bureau of Standards in the planning, development, and implementaion of training

229
programs for the weights and measures sector. We are confident that

our aims are complementary and that we can effectively assist in the nationwide program of education and certification."

(Item 403 was adopted)

404 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PROGRAM EVALUATION

During 1981 the Committee conducted on-sight evaluations of four State jurisdictions (Kansas, New Mexico, Virginia, and West Virginia). On

each of these evaluations, a member of the Committee was accompanied by

a retired weights and measures official who was carefully selected by

the Committee. These four evaluations were conducted for slightly less than $4,000. We were fortunate to arrange one evaluation while the evaluation team was already in the area on other travel business. Now

that eight on-sight evaluations have been conducted, we are in a position

to refine our criteria to make them more appropriate to the kind of information needed for a beneficial evaluation of a jurisdiction's

program.

The Committee is developing an evaluation booklet to aid a jurisdiction

in providing the Committee with advance information necessary in planning

an on-sight evaluation.

The Committee met with Mr. Henry Oppermann, OWM metrologist, and dis- cussed at length the desirability of his help in evaluating the metrology

laboratory phase of all future evaluations. Future evaluations will

include Mr. Oppermann' s assessment of a given jurisdiction's metrology

laboratory.

Formal reports were developed by the Committee during the interim

meetings and were mailed to the respective jurisdictions prior to March

1, 1982. While the Committee acknowledges the Conference open meeting

policy, they also feel that the confidential evaluation data being

discussed necessitate closed sessions.

In this regard, we wish to thank the other interim meeting attendees

for their indulgence.

The Committee plans to conduct a minimum of four (4) evaluations during

the coming year and requests the necessary funding subject to the approval of the Executive Committee.

(Item 404 was adopted)

405 ADVERTISING COUNCIL, INC. Dick Hurley of Fairbanks Weighing Division, Colt Industries, and Committee member, Tom Geiler, had a preliminary meeting with officials of the Advertising Council in New York City during the month of September.

The purpose of this meeting was to present information to the Council

in support of having the National Conference on Weights and Measures

230

1
become a client of the Council thereby laying the groundwork for a nationwide advertising campaign promoting the work of State and local weights and measures officials throughout the United States.

The material was favorably received by the Council and constructive

changes were suggested to be made to the application. After the changes

to the application are complete, the following action was urged:

° Review the revised application and supporting material again with

the Council as soon as possible,

° Meet with the Board of Directors of the Council early in 1982 for

the first of two presentations to the Council;

° The second presentation will be before the Council Campaign Selection

Committee which will then forward its recommendation to the Board. Dick Hurley met with this Committee at the interim meeting in January

and presented an update on the application. Plans were made to resub- mit the application as soon as possible. Charles R. Cavagnaro, Assistant Director for Consumer Programs, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, offered his assistance in seeing this project thru. He will work with Mr. Hurley and the Committee in developing

this high priority project. The Committee will continue to pursue this program and/or other viable

alternatives and will report their progress in the 1983 interim report. The Committee would again like to thank Dick Hurley for the alternative

plan that he presented at the open hearing.

(Item 405 was adopted)

406 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES TELEPHONE LISTING

The Committee endorses the concept of pursuing White Page listings for Weights and Measures in all telephone directories throughout the United

States and urges each juristisdiction to pursue this concept.

The Committee would like to thank Mr. Hurley of Colt Industries for the

time and effort expended in the development of this concept.

(Item 406 was adopted)

J. L. Swanson, Alaska, Chairman

S. J. Darsey, Florida

T. Geiler, Hyannis, MA

R. W. Walker, Indiana

R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

R. N. Smith, NBS Technical Advisor

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary

231
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee

on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs, voting key items 400 through 406 was adopted in its entirety by the Conference. The results

of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference voting system are totalized in the table

that follows. The Conference also authorized the Executive Secretary to make any appropriate editorial changes in the language adopted by the Conference .

)

VOTING RESULTS—Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Voting Key

Yes No Yes No

401 402

403 404

405 406

47 43

232
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

ON LIAISON Presented by KENDRICK J. SIMILA, Administrator

Weights and Measure Division, Department of Agriculture,

Salem, Oregon

VOTING KEY

500 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Liaison submits its report to the 67th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) . The report consists of the tentative report as offered in the Conference Announcement and as amended by this final report. The report represents recommendations of the Com- mittee that have been formed on the basis of written and oral comments received during the year and oral presentations made during the gen- eral meeting of the Committee.

501 STATE MEASUREMENT NEEDS STUDY

The Committee received an oral report from Dr. C. G. Gravatt, Deputy

Director of the National Measurement Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards (NBS), on the recently completed draft report entitled "NBS Support of State Weights and Measures Needs." The report was presented as the final product of a study recommended in 1978 by a review panel of the NBS Directorate for Measurement Services. The

panel, chaired at the time by Sid Andrews from Florida, expressed

considerable concern that State and local weights and measures

regulatory agencies were not prepared to meet the challenges of increasing new technologies and practices in the modern marketplace.

The panel specifically requested NBS to assess the weights and measures system and its current needs. NBS agreed to conduct the study and, through its Planning Office, provide funding for OWM to initiate the study in 1978. Data for the study were gathered primarily from within seven states in which Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) professional personnel

(and/or the study contractor) obtained information through personal

interviews with State and local government employees with weights and measures responsibilities, and with representatives of public and private organizations interacting with weights and measures officials,

such as Federal agencies, trade associations, device manufacturers and service units, and individual commercial enterprises. In all, about

100 individual visits were made, and over 200 members of the weights

and measures community were involved. The conclusions, however, were

not written by any of the OWM staff who were involved in the data collection but were, rather, the opinions of a contractor.

233
Dr. Gravatt's presentation was essentially a review of the draft project report provided by the contractor, Dr. Sanford B. Newman, a retired former NBS employee. The report is currently under review

within NBS, specifically OWM , the NBS Editorial Review Board, and the Office of NBS Director. The conclusions of the report do not necessarily represent NBS policy.

Reflecting the orientation of the report, Dr. Gravett's presentation

focused on analyzing the support NBS has historically provided the weights and measures community. This point is spelled out very clearly in the lead paragraph of the report's Executive Summary:

"This study, carried out on a contract funded by the Planning

Office of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) , reports on the examination of NBS programs that support the needs of the State

and local weights and measures community (primarily the NBS Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) . ) ...The focus of the study

and this report, however, is the National Bureau of Standards'

role in this many faceted system and ways in which NBS can better

meet the needs of these users." (Page iii)

Three-quarters, i.e. 60 of the 80 pages, of the narrative part of the report is given to historical analysis of NBS' role, and one-quarter,

i.e. 20 of 80 pages, focuses on the results and conclusions based on perceived needs gleaned from the survey. Mention was made of the needs "frequently cited in interviews" and included resources,

training, public understanding of the importance of weights and measures, establishment of a national prototype approval system, and greater uniformity in weights and measures requirements. (Page iii) The report drew no formal conclusions but set forth "An Agenda for Addressing State Weights and Measures Needs." (Page 72) in which it called for criteria to be established for setting priorities for OWM

services, and then listed nine specific activities or policies that "might help to meet State and local weights and measures needs."

(Page 73) Listed in the agenda were the following:

Initiate a realistic dialog with the leadership of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures

.

Review support of weights and measures administration and establish priorities.

Offer only training that can be justified by relevance to mission,

unique capability, and staff competence. Increase support of standards laboratories.

Obtain other agency support for activities that overlap or are subsumed in other agency missions.

234
Strengthen and support NCWM mechanisms.

- Assume an active role in coordinating prototype approvals.

Provide guidelines for data collection and management.

- Maintain current data banks in OWM as needed. Questions directed to Dr. Gravatt at the conclusion of his report

indicated the Liaison Committee was deeply disappointed to learn that

the long-awaited report had not focused on an in-depth analysis of the State and local weights and measures needs as originally intended but

had been admittedly reoriented by the contractor to emphasize past

(and future) services provided and to be provided by NBS to the weights and measures community. To the Committee, the study still

clearly leaves unanswered the question of what the State and local

needs, in fact, are. Also, the emphasis of this study is on what

actions NBS might undertake to address perceived needs - and the Committee is not convinced that those needs were sufficiently

documented in this report to justify being the basis for decisions on

the activities or policies recommended in the report to NBS. (Item 501 was adopted) 502 FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

502-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

The Committee met with representatives of the Federal Grain Inspection

Service (FGIS) to hear a status report on the Master Track Scale

Program. Present were Dick Pforr, Ben Banks, and Tim Decker. A highlight of Mr. Pforr' s report was that during calendar 1981 all master scales that were in service were tested. Mr. Pforr* s report

also listed a number of other weighing tasks that were accomplished.

The Committee was generally pleased with the progress that FGIS has made in the Master Track Scale Program. The Scale Testing and Weighing Branch of FGIS appears to have met their initial objectives

and the program is functioning without major problems.

It was apparent from discussions with Mr. Pforr, that confusion exists

over how often the master standards at Clearing, Illinois should be reverified by National Bureau of Standards. In 1981 the National

Conference on Weights and Measures voted on (Item 502-3) and endorsed

a five-year reverification schedule for the master standards. The Committee feels that the management of National Bureau of Standards

should initiate affirmative steps to ensure that traceability of the master standards is maintained in a manner consistent with the desires

of the Conference. Prior to the transfer of the test cars to FGIS, Weights and Measures

officials expressed concern regarding the continued traceability of

235
railroad track scales. It should be noted that during a recent reduction in force planning session, the management of FGIS considered

eliminating the test car program. The Committee requests the Chairman

of the Conference to contact the appropriate officials in FGIS and express grave concern regarding the possibility of eliminating the Master Track Scale Program. The Committee wishes to again emphasize that FGIS cannot certify

scales. Therefore, FGIS must have the cooperation of State weights

and measures officials so that all FGIS tested devices are simultaneously certified by the appropriate State officials. In reviewing action by the 1980 Conference, the Liaison Committee

recommended that the Conference develop recommendations to its member

jurisdictions on ways to become involved in the testing and certification of railroad track scales. The 1980 report suggested

that an ad hoc committee consisting of representatives of NCWM, NBS, and AAR be established to develop recommendations. The need for the recommendations apparently still exists. The Committee recognizes and is concerned that the needs of industry

for accuracy in railroad track scales covers a broad range of users beyond the grain trade. Industries such as coal, steel, mineral processing, and others that employ track scales in their operations

should also be able to receive appropriate track scale calibration and certification services on a timely basis in a national program of this

type. Because the demands for large-capacity calibrations are many,

the FGIS Administrator must approve non-FGIS related requests. Therefore, all weights and measures officials are urged to coordinate re- quests for FGIS services through the State weights and measures

offices. The Committee feels that requests originating from State weights and measures officials will receive stronger consideration.

During the session with representatives from FGIS, a question was raised regarding the accuracy of tare weights printed on railcars.

The FGIS representatives noted that they often observe substantial

differences between actual weights of railcars and labeled tare weights

The Committee contacted the management of FGIS about identifying to State weights and measures officials those rail cars whose stenciled

tare value is out of tolerance and received a reply from John W. Marshall, Acting Director, Field Management Division, that they were unable to assist us in this matter.

(Item 502-1 was adopted) 502-2 NET WEIGHT

Proposed net weight labeling regulations were published in the Federal

Register on August 8, 1980. Despite written reiterations of the Conference's interest and support, the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have done nothing to advance action on the published proposals.

236
On January 26 and 27, 1982, the Liaison Committee met with representatives of the FDA and USDA. They advised the Committee that agency

resources, priorities, and procedures are such that a timetable for action, if any, could not be predicted.

The Committee recommends that the Conference consider the submission

of Handbook 133 to the FDA and USDA as an alternative proposal.

(Item 502-2 was adopted) 502-3 AEROSOL PACKAGE PRODUCTS

In a July 10, 1981 letter the Food and Drug Administration notified

the Liaison Committee that proposed action on the May 4, 1979 NCWM petition would be published in the Federal Register by the middle of August, 1981. On January 26, 1982 Deputy Associate Commissioner William Randolph

advised the Committee that the intended proposal had been misdirected

within the agency and will now require a new "decision" memo to, and concurrence from, the Department of Health and Human Services before it can be published. No publication date was predicted. Mr. Randolph

suggested that in the meantime, section 10.3 of the Model State Pack- aging and Labeling Regulations will require most aerosol package

labelers to comply with the position espoused by the Conference.

(Item 502-3 was adopted)

503 NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (NCWM) - NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS RELATIONSHIPS

On June 18, 1981 Mr. James R. Bird, State of New Jersey, and Chairman of the Study Group represented the Conference at a hearing on

the NBS Organic Act that was scheduled by the Subcommittee on Science,

Research, and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Sydney Andrews, State of Florida, and Mr. Ken Hammer, Scale Manu- facturer's Association also gave testimony at the hearing.

The testimony by NCWM members stressed the measurement needs of the States and of industry, and detailed their concerns regarding the lack

of adequate support and services provided by the National Bureau of Standards. Specific recommendations and amendments to the Act were

offered

.

Primarily, the testimony by NCWM members recommended changes to the NBS Organic Act that would mandate NBS to provide services to the States through its Office of Weights and Measures and to serve as sponsor of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. It was

also recommended that the composition of the Visiting Committee (which

reviews the NBS program) be changed to require that two of its members

be from the State regulatory community.

237
25 S
PROPOSED PLAN*

I . INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose

To provide the central basis, within the U.S., of physical standards

of measurement and the means for their realization, in order to assure meaningful legal measurement regulations both within this country

(Weights and Measures) and overseas (Legal Metrology).*

B. Statutory Basis

Statutory authority for the operations of the Office of Weights and Measures is found in the ENABLING ACT (15 U.S.C. 271) of the National

Bureau of Standards, where, in the enumeration of Bureau functions,

authorization is made for: "the provision of means and methods for making measurements

consistent with those [the national] standards,"

"cooperation with other governmental agencies and with private

organizations in the establishment of standard practices, in- corporated in codes and specifications," and "advisory services to Government agencies on. .. technical problems .

Authorized activities are: "the study and improvement of instruments and methods of mea- surements ," "cooperation with the States in securing uniformity in weights

and measures laws and methods of inspection,"

"prosecution of such research in engineering ... as may be nec- essary to obtain basic data pertinent to the functions specified

herein,"

"the compilation and publication of general scientific data resulting from the performance of the functions specified

herein. . .when such data are of importance to .. .manufacturing

interests or to the general public and are not available else- where," and

"the conduct of such studies, investigations, and standards development activities as are necessary to achieve the objectives of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act."

'^Paraphrased from "Long Range Plan, 1981-1985, National Measurement

Laboratory" page III-8. This plan is currently under review by NBS management

.

239
C. Roles

1 . State and Local Government . Regulatory authority for the enforcement of weights and measures

laws and regulations rests with State and local jurisdictions.

The specific responsibilities of the States extend into these broad economic activities as stated above. There is a total of 3,000 State and local weights and measures officials in the United

States whose task is to provide for commercial equity between

buyers and sellers dealing with 2603 billion dollars worth of commerce. For example, to provide the assurance of commercial accuracy and equity, these 3,000 State and local officials must

regulate 2.7 million commercial devices and 1.1 million outlets

for prepackaged commodities.

Weights and measures officials enforce laws and regulations

governing packaged goods and measurement devices (such as scales,

gasoline pumps, taximeters, and fuel oil meters). There are more

than 775 weights and measures jurisdictions in the United States.

2 . The Office of Weights and Measures

The program goals of OWM are based on the NBS Enabling Act; that

is, to provide assistance to State and local weights and measures

officials, business and industry, leading to accurate and uniform

commercial measurement. However, the amount of assistance required

by clientele groups has been expanding with the economy and with

increased numbers of new commercial measurement systems. The Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) provides technical resources

to State and local agencies, businesses and industries, and con- sumer organizations, thus channeling NBS measurement capability

into the marketplace and translating this capability into under- standable and problem-specific responses. OWM transfers weights and measures technology, facilitates its application in commercial transactions, and promotes national

voluntary weights and measures standards by working with Federal,

State, and local regulatory officials, manufacturers, trade associations, packagers, and consumers. OWM is the only central resource working toward equity and uniformity in weights and measures

laws, regulations, and inspection methods among these jurisdictions . NBS sponsors the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM) an organization of State and local regulatory officials and representatives of Federal agencies, industry, and consumer organizations. The Conference serves as a national forum and develops

and adopts model laws and regulations, technical codes and recom- mendations which have provided the legal and technical basis for

240
weights and measures administration throughout the Nation. OWM

staff members serve major roles in the Conference, such as exec- utive secretary and technical advisors to its committees.

By stressing equity and uniformity and by promoting performance

criteria for weights and measures administration, inspection,

laboratory practices, and enforcement, OWM has had a significant

role in facilitating interstate commerce, making possible a mass market for packaged goods and for the manufacturers of weighing and measuring devices, and assuring the consumer full quantity value

for dollars spent. The OWM program uses the broad expertise found

at NBS to help achieve its objectives. NBS does not have regulatory

authority; its success in supporting a uniform intergovernmental

weights and measures system is an ongoing activity requiring negotiation, compromise, and liaison with the 50 States and several hundred county and city jurisdictions, associated Federal agencies

and industry. As new technologies in measurement are introduced

into the marketplace, the primary resource for technical expertise

for the States and local jurisdictions is OWM.

II. TRENDS AND ISSUES

A. Trends

1 . Measurement instruments used in retail trade are no longer

merely lower cost derivatives of laboratory instruments.

Manufacturers of these instruments are discovering the enormous retail market outlet and using space-technologyspinoff electronics (e.g., automatic checkout) to produce

original, completely new devices for this retail market

without the use of the smaller scientific market "test bed".

2. Metric conversion is affecting whole industries whose products

and devices had had extremely long lifetimes--gas pumps, large

capacity scales, food-processing and packaging machinery, etc.

3. Historically, State weights and measures agencies have come to NBS for technical support and problem solving. Increasingly,

State agencies are approaching NBS to represent them and coordinate their needs with other Federal agencies.

4. New concepts of quality and quantity will be called for (e.g.,

drained weight and nutrient and ingredient labeling in food packages and protein measurement in wheat grain sales), current methods of measurement will be shown to need modification.

5. NBS constituencies are becoming more vocal in stating needs

for transfer of technology from NBS and for leadership in the evolution of the Weights and Measures system domestically and internationally

.

241
6. More industry associations/societies are requesting NBS mea- surement assistance to meet technical measurement requirements

of Federal regulatory agencies.

B. Significance of Trends to NBS

1. There is an increasing need for assurance of measurement

accuracy in broader areas of commerce (wholesale and pro- duction point) which will increase the need for State weights

and measures oversight; NBS will be asked to help with new measurement methodologies and tighter device model performance

specifications for accuracy/precision.

2. States are increasingly concerned about the need for problemsolving for national uniformity; NBS will be asked to meet the challenge and increase its coordination of constructive State-to-State interactions.

3. There are increasing requests for NBS to operate a clearing

house for weights and measures information (measurement

procedures, devices, laws and regulations, violations, legal

decisions, etc.).

4. There are increasing requests for prototype device testing and certification of new weighing and measuring devices (1) to meet exporters' needs, (2) to assure procurement of re- liable equipment, and (3) to eliminate need for identical eval- uation by individual local authorities; this places new

demands on OWM for provision of testing procedures, check

lists, and overall management of a developing system.

5. The resources available to OWM have been diminishing in purchasing power and size of staff.

C . Issues

1. Panel Review . For the past several years, the NAS Panel that

reviews the OWM program has voiced concerns about the erosion of resources applied to support of the commercial weights and measures

program. The most recent Panel was especially explicit in stating

its concerns. Basic observations made by the Panel were:

a. The organic act authorizes the Bureau to

- provide leadership to assure uniformity in accurate commercial measurements

- disseminate results of research achievements

- provide basic standards of measurement

b. OWM was the implementing agent of the Organic Act.

242
c. Increased NBS action is necessary to avoid abandoning

this nation to a growing chaos among government jurisdictions at all levels and among all sectors in a scramble

to retain or regain measurement integrity in an ever complicating environment.

d. The calibration and measurement functions of the Bureau

are atrophied at a time when they should be enhanced; neglected when they should be emphasized.

e. There is a disparity between mission statements in the NBS LRP and limited resources. Mission statements lack express recognition of fundamental NBS basic standardization

and calibrating responsibilities.

f . The lack of forceful NBS leadership can result in reassignment of its role to other Government Departments.

Specifically regarding the OWM program, the Panel concluded that:

a. There is inadequate concern by NBS for the needs of the system of commercial measurement in the country;

b. Efforts to develop educational programs is commendable

and the Panel urges recognition of two different types:

university level, and technical.

c. NBS and DoC should make a conscious and high-level decision

to provide support and establish and implement a clearly

defined educational program.

d. They are pleased with establishment of the regional

seminars conducted in conjunction with industry and encourage further development.

e. OWM should be commended for establishing State regional

MAPs and they encourage inclusion of all 50 States at earliest possible time.

f. OWM should be complimented on plan to upgrade State metrologists but feels that 5 years is too long for completion.

g. Development of at least one advanced metrologist should

be attained for each State.

h. It is pleased with progress toward reorganizing the NCWM,

including new membership format and upgrading of regional

associations

.

i. Impressive progress has been made in issuing handbooks on a timely basis through use of word processing.

243
j. It would like to see early revision of HB 82. Both the general observations and specific conclusions of the Panel

are tabulated in Table 4 under the column headed "NAS Panel."

2. Congressional Testimony . Three representatives of the Weights

and Measures constituencies were invited to testify before the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology on June 17 and 18, 1981. Highlights of their testimony are summarized in three

Tables: Table 1 - Mr. Sydney Andrews

Table 2 - Mr. James Bird

Table 3 - Mr. Ken Hammer

These highlights are also summarized in Table 4 under the three

columns headed "Congressional Testimony."

3. Measurement Needs Study . Under the auspices of the NBS Planning Office, a "Measurement Needs Study" was undertaken. The

scope of the study includes Weights and Measures considerations

with the goal to "identify and assess the needs at the State level for accurate and uniform physical or chemical measurements

that derive from government laws and regulations."

Based on State visits involving interviews with government officials

and industry spokespersons, a broad range of needs has been identified. The needs identified have been summarized in Table 4 under

the column headed "Measurement Needs Study" (needs as expressed in trip reports and interviews).

244
TABLE 1 Sydney Andrews

Basic mission of NBS includes standards for Weights and Measures

.

Other missions are secondary.

Calibration and measurement functions have atrophied when

they should have been enhanced, neglected when they should

have been emphasized. NBS conducts outstanding research in high technology.

NBS considers technical delivery as a task too routine. The subcommittee might study possible rephrasing of the Organic Act to emphasize importance of basic mission, even if

it may seem mundane.

In recent years Weights and Measures officials have become

increasingly alarmed at apparent diminishing interest of NBS management reflected by low priorities given to weights and measures for programs and initiatives.

In spite of rapid growth in needs, OWM is smaller than ten

years ago. This program should emphasize research to keep Weights and Measures officials at leading edge of new demands. Reduced emphasis on State support by NBS damages the economy

and NBS image. NBS should be the focal point for all matters pertaining to Weights and Measures. OWM initiative to bring educational institutions into picture

is urgent, but resources are needed. The NBS role in international standards development needs to be stronger.

Organic Act should be redrawn to emphasize measurement and standards needs plus a larger and more representative Visiting

Committee

.

If NBS does not recognize need for new action, presence of OWM

in NBS should be reconsidered; amendment of Organic Act would

be necessary.

245
TABLE 2 James Bird

Amend portions of Organic Act related to Weights and Measures

for: more specificity, and to mandate responsibilities.

State Weights and Measures responsibilities are increasingly

dependent on national measurement technology (cited Stevenson- Wydler Act), OWM (NBS) is transfer agent for that technology. OWM (NBS) support services are necessary to develop, coordinate,

and maintain equity in the marketplace.

State directors are complaining because needs are not being

met. Expand State laboratory program beyond mass. Mandate continued sponsorship of the NCWM. Continue EPLA responsibilities and transfer these back to OWM. Participation in OIML necessitates additional staff in OWM. Expand OWM prototype approval activities to match growing

national and international needs. Put OWM in position to support State directors in program

evaluation and development. Return Railroad Track Scale Program to NBS/OWM.

Reconstitute Visiting Committee to include:

two members experienced in State regulatory programs

two members expert in commercial technology and processes

246
TABLE 3 Ken Hammer

Argues not against other activities of NBS but for increased

involvement in commercial weights and measures. Concerns are simple but resolution is not: NBS is positioned to provide coordinating leadership to loose, dispersed, decentralized U.S. System of Weights

and Measures

Since the mid-60 f s many challenges have been made to that

System:

- consumers

,

- technical advances,

- metrication,

- regulation (FPLA)

,

- international standardization.

Since the mid-60' s, NBS leadership has been inadequate. NBS scientific curiosity and ingenuity combined with pressures

from new legislative mandates have combined to create unaf- fordable neglect of weights and measures.

GAO Report of April 22, 1981 omits significant reference to weights and measures role. CRS Report of April 22, 1981 omits significant reference to weights and measures role. CRS Report of May 13, 1981 finds applied measurements in NEL

but OWM in NML. CRS Report does not recognize lack of metrological control

plan in U.S. Notes placement of weights and measures aspects of Federal

Packers and Stockyards Administration in DoA, as well as FG1S. Trend could extend to coal and other commodities leading to a spectrum of Federal bureaucracies.

Federal leadership necessary for GATT and OIML. Suggests thoughtful NBS initiatives to represent real needs of existing system (Weights and Measures).

247
TABLE 3 (cont.) OWM is submerged in NBS organization. OWM staffing has decreased from 29 (1970) to 11. Broadening Visiting Committee desirable.

Restoration of traditional emphasis on commercial weights and measures in NBS. Propose restoration of leadership or remove weights and measures activity from NBS and place it elsewhere (DoC or DoA) .

248
TABLE 4 Summary of Issues

NAS PANEL CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY MEASUREMENT

NEEDS STUDY ANDREWS BIRD HAMMER

LEGISLATIVE Organic Act, Reaffirm, Mandate X Add W&M representative

to visiting committee

Uniformity in W&M laws and regulations

Avoid Federal preemption X

ORGANIZATION

STATE INDUS. NBS/OWM

OFF. BUS IN.

NBS support OWM or move

out Elevate OWM in NBS organization

RESOURCES

Increase OWM staff and funding

Increase input from

NBS Centers PROGRAMATIC

a. Reassurance of NBS Continued Support

b. Reorganization

c. Committee Support

d. Coordination of Regional Assns.

249
TABLE 4 (cont.)

NAS PANEL CONGRESSIONAL

TESTIMONY

MEASUREMENT

NEEDS STUDY ANDREWS BIRD HAMMER STATE INDUS. NBS/OWM

OFF. BUSIN.

PROGRAMATIC (cont.)

e. Weighing Systems

Standards

Test Equipment

Handbooks X

Training X

f. Measuring Systems

Standards

Test Equipment

Handbooks X

Training X

g. Package Inspection

Standards Test Equipment

Handbooks X Training X

h. Special, grain moisture

Standards Test Equipment

Handbooks X

Training X

j . Upgrade Metrologists X

(1) Basic Seminar X

(2) Intermediate

Seminar X

(3) LAP

k. Measurement Assurance X

(1) Lab. oversight

(2) RMAP's

250
TABLE 4 (cont.)

NAS PANEL CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONYMEASUREMENT

NEEDS STUDY

PROGRAMATIC (cont.)

1. Expand Lab Capabilities X

(1) Moisture/Grain X

(2) Pressure, Temp,

etc. X

m. Upgrade Existing Cap.

(1) Mass

(2) Volume

(3) Other

n. R.R. Track Scale X

o. Laboratory Interaction

p. National Metrology

Control System X

q. National Type Approval

Program X

(1) Institutional

(2) Technical

(3) Operational

r. International Legal

Metrology (OIML,

GATT, etc.) X

s. Program Evaluation

Certification X

ANDREWS BIRD HAMMER STATE INDUS. NBS/OWM

OFF. BUSIN.

t. Laws and Regulations

(Uniformity)

u. Consultation

(Telephone, Mail)

v. Management Systems

w. Metric Conversion

(1) Model Plans

(2) Technical Consultation

251
III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

A. NBS Goals The goals of the Office of Weights and Measures derive from the Agency goals, particularly Goal One, "To maintain and improve the national measurement system for industry, commerce, State and local governments, and Federal agencies."

B. OWM Goals The long-term goals of the Office of Weights and Measures program

are to:

1. Create and maintain an effective, uniform, national

system of measurement accuracy, fairness, and protection

for buyer and seller in all commercial transactions

involving determination of quantity.

2. Provide the technical basis for maintenance of State measurement capabilities consistent with national

objectives

.

3. Promote uniformity in commodity transfer in State weights

and measures laws and regulations and remove impediments

to the free flow of interstate commerce due to variations

in local codes, requirements, and enforcement practices.

4. Provide technical assistance in the development and application of new and improved technology and investigate

and solve technical measurement problems in weights and measures

.

C. OWM Objectives

The OWM program consists of 10 objectives designed to accomplish

the NBS and OWM goals. These objectives, as associated with the goals are listed below and paraphrased on Chart 1. Goal 1

.

Create and maintain an effective, uniform, national system

of measurement accuracy, fairness, and protection for buyer and seller in all commercial transactions involving determination of quantity.

Objective 1 . Provide leadership and coordination among

State and local weights and measures officials and between

them and Federal agency and private sector organizations.

252
253
Objective 2 . Prepare, maintain, and disseminate, in conve- niently useable form, information, data, and guidance on weights and measures programs, practices, systems, and units

to satisfy needs of the Federal Government, State and local governments, educational institutions, business and industry,

and the general public.

Objective 3 . Sponsor the NCWM as a national forum and assist,

maintain, and improve Conference organization and operations for

the solution of weights and measures problems, promotion of effectiveness and uniformity in State and local weights and measures regulation and enforcement.

Objective 4 . Provide technical assistance to and coordinate

domestic weights and measures participation in international

legal metrological activities.

Goal 2 . Provide the technical basis for maintenance of State measurement capabilities consistent with national objectives.

Objective 5 . Design, develop, and coordinate uniform nationwide

training in weights and measures administration, inspection,

enforcement, and laboratory metrology.

Objective 6 . Provide the bases for uniformity of design and performance specifications, tolerances, and test methodology

for commercial weighing and measuring systems.

Objective 7 . Provide traceability to the National Standards

in the commercial measurement system by developing, providing

where necessary, and maintaining the system of State laboratories

including procedures, protocols, measurement assurance, and standards of mass, length, volume, and laboratory apparatus.

Objective 8 . Evaluate new measurement instruments, systems,

and field standards to determine their conformance with published standards of design and performance .- Goal 3 . Promote uniformity in commodity transfer and State weights and measures laws and regulations and remove impediments to the free flow of interstate and commerce due to variations in local

codes, requirements, and enforcement practices.

Objective 9 . Provide the basis for equity-in-trade through

support of the development and adoption of model laws and regulations and conformity of commodity packaging, labeling,

distribution, method of sale, and inspection.

Goal 4 . Provide technical assistance in the development and application of new and improved technology and investigate and solve technical measurement problems in weights and measures.

254
Objective 10 . Transfer additional calibration capabilities to State metrology laboratories for support of their regulatory programs and industry needs.

IV. THE PLAN

A. Approach

The Plan for attainment of the objectives is presented without

consideration of resource constraints. Each objective is described

below in terms of tasks and the resources (in professional staff- years) expended on each task in FY81, as well as estimated resources needed in each of the following fiscal years (82-86) . A description

of each task is contained in Section V including estimates of resources required.

B. Objectives A tabular presentation of each objective has been prepared which

provides

:

1. a statement of the Objective,

2. a listing of the Tasks associated with each Objective,

3. resource requirements for each Task, and for all Tasks within an Objective.

255
00 o d d O OJ a oo P

J3 U

00 o

•rl P

CU u » 0)

oa rH

«9 CU cj p O CO rH >

co on H 00 O O

co m O r*

co eg o r4 d rH O <0

•rl U P CU

CO T3 d OJ 8*3 o co o a d -d

CO P

ft d

•w CU J3 CU

io 9 U P

CU CU TS .O

CO

flj 73

rH d

<w d

<w o O -rl d d

co co CO 00 I s

CO 09 d •d d CO 00r-l J •i-l P d

(0 o

«J & I •rl OJ o P

•H 9

•rl CO

cu > P o

th Re TP ra fi 3 OJ •rl d I

rH ft P

rl U O CO u d d

00 •H kt •r-> 1 o O h CO ft aCO

CU CO M u

OJ 00 <0 00 O JO d 3 TJ •rl o CO a* cu p CO CU a

OJ cu <4-l CO cu 32 p rH o CO ft d X) p 1 CO d CO CO a P CO CO co <4H CO u

•rl CO o •rl 00

SS pa

ys

ro

CO •o rH ft •H OJ iH CU s -o

CO d CO d O CO •H CO Ji P a P CO o CO O T3 •rH P

CU «M P d P o JS u

CO CU 1

OJ P •H rH OJ -o U iH l-l

•rl a .fi o s > T3 CO u o d 4-> n o CO «H u W o s u Q

-d

00 u d 'H

"rl J3

ft -

oj d u o w -rl P ^ CO o u O P

co "O «rl d d

«0 -rl d n

cu -d jj

co d

•H CO H CO a*

TJ

•g d • d co /-n

CO <N

CO SO

ft P ON rS-sr

OJ -r) CU > OJ §

•rl O o d

•rl O P -rl CO P 3 8 U -Q

•rl -H P rH H CO CO CJ

ft

cu CU iH P CO

CO o P CO

CO M u u O co <M VI d H

CO • rH 05

ft • OS ftO OJ rH J3

OJ 4J >

CU 4-1 Q O a

iH CO CO U O 00

•rl O

cu d p o

•rl CU P

TJ CO

•rl U > % rl O «H H -rl *ti

•d cu d cj

co u u o o P

4-1 U

CU d ft

co co h d

ft "H

CU d > o

OJ -rl •d P

CO o P p d iio

X) «w p

•rl P ? 8

.* ft U ft 5 3 * CO p =

CJ • d d o P O CO

256
CO CM d o

x/i wu co

euu

>> d

eu d % " 0 CO U P

XI d oo

•H -H

cu

cu p d

CO O d

•H CU a y 01 d

Cfl 73

73 d d p U <0 •H U • P d o P 73 -H

4) H V in A xl P

+J fl H

>. BP <w a «i

co p d

•H CU CU P > 60

CO O

CO 60 CU Xl O H +) P (0O 73

co o d WHS d -d 3 d >» s d « p m 73 p d cu co d « <o p d

"H Cfl <0 73

Cfl P p d P Cfl CO CO 'H AT) S

•h cu •> 73

«fl ~ p p d a d co d co ° >» a co S co cu P P CO S.B

cu o P «M

cm d

co cu d

CU > -H U O CO •h o d P X»

•H O rH

Cfl Cfl « * P P CO 8 ft. oj d o •> cu -H m w Ph p

cu 3 cu P

rH P Xl -H o d ft. o -h

4) CO p do P -H V P 3 o

CO -H d *o p d

CO

cu - U rH

•H CU 5 §

4) o d cu -o

•h a d > o O CO 'H

ftiXl o

00 ft, 73 -H d cu •> to 3 do m a -h d o p

CO Cfl Xi d rH O CO

CO -H -H P P 00

73d o

•H *W CO

co d cu P -H O d p

•h u d s o o

S3 <h co

oo d d -h oP CO x! d p o

xl oo o u

cu o

73 o d

Cfl CO d

•H 73 u d

ft cfl V P d eg cu >

XI P O CO P MH O O O X3 P P

CU P CO

cfl P P -H CO CO •H S >

Cfl -

cu eu p a <h &, d

T3 O "J d o d

CO CO u P -H XI d rH

00 O XI

•H -h d

CU P ft, 3 <0ft cu 0J -H XI PUP a p xi O P P p «o o

ft) ft, xi 0 d p o

P..H

CU -H P CO 1 *

XI

00 73 -H d 4J

CO 26

co P P o

XS <+4 00

•H 00

cu cu d

rH 3 -H

•H 73

«H d d O (0 cu p d CO CO CO CU P

co d cu •H -H 73

CO 1j §

CU 73 P -H 73 d d d

to O co

cfl 0J 73 (0

CU CO p d O -H

cu >, rH 73 P > CO O d P 73 I ft d u

cu o H P 73d

M-l P cfl O V

73 CO d P rH O O CO

rH CU O

xi d d CO CO

ft, CO cu •H P

<u d N CO CO •H CU Cfl rH P CU

co d as

257
s s — r 8 O C C C H 0 8

i_> a 4) 3 93 = H 4) V O 3 U a 0)> 0 0 -H <H

-= - : u u ii n ^ 4-i -3 O 4-i 3

«H ft « a «h 3 BOO O -H h d *i U O a

p-t M 8 4) 3 - 0 O 8 *J U 3 Z .-

4) u d o

*j V u u 0 3 a 4> 3 U 0 D a **

CO 3O

CJ

0)>o - 3 o eo s - O N ho d u ac a 3 oU rH 3 a

sn CO cm uO CM 3 o a o O O

co CO CM CM CM CO o o © d O O O

co co CM u-i CM CM CO o o O O CO 0

on co CM CM CM CO o d O O 1 O 0

CO CO CM CM I 1CM CO c o O © O 0

CO CO CM CM CM CO o o O O 1 fl O 0 a« >, tl B u a B 4J d a S3

*J 4J 91 fH

iH •H "3 0 a a | CJ d 2

*j I a X

OB a o 4-1 a a 41 u o a 4H ac d T3 d

•z g u a d o 3 4-> 3 «j ac SB •iH H

ac fi d «J ac 4-1 o 3 •H 4H 0 tl $ O 3 8 "3 i iH > 06 a

1-1 d B d a

SB a V 3 d S3 a JS d 0 u a i—i B tl a •H 3 «a ,G •H «J d V J5 U JS r-H u W u U B d *i ,d a

0) c B U a •-H 3 u 3 V 3. cj Cu BJ > B u a d w

ac u •T-t a T5 3 3 — *o 0 3 1-1 a "d o M a a o *i 3 ac 4)

41 cj "O a d 4J

ac 1-1 SB a U 00 ' a z V a u d d t3 3 H i-l > B ac 0 «j •H CO 4< •iH

4-> H V d u 41 B H <44 +J D. >H aj o> U V CJ *i d o 41 1H 0 O = 35 <H H u a U 0

4-1 O 5 > a 0 >i Ch a 1 0 d w C a a 0 S3 0 3. a r-l "3 3 ac (J d — •H 3 a 3 3 +J 3 & o i 4-> S u d a o o H 9 H u % A d

63 d - a tJ a U 1) a d B 03 M 2 'a a a

+J B N d U rH u g = a i-i a «J 4-1 "O d — 3 5 «Q d d 0 V a

"3 u 6 S3 0. H tl H 3. 3 ac a ac x a i—(

•H a O O « u S3 II £ B U M 'v o o a «J "0 3 a

3* +J u u a d r~ 0< M a o «J a d •H r«» 41 3 0 u is. a Si H co "3 Si B 8 B o s •73 •o d s 3

4j 3. a U 4) CU a 41 - u 0 i 0 s

4J B 3 S3 14 0 SB +J N 3. -r H 3. a • u a co 4J a a 3 u a 3 o a H i 3 3 0 «w TS d u 3 T3 u 0 u o 3 i, 3 d O 3 41 u

ac

3*

S3 u a a H a a u O T5 a a a +J a d a o i-i 3 ac — 1« -H a — 3 41 •H

|J 8 3 0 3 o 0 a •H U i-l i—1 0 >> 1-1 u i-H X iH +j = B e 4-> u u 0 4J 41 3 d 5 B > 3 > K > T3 r

•i-i w « B *- w tl a V 3 a a a o a a < Q iH u < O a M 0

258
CM CM d d

fa <r

CM CM O O U

•H

CO 00 1.3 o o

tj up V 0)

CO

co oo wo d rH H CO TJ 00 u a) O rH oU rHP- OS 2 SV

41 P o d d *h

r-l P

<0 « u a,

rl *H Ji 45

CI P

CU W P (0ft

CU TJ 09 •H 01 > H o d U CO fa c0

to P P *H X! >

00 -H H P

4) O 3 « d U 73

•h o tj d M d eo * ft CO P 09 d T5 •> 41

oj d co P S CO TJ CO Ok M P

•H CO CO CO d P TJ o1 d d <u CU U CO X) a p p

00 CU CO d U TJd m d eo co d d

09 cu o S3

(0 U -H 5

cu p u s s 3*

00 41 h >» a a cu xi •hup

+j h d w u d m d O co o

fa CO 4-1 >H X 41 O P " 3 P. -2TJ u m d d wis O O 4) cu d fa 1

09 o o o

CU "H i—) CJ •H 4-1 41 41 P fa > M H O CU dTJTJg P d rH h H -H O O CO ft d 41 4-1 ft O P o O *H CO p ft d

CU CO -H O

>H H H H U 41MHO d «J TJ n ft co

SBcua * o w rH Q

CU O > o

CU TJ XIP

CU -H P 3

CO P 00 u u

CO O

fa * a o

CO CO co TJ <4H oo d d d o

41 CO a o CO rH ft CO •rl p P 00 u a d d o

CO a CO 3 •H ft

•H CO u X TJ o •H p 09

fl) w CO M •H CO d X! a s CO i—1

QJ o CO & X d u 33 •rl >-} CO •H P 41 P

41 4) CO OJ P CO 03 X! X N X CU a

4-1 P •H P 1 CO d O d U

XI X CO X CJ H 00 P p 00 P o

•H •H u •H i—1co M 3 o CO P ft U d

ft ft ft •H 4) •H •H 00 •H 00 & X X o X o I o

CO W rH CO w rH H p d a o d d o 0) CO o o u o 0 H > u

•H •H p •H H P o o p P p P 00 X (0 CO g CO CO CO rH rH rH N d rH

4J 41 rH 4) H X 00 H U CO U d p •rl CO /-N 00 CO •rl <u CU < rH rH cu rH 00 u U H CO CO rH CO H o d rH 1 1 I o 4) 4H CO d P (Q - O o CO o CO X 41 • m m CJ 00 M p a oo

•H o CU •H d d a M d rH ft 3 TJ 41 •H o •H 4! •H o O d w CO •H CO CO H O d CO P P 1 P P o o (0 ts CO a d 4) r) CO 41 •H N •H rH •H a TJ P P >

CO •H CO CO CO d CO X -rl S d s H S rH (0 d 00 P

CO P CO •H H CJ TJ oo TJ d TJ oo CO TJ 41 41 d M d 4) d H H 3 •"-> CO o CO CJ CO rH o O X p • O 00 o X

tc X H X d •H 4J O d

(0 w 41 w CO 09 TJ •H rH

•H o •H X •H 41 •rl -H 41 P CO rH rH rH P rH X TJ U d X o X O X X •H d o

CO Vk CO CO •H P rH > TJ -H p p p TJ P M 09 W o d p

CO CO d CO CO o o M O co w g w CO W o 35 3 fa cj d

259
If) CM © o

LO CM o © o

•H 4) I - o a

•H O

(0 +J a u

41 B 81 o a

co « a n

•H 4J *C SB H -H o d u a

ft s So © 05 ©

rH CO H £ I 2

-O "Q 4> 2 S - CO

•rl *i O « JS *J

4) SO S3 ° •£ 8

oo d d «o

as d 3 I

co oo wug cs O CM

00 00 o

CM oo do % h- H to to -h 41 M CO M-t H 4J » O co h H OJ OJ

js o

00 •H 85

4) 0) : s d co

eg0J s s 51 H g

J*u - to n a*

14 iH 0)

CO +J iH U y B v a

ft ti

05 © d In H «0U

co d

CO V

oj u

00 k d «j rl +J d cy v oj • OJ *i >»

+J to & J CO tfl y a a n « 9 o d

fl «H -H oO +J Mn I 11 83M

oo cy 3-i § §

«>a co •o CO a o o°£3 . •O 00 a to c « CO -H a ja (j CO U OJ rH S A

ft to y

as 4) a u o a

•H «

00 h

0) OJ W 4Na - o

OJ y

*J

as +j a

OQ CO *J CO

83 ooa

00 M a *j •H OJ a 4)

41 COa

•H tJ > a O -H h

ft "5a a

CO 03

41 a a

41 03

4-) CO

«3u o o a

T3 >» a u

to d

41

4) *H

4-1 U « l-l M *J u

89 OJ ft COto 00 4> d u

•H U d d

"§"§

8} (0 • 4) ft CO 00 O U to wja m

41 00 4) > -H >

JS S 0 Q » u m cm d d

in cm d d

+J U -rt« *J o y y w

41 ftd O co d m

41 H

e> co I § d 'rt

260
COI

£3

co o

rH a o

00*0

•H O

CO J3

0> 4-> TJ 01 s

•d oj

co tofx

01

<u 00 u a d 'H

CO M

•rl 41

01i MO

ft

«» W >

co 01

01 T3 " •HOW

T> O g O 01 ,n <r -p

.d O POOd

T3 d O d co n « W +Ju

0) CO 01

01 03 rH

01 do 9 -H O CO N

CJ +> CO -H d « i-i CO 01 -H

qj S -d +J o -3 u d d d d

«J 0) CO M MS OJ

0) CO « +J rH >> d O 13 00 ft h d o a (OHO o o 5 O -H

•H >

•P 0) _ n h 'ri

00 0 d

01 -H

00

00 -H d D3

00d do d o) o d

CO £.2 d co o 01 •H U

+J -H

CO > d cu •H Q

CO CO

co 3:

T3

ft rH W J3 'H 4-1 -H O O +J O J3

ft o 00 OOS 01 -H U J-> I +J 01 ft d

01 -H 0 d -

rH O >»

0) ft u > CO OJ

01 0» >

T3 U Ou o d 01

ft o 0 u

rH 01

J! i

01 o P o >

T3 01 d *o

•H CO d 01 o1 a

01 73

00 d d co o 01 d *

00 u

•H O

co <u

01 •d co0)

01 M

xj d

01 d o 0 oM

01 ft u

•H 00 > d

TJ -H

CO -U

oj d

+J 01a

OJ ft

T3 O

•H rH > 01 o > U OJ ft T3

+J 4J u

CO >> §*o°

•H rHo 33a d U OJ

oj a

•M OJ 0) rH

•d ft o d

•h a d 01 o u

OJ 4-> O d 01 1 i o o do • 8 i - 01 d -p

•> u

ft 00 0 o

rH U

OJ ft >

01 00 T3 d

•H - u d o>

CO 4J rH OJ ft a

261
-ill ac = - 11:11 c s liili

ii p.

3S».-i

I 11113

>Hii

s see

II

1 = II

V!

a- c

il

e Hi

is

I i

1 hi

nil

S 1

.M

liii

I Mi!

: ; iw : . 1-41

U II L H1

C£- >C C =

II

H i ill

. 1 HI V \\

11

i I I : : K C >

'? 4; 'lis

ir- t i- - ; II l! r I

:

; = Jl U 11111

252
\o i-h m o o in

&5

-•s

oo d

rH r-t CM odd M O 2 2

.3 8 d "H

<u <u • a «u CU -P o

»j d d <u «

«o d a « -H & « « P4 d tj "2 u o d

(0d to d

rH 00 « U -rt > CO CO w *« « d "o

<o • +> «H

CA O

T3 CO

r-t TJ O 10

4J 00 (0 M d -M

•rla T>

«o d X CO VV rH £3oo d U CO ft

•U (0 d o d > O 4)

0)> • 0) T3 ON

(0 O

ft co o « H M

ooco

•o § u

CO "4-1 •rl CO

CJ U O Q

ce do

TJ -rl d

CO CO _ d U CO SB X

at -d at u o

•H *J w o

CO K < a

COu

00oh

ft

(0d rH O CO •H >

+J O O U

•H ft #

T5 ft • co co a

00 o d rH O <D a >

CO 0) * "!

+> d

CO >» J

CO +J p cm

CO O d rH d >

•h cu d n

CO CU •o u da o oo

>>sid /-» O CM O 00

ON

CO 3

to n

263
— CO

+i O W U T3 U o a n cc a * o 5 5 A O a - +i co

ga aa U W a a 3 A O

60 "H - = - S 0 4 0

I* H 'd 43 S

«J 60 3

4) X) U h <ri TJ U

«0 T> -U M d a - 3 - 1 tJ = a h as • I « 60 a a «j -OS B H 'H

•H O 60

09 -H « 3 J ^

-2 - - O S5

i. — a S i

41 o | U o a

i—i >-( u> >>

4) +i TS -Ho « — 41 d ih o u ca 5 • d£O i-l

4) 3

CJ V z -

(0

i) -a - a

JJ 3 O TJ

*j d

S3 dO a

•M OJ -u 3

(0 CO d co H 3 o u o a u

60 •o d d iH

(0 09CO - 4> u - O TJ a-o a «a

5-23

41 60

4) ?"O X)

i- d a <e

>>

60 CO o cu

to a so H'HH

4) 60 I

60 co a d cu rl CJ 73

•U -H d a - -

•w o x « m

cu u m a rcu i A aoe*

*J d eo

•H 0 eoj

*j as a M CO o u

*J « 4) d a^J 1 .g a=aa

CQ O (0 d -

T3 .d co d u « 4) O nd 4) «j o u u

•H -H o

co > a •h cu a > 73 3

41 co u 3

41 CO a d «j

CO O 3 O *J H a o o 4) d

CO -H a d wo a a co o co cu fH 41 60

41 u d > ca a a a a -h y d -u

aj o |<

60 d d O -HiH £34J <Q CO — 3

73 73 d d H «

60 60 « <8 u u

<a «a a a > -h T5 >

ca «j o n u o a «h

5~n cu

r-l d -j

CQ CO « a co

cu

r-l 60 N a S 'H u 'H a O J£

r-l U U

a; -h d o +j

<a cu

4> a

5, 60

*J £8 T3

ca m a

CO <aa - o t»

41 d u u o o d -h u a -> a d o

cu o

«H 41 - o d -H

41 O 4J

-) CO >> 4) > 3 d O T3 (8 u a r-1 a -h a 3 3

60 60

41 41 u u

rH 4)

41 4-> 2

*• S CO

CU CU

ca cq 60 T3 3 §• aO tJ - d a ca u • O CO — cu

•ri CO u V -H >

•H O ^ i d o u u

4)w U

<a ao

41 U

264
m

oo o

co d

+J CO COO S

+J CO

CM

00 o P CM O CM

CO 00 o

Q* co

CO iH u d

oo d iu d

IUi »

CO u

CO CO

<u a

0)> flj 01 00 d o o p, H Ph

•p d

•H W

•d U

«S O H

0) (0 m a)

Ifl -H d n

<o o u +j H COM • O CO ' CO 01 H (U 60 >> O l-l O CO n d

<u d

-O 0)

&<S -u d

CO U +J <; <u co H i—I M

BS w M HO) H O -P

<u o H 4-> CO

HTJ+J s m S

•h d a

•rl 0> d >i d

CO o CO d co a, <u <u ops rH 01 0) ft S > a o

01 O rH Q U <4H

265
OOOOOOlT. tf» f

-

m o c m o « ;n o

^- sC o m c a so

a — c

a c

}

Si g Hi 1

i

•

I In!

Iifl

s 8

s

i Illlilllll

I

, 5

1

S 2 %

N r; >J ^

s s s $ s s s s s s i I il l 1 1 1 1

1

—i <n i —i —i —: "<n in "-5 •<->

I

IE

, i

i 1

266
C. Resource Requirements Unconstrained

Table 16 contains a summary, by objective and total for the OWM

Program, of professional staff-year requirements over the next five years. The professional staff-year resource requirements together

with estimated travel and other object requirements are: TABLE 16 Summary of Resource Requirements by FY

Office of Weights and Measures Fiscal Year

198l

a 1982b

1983

b ' d 1984b

1985

b 1986

b

Dollars (Thousands) 758 1063

e 1504 1721 1983 2007 Personnel (FTE)

C 11.8 16.

8

e 24.0 27.0 31.9 32.4

Slots

f 10.5 11.5 16.5 19.5 20.5 21

aActual; Estimates; °Positions are "fulltime equivalent" including

work contracted to NBS Centers and contracted to outside organizations

;

^ Contingent on Type Approval funding; eIncrease of 5 (metrologist

,

Taylor-50%, Jones-25%, Schoonover-15%; contracting-3.2 equivalent),

$1063 (762.5+17+34.5+249.1); See paragraph F, "Staff Building"

following.

This projection includes resources to address the identified needs with no attempt in the "outyears" to recognize constraints (fiscal

and slot). However, FY 82 and FY 83 are viewed as transitional

years of buildup to rectify results of ten years of inflation,

competing claims on resources, and general attrition in the program. This plan portrays a buildup to a professional staff of

30 (which is really 30 FTE) and an annual budget of $2,000,000 in

terms of 1982 dollars.

D. Resource Requirements - Constrained

The current level of support of the OWM program is approximately

50 percent of the unconstrainted estimated requirements. Consequently,

a scenario is presented here which will primarily provide for accom- plishment of institutional preservation tas.ks; that is, no appreciable

effort will be applied to upgrading or expanding State programs or involvement in international legal metrology (other than 0IML)

.

The tasks were examined and arranged in priority order. This

examination included the full OWM staff, NCWM leaders, plus input

267
7 1 7 Al
3. Technical Assistance, Grain Moisture Meters (Frank Jones)

Labor and overheads Travel

$ 25,000

2,400 TOTAL $ 27,400

The National Task Force on Grain Moisture of the National Conference on Weights and Measures has established a Technical Subcommittee

to develop meter performance specifications, tolerances, and testing

procedures. The Chairman of the Task Force, Sam Hindsman

(Director of the Division of Weights and Measures, Arkansas) has asked for the participation of Frank Jones as technical advisor on

the subcommittee. This issue is growing in difficulty because of political visibility and technical complexity (device development)

.

4. Technical Assistance, Laboratory Metrology (Randy Schoonover)

Labor $ 15,000 Travel 2,500

In FY 81, OWM funded Randy Schoonover for two specific tasks: development of a mass comparator and teaching a metrologists 1 seminar. This request is to fund teaching two seminars and continuing of mass comparator development.

5. Revision of NBS Circular 501, "Federal and State Weights

and Measures Laws" Contract to local law school (first year cost) $ 82,000

The circular had been a basic reference and working document

supporting the OWM efforts to promote uniformity in weights and measures laws and regulations. The circular was last published

in 1951. During the past 30 years, significant changes have

occurred. In fact, the development of model regulations adopted

by the NCWM postdate the circular. We need such a basic reference. With today's technology, once updated, the circular can be put into

the computer. Thereafter, revisions and new acquisitions can readily be introduced and real time access provided. The work

should be spread over two years and done under contract by law students working with a data system analyst.

6. Video Self-Training Materials - Handbook 133 Contract, Development of Seven Cassette Training

Programs $ 38,000

In FY 81, OWM completed work on and published Handbook 133 "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods." This handbook has received accolades and recognition from the leading States and Federal agencies including USDA and FDA. It deals with a subject

TOTAL $ 17,500

269
that is all pervasive in food processing, packaging, distribution,

selling, and enforcement. This seven-cassette training program is designed to provide the basis for self training by our constituencies in the use of the procedures provided in Handbook 133.

F. Staff Building

Table 15 illustrates the resource requirements associated with the "unconstrained" program presented. Assuming a combination of staff increases and contracting (within NBS and outside contractors), an

increase in full time staff to 20 professionals should be done carefully with high selectivity.

Recommended staff recruitment should seek the following type of professionals in the order listed:

1. Laboratory Metrologist - assist with the State standards and laboratory program.

2. Mechanical Engineer - assist with the support of NCWM

technical committees and the prototype examination program.

3. Systems Analyst - assist in development of management

systems for OWM, the NCWM, and State programs.

4. Educational Coordinator - work with States and educational

institutions for development of "national" training program.

5. Public Administrator - manage programs and coordinate

with States, industry, and associations.

6. Legal Administrator - manage program of uniformity,

interpretation, and enforcement.

7. Field Engineer - develop field test procedures, training,

and technology transfer of new field test equipment.

8. Commodity Advisor - monitor food and commodity processing,

packaging, distribution, and retailing technology; work

with NCWM committees, State officials, and industry.

9. and 10. Mechanical Engineers (same as #2 above).

V. TASK DESCRIPTIONS Each Task identified with the ten objectives is described in separate papers in terms of:

270
Title of Task

Task Leader

Estimated Resource Requirements (Technical Person Years) Statement of Need

Background

Plan for Accomplishment

Schedule

Many tasks are mutually supporting; therefore, summarizing require- ments of all Tasks within an Objective will not result in the entries on Tables 5 through 15

.

(Item 503 was adopted)

504 OIML ACTIVITIES

The Committee received a report from Dave Edgerly, Chief, NBS Office of Domestic and International Measurement Standards (ODIMS) on recent

activities of his office in coordinating U.S. participation in OIML

standards making activities.

Clearly in the months and years ahead, the USA as a treaty member of OIML,

will be called upon with increasing frequency to react to and participate

in developing draft international recommendations for a wide variety of legal metrology standards. These OIML standards will (and do) involve not

only international recommendations pertaining to devices or "hardware",

but will (and are now beginning to) include legal metrology "software"

standards as well. "Software" standards in this context mean standards

for legal metrology methods and procedures such as sampling plans,

statistical methods, package and bulk product or commodity compliance

testing, and related weights and measures non-device protocols or exam- ination procedures

.

The Committee discussed the role that the NCWM has played in contributing

to positions developed for the USA on draft OIML recommendations since the entry of the United States into OIML in 1972. It was observed that by and

large the NCWM role to date has been limited to two subsets of the broad

OIML spectrum: 1. weighing and measuring devices (through the S & T Committee), and 2. grain moisture measurement (through the Task Force

on Grain Moisture Measurement Assurance)

.

It is evident to the Committee that there is at least one highly significant area of OIML "software" standards making currently underway where

NCWM members have a large stake in the outcome and yet have apparently

had no effective input opportunity to the U.S. position. This is the

area of standards for packaged products quantity of fill compliance

testing.

271
The significance of this area of standards making to the NCWM membership

is seen in the chart below, which illustrates jurisdictional coverage

of packaged products by various government entities in the U.S. While State and local weights and measures officials generally administer

broad acts covering all types of packaged products with single or dual

units, Federal agency responsibilities are very narrow and limited in comparison. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THEIR PACKAGE QUANTITY LABELING AND FILL RESPONSIBILITIES CONSUMER PACKAGES NON- CONSUMER PACKAGES

- STATE AND LOCAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

USDA FDA FTC EPA BATF USDA FDA EPA BATF ^PRODUCTS

OF MEASURE

MEAT

POULTRY

FOOD DRUGS

COSMETICS

NONFOOD

HERBICIDES PESTICIDES RODENTICIDES

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TOBACCO

OTHER

SPTG GDS

AUTO. CHEM HARDWARE

tte.

MEAT

POULTRY F000 DRUGS

COSMETICS

PESTICIDES ALCOHOL TOBACCO

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

OTHER

CUSTOMARY

UNITS ONLY '///

,COVE

' OF F

'///, UGE /

PLA /

J

.

TOBACCO MALT

BEVERAGE

TOBACCO

MALT

BEVERAGE DUAL

UNITS m'<//, A A METRIC

UNITS ONLY A B A

WINES

SPIRITS ONLY A A

WINES

SPIRITS ONLY

A. NOT PERMITTED IN APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY REGULATIONS

B. LIMITED TO DRUGS In this regard, one broad-based OIML Draft Recommendation on sample

testing of prepackaged products has been put out (in June 1980) by its

Reporting Secretariat (SP 2 sr 5) for comment. In developing a U.S. position on this or any related draft documents, it is imperative that

the NBS Office of Domestic & International Measurement Standards be

aware of the substantial interest in and current NCWM positions or policies on package control.

To assure that important OIML "software" (non-device) Draft Recommendations and their corresponding U.S. positions receive adequate attention

and review or input from the NCWM, the Committee reiterates from Item 503 adopted by the 1981 Conference that "drafting, developing, and formulating NCWM positions (in multi-disciplinary standards areas) for use in ... . international standards development (OIML, etc.)" is an "Extended

Liaison (Committee) Role".

(Item 504 was adopted)

505 INTERACTIONS WITH TASK FORCES AND

STANDING COMMITTEES

272
505-1 NATIONAL TYPE APPROVAL TASK FORCE

The Task Force on National Type Approval, which is divided into a technical and a policy and administration group, has made substantial progress during the past year. The technical group has developed a Type Approval Criteria and Test Procedures document, which was referred to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S & T Committee) during the 1982 Interim Meetings. Two organizational

proposals from the policy and administration group were presented to the Committee on National Measurement Policy and Coordination (P & C Committee) . The P & C Committee is expected to recommend an organizational structure for national type approval to the 1982 National Conference.

(Item 505-1 was adopted) 505-2 PACKAGE CONTROL INTERACTION WITH THE NCWM TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL AND WITH THE NCWM SPECIAL STUDY GROUP ON A NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SYSTEM FOR THE U.S. Liaison Committee Member Simila, who is also a member of both the Task Force and the Special Study Group, continues to meet with and

serve as the Liaison Contact with each of these ad hoc NCWM groups. The liaison needs of both groups are beginning to emerge as they get

deeper into their tasks. The Task Force on Package Control touches

on both Federal/State/local weights and measures interactions and NCWM/international relationships. At some point either or both of these may necessitate specifically directed Liaison Committee efforts.

The Special Study Group on a National Weights and Measures System for

the U.S. is involved most heavily in terms of interactions with the NCWM/NBS relationship. NCWM liaison needs with Congress have also arisen as a direct result of the Study Group's activities.

(Item 505-2 was adopted) 505-3 GRAIN MOISTURE MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE TASK FORCE

The Grain Moisture Measurement Assurance Task Force (GMMATF) has sub- mitted to the NCWM Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S & T)

a revised draft of a Tentative Code for Grain Moisture Meters. A

tentative code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be rigidly enforced. The requirements are designed for observation and study prior to the development and final adoption of a code for Grain Moisture Meters. The S & T Committee has recommended

the Tentative Code with some modifications for adoption at the NCWM

Conference in July, 1982. If approved by the Conference, the Tentative Code will be included in Handbook 44 with an effective date

of January 1, 1983.

273
The Draft is intended to permit the use of most types of grain

moisture meters presently used in commerce. However, the Task Force

goes on record strongly advocating automatic devices. The Task Force

encourages the incorporation of temperature sensing equipment, grain

sample quantity measurement equipment, and direct read-out mechanisms

into the meters in order to reduce the potential for misuse or fraud. (Item 505-3 was adopted)

505-4 COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Interaction during the interim meetings of the Liaison Committee and

the Laws and Regulations Committee (L & R Committee) proved to be a productive experience. The resulting improved communications between

the committees permitted the Liaison Committee to identify areas for needed liaison in relation to L & R Committee agenda items and pro- mises to minimize duplicative effort. Perhaps the greatest benefit to be derived from this interaction will be the enhanced preparedness of

the Liaison Committee to advance matters referred to the Liaison

Committee by the L & R Committee. This will be the result as the interacting member of the Liaison Committee orally briefs fellow

members in relation to L & R Committee actions. On behalf of the NCWM, the Committee asked (by a letter dated June 14,

1982) the FDA Commissioner to include in his annual review for Congress

of needed changes to the FDC Act, a proposed modification in Section 407

(b) (2) of 21 U.S.C. 347 to permit the sale of margarine in packages

with a net weight greater than one pound. The Committee has received

no response as of this date as to whether or not such a proposal will

be submitted to Congress.

(Item 505-4 was adopted)

505-5 EDUCATION COMMITTEE

The Liaison Committee liaison, Mr. Cavagnaro, has volunteered

to assist in furthering plans of the Committee on Education for highlighting weights and measures activities through a National

Weights and Measures Week observance, and through a possible

additional special program involving the Advertising Council being

developed for NCWM by Dick Hurley. Mr. Cavagnaro was invited by

Education Committee Chairman Swanson to give a complete report to his

committee at the annual meeting on the experience of the U.S. Office

of Consumer Affairs in sponsoring National Consumer Week, a project

involving business, government, consumer leaders, educators, and the media nationwide.

(Item 505-5 was adopted)

274
505-6 COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

There did not appear to be any Liaison items or problems in the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances agenda or sessions.

(Item 505-6 was adopted)

506 PROMOTION OF USE AND APPLICATION

OF NBS HANDBOOK 133 NBS Handbook 133 was published in June 1981 and distributed to members

of NCWM prior to the Conference in July. The handbook is intended as a procedural guide with respect to net

contents of packaged goods for Federal, State, and local regulatory

agencies; however, it will be useful to packagers and manufacturers as well. Packaged goods are defined as a product or commodity put up in any manner in advance of sale suitable for either wholesale or retail

sale. The handbook contains information on test equipment, test

methods, calculations, and test reporting.

In an effort to promote the use and application of Handbook 133, OWM

is working in three basic areas; namely (a) field training seminars

(b) development of a field manual, and (c) preparation of audo-visual

training cassettes. Three field training seminars (each two full days

in duration) have been successfully conducted in the use of H-133 and received many favorable responses from training participants

.

Additional field training seminars will be made upon request as budgetary and travel allocations permit. In conjunction with the semi- nars a field training manual has been developed and is being refined

with each seminar. Finally the first part of a seven-part videotape

cassette series concerned with the use and application of H-133 has been completed and will be distributed to all State and major local jurisdictions and will be available for purchase by industry. It may

be freely reproduced.

The Committee feels that additional field training seminars are necessary throughout the country before endorsement of the handbook by

the Conference is considered. Publication of a field manual and the remainder of the video-tape series would also be very beneficial.

Meanwhile the Committee urges all members of the Conference to promote

the use of the handbook by participating in the field training

seminars and by seriously considering the use of the handbook with the assistance of the training aids being developed.

Two primary objectives of the NCWM as stated in its Organization and Procedures booklet are: "to develop a consensus on model laws and regulations, specifications, and tolerances for weighing and measuring

(Item 506 was adopted)

507 ADOPTION OF APPLICABLE NBS HANDBOOKS

275
devices, and on testing, enforcement, and administrative procedures",

and "to encourage and promote uniformity of requirements and methods

among jurisdictions."

The publication by the National Bureau of Standards of a series of NBS Handbooks dealing with weights and measures subjects over the years has been a significant contributing factor toward achieving

the objectives stated above. At the present time the fifteen NBS Handbooks listed in Table I below are sourcebooks found in most State

(and many local) weights and measures jurisdictions. While some of these Handbooks are more current and more extensively adopted or utilized by jurisdictions than others, all on the list are employed

as references or guidelines to some extent in various jurisdictions. Four of the Handbooks in the Table have to date been officially adopted

by the NCWM. These are NBS Handbooks 44, 67, 82, and 130. Handbook 44 is an ongoing product of the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee

and is annually revised, acted upon by the NCWM membership, and republished by NBS. Handbook 67 was adopted by resolution of the 44th NCWM

in June 1959 . Handbook 82 was officially recommended by resolution

of the 46th NCWM (1961) following technical and editorial review of

its content by the six-person Weights and Measures Advisory Committee

to the Director of the National Bureau of Standards. Handbook 130,

while not technically adopted as a single handbook, consists of two model laws and five model regulations all of which have been separately

adopted by the NCWM. The seven documents in Handbook 130 are ongoing

products of the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee and each may

individually be revised annually depending on need and acted upon

by the NCWM membership. The entire H-130 compilation is republished

annually.

The Committee on Liaison has discussed the status of the other Handbooks

listed in the compilation in light of the NCWM objectives stated at the beginning of this agenda item. To the extent that any one of the Handbooks is a very widely accepted reference work by weights and measures

officials and that no major controversy presently exists concerning its use, the Committee feels that such a Handbook has become a de facto con- sensus standard for State and local jurisdictions. The Committee feels further that Handbooks that are in the de facto consensus standard

category and are current (published within the past ten years) merit

recognition of their widespread acceptance in a manner similar to that

accorded to Handbooks 44, 67, 82, and 130. Handbooks that, on the other

hand, are either not in widespread use, are the subject of some present

controversy, or are not current (more than ten years since last revision

and publication) do not merit, in the Committee's thinking, consideration

for conference endorsement.

Based upon the above factors , the Committee recommends the following

Conference action with respect to the series of NBS Handbooks:

276
507-1 NBS Handbook 105-1, titled Specifications , Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures

1. Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights

(NBS Class F), issued July, 1972, (with 1975 tolerance changes)

is hereby adopted as an NCWM consensus standard document.

507-2 NBS Handbook 105-2, titled Specifications and Tolerances

for Reference Standard and Field Standard Weights and Measures 2. Specifications and Tolerances for Field

Standard Measuring Flasks , issued January, 1971, is hereby

adopted as an NCWM consensus standard document. 507-3 NBS Handbook 105-3, titled Specifications and Tolerances

for Reference Standard and Field Standard Weights and Measures 3. Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated

Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards issued March, 1979,

is hereby adopted as an NCWM consensus standard document. 507-4 NBS Handbook 117, titled Examination of Vapor-Measuring Devices for Liquefied Petroleum Gas , issued December, 1975,

is hereby adopted as an NCWM consensus standard document. 507-5 NBS Handbook 137, titled Examination of Distance Measuring

Devices , issued December, 1980, is hereby adopted as an NCWM

consensus standard document. 507-6 NBS Handbooks 45, 82, 94, 98, 99, 108, and 112 are for the most

part widely accepted reference works and no major controversy

presently exists with respect to their contents. However,

because of the extended time since their respective dates

of last publication (17 to 31 years, except H-112 which is

9 years), these handbooks need to be updated and republished

by NBS before the NCWM considers adopting them as consensus standard documents. Weights and measures case history decisions are often helpful in determining a course of action. The committee feels NBS Circular No. 540, "Weights and Measures

Case Reference Book," published in 1950, should be updated and made available to weights and measures officials in the NBS Handbook Series. The National Bureau of Standards is hereby

urged to give these handbooks priority consideration for revision and republication.

507-7 NBS Handbook 133 covering the subject of net content checking

of prepackaged goods is in an area of present controversy.

Further training, field experience, and possibly changes in legal requirements are deemed advisable before the NCWM

should consider taking any specific action in this area.

277
NBS

HAND- BOOK

TABLE I NBS HANDBOOKS WITH REFERENCE VALUE

TO STATE AND LOCAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS HANDBOOK DESCRIPTION

DATE NCWM

ISSUED ADOPTED PUBLICATION

STATUS

1982 ACTION

H-44

H-45

H-67

H-82 H-94

H-98

H-99 H-105 -1

H-105-2

H-105-3

H-108

H-112

Device Specifications,

Tolerances, etc. Testing of Measuring

Equipment

Checking Prepackaged

Commodities

Weights and Measures Administration

The Examination of Weighing Equipment

Examination of Farm Milk Tanks Examination of LP-Gas Liquid Measuring Devices

Specifications for Field Standard Weights

(Class F) Specifications for Field Standard Measuring

Flasks

Specs for Graduated Neck

Type Volumetric Field

Standards Weights and Measures Handbook

Device Examination

Procedure Outlines

9/81 YES

5/51 NO

3/59 YES

6/62 YES

3/65 NO

5/64 NO

4/65 NO

7/72* NO

Annual NCWM Action; NBS Republication

In Part Superseded

By H-112; H-137 Adopted 6/59. Out

of Print, H-133 is Prospective Successor Recommended by

46th (1961) NCWM

In Part Superseded

By H-112

Orginal Publication

Never Republished

Original Publication

Never Republished

Revision of Original

(4/69) Publication

H-117 Examination of LP-Gas Vapor Measuring Devices

H-130 Model State Weights & 9/81 YES Measures Laws and Regulations

H-133 Checking Net Contents 6/81 NO

of Packaged Goods H-137 Examination of Distance 12/80 NO Measuring Devices

*with 1975 tolerance change

(Item 507 was adopted)

1/71 NO Original Publication

3/79 NO Original Publication

5/71 NO Original Publication

6/73 NO Code References Based

on H-44 1972 Edition

12/75 NO Original Publication

Annual NCWM Action; NBS Republication

Is Prospective Successor to H-67 Supersedes in Part

H-45

Ongoing

Recommend Updating

None Proposed Recommend Updating

Recommend Updating

Recommend Updating

Recommend

Updating

Adoption

Proposed

Adoption

Proposed

Adoption

Proposed Recommend Updating

Recommend Updating

Adoption

Proposed

Ongoing

None

Proposed

Adoption

Proposed

278
508 METRIC-ONLY LABELING

In correspondence directed to the NCWM through Mr. Tholen, the American National Metric Council (ANMC) has indicated its concern that

a potential barrier to metric transition exists because "metric only"

labeling of consumer and possible nonconsumer products would not be permitted under current interpretations of the FPLA and other relevant

law. The Committee briefly reviewed this matter and concluded that a theoretical impediment to metric transition did exist but specific

examples were needed to substantiate a formal claim for relief to reg- ulators and/or to the Congress. The ANMC was contacted by letter,

encouraged to develop evidence of the problem, and assured of the NCWM's willingness to cooperate in any way possible.

(Item 508 was adopted)

509 UPDATE OF LIAISON SCOPE IN NCWM ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE

The Committee feels that the scope of its activities as provided in

the NCWM Organization and Procedure is obsolete and should be replaced

by the following language based on item 503 adopted by the 66th NCWM,

1981: Committee on Liaison - The Committee on Liaison annually presents a report for Conference action. Its mission is divided into three categories of activities as follows:

I. Traditional (with Federal agencies) Liaison: Intergovernmental (NCWM with NBS/USDA/FDA/FTC/DOD/ Postal

Service/etc.) contacts and relations on behalf of the Conference.

This role involves explaining, advocating, and coordinating

Conference positions, recommendations, and needs before Federal Government agencies and promoting uniformity among those agencies

and with NCWM.

II. Extended (with other agencies) Liaison: Performing, in addition to the above functions,

1) interjurisdictional (between weights and measures jurisdictions) liaison;

2) liaison with regional weights and measures associations;

3) drafting, developing, and formulating NCWM positions (in

multi-disciplinary standards areas) for use in the NCWM's participation in international standards development (0IML,

etc.).

4) interorganizational liaison with groups such as NASDA, AFDO,

ANMC, ASTM, ANSI, etc.

279
III. Internal (NCWM in-house) Liaison:

1) Ex officio participation of Liaison Committee members with

other NCWM Standing Committees (by assignment) to facilitate

liaison needs of those groups.

2) Coordinating the activity of, and the reporting to the Conference by, independent NCWM task forces and special

study groups appointed by the Conference Chairman.

(Item 509 was adopted)

K. J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman

C. R. Cavagnaro, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs

N. D. Smith, North Carolina

E. J. Stephens, Utah

M. S. Thompson, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee, and Hastings, Ltd.

S. Hasko, Technical Advisor, NBS

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary, NCWM

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Committee on Liaison voting key items 500 through 509 was adopted in its entirety as amended by the Conference. The results of the voting in the House of State Representatives and the House of Delegates under the Conference

voting system are totalized in the table that follows. The Conference

also authorized the Executive Secretary to. make any appropriate editorial

changes in the language adopted by the Conference.) VOTING RESULTS- -Committee on Liaison

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Voting Key

Yes No Yes No

46 0 57 0

47 0 57 0

501 502-1 502-2 502-3

503

504 505-1 505-2 505-3 505-4

505-5

505-6

506

507

j 508

509 I 280
FINAL REPORT

OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Presented by EDWARD C. HEFFRON, Chief Food and Dairy Division

Michigan Department of Agriculture

Lansing, Michigan

VOTING KEY

600 INTRODUCTION

The Executive Committee submits its final report

for consideration by the 67th National Conference

on Weights and Measures.

The following items were initially referred to the P & C Committee and the appropriate standing

committees at the interim meeting in January and were subsequently referred to the Executive

Committee for its consideration.

Voting items are: 601 - Retention of the National Measurement Policy and Coordination Committee pending further study of alternatives.

602 - Authorizing the Executive Secretary to plan for future meetings

Information items are: 603 - Membership Program

604 - Financial Management

605 - Industry Representation

606 - Malcolm Jensen Memorial Award

607 - Theme and Program - 67th Annual Meeting

UNFINISHED REORGANIZATION ACTIONS

The Conference leadership continued to explore ways and means to increase

efficiency and effectiveness of the NCWM as a. major national body pro- moting uniformity and equity in Commerce.

Of a wide range of ideas presented to the 66th Annual Meeting in

St. Louis, one reorganizational proposal was considered by the attendees. This was a two step proposal:

281
1. Eliminate the National Measurement and Policy Coordination

Committee (NMPCC) , and

2. Restructure of the Executive Committee expanding its role

to include residual functions of the NMPCC. Conference Actions

The NCWM Active Membership voted in favor of eliminating the NMPCC

(Item 601), but voted against the proposed expanded Executive

Committee (Item 602)

.

Conseqences of Actions

Unless action is taken at the 67th Annual Meeting (July 1982), the National Measurement and Policy Coordination Committee will cease

to exist and its functions as specified in the "NCWM Procedures and Policy" statement will have to be reassigned or eliminated. The objective of the NMPCC is to serve as a policymaking and coordinating

body in matters of national and international significance which may

include such areas as metrication, International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) , relationships with standards bodies (ASTM,

ANSI, ISO, NCSL) , and other similar functions.

Executive Committee

As a result of the defeat of Item 602, the Executive Committee is unchanged. Based on floor discussion of this item at the 66th Annual

Meeting, it appears that the membership:

1. was prepared to eliminate the NMPCC and transfer its functions

to a restructured Executive Committee but,

2. did not agree with the proposed composition of the new

Executive Committee which was: Conference Chairman

First Vice-Chairman

Second Vice-Chairman

Immediate Past Chairman

Four Chairmen of the Standing Committees

Four Presidents of the Regional State Weights and Measures Associations

Subsequent informal exploration of the opinions and desires of the NCWM

membership centered on questions regarding the proposed makeup of the Executive Committee.

282
Possible Flaws

The proposal (Item 602) appeared to set up a succession to Conference

Chairman which would result in the membership electing a Second ViceChairman each year as contrasted with the current practice of electing

the Chairman directly.

The proposal (Item 602), by retaining the four chairmen of the Standing

Committees as members, did not resolve the difficulties for these members

to participate in NMPCC (or, in the proposed new Executive Committee)

sessions during the Interim Committee Meetings.

The proposal (Item 602) did not address the possible questions regarding the membership of the four Regional Presidents, given the fact that

two Regional Associations meet prior to and two meet following the NCWM

Annual Meeting.

The proposal (Item 602) does not provide for the degree of continuity

originally expected; eight members would change annually (the four Standing Committee Chairmen and the four Regional Presidents)

.

Conclusion

The NMPCC, meeting in January, 1982, discussed the above items. Abolition of the existing NMPCC and establishment of a stronger Executive Committee is still believed to be in the best interest of a growing NCWM.

The NMPCC concludes, however, that the options for such a reorganization

have not been adequately explored nor described for understanding by

the NCWM membership, let alone asking for adoption of such a major

organizational change. The Executive Committee recommends reversal of the vote of the 66th Annual Meeting which eliminated the NMPCC. Such a reversal will retain

the NMPCC and provide time to study the issue fully and to submit to the membership a well designed and described proposal.

601 RETAIN NATIONAL MEASUREMENT

POLICY AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

The Executive Committee recommends that the vote for elimination

of the National Measurement Policy and Coordination Committee be rescinded and that the NMPCC be retained, pending further study

of alternatives.

(Item 601 was adopted)

283
602 FUTURE CONFERENCE SITES

Selection of meeting sites for future NCWM annual meetings was discussed

at length. Related questions discussed included: Are costs of holding meetings in downtown locations of major

cities becoming prohibitive?

Would meetings in smaller cities or suburban areas be supported?

It was agreed that the Executive Secretary would solicit ideas and comments from the membership. In the meantime, plans will continue

toward holding future meetings as follows if approved: Year Meeting Location Hotel

1983 68th Sacramento, CA Thunderbird

1984 69th Boston, MA Open

1985 70th Washington, DC Open

The Committee has received proposals to hold the 1986 Conference in Columbus, Ohio, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Detroit, Michigan.

Additionally, the Executive Secretary has received a proposal from

Denver, Colorado to hold the Conference in that city in 1986. Mr. Thomas Stabler advised the Committee, during the General Session,

that both the Governor of Ohio and the Mayor of Columbus have sent letters to the Conference, during the Executive Session, to hold the Annual Meeting of the National Conference in Columbus, Ohio in 1984,

1985, or 1986.

The Executive Committee recommends approval for the Executive

Secretary to proceed with plans for the 68th, 69th, and 70th Annual meetings as reported.

(Item 602 was adopted)

284
603 MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM

Current membership of the NCWM is approximately 1250. of the membership is as follows: The composition

473 Government

140 State Officials

256 Local

Officials

56 Federal

Officials

1250 Total

Membership

736 Private

Sector

260 Scale Industry

110 Metering

Industry

110 Packaging

Food

85 Packaging

Non-Food

64 Metrology

285
Income from membership dues exceeds $41,000 (see nest section of Committee Report, "Financial Management").

The Committee discussed the desirability of extending the membership

to include more local officials (county and municipal) , and decided to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to: "explore a possible means for the Conference tc attract weights and measures officials of local jurisdictions to become active members," This does not infer that the new members should necessarily consider participation at annual meetings although such participation would be encouraged.

The basic assignment cf the Ad Hoc Committee is to "consider

and identify benefits of membership, some cf which the con- ference does not presently provide" that would attract a broader membership, especially among lecai weights and measures officials.

The Chairman appointed the following Active Members to the Ad Hoc Committee

:

Mr. Wes Mossberg, Chairman

Mr. Tom Geiler

Mr. Ezio Delfino

Mr. Sam Valtri

604 FINANCIAL MANAC-ZMT." The Executive Secretary described a new financial management program

for the NCWM. This program provides several benefits including:

1. establishment of a budget,

2. control of expenditures,

3. investment of funds tc maximize income , and

4. provision cf a clearer basis for accountability and audit. As part of this new system, Mr. Allan Nelson, Treasurer, has invested

funds in Certificates of Deposit which will yield additional income

of approximately $2000 to the NCWM this fiscal year.

The current annual budget (following page) is for the period from

July 1, 1981 through June 30, 1982, and is identified Fiscal Year

66 (tc identify the fiscal year with the 66th Annual meeting)

.

Projected receipts total $61, "50 and budgeted expenditures total

$55,785. The budget is based on the following accounts.

286
LIST OF ACCOUNTS

RECEIPTS

1.1 - Registration Fees - Annual Meeting

1.2 - Membership Fees

1.3 - Publications

1.4 - Interest

1.9 - Miscellaneous

EXPENSES

2.0 - Annual Meeting

2.1 - Hotel, Food Service

2.2 - Equipment, AV and Office

2.3 - Personnel

2.4 - Printing, Publication

2.5 - Conference Officers

2.6 - Speakers

2.7 - Travel

2.9 - Miscellaneous

3.0 - Interim Meetings

3.1 - 3.9 - as above

4.0 - Other Meetings

4.1 - 4.9 - as above

5.0 - Special Programs

5.1 - Program Evaluation

6.0 - Chairman's Activities

6.1 - 6.9 - as above

7.0 - Membership

8.0 - Printing and Publications

8.1 - HB 44 8.2 - HB 130 8.3 - Conference Proceedings

8.4 - HB 133 8.9 - Miscellaneous

9.0 - Administration

9.1 - Equipment

9.2 - Stationery, Mailing

9.3 - Treasurer Expenses

9.4 - Executive Secretary Expenses

9.5 - Services, Contracts

9.6 - Supplies

9.9 - Miscellaneous

287
FY 66 BUDGET RECEIPTS AND REIMBURSABLES

Account Budget

1.1 - Registration Fees $14,700.00

1.2 - Membership Fees 43,750.00

1.3 - Publications 500.00

1.4 - Interest 2,500.00

1.9 - Miscellaneous 300.00

$61,750.00 DISBURSEMENTS

Account Budget

2.0 Annual Meeting $ 8,600.00

3.0 Interim Meetings (Jan. 1982) 16,000.00

4.0 Other Meetings 3,000.00

5.0 State & Local Program Evaluation 8,000.00

6.0 Chairman's Expenses 2,000.00

7.0 Membership Program 3.650.00

8.0 Printing & Publications 8,200.00

9.0 Administration 6,335.00

$55,785.00 Assets as of Mar. 15, 1982 $25,648.51

Southington Bank and Trust Co. $ 1,136.52

Treasury Bill 24,285.90

Union Trust Co. 226.09 $25,648.51

605 INDUSTRY REPRESENTATION

In a letter to the Conference Chairman, the Associate Membership requested

consideration of a proposal to add one non-voting member from the Associate

Membership to each Standing Committee.

The request was discussed with certain advantages highlighted:

o facilitation of communication

o broaden the source of technical advice and assistance to the Committees

,

288
o provide a better understanding of the issues by the associate

members

o increase the recognition of associate membership.

The P & C Committee members voted against the proposal. They concluded

that NCWM deliberations were conducted in an open forum and anyone

could attend and participate. Further, it was the consensus of the

P & C Committee members that NCWM leadership has greatly broadened the involvement of the associate membership in the past two years. The involvement of the industry representatives in the various task forces

and sub-committees has resulted in the attainment of many of the advantages sought by the associate membership. The P & C Committee

went on record also in complimenting the associate membership on the effectiveness and great value of their sizeable participation in the business of the NCWM especially in the uniformity studies, and the type approval and the grain moisture task force work.

606 MALCOLM JENSEN MEMORIAL AWARD

Don Mackay, who worked in the Office of Weights and Measures from 1961

to 1965, suggested that the significant contributions of Malcolm W. Jensen to the weights and measures field might appropriately be recognized through the establishment of a new NBS Award. He indicated

that this idea had been put forth by another co-worker of Mac's and was well supported by others with whom he had talked since Mac's death

on January 20th.

Mr. Mackay explained that he would propose that the award be open to Federal, State, or local weights and measures officials nominated

either by the Executive Committee of the NCWM or by an NBS Laboratory

Director. He requested consideration of support by the NCWM Committee

members for the establishment of such an NBS Award.

607 THEME AND PROGRAM - 67th ANNUAL MEETING

Chairman Heffron has selected as this year's Conference theme "Crossroads." The theme recognizes that the weights and measures system is at a crossroad at the national, State, and local levels; it is at a crossroad technically, administratively, and legally.

This year's Annual Meeting will focus on several programs that are at

a crossroad. We, as a Conference, will be expected to provide guidance

and leadership in planning our collective future regarding programs for:

o National Type Approval

o National Training

o National Certification

289
r

J. v. J. C.

T. I. G. 5.

1. J. C. T.

A. -.
REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE Presented by PHILIP A. STAGG, Chairman

Director, Louisiana Weights and Measures Baton Rouge, Lousiana VOTING KEY

700 INTRODUCTION

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express

the appreciation of the 67th National Conference

on Weights and Measures to those who contributed

their time and talents towards the arrangements

for, the conduct of, and the success of this

National Conference.

Special votes of thanks go to:

1) Dr. Ernest Ambler, Director of the National Bureau of Standards,

for his encouraging address.

2) Governor George Busbee for his timely remarks.

3) Mr. Thomas Irvin, Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and his staff for hosting and assisting in the conduct

of this Conference and providing their hospitality through the Stone Mountain outing and special activities for the guest events.

4) Mr. Donald Abelson, Director, Technical Trade Barriers, Office of

the U.S. Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President,

for his informative and challenging remarks.

5) All speakers of the Conference for sharing their expertise and con- tributing to the program.

6) Officers and appointed officials of the 67th National Conference

on Weights and Measures for their assistance and service toward progress on national issues.

7) Committee members for their time and efforts throughout the past

year preparing and presenting their reports.

8) Governing officials of the State and local jurisdictions for their

advice, interest, and support in weights and measures administration in the United States.

9) Representatives of business and industry for their cooperation,

assistance in committee and conference work, and co-hosting the Stone Mountain outing.

701 SPECIAL THANKS

291
10) Consumer representatives, members of the public, and media who have shown their interest and support for the National Conference on Weights and Measures

.

11) Staff of the Marriott Hotel for their assistance and courtesies

which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the delegates in their fine facilities.

12) National Bureau of Standards and the Office of Weights and Measures

for their outstanding assistance in planning and conducting the work

and program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

.

702 POSITION ON METRICATION

WHEREAS, The U.S. Metric Board faces termination in September 1982 and WHEREAS, The National Conference on Weights and Measures has historically

supported and continues to support metrication within the United

States, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The National Conference on Weights and Measures supports the assignment of the essential functions of the United

States Metric Board, contingent with provisions of funding and staffing,

to the Department of Commerce. Respectfully Submitted:

P. A. Stagg, Louisiana, Chairman

J. W. Abbott, Missouri

R. J. Anderson, New York

K. S. Butcher, West Virginia

E. Gadberry, Anderson, IN.

J. A. Huey, Yuba County, CA.

0. D. Millinax, Georgia

A. D. Tholen, Executive Secretary RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Resolutions

Committee, voting key items 700 through 702, was adopted in its entirety

by the Conference).

292
REPORT OF THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE Presented by KENDRICK J. SIMILA, Chairman

Administrator, Weights and Measures Division,

State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon

VOTING KEY

800 INTRODUCTION

The Nominations Committee met during the Conference for the purpose of selecting a slate

of nominees for all elective offices and for the ten elective memberships of the Executive Committee. In the selection of nominees from the active

membership, consideration was given to the professional experience and qualifications of individuals;

attendance records, geographical distribution, and Conference participation; and to other factors deemed by the committee to be important.

801 NOMINATIONS

The Nominations Committee submits the following names in nomination

for office to serve during the ensuing year and at the 67th National

Conference on Weights and Measures: Nominations

Chairman: Charles H. Greene, New Mexico

Vice Chairmen:

John T. Bennett, Connecticut

James C. Blackwood, Dallas, TX Patricia M. Fullinwider, Arizona

Frank Nagele, Michigan

Treasurer: Allan M. Nelson, Connecticut

Chaplain:

Francis W. Daniels, Wayne County, IN Executive Committee:

1. John W. Alloway, Nebraska

2. Barbara K. Boddicker, South Dakota

293
3. Kenneth S. Butcher, West Virginia

4. John M. Chohamin, Middlesex County, NJ

5. Ezio Delfino, California

6. Arnold Heilman, Allentown, PA

7. Leo Letey, Colorado

8. Donald L. Lynch, Kansas City, KS

9. Patrick E. Nichols, Alameda County, CA

10. John V. Pugh, South Carolina

(There being no further nominations from the floor, the Chairman declared

nominations closed and requested the Executive Secretary to cast a unanimous ballot for all nominees.)

K. J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman

S. D. Andrews, Florida

E. F. Delfino, California

J. F. Lyles, Virginia

S. F. Hindsman, Arkansas

J. L. O'Neill, Kansas

R. L. Thompson, Maryland

NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Nominations Com- mittee, voting key item 801, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference).

294
REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE Presented by JAMES H. SPENCER, Director

Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce

Jackson, Mississippi

VOTING KEY

The Auditing Committee met on Wednesday morning, July 15, for the purpose of reviewing the financial records of the Conference Treasurer,

Mr. Allan M. Nelson. The Committee finds these

records to be in accordance with Conference procedure and correct.

J. H. Spencer, Mississippi, Chairman

B. R. Niebergall, North Dakota

J. Silvestro, Gloucester County, NJ

AUDITING COMMITTEE

(On motion of the committee chairman, the report of the Auditing Committ

voting key item 900, was adopted by the Conference.)

295
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER

Presented by ALLAN M. NELSON, Metrologist, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Consumer

Protection, State of Connecticut

VOTING KEY

1000 INTRODUCTION

It is my pleasure to report to you today on

the financial status of the Conference treasury as follows

:

Cash on Hand - June 30, 1981 DEPOSITORIES

Southington Bank & Trust Co. - Southington, CT Union Trust Co. - Gaithersburg, Maryland

$ 9,183.33

151.25

$ 9,344.58

RECEIPTS

Account Number 1.1 Registration-66th Conference

1.1 Registration-67th Conference

1.2 Membership-F.Y.

1.2 Membership-F.Y.

1.3 Publications

1.4 Interest

1.9 Miscellaneous

Total Receipts

Total Cash Balance & Receipts

66,

67,

1981-

1982- 8283

$14,770.00

$ 3,200.00

$43,460.00

$27,790.00

$ 779.75

$ 3,024.47

$ 755.73

$ 93,779.95

$103,114.53

296
DISBURSEMENTS

Account Number 2.0 Annual Meeting $ 9,898.18 "3.0 Interim Meeting $15,512.98 "4.0 Other Meetings $ 3,078.00

" "5.0 Special Programs- (Program

Evaluation) $ 9,427.07

" "6.0 Chairman's Expenses $ 2,977.31

" "7.0 Memberships $ 3,626.11

" "8.0 Printing & Publications $ 6,326.94

" "9.0 Administration $ 6,382.23

Total Disbursements $ 57,228.82

Cash on Hand - June 30, 1981-Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. $ 6,805.41

Southington, CT -Union Trust Co. $ 314.24

Gaithersburg, MD

$40,000.00 91 Day Treasury Bills-Connecticut

Bank & Trust Co. $38,766.06

Southington, CT Total Assets $ 45,885.71

Total Disbursements & Assets $103, 114.53

(signed) Allan M. Nelson, Treasurer

(On motion of Mr. Nelson, the report of the Conference Treasurer,

voting key item 1000, was adopted by the Conference).

297
REGISTRATION LIST 67TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES

July 12-16; 1982 Atlanta Downtown Marriott Hotel, Atlanta, Georgia

ALABAMA

STATE JOHN B. RABB, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Laboratory, State of Alabama, P. 0. Box 3336, 1445 Federal Dr., Montgomery, Alabama 36193 (Tel. (205) 832-6767) JAMES H. SELLERS, Chief Inspector, Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 3336, Montgomery, Alabama 36193 (Tel. (205) 832-6767) DON E. STAGG, Director, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 3336, Montgomery, Alabama 36193 (Tel. (205) 832-6766) ALASKA

STATE --- JOSEPH L. S WANS OK , Chief, Weights and Measures, State

of Alaska, P. 0. Box 10-1686, Anchorage, Alaska 99511

(Tel. (907) 345-3886) ARIZONA

STATE PATRICIA M. FULLINWIDER, Chief, Weights and Measures

Division, State of Arizona, DoA, 3039 West Indian

School, Phoenix, Arizona 85017 (Tel. (602) 255-5211) ARKANSAS

STATE SAM F. HINDSMAN, Director, Arkansas Weights and Measures, 4608 West 6lst Street, Little Rock, Arkansas

72209 (Tel. (501) 371-1759) CALIFORNIA

STATE EZIO F. DELFIN0, Assistant Director, Division of Measurement Standards, State of California, 8500 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California 95826

(Tel. (916) 366-5119) DARRELL GUENSLER , Assistant Chief, Division of Measure- ment Standards, State of California, 8500 Fruitridge

Road, Sacramento, California 95826 (Tel. (916) 366-5119) JOSEPH ROTHLEDER, Metrologist, Division of Measurement

Standards, 8500 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, Cali- fornia 95826 (Tel. (916) 366-5119)

I?:
COUNTY Alameda PATRICK E. NICHOLS, Director of Weights and Measures, Alameda County, 333 - 5th Street, Oakland, Cali- fornia 94607 (Tel. (415) 874-6736) Glenn ED ROMANO, Sealer, Department of Weights and Measures,

P. 0. Box 351, Willows, California 95988 (Tel. (916) 934-4651)

Los Angeles W. R. MOSSBERG, Director, Los Angeles County Depart- ment of Weights and Measures, 11012 Garfield Avenue, South Gate, California 90280 (Tel. (213) 922-8921) Riverside JOSEPH W. JONES, Director, Weights and Measures, 2950 Washington, Riverside, California 92504 (Tel. (714) 787-2620) Yuba JACK A. HUEY, Director of Weights and Measures,

Yuba County, 921 West 14th Street, Marysville, California 95901 (Tel. (916) 674-6377) COLORADO

STATE LEO LETEY, Chief, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, 3125 Wyandot, Denver. Colorado 80003 (Tel. (303) 866-2845) DAVID R. WALLACE, Agricultural Field Representative,

Colorado Department of Agriculture, 3125 Wyandot St., Denver, Colorado 80211 (Tel. (303) 866-2845) CONNECTICUT

STATE - JOHN T. BENNETT, Chief, Weights and Measures, State

of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection,

State Office Building, Room G-17, Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (Tel. (203) 566-4778 or 566-5230) ALLAN M. NELSON, Metrologist, Department of Consumer

Protection, Weights and Measures Division, State Office Building, Room G-17, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (Tel. (203) 566-5230) CITYMiddletown GUY J. TOMMASI, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City

of Middletown, City Hall, Middletown, Connecticut

06457 (Tel. (203) 347-4671 Ext. 215) New Haven HELENE P. CAUSGROVE, Sealter of Weights & Measures, City

of New Haven, 18 Davis St., New Haven, CT 06515 (Tel. (203) 387-4913) DELAWARE

STATE EUGENE KEELEY, Supervisor, Delaware Weights and Measures, Drawer D, Dover, Delaware 19901 (Tel. (302) 736-4823) FLORIDA

STATE SYDNEY D. ANDREWS, Director, Division of Standards, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Ser- vices, 3125 Conner Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(Tel. (904) 488-0645)

299
WILLIAM A. COGBURN, JR., Metrologist Supervisor, Florida Department of Agriculture, Consumer Services,

3125 Conner Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (Tel. (904) 488-9295) STAN DARSEY, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Ser- vices, 3125 Conner Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(Tel. (904) 488-9140) COUNTY

Dade ARTHUR KERSHBEIN, Deputy Director, Metro Dade County- Consumer Protection Division, 140 West Flagler

Street, Room 1604, Miami, Florida 33130

(Tel. (305) 579-4222) GEORGIA

STATE S. S. ABERCH0MBIE , Asst. Director, Georgia Department oi Agriculture, Agriculture Building Capital Square, Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (Tel. (404) 656-3704) MARTIN T. COILE, Assistant Director, Weights and Measures, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Atlanta

Farmers Market, Forest Park, Georgia 30050 (Tel. (404) 363-7611) THOMAS E. KIRBY, Director, Weights and Measures

Laboratory, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Atlanta Farmers Market, Forest Park, Georgia 30050

(Tel. (404) 363-7611) OLIN D. MULLINAX, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Agriculture Fuel & Measurement Division, Agriculture

Building, Capital Square, Atlanta, Georgia 30334

(Tel. (404) 656-3605)

CURTIS WILLIAMS, Director, Fuel Oil Laboratory, Georgia

State Oil Laboratory, 5235 Kennedy Road, Forest Park, Georgia 30050 (Tel. (404) 363-7597) HAWAII

STATE GEORGE E. MATTIM0E, Deputy Director, Measurement

Standards, State of Hawaii, 1428 South King Street,

P. 0. Box 22159, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 (Tel. (808) 548-7152)

IDAHO STATE LYMAN D. H0LL0WAY, Chief, Department of Agriculture,

Weights and Measures, 2216 Kellogg Lane, Boise, Idaho 83702 (Tel. (208) 334-2345) ILLINOIS

STATE SIDNEY A. COLBHOOK, Weights and Measures Program

Supervisor, Illinois Department of Agriculture, Emmerson Building, State Fairgrounds, Springfield,

Illinois 62706 (Tel. (217) 782-3817) STEPHEN E. MCGUIRE, Metrologist, Illinois Department of Agriculture, Emmerson Building, State Fairgrounds,

Springfield, Illinois 62706 (Tel. (217) 782-7655)

300

|
CITY

Chicago JESSE BLACKMON, Deputy Commissioner, City of Chicago

121 N. Lasalle, Rm. 808, Chicago, Illinois 60602

(Tel. (312) 744-4008) FRANK DAMATO, First Deputy Commissioner, City of Chicago, Consumer Service, 121 N. Lasalle, Rm. 808, Chicago, Illinois 60602 (Tel. (312) 744-6878) INDIANA

STATE W. WALKER, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, State of Indiana, 1330 West Michigan

Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 (Tel. (317) 633-0350) COUNTY

Clark HAROLD D. BRADSHAW, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Clark County, City-County Building, Room 314, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 (Tel. (812) 283-4451)

(and City of New Albany) Floyd JAMES M. MOREILLON, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Floyd County, 627 East Fourth Street, New Albany,

Indiana 47150 (Tel. (812) 944-0470) Gibson WILLIAM R. SEVIER, Weights and Measures Inspector, Box 302, Somerville, Indiana 47683 (Tel. (812) 795-2532)

Lake ALBERT M. MYSOGLAND, Lake County Sealer, Department

of Weights and Measures, 2293 North Main Street, Crown Point, Indiana 46307 (Tel. (219) 663-2896) Laporte EDWIN BANISH, Inspector, Dept. of Weights and Measures,

119 Tilden Avenue, Michigan City, Indiana 46360

(Tel. (219) 879-9486) Madison CHARLES W. MOORE, County Inspector, Weights and Measures of Indiana, Madison County Government Center

and Courts, Anderson, Indiana 46051 (Tel. (317) 646-9359) Porter RICHARD H. CLAUSSEN, Director, Porter County, Weights

and Measures, 1401 North Calumet, Room 105, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383 (Tel. (219) 766-2323)

St. Joseph PAUL L. KLEIN, Inspector, Weights & Measures, St. Joseph

County, 115 Virginia, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544 (Tel. (219) 255-2367) Tippecanoe JAMES A. VANDERWIELEN , Inspector, Tippecanoe County

Weights and Measures, 20 N. 3rd St., Lafayette, Indiana 47901 (Tel. (317) 423-9229) Wayne FRANCIS W. DANIELS, Administrator, Wayne County

Weights and Measures, 50 North 5th, Richmond,

Indiana 47374 (Tel. (317) 935-4813) CITYAnderson ROBERT L. LAND, Inspector of City Anderson, Department of Weights & Measures, P. 0. Box 2100, 120 E. 8th Street, Anderson, Indiana 46011 (Tel. (317) 646-5814)

301
Hammond DEAN BRAHOS, City Sealer, Weights and Measures

Department, 741 Michigan Street, Room 104, Hammond,

Indiana 46320 (Tel. (219) 853-6377) Indianapolis RONALD BLAND, Deputy Inspector, Department of Weights &

Measures, City County Building, Room 6G, Indianapolis

Indiana 46204 (Tel. (317) 236-4272) RALPH HANNAH, Deputy Inspector, Department of Weights &

Measures, City County Building, Room 6G, Indianapolis

Indiana 46204 (Tel. (317) 236-4272) Mishawaka GEORGE W. STAFFELDT, City Sealer, Weights and Measures, City Hall, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544 (Tel. (219) 255-2281) South Bend JOSEPH NAGY, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City of South Bend, Indiana, 701 W. Sample Street, South Bend

Indiana 46621 (Tel. (219) 284-9273) IOWA

STATE JAMES M. O'CONNOR, Supervisor, Standards Control, Weights and Measures Division, Iowa Department of Agriculture, Wallace Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (Tel. (515) 281-5716) ROBERT E. HOLLIS, Metrologist, Iowa Dept. Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace Bldg. , Des Moines, IA 50319 (Tel. (515) 281-5716) KANSAS

STATE JOHN L. O'NEILL, State Sealer and Director, State Board of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division,

P. 0. Box 5516, 2016 W. 37th Street, Topeka, Kansas

66605 (Tel. (913) 267-4641) DONALD L. LYNCH, Director, Weights and Measures Control

710 N. 7th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (Tel. (913) 371-2000 Ext. 440) DONALD J. WEICK, Inspector, Weights & Measures, 215 E. 7th Street, Topeka, KS 66605, (Tel. (913) 295-3883) KENTUCKY

STATE VICTOR PAGE, Supervisor, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 106 West 2nd

Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (Tel. (502) 564-4870) MARK L. WHITAKER, Metrologist, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 106 West 2nd Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (Tel. (502) 564-4870) LOUISIANA

STATE PHILIP A. STAGG, Director, Louisiana Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

44456, Capitol Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

70804 (Tel. (504) 925-3780)

302
MAINE

STATE GAYLON M. KENNEDY, Deputy State Sealer of Weights and Measures, Maine Department of Agriculture, State

House, Station #28, Augusta, Maine 04333 (Tel. (207) 289-3841) MARSHALL WHITE, Metrologist, Maine Department of Agriculture, State House, Augusta, Maine 04333

(Tel. (207) 289-3841) MARYLAND

LACY H. DE GRANGE , Assistant Chief, Weights and Measures, Maryland Department of Agriculture, 3205 Symons

Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

20742 (Tel. (301) 454-3551) THOMAS D. RHODES, Supervising Inspector, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Symons Hall, University of Maryland, Room 3205, College Park, Maryland 20742 (Tel, (301) 454-3551) RICHARD L. THOMPSON, Chief of Weights and Measures, Maryland Department of Agriculture, 3205 Symons

Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland

20742 (Tel. (301) 454-3551) MASSACHUSETTS

STATE CHARLES H. CARROLL, Supervising Inspector of Standards,

Mass. Division of Standards, One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (Tel. (617) 727-3480) CITYBarnstable THOMAS F. GEILER, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Town of Barnstable, 397 Main Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 (Tel. (617) 775-1120) MICHIGAN

STATE JAMES H. BURROWS, Weights and Measures Inspector, Michigan State, 1009 Grant Street, Niles, Michigan

49120 (Tel. (616) 925-2461) EDWARD C. HEFFR0N, Chief, Food and Dairy Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

30017, Lewis Cass Building, Lansing, Michigan

48909 (Tel. (517) 373-1060) FRANK C. NAGELE, Weights and Measures Specialist, Michigan Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

30017, Lewis Cass Building, Lansing, Michigan

48909 (Tel. (517) 373-1060) MICHAEL K. STEPHENSON, Food Specialist, Michigan Depart- ment of Agriculture, 244 Marshall Street, Allegan, Michigan 49010 (Tel. (616) 673-8812) MINNESOTA

STATE JOHN A. BERGQUIST, Director, Licenses and Consumer

Service, City Hall, Room 101A, Minneapolis,

Minnesota, 55415 (Tel. (612) 348-2080)

303
EDWARD P. SKLUZACEK, Director, Minnesota Weights and Measures, 1015 Currie Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota

55403 (Tel. (612) 341-7200) MISSISSIPPI

STATE JAMES H. SPENCER, Director ,• Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, P. 0. Box 1609, Jackson, Mississippi 39205 (Tel. (601) 354-6258) MISSOURI

STATE J. W. ABBOTT, Director, Division of Weights and Measures, P. 0. Box 630, Jefferson City, Missouri

65102 (Tel. (314) 751-4278) CITY

St. Louis DANIEL I. 0FTNER, Commissioner of Weights and Measures,

Dept. of Public Safety, Room 311 City Hall, St. Louis, Missouri 63103 (Tel. (314) 622-3252) MONTANA

STATE GARY L. DELANO, Administrator, Division of Weights &

Measures, 805 N. Main, Helana, Montana 59601 (Tel. (406) 449-3136, Ext. 6) NEBRASKA

STATE JOHN W. ALLOWAY, Director, Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights and Measures, 301 Centennial Mall

South, Box 94757, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 (Tel. (402) 471-2341, Ext. 208) MIKE DEISLEY , Administrative Assistant, Department

of Agriculture, Division of Weights & Measures, 301 Centennial Mall, P. 0. Box 94757, Lincoln, RE 68509

(Tel. (402) 471-2341) RICHARD C. SUITER, Administrator, Standards Laboratory Division of Weights and Measures, Box 94757, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 (Tel. (402) 471-2341

Ext. 284) CITY

Omaha - NORMAN M. ROSS, Chief, Weights and Measures Division,

Public Safety, Department of Weights and Measures, Douglas Civic Center, 1819 Earham, Omaha, Nebraska

68183 (Tel. (402) 444-5368) NEW JERSEY

STATE JAMES R. BIRD, Deputy State Superintendent, New Jersey

Weights and Measures, 187 West Hanover Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (Tel. (609) 292-4615) COUNTY

Cumberland GEORGE S. PRANKS, Superintendent, Weights and Measures

and Consumer Protection, Cumberland County, 788 East Commerce Street, Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302

(Tel. (609) 451-8000 Ext. 369 and 370) Gloucester JOSEPH SILVESTRO, Superintendent, Gloucester County

Weights and Measures, 49 Wood Street, County Building, Woodbury, New Jersey 08096

(Tel. (609) 845-1600 Ext. 252)

304
Middlesex JOHN M. CHOHAMIN , Superintendent, Middlesex County Department of Weights and Measures , 841 Georges

Road, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902

(Tel. (201) 745-3298) Monmouth WILLIAM G. DOX, Superintendent, Monmouth County Department of Weights and Measures, Hall of Records

Annex, Main Street, Freehold, New Jersey 07728

(Tel. (201) 431-7363) Salem ROBERT B. JONES, Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Salem County Department of Weights and Measures, 94 Market Street, Box 24, Salem, New

Jersey 08079 (Tel. (609) 935-7510 Ext. 369) Somerset WILLIAM R. VR00M, Deputy Superintendent, Somerset County, Box 3000, Somerville, NJ 08876 (Tel. (201) 231-7000) CITY

Linden ALEXANDER ESKA, Superintendent, City of Linden Weights

and Measures, 1408 Summit Terrace, Linden, New Jersey 07036 (Tel. (201) 486-8429) NEW MEXICO

STATE -1 FRED A. GERK, Chief, Division of Standards and Consumer

Services, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 3170, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003 (Tel. (505) 646-1616) CHARLES H. GREENE, Chief, Administrative Services, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

3189, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003 (Tel. (505) 646-3007) NEW YORK

STATE ROSS ANDERSEN, Metrologist, New York S^ate Bureau of Weights and Measures, Building 7-A, State Campus, Albany, New York 12235 (Tel. (518) 457-3449) JOHN J. BARTFAI, Director, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Building 7-A, State Campus, Albany, New York 12235 (Tel. (518) 457-3452) KENNETH R. GRIDLEY, Weights and Measures Specialist

III, New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures,

1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12235

(Tel. (518) 457-3452) COUNTY Suffolk CHARLES A. GARDNER, Jr., Assistant Director, Weights &

Measures, Suffolk County Consumer Affairs, County Center, Hauppauge, New York 11787 (Tel. (516) 360-4620) NORTH CAROLINA

STATE L. F. EAS0N, MetrOlogist, Consumer Standards Division

P. 0. Box 26056, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

(Tel. (919) 733-3246)

305
N. DAVID SMITH, Director, Consumer Standards Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

26056, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (Tel. (919) 733-3313) NORTH DAKOTA

STATE BRUCE NIEBERGALL, Director, Weights and Measures, Public Service Commission, State Capitol, Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 (Tel. (701) 224-2400) OHIO

STATE KENNETH R. ADC0CK, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, Ohio Department of Agriculture, ODA Laboratories - Building #5, 8995 East Main, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 (Tel. (614) 866-6361) COUNTY Auglaize ROBERT E. KING, Inspector Weights and Measures of Auglaize County, 209 E. Pearl Street, Wapakoneta, Ohio 45895 (Tel. (419) 738-2145) Clark ROY K. PECK, Inspector, Weights and Measures, Clark County Auditors Office, A. B. Graham Building,

P. 0. Box 1325, Springfield, Ohio 45502 (Tel. (513) 328-2424) Logan HAROLD K. TURNER, Inspector, County Weights & Measures, Court House, Beliefontaine , Ohio 43311 (Tel. (513) 592-6701) Summit THOMAS 0. DECHEC0, Inspector, Summit County Auditor,

522 E. Cuyhoga Falls Avenue, Akron, Ohio 44310

(Tel. (216) 379-5409) CITY

Cincinnati THOMAS PRAGAR, Supervisor of Weights & Measures, City

of Cincinnati Ohio, 2147 Central, Cincinnati, Ohio 45214 (Tel. (513) 352-3135) Columbus FRED P. CLEM, Consumer Services Investigator, Office

of Consumer Services, 60 E. Main Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (Tel. (614) 222-7397) OKLAHOMA

STATE H. H. LATHAM, Supervisor Regulatory Section, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Capitol Building, Room 122, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 (Tel. (405) 751-0847) OREGON

STATE KENDRICK J. SIMILA, Administrator, State of Oregon

Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Building, Salem, Oregon

97310 (Tel. (503) 378-3792)

306
PENNSYLVANIA

COUNTY

Bucks PEGGY H. ADAMS, Chief Sealer, Weights and Measures, Department of Bucks County Consumer Protection, Courthouse Annex, Broad and Union Streets, Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901 (Tel. (215) 348-7442) CITYPhiladelphia SAM F. VA1TRI, Chief, Philadelphia Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Room 636, 801 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (Tel. (215) 686-3475) PUERTO RICO

MARIA A. MALD0NAD0, Assistant Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Box 41059, Minillas Station, San

Juan, Puerto Rico 00940 (Tel. (809) 726-7585) SOUTH CAROLINA

JOHN V. PUGH, Director Metrology Laboratory, South

Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 11280, Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (Tel. (803) 758-2130) CAROL P. FULMER, Field Special Supervisor, South Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 11280, Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (Tel. (803) 758-7478) CHARLES A. GILLIAM, Field Specialist Supervisor, South

Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 11280, Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (Tel. (803) 758-7478) CHARLES T. SMITH, Director, Consumer Services Division, South Carolina Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box

11280, Columbia, South Carolina 29211 (Tel. (803) 758-7478) SOUTH DAKOTA

STATE BARBARA K. BODDICKER, Director, Div. Commercial Inspec- tion and Regulation, State Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota

57501 (Tel. (605) 773-3697) TENNESSEE

STATE DALE WILKINSON, Director, Weights and Measures, Box 40627, Melrose Station, Nashville, Tennessee 37204 (Tel. (615) 741-1539)

G. WILLIAMS, Metrologist, Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, Box 40627, Melrose Station, Nashville, Tennessee 37220 (Tel. (615) 741-1539) TEXAS BILL QUICKSALL, Director, Consumer Services Division, Texas Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 12847, Austin, Texas 78711 (Tel. (512) 475-4304)

307
Ztier r: 1 : i.i'.

s, 119 Confeerlead ] 78704 (Tel. (512) 475-3720)

: r . reizr^s ar: 3eas;-rei

::' A£ r . v_r e . Hi-". A.-stix. -B

- :: Te- 512 *"5-65"

CITY

Dallas JArlli 2 11A22HV20: assisv-: lir e:.:r I^artmeti :: 2:^s_n-er A_::'iiri 15 I : Vest S: iEir.gr ir: . ? : :>a A -15

I =11== Texas "522: Tel 11- :"l-:-lIzt: Vert- -

>.'i .. s'^i^ZES.s . 5_ii£rvis:r. reigits art Seas-res

I-epartmert :: A § r i i_.l i_re . 1:1 *:rti ?::»::: ?: = : £ = lt late 2irr. rtas 7=1 sll :21-:-:.:

STATE

-£:::_l-_re. lit Elsie melier . .erro-ii 05602 (Tel. (802) 828-2436)

STATE - ."A*I,5 :- KVOi Veigtirg Zi-ipmer.! 5_r = rvis:r 7irgir_ia Street. ?.::^:::. T

:_r£ii_i£ llllr" Tel lz- 6785)

J 1TLLS = Tirrizi = V;i£.-z.s ires. ?. C. Sex 11:2. ? : z>n -11. Lrirn:^: . "irrina

Tel il- "i:-l-":

TirgmLa l:r Hi-

£:-!-":

CITYSeattle VTIZLLA* 2. ii : —

:

(Tel. (3 VEST STATE - ----- lAWrUK 21 lAJiZ? 1 num.. s 5 i : - e r Vest Tirgma let artmei

t

of Labor, 1900 WnnhifrgTrm Street East, Charlesloci, Vest Virjm; 1531: Tel 5 2- 5—l-'l-'.
KENNETH S. BUTCHER, Inspector, West Virginia Weij and Measures, 1900 Washington Street East, Chai West Virginia 25305 (Tel. (304) 348-7890) WISCONSIN

JAMES H. AKEY, Inspector, Weights and Measures,

718 Jackson Street, Wausau, Wisconsin 54401

(Tel. (715) 842-3789) ROBERT PROBST, Director, Bureau of Weights and Me sures, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Tra and Consumer Protection, 801 West Badger Road,

8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 (Tel. (608) 266

309
!^T37a33Z£S. Xrg%Z, AJZ 23 3333

» 333 .-2^?3T- 5T£'S££ 31

H&SEKZ ? 3IZ5.. ?r = = 3et: :"->22 lime: !t., He :-r:r» T-.lli.-s. 31tt:is : 3.

"

(Tel. (312) 640-0670)

>.-.3 ::c£=a5T

5 373133? 5e.ti:r 731 = 3ri_t==r II; S. Seriiixz St. . ?. I. 2c x 53.

i^-.-t-.8-cLi-5. iiiii.^ -ci:-: 31. it:-:-:-. aje^las zzziczizz 3:

?:II?T 1 "iCEFV:^. ?:-::-: li;: 12~-3t Street. 3:-e VI is 333: Tel -1-

AJiI33lA3« 5 3252ai jietsi: 33 '33* . rrsrraa ga.tag-e.r- lr:s-=s;r 3.t= . 2*t3tes3. = i:-3-

(Tel. (301) 530-8333)

*.*^33A.f rEaC-EZJ rSSTTT.^

LZZEaJE: 33T333 ".v^ger = t: 3.* tiee rtu- . 13. 1 St.. SV. v= s —r v: -. :•; 31. *5--:::*: 33 V. V333 ""U g'£.r = Siarxstis^ Her a_3::l ?:.. Vaxeiiel: . iiiii::.;^:;

7=1 =:~ 313 7A£I33) 33. 3te ?r = s3=st. ? . :. 2cx S13. 3r: V-Tta . -333 7-1 13 *ii-s«i:

>.-.-•:*•« dccstszls. 3-:.

J. 3 33331 = -Jij.-es :.:ttstLLta=.t . ? : 2cx 3-3-3 313s . Ztxii -hi- lei ::- z±i-:~i~ issocuzzztr :i aklli las llz^cs

: ?:s s:f ii::.:-; : St.. sv. Vi.s3- 2 t:~. :: ::-:sc 7=1 ;:; 133--3-- 33313 I 2,333 Sstrtc 3::r:3£t:r f IS S 3:ver St At t 1313 Ic = Acrele.5 . :.ilif:nii V.'.'Z .7 = 1. 33. 3:33 3. S3 izi:z5:y::i "J&TZJ : S ?*:•:? Tits ?r*.-si5a=.t I-,r:-een^g. -2 -t3t at* Viltian, «i»ssitt-.:- = t-.s 7e3 si" •;•:-:-:»: ix-t 33

hzjoci't: sites :: 32Z327 I. 3*23 Se3:r li^rr, ?. I. Sex 33 &jfert£. Jtcilsar -.- —3 7=1. (616) 733-1302) 23331S3 SAZS.3 . 7333 ?r:3:t Lirizr::, I- a 2.= 33 313—e . 13:r:i 3i:3i = -33 7s 1 ssioes 33771133 33sm

V,7?~ 1 2133. 333 1-ri.tasr. Ztitvsj 3:1. fcrtt Sex 33. S--it=3:r: Se:rg3 3333 7=1 3-3 =-.-=-*":. irt "p-TM** scme BiSDEacnmsc oo.

v 7Z?.-: 7Ai!SLS. Ti;= rT'siiit: Lt.£ i^= = rut£ . 113 I li.^erty. Vet": lirr -tsi:..ri 64870 (Tel- (417) 673-4631, Est. 20) 1ASI3A1 5 1.-3 .^~ATrOL3'S SC

¥ W 1 S3.-T ?::;::-:. 113 I li.^irt- • = lity. --.S3:.t:t S-i'I 7el -1" S3--S31. 13:i3 31. 30 A ;:3S7'3 t.=.^£ = r 3 Itttt At; . 5:.tt. — - -- - . e s:ti ff-l: 7 = 1 (612) 721-8531) ZEJ3VE3 LAISZ5 71335 3 3. :373 S TBreGSliSf . 3-e Sr = s3-e:- = ?i.rt-e.r. ?. I. 2-:x if:-:. Srit.get^c. Itdiiti 47836 (Tel. (317) 548-2202) -HT723 ISA 3!

1:3 1 73a3. 5-=.=r-rix;r S3tt 3=rit^:-j. ?. 3 2cx I'lS. Atlajit£. 3:ri^i 33313 (Tel. (404) 955-1200, Ext. 132)

33333Ti7'3y 3a 3«3

JAi5LS 33Aj£I?I 3 .z t ~. 3

:

z. z Zzz zzi t r : "

: r £= t S t r e = t ? : :-n 1:3: S =.t J r = - : 1 3 :

:

33u:r-i2 33^:

313
A. LEE TURNER, Executive Staff Representative, P. 0. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia

30301 (Tel. (404) 898-2623) COCA COLA CO. ROBERT A. LESTER, Attorney, P. 0. Drawer 1734, Atlanta, Georgia 30301 (Tel. (404) 898-2530) COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. NEIL M. MCHUGH, Director Quality Improvement, 300 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022

(Tel. (212) 310-2611) DANIEL INDUSTRIES, INC. JACK HARSCHMAN, Manager Product Development, P. 0. Box 19097, Houston, Texas 77024

(Tel. (713) 827-5131) DATA TERMINAL SYSTEMS RICHARD ALC0CK, 2999 Pacific Drive, Suite F, Norcross, Georgia 30071 (Tel. (404) 449-3855) DICKEY-JOHN CORPORATION DAVID B. FUNK, Senior Design Engineer, 155 S. Country Club Rd. , Auburn, Illinois

62615 (Tel. (217) 438-3371) DRESSER-WAYNE WARREN J. DUBSKY, Project Engineer, P. 0. Box 1859, Salisbury, Maryland 21801

(Tel. (301) 546-6688) DUNBAR MANUFACTURING, INC. HARVEY M. LODGE, Vice President - Sales, 307 Broadway, Swanton, Ohio 43558 (Tel. (419) 244-3021) DUNBAR MANUFACTURING, INC. DAVID G. DUNBAR, Sales, 307 Broadway, Swanton, Ohio 43558 (Tel. (419) 244-3021) DYNAFL0AT DIVISION UNIT RIG. & EQUIPMENT

RUSSELL M. MCMULLEN, Sales Representative, 4221 S. 68th E. Ave., Tulsa, Oklahoma

74145 (Tel. (918) 664-9000, Ext. 231) EDWARDS BAKING COMPANY

CHARLES H. BROKAW, Director of Quality Assurance, 1 Lemon Lane, Atlanta, Georgia

30307 (Tel. (404) 377-0511) ELECTR0SCALE CORPORATION WILLIAM M. CROSSAN, Southeast Sales Manager, P. 0. Box 1786, Santa Rosa, California

95402 (Tel. (707) 584-9720) EPSCO INC. RUTHERFORD L. ELLIS, JR., Vice President-Electronics, 1494 Ellsworth Ind. Dr., Box

93544, Atlanta, Georgia 30318 (Tel (404) 351-2740) EXXON COMPANY, USA

HAROLD E. HARRIS, P. 0. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001 (Tel. (713) 656-6170) EXXON COMPANY, USA

CARL B. RAGLIN, Mgr. Distribution & Engineering, P. 0. Box 2180, Houston, Texas 77001

(Tel. (713) 656-6113) FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION

DICK HURLEY, Manager Engineering Services, 711 East St. Johnsbury Rd., St. Johnsbury, VERMONT 05819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111, Ext. 349) FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION

KENNETH F. HAMMER, President, 711 East St. Johnsbury Rd. , St. Johnsbury, Vermont

05819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111, Ext. 300) FAIRBANKS WEIGHING DIVISION

ROBERT E. CALLIHAN, Vice President of Engineering, 711 East St. Johnsbury Rd. , St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 (Tel. (802) 748-5111, Ext. 220) FOREMOST-McKESSON, INC. ALFRED E. J0HANS0N, Counsel, 180 Baldwin Av. , Jersey City, New Jersey 07306 (Tel. (201) 653-3800, Ext. 269) FRANKLIN ELECTRIC CO. ARTHUR L. REENSTRA, Director of Engineering, P. 0. Box 666, Levittown, Pennsylvania

19058 (Tel. (215) 949-2400, Ext. 63) FRED STEIN LABORATORIES

TOM BARNETT, Director Research & Development, 121 North Fourth St., Atchison, KS

66002 (Tel. (913) 367-3945)

311
GENERAL MILLS , INC. NEAL D. PETERSON, Attorney, 1730 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 (Tel. (202) 296-0360) GENERAL MILLS , INC ROBERT L. NELSON, Mgr. Physical Testing-Baking, 9000 Plymouth Ave., No., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 (Tel. (612) 540-2729) GERBER PRODUCTS CO. RAY E. VANHUSS, Asst. Director Govt. Relations, 445 State Street, Fremont, Michigan

49412 (Tel. (616) 928-2267) GETTY REFINING & MARKETING CO.

A. S. TULLIER, 1437 S. Boulder, Box 1650, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 (Tel. (918) 560-6981) GILBARC0 INC. ART KROLL, Authorities & Standards Group Leader, 7300 W. Friendly Ave., Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 (Tel. (919) 292-3011, Ext. 255) GILBARC0 INC. CLAUDE R. PARENT, Director-National Accounts, 3717 Mt. Diablo Blvd., No. 207, Lafayette, California 94549 (Tel. (415) 284-1813) GILBARC0 INC. LARRY R. JONES, Authorities and Standards Eng., 7300 Friendly Road, Greensboro, North

Carolina 27420 (Tel. (919) 292-3011)

GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD NARENDRA S. PATEL, Structural Engineer, 131 W. Lafayette, Rm. 903, Detroit, Michigan

48226 (Tel. (313) 962-2260, Ext. 267) H0BART CORP. FRED H. KATTERHEINRICH, Manager Govt. & Industry Reg., 1555 Stanley Ave., Dayton, Ohio 45404 (Tel. (513) 254-3516) H0BART CORP. CHET S CHAFER, Manager National Accts. Western, 1501 W. 8th Street, Los Angeles, California 90017 (Tel. (213) 483-1310) H0TTINGER BALDWIN MEASUREMENTS HARRY E. LOCKERY, 139 Newbury Street, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 (Tel. (617) 875-8282) HOWE RICHARDSON SCALE CO. JOHN W. AQUADR0, VP Planning, 680 Van Houten Ave., Clifton, New Jersey 07015 (Tel. (201) 471-3400, Ext. 243) HUNT WESSON FOODS INC. CHIP KLOOS, Section Head -R&D, 1645 W. Valencia, Fullerton, California 92634 (Tel. (714) 871-2100, Ext. 1098) JAMES RIVER-DIXIE/NORTHERN INC. RICHARD L. DAVIS, Administrator Regulatory Compl, Neenah Tech. Center, 1915 Marathon,

Neenah, Wisconsin 54956 (Tel. (414) 729-8174) JOHN CHATILLON & SONS INC. JOHN D. GLYNN, Regional Sales Manager, 32 Elizabeth Ave., Westfield, Massachusetts

01085 (Tel. (413) 568-7424) KAMLAR CORP. RICHARD C. SEALE, President, 105 Kamlar Drive, Rocky Mountain, North Carolina 27801

(Tel. (919) 443-2576) KROGER CO. DAVID P. LEAHY, Technical Consultant, 1240 State Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45204 (Tel. (513) 244-3829)

LADD, A. J. , ASSOCIATES ANTHONY J. LADD, 1350 N. Howard St., Suite 412, Akron, Ohio 44310 (Tel. (216) 928-

0219) LIQUID CONTROLS CORP. WILLIAM C. REITZ, Product Manager, P. 0. Box 101, North Chicago, Illinois 60064

(Tel. (312) 689-2400, Ext. 234) LODEC INC. ROBERT B. HOOD, Director of Engineering, Drawer D, Lynwood, Washington 98036 (Tel. (206) 775-6471)

312
MARATHON OIL CO. ROBERT J. HARRINGTON, Supervisor Measurements, Findley, Ohio 45840 (Tel. (419) 422-2121) MEASUREGRAPH CO. GLEN MAYS, Manager of Service, 4245 Forest Park Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri 63108 (Te (314) 533-7800, Ext. 226) MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL DAVID C. ENGLISH, President, 12622 Interurban Ave. , S, Seattle, Washington 98168

(Tel. (206) 767-7433) METTLER INSTRUMENT CORP. WALTER E. KUPPER, Manager R&D, Box 71 , Hightstown, New Jersey 08520 (Tel. (609) 448-3000) METTLER INSTRUMENT CORP. WALTER HAUSHERR, Dir. Mgmt. Services, Box 71, Hightstown, New Jersey 08520 (Tel.

(609) 448-3000) MFA INC. JOHN W. HUNDLEY, Director Weight & Measures, 3501 Berrywood Dr., Columbia, Missouri

(Tel. (314) 874-5440) MICHIGAN PEAT CO. GARY WYSE, Distribution Manager, 2243 Milford St., Houston, Texas 77098 (Tel. (713) 522-0711) MILK & ICE CREAM ASSOCIATIONS AUSTIN T. RHOADS, Administrative Assistant, 910 17th St., NW, #1100, Washington, DC 20006 (Tel. (202) 296-4250) MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING KENNETH S. JENSEN, Manager-Metrology, 1865 Woodlane Dr., Woodbury, Minnesota 55144

(Tel. (612) 733-2674) MOBIL OIL CORPORATION JOSEPH A. PETRELLI, Manager Marketing Operations Engineer, 3225 Gallows Road, Fairfax, Virginia 22037 (Tel. (703) 849-3730) MONSANTO CO. THOMAS I. BIDGOOD, Eastern Dist. Sales Mgr., 200 North 8th Street, Kenilworth, New

Jersey 07033 (Tel. (201) 276-2900, Ext. 256) MURPHY CARDINAL SCALE CO. WILLIAM V. GO0DPASTER, Vice President, 1610 North C St., Sacramento, California 9581

(Tel. (916) 441-0178) NATIONAL BARK PRODUCERS ASSN.

G. DAN A. LYNCH, Executive Director, 301 Maple Ave., W Tower 505, Vienna, Virginia

22180 (Tel. (703) 938-3999) NATIONAL GRAIN & FEED ASSN. JAMES E. MANESS, Director of Engineering Svcs., 725 15th St., NW, P. 0. Box 28328, Washington, DC 20005 (Tel. (202) 783-2024) NATIONAL LP-GAS ASSN. WILLIAM H. BUTTERBAUGH, Asst. Vice President Serv. , 1301 West 22nd St., Oak Brook, Illinois 60521 (Tel. (312) 986-4807) NATIONAL PAINT & COATINGS ASSN. BRUCE H. HAMILL, Assistant General Counsel, 1500 Rhode Island Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005 (Tel. (202) 462-6272) NATIONAL SCALE MENS ASSN. SYLVIA T. WAGNER, Executive Director, 800 S. Milwaukee Ave., Suite 101, Libertyville,

Illinois 60046 (Tel. (312) 680-1750) NCR CORPORATION

A. R. DANIELS, Director Industry Stds. & Rel., 1700 S. Patterson Blvd., WHQ, Dayton, Ohio 45479 (Tel. (513) 445-1310) NEW BRUNSWICK INTERNATIONAL

JOHN S. BAUMANN, Vice President, 5 Greek Lane, Edison, NJ 08817 (Tel. (201) 287-2288) N0RCLIFF THAYER MFG FACILITY

RICK STOKES, 319 South 4th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102 NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. LAWRENCE L. L0WERY, General Scale Inspector, 8 North Jefferson St., Roanoke, Virginia

24042 (Tel. (703) 981-4251, Ext. 4251)

313
N0R1HEAST PETROLEUM

JOHN G. BUCKLEY, Vice President, 100 Federal St., Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (Tel. (617) 884-7570)

OHAUS SCALE CO. MICHAEL P. CAMPBELL , Project Engineer , 29 Hanover Road, Florham Park, New Jersey

07932 (Tel. (201) 377-9000) PEABODY COAL CO. RAYMOND H. HELMICK, Manager-Weighing Systems, Arizona Div. , 1638 E. Cinnabar Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85020 (Tel. (602) 943-3837) PEMBERTON FABRICATORS INC. WALTER MERKH, Vice President Engineering, 30 Indel Ave., Rancocas , New Jersey 08073

(Tel. (609) 267-0922) PETROLEUM METER & PUMP CO. INC. RICHARD L. HOCKMUTH , Engineering, 25 Securitv Drive, P. 0. Box 422, Avon, Connecticut

(Tel. (203) 677-9656) PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. WILLIAM C. JACKSON, 752 Adams Building, Bartlesville , Oklahoma 74004 (Tel. (918) 661-7011) PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. HAL M. FAULCONER, Principal Tech. Representative, Seneca Bldg., Bartlesville, Oklahoma

74004 (Tel. (918) 661-6334) PILLSBURY COMPANY

CARL A. TAUBERT , Director Quality American Beauty, 608 Second Ave., S, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 (Tel. (612) 330-4477) PITNEY BOWES GEORGE M. BROOKNER, Project Manager, 380 Main Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut 06852

(Tel. (203) 853-7113) PITNEY BOWES RUTHERFORD H. FENN, Director Corporate Standards, Walter Wheeler Drive, Stamford, Connecticut 06926 (Tel. (203) 853-0727) PITNEY-BOWES , INC.

G. HANSEN, Sr. Engineer, 380 Main Ave., Norwalk, Connecticut 06852 (Tel. (203) 853- 7113) PRESTO PRODUCTS, INC. MARVIN A. LAMBERT, Quality Control Director, P. 0. Box 2399, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913

(Tel. (414) 739-9471, Ext. 265) PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. WILLIAM H. BRAUN, Packaging Section Head, 6100 Center Hill Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45224 (Tel. (513) 977-5233) PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. ROBERT E. BELLIVEAU, Associate Manager, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45217 (Tel. (513) 763-5203) PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. TERRY THOMAS, Spring Grove & June St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45217 (Tel. (513) 763-5183) QUAKER OATS CO. TOM TOPALIS, Quality Assurance Compliance, John Stuart Lab., 617 W. Main St., Barrington, Illinois 60010 (Tel. (312) 381-1980) RAMSEY ENGINEERING COMPANY MAX C. CASANOVA, Manager Field Service, 1853 W. County Rd . , Saint Paul, Minnesota

55113 (Tel. (612) 633-5150, Ext. 264) RAYMARK IND. INC. -ISRAELI R&D LT. TATIANA MEND0ZA, President, 220 E. 63rd Street, New York, New York 10021 (Tel. (212) 751-5213) REVERE CORPORATION OF AMERICA

JOHN J. ELENGO, JR., Vice President and General Manager, 845 N. Colony Road, P. 0. Box 56, Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 (Tel. (203) 269-7701) RF&P RAILROAD CO. RICHARD T. TAYLOR, JR., Engineer Communications, P. 0. Box 11005, Richmond, Virginia

23230 (Tel. (804) 257-3298) SAFEWAY STORES INC. ROBERT L. WINSLOW, Mgr. Food Technology Div., 430-A Jackson St., Oakland, California

94660 (Tel. (415) 891-3250)
SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

DARY1 E. TONINI, Technical Director, 1000 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005

(Tel. (202) 628-4634)

SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSN. GREGORY J. BOCCRT, Technical Assistant, 1000 Vermont Ave., Washington, DC 20005

(Tel. (202) 628-4634)

SCALE MANUFACTURERS ASSN. RAYMOND J. LLOYD, Executive Director, 1000 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005

(Tel. (202) 628-4634) SERAPHIN TEST MEASURE CO. RAYMOND R. WELLS, Vice President - Sales, 30 Indel Ave., Rancocas, New Jersey 08073

(Tel. (609) 267-0922) SHELL OIL COMPANY

EUGENE WITTNER, Staff Loss Control Specialist, Two Shell Plaza, Houston, Texas 77001

(Tel. (713) 241-6563)

SHELL OIL COMPANY

CHARLES L. VAN INWAGEN, Staff Engineer, 1100 Milam, P. 0. Box 3105, Houston, Texas

77001 (Tel. (713) 241-1778) SINGLE SERVICE INSTITUTE JOSEPH W. BOW, Executive Vice President, 1025 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC

20036 (Tel. (202) 347-0020) SMITH METER OPERATIONS

PHILIP E. SWANSON, Senior Engineer, 1602 Wagner Ave., Erie, Pennsylvania 16514

(Tel. (814) 899-0661, Ext. 268) SOAP & DETERGENT ASSN. MARY P. KILCOYNE, Director Leg. & Reg. Info., 475 Park Ave., S, New York, New York

10016 (Tel. (212) 725-1262, Ext. 21) SOUTHERN CO. JACK C. AWBREY, Quality Control Specialist, P. 0. Box 2625, Birmingham, Alabama

35202 (Tel. (205) 877-7675) SOUTHERN CO. WILLIAM D. BRASHER, Quality Control Specialist, P. 0. Box 2625, Birmingham, Alabama

35202 (Tel. (205) 877-7653) SOUTHERN WEIGHING & INSPECTING BUREAU

MARTIN R. GRUBER, JR., Supervisor of Weights, 151 Ellis, St., NE, #306, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (Tel. (404) 659-9266, Ext. 266) SOUTHERN WEIGHING & INSPECTING BUREAU ERNEST E. ROYALS, General Manager, 151 Ellis St., NE, Suite 306, Atlanta, Georgia

30303 (Tel. (404) 659-6166, Ext. 266) SOUTHWEST MICROGRAPHICS CO. NELDA GREGOR, President, Rt. 9, Box 205, Boat Club Road, Fort Worth, Texas 76179

(Tel. (817) 654-5849) SOUTHWEST PUMP COMPANY

FRED M. BELUE, Mechanical Engineering Dept., P. 0. Drawer 280, Bonham, Texas 75418

(Tel. (214) 583-3134, Ext. 47) STREETER AMET

JACK R. CALDIC0TT, Vice President, 155 Wicks St., Grayslake, Illinois 60030 (Tel. (312) 223-4801) STREETER AMET

GEORGE N. KRASSNER, President, 155 Wilks Street, Grayslake, Illinois 60030 (Tel. (312) 223-4801) SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS CORP MELVIN W. SCHROEDER, Manager Regulatory & Saf. Serv. , P. 0. Box 206, Whippany, New

Jersey 07981 (Tel. (201) 887-5300)

TEC AMERICA INC. DENNIS SCHAFFER, Scale Service Coordinator, 19250 Van Ness Ave., Torrance, California

90501 (Tel. (213) 320-8900) THURMAN SCALE COMPANY ROBERT BEST, Chief Mechanical Engineer, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio 43227 (Tel. (614) 443-9741)

315
THURMAN SCALE COMPANY AHREN COHEN, Marketing Manager, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio 43227 (Tel. (614) 443-9741) TOKHEIM CORPORATION

JERRY D. REIT, Asst. to General Sales Manager, 1600 Wabash Ave., Ft. Wayne, Indiana

46801 (Tel.' (219) 423-2552) TOKHEIM CORPORATION WALTER F. GERDOM, JR., Manager-Technical Services, 1602 Wabash Ave., Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801 (Tel. (219) 423-2552, Ext. 316) TOKHEIM CORPORATION RON J. PETERSON, District Sales Manager, 1644 Tullie Cir. , NE, Suite 106, Atlanta, Georgia 30329 (Tel. (404) 321-5103) TOKHEIM CORPORATION WILLIAM D. KEY, Chief Engineer, 1602 Wabash Ave., Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46801 (Tel. (219) 423-2552, Ext. 345) TOKYO ELECTRIC CO. INC. THOMAS L. MORROW, Product Manager, 19250 Van Ness Ave., Torrance, California 90501

(Tel. (213) 320-8900, Ext. 67) TOLEDO SCALE THOMAS M. STABLER, Manager-Weights and Measures, P, 0. Box 1705, Columbus, Ohio

43216 (Tel. (614) 438-4548) TOLDEO SCALE THOMAS W. GITTUS, Manager Product Design, 1150 Dearborn Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43229

(Tel. (614) 438-4707) TRANSDUCERS INC. PETER R. PERINO, President, 14030 Bolsa Lane, Cerritos, California 90701 (Tel. (714) 739-1991) TRISTATE GRAIN INSPECTION SVC BRIAN J. CORRIGAN, Weighmaster, 3906 River Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45204 (Tel. (513) 251-6571) UNION CARBIDE H & A DIVISION

WILLIAM L. JOHNSON , Manager-Quality & Specifications, 55 Haul Road, Wayne, New Jersey

07470 (Tel. (201) 694-8800, Ext. 350) VEEDER-R0OT CO. PHILLIP J. LOMBARDO, Manager Advanced Development, 70 Sargeant St., Hartford, Connecticut 06102 (Tel. (203) 527-7201) VEEDER-R00T CO. ALFRED C. EVANS, Director Engineering Petroleum, 70 Sargeant St., Hartford, Connecticut 06102 (Tel. (203) 527-7201) WEIGH-TRONIX INC. WESLEY E. WOOD, Area Sales Manager, 858 Bonnie Glen Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30067 WILLIAM M. WILSONS SONS, INC. CHARLES J. DENNY, Manager Customer & Technical Service, 8 & Valley Forge Roads, Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446 (Tel. (215) 855-4631, Ext. 37)

316
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

R. ARTEMAN, USDA, Richards Gebaru AFB, Bldg. 221, Grandview, Missouri 64030 JOE GIANNINA, Branch Chief - Inspection Equipment Branch, USDA, Federal Grain

Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, S. W. , Washington, D. C. 20250

(Tel. (202) 447-9331) CHARLES H. OAKLEY, Chief Scales & Weighing Branch, USDA, Packers and Stockyards Adm.

,

14th & Independence, Washington, D. C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 447-3140) RICHARD R. PFORR, Chief-Scales and Weighing Branch, USDA FGIS, 631 South Building,

201 14th Street, S. W. , Washington, D. C. 20250 (Tel. (202) 382-1716) EUGENE D. PICHARD, JR., Scales & Weighing Specialist, USDA, 1720 Peachtree Road, NE, #635, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (Tel. (404) 881-4845)

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ROBERT H. GOODROW, Quality Assurance Specialist (Metrology), Savanna Army Depot, Savanna, Illinois 61074 (Tel. (815) 273-8425)

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

LEE L. GRAY, Director of Consumer Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Ave. , NW, Washington, D. C. 20230 (Tel. (202) 377-5001) NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS ERNEST AMBLER, Director, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-2411) CARROLL S. BRICKENKAMP, Program Manager, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) WANDA CAPINO, Fiscal Analyst, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234

(Tel. (301) 921-3751) DAVID E. EDGERLY, Chief, Office of Domestic and International Measurement Standards, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3307) ALLEN J. FARRAR, Legal Adviser, National Bureau of Standards, Admin. Bldg., Rm. A-1128, Washington, D. C. 20234, (Tel. (301) 921-2425)

CARY C. GRAVATT, JR., Deputy Director for Programs, National Bureau of Standards, Materials Bldg., Rm. B354, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2822) STEPHEN HASKO, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) ANN P. HEFFERNAN, Conference Coordinator, National Conference on Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677)

JOE KIM, Engineer, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677) HENRY V. OPPERMANN, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) RICHARD N. SMITH, Technical Coordinator, Office of Weights and Measures, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3677)

317
ALBERT D. THOLEN, Chief, Office of Weights & Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) ERIC A. VADELUND, Senior Standards Specialist, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3307) OTTO K. WARNLOF, Manager, Technical Services, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) STANLEY I. WARSHAW, Director, Office of Product Standards Policy, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3751)

SAMUEL H. CHRISTIE, JR., Retired - State Superintendent, Weights and Measures, 123 Hillcrest Road, Warren Twp, New Jersey 07060 (Tel. (201) 647-3267) WILLIAM B. HARPER, Retired - Chief of Weights & Measures, City of Birmingham, Alabama,

Rt. 1, Box 306, Hidden Island, Vincent, Alabama 35178 (Tel. (205) 525-5156) ARNOLD L. HEILMAN, JR., 2324 South Third St., Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 (Tel. (215) 797-1953) FRANK A. K0SITS, Retired Inspector, Cuyahoga County, 17500 Daleview, Lakwood, Ohio

44107 (Tel. (216) 228-8839) NEIL D. MAGNUS, Deputy Attorney General, State of New Jersey, 36 W. State St., Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (Tel. (609) 292-1500)

W. A. SCHEURER, Retired, 2146 Elgin Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221 (Tel. (614) 488-3312)

LEE J. PHILLIPS, Assistant Director Engineering, Engineering Extension Service, Texas A&M University, F E Drawer K , College Station, Texas 77801 (Tel. (713) 845-7600)

ROBERT (BOB) BRUCE, Chief, (Acting) Weights and Measures, Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A OC9 (Tel. (613) 996-3035) JOHN DEMPSTER, Chemist, Canadian Grain Commission, 1404-303 Main Street, Manitoba, Canada R3C 3G9 WALT H. STAPLE, Regional Manager, Weights & Measures, 4900 Younge St., Willowdale,

Canada M2N 6B8, Ontario

G. F. HODSMAN, Legal Metrology Executive, W & T Avery Lt. , Smethwick Warley, West

Midlands, England B662LP

OTHER

UNIVERSITIES

FOREIGN REGISTRANTS

CANADA

ENGLAND

318
ALBERT D. THOLEN, Chief, Office of Weights & Measures, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) ERIC A. VADELUND, Senior Standards Specialist, National Bureau of Standards, Washington

D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301)' 921-3307) OTTO K. WARNLOF, Manager, Technical Services, Office of Weights and Measures, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-2401) STANLEY I. WARSHAW, Chief, Office Product Stds. Pol., National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234 (Tel. (301) 921-3751) OTHER

SAMUEL H. CHRISTIE, JR., Retired - State Superintendent, Weights and Measures, 123 Hillcrest Road, Warren Twp, New Jersey 07060 (Tel. (201) 647-3267) WILLIAM B. HARPER, Retired - Chief of Weights & Measures, City of Birmingham, Alabama,

Rt. 1, Box 306, Hidden Island, Vincent, Alabama 35178 (Tel. (205) 525-5156) ARNOLD L. HEILMAN, JR., 2324 South Third St., Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 (Tel. (215) 797-1953) FRANK A. KOSITS, Retired Inspector, Cuyahoga County, 17500 Daleview, Lakwood, Ohio

44107 (Tel. (216) 228-8839) NEIL D. MAGNUS, Deputy Attorney General, State of New Jersey, 36 W. State St., Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (Tel. (609) 292-1500)

W. A. SCHEURER, Retired, 2146 Elgin Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221 (Tel. (614) 488-3312) UNIVERSITIES

LEE J. PHILLIPS, Assistant Director Engineering, Engineering Extension Service, Texas A&M University, F E Drawer K, College Station, Texas 77801 (Tel. (713) 845-7600) FOREIGN REGISTRANTS

CANADAROBERT (BOB) BRUCE, Chief, (Acting) Weights and Measures, Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C9 (Tel. (613) 996-3035) JOHN DEMPSTER, Chemist, Canadian Grain Commission, 1404-303 Main Street, Manitoba,

Canada R3C 3G9 WALT H. STAPLE, Regional Manager, Weights & Measures, 4900 Younge St., Willowdale,

Canada M2N 6B8, Ontario

ENGLAND

G. F. HODSMAN, Legal Metrology Executive, W & T Avery Lt., Smethwick Warley, West

Midlands, England B662LP

319

-ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 9 8 2 - 3 8 0 " 9 9 7 / 2 3 6 4

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$18; foreign $22.50. Single copy, $5 50 domestic; $6.90 foreign. NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks— Recommended codes of engineering and industrial

practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

Studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series— Provides quantitative

data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396) NOTE; The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington. DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical i- formation developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies. Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents. Government Printing Office. Washington. DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications— Fl PS and NBSIR s—from

the National Technical Information Service. Springfield. VA 22161

.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717(38 FR 12315, dated May II, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor: public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service , Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. DC 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use S300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-215